David Brin on Star Wars: TPM 243
sethg wrote to us with a little nugget about David Brin, author of 'The Postman'& 'The Uplift War' that he's written for Salon. The first is an interesting discussion of "Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists, while the second examines what's wrong (and right) with "The Phantom Menace". Brin has always been one of my favorite authors and he does an /incredible/ job of de-contructing the myth-as well as making you laugh.
One comment (Score:1)
Another thoughtful review (Score:2)
Personally, I have seen TPM three times so far, and I plan to see it again before it closes, so I clearly didn't _dislike_ it. But the plot holes and character problems are there, and bothersome. I think Menand (link above) is pretty close to the mark when he says the problems were probably evident early on, but no one had the nerve to tell the "big guy".
sPh
Reply sent to David Brin (Score:1)
In the Star Trek mythos, we are asked to believe in a beneficent world government, indeed, a galactic federation of planets united in peace, and pursuing only the advancement of knowledge. Oh, a rare incompetent or even scheming individual may hold some office or other for a time, but these are readily weeded out, and life goes on.
Star Wars does not ask us to place our trust in power. Through the story of Anakin Skywalker, it shows that an innocent but clever and talented lad may seek to rectify injustice by acquiring power, but in taking the easy way of doing so, may be corrupted. Yet a spark of his idealism may remain, and in the end, he may turn against the evil he has served for so long, and thus redeem his humanity.
Of these, which is the more realistic, and which the more dangerous?
You seem most concerned that the Star Wars mythos puts great emphasis on the actions of a few individuals, whilst the great masses are just peripheral "spear carriers." But Star Trek is more like a well-oiled machine, where every person is given a place where he may best serve the Federation. And what if one chooses not to serve the Federation?
While we should treat individuals as equal before the law, people are not equal in fact. Each of us has certain capacities and lacks others. Everyman does not write science fiction books, or develop software, or establish lasting governments. Of course, nobody is an everyman, everyone is an actual someone.
Both Star Wars and Star Trek have aspects which can be fairly criticized. But I think neither should be despised, for each is intended as entertainment, and no substitute for real understanding. If your concern is that people will lack the judgment to discern fiction from reality, or will be incapable of drawing independent conclusions, then there is a great deal more to worry about in our culture than these films.
Re:Like I siad.... (Score:1)
What the planet of hell are you talking about?
I saw Star Wars (the first one) thirty times in the movie theaters in 1977-1978, damn near every time it aired on HBO and even when it was broadcast on network TV. (Hell, I even suffered through that aweful Star Wars Holiday Special that was on TV).
I bought Star Wars art books by Ralph Maguire, the blueprints, a huge pile of models and all kinds of other stuff.
I saw Empire Straikes Back a few times and suffered through Revenge^H^H^H^H^H^H^HReturn of The Jedi.
I know Star Wars pretty damned well. And I HATED Phantom Menace. That movie was a very polished turd. Very pretty but still nothing more than a turd.
I was expecting a good film... (Score:1)
Re:What about all the other members of species? (Score:1)
> - Yoda
According to the Ep. 1 scrapbook (and maybe the movie, I haven't seen it yet), another member of the Jedi council is a female of the same species named Yaddle. She has strangely human female-style long hair.
> - Greedo
At least one member of the Imperial Senate is a Greedo-species alien, again based on that scrapbook.
Re:This guy wrote The Postman?!?!? (Score:1)
Besides, you expect a goof movie with Kevin Costner in it? Give me a break!
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:1)
I like your optimism about the possibility of growing egalitarianism, and I think that nothing I say necessarily disgrees with it. However I think you're ignoring the plot point that the little unspellable beasties that allow for the use of the force possible impregnated a woman to create Anakin. This would indicate to me that the existance in the star wars world of abnormal concentrations of these beasties shouldn't be confused with arbitrary distributions of people with abnormal concentrations. The people would seem to be "chosen" by somewhat cogniscent sentient biengs.
Though the cause isn't genetic it seems more then likely that it is supposed to be pre-determined.
I think a lot of your other points are respectable, but I don't think there's enough depth to the movie to offer a good discussion of them. Using Obi-wan's anger as an example...
Lucas clouds the issues that you bring up by offering an oversimplification of human emotion. Is Obi-wan feeling anger? Is it grief-driven rage? Is it desperation that leads to darth maul's slaying? It could be any one of those, but it's probably anger because that's about the only emotion that Lucas is ready to deal with in his movies. He makes his world so black-and-white that every character is limited in their options. I wish there was more here to base discussion of this particular point on, but it just doesn't seem to be there.
-Peter
Re:Yoda will ruin everything (Score:1)
-awc
Pahntom Menace was sh!t. (Score:1)
Re:At least Brin gave us more meat than Lucas did. (Score:1)
No matter what era of slavery you talk about, slave life has never been this carefree. The many different (brief) reads of different slave cultures always include social stratification, restriction of privliges, lack of education, lack of right to any posessions, lack of personal space, lack of extra food, lack of clean living space, etc... general second-class citizen status, without the citizenship. How does it come about that a slave has a good education, friends who can freely come and go in the daytime (the time when most work gets done in most cultures), enough parts to put together a droid and a racing doo-hickey, food to share etc...
-Peter
Very depressing. . . (Score:1)
Re:You're wrong about Brin's beliefs on privacy (Score:2)
Re:Excellent Essays (Score:1)
Not that he didn't work as a character that way. The movie needed at least one visible bad-ass.
-Peter
Re:Why do people miss this???? (Score:1)
Suck it up! (Score:1)
Yes but most "flaws" are mistaken for something yet to be explained.
What realy matters is: Was the movie good?
Hell's Yeah.... TPM Rocks!!!!
Leavin in an hour to go see it for the fourth time!
PS: Natalie Portman did an excellent job in playing two diverse roles
Re:David Brin (Score:1)
Where was Palpatine from? Naboo. What did he say pushed his candidacy over the edge? Oh yes, the sympathy vote.
You know, the dialog in TPM might have been weak, as well as some of the smaller scale happenings, but in terms of the epic story it was actually well done in my opinion. Many of Brins criticisms are off base, almost like he didnt even see the movie but read the Cliffs Notes.
Re:Excellent Essays (Score:1)
Ah, but I know.
He played too much Doom and Quake as a kid. If you look carefully, you can even tell that he's actually wearing a black trenchcoat...
Re:Stretching things (Score:1)
The Screwfly Solution (Score:1)
--
Another Brin rant? (Score:3)
Re:Brin - hypocritical totaltarian! (Score:1)
Re:Battlefield Earth (Score:1)
-cpd
Re:Like I siad.... (Score:1)
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:1)
That having been said, I'm really trying to give Lucas the benefit of the doubt here because over all I really enjoyed TPM and I do think it is a worthy offering as the beginning of the series.
". . . that the little unspellable beasties that allow for the use of the force possible impregnated a woman to create Anakin."
This is the only point of yours that I'm going to take any issue with. I'd like to put forward the theory (and it's totally my theory, I haven't been reading the books or on the usenet groups) that the little beasties aren't sentient in any way. I would suggest that they didn't impregnate her, but that there were so many of them around her the pregnancy was a side effect. That would ascribe no more intelligence to them than a tapeworm and still have the same result.
As for your comments about "pre-determined", I don't even want to think about how many times I've heard the word "destiny" in the four movies. I think it is a foregone conclusion that if Lucas isn't personally an determinist, his stories certainly are.
