• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

Star Trek DS9 versus B5

Recommended Posts

On 9/19/2017 at 5:45 PM, hkmaly said:

Buuut ... wouldn't this be reason to send LUCAS to hell, instead of Jar Jar?

Hey now!  No matter what you think of the prequels, George Lucas gave us the whole Star Wars universe.  The thanks he deserves for that outweighs anything on the other side of the scales.  He also led the creation of too many entirely new filming techniques to count; movies would be very much poorer without Industrial Light and Magic.  And he helped boost the sci-fi genre from an occasionally-profitable niche to a juggernaut capable of breaking box office records.  They probably wouldn't have taken a chance on reviving Star Trek to make movies without Star Wars (Close Encounters was proof that Star Wars wasn't just a fluke, but without Star Wars it would have been Close Encounters that was seen as a fluke).  No movie success, and the series fades into obscurity, no TNG, no DS9.

The world owes George Lucas more than enough of a debt to give him a pass on whatever parts of the prequels you didn't like.  They're just three movies, people!  Get over it!

Oh, and by the way, it's "Anakin".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Hey now!  No matter what you think of the prequels, George Lucas gave us the whole Star Wars universe.  The thanks he deserves for that outweighs anything on the other side of the scales.  He also led the creation of too many entirely new filming techniques to count; movies would be very much poorer without Industrial Light and Magic.  And he helped boost the sci-fi genre from an occasionally-profitable niche to a juggernaut capable of breaking box office records.  They probably wouldn't have taken a chance on reviving Star Trek to make movies without Star Wars (Close Encounters was proof that Star Wars wasn't just a fluke, but without Star Wars it would have been Close Encounters that was seen as a fluke).  No movie success, and the series fades into obscurity, no TNG, no DS9.

The world owes George Lucas more than enough of a debt to give him a pass on whatever parts of the prequels you didn't like.  They're just three movies, people!  Get over it!

Oh, and by the way, it's "Anakin".

This is not even mentioning all the stuff that got created due to people being inspired by Star Wars. And one funny little detail. ILM was originally created due to Lucas deciding that it would be cheaper to create his own special effects company from scratch than hiring outside professionals. Now, remember a little film trilogy called Lord of the Rings? They had their special effects produced by a company called WETA.

WETA was originally founded by Peter Jackson and two of his friends because it was cheaper to create their own special effects company than using ILM. What goes around comes around. :icon_eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To throw in my two cents about Episode 1, I think it was an okay movie. Not a good one, but not really a bad one either. Just okay. The problem was that many Star Wars fans were expecting a great movie. When the movie didn't meat that high bar of quality, that colored their perceptions of it. That's the problem with expectations and hype. The right amount of hype can do good for a production, too little hype can leave the production starving for an audience, but too much hype can poison the production. And it's not just movies that happens to. I've seen it happen to videogames as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Hey now!  No matter what you think of the prequels, George Lucas gave us the whole Star Wars universe.  The thanks he deserves for that outweighs anything on the other side of the scales.  He also led the creation of too many entirely new filming techniques to count; movies would be very much poorer without Industrial Light and Magic.  And he helped boost the sci-fi genre from an occasionally-profitable niche to a juggernaut capable of breaking box office records.  They probably wouldn't have taken a chance on reviving Star Trek to make movies without Star Wars (Close Encounters was proof that Star Wars wasn't just a fluke, but without Star Wars it would have been Close Encounters that was seen as a fluke).  No movie success, and the series fades into obscurity, no TNG, no DS9.

The world owes George Lucas more than enough of a debt to give him a pass on whatever parts of the prequels you didn't like.  They're just three movies, people!  Get over it!

Oh, and by the way, it's "Anakin".

Lucas also pioneered the infamous endless line of products that tie in with a movie.  He did that with Return of the Jedi.  Endor was not the Wookie home planet because Lucas and Marketing wanted teddy bears that could be sold to kids.
 

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

This is not even mentioning all the stuff that got created due to people being inspired by Star Wars. And one funny little detail. ILM was originally created due to Lucas deciding that it would be cheaper to create his own special effects company from scratch than hiring outside professionals. Now, remember a little film trilogy called Lord of the Rings? They had their special effects produced by a company called WETA.

WETA was originally founded by Peter Jackson and two of his friends because it was cheaper to create their own special effects company than using ILM. What goes around comes around. :icon_eek:

We really do need to hold both sides in our head at once.  Lucas blazed the trail to a lot of new and marvelous technologies and later abused them.  There's no excuse for Lucas going back through his Ep 1, 2, 3 actors' performances and digitally altering them, but he did it.  Han shot first, OK?

