XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films
From: anybody@anywhere-anytime.com
In article , Merrick
Baldelli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:12:35 +1200, Anybody
> wrote:
>
> >> >> Seems a little after the fact, given that Palpatine through
> >> >> Skywalker's help assassinated the whole of the Jedis before going to
> >> >> the Senate for their approval. Hell, in the movie, there wasn't even
> >> >> a between scene with Palpatine going to the Council to prove this to
> >> >> be the case. He just launched the attack and removed them all without
> >> >> a second though.
> >> >
> >> >Palpatine has by that time is in complete control, he doesn't
> >> >technically need the Senate's approval, but it's still best to try and
> >> >keep them on his side ... he doesn't even disband them until Episode
> >> >IV, 20 years later.
> >>
> >> The problem is that he destroys an Order that has been around
> >> for 1,000 years. One that the Republic has relied on and has grown to
> >> trust almost implicitly. Sure, he's been given temporary powers of
> >> Marshall Control (or whatever they call 'em), but destroying such an
> >> organization that has been so heavily relied on would take a hell of a
> >> lot of oppressive power in order to prevent the current system from
> >> total upheaval.
> >
> >Which is exactly what I meant, I just used fewer words. ;-)
>
> Yes, I did see that -- but apparently I lacked the ability to
> imply the weight of my issue with the amount of authority he had to
> have had at that point to keep the entire senate quiet and
> non-reacting to his destruction of the Jedi Order. Fear aside, there
> would be incredible amounts of withdrawal going on -- particularly if
> you've got huge amounts of the Senate all turning Switzerland and
> digging in.
>
> As one of my favorite characters once said, "Only an idiot
> fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to kingdom of idiots would
> fight a war on twelve fronts."
>
> This is what I believe Palpatine was setting up in his
> destruction of the Jedi Order.
In the novelisation, I think (since i haven't read it yet) Palpatine
had a doctored security video from his office of Mace Windu "turning
bad" as well as Anakin as a witness.
Much of the Senate also believed Palpatine was simply the mild mannered
politician who was saving the galaxy from the Separatists.
> >> I admit it's been one of the major problems I've had with the
> >> ending of this set of chapters. It seems entirely too pat for my
> >> taste. I admit that I've grown up significantly from "Return of the
> >> Jedi" to Revenge of the Sith" which makes his whirlwind storytelling
> >> while entertaining to the kid in me, leaves much to the desired for
> >> the adult I've become.
> >
> >And herein lies the entire problem with many "original trilogy fans".
> >Star Wars *IS* a kids movie - the fact that many of us are around 30
> >years older is completely irrelevant and it would have made a complete
> >mess of the Saga if the Prequel Trilogy was somehow made as "grown up"
> >movies.
>
> Yes, Yes... I know the pain of JarJar Binx. Although the
> thing about kids movies is that it also has some appeal to the adults
> in order to keep the adults from wanting to slit their throats and
> wrists in the aisles in front of the kids to save themselves from the
> sickly sweetness of kids movies. Which is why I think that RotJ
> suffered so badly.
>
> But here's something that's always bothered me because of
> shows or movies being aimed at children. Back when I was a child,
> children shows often had ADULTS doing ADULT things (save the
> gratuitous sex, extreme graphic violence, and language). They made
> kids have to ask parents what something meant, or try to puzzle it
> out.
> Why is it now that kids/teens are the ones performing those
> acts? Of being rebellious in the process and generally the stories
> being adolescent or outrightly childish?
> Are you sure something in movies meant for children is
> actually being aimed at children? Or intentionally dumbed down in
> order to appease the ire of over-protective parents trying to live out
> being children again?
At least part of the problem is that you're now viewing these new shows
/ movies from an adult perspective, so it's difficult to say.
Kids are also growing up faster these days (whether that's forced or
not is a different question). When I was at school the first "school
dance" was when you were at secondary / high school age. These days 8
adn 9 years olds are having school dances when they should still be
running around complaining about "boy germs " and "girl germs". They're
also watching rubbish like One Tree Hill which is meant to be for older
adolescents.
> >Just look at the new "Battlestar Galactica". Yes the new version is
> >"grown up", yes you may prefer it to the original ... but it doesn't
> >remotely fit with the original. If it was trying to be a sequel series
> >(instead of a replacement) then it would be a hopeless mess.
>
> And there I also agree. But I would like to point out that
> the time for the show (BSG) actually put it in the 18 - 25 timeslot
> and not the 13 - 18 timeslot when Battlestar Galactica first aired in
> the 70s. Which means that it's meant for adults, but not necessarily
> matured adults.
Yes, but why did the show have to "grow up" just because the viewers
supposedly have?!? These fools are going to be expecting "grown up"
versions of Sesame Street in 30 years time. :-\
> >> Explain to me "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" by Alan Dean Foster
> >> again...
> >
> >I did say the "movie novelisations", not the EU novels. :-\
>
> Of which I see no distinction between the two because George
> Lucas did not actually write either of those books.
>
> This is why I have issues with novelizations. Any
> novelizations.
>
> If the writer (of a screenplay for instance) didn't actually
> write the book -- then you're introducing someone else's
> interpretation into the mix, further muddying the universe with not
> one interpretation but several. It's like playing telephone with
> friends. Something is bound to be reinterpreted along the way.
The movie novelisations are written directly from George Lucas' scripts
and extra notes, as was "Splinter of the Minds Eye". They aren't
completely made up like the EU novels are.
All of the story ideas are passed by George Lucas for his approval and
certain timeframes and storylines are completely out of bounds.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
