8 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Even in the original trilogy Obi-wan casually uses mind-control (could be argued to be less of an issue since it's on stormtroopers, aka enemy troops) and cuts off someones arm.

True, you've got me there. Rather extreme for a bar fight perhaps. Was he reaching for a weapon? I don't recall seeing one. Either way it showed a similarity between the 'all good' Jedi and Han when he shot first.

1 hour ago, Frimmel said:

It wasn't Jedi "law." It was the laws of The Republic. The Jedi were made generals in a crisis as the closest thing to a standing military The Republic had. They were servants of The Republic. The servants of democracy which is commonly understood as the will of the people.

I am starting to be a bit flabbergasted that I have to defend The Jedi as actually being the good guys.

From my point of view the Jedi are evil.

Just now, Ken at Sunrise said:

True, you've got me there. Rather extreme for a bar fight perhaps. Was he reaching for a weapon? I don't recall seeing one. Either way it showed a similarity between the 'all good' Jedi and Han when he shot first.

Ponda had a weapon, obi-wan either blocked the first shot (there was one) or cut off the weapon first, then struck at evazan and cut off ponda's arm. Dr. Evazan had no weapon visible, and once you've cut panda's weapon in half he's no threat anymore. What're they gonna do, attack a Jedi with lightsaber using nothing but their bare hands?

7 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

True, you've got me there. Rather extreme for a bar fight perhaps. Was he reaching for a weapon? I don't recall seeing one. Either way it showed a similarity between the 'all good' Jedi and Han when he shot first.

23 hours ago, Frimmel said:

If one values peace, one can not be weak thus the lightsabers.

If one values peace, one can not be weak in their commitment to peace.

If peace keepers are enforcers of peace then by their very nature they agree to, sometimes, forgo peaceful solutions for ones of a more direct and violent nature. Those who enforce peace can never be truly committed to peace. Only ensuring peace for others, and those for whom they they ensure it are often of a select chosen group. Seldom do the 'Peace Keepers' take a neutral side.

If one values peace and is truly committed to it, then their strength and resolve is often stronger than even that of a 'Peace Keeper'.

7 minutes ago, VanderLegion said:

Ponda had a weapon, obi-wan either blocked the first shot (there was one) or cut off the weapon first, then struck at evazan and cut off ponda's arm. Dr. Evazan had no weapon visible, and once you've cut panda's weapon in half he's no threat anymore. What're they gonna do, attack a Jedi with lightsaber using nothing but their bare hands?

Now I want to go back and watch Star Wars, the original movie, again.

Hey, it's a good a reason as any other. Right?

41 minutes ago, Ken at Sunrise said:

In the Original Trilogy I might have said the same things you have. But after the prequels, The Clone Wars and Rebels I guess I see the Jedi in a differently than you. They are just people. Making the same mistakes, having the same fears, etc. While their cause may have been noble and just, their methods were waging war with star systems that didn't want their form of government. In Star Wars the democracy, what you refer to as the will of the people ended up with the people getting an Empire and Dictator. Even in The Clone Wars there's comments about the 'Jedi War'. Check out the season two episode when Asoka looses here Light Saber. She passes a billboard where Palpatine is, ironically, defending the Jedi in this war. Padme' said in episode 3, 'maybe we are on the wrong side'. The Jedi were people, with all their imperfections. Recruiting children and waging war may not have been what they wanted to be known for or even what they stood for. But somehow that is where they ended up.

I do miss the Original Trilogy Jedi. Yes they were the good guys.

Side Note: Not to jump into philosophy but: Ever read Aristotle's writings on democracy or an Ends/Means inversion? Democracy was never perfect. Aristotle noted that a true democracy is quite tyrannical to whomever is the minority; the U.S. version of democracy tries to adjust for this by having a Senate. An End/Means inversion when the means to accomplish your goal becomes more important than goal itself, or vise-versa. Perhaps a discussion of the Jedi and whether they are good or bad should be in a different thread.

A major mistake of the prequels was involving too much overt politics.

1 hour ago, Verlaine said:

The important part is that Padme dies when Anakin breathes in his suit for the first time. One can build some theory around it, but the symbolism is what counts.

