Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Ramesh Dusts Off His Crystal Ball | Main | B16 On Christmas Presents »

December 15, 2006

Comments

Tim M.

Brilliant!!!

it seems that Beauty is not the only thing that is in the eye of the beholder...

... perspective is too

But NOT truth! Truth is not a matter of perspecitve. Truth is truth. Period.

Jesus is God and is the True Savior of the World and 2 + 2 = 4... even if not one person on earth believe this.

As St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome (3.4) "Let God be true though every man be false."

Tim J.

Straight photography ROCKS!

bill912

Yeah. "Return of the Jedi" is where Lucas lost me. I haven't seen a "Star Wars" movie since.

Jared

I'm a bit more forgiving of Lucas. I actually like ROTJ and thought Ep.1 was bad but redeemed itself with Ray Park's wushu. Then, I saw Hayden Christenson whine for and hour-and-a-half ("I wanna be a Jediiiiiiii! C'mon guys! I kin be a Jedi too!") and didn't bother with Ep. 3. But even the earliest of the films (as much as I like it) is frought with New Age philosophy.

David B.

Episode III was mush better than episode II, Jaded, uh, I mean Jared.

You should check it out.

James

I always enjoy taking these kind of pictures. I have a few lying around that were taken while backpacking. Nothing like getting a mountain in the background and posing like you are climbing it.

You should look for the 'invisible desktop' laptop pictures. They are pretty cool as well.

Esau

Shortly hereupon Mr. Rich (afterwards Lord Rich) then newly the King's Solicitor, Sir Richard Southwell, and Mr. Palmer, servant to the Secretary, were sent to Sir Thomas More into the Tower, to fetch away his books from him.

And while Sir Richard Southwell and Mr. Palmer were busy in trussing up of his books...


Mr. Rich pretending friendly talk with him, among other things of a set course, as it seemed, said thus unto him: "Forasmuch as it is well known (Mr. More) that you are a man both wise and well learned, as well in the laws of the Realm, as otherwise, I pray you therefore, Sir, let me be so bold as of good will to put unto you this case. Admit there were, Sir," quoth he, "an Act of Parliament, that all the Realm should take me for the King, would not you (Mr. More) take me for the King?"

"Yes, Sir," quoth Sir Thomas More, "that would I."

"I put the case further" (quoth Mr. Rich) "that there were an Act of Parliament that all the Realm should take me for the Pope; would then not you, Mr. More, take me for the Pope?"

"For answer," quoth Sir Thomas More, "to your first case, the Parliament may well (Mr. Rich) meddle with the state of temporal princes; but to make answer to your second case, I will put you this case. Suppose the Parliament would make a law, that God should not be God, would you then, Mr. Rich, say God were not God?"

"No, Sir," quoth he, "that would I not, since no Parliament may make any such law."

"No more" (said Sir Thomas More, as Mr. Rich reported of him) "could the Parliament make the King supreme head of the Church."

Tim J.

Wrong thread, Esau?

Tim J.

Oh, and all the Star Wars films after The Empire Strikes Back have been abysmal.

IMO.

Esau

Wrong thread, Esau?

Actually, I was trying to relate something more along the lines of what Tim M. had mentioned earlier, that:

Truth is not a matter of perspecitve. Truth is truth. Period

But, after all I've been 'spewing' today, I'm not surprise why you'd think that. ;^)

Mary

Retconning your works is always such fun. (In the novelization of Star Wars, that scene was told from Obi-Wan's POV, and he explicitly thinks that he can not take refuge in a comfortable lie.)

Bugenhagen

Sir Alec Guiness, a Catholic convert, and a real and devout Catholic although a struggle with certain perverse habits of the flesh that are celebrated today--thought they were terrible movies and the qoutes and language terrible. He did earn a percentage of the income on them though.

At the time they were amazing cinematagrophy. Last one was weak. Lost some respect for Sabra Natale Portman.

Obvious New Age and/or Eastern (eastern not as in Christian Orthodox or Catholic Eastern Rite but as in Hindu--Buddhist) thought in Star Wars with the Force etc.

rsps

Hey, the guy in the second picture kind of looks like Captain Picard... Maybe that's why Her royal highness meshes so well with his face. I think we have a new conspiracy theory, a dna test is in order. 10 points to whoever can come up with an explination for it which involves 'time travel' and insidious robotic cockroaches, and the molecular construction of English tea.

