More nerdology: "I'll take the Empire"

[abcdefz]

...one of the big, frustrating flaws about the Star Wars 1-3 is that they ruined the Jedi for me. The Jedi, now, are clearly half-wits, arrogant and oblivious, and the prequels set Obi Wan up as a liar in New Hope, etc.

This is an interesting article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=1248&R=EB381D60A) from the conservative Weekly Standard which, if you bother to read the whole thing, posits that the Empire were actually the good guys.

When a case this solid may be made, you just know Lucas didn't know what the hell he was doing. :D

[King PSYZ]

wow, that's a pretty interesting take.

[CJM]

interesting idea, but there's no way that you can exclude the comics, and books from the whole picture.

[abcdefz]

interesting idea, but there's no way that you can exclude the comics, and books from the whole picture.



Why not?

Doesn't George piss on that stuff when he needs to?

[Auton]

interesting idea, but there's no way that you can exclude the comics, and books from the whole picture.

sure you can. it's basically glorified fan fiction.

[abcdefz]

....you gonna include the video games and last night's board game outcome, too? :D

[abcdefz]

...how about the Christmas special?

Does "Hardware Wars" count?

[Auton]

i wish my brother never got a copy of the holiday special.

and hardware wars is ill, son

[abcdefz]

i wish my brother never got a copy of the holiday special.

and hardware wars is ill, son




(I disagree) ...but is it canon?

[CJM]

Why not?

Doesn't George piss on that stuff when he needs to?

i heard he has, but i can't think of what he said. the author of the article made pretty light the idea of the empire destroying alderaan. how could they be good if they destroy a whole planet?

[bigblu89]

As I got older and really started watching the "first" 3 Star Wars (Ep. 4-6) I always thought that The Empire got a pretty bum rap.

This guy explains it a lot better then I ever would though.

[abcdefz]

the author of the article made pretty light the idea of the empire destroying alderaan. how could they be good if they destroy a whole planet?



....think Hiroshima. Multiply.

[Auton]

(I disagree) ...but is it canon?

no, it's not.

and i think the sheer awesomeness of hardware wars comes from it's intense goofiness, like the terrible dubbing.

[abcdefz]

and i think the sheer awesomeness of hardware wars comes from it's intense goofiness, like the terrible dubbing.



-- you'd almost swear it was a Fellini film.

[CJM]

....think Hiroshima. Multiply.




Hiroshima was a terrible idea, i can't even believe it happened.

[CJM]

sure you can. it's basically glorified fan fiction.


it was written by different people, but it had to have a stamp of approval from Lucas, or the company.






*man, there's way too many posts happening at once.

[Auton]

my favorite was the book about jabba the hutt's family building another death star. go go expanded universe!

[abcdefz]

Hiroshima was a terrible idea, i can't even believe it happened.


You can't? Once the bomb was developed -- wherever it was developed -- it would have to happen at least once. Mankind is too weak to resist showing how strong they are.

[Schmeltz]

I realize that article is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's honestly ridiculous. To describe the murderous regime of Augusto Pinochet as "relatively benign" is worse than callous - it's dangerously, toxically ignorant and speaks volumes about its author.

And, more on topic, I think that author misses an important point: the Empire doesn't at all rely on fear of local governors to keep the various planetary systems in line. Tarkin's actual lines at that point in the film are "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." No governor could possibly mount any effective resistance to the Death Star (unless he knew about its secret Achilles heel), and Tarkin knows it. In point of fact, he who controls the Death Star is the real power in the galaxy - making Tarkin the actual puppetmaster, maybe even more so than the Emperor (in support of this, watch how Tarkin orders Darth Vader around like a subordinate). The Empire relies entirely on fear of genocide to enforce its authority - much more sinister and commanding than the Old Republic, which trusted in the wisdom of the Jedi (which, even if faulty at times, never amounted to planetary annihilation) to do the same.

When right-wing rags like the Weekly Standard start trying to convert populist culture into soapboxes for their delusional militarist circle-jerking, nerds have to stand up and reclaim what is theirs.

[abcdefz]

I realize that article is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, but it's honestly ridiculous. To describe the murderous regime of Augusto Pinochet as "relatively benign" is worse than callous - it's dangerously, toxically ignorant and speaks volumes about its author.