4 hours ago, Drasvin said:

To throw in my two cents about Episode 1, I think it was an okay movie. Not a good one, but not really a bad one either. Just okay. The problem was that many Star Wars fans were expecting a great movie. When the movie didn't meat that high bar of quality, that colored their perceptions of it. That's the problem with expectations and hype. The right amount of hype can do good for a production, too little hype can leave the production starving for an audience, but too much hype can poison the production. And it's not just movies that happens to. I've seen it happen to videogames as well.

I disagree while respecting your right to hold that view.  One word sums up why:

Midichloreons.

I came out of the theater convinced that Lucas had peed on his creation in order to mark territory.  Star Wars was his, not ours.  By the time I saw Ep 1 I had already coined the term "Gene Roddenberry's Syndrome" for myself to describe a creator who evolves to become toxic to his own creation.  (Roddenberry was most certainly toxic to Star Trek when he wrote and altered scripts for the first 3 seasons of The Next Generation)  Then I started seeing other examples of GRS in other creators and decided it was a thing that needed naming.  After ep1, I decided Lucas had the most advanced case of GRS of any creator on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I disagree while respecting your right to hold that view.  One word sums up why:

Midichloreons.

You mean Midi-chlorians. Yes. And it surprises me when it needs to be mentioned on EGS forum given EGS itself mentioned it.

On 9/21/2017 at 4:54 AM, CritterKeeper said:

The world owes George Lucas more than enough of a debt to give him a pass on whatever parts of the prequels you didn't like.

That's true.

However, I'm sure the issue was already addressed and answered in other content. Can someone experienced in catholic doctrine confirm what would happen to priest who helps save lot of people and then later kills someone and commits suicide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hkmaly said:

You mean Midi-chlorians. Yes. And it surprises me when it needs to be mentioned on EGS forum given EGS itself mentioned it.

The Moderator: Please. No spelling flames and/or corrections of this kind. They come across as condescending and invariably bait thread derailment. I am astonished that I even have to mention this. It is a point of Netiquette nearly as old as the net itself.

Also, the religious point you brought up is entirely inappropriate. One, we do not need religious discussions in these forums. Two, the changes George Lucas worked on the canon he himself created can scarcely be compared to murder and suicide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I disagree while respecting your right to hold that view.  One word sums up why:

Midichloreons.

I'll be honest, when George mentioned midi-chlorians as his biggest complaint with the prequel trilogy, I was a little perplexed. At the time I hadn't thought much of the subject, and after quite a bit of consideration, I still don't entirely understand why there's so much vitriol around it (I certainly get there being vitriol. I just don't get the quantity of it). It's a basic explanation of some of the mechanics of the magic of the setting, and while explaining the magic can sap the mystical feeling out of it, there are a lot of settings that explain some of the basics of their magic without the fans erupting in an uproar. And I believe explanation of the magic isn't even the story function of the midi-chlorians. From my perspective, the purpose of the midi-chlorians is to give an in-story identifiable reason why Anakin is important. True, there are other ways to do that, though the one George gives in the comic (simply say 'The force is strong with him') doesn't really hold water in my opinion, because shouldn't the force be strong with all the Jedi? And they have an entire galaxy-spanning monastic order of them, so what is so special about this brat from an out of the way dust ball that they need to go through all the trouble to drag him along and even defy the council? Midi-chlorians introduce a simple measurability. More midi-chlorians means more force potential. And Anakin had more than even Yoda. That certainly marks him as significant enough to drag along.

17 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I came out of the theater convinced that Lucas had peed on his creation in order to mark territory.  Star Wars was his, not ours.  By the time I saw Ep 1 I had already coined the term "Gene Roddenberry's Syndrome" for myself to describe a creator who evolves to become toxic to his own creation.  (Roddenberry was most certainly toxic to Star Trek when he wrote and altered scripts for the first 3 seasons of The Next Generation)  Then I started seeing other examples of GRS in other creators and decided it was a thing that needed naming.  After ep1, I decided Lucas had the most advanced case of GRS of any creator on the planet.

A big reason for this happening is a form of 'echo chamber' effect. If there are no dissenting voice to make the creator step back and reconsider certain points (or if their ego has gotten so over-inflated that dissenting opinions have no effect or the opposite effect), then many bad decisions will make their way into the production. And as the fame and prestige of a creator increases, they gain more leverage to remove or suppress the dissenting voices. An introspective creator can potentially avoid that problem, though in a way, they would be their own dissenting voice.