Randolph Carter

Great photos! I especially liked the one of the cat whose head defies Euclidean Geometry and bends time and space to its own will (I always knew that there wasn't something right about those felines -- to quote myself: "That cat's not human!").

Still, I will never, for the life of me, understand why everyone seems intent on knocking "Return of the Jedi". I think this has more to do with a sort of irrational hatred of the Ewoks than anything else. Yes, I do loathe and despise the fact that the Ewoks look like teddy bears; but if they had looked more like, say, Jawas, I think that people would be much more forgiving of them (because everyone loves Jawas). My biggest problem with the film is that it had to have the Rebels assault a second Death Star, instead of something more original (like a super-fortified Imperial Palace). Yet the film itself, despite its flaws, is at least as good as the first STARWARS.

Also:

But NOT truth! Truth is not a matter of perspecitve. Truth is truth. Period.

Truth *is* a matter of perspective; if you find the *correct* perspective, then you will find the truth. At least, that's my perspective on the issue.

Tim J.

"My biggest problem with the film is that it had to have the Rebels assault a second Death Star"

My biggest problem was that at the end of the movie, for no adequately explored reason, and with absolutely no character development, the second most evil guy in the galaxy - Darth Vader - turns into Santa Claus, rescuing his son from the bad old Emperor.

Then at the end, he and Obi Wan and Yoda all stand there glowing.

I certainly don't mind the theme of redemption and repentance, but throw me a bone! Vader just turns on a dime with no exploration of his inner struggle at all. That might have made an interesting movie, but instead we are treated to high speed chases, explosions and fuzzy teddies, not to mention ANOTHER Death Star. What an anti-climax!

Vader's transformation reminds me of Mermaidman's nemesis, ManRay, saying "How I long to be... good!!"

The only thing worse was Vader's contrived history in the prequels.

Fah!

David B.

Tim J.

May I suggest that Vader was 'thrown a bone' by Luke. Remember, Vader turned to the Dark Side for 'love' of Padme, and now, after all these years, he sees the result of that love, Luke, dying from the hatred of the Emperor. He then remembers all that was once good in him and the love he once bore for Luke(albeit even before his birth). He then rejects the Dark Side and sacrifices himself for his son.

From the rest of your complaints, I think you want a 'ROTJ' that is too serious, too real to fit in with the rest of the mildly Cheesy 'Star Wars' universe. ;-)

P.S. I DO agree that the Ewoks were Annoying.

Scott W

From the rest of your complaints, I think you want a 'ROTJ' that is too serious, too real to fit in with the rest of the mildly Cheesy 'Star Wars' universe.

No doubt. Lucas has explained multiple times that SW was merely an imitation of the cheesy Saturday matinee space-opera flicks of the early b&w days. If you wan't gritty science-fiction, watch the new Battlestar Galactica or the Chronicles of Riddick, if you want epic space-opera, you gotta accept some cheese with it.

Dean Steinlage

Esau,
St Thomas More is a personnal favorite, thanks for the post.

Frodo

The Ewoks are cool

J.R. Stoodley

I love Ewoks.

There is some of Vadars inner struggle in the scene where he has to decide whether to turn Luke in to the Emperor or run off with Luke to join the Rebelion. Vader really seems to struggle with that choice and puts off making it for a few minutes. When he does make the decision it is with a sad "it's too late for me, Luke" like he really knows he should turn good and is sad that he too enslaved to the Emperor to do it (or so he thinks). Then after Luke is taken away he looks off into the forest, leaning heavely on the railing, clearly regretting what he is doing.

Granted there was no sign of this good side to him in the earlier movies, you just get hit near the beginning of ROTJ with Luke's claim that he sensed good in his father, though it is hard to figure out when in The Empire Strikes Back that he would have sensed this.

J.R. Stoodley

I forgot to mention, there is also when the Emporer says to Vader, "I hope that your feelings on this matter are clear" about bringing Luke to him, like he too senses that there is some level of struggle in Vader.

PBXVI

What I don't get is why Leah remembers Mommy, but Luke doesn't. I mean c'mon! She died like two minutes after childbirth! They probably took that scene out of the "New Versions". :-}

Jared

Lucas would probably say some crap about how the midichrorians (however you spell that) were more at one with Leah at birth.

