My star wars trilogy review!

Not open for further replies.


Mark Hamill is going to kill me for posting this rationalization of the Star Wars film; so will Harrison Ford; Carrie Fisher I guess will just make " Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" movies; as for George Lucas, I guess he's make edits of my childhood movie because (paraphrasing more or less) 'it was unethical to shoot Greedo first.' So, here goes.

This old world falls apart long before 'episode 4' by means of the growth of some dark force jedis. We have little to understand about the differences between the good and dark side of the force other than 'fear.' Well, I have a few things to say about 'fear'.

Fear is the tactic used by the irrationalist. The rationalist tries to establish observational/experimental facts and deduce new facts from there no matter how disheartening to our mental/emotional crutches(like the earth centered universe before the copernican revolution and the belief that god made us perfectly so evolution must be wrong).

Let me elaborate about how the rationalist figures out the universe. We can't take in the whole universe all at one go; so, we idealize. These are our definitions. We make sure that our definitions only things that make sense with respect to each of the elements of a definition. The elements of the definition are the same as a declarative sentence - noun, verb, noun. What needs to be realized here is that a declarative sentence/definition is the language version of 'structure.' Everything in the universe has structure; and everything in the universe is about changes of that structure. There's things that have the same structure. Two apples and two oranges can make(through idealization) two concrete examples of the same abstract structure - the number 2. The mathematical development(the symbol of rational thinking) really gets going when you relate these 'abstractions' to show how they transform into each other. For instance by mapping the structures of 1 plus 1, you get the abstract structure of 2. Basicaly, when you can show that the elements(nouns), or relations(verb) are in common, you can often transform various structures into one another(such as 1/2=.5; or, you could relate disperate fields and do things you could not before such as the abstractly identical structures of a tangent line and average speed formulas, and your on the road to calculus and the ability to calculate instantaeneous velocities and the areas of shapes with curved sides).

See, the rationalist tries establish clear structural relations; the irrationalist tries to be evasive, fear monger, and be vague to avoid the 'question'. For instance, what do most people tell their kids when they ask questions? Either some b.s. answer, or! God did it! God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." What did 'God, or Elohim' say to Moses when Moses asked who's talking to him? He says shut up, "I am that I am." And Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Getting back to God is the algebraic X standing for "I don't know." . . . no matter what happens, good or bad, god did it; god believers will sweep the unethical problem of god making bad things happen(since he's the infinit all knowing and did everything god) by saying "god works in mysterious ways." They are also full of little mental(the dark side of the force) tricks like "believe and you will believe."

See, all the rationalist efforts came to a head around 1931 when Kurt Godel published his incompleteness theorems; basicaly, he said that a finite set of axioms cannot prove an infinity of truths; but, an inconsistent(the dark side of the force) can prove anything(god works in mysterious ways).

See, god is used to make excuses for everything even dictatorships and claiming divine right to the thrown. Those who did so(or do so) make all kinds of vague tricks to suggest they have divine right to the thrown. Kings throughout the dark ages did exactly this. Even the bible has god shutting up King Soloman from suggesting democracy and prefering dictatorship . . . at 1Samuel chapter 8:10-22. George Lucas has come out and said, he thinks a holy one should rule the whole of planet earth. See, the great human ability is to be able to combine ideas; the rational spirit does so mathematicaly; the irrationalist does so sometimes purely in terms of avoiding answering questions and growing, or a weird mixture of the two. How rational is George Lucas? Here's all the vagueness and fear gaming I found in the original star wars trilogy.

In "A New Hope", C3PO and R2D2 are shut up by Han Solo when he tells them 'because Wookies are known to tear people's arms out of their sockets" justifying Chewbacka getting away with a corruption of a game by pownting . . . Luke and OB 1 Kenobi are in a bar and some guy fear mongers Luke about how he has the death sentence on twelve systems; this is a good usage of anti-fear mongering; but, as you will see George Lucas(and most people in this world) clearly don't understand the true difference between the good and dark side of the force.

That seems to be the only case in "A New Hope" which gives that movie a good overall rating; but then comes Empire Strikes back; here, Yoda shuts up Luke by saying "this home it is" even though Luke made an innocent remark about the surroundings. Then, while inside Yoda's home, Yoda tells Luke, jedi are not interested in adventure; humans are about their ability to think and explore the universe.