On the flip-side, listening to the fans can also be toxic to a production if the creators aren't careful, because 1) the most vocal part of the community isn't necessarily the largest, just the loudest, 2)what people think they want isn't always what they actually want, 3)focusing on fans can cause the production to become very insular, making it difficult for people outside of the fandom to become invested in the work and therefor part of the fandom (just look at all the complaints surrounding Marvel and DC comics about  the significant emphasis on dense continuity and inter-connectedness making them difficult to get started reading)

Multiple voices and opinions are important to the health of a production. Not too many, lest the production risk becoming bland and generic as it gets pulled every which way, but certainly enough to weed out the bad ideas and promote the good ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drasvin said:

I'll be honest, when George mentioned midi-chlorians as his biggest complaint with the prequel trilogy, I was a little perplexed. At the time I hadn't thought much of the subject, and after quite a bit of consideration, I still don't entirely understand why there's so much vitriol around it (I certainly get there being vitriol. I just don't get the quantity of it). It's a basic explanation of some of the mechanics of the magic of the setting, and while explaining the magic can sap the mystical feeling out of it, there are a lot of settings that explain some of the basics of their magic without the fans erupting in an uproar.

Midichlorians do not actually explain anything. How does all this law-of-physics-defying power get into this bucket? Well, this bucket contains all these other little buckets. That's nice, how does the power get into those little buckets?

And what they purportedly attempt to explain didn't need explaining. It's magic, okay?

1 hour ago, Drasvin said:

And I believe explanation of the magic isn't even the story function of the midi-chlorians. From my perspective, the purpose of the midi-chlorians is to give an in-story identifiable reason why Anakin is important. True, there are other ways to do that, though the one George gives in the comic (simply say 'The force is strong with him') doesn't really hold water in my opinion, because shouldn't the force be strong with all the Jedi? And they have an entire galaxy-spanning monastic order of them, so what is so special about this brat from an out of the way dust ball that they need to go through all the trouble to drag him along and even defy the council? Midi-chlorians introduce a simple measurability. More midi-chlorians means more force potential. And Anakin had more than even Yoda. That certainly marks him as significant enough to drag along.

This is actually plausible, but again, it didn't need that sort of quantifying. One of the greatest Jedi masters ever is saying that this individual is exceptionally powerful even for Jedi - isn't that good enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
3 hours ago, Drasvin said:

I'll be honest, when George mentioned midi-chlorians as his biggest complaint with the prequel trilogy, I was a little perplexed. At the time I hadn't thought much of the subject, and after quite a bit of consideration, I still don't entirely understand why there's so much vitriol around it (I certainly get there being vitriol. I just don't get the quantity of it). It's a basic explanation of some of the mechanics of the magic of the setting, and while explaining the magic can sap the mystical feeling out of it, there are a lot of settings that explain some of the basics of their magic without the fans erupting in an uproar.

Midichlorians do not actually explain anything. How does all this law-of-physics-defying power get into this bucket? Well, this bucket contains all these other little buckets. That's nice, how does the power get into those little buckets?

And what they purportedly attempt to explain didn't need explaining. It's magic, okay?

Certainly. Magic doesn't need to be explained, as long as it's seemingly consistent (or at least consistently inconsistent) and doesn't leave too many plot holes around. Though, if as I posit in the second part of my paragraph, that midichlorians are meant as a means to quantify force potential, then it needs to be explained how this other thing can be used to quantify the magic thing.

2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:
3 hours ago, Drasvin said:

And I believe explanation of the magic isn't even the story function of the midi-chlorians. From my perspective, the purpose of the midi-chlorians is to give an in-story identifiable reason why Anakin is important. True, there are other ways to do that, though the one George gives in the comic (simply say 'The force is strong with him') doesn't really hold water in my opinion, because shouldn't the force be strong with all the Jedi? And they have an entire galaxy-spanning monastic order of them, so what is so special about this brat from an out of the way dust ball that they need to go through all the trouble to drag him along and even defy the council? Midi-chlorians introduce a simple measurability. More midi-chlorians means more force potential. And Anakin had more than even Yoda. That certainly marks him as significant enough to drag along.

This is actually plausible, but again, it didn't need that sort of quantifying. One of the greatest Jedi masters ever is saying that this individual is exceptionally powerful even for Jedi - isn't that good enough?

