Neal Stephenson on Star Wars in the NYT 679
SnapShot writes "Neal Stephenson has an editorial in the New York Times about the difference between the old Star Wars and the new Star Wars, and the difference between geeking out and vegging out. Oh, and computer scientists and engineers are the Jedi of the U.S." From the article: "Likewise, many have been underwhelmed by the performance of Hayden Christensen, who plays Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Only if you've seen the "Clone Wars" cartoons will you understand that Anakin is a seriously damaged veteran, a poster child for post-traumatic stress disorder. But since none of that background is actually supplied by the Episode III script, Mr. Christensen has been given an impossible acting task. He's trying to swim in air."
Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote from the article in particular resonated with me. We (scientists) have long been running an uneasy gauntlet between those that want us represent their theological, political or personal beliefs while trying to find truth where it is and for what it represents. Granted, these issues always arise within each one of us, but our training is to make hypothesis and then test them against what resources we can bring to bear. There are those that are not interested in truth and will twist facts and even scientists themselves to represent their perception or will which has always been part of the fascination I had with many of the original stories and sociological background behind the idea of the Jedi. (Disclaimer: The last Star Wars movie I thought was any good was "Empire Strikes Back").
The danger of course in not accepting rigorous scientific study of available facts leads us to confusion and obfuscation of truth which leads to jeopardy of person and country. Unfortunately, we have in the last few years gone quite far down this road through decisions made based upon data twisted to represent a prior beliefs rather than letting the data speak and then drawing conclusions from those data.
There has of course always been a fascination by many folks with power and "shiny things", but if we are to proceed beyond vanity and self obsessed cultivation of what others find attractive or desirable to find truth, we need to cultivate new generations of people interested in seeking the scientific and mathematical explanations of the universe.
Reading comprehension skills (Score:4, Insightful)
*sigh*
Maybe your friends think you're an idiot.
If you had read the crawler in the beginning of the movie, you would have read:
So, the enemy is Count Dooku. The ship is owned by the Separatists. The ship has the Chancellor on it. He was "kidnapped" by General Grievous. No viewing of the Clone Wars DVD was required to understand this.
This guy's point is that the old movies had "geek" sequences that told the story, but he claims the movies have no story, just "veg out" sequences. But he's wrong. Someone with at least rudimentary reading comprehension skills would have figured it out.
Maybe the fact that he saw Episodes IV-VI a million times is the reason why he understands the plot. Since he was seeing Episode III for the first time (and obviously not paying attention), that could be why he didn't understand. Has nothing to do with the quality of the movies.
As someone with an embarrassingly-encyclopedic knowledge of the movies*, I'd say Episodes I-III are as good as (and maybe better) than Episodes IV-VI.
This guy is in a long line of people who must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the new Star Wars movies are not as good as the original trilogy. (The rest of the line will be posting in this story about how George Lucas ruined their childhood, etc).
Re:Jedi FP (Score:2, Insightful)
Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
I work with "seriously damaged veterrans" every day, many of them the same age as Anakin is supposed to be. I can say with certainty, the background isn't required.
If he was damaged, it would be obvious in him like it is in most of my kids. But Christensen can't ACT. That's the bigger problem.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Blame the media [mediamatters.org]. Seriously, we scientists, engineers and mathematicians should hold the media to task for its blatant disregard for truth and justice. When you look at the news and see a bunch of what is essentially staged, opinionated garbage, you figure you might as well watch your favorite fictional show instead, since that's also staged and maybe opinionated, but at least it isn't neccessarily garbage. Remove the fake news and people will start to get interested in things that matter again.
Re:Neal Stephenson?!! Two pages?!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps this is just the first of a three part Editorial Cycle.
Actually, I'd like to see him do a regular column in a serious outlet (Washington Post or something). He's as articulate and encyclopedic (and more lyrical) in his own way George Will, and his take on things, given his sense of cultural history (seen through the lens of technology) is really interesting. Like, or not, some of his conclusions or predictions, you just can't stop reading anything he writes. I've never put down one of his chapters without doing more history and language homework in the following hour than I did during my entire stay in high school.