Re:Constitutional Monarchy (Score:1)
Princess Leia in her message to Obi-Wan Kenobi, in the holomessage she placed in R2-D2.
Re:bigger picture (Score:1)
Sun tan lotion sounds a bit much, but my little boy had great fun travelling around a swimming pool in an inflatable "landspeeder", pretending to be Luke Skywalker.
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:1)
I'm not sure to what extent one can ascribe conscious behavior to the little beasties. The prophecy of a "Chosen" as well as a virgin birth suggests _some_ sort of consciousness, but if anything, it'd almost have to be something like the hypothetical "hive" consciousness of an ant colony.
Either way, I'm not precisely sure what the _significance_ is of the "arbitrary distribution" plot point. (By the way, did you say that the distributions IS arbitrary in the Star Wars world or not? I'm not clear on that.) It might be right in front of me, though; you DID say you don't necessarily disagree with me.
My beef with Brin (and others) on this point is that I think they're confusing OUR time line with the STORY'S time line. A lot of people are disenchanted with the revelation that the Force comes from "little critters", as it were. To me it makes perfect sense; it makes sense that the Force has a _cause_ and that the knowledge of that cause should be lost (or suppressed) in the turmoil to come. Also lost (my optimism again!) is the tendency to close ranks which, I contend, is symptomatic of a _cloistered_ order, not an elite power structure. (I concede that in some cases, however, the difference is slight.) However, this whole apparent re-definition of the terms upsets some people who prefer to keep their first impressions of the Force and their own interpretations of what the movies were about. Let's face it: people have made their OWN mythology about Lucas' work and don't like it disturbed, even by Lucas himself.
Again, I think I'm just restating my points for the fun of it because I don't think you disagree with most of what I'm saying. You did catch me on basing certain assertions on what I expect to happen than what's actually in the movie. For precision's sake, I should have made the anger point (among others) a conjecture rather than an assertion, but I was already running pretty long. My conjecture, however, runs as follows: if I recall correctly, Kenobi ascribes his failure with Vader to his own puffed up pride. That pride, I surmise, comes from (i) his appointment as Anakin's guardian, and (ii) some residual satisfaction of taking out a Sith Lord. However, circumstances other than his own merit mandate the first, and he accomplishes the second with dangerous means. Simply put, he really isn't ready to be a full-fledged Jedi, and the circumstances that propel him to that status are somewhat antithetical to the Way of the Jedi.
One final point for Lucas: his choice to make his characters black-and-white is, I think, entirely deliberate. He's not at all interested in developing _characters_; he wants to establish character _types_.
And one final point for me: writing about this is fun! The fact that these movies generate so much discussion is a point in their favor, don't you think?
--Jason
Isn't Joseph Campell passe' these days? (Score:1)
I hope Campell fades from popularity. His ideas were a little too Jungian for my tastes.
The Jews didn't get a choice (Score:1)
This definition was considerably broader than the one applied by Jewish religious authorities; there is an urban legend that Hitler himself would have been considered a Jew under Nazi laws, whilst not under Jewish law, because of a paternal grandparent or somesuch. Of course, this could be a made-up example.
Re:Nietzscherian Uebermench. (Score:1)
(If someone gets that upset about something I like, I tend to get a little irritated and defensive, but at least many here have posited thoughtful responses. I tried to ignore Brin's strident tone and understand his arguments, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't.)
Re:David Brin -- UGH! (Score:1)
Which Uplift Trilogy are you referring to? The first one (Sundiver, Startide Rising, The Uplift War) was one of the best-written trilogies in sci-fi. I loved them, and there was a time when I would have bought anything Brin wrote, sight unseen. I loved the man.
But some time after that, Brin ceased being 'fun'. His second Uplift Trilogy (Brightness Reef, et al) was horrible and dull. I think that he's starting to intentionally include messages and teachings in his books...and the moral lessons are making them as dry as bleached cardboard.
And by the way, I thought that Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction series was overblown and tedious. Some neat ideas and a few instances of good writing, but it's like reading a dictionary to admire the illustrations.
bigger picture (Score:1)
I'm trying not to forget that when I look at all the flaws in the movie, and I keep hoping that things that appear to be flaws will be explained in future episodes.
If not - I'll be one of first in line to give my complaints on the entire prequal trilogy.
Re:I'm not impressed (Score:1)
I thought this at first too, but later on learned that the midichlorians are merely the conduit by which people are able to sense and use the Force, they are not the cause of the Force itself. It's still "a big energy field that surrounds everyone and everything". To me that makes more sense - if midichlorians cause the Force, then how does the Force penetrate nonliving objects? How does it extend beyond the bounds of living objects?
And yes, I think it says something about the movies that they inspire such strong emotions and discussion on both sides. Brin is right that it gets close to the core of the human psyche with a story based on ancient patterns and thus appeals to many people. (Though the incessant hype of the greedy companies wishing to cash in on "a sure thing" really puts me off and makes it easy for people to get irritated at or dismiss the whole thing - lowering the level of discussion possible.)
Good points (Score:1)
2. As far as Anakin being the equivalent of Hitler, I can't really agree with that. Just because Hitler was the incarnation of evil in real life, and Vader is the incarnation of evil in Star Wars that does not make them equivalent. Now this is pretty dicey territory, but what makes most people consider Hitler really evil was his systematic extermination of Jewish people FOR ABSOLUTEDLY NO REASON( ie there weren't exactly a threat to the Reich or anything). This is not to say that mass murder is OK under any circumstances, but I think we can make distinctions. First of all Vader could never be Hitler but one of his general's (OK the top general, Goering I guess). Secondly Vader is a pretty equal opportunity oppressor as far as I can tell. Its all about power not particular groups. Of course the destruction of Alderaan is pretty evil (he doesn't do it, but he supports it). But its not systematic genocide as far as I can tell.
3. "Fear lead to anger ...." I don't think the point is that any anger is wrong but that if you act out of anger you can make bad decision. This is one of the things that has drawn me about SW. The premise is that no one is born evil but any body can turn to the "dark side" either by misfortune or through their own action. This idea of course has an intrinsic emotional appeal and is probably one of the reasons for SW's success. But at the risk of sounding moralistic I don't think it is too far off base. Who doesn't know the subtle temptations of the dark side that can underlie even justified emotions. Self-interest can lead to greed, anger can lead to murderous rage etc etc. OK this is admittedly extrapolating a lot but I personally feel it is not a bad concept to consider.
It's when a director relentlessly tries fiddling with our cultural moral compass that we should sit up and take notice. I'll trust Steven Spielberg with such power, because he's earned it. He's proved again and again that he loves this civilization -- an open society of rambunctious citizens -- that gave him so much. He's one of us, only more so.
George Lucas, on the other hand, should stick to producing simple action-adventure films -- good clean fun -- and lay off preaching. It's simply not where his gifts lie. d
And what exactly was this movie? It seemed like action adventure to me with a bit of story line thrown in. In any case, I don't think it has any pretensions to high art or anything like that. If the people like it they will see it, otherwise they won't, either way it doesn't seem like brain washing to me(unless the people want to brainwashed -- but who's fault is that?).
Basically interesting essays just a bit one sided.
Just my opinion.
Logan's Run (Score:1)
Re:bigger picture (Score:1)
If not - I'll be one of first in line to give my complaints on the entire prequal trilogy.
I agree. The plot holes were so large in the Phantom Menace, I think there has to be an unseen reason, and hopefully, an explanation in future movies. Brin pointed out some of them in the article.