And, more on topic, I think that author misses an important point: the Empire doesn't at all rely on fear of local governors to keep the various planetary systems in line. Tarkin's actual lines at that point in the film are "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station." No governor could possibly mount any effective resistance to the Death Star (unless he knew about its secret Achilles heel), and Tarkin knows it. In point of fact, he who controls the Death Star is the real power in the galaxy - making Tarkin the actual puppetmaster, maybe even more so than the Emperor (in support of this, watch how Tarkin orders Darth Vader around like a subordinate). The Empire relies entirely on fear of genocide to enforce its authority - much more sinister and commanding than the Old Republic, which trusted in the wisdom of the Jedi (which, even if faulty at times, never amounted to planetary annihilation) to do the same.

When right-wing rags like the Weekly Standard start trying to convert populist culture into soapboxes for their delusional militarist circle-jerking, nerds have to stand up and reclaim what is theirs.



This is good.

[Schmeltz]

Hmmm. And also, if the Old Republic is too big and unwieldy to be effective, how can it possibly have more impact on the daily life of the average citizen than the Empire, which relies on the ultimate WMD to scare everybody into behaving? This article is bantha fodder.

[abcdefz]

This article is bantha fodder.



I don't think so; I think it makes a case from a certain point of view. But it's not a case for righteousness, I don't think.

[CJM]

You can't? Once the bomb was developed -- wherever it was developed -- it would have to happen at least once. Mankind is too weak to resist showing how strong they are.


if anywhere, use it at a military target, not a city.

[abcdefz]

You want another target? -- a military target? Then NAME THE SYSTEM.





























































I grow tired... of asking you... so this will be the last time.

[beastieangel01]

yeah. Episodes 1-3 almost ruined the rest of the films for me. Almost.

[adam_f]

I've heard that Samuel L. Jackson dies.

yeah.

[King PSYZ]

and despite his saying otherwise, he did go out like a punk.

[Qdrop]

great read.

basically...the old republic AND the empire were seriously fuckin flawed.

i woudl have taken the Yoda route and just become a hermit on some hidden planet.

fuck all that mess.

[Bob]

i think the separatists had the right idea. build a bunch of killer robots, kill everybody, and let the robots run the galaxy. robots don't know how to be flawed.

[Schmeltz]

basically...the old republic AND the empire were seriously fuckin flawed.


A surprising instance of substantial thought from our resident sophomoric high school student. That's probably one of the most dominant themes in the series: there is no perfect system, and powerful historical and cultural forces can overwhelm a society unable to find a creative response. It appeals because Star Wars is such great storytelling: the humble, mundane concerns of a small group of familiar characters are set against monumental problems that afflict an entire galaxy. It's just as important that Luke Skywalker redeems his dad as it is that he destroys the Death Star. And no matter what course of action is chosen by whichever character tremendous pain and sacrifice have to be endured in order to assure a greater good. That's what they all genuinely believe.

In the end, the choice between who is good and evil is up to us. Because the essential balance of the force does not rest in its possession of a Dark and Light side. It rests in the fact that there is never a perfect option.

[Ace42X]

The emperor wants to control outer space, Yoda wants to explore inner space....thats the fundamental difference between the good and the bad sides of the force........f**k - Human Traffic, great film.

The Emperor's such an intergalactic crack dealer that he's only gone and built his own planet!

And Yoda's on a massive come-down, he used to be tall and handsome like Luke...

[Ace42X]

The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force

That's wrong right there. Firstly, Jedi generally don't have children. Secondly, everyone has midi-chlorians in their blood, and thus some access to the force, it is the concentration that counts.

<NB: I detest midcholrians, totally wanked the whole concept of the force>

However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.

They want to wage expansionist wars, rather than just seperate from the Senate. It is the Emperior (as Chancellor Palpatine) that galvanises the Republic into the subsequent war on Trade Federation (who is is behind himself as well).

but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.

So the assassination of prominent political figures, and invasion of Republic lands isn't a compelling case? I haven't seen a single war that hasn't be started for one or the other, or often, much less.

Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet

Great irony right there, I chuckled. Yes, so he sanctioned the destruction of a few planets, and like Idi Amin, he killed a few people with his bare hands...

Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy.

Nonsense, storm-troopers are all genetically engineered clones. They exist and rank by virtue of genetic manipulation. The Emperor is in charge, not due to merit, but due to the "divine right" of the force, as is his right hand man Vader.

Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.

Harbouring Luke is not a crime, nor traitorous. Luke has commited no crime, nor has any political motivation. The droids are immaterial, having been purchased legitimately from the (also butchered) Jawas. Both were due for a memory wipe, which would've saved the Death Star had the Empire's heavy handed tactics not left Luke with any life except for vengeance. It is a testament to the Jedi that Luke can control his lust for revenge.

[g-mile7]

what does this mean though

[paul jones]

I was always Darth Vader when we used to act out Star Wars as kids

[Nygel]

Both seem corrupt, so just go the Fett way. Fett knows how to get shit done

[g-mile7]

or be Lando and just love women and thorw back Colt 45

[Ace42X]

or be Lando and just love women and thorw back Colt 45

And walking barefoot on Tatooine.

[Qdrop]

A surprising instance of substantial thought from our resident sophomoric high school student.
whoa, who put the stick up your ass, little man?
tough day on the cooking line?

That's probably one of the most dominant themes in the series: there is no perfect system, and powerful historical and cultural forces can overwhelm a society unable to find a creative response. It appeals because Star Wars is such great storytelling: the humble, mundane concerns of a small group of familiar characters are set against monumental problems that afflict an entire galaxy. It's just as important that Luke Skywalker redeems his dad as it is that he destroys the Death Star. And no matter what course of action is chosen by whichever character tremendous pain and sacrifice have to be endured in order to assure a greater good. That's what they all genuinely believe.
In the end, the choice between who is good and evil is up to us. Because the essential balance of the force does not rest in its possession of a Dark and Light side. It rests in the fact that there is never a perfect option.

okay, if you wanna be a fuckin pretentious snob....let's just bring this all back to reality.
you are overthinking this to a comical degree.

these more complex themes you are endlessly analyzing are being manifested in your own head, rather than on Lucas's script.

if you want to pretend that Lucas planted all these complex themes within his work and really thought this out to the degree YOU are....you must think David Lynch is Jesus Christ.

this really is tantamount to a bunch of art critics gathering around a red circle on a white canvas, arguing over whether it's a metaphor for violence in the middle east or a commentary on the insignificance of women in today's society...

and then the artist comes up and says "dude, it's just a red circle. i painted it cause it looks cool."

we're talking about George Lucas here...the man who produced Howard The Duck.

[Qdrop]

why hasn't Toucan blown his load all over this thread yet?

[Schmeltz]

If the interpretation of art was limited solely to the artist's original vision there woudln't be much to it. It's the very fact that art can be overanalyzed, and new themes discovered within it by the viewer, that makes it art. You must lead a pretty sad life if you can't discover any meaning in anything - but I think most of us had that figured out already.

[Qdrop]

If the interpretation of art was limited solely to the artist's original vision there woudln't be much to it. It's the very fact that art can be overanalyzed, and new themes discovered within it by the viewer, that makes it art. jesus, my best friend feels the same way about this shit....
i find it incredibly pretentious for any onlooker to think THEY know what some piece of art is "about", more so then the original artist.
who the fuck do they think they are? how dare they claim to know what the piece is REALLY saying?
that's just an egotistical exercise in fantasy. creating a reality that didn't exist before, purely to masturbate your claim of intellectualism.
that's really what "discovering deeper meaning" is.

what the ARTIST says, goes.

if you don't like it, or want more....make your own art, don't imprint your bullshit politics/interpretations onto his.

[Schmeltz]

You seem to think that any piece of art can only contain one meaning - that imprinted in it by the artist. That's pretty lame, man. Of course an artist creates a piece with a view to conveying a message, but it's a two-way street: everybody who looks at a painting or listens to a piece of music finds in it whatever meaning they wish. That's the essence of artistic expression. There's no contractual agreement anywhere that says that interpretation has to be limited to a confirmation of the artist's original intent.

If you're only capable of viewing art from that shallow perspective, I feel bad for you. It must suck to be completely unable to invest any emotion of your own in something. Or does the bliss make up for it?