One of the biggest differences is context (Score:5, Insightful)
Fast-forward a couple decades. We're totally saturated in big movies. We have several hundred-million-dollar-plus movies every summer and a never-ending series of fast-food tie-ins. George has shown us the way and *everything* is merchandised to the hilt. The world that the new Star Wars movies play in is very different from the world that the first movies played it. It's *not* just that we're all 20 years older now.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm an agnost myself, it is ridiculous when people blame things on religion - removing religion has nothing to do with making people interested in anything.
You either are interested or you are not, with or without religion. If you had said social constructs or culture, I would have agreed, but blaming religion squarely is crazy.
It's not as simple as remove "foo" and people will do "bar". Or something.
This article needs the Chewbacca defense.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, I went to a pretty good school (Georgia Tech) and studied first engineering and then atmospheric science. There were people lining up to take science, engineering, and math classes... so much so that if you registered late, good luck getting into your required courses that semester.
Going back to high school, I checked my yearbook and about 40% of the students were going to college to study science of engineering. (I found it more interesting that 10% were going into law enforcement... but I digress.)
Why do people keep saying that "boys and girls run away from science and math?" I just don't see it. Kids younger than 12 are all about science, and based on my graduating class quite a few end up there at the end of high school. Sure, kids check out when they are teenagers, but who the hell doesn't? My personal opinion is that if you never skipped a class in high school, your priorities were a bit out of whack.
Is there any factual basis for Mr. Stephenson's claim? Or is the constant harping about "the young generation avoiding math" just more baby boomer bitching?
You mean this isn't obvious? (Score:3, Insightful)
To make people rush out and buy the cartoons, of course. The added profits from the shorts of the DVDs will be truly impressive.
Re:Reading comprehension skills (Score:2, Insightful)
He asks this as a trivia question. This means he knows the answer and likes to annoy his friends.
I would guess that misunderstanding of yours is responsible for the rest of your comment.
Did you actually read the article? (You rant about stuff the author does not even write...)
The Difference is the Fans (Score:5, Insightful)
Old vs New (Score:2, Insightful)
The new ones, well.. they change the focus. Its about power. Its about corruption. Its about the difference in democracy (the republic) and the empire. How can good visions become evil. And also, it spoils any punch that could exist in the old movies. How could you watch the 6 movies from beginning to start? There would be no "I'm your father" punch? How could there be a "You have a sister" punch? What about the focus? I think anybody not knowing about star wars and watching the whole thing from start to the end would be utterly confused and think its just badly made.
Differences in Jedi (Score:5, Insightful)
In the original trilogy, the Jedi didn't really do much fighting. Yoda even tells Luke in Empire "the force is to be used for knowledge and defence, never for attack." When the Falcon gets pulled into the Death Star, Obiwan doesn't come out swinging, he sneaks around to free the ship. The part that gets me most is when Luke is fighting Vader in Jedi. When does Luke declare himself to be a Jedi? When he throws his weapon away. He STOPS FIGHTING. That was when he claimed is rightful status.
To watch the new movies, you get more of a sense of "Jedi can kill anyone they want! Jedi cut off
heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome
that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this Jedi who was eating at Mos Eisly Cantina. And when some dude dropped a spoon the Jedi killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a Jedi totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window."
It just doesn't mesh with:
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no death, there is the Force.
I know it's not canon, but it clearly illustrates to me the Yin/Yang qualities that balance the light and dark sides of the force.
While watching the new movies, it was like a stone in my shoe that kept bothering me. I kept thinking "but a Jedi wouldn't act that way.
I know this may be more of a personal interpretation, but I think the original trilogy mesh with my view.
Re:Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Since scientific discovery rarely matches religious dogma, you have an inevitable conflict. The only way around that conflict is to rewrite one or the other.
Re:Difference between old and new Star Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Also they tried to explain everything which before where just accepted (ie what makes a Jedi able to use the force) and added to a mystery that your imagination could fill in.
Re:Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
So Modern! So Progressive! So 19th Century! How quaint.