Re:David Brin's rhetorical offenses (Score:1)
I suppose that's true if you stipulate that you have to be a Jedi to be ``great.'' In the final battle, though, Queen Amidalah took back her own planet with the help of her own people and their new Gungan allies (which she herself recruited). The Jedi functioned mainly to cancel out the Sith that was there mostly because the Jedi were. For all we can tell Queen Amidalah may have had a midichlorian count of epsilon and therefore no Jedi potential at all; so, I don't think Lucas' message is that you have to be a Jedi to be great.
But, truly, I think the medichlorians are a red herring. Just because our heroes are larger than life doesn't mean that we're not meant to identify with them. Sure, they have titanic prowess, but they are beset by titanic forces. We see them tested just as our mortal powers are tested by mortal forces, and it inspires us to carry on the fight. As I said earlier, I think there is room in our mythology for both heroes and everymen.
I'm not sure it is any creepier than Brin's own least common denominator philosophy, but that is a whole other argument.
Nor do I, but I don't think its presence in a story invalidates the story, and sometimes watching people come to terms with their knowledge of their destiny can make for an interesting story in itself.
As others have pointed out, there are other interpretations to the whole anger issue. My personal interpretation is that it is not anger per se that leads to the Dark Side, but rather acting out of anger. That is, the Jedi must strive to control his anger and channel it toward "goodness." For instance, I thought Obi-Wan was visibly angry after Qui-Gon was killed, but he couldn't allow his anger to get the best of him. In the end he mastered it and was able to prevail. So, apparently that particular anger didn't lead to the Dark Side.
That seems reasonable enough to me. However, when I learned informal reasoning I was taught that you should be faithful and charitable to your opponent's argument; otherwise you are knocking down straw men. I think Brin demolished a few straw men in his article -- too many for my tastes.
I disagree here because I don't believe that that's all Brin is doing. He seems to be peddling an alternate Myth of his own, and what's more, he's doing so in such a way as to avoid the kind of scrutiny that he applies to Lucas. Brin's strategy is to oppose his theology with Lucas' and then proceed to trash Star Wars on any grounds he can think of (whether related to "the message" or not). In my book that's a form of rhetorical dirty pool.
-r
Like I siad.... (Score:1)
When I left the movie I told everybody to back and get a refund. Then 2,000 people screamed " YOU SINNER LUCAS RULES, HOW DARE YOU DEFILE HIM!!!".
Lucas is not a God.
Re:David Brin's rhetorical offenses (Score:2)
To be precise, we can't aspire to their greatness, because we're too old and have too low a midichlorian count.
Brin is looking at the subtext of some of Lucas's messages, and he's right, some of it is pretty creepy. I don't like the idea of inborn Destiny, I don't like the idea that a nine-year-old is too old to train, and I don't like the idea that righteous anger always leads to evil.
When somebody tells you he's handing out a Myth, you're entitled to examine his theology. That's all Brin is doing.
Re:David Brin -- UGH! (Score:1)
Godwin's Law: it's not just for USENET anymore (Score:2)
For Ghod's sake, it's only a movie. It's neither a revelation from above nor vile elitist propaganda, just 2 hours of well crafted entertainment.
David Brin commits the sin of taking things way too seriously, just like all the postmodernists writing Freudian-Marxist deconstructions of the inherent racist/patriarchial subtexts of bubble-gum wrappers.
David Brin (Score:1)
Earth is one of the best books I've read recently.
I highly recommend that people check out some
of his writing.
Re:Darth Maul (Score:1)
I predict that we'll see Darth Maul, or his clone, in the next movie. Actually, I'm hoping that we see a SQUADRON of him in action. (drool)
Were we expecting an Oscar-winning film? (Score:2)
list but we seem to forget that this is just
another Star Wars flick. George Lucas simply
recreates the heros and villians and plot lines
from the cheezy serial pictures he enjoyed
watching when he was a kid.
I don't care what the critics say about this
flick: I asked my 7 year old nephew if it was
a good movie and he said he it was awesome
hence Lucas still knows who his real audience is.
Why do people miss this???? (Score:2)
Uh
Naboo isn't important!!!!!! The whole thing was a diversion so that Palpatine can further his political ambitions. The trade federation were a bunch of stooges. Qui-Gon actually says something in the movie about how insignificant Naboo is in the scheme of things, but no one seems to remember that in the movie after be becomes one with the force.
Re: Jealous? I think not. (Score:1)
Constitutional Monarchy (Score:3)
For all the time GL has spent studying mythology, he seems to have missed the point of a constitutional monarchy. In that system, the queen (or other type of monarch or non-elected political privilage) is retained exactly so that it can act for the good of the whole in situations that are too complex, fast-moving, gridlocked, etc. for the elected representatives to handle. The whole point is that the people trust the queen to do the "right thing" for everyone if absolutely necessary. Now the Queen of England, for example, hasn't actually done this for a long period of time (100 years?), but in theory the possibility is there.
I could believe people fighting and dying "for" a 14 y.o. heriditary queen in a constitutional monarchy - they are actually fighting for their homeland, which is _represented_ by the queen. I could believe a 14 y.o. queen leading her forces in a battle to the death - it has certainly happened in the past. And I could believe a 14 y.o. heriditary queen presenting her planet's petition to the Senate.
But I can't imagine a 14 y.o. _elected_ queen for any reason. 14 year olds can be smart. They can be perceptive. They can even be wise. But they just don't have the depth of experience and understanding necessary to form a just and effective government over a period of time.
IMHO George missed the political boat on this one. Put it up there with the tax dispute on the crawl.
sPh
Re: Jealous? I think not. (Score:1)
I haven't a clue, but it's something!
Brin too incompetent to review (Score:2)
Too many of Brin's comments had to do with Anakin being 6, when he's really 10. That may not seem like much of a difference in Brin's mind, but in the context it is quite significant. And consider that Anakin is quite above average intelligence (more than perhaps we can say for his son), the difference is more significant. A 10 year old with an IQ of 150 has a 'mental age' of 15.
Brin gets a lot of small things wrong too, and leaps to unwarranted assumptions. Young Anakin was friends with young Greedo? What, there's only one alien like that on all of Tatooine? Darth Vader toasts planets? Erm, that was Moff Tarkin that blew up Alderaan, not Vader.
Yes, that Yoda considers Anakin "too old" and yet doesn't put up much of a protest over training Luke was something many of us noticed. But again, consider context: In TPM the Jedi Knights are at their zenith and there are many of them. In ESB (and ROTJ) Luke is the only prospect left. Yoda isn't happy about it but what choices does he have? (As an aside, consider how long Jedi training must take if Obi-Wan started at a younger age than Anakin and is only now (in TPM) considered no longer an apprentice.)
Brin's had some odd ideas before. This review wasn't really worth the disk space.
Re:Thinking it over . . . (Score:1)
1) Darth Vader is hardly Hitler. The Emperor is. If Darth survived, he would have been tried for War crimes, just like Hitler's generals, even those who participated in his assasination. Thus justice works just like you would expect it to. More movies have explored the theme of criminals sacrificing organs to save lives of kids in hospitals. That is some kind of redemption for the criminal but has no effect on his punishment.
2) Another important thing: Luke is an idiot! From the first movie I thought he was a dork. Sorry, but I that's what his whiny dialogs suggest to me. I never bought into the "automatic conversion to evil" theory as well, but Luke was much too aggressive for a Jedi anyways. He himself was fearful. The whole point of his meeting with the Emperor was to make that clear.