Possibly. As I said, there are better ways Lucas could have handled it. For instance he could have leaned into mysticism and had something about the force leading Qui-Gon to Anakin. As for Qui-Gon's word that young Anakin was exceptionally powerful, it could bring up the question of how he knows. Force users can sense other force users, but I don't remember any instances of someone sensing force potential in a person before that person gets training and starts to develop their powers. I'm not even sure they can sense other force users like that unless said force user is actively using the force. Vader didn't make any mention of there being another force sensitive on the Falcon after he killed Obi-Wan. Even though a potential force sensitive traveling with Obi-Wan for an indeterminate amount of time (from Vader's perspective at least) would warrant mention as at least a potential apprentice of Obi-Wan's and therefor a threat. Vader didn't make any mention of the force being strong with Luke until the trench run, when Luke's force abilities were making him hard to aim at. Vader might have sensed Obi-Wan on the Death Star due to Obi-Wan using the force to avoid getting bogged down with the aches and stiffness of old age, just speculating there though.

EDIT: I remembered another example: Vader made no mention of Leia being a force sensitive, even though he interrogated her himself.

Edited by Drasvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Certainly. Magic doesn't need to be explained, as long as it's seemingly consistent (or at least consistently inconsistent) and doesn't leave too many plot holes around. Though, if as I posit in the second part of my paragraph, that midichlorians are meant as a means to quantify force potential, then it needs to be explained how this other thing can be used to quantify the magic thing.

It's not just a more-detailed explanation, it's a complete recontextualization.  It's Lucas saying, "I'm changing how The Force works and you can't do anything about it."

The Alec Guiness Obi Wan Kenobi tells us the Force is an energy that flows through the universe.  He doesn't say it is an energy field generated by subcellular organelles present in some living things.  The Force is presented as transpersonal, larger than the individuals that draw on its energy.  And Obi-Wan would know about Midichloreons.  He's a trained Jedi.  I think Prequel-Obi-Wan was even present when Qui-Gon Jinn tested Anakin Skywalker's blood.  There's no reason to conceal midichloreons from Luke.  That simply wasn't how the Force worked and never was until Ep 1.

The mysticism angle is important to The Force as presented in Star Wars and Empire Strikes back (the two films that really sit at the core of what was best in Star Wars).  It's not a trivial add-on.  The Force is High Magic it sits at the intersection of the deific and the magiccal.  The Light side, which is what most of us think of as The force doesn't only empower, but it provides a moral/spiritual compass. 

Lucas demolished all that and replaced it with a hive mind/colony creature composed of parasitic organisms.  It's a bit of a comedown.  Not only that.  he didn't have to do it.  As Don implies above, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 it is a poor choice to explain a magic system that readers or viewers already accept as is.  Which means.  Lucas went out of his way to do it

The Light side of the Force was one of the core things that connected fans to the universe.  Writing this now I think audiences in 1977 and onward found reassurance in The force in the same way Star Trek fans found reassurance in seeing the Enterprise's bridge filled with people of all races 10 years earlier.  Lucas replaced it with a mechanistic and completely unromantic model which in turn demolished the film for a lot of people who loved the first three Star Wars films.

Nor were Midichloreons a single bad mistake in the Star Wars prequels.  The concept was not an exception, it was emblematic of the rule.  Lucas midichlorean-ized Star Wars from beginning to end and would have done far worse if had fans not complained.  Midichloreons sum up a staggering MISunderstanding of Star Wars by the single individual who ought to know it best: George Lucas.

With all due respect to Critterkeeper, The technical advances and improvements that Lucas innovated with money from Eps 4-6 does not wipe this sin away.  Nor does my anger at the star wars prequels bot out the good Lucas did.  I thank Lucas greatly for all the good he has done and damn him for all the bad.  Being human, I tend to come to the bad more easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Drasvin said:

Possibly. As I said, there are better ways Lucas could have handled it. For instance he could have leaned into mysticism and had something about the force leading Qui-Gon to Anakin. As for Qui-Gon's word that young Anakin was exceptionally powerful, it could bring up the question of how he knows. Force users can sense other force users, but I don't remember any instances of someone sensing force potential in a person before that person gets training and starts to develop their powers. I'm not even sure they can sense other force users like that unless said force user is actively using the force. Vader didn't make any mention of there being another force sensitive on the Falcon after he killed Obi-Wan. Even though a potential force sensitive traveling with Obi-Wan for an indeterminate amount of time (from Vader's perspective at least) would warrant mention as at least a potential apprentice of Obi-Wan's and therefor a threat. Vader didn't make any mention of the force being strong with Luke until the trench run, when Luke's force abilities were making him hard to aim at. Vader might have sensed Obi-Wan on the Death Star due to Obi-Wan using the force to avoid getting bogged down with the aches and stiffness of old age, just speculating there though.

EDIT: I remembered another example: Vader made no mention of Leia being a force sensitive, even though he interrogated her himself.

Couldn't add this to my last message.  If duplicate post, ToH, please delete.