The media (Score:5, Insightful)
The really sad thing is, judging from some of the current headlines, the field of science is next.
Well, that's something anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's not the worst part.
Darth Vader. DARTH fucking VADER!!! The most evil badass in the fucking galaxy, second only to the emperor but that guy's getting kinda long in the tooth.
I mean, I went to the Hard Rock Cafe in Chicago, and they have the Darth Vader suit behind glass, and it just seemed to exude evil. Gave me chills. This is one scary badass genocidal black-hearted motherfucker.
So, how did he become such a villain? What drove him to this abyss of the soul?
He wanted to save his sweetie.
WHAT????
He didn't really want to join the dark side, but he had to do it to save someone else? So really, it was self-sacrifice! It was an act of GOOD! He's a misunderstood good guy!
And why did he feel this step was necessary? Because (1) he had a dream she was gonna die, and (2) the chancellor tells him a story about one old Sith who supposedly could save people from dying. Does it ever occur to Anakin, when he finds out the chancellor is an evil sith lord, that maybe he shouldn't believe the evil Sith's little fairy tale? No! He becomes Vader because he's the most gullible Jedi in the fucking universe!
And then, the final moment. The helmet goes on. Darth Vader at last steps fully into his dark destiny. And what are the first words out of his mouth? "Where's Padme? Is she ok?"
This is evil???
And then, the horrible moment...when he throws back his head, throws up his arms, and screams "NOOOOOO" right out of a hundred other B-grade schlocky movies.
God. What horror. All I can do is tell myself, this isn't the real story. The real story of Vader is still untold. This is just the distorted vision of a senile old man.
And of course, there are a hundred other points you could pick apart. Even the fight scenes sucked. Phantom Menace wasn't a great movie, but the lightsaber fights with Darth Maul, those were cool. These were just flash flash flash, you couldn't even tell what was going on. And Padme, used to be a strong character, now she spends the whole movie snivelling.
And in all three movies...it used to be good vs. evil. Now, the essence of a Jedi is "no attachments." Anakin can't be a Jedi and fall in love. The power to heal is only on the Dark Side, the good Jedi just accept death and let people die. Ten years go by after taking Anakin away from Tatooine, and the great Jedi and the Queen never bother to buy their golden boy's mother out of slavery. Being a Jedi means not giving a shit about anybody.
When we watched the old movies, every kid, at least every boy, wanted to be either Han Solo, or a Jedi. These movies have no Han Solo-type character, and the Jedi are assholes. Gaagh, what a waste. These are not Star Wars. Star Wars had character. Where's amnesia when you need it.
Re:Reading comprehension skills (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I'd like to join the long line of people mocking this new set of Star Wars movies. First, I'd just like to point out that Episode I has a gratuitous fart joke. Does it get any more lowest common denominator than that?
Another of my favorite differences between the two series is what the Jedi do with their light sabers between fight sequences. In Episodes IV-VI, the characters hold them fairly stoicly like real swords. In Episodes I-III, the characters are constantly spinning them around like comic book collectors in the park staging mock sword fights. If you haven't noticed this, go back and compare for yourself.
Re:Differences in Jedi (Score:3, Insightful)
Jedi is not a practice or a religion that anyone might master. It is more like a race.
Episode I revealed that the Jedi are recruited based on the midi-chlorian count of their bloodstream. Based on this, they are "recruited" as infants.
This, along with the fact that the Jedi are now a giant beauracracy with committee meetings, make the whole thing feel like Soviet olympics committees enslaving children to become gymnasts.
I really wouldn't care if Lucas had just made a few bad movies. But he gave us something that became part of our lives, and then he let his crew of marketers and focus group facilitators pull the rug out from under us. My final review of the prequels: "What a shame."
80s kids (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing a lot of people here don't realize, is the immense age range on this site. We all assume everyone else is within a few years of age from us, and this comes up time and again: "my first computer was a 486" "I used punch cards, newb!" etc.
Us 80s kids (those that actually grew up in the 80s, not those born in them) are a very odd breed. We bridged the cultural gap between Leave it to Beaver and American Idol. Between transistor radios and mp3 players. Between pocket calculators and the latest G5s. Between Bugs Bunny and Pokemon.
