Slashdot Mirror
Neal Stephenson on Star Wars in the NYT
SnapShot writes "Neal Stephenson has an editorial in the New York Times about the difference between the old Star Wars and the new Star Wars, and the difference between geeking out and vegging out. Oh, and computer scientists and engineers are the Jedi of the U.S." From the article: "Likewise, many have been underwhelmed by the performance of Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Only if you've seen the "Clone Wars" cartoons will you understand that Anakin is a seriously damaged veteran, a poster child for post-traumatic stress disorder. But since none of that background is actually supplied by the Episode III script, Mr. Christensen has been given an impossible acting task. He's trying to swim in air."
Old one didn't suck.
Scientists and technologists have the same uneasy status in our society as the Jedi in the Galactic Republic. They are scorned by the cultural left and the cultural right, and young people avoid science and math classes in hordes.
This quote from the article in particular resonated with me. We (scientists) have long been running an uneasy gauntlet between those that want us represent their theological, political or personal beliefs while trying to find truth where it is and for what it represents. Granted, these issues always arise within each one of us, but our training is to make hypothesis and then test them against what resources we can bring to bear. There are those that are not interested in truth and will twist facts and even scientists themselves to represent their perception or will which has always been part of the fascination I had with many of the original stories and sociological background behind the idea of the Jedi. (Disclaimer: The last Star Wars movie I thought was any good was "Empire Strikes Back").
The danger of course in not accepting rigorous scientific study of available facts leads us to confusion and obfuscation of truth which leads to jeopardy of person and country. Unfortunately, we have in the last few years gone quite far down this road through decisions made based upon data twisted to represent a prior beliefs rather than letting the data speak and then drawing conclusions from those data.
There has of course always been a fascination by many folks with power and "shiny things", but if we are to proceed beyond vanity and self obsessed cultivation of what others find attractive or desirable to find truth, we need to cultivate new generations of people interested in seeking the scientific and mathematical explanations of the universe.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
No soul-sucking required.
The real difference is character development.
In 4,5, and 6, Darth Vader was primarily the "bad guy". Sure, he had character, but it was primarily as the foil to the symbolic "light side" of the force that ran as an undercurrent in the rebellion / Luke's story.
By adding 1,2, and 3, Vader really becomes the central figure in the story, but he isn't given adequate plot time in 4 and 5. It's as if the writer of a tragedy changed focus in Acts 4 and 5, and then resumed Darth's story with his "return to the good side" in ep. 6. Darth and Obiwan (aside from the droids) are the only characters present in all 6 films, and Obiwan is only a ghost in 5 and 6. Darth is the only living character to speak in the 6 films, and this makes him central to the story, whether or not you like it.
And I don't like it. The story was good as Good vs. Evil rather than a "Look at how Power Can Corrupt the Good". Darth's story in 1-3, to me, totally shifts the focus of the films. That's why they can't actually be watched in their numerical order. Watching them that way totally screws with your perceptions of Darth in 4-6, and makes the plot seem convoluted and non sequitur. I mean, why should the films switch focus onto Padame's children when Darth Vader, the focus of the first three films, is still alive, kicking, and doing things in the Star Wars universe?
IN the spring of 1977, some friends and I made a 40-mile pilgrimage to the biggest and fanciest movie theater in Iowa so we could watch a new science fiction movie called "Star Wars." Expecting long lines, we got there early, and found the place deserted.
As we sat on the sidewalk waiting for the box office to open, others like us drifted in from the towns, farms and colleges of central Iowa and queued up behind. When the curtain in front of the big Cinerama screen finally parted, the fanfare sounded and the famous opening crawl appeared against a backdrop of stars, there were still some empty seats. "Star Wars" wasn't famous yet. The only people who had heard about it were what are now called geeks.
Twenty-eight years later, the vast corpus of "Star Wars" movies, novels, games and merchandise still has much to say about geeks - and also about a society that loves them, hates them and depends upon them.
In the opening sequence of the new Star Wars movie, "Episode III: Revenge of the Sith," two Jedi knights fight their way through an enemy starship to rescue a hostage. Ever since I saw the movie, I have been annoying friends with a trivia question: "Who is the enemy? What organization owns this vessel?"
We ought to know. In 1977, we all knew who owned the Death Star (the Empire) and who owned the Millennium Falcon (Han Solo). But when I ask my question about the new film, everyone reacts in the same way: with a sudden intake of breath and a sideways dart of the eyes, followed by lengthy cogitation. Some confess that they have no idea. Others think out loud for a while, developing and rejecting various theories. Only a few have come up with the right answer.
One hyperverbal friend was able to spit it out because he had read and memorized the opening crawl. Another, a hard-core science fiction fan, had been boning up on supplemental materials: "Clone Wars," an animated TV series consisting of "epic adventures that bridge the story arc between 'Episode II: Attack of the Clones' and 'Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.' "
If you have watched these cartoons - or if you've enjoyed some of the half-dozen "Clone Wars" novels, flipped through the graphic novels, read the short stories or played the video game - you will know that the battle cruiser in question is owned by the New Droid Army of the Confederacy of Independent Systems, which is backed by the Trade Federation, a commercial guild that is peeved about taxation of trade routes.
And that is not the only aspect of "Episode III" that you will see in a different light. If you watch the movie without doing the prep work, General Grievous - who is supposed to be one of the most formidable bad guys in the entire "Star Wars" cycle - will seem like something that just fell out of a Happy Meal.