Qui-Gon sensed The force in Anakin but had to test Anakin's blood (and get a midichloreon count) to determine Anakin was off-the-charts powerful. 

I can only assume Leia didn't have the ability with the Force that Luke did.   Vader only learns about her from Luke's thoughts during their confrontation on the Death Star.  Even then he just knew Luke had "a sister" and never realized it was Leia.  Following through into Ep 7, Leia never makes the transition to Jedi either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

It's not just a more-detailed explanation, it's a complete recontextualization.  It's Lucas saying, "I'm changing how The Force works and you can't do anything about it."

The Alec Guiness Obi Wan Kenobi tells us the Force is an energy that flows through the universe.  He doesn't say it is an energy field generated by subcellular organelles present in some living things.  The Force is presented as transpersonal, larger than the individuals that draw on its energy.  And Obi-Wan would know about Midichloreons.  He's a trained Jedi.  I think Prequel-Obi-Wan was even present when Qui-Gon Jinn tested Anakin Skywalker's blood.  There's no reason to conceal midichloreons from Luke.  That simply wasn't how the Force worked and never was until Ep 1.

The mysticism angle is important to The Force as presented in Star Wars and Empire Strikes back (the two films that really sit at the core of what was best in Star Wars).  It's not a trivial add-on.  The Force is High Magic it sits at the intersection of the deific and the magiccal.  The Light side, which is what most of us think of as The force doesn't only empower, but it provides a moral/spiritual compass. 

Lucas demolished all that and replaced it with a hive mind/colony creature composed of parasitic organisms.  It's a bit of a comedown.  Not only that.  he didn't have to do it.  As Don implies above, 999,999 out of 1,000,000 it is a poor choice to explain a magic system that readers or viewers already accept as is.  Which means.  Lucas went out of his way to do it

Midi-chlorian's aren't the source of the Force. I was I could find the actual quote where he says it, but Qui-Gon describes the midi-chlorians as a connection to the Force, and also describe them as living in all living cells (Similar to mitochondria present in the cells of all life that breathes oxygen). The Force was still an omnipresent field that all life was connected to, just some individuals had a stronger connection, which made them Force sensitive.

While I was digging for the connection quote, I found a bit the behind the scenes on midi-chlorians. Lucas had thought of the midi-chlorians in 1977 but hadn't included them in the original trilogy because he didn't think there was time to properly introduce the concept. And the article also states why Lucas felt the need to include them in the mythos: why are only some people Force Sensitive? That's a question that gets dealt with in a lot of settings. Why do only some people have these amazing, reality-warping powers? While it takes time and training to learn how to harness Force powers, the gain is certainly worth the cost, especially if the Sith style of force user is taken into account, which focuses less on intense discipline and more on intense emotion. Moral upstanding people are going to do their best to avoid the Dark side, but there are plenty of immoral criminals and scum that would kill(probably literally) for the kind of edge that force powers would grant. And while the majority of the fan-base weren't asking that question, Lucas himself had asked the question at the start of Star Wars and came up with an answer. And by the time we made Ep1, he pretty much was done with listening to what other people wanted. Though he had put up with the hellish, draining experience of producing the original trilogy while everyone, including himself, expected the first one to fail, and to top it off, his wife left him after his finished the trilogy. (Warning: Tvtropes link) He didn't set out to ruin things for others. He had simply just stopped caring after life pounded him down.

3 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Nor were Midichloreons a single bad mistake in the Star Wars prequels.  The concept was not an exception, it was emblematic of the rule.  Lucas midichlorean-ized Star Wars from beginning to end and would have done far worse if had fans not complained.  Midichloreons sum up a staggering MISunderstanding of Star Wars by the single individual who ought to know it best: George Lucas.

I'm honestly not sure the fans complaints had any significant impact on what Lucas did. He reduced Jar Jar's role in the movies, but still kept all the CGI that many of the fans complained about. As I said, Lucas had stopped caring about what others suggested or wanted. He was sick and tired of all the stress and the grief. He was going to make his movie, his way. The original trilogy's quality comes in a significant part due to the variety of voices that went into it's production. It was Lucas's vision. His opinion, his voice, was the main aspect that shaped them but he cared what those around him said and wanted and the movies were better for it. With the prequels, he went from being the main voice that mattered, to the only voice that matter, all because he stopped caring.

2 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Couldn't add this to my last message.  If duplicate post, ToH, please delete.

Qui-Gon sensed The force in Anakin but had to test Anakin's blood (and get a midichloreon count) to determine Anakin was off-the-charts powerful. 