3) Remember that Star Wars is based on mythical stories. Star Trek is just a crappy utopian society that fights against Borg/Dominion/etc (that is just my own opinion, not a universal idea that I force upon everyone). In Star Wars "Return of the Jedi", Luke is the classic Hamlet-like character who tries to find revenge for the loss of his father. Did Hamlet become evil trying to murder his uncle? Note that there are only certain times when Hamlet can kill the King such that the King would go to Hell and Hamlet will have made a righteous act. That sounds familiar, doesn't it? Why does Luke want to face Vader when Vader wants to kill him? A literary argument for that would be that Luke finds out whether Vader is to be killed, whether killing him is the revenge Luke seeks. "Return of the Jedi" explores that in a more modern and liberal context, overlooking other themes of "Hamlet" but it is there nonetheless.
I liked "TPM" a lot, except for the opening 20 minutes when the story felt chopped up. The flow of the story was not there, I thought. But when one starts to analyze the whole Star Wars saga, like Brin did, it is far too easy to deviate into the implications rather than the story. Sure most of the story is farfetched, including the microbiological foundation of the Force, but it is a story about Anakin who submitted to the Dark Side, and Luke who did not. Does not matter whether one is better than the other. The Jedi won, thus the Siths are bad. I am perfectly happy with a convention like that. If you ever saw a kung fu movie about two monasteries fighting between each other in a competition, you wouldn't see the reason why one of them was necessarily bad either, but the story would simply stick to the winner of the final fight and that was good enough to make a point.
Well, I feel like I should get back to work, so I will. 8)
Later,
mxk
Science fiction isn't about science (Score:1)
I like Star Wars in general because it does not attempt to explain the technologies that are in use. Star Trek tends to explain the technologies which IMHO brings unnecessary attention to their inplausibility. I was annoyed that Lucas felt it necessary to go against this trend to give a (rather weak) explanation of the force, but I'm quite glad he didn't give psuedo-science explanations to other things like force shields and those magic blue balls.
--
Darth Maul (Score:1)
I was thinking about Phantom Menace again, and I thought it'd be approiate to post this here.
Darth Vader was practically a machine, right? And, well, Darth Maul didn't exactly hog the spotlight (I've seen him a lot more in Hecht's then I have in a movie theater). And we never really see Maul die, just got chopped in half and fall down a big tube.
Is all the marketing towards Maul hints about his return, maybe coming back with mechanical parts?::start imagination:: A spider legged Darth Maul! I could be a possibility...
Re:The Screwfly Solution (Score:1)
It recounts a plague/hysteria/delusion in which men are compelled to kill women, and this is widespread enough to have implications for the future of the human race. Telling any more would spoil it.
Quite disturbing, while understated, and definitely worth checking out.
kurumi [kurumi.com]
Re:Stretching things (Score:1)
I admit it, I don't no much about the story of the next two espisodes, but from what I see, the way the Papatine is rising to power draws very near to the way Hilter came to power in Germany.
Re:David Brin (Score:2)
But, I generally find his commentary lacking. I find his suggestions that privacy is worthless, and his rose-colored view of American culture, off the mark and disturbing.
To hit a few points from the Salon article:
- The U.S. has a "culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange"? Are we living in the same country, David? I think that recent
/. discussion about the treatment of geeks tells us a lot about American attitudes towards the differerent or eccentric. - The redemption of Vader is not akin to letting Adolph Hitler off the hook. A better comparision would be if one of Hitler's generals had, at the urging of his son, turned against and assasinated Hitler, losing his own life in the process.
- Brin simplifies Lucas' "Dark Side" to "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person!" That's an unjustified exageration. But, yes, when you act from anger, even anger at injustice and murder, your actions may be wrong. Many beleive that NATO bombing of Serbia fits into this category.
Yeah, there are some plot holes in TPM. But if you start picking at those, forget about any of the Star Wars movies - remember the first few minutes of A New Hope when Artoo and Threepio walk right thru the middle of a firefight? Plot convenience, the most powerful force in any fictional universe, protects them, just as it patchs holes in TPM. It's a grand scale epic - don't sweat the small stuff. (I'm reminded of the theme song for MST3k - "Tell yourself, `It's just a show, I probably should relax.'")Nor is valuing the new or different over the old necessarily superior. There are two sorts of fools: one that says "This is the old way, and therefore better!", and one that says "This is the new way, and therefore better!"
Is that enough to merit redemption? It's a heavy question. Props to Lucas for daring to bring it up - how many other popular movies can you name that deal with redemption at all?
That does not mean that we should not act against injustice and murder; but we must let go of anger if we are to do so properly (both tactically and morally). (If I wanted to really get controvertial, I might point out that the Nazis were initially acting from anger against the injustices perpetrated against Germany after WWI.)
Re:Constitutional Monarchy (Score:1)
Re:David Brin's rhetorical offenses (Score:1)
also is missed in most of the response to this,
is highlighted by your post:
Phantom Menace significantly changed the subtext
of the Star Wars story. The original trilogy
could clearly be seen as attempting to inspire
everyone to live up to the heroic mythos;
the introduction of midichlorians shattered
that by saying that only those who have some
special trait need apply.
It's not Star Wars that's creepy
the Phantom Menace DID to Star Wars. Or could
have done: as it was only the opening
chapter, the jury should still be out.
Re:Reply sent to David Brin (Score:1)
It all dissolves into a personal trust of one's own vision. All artists must trust that. Geeks fear trust. Interesting conflict. Geeks benefit from trust more than most. Hey! We're SHAMAN! (NOT!)
R2D2's serial number (Score:1)
So why is R2D2's serial number so short?
If we assume that a droid's serial number can consist of any combination of four letters and/or numbers, then there are only 36 ^ 4 combinations, or 1,679,616 different serial numbers, which would barely cover the number of droids found on a small, backwater world such as Tattoine.
On the plus side, R2D2, as always, has a lot of hack value. He is also clearly running Linux: R2D2 did not bluescreen once in the whole of the Star Wars series. The only times R2D2 failed that I can recall were hardware failures such as an external electrical overload (Jawas, Endor) or being shot in the Death Star trench.
Re:TPM (Score:1)
Hmm... maybe I should have gone on to film school..
Re:Were we expecting an Oscar-winning film? (Score:1)
Anakin's Mom (Score:1)
Yoda looked horrible and made little sense, babbling on about how much 'fear' he saw in the boy, which was of course supposed to be an ominous foreshadowing of Anakin's 'fall' in the future. Why wasn't this 'fear' somehow expressed by the actor/character? All we see is the dorky, 2-dimensional California whiz-brat, without a trace of depth or conflict to be seen.
All over, the movie suffers from a nauseating blend of mega-budget-over-production and bad script writing. No where, is the slightest risk taken or the closest boundary even approached.
"Great effects!"
So what?
Without a good story its all just pops and buzzes.
"Lighten up," you say. "It's just a movie! It's a kid's movie!" Fsck that. "The Sound of Music" was 'just a kids movie' and yet will retain an awesome depth and power for viewers of all ages for as long as a medium exists with which to view it.
Bottom Line:
With all the talent and resources Lucas had at his beck and call, he should have turned out a real gem.
Lucas got lucky (and deservedly rich) with Star Wars, but don't mistake him for a real director.
How about Wedge? (Score:1)
But Brin is missing a lot more and personally I think he's read Nietzsche's "The Birth of Tragedy" about a thousand times too many.
For instance:
+Chebacca and Yoda aren't pretty and they're good guys. So much for his beauty=good theory.
+Luke craved adventure, he wasn't in the least bit reticent about embarking on heroic journeys even if he is the son of the dark king.