Well, it's hard to appreciate that when you're still reeling from the colossal let down that great fate that kills padme is dying of sadness. Which is the prequels through and through - everything that's rather clever or well charaterised is obliterated by shoddy plot or irritating CGI or both.

A major mistake of the prequels was involving too much overt politics.

I've heard this before but I don't think so. I quite liked that. It seemed plausible, certainly for the creation-of-the-empire plot arc. Again, the Clone Wars showed some of this playing-both-sides machinations better, but at least in principle the idea was sound. When you get into the nitty-gritty of who the sides were, why they were fighting, making you feel involved in either side (faceless clones v faceless robots wasn't a great idea even without them being really stupid faceless robots), that's where they were lacking.

I get why people think Star Wars should have been frontier-land space western, but I don't see why you needed to fit exactly into the original trilogy's mold. Which brings us back to the OP - the new trilogy (so far) doesn't deviate from the originals' template and if it continues to remake the originals with minor variations, I'm not sure that leaves you with something better than the prequels.

6 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

Well, it's hard to appreciate that when you're still reeling from the colossal let down that great fate that kills padme is dying of sadness.

That might be a reference to Isolde.

4 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

That might be a reference to Isolde.

Heh. Maybe, although that might be ascribing far more depth than "Revenge of the Sith" deserves.

3 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

Heh. Maybe, although that might be ascribing far more depth than "Revenge of the Sith" deserves.

RotS is a very profound film. Like all of Star Wars, it is full of symbolism, and theme and cinematography come together in a huge picture that can be interpreted from many different angles. If anything, the film is bloated with imagery, and rather top heavy. It is easily the best Star Wars film with a critic's eye.

5 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

It is easily the best Star Wars film with a critic's eye.

Says you.

20 minutes ago, BlodVargarna said:

Says you.

Not really: the critical response to it was the best of any Star Wars film.

Edit: and it has to be said that Camille Paglia has a point.

I'm going to say that shoving a bunch of symbolism in there does not a profound movie make (see Batman v Superman). But I'd agree that there is much to like in the prequels, it just gets drowned out by the rest.

Edit: the critical response was the best? Can you elaborate? Because seems to me it did better with the critics than the other two prequels but did worse than the rest including VII and Rogue One. For example: rotten tomato scores.

5 minutes ago, The Inquisitor said:

I'm going to say that shoving a bunch of symbolism in there does not a profound movie make (see Batman v Superman). But I'd agree that there is much to like in the prequels, it just gets drowned out by the rest.

Edit: the critical response was the best? Can you elaborate? Because seems to me it did better with the critics than the other two prequels but did worse than the rest including VII and Rogue One. For example: rotten tomato scores.

Star Wars was very well received by the critics in 1977.

38 minutes ago, Verlaine said:

Edit: and it has to be said that Camille Paglia has a point.

I just read her review and I must say it was laughable. I think her effusive praise was more to be provocative to her audience (the art world) and seemed disingenuous.

ROTS is the least bad of the three prequels, but it is still hot garbage.

4 hours ago, Verlaine said:

RotS is a very profound film. Like all of Star Wars, it is full of symbolism, and theme and cinematography come together in a huge picture that can be interpreted from many different angles. If anything, the film is bloated with imagery, and rather top heavy. It is easily the best Star Wars film with a critic's eye.

Again, RotS had some great set pieces, the opera scene with the story of Darth Plagueous, the tensely shot silent moments with padme and anakin prior to his going to meet his fate in the chancellors office, the destruction of the Temple, the pain yoda felt when the Jedi fell one by one, the seduction of Anakin during the opening duel with Dooku, the absolute rage in anakin as he lies on the ground and is engulfed in flames and the heartbreak in Kenobi, which of course was ruined moments before with the 'high ground'.

This movie had some great scenes and set ups , but it also lacked in pacing, not as bad as the other prequels, it still had crappy dialogue, Padme died stupidly (she should have been in a coma and then died after waking briefly to name the kids or something), there's a huge list that I've already gone over before.

It is truely the least sucky of the prequels. High praise indeed.

