Brasil

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Okay, quick off the topic question. Can everyone else please leave my husband out of their posts?[/color][/quote] Huh? Who started the thread? I'm hazy right now, and somewhat mildly depressed, so I'm not thinking clearly...*goes to check* [quote name='CHW][color=#9400d3]The reason I wouldn't vote for Bush is because he's basically taken my husband away from me for a period of time.[/color'][color=black][/quote][/color] Now...ah. Er. Hrm. Didn't you...didn't you bring up your husband to begin with? Am I missing something here? Did some post escape me? Was there a post before the initial post (yours) in this thread? *scratches head* Anyway...I'm more or less Democrat in this election. I saw Clinton and John Kerry speak on The Daily Show a while back and I was rather impressed, especially Kerry. He has a much clearer focus these days, and seems much more determined than when he originally declared his candidacy. Also, I can't see where people were basing "He's not charismatic" on...perhaps it's just me, but Kerry knew how to tell a joke, and entertain the audience.

[quote name='Zeta']I can't comment on the Hamas, because honestly, I do not have a good bearing on what is going on there. If you could enlighten me, I would gladly put my voice in. >_

[quote name='Zeta]Even though they are hiding, wouldn't the Empire want to weigh the outcomes of destroying the planet? A Rebel base in hiding....they destroy the whole planet with the innocents. Of course some would be mad at the Rebellion, but when they would look at the whole picture, they would see what the Empire actually is. It was the Empire that destroyed the planet ultimately, not the Rebellion itself. [i]Which[/i'] is EXACTLY why the DS was destroyed. All revolts are done in hiding. It is a known fact.[/quote] So, then, are you justifying the actions of Hamas? [QUOTE]The Empire came to power, through the hiding of Palpatine and his true motives. The Empire is basically a revolution against the Old Republic, and the Rebellion one against the Empire.[/QUOTE] Are you legitimizing Palpatine and The Empire then? Also, if The Empire [i]knows[/i] they have bases on particular planets (Alderaan, for example), then the Rebellion's attempt at "slipping in under the radar" has utterly failed, and again, they pose more of a threat to the civilians than The Empire does, simply because they are endangering the lives of those civilians, civilians whom The Empire would not have even considered destroying, as there were no ties to the Rebellion at all before the Rebellion began utilizing Alderaan as a primary base of operations. [QUOTE]The point I am trying to make with Kane and you I guess, is that the Rebellion would never willingly destroy a planet for those of a few.[/QUOTE] Are you so sure? It is their fault that Alderaan was destroyed. If they had chosen a remote planet such as Hoth, like they did in Empire Strikes Back, then many, many people would still be alive. I think they certainly willingly destroy a planet for the motivations of the few. The minute they established Alderaan as a primary Rebellion launchpoint is the minute they doomed Alderaan, because clearly, The Empire will pursue the Rebellion, and destroy them when at all possible. [QUOTE]The Rebellion looked over the consequences of their actions, and based their actions on them, as did the New Republic in the NJO.[/QUOTE] Only once do I see the Rebellion actually consider the lives of those around them, and consider the consequences of their actions in how those consequences affect the innocent civilians that the Rebellion consistently puts in harm's way: [quote name='Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi']I shouldn't have come here...I'm endangering the mission.[/quote] Nowhere else in the Original Trilogy does any member of the Rebellion even for a minute consider that they are putting millions of lives in danger because they are choosing to inhabit densely populated planets. [QUOTE]Yes as Kane said, both sides are quiltyof genocide, but you have to look at the circumstances on why it was done. The Rebellion was fighting to protect themselves, as well as others who get ino the way of a war they may not be even aware about. If throughout my time here I have been giving both of you a misconstrued(is that even a word? lol) of what I was geting at I am sorry.[/QUOTE] The Rebellion is fighting to protect themselves and no-one else. They are leaving The Empire no choice at all but to destroy innocent civilians, because the well-known Rebellion--and it is well-known. We are told this in the first 20 minutes of A New Hope "Might garner support for the Rebellion in the Senate." The Senate clearly knows that Leia is a member of the Rebellion; The Empire clearly knows. The Rebellion and Leia's ties to it are no big secret ("Don't act so surprised, your Highness. You weren't on any mercy mission this time."). In fact, because The Empire does not needlessly kill innocent civilians, only doing so when the Rebellion refuses to "come out and fight," we could say that The Empire is more concerned with the safety of innocent civilians than the Rebellion. Actions do speak louder than words, after all, and as it stands now, the Rebellion says they're fighting for the safety of all, but in reality, are endangering more lives than they're fighting to protect, while The Empire is only targeting the Rebellion, and not killing innocents when killing innocents can be avoided. [QUOTE]I do not agree wtih Kane's views about why things are done. He has been making it seem that the Rebellion is just as bad as the Empire. When in fact, the things the Rebellion are doing, are in retaliation to things done upon them and others.