The Star Wars Thread

[darthkiwi]

I originally thought that "bringing balance to the force" meant making the Jedi less uptight about the whole light/dark dichotomy. In the Jedi Knight games (set post-ROTJ) the main character is on the good side but uses force choke and lightning. My thinking was, that by destroying the Jedi and showing the damage a binary view of the force could do, Vader benefited the order in the long run by making them accept anger as part of life, not as something to be (hopelessly) repressed.

But I looked up all that stuff a few months ago and, no, according to Lucas the dark side is just a parasitic bit of the force which fundamentally unbalances it, so to balance it means to eradicate the dark side (ie. kill the emperor and his apprentice to destroy the sith). Which is 1) utterly boring and 2) makes no sense once you start looking at the expanded universe, since there are dozens of sith or dark jedi around at the very moment the Emperor is killed. Which is yet another reason to be sceptical of the EU, I guess.

Which is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"

[Delling]

...Which is yet another reason to be sceptical of the EU, I guess.

I read that as "... yet another reason to be skeptical of the European Union...."

Which is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"

Oo... I like that...

[Neonivek]

Which is why I like Damar's interpretation better: "Balance doesn't mean a *good* thing! Why do you assume all prophecies are good!?"

Which I'd counter that "Balance" is with complimentary opposites and not contradictary opposites.

Balance is not achieved by the existance of evil but rather evil is a product of an unbalance.

[Damar]

Actually I could see that being an argument leading back to what darthkiwi said, bringing balance by making the Jedi not crazy stoic monks with laser swords.  But what would have been nice would be these ideas being discussed and explained, not just "there's a prophecy now lets watch pretty robots explode."

First movie: okay, what? Who ELECTS a 14-year-old to rule their planet? But okay, let's say this happens. Let's see some of the ramifications of putting a 14-year-old into this position! this means she's been raised and groomed for this, she's always at risk of being manipulated (and is? isn't she? how does she react to that?). The group of handmaidens with whom she can easily blend in is a nice nod to that, but that's all we get.

That bothered the crap out of me the first movie.  And the only reason I can think that was written is because Lucas is a hack writer.  He wanted Anakin to have a Disney romance, which means a princess/queen.  But that would mean that it's a monarchy and monarchy is bad!  Democracy forever!  U-S-A!  U-S-A!  So now we have an elected queen.  We get all the Disney royal romance with all the evolved, red-blooded American democracy.  But it doesn't make sense.  No one would elect a 14 year old to anything.  The constant use of robots was also Lucas trying to have it both ways.  He wanted big battles and lots of violence, but didn't want death to mar his kiddie film, so all the big battles are with robots.  Or animals.  Lots of animals in clones.  It's all Lucas trying to have his cake and eat it too.

But yeah, who can count on a 14 year old to rule anything?  There's only one 14 year old I'd trust to rule, and she's Daenerys Stormborn, Khaleesi of the Grass Sea and Mother of Dragons.

[KatieHal]

Daenarys/Dragons in '16! 

[Neonivek]

Actually I could see that being an argument leading back to what darthkiwi said, bringing balance by making the Jedi not crazy stoic monks with laser swords.  But what would have been nice would be these ideas being discussed and explained, not just "there's a prophecy now lets watch pretty robots explode."

Well it is said that the "Light and dark" side of the force are not good and evil. Whether or not that is true I don't know but I like to think that is the case and that the "Good versus evil" themes mostly derived from the Jedi's mutual hatred of the Sith.

Well that and both the Sith and Jedi have went into severe decline.

[darthkiwi]

I read that as "... yet another reason to be skeptical of the European Union...."

Well, now that you mention it I'm not a huge fan of the European Union either, but that's another story.

Which I'd counter that "Balance" is with complimentary opposites and not contradictary opposites.

Balance is not achieved by the existance of evil but rather evil is a product of an unbalance.

I'm not convinced. What if there are two equally powerful forces which would destroy each other if they could, but for whatever reason can't/don't dare destroy the other? The obvious example is the Cold War. That's the perfect example of two contradictory forces balancing each other out; had the balance been broken, we would have got a disaster.

The idea that "evil" is a product of imbalance is also extremely questionable. For starters, evil is a human construction. Nothing is evil in nature. What's evil for one group of people is not evil for another. For the ancient Egyptians, I'm sure slaves rising up and smashing the idols of the gods would be pretty evil. The same act from the slaves' perspective would be good. I'm sure Luther and Calvin were seen as essentially the antichrist by the Pope, even as the Pope was seen as the antichrist by Protestants. Killing hundreds of thousands of Gauls is pretty much genocide, but to Julius Caesar it was expanding the Empire, so the ends justified the means.

So if evil is such an unstable construct that its definition changes from person to person, I don't see how it can simply be defined as something arising from imbalance. A better model, to my mind, would be that evil is simply anything deemed unacceptable by a culture which violates the foundation of that culture. You could say that such acts can come about from an imbalance (or, more correctly, a collapse or flaw) in that culture, though that's really beside the point: part of the reason they're considered evil is because they're antithetical to this cultural system, and to other cultures they might be considered good.

Of course, bearing Star Wars in mind this is all a bit academic, because it ignores a lot of these questions and goes straight to "light side good, dark side evil". But since the force is a superhuman element of the Star Wars universe, it seems to me that it shouldn't obey human ethics. So it would make more sense to me if this "balance" was just a completely amoral balancing of the so-called "light" and "dark" sides of the force, emphasising the fact that it's mysterious and beyond human understanding, but also that the morality derived from it is fundamentally human and, therefore, partial. I like to think that the light and dark sides are not moral, but reflect different bits of humanity. So the light side is everything restrained, controlled and uptight and the dark side is everything effusive, angry and difficult to control. Both are facets of humanity: it would be weird to never get angry, for example.