+Leia and Luke joined a Rebellion already years in progress before they showed up.
+Leia and her foster father spent years trying to reform the Senate but Palpatine dissolved it so there was _no longer any government to reform._
+When my government starts blowing up towns, enslaving races and killing priests I'm sure as hell going to declare it too late to reform and I'll pick up a gun to get rid of the unelected lout on the big comfy chair.
Brin's just another one of those bitter folk who claim the intellectual high ground. Before science fiction became popularly accepted they used to call what they wrote speculative fiction to distance themselves from Doc Smith-style high adventure. He's way too wrapped up in Dionysiac aesthetic. Always found that sort in classics class to be elitist prigs themselves.
If what I said is nonsense,
I'm making a point with it.
If what I said makes perfect sense,
you obviously missed the point.
Oh, the humanity! (Score:1)
I'd also like to point out that though Mr.Brin equates Adolf Hitler with Darth Vader, I find no logic behind this. As everyone knows, the main difference between the two would be that Adolf Hitler lived and Darth Vader existed merely as a character in a series of movies. Furthermore, Brin seems to base his comparison of the two by equating their circumstances, placing them on the same "playing field," giving them the same opportunities, and equating their purposes. This is no foundation for an argument. Adolf Hitler somehow had a vision that there was a certain type of people that were superior, and that all people who didn't fit into this category were not people indeed, but rubbish that should be exterminated(or something like that). Darth Vader, as far as I can reason, turned to the dark side because he was "seduced" by it. Somehow, he found the power/control of the Dark Side tempting, and an easier path to follow, compared to the Light Side. Also, a saber fight with one's mentor, in which one is severely handicapped would be enough to ensure that some people would turn to the dark side.
The major point I'm trying to make is that Adolf dealt with a conscious decision to annihilate race(s) of people; Darth dealt with a conscious decision to follow his anger and aggression to an evil Force, something we don't have on Earth, because there is no Force that can allow people to lift objects, sway minds, choke people, blow up Death Stars, etc. On Earth, we have our own spiritual devices, which, as far as I know, haven't done any of what I just mentioned lately, or in some galaxy far, far away. Therefore, going back to Darth, the Dark Side of the Force lead him to follow the Emperor and do his bidding. Although I realize that the decision to joing the dark side doesn't excuse any of his subsequent actions, it does allow one to see the difference between Vader and Hitler. I'd also like to mention that I don't feel that, by Vader's return to the light side, we're supposed to forgive him of his sins and accept him with loving arms, but we can congratulate him for seeing the error of his ways and returning to the light side. And I'd also like to add that, as I see it, Vader's saving Luke's life is not supposed to be his saving grace; it is, in my view, merely a sign of his return to the light side, and as he returned to the light side, he apparently no longer felt the desire to destroy his son if he didn't join him, because, by turning to the light side, he joined his son, and so he now sought to protect him.
Continuing in my discourse, I don't feel that Lucas is forcing the morals of his Star Wars movies upon "us." If someone doesn't want to see a movie, I should like to think they don't have to. I certainly don't see movies when I don't want to see them. Furthermore, people have to be responsible for their own actions; no one else can be, because everybody is in control of their own body. Of course, some would argue mind control drugs to this, in which case, most likely, exceptions would be made, which would spread until the idea that "People must be responsible for their own actions" is no longer the basis for the argument. Nevertheless, I feel that people shouldn't base their actions on movies, nor their morals, and if they are, then it is up to them to be responsible for how they interpret these morals. One could argue the same morality on many of the other movies of our time. For instance, any movie that involves sex before marriage would be a moral issue for numbers of people. Movies involving profanity would do the same. The list continues.
My point is, Mr. Brin seems harsh on Star Wars, harsher than I feel is justifiable. I found his writings to be more of a mindless ranting by someone who prefers Star Trek to Star Wars. Arguments can be found by anyone in support of anything over anything else... it's simply a matter of who's arguing. Which is why I take no stock or pleasure in the writings of Mr.Brin, but I will agree that there were things about Episode 1:The Phantom Menace that I didn't like... however, I didn't feel the need to write a ranting essay about it.
But I'll close with this: May free speech live on!
Re:Godwin's Law: it's not just for USENET anymore (Score:1)
I don't know much about the guy, but if he's a SF author I'm pretty sure he didn't go into it for the money. By the way, James Cameron claimed jealousy in response to Titanic criticism but I can't imagine that a guy like George Lucas would.
Re:Darth Maul (Score:1)
As for Episode 3, no go. Anakin was physically ok when he battled Obi Wan. It was during the battle (yes THAT battle) that Anakin fell into the pit (of lava or something). Obi Wan mentioned this in Epi 6
Qui-Gon? (Score:1)
This is pathetic! (Score:1)
"If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
I sure don't remember Yoda or any of the Jedi saying anything like that. They talked about controlling fear and anger, but I think Mr. Brin must have seen the unabridged version of StarWars.
"It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes."
Ok, at this point I had to wonder if he even read Van Vogt's "Slan". In this book 'the masses' were wildly racist. And actually I think that the hero, a slan named Jommy Cross, DID consider the wishes of the billions around him. He considered that they all wanted to kill him because of his race! But Jommy was still remarkably non-violent.
And that brings me to my next gripe...
"Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told."
Vader caused an unbelievable amount of pain. But Obi? Or Yoda!!? Didn't Obi 'defeat' Vader by refusing to fight? Can anyone remember a single instance when Yoda caused anyone pain? Can anyone remember him fight, ever? Damned lies? Are you one to be talking about this Mr. Brin? I believe Yoda was misleading, while your commentary is false.
As far as Vader is concerned, I don't think that the series is 'worshiping' him. In my not so humble opinion, the focus on Anikin in TPM is to show how far a 'good' person can fall. And his Jedi Spirit in ROTJ? Lucas isn't preaching that saving his son (at the cost of his own life) made up for his earlier crimes. He's simply stating that it's never too late for redemption. This idea is debatable, but Lucas isn't to blame for it. Go after Jesus, or Gilgamesh on that one.
Alright. I've got one more gripe... If Mr. Brin must try to impress us with his vocabulary, HE SHOULD READ A DAMNED DICTIONARY!!! In reading his article I got really, really SICK of seeing him misuse apotheosis. I guess I'll just have to post the dictionary entry.
Pronunciation: &-"pä-thE-'O-s&s, "a-p&-'thE-&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural apotheoses
Etymology: Late Latin, from Greek apotheOsis, from apotheoun to deify, from apo- + theos god
Date: circa 1580
1 : elevation to divine status : DEIFICATION
there is also a depricated meaning of
2 : the perfect example
So I'm not sure what the heck he's trying to say when he says
"Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
or
"The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems."
I can guess, but why would he be so pompous as to inhibit clarity?
Re:Brin too incompetent to review (Score:1)
A ten-year-old who scores 100 on an IQ test has, by the current definition, a "raw score" equal to the mean raw score that other ten-year-olds get on the test. Scoring 115 or 116 (depending on which version of the test you take) means your raw score is one standard deviation above the mean, 130 or 132 means two standard deviations, and so on.
I'm not impressed (Score:3)
The piece on Lucas' archetypal storytelling style was, I admit, thought-provoking. I disagree with about everything he says, but it WAS thought-provoking. However, I do think that Brin doth protest too much. As it happens, he's got an entirely different paradigm he's pushing. Consequently, his "analysis" actually becomes an advocacy article. He's not saying, "Lucas got it wrong here"; he's saying, "Pick me! Pick MY way of doing things!"