[/QUOTE] In some major and obvious ways (putting civilians in harm's way, for example), the Rebellion is far worse than The Empire. [quote]If you will read through the countless sources for Star Wars, you will see the atrocites the Empire itself has committed, and see that the Rebellion has done far fewer against the Empire. The Outbound Flight project, a project sent to discover the Universe. Destroyed by Thrawn on Palpatines order, in secret mind you just like the Rebellion if you look at it in that way. Pre-Empire of course, but exactly what an Emperor like Palpatine would do, all ready showing his evil intentions before his goal is even realized.[/QUOTE] And again, this is EU, which holds little bearing in a discussion where the Original Trilogy is slowly being deconstructed and thus the EU becomes weaker and weaker as its foundation for its ideas, the Original Trilogy, becomes increasingly questionable.

[quote name='Zeta']THe thank you was thanks for providing where you got your opinions of the Vietnam/Star Wars parallel.[/quote] Ah. Jolly good then. [QUOTE]Now, I am not going to get into the whole thing with the Lucas interview and what not, because that is not what I am talking about. I can see where you are coming from, especially after reading all that, so I agree with you. But the things I am talking about are the things Kane is saying.[/QUOTE] I'm glad I was able to prove my point regarding the Vietnam. Thank you. [QUOTE]In an earlier post, Kane says that the Empire and Rebellion are both guilty of genocide. But what you must look at rather than the here and now is the whole picture. The Empire struck the first blow, the Empire commited the first act of genocide, because they are threatened as you yourself said. The Empire did it because they could do it, and decided to do it. Now why did the Rebellion commit genocide, on a much small scale mind you. The Rebellion never once willingy commited an act of genocide against the Empire. They did it because they had to. I agree with your views of the Death Star being built to strike fear and what not into the Rebellion. But it was also created for destruction as I have said. How many rebel bases would have been around the galaxy at this time? There were probably Rebel cells all over the galaxy, and the destruction of planets, would surely not diminish the views of the Rebellion, it would only increase their reasons to rebel. Which is exactly what happened.EDIT: In any other situation they would have sent all things available, but in this, their resolve was so great that they attacked with such a small force. THey sent a motley crew of star fighters to take it out, to show that things like that will only cause more death than necessary and that they cannot be scared into defeat. Had the Death Star done its so called "job" of inciting terror and causing "traitors" to back down, the Rebellion wouldn't have attacked it. The first Death Star didn't cause the Rebels to back down, so why build a second one? If they have shown that things like that won't scare them why bother? It has been shown that weapons of mass destruction doesn't scare them. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, lets say the first one was built [i]just[/i] to incite fear among the Rebellion. With it being destroyed, the Empire has nothing left. Then it is safe to assume, that the second one would have been used for the destruction of the Rebellion. Which is shown being used in battle, continuously, rather than just once or twice to incite fear as you say they were meant for. If they first one was for the purpose of inciting fear, which failed, then the second one was made for the destruction phase, which also failed. But I don't buy the being made to incite fear, I still believe it was meant for destruction purposes period. Nothing that is said can be done to deter me from that. A superlaser powerful enough to destroy a planet, was not meant for a one time use. Siren: Your point of the Empire not blowing up Yavin itself gives me a little more respect for the Empire. But all I really see is a commander who can realize what would happen, were he to destroy such a large gas planet in the whole scheme of things. Space around the area could be disturbed for years. But also, they only have need to destroy places that have the Rebels on it. No need to destroy an entire system if they can do it for just one planet and recieve the same result. I do give them credit for thinking there though, but Yavin IV is also a planet with no civilization, or advanced civilization anywasy(can't remember if there was a native population of Masassi still around? or if they were long gone?) When I say their acts of genocide, I mean on the planets they are destroying itself, the one planet.When it comes to the planet itself, is the genocide I am talking about, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. THe fact that they would destroy planets for a few(again when I say few, I mean quite a lot compared to the whole population) and not think twice of those who may be loyal to the Empire or plain ignorant of the outside world.