10 hours ago, BlodVargarna said:

I just read her review and I must say it was laughable. I think her effusive praise was more to be provocative to her audience (the art world) and seemed disingenuous.

That's just poisoning the well.

On 2017-04-14 at 9:18 PM, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

So we've all seen the trailer. What a disappointment.

Mr Trump, is that you?

13 hours ago, GrimmyV said:

the absolute rage in anakin as he lies on the ground and is engulfed in flames and the heartbreak in Kenobi, which of course was ruined moments before with the 'high ground'.

This is actually a problem with the entire movie. Before any moment of quality there's something hamfisted, poorly acted, or just outright silly that puts you in a state of mind that refuses to take the good parts seriously. The opera scene in particular is something the entire trilogy would have benefited from, but its place in the movie comes across as a frantic exposition dump rather than a moment of genuine character building.

I like the comment about the high ground. It is not about where Obi-Wan has planted his feet, but about his conviction that Darth Vader cannot win because he (Obi-Wan) has the moral high ground. He would repeat this, with different words, during their battle on the first death star. "You can't win, Darth." There, it looked like he meant he would survive even if Vader struck him down (what happened), but in the light of his comment in RotS, he was also referring to the fact that Vader could never win.

Now, from what I know of Lucas and how he made his movies, this deeper meaning of "you can't win" in ANH would only be added when he made RotS. So it would be a kind of literary retconning; ANH gains meaning because of a later film.

I think that's pretty f***ing brilliant for one throwaway line during a sword fight.

I have to say, a lot of this deeper meaning stuff comes across to me like people reading into it what they wanted. If that's how you want to take it and it's meaningful for you, that is awesome and means the piece of art (film) in this case worked for you. But quite often, there was no deeper meaning, no grand forethought, and no plan. It's just words on a page meaning only what it says, and ascribing anything else to the author's intent is giving way too much credit to said authors.

Most of the time, the high ground is just a patch of volcanic ash slightly more elevated than the adjacent lava river.

1 hour ago, Kharnvor said:

I have to say, a lot of this deeper meaning stuff comes across to me like people reading into it what they wanted. If that's how you want to take it and it's meaningful for you, that is awesome and means the piece of art (film) in this case worked for you. But quite often, there was no deeper meaning, no grand forethought, and no plan. It's just words on a page meaning only what it says, and ascribing anything else to the author's intent is giving way too much credit to said authors.

Most of the time, the high ground is just a patch of volcanic ash slightly more elevated than the adjacent lava river.

That's typically something an artist says: "I want viewers to look at my work and give it meaning," when asked about what their work is supposed to convey. But not every piece can do that. Star Wars, and in particular Revenge of the Sith, has that quality though. TFA less so, as a counterexample.

I think Lucas had quite deep feelings about Star Wars, but do believe he made things up as he went along and has a true visual imagination. For example, the first half of RotS has lots of shadows in horizontal stripes, a kind of "shutter motif". Even the "screen wipe" is in the shape of horizontal shutters at one point. Does this mean something? Yes, I think it does, and it would be daft to think it was done randomly or is just a coincidence. Can Lucas explain in words exactly why he did it? Maybe he can, maybe not, but frankly I don't think he is the best person to ask, because he probably thinks in images and connects that particular image to what he feels the story should be. There may very well not be an intermediate step of language in his way of creating film. And if there is, it seems the weakest link in his creative process, because he rarely explains concisely and in a consistent manner what he did.

So I'd look carefully at the film itself to formulate an answer as to what this means, or turn to a good movie critic. Obviously, most people on this forum don't want to do that and some apparently even resent that I do so. But you know what? I really, really love Star Wars, so **** them.

23 hours ago, Verlaine said:

RotS is a very profound film. Like all of Star Wars, it is full of symbolism, and theme and cinematography come together in a huge picture that can be interpreted from many different angles. If anything, the film is bloated with imagery, and rather top heavy. It is easily the best Star Wars film with a critic's eye.

There is a good reason that Revenge of The Sith is #3 in my all time favorites list.

V, IV, III, VII, VI, II, I. In that order.