quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Apparently (I think I read this over at the official site) the Sith order was started by a certain Darth Bane, as a breakaway from the Jedi. There can only be 2 Sith at any one time - a master, and an apprentice (as Yoda says at the end of TPM).

---

You're almost right. The Sith were started by an unnamed Jedi who was outcast from the order for his ideas. He thereafter founded his own order (the Sith) which eventually collapsed upon itself because all of its members were competing with and backstabbing each other. It was after their collapse that Darth Bane came around and instituted the "only two at a time" idea.

I was thinking... In AOTC Anakin says that one day he will become so powerful that he will be able to stop people from dying. Two things occurred to me:

(1) This should have been tied to his attachment to Qui-Gon, which should have been one of the driving forces behind his turn.

(2) I wonder if it's Vader who is keeping Palpatine alive in Episodes 4-6.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
Kevin--you're right in that there would have been no further films if Star Wars had bombed. However, Lucas did in fact have rough outlines for the entire story arc.

---

And can be seen when, for example, in ANH Aunt Beru says "He has too much of his father in him" and Uncle Owen answers "That's what I'm afraid of".

Lucas had the general outline all along, now he's just filling in the details cos if he doesn't the fans will pick out the inconsistencies

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lou Goldberg:
If audiences laugh, it's not because they're idiots it's because Lucas is trying to put his weaknesses over on them and it's not working, audiences smell it.

---

I just figured it was because they were the same type of people who would have laughed at me in high school. Regardless of how ridiculous you think it sounds, Anakin's behavior and dialogue are spot on as to how a teenager in punch-drunk infatuation would act and speak.

And there's a difference between being incapable of recognizing flaws and disagreeing that they are flaws in the first place. Lancelot doesn't find it the least bit difficult to accept that you and so many others don't like the film, so why is it so hard to accept that he and so many others like it for what it is?

And if he is involved with the saga, and he genuinely enjoys it, isn't it logical that he should go off defending it? (Just as logical as someone who isn't involved and doesn't enjoy it should go off slamming it?)

At the very least, I've chosen to come here offer a slightly more in-depth reaction/analysis of the series than "this movie rocks and anyone who doesn't think so is a toad-faced sh*t-licker! Woo-hoo! Mace Windu kicks ass, baby!"

Perhaps, if you want to start up a topic on Scorcese, or Kurosawa, I'll contribute something to that--or, I might mind my own business. But as the topic at hand allows, I'll express my ideas to the extent of my enthusiasm for the matter, with a grain of decency.

Some people spend their whole lives pouring over the work of James Joyce, or Shakespeare, or John Milton. How sane is that, for practical purposes?
I'm sure that I could draw upon several different sources to analyize a single work to the point where I become virtually indecipherable amidst my references. Star Wars is something of a common "language" that many people understand--or perhaps don't understand. We who know how to draw substance from it do, and those who do not, chew it and regurgitate it. For some, then, it is substance, for others, to use your metaphor, candy. I don't live Star Wars, as some might think, but I do visit there. And I can do it without the costumes and plastic lightsabers, too.

I'm sure that it is quite simple to pull apart any given film and, crumbs spread about, find fault with it. Meanwhile, if some first-year film student is wont to accomplish what George Lucas has, sans flaws, sincerely, and by all means, let them do so. The epic story must be told again for every generation: Gilgamesh, Hercules, Beowulf, The Faerie Queene, Henry IV, Lord of the Rings, et. al.

We (and I mean the collective, not the individual) look at the films of Star Wars, and we think, "Oh, I would never have put that horrible singing alien in there!" or "I would have never have put that baby-talking character in the movie."

Well, how would you even know what you wanted in a Star Wars film, unless you had already seen one you liked?

Even so, have you not accepted the fact that film is an illusion, and if you can accept that, then there are no rules? (You know--like The Matrix?) Star Wars is a huge palette for imgaination, and (to reiterate a long-obvious point) George Lucas has reached the level where he can paint with whatever color he wants. The more he does so, the wider the imagination becomes. Star Wars becomes a musical, a war-film, a romance, a comedy.

What I credit Lucas for above all (subjectively, albeit)--is not the ability to evoke a performance from an actor, and not for the overwhelming success of his films, as I feel that I would like them were they not as sucessful as they are--but an ability to give a freshness to classical storytelling.

What I see in movies, though particularly in Star Wars--the film-story alone, not the multi-media franchise--is the renewing of themes and images that have become so common that they are virtually invisible in modern day stories. Certainly, much of it is subconscious, anyway, but Star Wars truly emphasizes the roots of the subconscious story in a way that great stories do, while still being entertaining.

Were the films dialogueless, (which it seems many of its' detractors would prefer) it would still be a valid construction of evokative mythological images (both ancient and modern) and cyclical epic storytelling.

quote:

---

If audiences laugh, it's not because they're idiots it's because Lucas is trying to put his weaknesses over on them and it's not working, audiences smell it.

---