In other words, when he asks who nominated Lucas to preach his morality through his medium, he might wish to consider that the same question applies to him.
That piece I disagreed with, but his "analysis" of the Phantom Menace I found downright malicious. I don't think I agree with a single criticism he made. I'll try to keep my point-by-point stuff short, but here goes:
* Age of Anakin--the movie could have done a better job of making this clear, but in the Terry Brooks novelization it's explicit that potential Jedis are "recruited" at six months. "Ripping from the breast" might be entirely appropriate. It also lends credence to the Council's extreme reluctance to accept Anakin; at his age, he's far too fully formed to be trusted, yet they don't want a loose cannon roaming around. Nor, however, do they want to "sanction" him by full acceptance, hence the unusual remedy. The seeds are sown.
* More seeds: Obi-Wan's anger in destroying Darth Maul. Folks, _this is not a good thing!_ Not only does it open the Sith apprentice vacancy, it creates (or reveals) a flaw in Kenobi that will later manifest itself in Vader. When talking about anger and emotion and Lucas' approach to them, Brin should go back and read some Martin Luther King on violence and anger (I think "Letter From Birmingham Jail" or various versions of "I Have A Dream" contain the relevant thoughts.)
* Cliches: it's odd that Brin acknowledges that Lucas is retelling an old, old story and then chastises him for using cliches.
* Self-indulgences: It's Episode I. It's called "laying groundwork."
* Political situation (Naboo, "Originality"): Naboo is important specifically because _Senator Palpatine_ represents it in the Senate. It's his political opportunism that makes it important (as well as his willingness to use the "common people" he represents as power pawns--this foreshadows the manevolence of the man which is never explicitly stated in Phantom.) As for the "boring" charge, I think the philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the term "banality of evil" to describe the Nuremberg trials. It all started so innocently, and it was just politics as usual, right....?
* "Elitism" of Force: No, the Force didn't all of a sudden get a elite genetic deterministic cause. Those who have _abnormal concentrations_ are trained as Jedi in the old days (and suffer from the exclusivity and secretiveness common to cloistered groups.) By the time of Episode IV, the pickings are far more slim. Besides, it might even signify a _growing_ egalitarianism.
Finally, I think it is fair to make the Nazi Germany allusion as Lucas deliberately uses Nazi imagery in his opus. However, Brin's use of the metaphor is clumsy. No, we would not pardon Hitler. We might, however, pardon the hypothetical master lieutenant who, having been the major force in building the Third Reich, also became one of the major forces in overthrowing it (by killing Hitler, to maintain the analogy). Darth Vader is supposed to have been _redeemed_. (Personally, I find that a higher value than nicer institutions of the future.) The desire to think of the Jedi masters as being in "Jedi Hell" is very, very petty of Brin. Apparently there are scales of some sort; once you commit all that evil, there's not enough good to do to "offset" it, eh?
In summation, I don't care how well the man writes science fiction novels. He flies poor colors here.
Re:David Brin -- UGH! (Score:1)
You want leading edge, original SF, with fleshed out characters and a kick-ass plot? Check out Peter F. Hamilton's Reality Dysfunction series. This guy is the best SF author I have read in a long time, simply amazing.
Brin not exactly innocent of his own charges (Score:1)
At the end of his novel "Earth", the end is all wrapped up nice-n-tidy with a cliched deus ex machina that leaves (*mostly* benevolent) semi-devine authority figure in charge.
I thought it was a great book, but I wouldn't take it any more seriously than TPM.
This guy wrote The Postman?!?!? (Score:1)
Man, I really, really hated that movie. It was just so stupid and just left a really bad mark in my brain. Sorry, had to vent that off.
We're not just doing this for money ... (Score:1)
| right after the battle of endor. it is revealed
| that solo comes from a line of displaced
| corellian kings.
I'm not a big enough of a Star Wars fan to actually read the novels (they're movies
You know, even if the story of the Star Wars movies doesn't turn out to be all that great, we have it to thank for such wonderful films as _Spaceballs_
Re:Godwin's Law: it's not just for USENET anymore (Score:1)
"Who the heck nominated George Lucas to preach sick, popcorn morality at our children? If it's "only a movie," why is he working so hard to fill his films with this crap?"
Who nominated him? Well, duh! The people who went and bought tickets for the freakin' movie. If you don't like Lucas's politics, don't subsidize them. Me, I don't give a damn about his politics, I like his movies, and I (and, I believe, most other humans) am smart enough to differentiate between the two.
Re:Brin - hypocritical totaltarian! (Score:1)
Re:This guy wrote The Postman?!?!? (Score:1)
Just so you know, the movie doesn't follow the book, and I agree the movie sucked hard. However the book was awesome.
Re:Darth Maul (Score:1)
Re:Brin - hypocritical totaltarian! (Score:1)
I'm pretty sure you mean Mr. Lucas.
As far as the english accents go, it certainly made the movie(s) feel more epic and classic for me. Luke and Han serve as the grubby, hands-on counterpoint to the english types.
-kabloie
Re:Personal Grudge? (Score:1)
He wrote 'The Postman'? The flick that Costner did? Maybe _that's_ why he's pissed off.
-kabloie
Re:Brin - hypocritical totaltarian! (Score:2)
>parliment since Cromwell's days?
I don't know why I'm replying to a three week old post (guess I'll email the author
Queens are for the little girls (Score:2)
>The title of "queen" is probably used to be
>evocative for the movie because that makes her a
>special character, and likely because she is
>not a democraticly elected political figure.
Little girls want daddy to take them to movies with princesses & queens. Trust me on this
If princess Leia had been just senator leia, mine would no doubt have liked the movies, but the princess (ok, and "the gold guy", not to be confused with "the glass guy" from Toy Story) gave them a focal point.
And to use modern words that I'm suspicious of, they could find worse role models than Leia . .
Re:Thinking it over . . . (Score:1)
or maybe I'm just a Lucas apologist. You make the call. : )
Re:Why do people miss this???? (Score:1)
Whether Naboo signed the treaty or the Trade Federation fell is completely unimportant. (The "Phantom Menace" refered to by the title is the Trade Federation.) The only thing that happened in the entire movie that was important in any way to the Star Wars universe was Palpatine's ascention in the Senate.
At least Brin gave us more meat than Lucas did. (Score:2)
* Naboo is conquered by a merciless alien army, its people rounded up in concentration camps. Wouldn't a few scenes of devastated cities and brutalized citizens have helped to set the proper tone? As portrayed, the invasion had all the impact of a bloodless palace coup.
* Anakin Skywalker is such a good little boy, without the slightest hint of a mean streak that might one day develop into a personality like Darth Vader's. Wouldn't it have been far more intriguing if his miraculous victories had been undeserved, his awesome proto-Jedi powers something of a fraud? Instead of having the simpleton bad guy in the pod race sabotage Anakin's pod, why not reverse the roles, and have Anakin cheat his way to success? Especially if Anakin's sabotage inadvertantly results in the bad guy's death - and the precocious little hero shows no remorse... Likewise, when Anakin just happens to make the right moves to blow up the space station in the final battle, wouldn't it have been far more satisfying if R2D2 had been silently pulling the space fighter's strings all along? And then the loyal droid lets Anakin disingenously take credit for the kill...