Perhaps one of the weirdest "revelations" (other than the afore-mentioned midichrorians ... which is just stupid) is that the Jedi are sworn to celibacy. I'm not sure if I like it or not but, given the genetic implications (the fact that force sensitivity seems to be inherited) this seems pretty strange.

Biggest flub in my book, though, was hiring Hayden Christenson. In the words of Michael Medved, the boy seriously looks like he's constantly posing for an issue of "Tiger Beat."

StubbleSpark

Being Catholic, I have grown weary of the rampant relativism in the Star Wars films. It is not that I expect the characters to be devout believers in Christ and Universal Truth (although that'd be cool by me. I'd love to hear Luke with a Spanish accent saying to Vader "Hello, my name Luke Skywalker, you keeled my father. Prepare to die.")

What bugs me about the relativism is that it is inherently unheroic. Heroes are heroes not because they are strong but because they stand for something when no one else will.

Truth is not relative but strength is. In our relativistic society, we are always stuck rooting for the strongman (and hating him secretly all the while because such a hero is not really a hero, just a lucky bastard).

So when Obi Wan chides young Anakin not to "think in absolutes" because only a Sith would do so, he has, by uttering an absolute, used the very dreaded philosophical tool used by the Sith. Are we supposed to think Obi Wan has just confessed to his Sith-ness? Obviously, he does not consider himself to be a Sith though he himself is guilty of using the concept of absolutes to define his enemy.

So we hate him because of his hypocrisy. Because he is above the very standards he uses to pass judgment on his enemies. But we have to root for him as well because there is no one else we can root for.

This makes us hate him and the writer even more.

When relativism prevails, we don't get heroes or even anti-heroes (who are heroes, after all). What we get is a story without any heroes which is nothing more than a convoluted progression of random acts without purpose.

Love of story may be the only thing left in our society that can save it from the dictatorship of relativism.

Karen

I admit that my knee jerked when Obi Wan chided Anakin over absolutes. Absolute is a buzz word for many of us. But on further reflection I decided that it has nothing to do with moral relativism and absolutism. The context in which it was said, was not moral. He was criticizing Anakin's idea that if you don't support Anakin, then Anakin considers you "his enemy, plain and simple". The truth actually wasn't so simple; while Padme and Obi Wan couldn't support what Anakin did, their intention at the beginning was decidedly anti-Sith but not anti-Anakin.

Karen

In the words of Michael Medved, the boy seriously looks like he's constantly posing for an issue of "Tiger Beat."

Men can be so catty! Seriously! In recent months I'm questioning why it's women who are criticized for this. I'm encountering too many instances of male-to-male catty-ness and backstabbing (ironically, along with comments like, "He's acting like a girl") and prejudice against good-looking men (implications that they must be gay, even). It's really opening my eyes to what, all along, may have been a criticism typically and perhaps very unfairly applied to women.

Karen

With regard to Star Wars becoming too New-Agey:

I see where that comes from, but there's also the whole virgin birth and savior prophecy idea. I look at it like this: Of course it's fiction, and I'd prefer they try to make up something unique, than for storywriters to earnestly go for something even more Judeo-Christian and get it completely wrong. That's just me. That'd just make the audience jump to incorrect conclusions about the truth. ("See? Look what happened in Star Wars! It's just like Star Wars!") I don't let the fictional religion stuff bother me on any level, because it's not really intended to be taken seriously.

I might be forgetting some details, though. I've watched the sequels/prequels more than most people but I'm not a line-memorizing fan at all.

Tim J.

I admit that Lucas dropped hints that Vader was having some internal conflict, but I found it unconvincing and implausible.

Frodo

It is Eastern and pantheistic, but a good movie, don't look too deep into the well or you will fall in
Take some cover in that Sir Alec Guiness is Catholic and did not like the movie

Jared

Karen: Gimme a break here. I think you're over-reacting a bit on the "catty" comment. It was simply meant to denote the two-dimensional acting employed. I understand that it probably occurred because of poor direction (something which some of the actors were able to rise above...which admittedly, shouldn't be necessary, but I digress).

Perhaps I am over-reacting as well, but that's mostly because I loved the first three Star Wars movies as a child, so, to see the mythos disintegrate into what it did is kind of heart-breaking.

