Go to Star Trek VS. Star Wars-- A BIG DIFFERENCE
- Add a comment
- Go to Trekkies beware of the message in the media
Ehem...
Amen!
posted by
arGee
on
July 15, 2006
at
12:00 PM
| |
reply
After finally reviewing the movie on my VCR
We are straining at gnats here, based on a Hollywood producer's idea of entertainment. George Lucas wanted to enhance the indecision, the ambivalence of the characters. This heightens the empathy of the movie audience. This increases the movie's popularity, and thus it's profits.
However, I must object to your final statement, to quote in its complete form with typographical errors, in the interests of accuracy: "Vader wa able to make up for his past mistakes in one action, an action that he should have done a long time ago but he was weak due ot believing that aggression and violence are the right ways to deal with problems."
This "action" you refer to is the dramatic decision of Darth Vader to save his son by physically picking up the Emperor and throwing His Highness into the conveniently deep abyss of the Death Star, an obvious act of aggression and violence. This seems to have solved the problem of an evil Emperor and saved the entire Galaxy from his tyranny. So in the end, aggression and violence WAS THE RIGHT WAY to deal with that particular problem.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
December 17, 2004
at
9:57 PM
| |
reply
You must have seen a different movie then
Luke is about to destroy Vader because Vader had threatened Liea. Luke suddenly becomes more aggressive through is love for Liea and letting that love overpower his judgment. As he is ready to deliver an obvious death blow to Vader, he is given a moment to catch his thoughts and see that the violence is the wrong way if he truly wishes to win. He could have killed Vader and ended that part of it, but it would have cost him everything that was important to him. He saw that ti was better if he died then and there than become what he was fighting against (Just look back to Empire and the cave scene to really see this clearly) and so he was ready to allow himself ot die before becoming the enemy, completely the opposite what Bush is doing right now. Remember that Luke looked at his driod hand and then at Vader's missing driod hand and that made him see things clearly.
Vader then saw what Luke did and realized that his son had just done what he should have done all those years ago. Vader found a strength in Luke' strength to be passive and stay true above being aggressive and winning at the sacrifice of who you are. You have to see that Vader could have recovered form Luke's attack. Once Luke stopped Vader had lost nothing but his replaceable hand. Vader wa able to make up for his past mistakes in one action, an action he should have done a long time ago but he was weak due ot believing that aggression and violence are the right ways to deal with problems.
posted by
kooka_lives
on
November 26, 2004
at
3:47 PM
| |
reply
Kooka
No doubt you have drawn the lesson from Star Wars that was intended by its producers. You are of like mind, so of course you would agree with them.
However, it is not the violence of fighting that leads to the "dark side". By Yoda's own words, "fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." Those who fight from EMOTION, fall down that dark path. Those who fight in the interests of Love and Justice are immune to its dark attraction. The fighting is a mechanical, physical necessity to oppose the physical actions of evil people.
You suggest that "Vader is saved due to Luke becoming passive aggressive at the end there." I do not agree. The father-son exchange became possible only AFTER Luke defeated Vader in battle. When Vader was dying and helpless, deprived of all the privilege and power he had taken from others, he chose to reach out to his son. Luke responded in kind. This is what good warriors do: respond in kind to their adversary, with keen vision and intuition. It is entirely steadfast and consistent. There was no "passive aggressive" psychosis involved. First Luke responded to the evil attack, defeated the enemy, then he responded to the love. Exactly the right responses, at the right times, for the right reasons.
Follow your delusions comparing Bush to the Emperor if you wish. The fictional Emperor was a lot smarter than Bush. Bush is not capable of such brilliant deception, even if he was an evil man. I think the next 4 years will prove you wrong. Bush is doing what he feels necessary to protect American interests. And I happen to agree with him, in large part.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 22, 2004
at
11:22 PM
| |
reply
Interesting
Since Star Wars ends by Luke seeing that fighting only leads to the darkside and so it ends up that Vader is saved due to Luke becoming passive aggressive at the end there. Would that not say that the classic trilogy really is saying that in the end wars are a waste, it is the power of opposing the wars that leads to victory? Also remember one of Yoda's great quotes 'Wars not make one great'. The Jedi themselves are peaceful and generally try for the passive stance, very much against fighting. Star Trek was much more about going to war over every single little thing and how heroic one can be by fighting, which seems to be a more conservative idea than passive agressiveness.
Right now I see Bush becoming more and more like the Emperor. In fact I find it a little scary at how close what Bush is doing seems to be following the prequel story line so well. Get yourself into a position of power, lie to the people you reside over and play both sides of a war where either way you come out looking good, and through the fear of that war get laws passed that will give you specially powers and take away the rights of other as well as allow for you to be able to go around the regular system to get things done because you are claming it to be for their own good. To me it obvious that the Star Wars films opening speak against the way Bush is doing things.
posted by
kooka_lives
on
November 21, 2004
at
8:34 AM
| |
reply
That was a GOOD comment, Kay-Ren!
No need to delete that comment! I never delete an optimistic comment. I don't about transporters, but I have an open mind about future technology. It is amazing what is happening just with computers, when you think about what is happening between my keyboard and yours, just to get these words on each others' screen. Artifical intelligence may be possible. We will someday be able to build computers superior to the human brain. We won't be able to breathe life into them like a god, but electricity will serve the purpose.