But of course they didn't do this. So meh. Damar: I agree! It would've been nice if they'd discussed it a bit. Less fighty, more talky.

[GrahamRocks!]

^Reminds me of TSL' episode two opening with the conversation between Graham and the Arch Druid.

[Neonivek]

The obvious example is the Cold War. That's the perfect example of two contradictory forces balancing each other out; had the balance been broken, we would have got a disaster

They arn't contradictory opposites. Light and Darkness are complimentary opposites.

Evil in this case is simply another word for "Unbalance". Unbalance and Balance are contradictory opposites.

When there is an unbalance the Jedi get snooty and distant and the Sith get malicious and self-defeating.

I don't see how it can simply be defined as something arising from imbalance. A better model, to my mind, would be that evil is simply anything deemed unacceptable by a culture which violates the foundation of that culture.

You have stepped so far outside the bounds of the arguement that there is no point in continuing because "Balance" is also something we define.

This "Balance" that exists in nature is a balance of conflict. Thus a balance sought in this way would be to find a way for eternal conflict. There would be no desire to achieve balance because balance is transient.

Of course, bearing Star Wars in mind this is all a bit academic, because it ignores a lot of these questions and goes straight to "light side good, dark side evil".

It really never did and it constantly questions itself as to whether the differences between light and darkness are truely that. It constantly betrays and reapplies this thinking, but it never went as far as to decide that the Dark side is evil.

Only so far that the Dark side is dangerous as it is easy to fall into the habit of power for power sake (Plus the Dark side seems to enhance those feelings)

So it would make more sense to me if this "balance" was just a completely amoral balancing of the so-called "light" and "dark" sides of the force

Except you know. The "Balance" was always seemingly achieved by the destruction of all the dark side users and giving the light side users total power.

I think this "Balance" is "Light balance" and not a 50/50.

I like to think that the light and dark sides are not moral, but reflect different bits of humanity. So the light side is everything restrained, controlled and uptight and the dark side is everything effusive, angry and difficult to control.

It is better to think of the Light side as sort of justness personified. Yet with Justness there is pride and with pride there is a lack of learning. The Jedi often time failed to do good simply because they were so set in their beliefs that they were unwilling to learn. The extreme levels of self-control I feel has more to do with the Jedi order itself. The Jedi order is very archaic.

The Dark side is all about power. Yet with power comes the risk of power for power sake. Where the Sith often time went wrong is when the seeking of power, which is a very helpful tool, becomes for its own sake.

Of course even outside of that there is also the fact that the Force always manifests according to the practitioner's beliefs. It is why Adepts (people from primative societies) use the force in a completely different manner then the Jedi or Sith.

So it is very much possible that "Dark" and "Light" don't exist and that the Force just amplifies whatever tenants you go under.

[Haids1987]

My favorite growing up was actually Jedi.  Even now I really like the movie, possibly better than the original.  It's just fun and jaunty and action packed.  It has a natural light-heartedness that Lucas has tried to forcefully recreate in the prequels (and failed miserably at.)

Mine still is Jedi.

If Anakin is going to bring balance to the force, what else did you expect him to do but slaughter everyone and make the dark side more powerful?

Yet another perspective I had never even ONCE thought of. Interesting, yet totally sensible thought.

[Neonivek]

I will say that the most impressive thing about the Deathstar is not the weapon (which isn't all that impressive)

But rather the thrusters.

[Blackthorne]

All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now. 


Bt

[Neonivek]

All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now. 


Bt

Yeah! People discussing Star Wars, analysing it, talking about what they do and do not like about it... TOTALLY RUINED!

[dark-daventry]

I love how this thread went from a discussion about Disney's acquisition of LucasFilm into an analyzation of why Star Wars sucks now. 

[Neonivek]

I love how this thread went from a discussion about Disney's acquisition of LucasFilm into an analyzation of why Star Wars sucks now. 

It is mostly because we are analysing how possible it is for Disney to ruin Starwars

If Starwars ALREADY sucks now then what can Disney do?

[Blackthorne]

All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now. 


Bt

Yeah! People discussing Star Wars, analysing it, talking about what they do and do not like about it... TOTALLY RUINED!

Well, it certainly ruins it for some people, who can't sit back and enjoy it - instead, they have to dissect it like it's "Beyond Good and Evil".


Bt

[Neonivek]

This isn't School where you have to analyse books until they stop being works of fiction and more like extensive books on litterary devices.

You really don't have to think about it if you don't want to. Nor is anyone expecting you to.

[Blackthorne]

This isn't School where you have to analyse books until they stop being works of fiction and more like extensive books on litterary devices.

You really don't have to think about it if you don't want to. Nor is anyone expecting you to.

I know.  But witnessing people doing it is tedious.  And then making demands on the series based on said discussions makes talking about Star Wars these days almost unbearable.


Bt

[Haids1987]

All of this chatter is why Star Wars sucks now. 


Bt

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand we've reached the inevitable point in discussion where BT kills the mood. It's always a pleasure. Really. 

[Neonivek]

I am the negativity king so it really doesn't bug me much at all.

Oddly enough the next starwars will have Luke Skywalker... but if I remember correctly he won't be the main character (and he will be in his 40s)