White Knight Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 I know I probally made this poll alittle too easy lol but I have to to ask it. haha. Episode III for me.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 "Revenge of the Sith" is the best of the new Star Wars movies.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 "The Empire Strikes Back" is the best Star Wars movie. "The Phantom Menace" is the worst Star Wars movie.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 I agree almost 100% with you Apotheoun. The only point where we disagree is that I think the second one was worse than phantom menace. If they didn't have jar jar binks it wouldn't have been half bad.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 and the queen's costumes in the first one were profound. that white body suit in the second one was a bit much.. sigh..
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 03:59 PM']I agree almost 100% with you Apotheoun. The only point where we disagree is that I think the second one was worse than phantom menace. If they didn't have jar jar binks it wouldn't have been half bad. [right][snapback]648601[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I couldn't stand either Jar Jar Binks or the boy who played Anakin Skywalker in "The Phantom Menace." It is a really bad thing when one of the central characters in a movie is a major turn off, and that little boy sucked big time. He couldn't act at all, and was irritating beyond belief. And to think, they could have cast the little boy from "The Sixth Sense" as Anakin Skywalker. Now that kid can act.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 04:00 PM']and the queen's costumes in the first one were profound. that white body suit in the second one was a bit much.. sigh.. [right][snapback]648602[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I thought they went overboard on the China Doll look.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 Yeah, the asian inspiration was perhaps a bit too dominant (but I believe the art director is/was an asian fellow, not that this really matters much). Maybe I just had a thing for Natalie Portman when that movie was still fresh (I don't anymore let me tell you), and I appreciated the dignity and femininity of her costumes (still do).
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 "The Phantom Menace" was also where the force became a material reality. Lucas' descent into materialism over the twenty some years since the first movie was most evident.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:24 PM']"The Phantom Menace" was also where the force became a material reality. Lucas' descent into materialism over the twenty some years since the first movie was most evident. [right][snapback]648646[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Actually I watched that movie again recently, and I don't think that is the case actually. The nuances of master qui-gonn's words seem to indicate that metachlorians are just microscopic entities that live in our cells and that the level of metachlorians has a relationship to one's sensitivity to the force, but they are not the force itself. You are capable, but you have much to learn of the living force. hehe j/k
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 04:27 PM']Actually I watched that movie again recently, and I don't think that is the case actually. The nuances of master qui-gonn's words seem to indicate that metachlorians are just microscopic entities that live in our cells and that the level of metachlorians has a relationship to one's sensitivity to the force, but they are not the force itself. You are capable, but you have much to learn of the living force. hehe j/k [right][snapback]648651[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Microscopic isn't immaterial. The force was an immaterial energy field in the first movies, that is one reason why Yoday said that we are, "luminous beings." If the force is measurable by physical instruments, then it is a material reality. It was a non-sensical idea, much like Jar Jar Binks.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 The only way that it was measured in the first movies was by a person with the force sensing the force in and around another person.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 I bet the real reason for this change in how the force is measured, was so that Lucasfilm could sell "force detection" toys.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:40 PM']Microscopic isn't immaterial. The force was an immaterial energy field in the first movies, that is one reason why Yoday said that we are, "luminous beings." If the force is measurable by physical instruments, then it is a material reality. It was a non-sensical idea, much like Jar Jar Binks. [right][snapback]648665[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not necessarily; in my interpretation it is not material, the force is still an immaterial thing, ultimately. But it has effects on the material world. Granted I'm taking some interpretive license at this point, but the stuff in the newer movies doesn't make this impossible.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:45 PM']I bet the real reason for this change in how the force is measured, was so that Lucasfilm could sell "force detection" toys. [right][snapback]648669[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LOL, you maybe be right.
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 04:48 PM']Not necessarily; in my interpretation it is not material, the force is still an immaterial thing, ultimately. But it has effects on the material world. Granted I'm taking some interpretive license at this point, but the stuff in the newer movies doesn't make this impossible. [right][snapback]648672[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In my opinion the philosophy underlying the two trilogies as it concerns the nature of the force is different. I really do think that Lucas moved from a more or less immaterialist position to a materialist one.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:41 PM']The only way that it was measured in the first movies was by a person with the force sensing the force in and around another person. [right][snapback]648667[/snapback][/right] [/quote] My interpretation is that what is measured is the effects of the force, not the force itself. It remains immaterial. Although they did seem to indicate that metachlorians sort of channel the force somehow. I understood them as an intermediary, but this is still a difficulty... Not really though, if a priest can channel the immaterial through the sacraments then why not. The metachlorians are sacramentals, with regards to the force. hehe j/k
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Posted July 18, 2005 I think they added metachlorians not to give star wars a materialist metaphysics, but probably just to explain how they could measure the force in a person since this was a crucial part of the story of Anakin Skywalker. I doubt Lucas gave it that much thought. A lot of things in the movie actually seemed like Star Trek rip offs.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now