Return of the Jedi . . . Bib Fortuna the front door man of Jabba the hut is weak minded( he scoffs at the thought of Luke being a Jedi) . . . Luke goes to see Yoda and Yoda tries to demeen Luke by saying Luke looked at him wrong . . . when Han Sola, Luke and some others are captured by the ewoks, C3PO tells Luke and Han Solo he will not tell the ewoks to let them go because it would be improper to impersonate a deity. Leia can't answer Han Solo about why she's talking to Luke(this is understandable considering she just heard some interesting news; she eventually comes out of it). Darth Vader can't confess he's been bad when confronted by his son(this is actually a noble usage of personal problem mongering and its consequences). Calrissian at first can't believe his copilot that the shields may still be up; he goes through the logic and eventually shows the character to confess that maybe his copilot has a point; this shows the central role of whether a person is being scientific or not; a person is either looking behind the veiled curtain of nature or he isn't; it takes character to do so. Han Solo acts up and say's "when he gets back, i wont' get in the way"; Liea tells him he's her brother; well, at least Han Solo kept cool enough to let her explain.

Clearly, George Lucas is a mixture; he seems to understand there's this kind of weird fear gaming; other times, he seems to loose site, or he's a bit more conditioned than he can possibly imagine. Yoda is clearly not the great thinking he portrays himself in his tone of speech. I find this everywhere in the world.

I thought I'd give some idea of how the prequils should have gone. Yoda was never at Coruscant. Or, if ever visited the place, he long time ago went to his home world as a precaution from some dark side of the force long ago conquered at one time but never really understood. Young Jedis are sent to his world for training; but, they are kept in the dark as to where this world is; Yoda communicates through the force only. This was stared hundreds of years before a growing dark side of the force springs up again. The Jedi can sense it; but, they don't understand it; they are kind of naive just like George Lucas and most people today about fear and vagueness gaming. Like people today, they pride themselves in being socially sophisticated. People are going to drugs and irrationality religion all the time because even the Jedi can't answer all their questions(seen the recent commercials about; hey scientists, where's warp drive? can't you answer me? Can't you solve all my problems for me right now?). People are trying to move up the social power ladder all the time because they figure, "who cares, nobody knows everything anyways; and, who cares, these people are willing to take to irrationalities anyways; there's a passage in Eusebius's "Principia Evangelica" to the affect of "XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment(that is Eusebius Preparatio Evangelica, book 12, chapter 31." I'd have the soon to be Emperor thinking along these lines. But, of course, he can't make his move because he detects that the Jedi have a hidden Jedi. So, he waits. Then the Jedi find Anakin Skywalker; they send him to Yoda who finds to much of the dark side of the force in him; sends him back; Anakin gets into all kinds of further troubles which attracts the eye of the Emperor; trains him in the dark side force; Anakin accepts because the Jedi have been instructed to not teach him how to be a jedi, and, it goes from there. There's more stuff. There's suppose to be a clone war. Perhaps the Emperor and Anakin find that there's too many Jedi; so, they clone themselves; they start a war keeping the Emperor and soon to be Darth Vaders new allegiance a secret. Jedi are getting killed. Finaly, OB-1 and maybe a few are left; they finaly find out that Anakin has turned to the dark side of the force, they search him out; almost kill him; or, they think they killed him. The emperor finds out, turns Anakin into Darth Vader; Darth vader goes and kills the rest of the Jedi except OB-1 because he knows Anakin's tricks. The rebel alliance is quickly formed and goes into hiding. This more or less sets the stage for the original star wars trilogy; of course, they never did understand how things went wrong in the first place even after they stopped the Emperor and Darth Vader . . . ;


Too deep and wordy for me. Much better to just watch the movies and make up my own mind about what they were supposed to mean. Maybe just entertainment.


I read your post, believe it or not. :) I figure if I will go on and on about something, the least I can do is indulge others when they do the same! ;)

I think we have to address symbolism a bit more than we have to address "rationalism" vs "irrationalism." I'm not quite sure what the latter means in this context, btw. More on that would be appreciated.

But, symbolism is the primary tool for telling a story. At its most basic, a facial expression is a symbol. We can't very well experience the exact same emotions as the character, so we need some sort of que. A frown communicates that and, depending upon the context, is a symbol in its own way. Sure, it's more blatant than an ice-cream cone lying in the middle of a busy road and being run over by downtown commuter traffic. But, it is still a symbol.

Film tends to drift in and out of complex symbols and fairly simple ones. A postman drops by... What are postmen? They're agents of change. They bring you information and herald events that change your life. Sometimes, they may even ring twice..

What are the symbols in Star Wars? They're fairly easy and that's what makes them great tools - Everyone can understand them. Luke is the coming of age protagonist knight, pure in purpose, innocent yet scarred. Vader and the Empire are the dark antagonist, the Evil Sheriff and his Usurper Master. ("Ivanhoe", anyone? "Robin Hood?") Obi Wan is the kind and wise mysterious wizard. Han is the rakish rogue, Leia the noble abducted Princess about to be despoiled!
The Death Star - the Dark Fortress of Dark Doomlike Doom... Those are "archetypes" and Star Wars is filled with them. When Han loses his "rakish rogue" archetype and becomes the "Reformed Hero" then Lando comes in to fulfill the void and take up the "rakish rogue" archetype again. Simple, yes? Sure, they are. But, they're capable of weaving powerful stories. After all, the alphabet is simple, right?