Think about it: before Star Wars, mass merchandising almost didn't exist. Within 5 years of Star Wars, the movie industry changed entirely. Box office revenues became such a small portion of income as to be almost meaningless for many films. Saturday morning cartoons became an entirely different breed one the merchandise tie-ins became the important factor. We went from computers being these huge things you might have seen on television (back when there were 5 channels if you were lucky), to having one in your pocket that can SHOW television, all 300 channels of it.
When I was very young, the world was as my parents saw it. Pop culture came through the radio (been around for decades), television (a few channels, hasn't changed much other than the introduction of colour a while back - and most people only owned one), movies (theatres only, so you're only ever going to see a movie once or twice in your life) or newspapers. During my childhood nearly all of what we have today developed - the Internet, VCRs/DVDs, Cassettes/CDs, the 300 channel universe...
The world changed profoundly during the 80s. Those of you who were already adults just adapted, and in many cases, stayed away from the changes. Those of you too young to remember, well, you think the world has always been this way. There's a fairly small subset of society that's shared both experiences: the time from about 1945-1977, and today. Not just shared it, LIVED it. I cannot for the life of me explain to my parents just why a home computer is so cool. They'll simply never get it. And most kids these days just expect it. The magic is lost on them.
Insert Star Wars into my rant, and maybe you'll understand just why it's considered such a huge part of my generation's lives. What Star Wars did to the movie/toy industry is what we saw EVERY DAY while growing up.
Re:The Real Difference (Score:2, Insightful)
In 2-3 of my short story classes in college, we would write a short story, turn it in unnamed and the class would discuss the story. We, as the author were not to speak at all during the discussion of our writing. So, you got to sit back and watch a group of 15 or so people discuss something you'd written.
It was amazing the crap people thought you'd "meant" to include. At the same time, a lot of neat insights came out. However, the vast majority of the importance attributed to "themes", story arcs, etc. was complete bull. Several of us discussed this outside class. Most of my stories were just me following the characters through the interesting things that sort of just appeared. It was a common enough theme to be apparent that the vast majority of us were doing something similar.
How does this relate? There were a couple of people in these classes that started buying into their own "hype". They started actually trying to claim that they'd intentionally put that stuff in there. I think Lucas has done the same thing. He's had 30 years of people analyzing Star Wars and giving all kinds of insights and he's noticed how deep and complex those insights can be and started passing them off as though he came up with them and intended them from the beginning.
Unfortunately, not all of the insights and "plans" can all be true simultaneously, so he's been walking a tightwire all along.
Re:Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it interesting how many people find bashing religion important enough to post about it here.
If you aren't religious, what do you care if others believe in something higher than themselves ($DEITY)?
Think about it like this: if a religion makes people happy and gives them a way to feel better about themselves, why should an atheist care? Does it really affect you if scientist $x also happens to believe in a God who knows more than him?
Honestly, I think one of the most dangerous ideas in religion is that God has revealed everything that wants us to know about him in the Bible. I think that is a foolish assertion, and I see no evidence for it. Why is this relevant? Because of what you say: if a religion claims to have ALL truth, then you may know that religion is false. Isn't a complete understanding of what makes the universe work as it does part of "ALL TRUTH"? If so, then religions of today do not have "ALL TRUTH". Even mine (and I am a very religious person).
Thus, what religion is, and should be, is a personal search for greater understanding of the self and for ultimate happiness. Ultimately, the most religious person should be the most dedicated scientist--trying to puzzle things out and understand what is going on. This was fairly well understood in certain times, but there has been an unfortunate slew of "feel-good" religions that do nothing more than justify people's behavior. If you are atheist, then you only need the justification that it isn't illegal, but so many religions (which claim to morality as a domain of control) do nothing more than justify actions that are prohibited by most ancient religions.
I see no reason science should conflict with religion. If both of them are what they claim to be, then they will eventually converge (assuming, of course that there is a God--I believe there is, but many do not). Religion doesn't claim to be the truth, it merely claims that it has access to certain truths that are not readibly accessible via other methods.