Scott W

If Lucas did intend for the Jedi to be Gnostic, pantheistic and what not, it is completely undermined in Revenge of the Sith. For all the Jedi gibberish about knowlege, selflessness, and love, on the ground it was all in vain as Anakin's conscience was improperly formed. In the end (episode VI) what saves the day is not Jedi secret knowledge or power, but suffering and sacrifice. Eat that pagans! :)

David B.

Jared,

Leah wasn't referring to Padme. She was talking about Bail Organa's wife, her foster mother, whom she believed was her real mother.

PBXVI

David, if that's true then Leah was deceived, becuase Luke asked her if she remembered her real mother. Also, I think that the step mother was seen at the end of the film of A New Hope if I'm not mistaken. I could be wrong!

Esau

Esau,
St Thomas More is a personnal favorite, thanks for the post.

Posted by: Dean Steinlage | Dec 16, 2006 9:03:53 PM

Thanks Dean!

It's too bad most of his apologetic works have been lost.

Although, it's funny that most Catholic Apologists today, without really knowing, actually utilize the same arguments he did against Luther and the other reformers during his time.

Veronica

The Star Wars 'prequels' sucked big time, and in my opinion completely destroyed the SW universe I used to love so much. I can't even think of anything good about them, except maybe the special effects.

Ever since I saw 'Phantom Menace' with that whiny annoying kid who couldn't act to save his life as Anakin, and Jar Jar Binks, I pretend that the prequels never existed. For me they are nothing more than expensive fanfictions, except that there are fanfictions that are a thousand times better than that. Even Episode III was beyond lame ("NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" That was so bad it was funny!)

I could still watch the original trilogy any number of times though.


SDG

In the end (episode VI) what saves the day is not Jedi secret knowledge or power, but suffering and sacrifice.

AND personal attachments, father-son love -- the inability of a son to give up on or turn against his father, and the inability of a father to deny his son. The TRIUMPH of good over evil (not a "balance" of yin and yang). Yep, Christian humanism undoubtedly informs the series, though mixed with other stuff.

My Star Wars mega-essay
My Return of the Jedi review

Esau

In the end (episode VI) what saves the day is not Jedi secret knowledge or power, but suffering and sacrifice.

Ahhhh, the power of Redemption even for the most sinful of the enemies of good!

SDG

Leah wasn't referring to Padme. She was talking about Bail Organa's wife, her foster mother, whom she believed was her real mother.

Not so. At least, that wasn't continuity at the time.

Luke specifically asked Leia about her "real mother," not her foster mother, and clearly he was asking because Leia's real mother was also his own real mother, of whom he had no memory.

Leia's description of her mother as "beautiful but sad" is meant to evoke the real mother of Luke and Leia, sad because her beloved and the father of her children became the biggest bad guy in movie history.

Amidala's death at the end of Ep. 3 clearly contradicts the original intent for the sequence in Ep. 6. Lucas (or his fans) might reinterpret the Ep. 6 scene to fit the latest version of the facts... but at the cost of robbing the Ep. 6 scene of its original resonance, the young orphan hero getting a glimpse of his unknown mother.

Esau

The Star Wars 'prequels' sucked big time, and in my opinion completely destroyed the SW universe I used to love so much. I can't even think of anything good about them, except maybe the special effects.

Ever since I saw 'Phantom Menace' with that whiny annoying kid who couldn't act to save his life as Anakin, and Jar Jar Binks, I pretend that the prequels never existed. For me they are nothing more than expensive fanfictions, except that there are fanfictions that are a thousand times better than that. Even Episode III was beyond lame ("NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!" That was so bad it was funny!)

I could still watch the original trilogy any number of times though.

Actually, the special effects in the original Star Wars movies (use of models and stop-motion) seemed to provide more realistic scenes than the CGI special effects in the Prequels, which looked so fake!

The Prequels were terrible. The only one that seemed to have some merit, when comparing all three of the losers, was the last one, in spite of the awful acting, even by Princess Caribou, I mean, Padme.

Jared

David: I'm going with PBXVI on this. Luke asks about her "real mother," implying that she knew that Mrs. Organa was not her real mom.

Veronica: Yes, that's exactly it! It is an expensive fan-fic. And Boba Fett was so much cooler in the now "non-canonical" stories, particularly the one called (I believe) "Last Man Standing." Seriously, the man had honor in this version, removes a corrupt lawman, stands against fornication and illegal drugs (which is why he hates Solo so much) ... so much cooler than making him a clone.