I can only assume Leia didn't have the ability with the Force that Luke did.   Vader only learns about her from Luke's thoughts during their confrontation on the Death Star.  Even then he just knew Luke had "a sister" and never realized it was Leia.  Following through into Ep 7, Leia never makes the transition to Jedi either.

I think Leia had some degree of Force Sensitivity. When Luke leaves to go save his friends on Bespin, Obi-Wan is worried that Luke could die, or worse fall to the Dark side, and Yoda mentions that 'There is another.' That, along with the revelation that Leia is Luke's sister, sets up the implication that Leia is a potential back-up plan. And while Leia is certainly badass, her being able to kill Vader and the Emperor (and potentially Luke if he turned evil instead of simply dying) without Force powers would be a bit of a stretch. Though, since she never got any training, her force abilities wouldn't have developed beyond their base level.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

Midi-chlorian's aren't the source of the Force. I was I could find the actual quote where he says it, but Qui-Gon describes the midi-chlorians as a connection to the Force, and also describe them as living in all living cells (Similar to mitochondria present in the cells of all life that breathes oxygen). The Force was still an omnipresent field that all life was connected to, just some individuals had a stronger connection, which made them Force sensitive.

And yet we have Force-Immune creatures like Watto, Anakin's owner.  The Alec Guiness Obi-wan tells us that Force Suggestion only works on weak minds (we also saw this when Luke attempted to Force-Suggest Jabba the Hut) and that would have sufficed, because Watto obviously would be considered strong-enough-willed to resist suggestion. 

But Lucas has to have Watto to tell us that his race is immune to The Force.  I THINK it's because Watto's race has no midichloreons but I'm not positive of that.  That also flies in the face of The force as presented in Ep4 -6.
 

21 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

While I was digging for the connection quote, I found a bit the behind the scenes on midi-chlorians. Lucas had thought of the midi-chlorians in 1977 but hadn't included them in the original trilogy because he didn't think there was time to properly introduce the concept. And the article also states why Lucas felt the need to include them in the mythos: why are only some people Force Sensitive? That's a question that gets dealt with in a lot of settings. Why do only some people have these amazing, reality-warping powers? While it takes time and training to learn how to harness Force powers, the gain is certainly worth the cost, especially if the Sith style of force user is taken into account, which focuses less on intense discipline and more on intense emotion. Moral upstanding people are going to do their best to avoid the Dark side, but there are plenty of immoral criminals and scum that would kill(probably literally) for the kind of edge that force powers would grant. And while the majority of the fan-base weren't asking that question, Lucas himself had asked the question at the start of Star Wars and came up with an answer. And by the time we made Ep1, he pretty much was done with listening to what other people wanted. Though he had put up with the hellish, draining experience of producing the original trilogy while everyone, including himself, expected the first one to fail, and to top it off, his wife left him after his finished the trilogy. (Warning: Tvtropes link) He didn't set out to ruin things for others. He had simply just stopped caring after life pounded him down.

I flat-out don't believe Lucas when he says that he intended Midichloreons from the start.  it has a high probability of being a self-serving lie to deflect criticism.

it's like saying he intended to make a trilogy of trilogies from the start, but there was no "Episode IV" in the text crawl when Star Wars was released in 1977.  Lucas added it later in the first of many "Lucas edits Lucas" moments he subjected Star Wars to.  Lucas might have liked his universe enough to imagine a whole bunch of movies he could make, but none he could have expected to make.

Lucas didn't need to explain why some people are Force-sensitive.  It's another one of those things he never had to touch.

There was no reason to expect Star Wars to be the "Summer Blockbuster" that it was.  It was a B-movie.  It was written and plotted to be a single movie start, middle, end, make some money, move on.  Nobody, not even Lucas, could have expected to have made a second movie in 1977.  Why else would the actor pay have included percentages of the gross?  because there wasn't expected to be much gross. 

Naturally many Hollywood insiders thought Star Wars would fail.  It was science fiction.  Hollywood nurses a prejudice against the fantastical genres and further probably didn't like Lucas breaking the "success formula" established by Star Trek, so it had 2 strikes against it from the start.

I have sympathy for Star Wars destroying Lucas' personal life.  It is along the same lines as the respect I give him for the groundbreaking audio and video technologies he financed.  But at the end of the day he *did* ruin things for others.  he took a half-step toward ruin with Ewoks and dove in head-first when he came back around to Ep 1.  he didn't hand creative direction off to someone else, he made all the decisions himself.  The kindest thing to say is he botched it.  The nature of the botch suggested he had succumbed to Gene Roddenberry's Syndrome, not made honest mistakes in good faith.