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Many religions fall just shy of brainwashing (and some clearly cross that line). Religions are belief systems. If you believe something without having reasonable proof of it, then it can be very dangerous. In my opinion, most organized religions are dangerous. They preach things as fact that have no basis in fact. Magic underwear, healing powers, protection from harm, mind-reading, etc. You name it, some religion probably preaches it as fact. Time and time again, throughout our history - right up until today - organized religion has been a very very dangerous thing.
The only reason people don't see it is because they are most likely caught up in their own belief system. For some reason, people seem to think that OTHER belief systems are weird while theirs is fact. (not seeing how equally inplausible their beliefs are) Is this a fault of the religion, or the people who practice it? A religion *is* the people who practice it. There are no pure religions. They are created, changed, updated, etc. It boggles my mind that so many people have been duped by it, in so many different ways.
Re:Difference between old and new Star Wars (Score:5, Insightful)
Groundhog Day is a great fucking movie. It is a great fucking movie for one primary reason:
They never once, not even to the teeny, tiniest degree, tried to "explain" what was going on. They simply told the story. What happened.
I wish more writers would grasp the essential idea that a story is simply what happens.
Cinderella works, and has continued to work for over a thousand years, not because the paranormal events are well explained, but because they are not "explained" at all. It's magic. Everybody knows that.
The second you try to invoke biological or "quantum flux" into the deal to give a plausable reason for the mice turning into horses you're just going to create an audience that sits there saying "Like, dude, that's completely retarded."
We can accept magic in a story, even if we know there is no such thing, and enjoy it immensely, because magic is, up front and by definition, not subject to the rules of reason or physics and we have suspended our disbelief in such from the outset in order to enjoy the tale.
Any attempt to impose rational explanation on magic simply ruins the exeperinece of the tale by creating obvious falsehood and makes it clear that the story teller is a hack who doesn't know his own business.
Magic wands are perfectly "believable." Showing a
Mixing the two up inappropriately innately creates an unbelievable mess.
KFG
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes there are Christian scientists, however, I think you will find most of them in the group who believe the Bible is properly regarded as a series of parables on morality and how we ought to live. This is quite different from the historical belief that the Bible was the literal truth. Thus they have twisted their religion to accomodate their science.
Christian Scientists, on the other hand, pick and choose their scientific facts to support the Bible, thus twisting science to fit their religion.
Lightsabers in Ep 4-6 vs 1-3 (Score:4, Insightful)
In Ep 4, lightsabers were shown quite sparingly:
Luke in Obi-Wan's house
Obi Wan in the Cantina
Luke practicing on the M.Falcon
Obi-Wan vs Vader
In the scene when Obi-Wan gives Anakin's lightsaber to Luke, he makes a point of telling Luke that it's a warrior's weapon that represents honour and grace. You would not expect a samurai to use his sword to cut sandwiches; merely drawing your weapon is a significant act in itself. Contrast with episode 1 when in the opening scene, all it took for Obi-Wan and Anakin to whip 'em out was a loud noise.
Of course, in 1977, the technology level wasnt there, so every second of lightsabre screen time cost a lot more than now when CGI is just a commodity, which probably explains it's scarcity in eps 4-6. However, Lucas' often gratuitous use of lightsabre battles in the prequels totally smacks of fan service. IMHO it really dilutes the mystique and significance of the lightsaber and makes the jedi look like gang members who think running around with dual beretta's held sideways is cool. Nothing at all like the introspective and disciplined order the jedi are supposed to represent.
Re:Truth (Score:2, Insightful)
The Cultural right doesn't like science, but I don't think that extends to individual scientists. The "cultural left" as far as I know dosn't care one way or another. The left these days has been positioning themselves as the heroes of science, saving it from the fundies.
Evolution, Global Warming, Stem-cell research: all fields in which The Left has aligned itself with the scientific community, while the right has cooked up their own false scientists while at the same time undermining the very institution of science.