One more thing though. Jake Lloyd might not be the best actor in the world. But his version of Anakin is at least more believable than ... later ... renditions.

Esau

Amidala's death at the end of Ep. 3 clearly contradicts the original intent for the sequence in Ep. 6. Lucas (or his fans) might reinterpret the Ep. 6 scene to fit the latest version of the facts... but at the cost of robbing the Ep. 6 scene of its original resonance, the young orphan hero getting a glimpse of his unknown mother.

It's these revisionists, I tell you!!! Whether in the real world or the world of Star Wars, they cause the same pain and problem!

Jared

Esau: I agree UNLESS it's a revision that reverts to the original vision, e.g. some of the latest books on the Inquisitions, which debunk the biased revisions.

But I guess that'd be a re-revision. Or a de-revision?

Anyway, my point is, whoever ends up owning the rights to SW after Lucas should revise the revisionist films in the series (Ep. 1-3).

SDG: Yes, that's what I failed to say. When Luke asks Leah about her mom, he's asking about HIS mom. Which isn't possible in the new "canon."

caine thomas

I'm with Esau. Episode III not only ruined the first three movies for me, it keeps me from truly enjoying the Star Wars: Battleworlds video games - which would be entertaining if not of the stain of association.

I've yet to get over the complete implausibility of young Annakin massacring those lil' Jedis. Don't you have to HAVE a soul to lose one? Stooopid!

It ranks right up there with Neo not recognizing that one dude was Agent Smith in the third Matrix movie. That movie rivaled Episode III for biggest cinematic dissappointment in history. (Soon to be topped by any version of The Hobbit made without Peter Jackson.)

David B.

SDG,

U R right. I was wrong. I recant my comment dated Dec 18, 2006 7:31:42 AM :-)

David B.

Oh, BTW, you can count me as someone who ain't a fan of Lucas.

Veronica

"Amidala's death at the end of Ep. 3 clearly contradicts the original intent for the sequence in Ep. 6. Lucas (or his fans) might reinterpret the Ep. 6 scene to fit the latest version of the facts... but at the cost of robbing the Ep. 6 scene of its original resonance, the young orphan hero getting a glimpse of his unknown mother."

My thoughts exactly. Lucas really messed things up in Episode III, but Amidala's death was the worst of all. Before watching episode III, the scene where Luke asks Leia about his mother was a very meaningful and poetic one, but with Lucas' "reinterpretation" in Episode III, it's now nothing more than an exercise in self-delusion. Sad.

"One more thing though. Jake Lloyd might not be the best actor in the world. But his version of Anakin is at least more believable than ... later ... renditions."

LOL. Very true. Hans Christiansen's lack of acting skills made even his most dramatic performances seem so... corny. Especially the scenes with Amidala, it made it hard to believe that they were even remotely interested in each other.

tee hee

It's amazing how this thread took a left turn after Tim M's first comment. And became a Star Wars thread.

That's ok, but what about the pictures that Jimmy put up here?

: )

Jamie Beu

All of this discussion was something that I had fought over with myself, upon realizing that my love of Star Wars was based on the fantasy/escapism of my youth. The crushing blow to all of this was the juxtaposition of the Star Wars prequels with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. LotR is the more mature, more cohesive, and more morally sound of the 2 fantasy series. It came as a shock to some of my friends, who thought that I was a Star Wars apologist, when I mentioned that I liked LotR better than SW.

Sad to say good-bye to a childhood favorite, but sometimes we must put away the childhood ways in order to enjoy the better, adult things.

David B.

I have to (sorta) defend Hayden's acting abilities. I saw him in 'Shattered Glass' and he was much better than he was in 'Star Wars'. Apparently Lucas' Directorial talents are so non-existent that he can even make *alright* actors act terribly.

Tim M.

I thought Hayden (and all of the other actors, too) was good also in "Life as a House."

Jared

David B.: Yes, some actors can overcome bad directing and some can't. I guess the real point is, they shouldn't need to. Which places blame squarely at the gate of Skywalker Ranch.

"some actors can overcome bad directing"

Ian McDiarmid as the emperor, for example.


POWER!!!! UNLIMITED POWER!!!!!! :-)

David B.

Sorry, that was Moi.

Esau

Sorry, that was Moi.


Who's Moi????

Esau

I kill myself!!! HAHAHAHhehehss!

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31