Or maybe something else, or as well:
Posted on 06/17/2002 6:52:21 AM PDT by Grig
Or maybe something else, or as well:
Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid....
Absolutely correct.
And the message in STAR WARS is "it's in the blood," referring to the young Anakin.
Are we all children of God, or is Lucas and his Lightsabers saying some of us are superior because of something inherently purer in the blood?
And where have we heard that before?
Hmmmm, Luke as Nathan Bedford Forrest? Or would that be blockade runner and trader Han Solo, with his subservient but loyal Wookie at his side....
And where have we heard that before?
The lightsaber! It's not Excaliber...It's Mjolner!
You mean the corrupt, bureaucratic nightmare that wasn't working at all anymore? Yeah...good plan, Rebels...
Is slavery really gone or has everyone been reduced, both economically and socially, to the same level as slaves?
History is a matter of facts and documents, causation and consequences. One would hope that it involves something more than just its author's imagination.
Art is supposed to have more than one meaning. Reducing it to one meaning or one-on-one correspondences of characters in the text to those outside of it, cheapens and oversimplifies it. Entertainment may not have even one meaning, but when art or entertainment have one clear telegraphed meaning, they become propaganda.
It's curious that the author assumed that the movies were "all about" the Weimar Republic first. Then he goes into all this Civil War trivia. The article and the movie contribute nothing to our understanding of the Civil War. I could show you that "Gone With The Wind" and "The Birth of A Nation," "Roots" and "Glory," "North and South" and "Ride with the Devil" also have uncanny and ominous parallels to the American Civil War, but that doesn't mean that the interpretation of the war you can get out of them corresponds to what actually happened. Whether Rogers's article contributes anything to our understanding of the movie or to anything else in life is another matter. But it seems to leave the Lucas epic looking smaller, and less significant rather than bigger and more important.
The author feels compelled to manipulate both history and the movie to fit his scheme. In the end, what is it all for? If George Lucas is Johnny Reb, what does that tell us except that Lucas's creative imagination has gotten into a rut? If Rogers is right, Lucas hasn't created something living but an empty, paint-by-numbers allegory, that we wouldn't be any poorer without.
Or, as Thor was fond of saying, "I've lost my Mojo."
But seriously, all of the Sith guys use their powers in conjunction with the lightsaber. Dooku, Vader, Maul, all used their sith powers in conjunction with wielding their lightsabers. All of the Jedi, used either the force, or just their lightsabers. So The Dark Side of the Force, is the ability to multi-task, which is what Microsoft is all about. Microsoft makes windows, in which you can multi-task, as well as all of the Mac Software, and Linux, so really technology is the dark side of the force.
I need a real job.
I'm with you. I thought that particular plot twist ruined the entire movie, if not the series. Imagine a much more tragic outcome: Dooku and his allies are fueled by their hatred of the tyrant Palpatine. The Jedi, in their arrogance, gather all their powers, and, in concert with the genocidal abomination that is the clone army, they crush Dooku and the rebellion. When in despair and horror they realize they have been manipulated by Palpatine and The Dark Side, there is no recourse: They have killed Dooku, the only one among their ranks who had the power and the integrity to challenge Palpatine, and they must flee in cowardice, as Skywalker hunts them down and mercilessly assassinates them.
I think the GAR was the VFW of the day. It was made up of Union veterans.
Walt
Palpatine is Jeff Davis, who exerts unchecked power (Lincoln still worked in a democracy). The Jedi were not really split in Star Wars: those who were already evil did not call themselves "Jedi," and the Jedi fought for right and justice (i.e., the Union). Only when the dark side got ahold of Jedi did they kill people. But if you look closely at the EARLIER trilogy, it is clear that Darth Vader (Robert E. Lee?) kept slaves (he enslaved, for example, the Wookie race). Indeed, in "Clones," it is the BAD GUYS who employ a virtual "slave" army of robots, whereas the clones themselves, if I understood the dialogue, had free will.
The "dark side" also constantly seeks to obtain support from the trade federation---Great Britain and France---to defeat Lincoln and the Republic.
And Lincoln is Obi Wan, who has learned from his mistakes and becomes wise, only to be struck down by the evil dark side. Don't get carried away with the term "rebel."
Moreover, only the bad guys "resign" from the Republic---and the bad guys in Star Wars are truly evil.
Darth, Doku, and others employ mercenaries such as Boba Fett to fight---like Quantrill's Raiders and the James Gang.
Now, Luke IS REAGAN---a natural descendant of LINCOLN, not JEFFERSON---and he stands against the forces of darkness, the "Evil Emperor" in the form of the Soviet dictators, all of whom looked exactly like Palpatine.
Luke, fighting for the same rights as Lincoln---that they apply to all races---resists the "evil empire" which is always looking for the "ultimate weapon." But Luke/Reagan employs common sense ("wouldn't it be better to build a shield than a sword") and the force (God). The good Jedi always have God on their side---the dark side do not. Thus, although Doku and Darth can wield exceptional power, it is not ultimate power. And salvation is brought through a Son.
You can't stretch this to make it fit the Confederacy---a true "evil empire" that enslaved its population, and which had by all accounts FAR worse violations of civil rights than Lincoln imagined. (The North, for ex., never confiscated ALL the goods of a region like the South impressed cotton; even Lincoln's civil rights violations were subject to Supreme Court review---but the COnfed. had none; and as political scientist Richard Bensel, in his study of 150separate comparisons of North and South found, the Confed was FAR more destructive of both human rights and property rights than the north. But that's the "evil empire" for ya.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.