50 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

I'm honestly not sure the fans complaints had any significant impact on what Lucas did. He reduced Jar Jar's role in the movies, but still kept all the CGI that many of the fans complained about. As I said, Lucas had stopped caring about what others suggested or wanted. He was sick and tired of all the stress and the grief. He was going to make his movie, his way. The original trilogy's quality comes in a significant part due to the variety of voices that went into it's production. It was Lucas's vision. His opinion, his voice, was the main aspect that shaped them but he cared what those around him said and wanted and the movies were better for it. With the prequels, he went from being the main voice that mattered, to the only voice that matter, all because he stopped caring

If he stopped caring he shouldn't have made the movies.  I have sympathy for Lucas that he felt stress but cut him no slack for the decisions he made.

I feel very certain that Lucas would have wanted to give jar jar the sort of screen time in Ep2 and 3 as he had in ep 1.  The floppy-eared Gungan just too marketable to kids.  In fact kids were Lucas' first line of defense against fan criticism of Ep1.  "'i made it for a new generation of kids."  Which tells you who he wasn't making it for.

55 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

I think Leia had some degree of Force Sensitivity. When Luke leaves to go save his friends on Bespin, Obi-Wan is worried that Luke could die, or worse fall to the Dark side, and Yoda mentions that 'There is another.' That, along with the revelation that Leia is Luke's sister, sets up the implication that Leia is a potential back-up plan. And while Leia is certainly badass, her being able to kill Vader and the Emperor (and potentially Luke if he turned evil instead of simply dying) without Force powers would be a bit of a stretch. Though, since she never got any training, her force abilities wouldn't have developed beyond their base level.

Saying Luke was more force-sensitive does not say Leia was not at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leia was able to pick up on Luke's distress call and guide the Falcon under Cloud City in time to rescue him.  She also was aware immediately when Han died, just like Obi Wan knew when Aldreraan was destroyed.  "The Force is strong in my family.  My father had it.  I have it.  And my twin sister has it."

I hope the new trilogy doesn't end without at least one instance of Leia using the Force.  Doesn't have to be much, just a little nod to the fact that the Force is strong in her family, enough so that even an untrained Skywalker can do something extraordinary when the need is great enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2017 at 4:24 PM, Drasvin said:

just look at all the complaints surrounding Marvel and DC comics about  the significant emphasis on dense continuity

Wait. Marven and DC and continuity? After all those resets?

On 9/23/2017 at 0:05 AM, Drasvin said:

Moral upstanding people are going to do their best to avoid the Dark side, but there are plenty of immoral criminals and scum that would kill(probably literally) for the kind of edge that force powers would grant.

On 9/22/2017 at 8:31 PM, Vorlonagent said:

The mysticism angle is important to The Force as presented in Star Wars and Empire Strikes back (the two films that really sit at the core of what was best in Star Wars).  It's not a trivial add-on.  The Force is High Magic it sits at the intersection of the deific and the magiccal.  The Light side, which is what most of us think of as The force doesn't only empower, but it provides a moral/spiritual compass. 

THIS.

The original trilogy explanation for why criminals are not using force was effectively (despite not saying it explicitly) that the Force itself is moral. You don't use it the same way as gun, for example. You can't use dark side if you are on light side and can't use light side if you are on dark side. Normal criminals won't get access to the force BECAUSE they are criminals. And Sith lords seemed to be affected by twisting the force to dark side.

Note that I'm explicitly saying it's how it was in original trilogy. I'm aware that it got muddied later, even BEFORE the prequels. And obviously, prequels directly shown that Palpatine doesn't look like he looks because of being Sith, but because he got hit by force lighting, and Darth Vader got internal injuries on that lava field.

You can say that it's more realistic that way ... but people were not watching original trilogy to see more reality.

On 9/23/2017 at 1:04 AM, Vorlonagent said:

But Lucas has to have Watto to tell us that his race is immune to The Force.

There are also the lizards disrupting force. Not sure who's responsible for THOSE ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2017 at 2:32 AM, hkmaly said:

There are also the lizards disrupting force. Not sure who's responsible for THOSE ...

I tend to look down on extended continuity like this.   Many novels are of questionable quality control and editorial oversight.  I worked on the ill-fated Babylon 5 game for Sierra On-Line .  I had to read all 9 Babylon 5 novels that were out by 1998.  I have limited respect for any of them and outright dislike for most of them.  Including the one written by Mrs. JMS. 

That said, there are exceptions to the rule.  Trek novels had John Ford, Star Wars novels had Timothy Zahn and Babylon 5 novels had Peter David.  We just need to remember that they are exceptions.