[g-mile7]

And walking barefoot on Tatooine.


sounds like the life haha

[Ace42X]

what the ARTIST says, goes.

Not at all, infact nearly all of modern art says otherwise. In literature this is manifest in "reader response theory".

[SobaViolence]

You seem to think that any piece of art can only contain one meaning - that imprinted in it by the artist. That's pretty lame, man. Of course an artist creates a piece with a view to conveying a message, but it's a two-way street: everybody who looks at a painting or listens to a piece of music finds in it whatever meaning they wish. That's the essence of artistic expression. There's no contractual agreement anywhere that says that interpretation has to be limited to a confirmation of the artist's original intent.


(y)

[Nygel]

A surprising instance of substantial thought from our resident sophomoric high school student.

im a high school sophomore :(

[Qdrop]

You seem to think that any piece of art can only contain one meaning - that imprinted in it by the artist. That's pretty lame, man. Of course an artist creates a piece with a view to conveying a message, but it's a two-way street: everybody who looks at a painting or listens to a piece of music finds in it whatever meaning they wish. That's the essence of artistic expression. There's no contractual agreement anywhere that says that interpretation has to be limited to a confirmation of the artist's original intent.

If you're only capable of viewing art from that shallow perspective, I feel bad for you. It must suck to be completely unable to invest any emotion of your own in something. Or does the bliss make up for it?

gotta love how you equate respecting an artists vision (rather than rewriting it in a selfish, egotistical manner) to automatically being shallow or restrictive.
how sanctimonious and ignorant.
As if one could not invest ones own emotion in another artists work, and still be in line with what the artist intended.
i actually am a trained, educated artist in numerous mediums (illustration, music...).
i guess i see this from a differant perspective than you.
if you can't see/agree with what the artist intended his piece to convey..then either the artist didn't do his job....or the viewer is simply lacking in perception.

the thought of someone else telling ME what MY art means....seems rather....fascist to me.

you know what they say: those who can't create the art, critique it.

[Schmeltz]

I never said anywhere that artists shouldn't be respected for their original vision. You're the one who's trying to tell people what to think here. Of course it's nice when an artist makes a point and a viewer takes it home, but there's no obligation anywhere along the line. People are free to take away whatever they want from a piece of art. I think that's a lot less fascist than insisting that any piece of art can only be interpreted the artist's way.


im a high school sophomore


We all were, at one point in time. Don't feel bad. But if you're still a high school sophomore thirteen years from now, you have a problem.

[Ace42X]

the thought of someone else telling ME what MY art means....seems rather....fascist to me.

While I could go on at length about this subject, it would be totally hijacking the thread, and also a bit anal.

Personally, I find that art which has no depth to it beyond an artist trying to convey a message is pretty facile. It has no 'come back' value.

If you accept that "art sould hold a mirror unto life" (a debate in itself) then your art cannot help but to contain more than a message you are trying to convey. A photographer might capture a moment in time because it evokes something he wishes to communicate, for example he might be photographing the muslim protests, and catch someone twatting another person around the head with a sign marked "respect." and say "I am communicating the hypocrisy of such and such."

As the creator, he knows better than anyone else what he is trying to convey with his photo. However, I am sure the person hitting the other one around the head knows a lot more about what the scene depicted actually means. For all the photographer knows, the person he is depicting could be hitting the person who is sleeping with his wife. A totally different connotation.

Likewise, a painter might depict their grandma refusing to take the bus as a symbol of "the indomitability of human spirit." - When a reader might well pick out the lines on her face, or the posture of her body, or the number on the bus compared to the location she is walking down, and realise that actually, unknown to the artist who was just marking down what they saw, she was refusing the bus because it went out of her way.

Life is far too complicated to simplify it down into the incredibly small band of what "an artist is trying to convey consciously in a work." And as such, any work that IS only one message is a failed work, due to a poor representation of the life it is supposedly based on.

That is before you get into the realm of solipsism.

[Qdrop]

We all were, at one point in time. Don't feel bad. But if you're still a high school sophomore thirteen years from now, you have a problem.

where the fuck are you getting this "highschool sophomore" thing from?
is this some failed attempt at wit, or are you carelessly confusing me with someone else?