[/QUOTE] Zeta, I'm going to reply fully later, as I'm at work right now and must make this incredibly brief, but for argument's sake, I'll agree with you that the majority of Alderaan's population were innocent civilians, and only a very small percentage of Alderaan's governing body were Rebel sympathizers. I still think it's safe to say that there was a Rebel base of some type on Alderaan, though. But, if The Empire destroys Alderaan, killing millions of innocent civilians to kill important members of the Rebel Alliance, because a handful of Alderaan's inhabitants were high-ranking Rebel officials who had made Alderaan a base of operations, amid millions of innocent civilians, is not the [i]Rebellion's[/i] fault that those millions of innocent civilians were killed? The Rebels are essentially [i]hiding[/i], then, amid innocents, hoping that The Empire will not destroy them, out of fear of killing those civilians. This is no different than tactics used by Al Qaida, certain Iraqi militants, and on various occasions, Palestinian militants. The Rebellion is the cause of those innocent casualties, because they refused to appropriately weigh the lives of the innocents in their cause. Think of it as Al Qaida or Hamas making a base out of a church or mosque, or even a school or hospital. If innocents are killed, it is their fault for physically implicating those innocents. We might say that The Empire was merely punishing the Rebellion for acting out of cowardice.

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Zeta']Thank you Siren, I was saying my views on the matter, and wasn't sure if it was your opinion or what.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Eh?[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][QUOTE]The no weapons on Alderaan was in the EU. I don't know where exactly, but I read it in the Offical Star Wars Encyclopedia. I will search for the book and give you the exact entry. And to Kane, the planet doesn't allow weapons on it, it doesn't disband Alderaan natives to use weapons outside of the planet. And it wasn't Bail who banned weapons, it was done long before his time.[/QUOTE][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]But you must keep in mind that both the EU and the Official Star Wars Encyclopedia are based on what is written in the OT, and anything that you read in those two works that seemingly corroborate the idea that Alderaan was weaponless is still based on Leia's comments.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]It's difficult to grasp the concept of an unreliable narrator when you're so attracted to the idea that a character is telling the truth, I know, and I've had to train myself to do this for both Star Wars and The Terminator, and for just about every great literary work that I?ve read, but characters lie.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]They may seem like the most honest, lovable and cuddly protagonists ever (let's not forget just how cute Leia is, after all), but if they're telling us something out of a moment of panic, duress, heated emotion, etc, then anything they say must be taken with a grain of salt, because the moment they begin responding out of passion is the moment that their statements become skewed by desire?tainted by desire, if you will.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Leia does not want to see her homeworld destroyed, and will say [i][font=Tahoma]anything[/font][/i] in an attempt to prevent that, including how it is a peaceful planet with no weapons or threats to The Empire.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]I understand that you want to believe what Leia is saying, because she's portrayed as such an innocent, but appearances can be deceiving.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Ben Kenobi, for example, looks like a sweet old man, but lies to Luke for a significant majority of the OT.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Darth Vader, who looks incredibly evil, tells Luke the truth, the same truth that Ben hid from Luke.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Han Solo is charming, attractive and fairly respectable, as respectable as a smuggler/pirate can be, but do we honestly believe that he was serious about paying Jabba back in triple the amount? He was saying that to save himself, to escape from a dangerous situation, and like an intelligent businessman, Jabba refused, because he knew Solo couldn't be trusted.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Solo is scum, plain and simple. He?s a liar, a cheat, a swindler, a gambler, a pirate, a smuggler, etc. He blasts Greedo before Greedo takes the first shot. Lucas added in a few frames of Greedo?s blaster bolt in the Special Edition, because he felt that it would have cast Han in a less than honorable manner had the scene stayed the same. But Solo still has his blaster under the table to begin with. He doesn?t slide it out in a non-threatening manner when Greedo first approaches him, to signal that he is packing a firearm. He hides it.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Even R2D2 isn't forthcoming with Luke, and he's a synthetic character, with no threatening physical presence.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][QUOTE]Not only that but Wookie slaves as well. Does the actions of the prisoners condemn them to death? Does the fact that they are criminals condemn them as well? Some of the criminals in there, have probably done things that the Empire itself has done(murder, stealing...) but is the Empire seen as a criminal? If the fact that they are criminals gives them the right to destroy them, the Empire should destroy itself as well, seeing as how they do the things criminals do as well.[/QUOTE][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]If one breaks the law, and then threatens the rule of the governing body, one should be penalized for it. Considering, also, that Despayre was in the Outer Rim, and one of the most remote planets in the galaxy, far removed from any other systems, I think the most dangerous and destructive criminals in the galaxy were sent there, so they would not pose a threat to the citizens of The Empire.