With my post, I was more into the philosophical differences between Star Trek and Star Wars. Majroj was right, they are both liberal, but I think one is more so than the other.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
February 22, 2004
at
8:57 PM
| |
reply
Okay I shouldn't have hit 'add comment'
Sorry about that. Amazing that out of that whole post about some big issues, I got snagged on that one. I really don't know myself sometimes.
posted by
Kay-Ren
on
February 22, 2004
at
11:54 AM
| |
reply
Darn it I was going to bring up Heinlien. I popped over to your posts, Golden, to give you a thanks for reading my boobs post and I agree with your statement about it being possible for boobs to get to big. What was going to be a quick hit and run, turned into a long stay when Star Trek caught my eye.
I can totally see your points on a lot of this. I don't agree that we never will achieve transporters and such. That kind of thinking by a scientist alarms me. Maybe I'm not a realist but I have to agree with Heinlien on this. If we haven't figured out how to make something a reality we just aren't seeing correct angles. Let's take psychic phenomenon for example. It's been documented, witnessed and all that stuff but because we can't reproduce it whenever we want so it's dismissed as unreal. I believe that we just haven't discovered the energy source behind the experienced phenomenon and how to harness it reliably.
When it comes to technology we have come so far in such a short time. I will be surprised if we don't have transporters in my lifetime. We keep expanding our knowledge and discovering new aspects of reality. Take physics. When I was in High School physics wasn't offered and now it's required. Math has expanded by leaps and bounds. In my High School, if you wanted to take algebra you had to practically beg to be in the class.
Really looking back at what we've accomplished in the last twenty years, the world has changed greatly. A few new inventions that I can think of off the top of my head that demonstrate this are, hybrid cars, DVD's, bagless vacuum cleaners, Starbucks, probing Mars, another earth type planet discovered a couple blocks over, and there is so much more that we didn't think could happen. I mean really, twenty years ago if you told me I would pay five bucks for a cup of coffee and be happy about it, I would have called you nuts.
My gut is telling me not to hit that add comment button below because I'm way sleepy. I'm going to hit it and hope that this all made sense. Great post by the way. Thanks for the things to ponder! I'm sure to have great dreams tonight.
posted by
Kay-Ren
on
February 22, 2004
at
2:01 AM
| |
reply
Yes those lines in the sand.....
and standing on those lines are what we need to work on. For when we fail to do that, we lose the whole conflict by default. But we have to try to come up with some kind of definition of good and evil. You should go over to the US category and check out one of the blogs in Brent's polemics. He asked us (mostly me) to define evil, and we are having a blast trying to do it. The same argument spread into some of my blogs and the blogs of PG SCOTT over in Religion & Spirituality. Why don't you join in, Majroj?
posted by
GoldenMean
on
December 3, 2003
at
7:58 PM
| |
reply
Hello, Majroj...
I didn't make it to the War College, because I opted out of the Army while still a Captain (Armor). I will look up Hack's article, thanks for the reference. Star Wars may have some liberal elements, but I think it is far less liberal than Star Trek.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
December 3, 2003
at
7:53 PM
| |
reply
PS: Read Hackworth et al 's "WWIII" and it's sequel
Should have been required for War College.
posted by
majroj
on
November 30, 2003
at
10:48 PM
| |
reply
They are both liberal. They are both fantasy, not sci fi.
People just can't get the fact that good and evil graduate into one another and that it is a matter of how your were raised as to whether someone or thing is "evil" or not. We have to draw the lines in the sand and stand by them, and decide when and if those lines need extending, shortening, or repositioning.
I was sharing some really good barbeque at an Aerojet engineer/scientist's place last summer, and we were having a good time discussing how people cannot get it through thier heads that it is all fiction, people, fiction, not a shred of science in it, there will never teleporters or universal translators or space cannons that fire pulses of visible plasma at subsonic speeds at other sleek spacecraft, which by the way maneuver and accelerate like a Corvette crossed with a Piper Cub.
Mind you, we speak with authority because we each have seen all the shows, and have been SF fans since we were wee ones. Inspired us to try, him science, me the military and my former adventurous jobs. Plus, pssst, don't look now, but a lot of what Robert Heinlein was talking about has come true.....
posted by
majroj
on
November 30, 2003
at
10:42 PM
| |
reply
Yes, Golden...
...I am a Senior Editor at DefenseWatch. The articles that appear here under that blog are from my columns at that publication.
posted by
arGee
on
November 30, 2003
at
10:18 PM
| |
reply
Both, I guess...
I was mainly referring to the online DefenseWatchMagazine, which I thought you were connected with somehow. I used one of your links to jump over there. Colonel Hackworth (I have read 2 of his books) is associated with it, I believe. But I have also read posts at your own Defensewatch here on BN. Keep up the excellent work.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 17, 2003
at
7:43 PM
| |
reply
I presume, GoldenMean...
...that you are refering to the online
DefenseWatch Magazine, not to my
DefenseWatch posts here on BN?
posted by
arGee
on
November 17, 2003
at
11:21 AM
| |
reply
We are indeed fellow travelers....
...on a philosophical path. Not the same views, but our views support each other in many cases. I have read a lot of your stuff. I especially appreciate your reporting of events and issues in DefenseWatch. Keep up the excellent work! Or should I say...... live long and prosper.
posted by
GoldenMean
on
November 16, 2003
at
12:46 PM
| |
reply
What an absolutely delightful exposition
I have long held similar views to yours regarding both Star Trek and Star Wars. Just two days ago, I was retelling the Star Trek episode where Kirk is "captured" by the enigmatic "person" who turns out to be "Jehova" AND simultaneously the small, mischevious child of a vastly superior race. (I have forgotten his name.)
You appear to be a person whose thought pattern parallels mine in many ways. I will be paying more attention to your material in the future.
posted by
arGee
on
November 16, 2003
at
8:50 AM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