Now, perhaps N.S. is talking about the same caricature of the ideological, academic, PC left that he heavy-handedly complains about in his books, but I've never seen much evidence that this is a very large movement, or has any power at all.
As someone who believes in individual freedom (a "cultural" libertarian) I wish others who believe as I do that the current right (epitomized by the Bush administration), the ones who have power are absolutely corrosive to individual freedom as well as science and knowledge.
---
Also, come on. Calling Scientists and "geeks" the equivalent of Jedi is just masturbation. For one thing not all scientists/engineers consider themselves geeks. Being smart doesn't mean you have no taste in literature and art. I can program but I liked Lost in Translation a lot more then Episode Three. I'd rather read Gravity's Rainbow then some knockoff star wars book.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
On another note - Padme goes from kicking ass and storming her own freakin' castle in Episode I, to being the Damsel in Distress in Ep.II, to being a pouty little bitch in Ep. III. What's up with that?
Re:The media (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to be snarky, but just when was this? It certainly wasn't during the 19th century (when the term "Yellow Press" was coined), and we can rule out the entire 21st century as being close enough to today. So, that leaves the 20th century. Leaving aside issues of racism, sexism, jingoism, and so on, which scientist were equally prone to, I ask you -- what period of the 20th century did not feature, alongside good journalism, sensational and prurient reporting? (The phrase "respected news outlet" is something of a red herring as reputations change and defining what is and is not 'respected' begs the question.)
Just as there has always been bad, junk, or psuedo-science, so to there is bad journalism. But instead of simply writing off "the media" as some monolithic entity and ignoring the fact that there are many good outlets delivering the kind of reporting you seem to want, maybe you could buy a subscription or two so that they can keep doing it!
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Religion may claim to be the truth, but it is always fuzzy about the details. 90% of what evangelicals espouse as "belief" is not supported by the Good Book.
Take temperence (i.e. total abstinence from alchohol). What was Christ's first miracle? Wedding of Cana anyone, turning water into wine. What did Christ serve at the last supper? That would be wine.
In other respects the "devout" put concrete meaning into an abstract reference. Just watch various sects argue about whether the Lord's prayer should ask God to forgive us our "debts", "transgressions", or "trespasses."
On the other hand, some of the most vociferous proponents of "Science" also put extra words into theories. Take evolution. All theories about it simply note the mechanism. It doesn't ascribe a purpose. Science never talks of purpose or intent. (The only science that does, psychology, isn't REALLY a science depending on who you ask.)
In a more enlightened age we would realize the Science and Religion compliment one another. Then again, in a more enlightened age the three religions that developed from the teachings of Moses and Abraham wouldn't be taking pot shots at each other with automatic weapons and car bombs.
Re:Reading comprehension skills (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is Dooku in league with? Who is this General Grevious guy, anyway? Why does the Trade Fedreation even WANT to kidnap the Senator?
All of it matters...it's part of the plot. If all you want to get out of the movie is "Yeah, this good guy killed this bad guy over here because he kinapped this other good guy, who we only think is good but is actually bad" then fine...you're right. It doesn't matter. But if you want something more out of it...a story, a plot, well, then yeah, I'd kind of like to know why the Trade Federation has both Dooku and Grevious on board, and what the relationship is there. But I can't even ASK that question unless I know that the Trade Federation owns the ship. And I won't be as surprised when Palpatine tells Vader to kill the heads of the Trade Federation later, who are supposed to be his allies (or at least they thought so).
Re:In the new one the Jedi are terrorists (Score:4, Insightful)
Religion, Worldview and Anger (Score:3, Insightful)
1) there are more than one, each with different ideas about morality, religious figures, afterlife, etc. (despite similarities)
2) people incorporate religious ideas into their worldview and cling to them
3) a person's worldview is ridiculously difficult to change, for some unknown human reason, and people will sometimes fight to the death to protect it
There's just way too much action based on ignorance/lack of real communication/fear of the unknown in this world. I mean, OK, what if the particular miracle-performing prophet you've been indoctrinated to worship your whole life, wasn't the ONLY prophet? Would it be so bad? Would the sky fall? Is it possible that the founders of a new religion, perhaps even yours, had just a bit of self-interest going on? Is it possible that human interests over the years have distorted the original message of some of these prophets (especially the religions that are much older than Gutenberg's invention)? Why is it always that members of the OTHER religion are going to hell, or are the infidels, or what have you? Why must people constantly insist on thinking of everything using an "us vs. them" paradigm?