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][QUOTE]No I mean the people who are caught up in the war wether they like it or not. Scenario: The Empire gets whiff so to speak of a Rebel base being on some planet. They capture a Rebel, and interrogate him, basically doing the same thing that happened to Leia. The Rebel denies any existance of a base on the planet, knowing full well he is telling the truth. What does the Empire do? Destroys the planet. Innocent lives like those. Yes it isn't meant to destroy lives, but come on. Something like that is used to destroy a planet. Really, think about it, how can you say there wouldn't be innocent lives amongst the so called Rebels being there, when they might not even be there?[/QUOTE][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]But this is a "What if?" scenario that you're talking about. The Death Star was built to deter uprisings. The fact that it was only used on two planets, Despayre and Alderaan, one of which held [i][font=Tahoma]convicted[/font][/i] felons and enemies of The Empire, and the other that held a significant Rebel population and very significant threat to The Empire and its citizens, the Death Star is clearly a deterrent, and is not used on arbitrarily selected targets.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]For example, in the final battle near Yavin IV, as the Death Star is approaching the Rebel base on one of the moons, The Empire could have easily just blown up Yavin from a safe distance away, and given that Yavin is primarily gas, would have caused a very, very powerful explosion that would have wiped out Yavin and all of its moons. But yet, they didn?t. Instead, they orbited around the planet in order to destroy the moon and nothing more, leaving Yavin and the other moons intact. If they were so obsessed with random and nondiscriminatory genocide, why didn?t they simply destroy the entire system there?[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Because it appears that the use of the Death Star can be likened to a familiar cliché:[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]"I'm cool if you're cool."[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][QUOTE]Why did they engage on their own free will? You said it yourself, the Sith. Had the Jedi sat back and done nothing, as I seem to be getting from your post, the Republic would have lost much quicker than it had. The Jedi saw the problems that would come with a Sith victory, and for their own sake, as well as for others, they fought on the side of the Republic to the benefit of the greater good. I said the part with the Jedi on a hilltop as a perspective from a Republic soldier. What better way to boost morale if it is low than a Jedi standing there head held high and what not. It was more of a part I would like to see in Episode III if you don't want to take it into context here.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]You mentioned that the Jedi fought during the Sith wars, and claimed they are the crutch. As I have said, when there is a Sith involved in some way, of course the Jedi will be involved. How on earth could the Republic defeat an enemy that uses the Force, without their own force users to protect? Now if it were a war between the Republic and another non-force using power, the Jedi would have no reason to fight alongside. What they would do would be try to preserve peace beforehand, as Mace Windu himself said.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]What would make much more sense if you said depending on the circumstances the Jedi are the crutch of the Republic. You are making it seem as if they are period, when in actuallity they are not. The fight, when the Sith are involved. And knowing the true ways of the Sith, they fight alongside the Republic.[/QUOTE][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]I took the liberty of combining your comments regarding Jedi, their role in war, the Republic, Sith, etc. Hope you don't mind.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]It's not only the Sith War, though. The Jedi were also instrumental in the war with the Mandalorians. Canderous continually emphasizes that if it were not for Revan, a Jedi, the Republic would have been crushed.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]In A New Hope, Leia, Luke and Co. would not have escaped had it not been for Ben, a Jedi.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]This is repeated in Empire Strikes Back, as Han and Leia would have met a rather gruesome end had Luke, a Jedi-in-training, not raced to Cloud City.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Similarly, in Return of the Jedi, Han, Leia, etc would have never had the same chances of escape from Jabba's palace if Luke, a Jedi, was not assisting them.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Perhaps it's just me, but that suggests the Republic, both Old and New, is fairly helpless in conflict without a heavy support from the Jedi.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote]If there is little debate about using superweapons in war, why haven't we just nuked the mountains on the border of Afghanistan(sp) and Pakistan to just knock out bin Laden? The terrorists surely aren't losing this war, they are still around, plotting and waiting, so why not just nuke them? Right and wrong come into play here, morals come into play.