* Obi Wan is a priceless gem of an apprentice, as obediant as Robin the Boy Wonder. Couldn't he have exhibited some of the crusty recalcitrance so charmingly cultivated by the elder Obi Wan? Just a bit of chafing under Qui Gon's imperious mandates, a little jealousy of his mentor's sudden interest in the annoying little slave boy. Why not have Obi Wan taken in by the fake transmission from Naboo, conspire with Amidala to secretly respond to the plea for help, thus naively tipping off Darth Maul to their location on Tatooine?
* Darth Maul is obviously a pawn who's only genuine purpose is to take out Qui Gon. Instead of simply having Obi Wan dispatch Darth Maul in the end, Lucas could have deepened his plot by having Palpatine/Darth Sidious double-cross him. Here's the rationale: Palpatine forsees Anakin's destiny to become his apprentice and intuits Obi Wan's future role as Anakin's first mentor in the ways of the force. Palpatine intervenes at the critical moment as Darth Maul is about to nail Obi Wan, distracting the arrogant Sithling with his Phantom Projection Power, giving Obi Wan an opening to slice the bastard in half. George, if you need help, I'm available...
* Queen Amidala. Ok, so the handmaiden trick was pretty good, but it could have been better. Qui Gon doesn't want her tagging along, right? So couldn't he have treated her with something less than respect, maybe a little gruff exasperation? This would have at least given Qui Gon some mild embarrassment to portray when her identity is later revealed. And don't you think the intrepid band got along just a little too cozily on Tatooine? Wasn't there supposed to have been some animosity between Amidala's and Jar Jar's species? A few withering remarks directed at that ridiculous geek would have gone a long way...
Re:Heinlein: an interesting dichotomy (Score:1)
>libertarian / anarchist ideals). He was at times unbelievably optomistic about the future, and at other times terribly pessemistic.
I don't think the views that Heinlein expressed were contradictory per se. If you state them in those terms, maybe, but I think what he portrayed in his writings was his faith in those who were willing to take self-responsibility, and his contempt was for those unwilling to do so. (Sadly, most of humanity.)
>I think there is a very real danger of reading too much into a person from the fiction that they wrote.
In the case of Heinlein, what he wrote was usually what he professed to believe. Check out some of his non-fiction works to see the corollaries. I think you can read a lot into the fiction someone writes. People portray what they know in the things they write. Their character interactions, their tone in regards to the material, all show a lot of the writer's views. But I think Brin seizes on only the aspects of TPM that he wants to see, and ignores the rest. We can read a lot about HIS character from his review, anyway...
Re:Had to comment on plot holes... (Score:2)
"Sorry to pick your post to comment on, but it illustrated the point I want to make better than some others."
No problem - isn't that why the Internet was invented?
"So quick are we to judge a plot hole as an error. We see an inconsistency like you've pointed out above, and automatically assume that it's wrong. What if it is just a significant fact?"
Well, that's certainly possible. However, I would find it easier to accept if there were more structure or coherency to either the economics or politics of the SW universe. One never gets (or at least _I_ never get) from TPM a sense that there is a workable social structure working behind the scenes.
"Slate" had a similar discussion about the econmics of SW [slate.com]. Contrast that with the world Tolkien created: I have run across 300 page, thesis-quality discussions of the economics of Middle Earth.
Oh well, it really is just entertainment and in the long run no big deal. But I guess what bothers me is how much better it could have been.
sPh
Re:The Worst (Pre) Sequel Ever (Score:1)
I wouldnt put it as strongly as you did, but I dony think its that good a movie.
Zackly! (SPOILER, I guess) (Score:1)
The way I figure, Palpatine had some sort of master plan for a power play involving Naboo. Something like: the real goal was to become Chancellor. So, he wanted to call attention to the weakness of the system, presenting himself as a new source of strength. By (covertly) encouraging the Trade Federation to make trouble (in general; way before the Naboo embargo), he created a crisis situation, which would call attention to the weak state of things -- no doubt he was vocally opposing the Federation's position all along. Maybe it was going too slowly, or maybe it was the plan all along, but eventually he decided to bring matters to a head by having the Federation do something drastic. Since he was their most vocal opponent, his home planet was their most logical target, so they blockaded it. This made his position in the situation even more prominent. Under the original master plan, the power play was probably still some way off, but the Jedi showed up at Naboo, forcing him to accelerate things.
He wasn't counting on the Queen escaping (not only was he displeased when it happened, he sent Maul to try to catch them), but her arrival as Coruscant made things even better for him: it gave "his" side even more visibility and sympathy, and provided a sooner-than-expected opportunity to depose the old Chancellor and get himself nominated to succeed him ("A surprise, to be sure, but... a pleasant one.")
He was not looking too happy when she announced that she was going back home, but the gears started turning even as he attempted to dissuade her, and did you catch the faintest hint of a smile on one side of his mouth just as the scene faded? He probably figured that at worst, he was back where he started, with her back home as a sympathetic figure, but more so, because the Senate had seen her in person, and with the added bonus of her having helped depose the old Chancellor. Only now, she was leading a hopeless resistance effort, rather than simply being held captive -- hence, an even more sympathetic figure than before. Most likely, she would be killed, letting him play on the guilt of those who refused to help her ("If you'd only done something when I first asked you to..."). Or she could be captured, leaving him back where he started. Or, if the impossible happened and she actually won, he would not only have the moral high ground, but be the representative of the winning side, all but guaranteeing his election.
Basically, everything they did played perfectly into Palpatine's hands, even better than he probably hoped. So, to answer Brin's question --
Uh
-- Naboo was not important, except as a playing piece, because it happened to be Palpatine's homeworld and the world whose Senator he was. The invasion was only a Phantom Menace.
To me, what made the movie good was seeing these little subtleties and trying to figure out what was really going on "between the frames", integrating and reconciling it with what I had seen in, and subsequently theorized about, the original movies. This movie can't be taken in a vacuum. The big picture that is formed when you consider all the movies together and apply some thought -- that is what is really interesting.
Brin missed all this and, as others have pointed out, much of his criticism is based on the mistaken claim that Vader destroyed Alderaan in A New Hope when it was Tarkin, not Vader, who gave the order, so I would say that he didn't really pay close enough attention. However, I have to agree with his criticisms of some of the moral messages, such as judging by appearances, elitism, and the failings of democracy.
David Gould
Future!?!?! (Score:1)
Doesn't this all happen long ago in a galaxy far far away?
Boy, Brin must hate a lot of SF/fantasy... (Score:1)
Maybe his point was that this motif is a tired cliche because it's so widely used, but if so he articulated it very poorly. Between that and the abomination that was the Postman, I doubt I'll be buying any of Brin's books any time soon.
You're wrong about Brin's beliefs on privacy (Score:2)
Brin doesn't believe that "privacy is a tool of evil". Rather, he believes that privacy is doomed, so the closest we can come to freedom is to make sure that privacy gets invaded equally: not only can the cops watch you, but you can watch the cops. It's a provocative point of view, one that I'm not sure I agree with, but those attempting to smear him for it, distorting his position, are either ignorant or just evil.
And, of course, movies are propaganda, the most effective kind. Why shouldn't we take a billion-dollar industry seriously?
Re:Godwin's Law: it's not just for USENET anymore (Score:2)
I mean, Darth Vadar is a ficticious symbol of evil incarnate, so who else do you compare to but the person who has become the real life symbol? Vadar murdered the population of an entire planet, yet we're expected to forgive him in the end. Making the comparison highlights the absurdity of the story in way that almost anybody can understand.
Of course, you're using similar straw-man techniques: characterizing Brin as a Stalinist, making the false assertion that he believes privacy is evil, and then invoking the image of a Marxist pomo reactionary.