Fear is an extremely strong emotion. We do a lot of things based on fear. We pay bills for fear that services will be disrupted or we'll be taken to court. We are motivated to go to the art gallery for fear our wives will complain about our insensitivity.. And, we'll do very brave things for fear of the consequences of not doing them. So, naturally, some use of fear would make a good tool in telling a story. Fear is "real" in our lives and putting that in a movie helps us suspend our disbelief. ie: "Of course, the protagonist would be scared of dying! Isn't everyone?"

But, I don't think including a fear element was why, for instance, Han tells C3PO "..That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that. .." in the "Let the Wookie Win" scene. Why was that included? Well, it's a way to bring the character of Chewie to life. Chewie, after all, doesn't have any understandable dialogue. What tools is the story teller going to use in order to portray the character of Chewie if he has to have some sort of implied qualities that are not actually in the film itself? If there's no scene of Chewie ripping people's arms out of their sockets, we wouldn't know about Wookies doing that unless it was somehow related elsewhere, third-person, in the film. So, what does that one line tell us about what the writer wants us to know about Chewie? Why put the line in there to begin with?

1) It tells us that Wookies can be violent and one is well served if they respect a Wookie's physical strength and temperament. Note other inferences to his strength, like when he gets loose in the Prison Section of the Death Star. Chewie, despite looking like a big teddy bear, can be violent AND, importantly, passionate.

2) Chewie gets to show a comedic, shallow nature as well. How does a wookie act smug and superficial? Heck, I dunno.. I've never seen one. But, being told that a wookie would rip someone's arm out of the socket over a childish video game pretty much gets the point across. Then, Chewie's reaction to C3PO's enlightenment immediately clues us in that "Chewie is acting sarcastically smug!" when he "grrrs", leans back and crosses his arms. By including those lines and that scene, the writer successfully put a human face and human emotions onto a completely alien creature that is incapable of having its speech understood by an audience.

3) It tells us a little about Chewie's and Han's relationship. How did Han become friends with such a creature? They're buddies, after all. There must be something in that line about Han as well, right? He successfully became friends with an alien that others have learned to be cautious of. And, for some reason, Chewie hasn't ripped Han's arms out of their sockets. It adds depth and not a little bit of mystery to their unlikely relationship. Just like real life... Most true friendships aren't always obviously because of superficial things. Not everyone that works together are friends. Family members aren't always friends with each other. Chewie and Han are friends and there is a strong bond there that overcame what others might consider to be an insurmountable problem.. Keeping one's arms in their sockets is important to most people. Han, and maybe even Chewie, were able to master their differences and become friends.

3) It's a great line! It's full of awesome!

You know, sometimes there is more than just relating a story included in a line in a scene. The "Let the Wookie Win" lines are so full of mind-numbing goodness that it's an internet meme decades after its first release. There are websites dedicated to it, t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.. It's almost as popular as light sabres! Sometimes, lines just HAVE to be put in because they're too good not to be in a movie. "I'll be back." "They're heee'er." "Get away from her you *****!" etc.. Those are memorable lines and darn well worth including, even though they don't simply further the plot. They are what force an immediate, usually emotional, connection with the audience. They add "value" to the scene and sometimes to the entire film.

Sometimes, they're actually pivotal pieces of the story and completely necessary. "They drew first blood, not me!" is Rambo's line and brings the entire story fully under the somewhat mysterious title of "First Blood." It's no accident it's towards the latter half of the movie where all the story elements are coming together for the finale. Until that point, we really didn't have any clue why the movie was called "First Blood" to begin with.


Hello "A lost packet",

I started skimming towards the end of your responce and ended up reading the chewbacka stuff which I found pretty good; i don't feel like commenting much right now; to say the least, "i'll be back."


I still think the review that was posted from youtube about the first two movies was pretty good. They're like an hour each(5-7 10 minute parts), but they do a great job of explaining the successes behind the original Star Wars Trilogy and the long list of downfalls of the more recent trilogy. Not to mention they're pretty damn funny. I think you just have to search "Phantom Menace review" and they'll come up. They're posted by "Red Dragon Cimnema" or "Red Line cimnema" something like that.


brandbll":1n1xukpi said:
Not to mention they're pretty damn funny. I think you just have to search "Phantom Menace review" and they'll come up. They're posted by "Red Dragon Cimnema" or "Red Line cimnema" something like that.

And they're posted for your convenience right here in Sci-fi Forum on the Index page, about sixth thread down.

What, is all you ever do is look at the top 2 or 3 threads on the page?
Not open for further replies.


Latest posts