Well, the prophecy (as we find out in III) is that Anakin will destroy the Sith. That's true; when he turns back to the good side and tosses the Emperor, that's the end of the Sith.
Luke was certainly a part of bringing that about, as were a lot of other people. Luke is certainly "the one" in the sense that all Jedi will be in his image from here on, since he's the only one left at the end of VI (light or dark).
Completely. I don't know why Lucas had to inject his own contemporary politics into this one, apart from sucking up to the people at Cannes. Doesn't he realize that will seriously harm the experience of 50% of the population who were just expecting a Star Wars movie?
As I posted earlier, I think the best viewing order is 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6.
The first trilogy is a lot of set-up, and the stories are about politics instead of archetypes. Should work great as a flashback, just after we find out Vader is Luke's father at the end of 5.
You can't start at the beginning, because
all of the others rely on the introductions in 4. Episode 1 assumes you know what the "force" is, for example, whereas Obi-Wan explains it to us in 4. And many of the twists in
the original trilogy are presented neatly and cleanly in the prequels. My
current thinking is that the best order is:
4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6
So that after "Empire", at the end of which Vader reveals he's Luke's father,
we take a detour and get to the back-story: where he came from, the source of
the Rebellion and the Empire, and his fall to the dark side.
It's all leading up to the climactic finish where the prequels allow us to better
appreciate the scope of the triumph: the Sith destroyed, republican
government reinstated, and Anakin redeemed.
The problem with Yoda's ethic of detachment is that it's dead contrary to the unabashed humanism with which the whole story ends in Return of the Jedi, where human attachments -- filial loyalty, paternal bonds -- ultimately save the galaxy, destroy the Sith and the Empire, and redeem Anakin' lost soul. Yoda and Obi-Wan consistently counsel Luke (and, in the prequels, Anakin) against the very bonds that finally lead to the triumph of good over evil.
In the end, alas, the Jedi do seem too "narrow" and "dogmatic," not the great sages Lucas presumably wanted them to be. Perhaps the "prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force" was misinterpreted after all: Perhaps the prophecy was really fulfilled not by Anakin destroying the Sith order, but by Luke humanizing the Jedi ethic.
He's complaining about the way the Southern states were considered to be States when it was convenient for the Northeast, and considered to not be States when that was convenient to them.
The 14th Amendment, for example, was ramrodded through over the objection of many moderate States (eg, New Jersey). The Northern revolutionaries were able to get it through by considering the Southern States to be valid (temporarily), and then forcing them to vote for the amendment thanks to their majority in the House.
Please read my post here for details on the right of secession.
If you've got a fort in a country which is friendly, but independent, and they ask you to leave, you do it. Not leaving their territory is an act of aggression. Certainly sending more armies down to destroy the countryside is aggression.
There is *NO HINT* of any plausibility of a state leaving the union without convincing a supermajority of its fellows, and Congress, and the President, to let it go.
Boy, I sure don't see any hint of supermajorities and Congress and Presidents having to go along with secession, either.
In fact, the Articles of Confederation are fully: "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". That's right, that union was self-described as permanent and indivisible. But what happened when the Constitution was slowly being ratified by states? Those states were seceeding from that union!
The fact that there is no mention of secession in the Constitution doesn't mean that it can't be done. Secession is a layer above the Constitution. The States joined it, the States can leave it. The Constitution, unlike the Articles, does not describe itself as perpetual.
And to your point about the South not believing in State sovreignty, I'll quote the start of the Preamble to the Confederate Constitution.
We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form etc. etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the Krusty doll in that Simpson's episode!
I just hope they don't execute Order 66...
Personally, I'm willing to sacrifice some of the weight of that revelation in order to save the ending of the whole story for the end.
I'd agree with you based on I and II's "bringing balance to the Force". But in III, Obi-Wan says that the prophecy means the destruction of the Sith.
Luke was certainly a part of bringing that about, as were a lot of other people. Luke is certainly "the one" in the sense that all Jedi will be in his image from here on, since he's the only one left at the end of VI (light or dark).
Completely. I don't know why Lucas had to inject his own contemporary politics into this one, apart from sucking up to the people at Cannes. Doesn't he realize that will seriously harm the experience of 50% of the population who were just expecting a Star Wars movie?
The first trilogy is a lot of set-up, and the stories are about politics instead of archetypes. Should work great as a flashback, just after we find out Vader is Luke's father at the end of 5.
Especially since they built the second Death Star in no time flat (relatively)...
4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6
So that after "Empire", at the end of which Vader reveals he's Luke's father, we take a detour and get to the back-story: where he came from, the source of the Rebellion and the Empire, and his fall to the dark side.
It's all leading up to the climactic finish where the prequels allow us to better appreciate the scope of the triumph: the Sith destroyed, republican government reinstated, and Anakin redeemed.
The main site has a lot of Star Wars stuff on the front page: http://www.decentfilms.com/index.html
An interesting excerpt:
here
Don't these rules apply more to mail sent from the company and internal mail? Surely mail that somebody else wrote is less effective anyway...
It probably has more to do with emails a company has sent than received.
Who or what is a CSIRO?
For cryin' out loud! Mod an Xbox, people!
I still wouldn't touch IIS with a 10-foot pole. TinyHTTPd all the way!!
I'll come in again.
Here's what mplayer says as it opens the audio and video. I'm not sure what you need to do to get it running, but these are the codecs:
Opening audio decoder: [mp3lib] MPEG layer-2, layer-3
AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, 16 bit (0x10), ratio: 32000->176400 (256.0 kbit)
Selected audio codec: [mp3] afm:mp3lib (mp3lib MPEG layer-2, layer-3)
Opening video decoder: [ffmpeg] FFmpeg's libavcodec codec family
Selected video codec: [ffsvq3] vfm:ffmpeg (FFmpeg Sorenson Video v3 (SVQ3))
I didn't see him "disclosing" that he uses Windows, which he almost certainly does...
The 14th Amendment, for example, was ramrodded through over the objection of many moderate States (eg, New Jersey). The Northern revolutionaries were able to get it through by considering the Southern States to be valid (temporarily), and then forcing them to vote for the amendment thanks to their majority in the House.
Please read my post!
If you've got a fort in a country which is friendly, but independent, and they ask you to leave, you do it. Not leaving their territory is an act of aggression. Certainly sending more armies down to destroy the countryside is aggression.
Boy, I sure don't see any hint of supermajorities and Congress and Presidents having to go along with secession, either.
In fact, the Articles of Confederation are fully: "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". That's right, that union was self-described as permanent and indivisible. But what happened when the Constitution was slowly being ratified by states? Those states were seceeding from that union!
The fact that there is no mention of secession in the Constitution doesn't mean that it can't be done. Secession is a layer above the Constitution. The States joined it, the States can leave it. The Constitution, unlike the Articles, does not describe itself as perpetual.
And to your point about the South not believing in State sovreignty, I'll quote the start of the Preamble to the Confederate Constitution.
It was the Yanks who came down and invaded. That's what caused the violence.
I've made a couple of friends here today. Well met, gentlemen. Deo vindice!