Brin has a doctorate in astrophysics, is one of the most acclaimed of current science fiction authors, and has vaguely anarchist/libertarian political views (focused on pragmatism as opposed to ideology). Yet, because he questions your assumptions on privacy, and has the gall to criticize popular entertainment as propoganda, he's suddenly a homongenizing, hair-splitting postmodernist, Soviet-style communist?
Anyone else see the irony here?
David Brin's rhetorical offenses (Score:5)
I think David Brin does an excellent job of contrasting George Lucas' style of fiction with David Brin's style of fiction. There is a lot of validity to his obeservations about the differences between a hero story and an everyman story. However, unlike (apparently) David Brin I think there is a place for both in our popular mythology. Now, when an author contrasts his own point of view with someone else's it would be unrealistic to expect him to present a perfectly balanced view; however, I think Brin goes overboard in these articles. The Godwin's Law implications of his Nazi allusions have been mentioned by others, but what I notice is that his treatment of Star Wars is both uncharitable and unfaithful to Lucas' films.
By ``uncharitable,'' I mean that given two or more ways to interpret a passage from the film, Brin invariably chooses the most harmful. For example, the scene: a dysfunctional Senate divided by its internal politics and unable to act decisively in the face of an incipient crisis. Brin interprets this as an indictment of our democratic institutions and a glorification of autocracy. But is it really? Lucas' portrayal of the Senate would be viewed as a cautionary tale about what happens when we allow our democratic institutions to drift too far out of touch with the people they government, perhaps something along the lines of ``Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.''
Another example: Brin interprets Lucas' larger than life heroes as ``demigods.'' The heroes greatness (Brin claims) suggests that we ordinary mortals need not concern ourselves with great matters; we lack the wit and the strength. Okay, but isn't it possible that Lucas (and Homer, and all the rest) meant for us to aspire to be like their heroes. Of course, we will fall short of their greatness, but the only way for us to reach our maximal potential is to aim higher than any mortal could achieve, lest we set our goals too low. I can't say for certain the either of these two interpretations is what Lucas had in mind, but I can't believe that they didn't at least cross Brin's mind; yet, he dismisses them without mention.
Brin is also unfaithful to Lucas' films. That is, he invents specious objections that are not supported by the films themselves. For instance, he lowers Anakin's age, objections to Darth Vader not recognizing C3PO (if they ever met face to face I don't remember it, and protocol droids all look pretty much alike), ascribing the decision to allow Obi-Wan to train Anakin to Yoda (Yoda was against it; he goes along with the council's wishes despite his misgivings--so much for autocracy), and so on. In fact, almost everything beyond Brin's analysis of the hero story vs. the everyman story is based on one sort of strained interpretation of the action on the screen. It says to me that either he did not watch the movies particularly carefully, or that he's digging up mud to create a mood which makes his readers more antagonistic toward Lucas' films, and therefore more receptive toward Brin's own theses.
Now, look, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that TPM was a perfect film, nor that Star Wars is a perfect saga. I cringed at the ``medichlorians'' and the virgin birth mumbo-jumbo just like everyone else. I do, however, think it was a fine film, and it deserved better than Brin was giving it here. But, more than that, in what is essentially a political debate over ``elitism'' vs. ``egalitarianism'' I want to see an honest assessment of the two sides. In this respect Brin fails miserably, and I think that such overt proselytizing is far more harmful than whatever message ``the children'' (somehow it's always about protecting the children, isn't it?) may have gotten from TPM.
-r
What about Han? (Score:2)
-BH
Brin - hypocritical totaltarian! (Score:3)
I like the basic Aristotle/Phonetics style of plot conception in star wars. These types of stories are/can be exciting and interesting. Brin suggests that these types of stories are evil because they rely on ideas he disagrees with. He goes on to suggest (agree with others) that the foundation of popular culture does alter our opinions. I think he should do a web survey and find out how many people woh have seen star wars agree with Adolf Hitler's actions (he appears to be somewhat obsessed with him -- perhaps someone should refer him to Godwin's law). He essintially is saying Aristotle Phoenitc type plots are bad because they reinforce old ideas. Maybe they do for him -- but for me they convey basic human emotions and actions on a grander level. In star wars, Anakin becomes disillusioned -- which leads to him turning aray -- however his love for his son brings him back. Hell, I'm sure many people go through this on their own level -- one oculd even say some teenagers go through this same cycle. Lucas portrays this moral through a grand and flashy movie instead of a really borring one based completely on reality.
He then complains that Lucas doesn't base any of the concepts in his movies on his pride and joy -- democracy. If I recall correctly, the queen distinctly said "I was not ELECTED" -- that suggests democracy to me. Lucas also depicts the reality of democracy not the fairy tale Brin wants it to be. So what! His illogicities about the senate and the naboo are completely unfounded -- UN!. Most of his illogicities are unfounded.
Reguarding Yoda's quote, "I thought it was fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to the dark side". A continous quote implies to me that anger DERIVED from fear leads to the dark side. Not anger by itself which is what apparently Brin thinks. This is demonstrated many times in star wars. In TPM, the apprentice is angry -- his anger isn't derived from fear -- but for the loss of his master, therfore there is no illogicity in him defeating the sith. In Return of the Jedi, when Luke faces the emperor -- his anger is derived from fear (for the loss of rebellion) -- he gets wrecked.
As for Yoda's neglect of Anakin in TPM -- that would suggest that the counsil doesn't take the metachlorian shit seriously. I thought the virgin birth was a nice contrast -- I even saw it as an allusion to relgion/atheism.
Anyway, I could keep going, but I'll stop here. It appears to me Brin has some personal grudge against Lucas -- perhaps jealousy?
Re:Why do people miss this???? (Score:2)
1) The movie plot: she doesn't sign the treaty (which Palpatine probably predicted, given her impetuous youth and personality), and the Federation attacks, thus giving him the scandal necessary to be elected Chancellor.
2) She does sign the treaty, Palpatine takes credit for bringing this standoff to a peaceful close, thus gaining power both in the Senate, and of course over the planet he represents (now is is likely that he will lose his senate seat if he rules the planet!?)
3) She doesn't sign the treaty, he sends the Federation army, and instead of being defeated by a stroke of pure luck, this time they win (probably what Palpatine predicted). Now Palpatine uses sympathy to gather an army from others in the Senate, handily defeats the federation army, and is lauded by all as a liberator. Unfortunately, he neglects to return control over his new armies, and uses his fame and newfound army to leverage his influence in the Senate.
No matter what happens, Palpetine wins! The Naboo planet is simply a convenient tool.
Doug
Re:Were we expecting an Oscar-winning film? (Score:2)
I wasn't expecting an Oscar-winning movie, or series of movies. I was expecting something other than the perpetuation of the "elites" as Brin puts it.
Terms like "Republic" and "Empire" aside, the movie really is just a civil war within the Royal Family of that Galaxy. Choose your side; you're still a thrall.
The explosions and effects were cool (well, most of them), but I want more from the stuff I watch.
--
Thinking it over . . . (Score:2)
1) There are some serious logic/plot holes in the story.
2) Some of these are due to an elitist/uberman viewpoint in the story.
3) There are distinct differences between the first three films and TPM.
4) I don't care if Darth Vader saved his son, I'd still hang him high if he got to trial for war crimes. Redemption is nice, but there are some people you don't take chances with.
It seems Star Wars has degenerated (or always had traits of) a power trip story. Brin's question, which universe would I live in is simple - the Federation. There I'm not an extra.