Is the practice of brainwashing a human from birth with just 1 holy book (whether it's the bible, the koran, the torah, or whatever), as opposed to educating children about ALL religions, really going to help us communicate our religious needs/feelings, as a people? Are we that afraid that someone, perhaps even one of our very children, is going to like "their" religion more? And would that be so terrible?
(A good friend of mine's family practically disowned his sister because she converted to orthodox judaism. I say, let it be.)
Open your minds and stop the fighting, folks.
Disclaimer: While raised Catholic (I was even an altar boy, once), I took a few religious studies electives in college and they were VERY eye-opening. To the point where I felt angry for having been kept in a "catholic bubble" for the first half of my existence. While I am not strict any more, I feel in my gut that there is some kind of spirituality to life as we know it.)
Re:Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither one is really concerned with the ephemeral concept of "Truth." Rather, it seems to me that Science is concerned with finding out how the universe functions. Religion, on the other hand, seems more concerned with stating why the universe is the way it is.
The two don't really have the same goal in sight, or similar paths. They're not even on tracks headed in roughtly the same direction. Rather, every so often they'll both grab for the same thing so they can look at it, and then you get conflicts.
wow.. now if that isn't a mixed metaphore, then I don't know what is, unless maybe it's a platypus.
Re:The media (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't be too specific, but I'd say that the news media in this country was far superior during most of the 20th century, up to and including the launch of CNN, and you can probably use CNN as your gauge for when it started to suck. If you can turn on CNN and expect to see good news coverage (as opposed to 8 hours of coverage on the "Runaway Bride" in a single day), then you're living in the "time" I'm talking about.
The kind of bad journalism I'm thinking of isn't really the blatantly corrupt, partisan reporting of a Fox News, either. That's one part of it. But even if you agreed with the current political climate in the U.S., you still have the problem of the gradual shift away from news as an public informational resource toward the concept of news as entertainment media. News media alter their coverage, not because of their political aims, but because they're afraid the public will get bored and change the channel. That's bad.
Re:Difference between old and new Star Wars (Score:2, Insightful)
What the poster above failed to grasp is that the supernatural "McGuffin" (or MacGuffin for traditionalists) doesn't matter. Magical fish (the agent in the earliest known version of the tale), Ghost, Fairy Godmother, Wizard, Invisible little fuzzy pink unicorn with a magic horn, they all simply translate into "it were done by magic."
My original post relates to trying to explain magical events as nonmagical. Claiming a supernatural event as an explanation of a supernatural event begs the question.
Science fiction is writing on the razor's edge. One false move and you lose the balance of the story; and it dies. The moving finger writes, and having writ, moves on. Death is final even for a story. If you lose your reader in chapter 2 it doesn't matter if you write a "retrieval" in chapter 4, because the reader didn't believe a single damn word of chapter 3. (Yes, there are rare masters who can write books that can only be understood on the second reading, but such are rare, and they are truely masters if they can get you to that second reading in the first place. They created a degree of skepticism in the reader without truely killing the story. It was just mostly dead. Mostly dead you can work with. If you're a master).
Where most science fiction writers lose their balance is in trying to explain the technology at the level of the characters, when what they need to do is explain the technology at the level of the reader.
If, to the reader, the technology is indistinguishable from magic, write as if it were magic, because it is.
This is specifically where Lucas lost his balance and his story died.
KFG
Re:Lightsabers in Ep 4-6 vs 1-3 (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1-3, there are a LOT of Jedi, and they are out doing things that require their lightsabers.
In 4-6, there are exactly 2 Jedi, one of whom is dead for 2 movies, the other only becomes even a Padawan about halfway through the second movie.