Likewise, many have been underwhelmed by the performance of Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Only if you've seen the "Clone Wars" cartoons will you understand that Anakin is a seriously damaged veteran, a poster child for post-traumatic stress disorder. But since none of that background is actually supplied by the Episode III script, Mr. Christensen has been given an impossible acting task. He's trying to swim in air.
In sum, very little of the new film makes sense, taken as a freestanding narrative. What's interesting about this is how little it matters. Millions of people are happily spending their money to watch a movie they don't understand. What gives?
Modern English has given us two terms we need to explain this phenomenon: "geeking out" and "vegging out." To geek out on something means to immerse yourself in its details to an extent that is distinctly abnormal - and to have a good time doing it. To veg out, by contrast, means to enter a passive state and allow sounds and images to wash over you without troubling yourself too much about what it all means.
In corporate-speak, there is a related term used when someone has committed the faux pas of geeking out during a meeting
Nixon gave America a number of valuable reforms that liberal in both the contemporary political sense and the Enlightenment sense. Nixon ran a fiscally-responsible government with a balanced budget. The Nixon era gave us the Environmental Protection Agency. Nixon ended America's ineffectual meddling in another nation's internal matters. Nixon honorably served his nation on active duty in the Navy. Nixon instituted a number of critical reforms to American monetary policy that lengthed the natural cycles in capitalism of boom and lowered the bust cycles. We used to have recessions every 3-5 years. Now they happen ever 8-10, and rarely last more than a quarter or two. Nixon cracked down on organized crime, proposed legislation to mandate gas savings for America to control oil prices, normalized relations with China, created NOAA, the DEA, SALT 1, and signed the space shuttle program into law.
How is that like the current administration, which has spent irresponsibly and frivilously, started a war it doesn't know how to end, lowered air quality standards, done nothing about the oil situation, thumbed its nose at North Korea, and the man in charge was never on active duty.
Now, I can give you a list of a half-dozen things that Nixon did that were terrible, but this knee-jerk impulse to liken All Things Bush to Dick Nixon is misguided. Nixon was actually a decent president by a number of reasonably measures. George Bush is not, by almost any measure. In most ways, his administration has been mediocre, but even conservatives have trouble justifying some of the goofball stuff our president cooks up.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
In the original trilogy, people were so happy there was a Star Wars that they were happy to overlook any and all flaws in the dialogue, storyline, plot elemenets, etc. They didn't mind that the Ewoks could defeat an elite stormtrooper legion, that an enormous Imperial fleet could simply go missing at the ROTJ, that Luke could become a full Jedi Knight in just a few years time. They didn't mind any of it, because the 70s and 80s were the time of action movies where Charles Bronson and Clint Eastwood were major stars, followed by the Governator, Van Damme, etc. And all they had to do was either shoot people or beat the shit out of them. Rambo, Dirty Harry, Rocky, the Terminator, take your pick. But times changed in the 90s. Moviegoers became a lot more critical, demanded more from filmmakers. Particularly once the internet came to be widely used, everybody and their brother became armchair film critics. Everybody suddenly was an expert on filmmaking, writing, acting, producing (especially Slashdotters)though most had no clue what it all entailed. Movie audiences steadily got spoiled over time by some truly great epics until finally, these days, very few if any movies are good enough anymore. Thus the complaints about the plot holes in the Prequels, questions regarding the acting, the dialogue, etc. All things that could have come up while critiquing the OT, but which didn't for one reason. Because once upon a time, people went to a movie and simply enjoyed it for what it was. They didn't spend the entire time ripping it to pieces and then running home to post on their lame websites every flaw that they perceived and how they themselves could have done it better people. Think about people. You're spoiled to the point where you are unlikely to ever enjoy many movies in the future. Any movie you can think of, I can find someone on the internet who will be happy to rip it to shreds. Because it deserves it? No, because people just like to bitch and whine. It doesn't matter what the topic is, and it's what keeps internet forum from becoming totally deserted.
One of my gripes with the new vs the old is with the treatment of the Jedi.
In the original trilogy, the Jedi didn't really do much fighting. Yoda even tells Luke in Empire "the force is to be used for knowledge and defence, never for attack." When the Falcon gets pulled into the Death Star, Obiwan doesn't come out swinging, he sneaks around to free the ship. The part that gets me most is when Luke is fighting Vader in Jedi. When does Luke declare himself to be a Jedi? When he throws his weapon away. He STOPS FIGHTING. That was when he claimed is rightful status.
To watch the new movies, you get more of a sense of "Jedi can kill anyone they want! Jedi cut off
heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome
that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this Jedi who was eating at Mos Eisly Cantina. And when some dude dropped a spoon the Jedi killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a Jedi totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window."
It just doesn't mesh with:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no death, there is the Force.
I know it's not canon, but it clearly illustrates to me the Yin/Yang qualities that balance the light and dark sides of the force.
While watching the new movies, it was like a stone in my shoe that kept bothering me. I kept thinking "but a Jedi wouldn't act that way.
I know this may be more of a personal interpretation, but I think the original trilogy mesh with my view.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
More recently, science has been put on the back burner due to political issued. It seems the popularity of science has more to do with what it can do for you than for what it is. In the 60's they needed science to accomplish something. The way to do that is to unleash it with all the resources it needed. It worked great.
Today, political hacks don't want truth and they don't want progress. They want to push their own agendas. And for the most part science does not support their agendas. It either contradicts, or is mearly immaterial. The needs of the politician is to sweep science out of the way and let them do what they want. Thus you get the current pitiful state.
When we get another major goal that only science can achieve, then we'll see the rise of the "Rocket Scientist" again.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.