One of the few good things that came from Lucas' contempt for anything besides what he was doing at that exact moment is we can safely ignore Force-disrupting lizards if we don't like them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2017 at 11:32 AM, hkmaly said:

There are also the lizards disrupting force. Not sure who's responsible for THOSE ...

4 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

That said, there are exceptions to the rule.  Trek novels had John Ford, Star Wars novels had Timothy Zahn and Babylon 5 novels had Peter David.  We just need to remember that they are exceptions.

The lizards disruption force ARE present in The Thawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

The lizards disruption force ARE present in The Thawn Trilogy by Timothy Zahn.

Zahn is entitled to a critical worldbuilding fumble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread really drifted off-topic, didn't it?

I have will add some stuff that's relevant to DS9 and/or B5. None of it will have no relevance to DS9 or B5. I would say "honest Injun" but I'll just leave it at "honest".

  • Both B5 and DS9 had actors playing important continuing roles leave before their series ended, following the same path to greater things as Rob Morrow did after leaving Northern Exposure, Wayne Rogers and McLean Stevenson after leaving Northern Exposure, and What's Her Name from Beverly Hills 90210 and Charmed.
  • Walter Koenig was a lot better in B5.
  • Anyone remember that Bill Mumy was the original Will Robinson?
  • Both B5 and DS9 had commanders who became religious figures to alien races. IMHO that's the clincher that proves Paramount stole the series concept. Without it, DS9 would be just Gunsmoke in space like Star Trek was Wagon Train in space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom Sewell said:

Walter Koenig was a lot better in B5.

Walter was amazing as Bester, it really showed how much he had grown as an actor and that he could play both sides of the coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Scotty said:

Walter was amazing as Bester, it really showed how much he had grown as an actor and that he could play both sides of the coin.

Bester was my favourite shady character in the entire series, closely followed by Mr. Morden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:
  • Anyone remember that Bill Mumy was the original Will Robinson?

I have to remind myself that there are people who don't...

16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Bester was my favourite shady character in the entire series, closely followed by Mr. Morden.

Both were polite and reserved.  Obviously the heroes of their own stories, not simply bad guys in someone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

Both were polite and reserved.  Obviously the heroes of their own stories, not simply bad guys in someone else's.

They also passed what is a startlingly difficult litmus test. They managed to present a tremendous aura of confidence and conviction without sliding into either smug snake or smarmy territory. All too often when a book or show wishes to present this kind of villain it becomes either one, the other or both. I think it was because both possessed points of vulnerability and the writer didn't 'cheat' about them.

Now Lord Refa, there was a smug snake. I loathed him. Or for that matter, the leader of the Minbari Warrior Caste. I've forgotten his name and don't care to remember it. Once a villain character slides too deep into smug snake or smarmy territory they stop being interesting to me and merely become annoying or painful to watch. I am perfectly content to have a show with despicable villains but I am less happy when the villain's scenes are a chore to watch or, worse yet, their plot points become dull due to them having too much script immunity.

(I also have a definite weakness for villains who have immense self-confidence but whose schemes are almost always doomed from start and quickly go from doomed to disaster. Starscream would be a good example of this. Or in a much less villainous variant of it, C. M. O. T. Dibbler of the Discworld.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 8:17 PM, Scotty said:

Walter was amazing as Bester, it really showed how much he had grown as an actor and that he could play both sides of the coin.

I think that's an important point.  Koenig was quite young when he joined the Star Trek cast, reportedly to try to draw in the younger fans who were going ga-ga over Beatles and Monkees.  When he played Bester, he had decades of experience under his belt.

I started to think, there, that it would be interesting to see an older, more mature Chekov appear in a later Star Trek series, but I then realized how terribly tempting it would be to make his character more like Bester.  Granted, it might be cool to see a Chekov who was more like Thomas Riker than William T. Riker, Thomas having broken the mould of everyone who was ever on the Enterprise eventually becoming an admiral.  I'm pretty sure it would cause screaming and flame warring and a Trek equivalent of Clan Denial.

On 10/3/2017 at 9:02 PM, The Old Hack said:

Bester was my favourite shady character in the entire series, closely followed by Mr. Morden.

Even if he did nothing else, I would love Mr. Morden for giving Vir the chance to give that wonderful reply to his question. :-D

21 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I also have a definite weakness for villains who have immense self-confidence but whose schemes are almost always doomed from start and quickly go from doomed to disaster. Starscream would be a good example of this. 

I mostly loved Starscream after he was dead, but that may be because my first real exposure to the series was Transformers: The Movie so that was kind of how I first got to know him.  ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this