Hell, once Luke gets part of his training and runs off to fight Vader, it's like he never puts the damn thing down. Even before that, it was used to cut Luke free from ice, gut a tauntaun, and slice open an AT-AT.
So, we see a lot more lightsabery stuff in 1-3 because there are a lot more lightsabers - but they're still used for the same thing: as a tool and a weapon.
Sorry, but whoever modded the parent insightful pretty clearly hasn't actually seen the movies.
Re:Difference between old and new Star Wars (Score:3, Insightful)
I truely hate to critise Mr. Wilde, as his genius often relied on chosing exactly the right word at exactly the right time, but. .
As my own example of the shell casings illustrates there is a good deal more subtlty to it than that. Man can believe the impossible, but it has to be exactly the right kind of believable impossibility.
I believe the word that Mr. Wilde was looking for was not "improbable," but rather "implausible," especially as his greatest art relied on making the entirely improbable plausible.
But then perhaps he got it right after all, as his was the sort of genius that proves the rule.
Come to think of it, knowing Mr. Wilde only through his writings, it's just possible, although perhaps improbable, that he was having a bit of a joke by subtly pointing that out.
KFG
Re:The media (Score:4, Insightful)
The News is an outlet for corporations. A little fact here and there to pad between the infomercials. The antis-scientist movement is similar to the tactics of "big tobacco". They hired a lot of pulmonary specialists to say what the Tobacco industry wanted. In a more indirect way, this is happening (at least to the leadership) of science. Science that supports the corporate goals is passed on. Anti-science makes it hard to prove anything, which means you can do anything if you have the power.
This will result in a big loss for business in the end. Confidence in food, drugs and the safety of products will erode. Personal experience with friends and relatives who've been damaged by bad products will end up permeating peoples consciousness, such that almost everything will be in doubt. I think that once that subconscious meme hits a tipping point, the effects will be drastic, overnight, and widespread. People will want to hibernate and wait for the BS-storm to pass on.
There really is good profit to be made with environmentalism, conservation and consumer advocacy. Too bad that too few have learned that lesson. We are repeating the stupid, greedy profit taking that caused the US to lose the automobile market.
What market is going to fail next?
Clinton, a conservative president? Yup! (Score:3, Insightful)
A balanced budget. Reduced overall government spending by every metric: in real dollars and as a fraction of GDP. Pro-business environment and economic growth. Worldwide free-trade agreements. The list goes on.
I think part of the reason Clinton is so deeply vilified by the right is that he actually DID for the economy and for economic policy what so many republicans have only PROMISED for so long. That makes him a threat to the myth of "The GOP is the party of financial responsibility". Well, okay, dubya has buried that myth a good bit deeper, now.
It's ALL the directing (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there are other people in the film, like Ewan McGregor and Samuel L. Jackson, who are fine actors elsewhere and squeeze out the most wooden performances of their life in SWIII.
Look at Obi-Wan when he's "bowing out of the political moment" and talking to Anakin after the crash at the beginning of the movie. Pay attention to the ridiculous, unnatural arm gestures he's making - then try to find McGregor body-acting that badly in any other movie. Or watch Mace Windu's overacted nod in response to Yoda's "a prophecy which misread, might have been" or listen to the lines opposite Palpatine: "He controls the courts! He is too dangerous to leave alive! I am over-acting!"
Those moments are so wooden and overacted - by actors I KNOW are better than that - that I can practically see Lucas on the edge of the set when they filmed them. Jackson gives a nice, subtle, natural nod of agreement to yoda's line and Lucas says "No, Sam, we really need to see that you agree with Yoda. Make that head-bob a bit more forceful."
Everywhere you look, you see the hand of a director who doesn't understand subtlety, natural movement, or natural tone of voice. He's always urging the actors to ham it up a bit more, unaware of what a hash he's making of the character moments. It's the same kind of Aspergers' syndrome personality that can write lines like "hold me the way you did on Naboo, back before the war, when it was just us" and think it's a natural romantic moment.
Lucas simply doesn't "get" natural human emotion and interaction.
Which is too bad, really, because he writes a pretty damn entertaining story and can visualize vast action sequences like nobody else.