[/QUOTE][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Because we have not yet understood that in times of war, one cannot be bothered with "morality." Drastic times call for drastic measures, and one must be as efficient as possible in destroying one's enemy if one wishes to have a long victory afterwards.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]I understand this is unsettling to hear, and not to create a heavy political debate here, but America should have used a greater destructive force in dealing with Bin Laden. We may have looked "bad" in front of the U.N. and such, but it is our safety that was compromised, and the safety of our citizens, and thus, we should "pull no punches" when it comes to ensuring that our enemies will not be able to effectively retaliate.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]But that will never happen, because we are so bound to this ethic of "being the bigger man" and "not sinking down to their level."[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]I hope that answers your question.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote=Sciros]Well, Lucas has been quoted calling Star Wars a story of good vs. evil (in his mind spread out over 9 parts). He's also in an interview described the story as one where Darth Vader becomes [i]evil[/i] and is then redeemed by his son. If you look around on Google I'm sure you'll run into these.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Anyway, there's support from the man himelf, Lucas, for Zeta's side of the discussion. Siren and Kane, if you can find statements from Lucas supporting the speculation of his carrying his ideas about Apocalypse Now into SW, or at least something concerning moral relativism in SW, then that'll help your stances out a lot. Otherwise you barely have a leg to stand on due to the fact that the way Lucas says it is, IS the way it is. You can't interpret the story [i]for[/i] him, at least certainly not when discussing the [i]films[/i].[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][url="http://www.next-wave.org/may99/starwars.htm"][u]George Lucas Interview[/u][/url][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Is this the interview you speak of? Here's the quote you reference:[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']It will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it's only in the last act--when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this"--that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It's not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Now, all of this sounds well and good when taken purely out of context, out of the interview itself. The greater intent of Lucas as he created Star Wars, as he explains earlier in the interview, is getting the audience to ask questions and learn about themselves:[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']When I wrote the first Star Wars, I had to come up with a whole cosmology: What do people believe in? I had to do something that was relevant, something that imitated a belief system that has been around for thousands of years, and that most people on the planet, one way or another, have some kind of connection to. I didn't want to invent a religion. I wanted to try to explain in a different way the religions that have already existed. I wanted to express it all.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']It's designed primarily to make young people think about the mystery. Not to say, "Here's the answer." It's to say, "Think about this for a second. Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God?" Just getting young people to think at that level is what I've been trying to do in the films. What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']Myths tell us these old stories in a way that doesn't threaten us. They're in an imaginary land where you can be safe. But they deal with real truths that need to be told. Sometimes the truths are so painful that stories are the only way you can get through to them psychologically.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]It's not a simple Good vs Evil story. It's a myth written to prompt us to ask questions about ourselves, humanity, religion, morality, war, perception, etc. To simply say, "Oh, Star Wars is just about the evil Empire hunting down the good-natured Rebellion" is ultimately disregarding Lucas' larger intent, which is to provide us with a motivation to further examine ourselves and why we view ourselves the way we do, which heavily relates to political and social perception that is so prevalent during the Vietnam War, which again ties into the points regarding Lucas' intent of a critical look at the war in his vision for Apocalypse Now, his vision that would have encouraged Americans to question how they view both the Viet Cong and themselves, to question ?a certain point of view.?[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Star Wars' relevance to the Vietnam War isn't simply my exclusive interpretation, as well: [url="http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/agordon/starwars.htm"]Star Wars and Vietnam War[/url]. I'd call attention to the following passage there:[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2][quote name='Star Wars and Vietnam]Each generation must either create its own myths and its own heroes or regenerate those of the past. [b][font=Tahoma]Star Wars was released in a period when the heroes had been cast down through such national catastrophes as Vietnam and Watergate, when the lines between good and evil became cloudy[/font][/b], and when sexual identities were beginning to be redefined by the Women's Movement. Meanwhile, Americans found themselves living inside a kind of Death Star, a machine world drained of spiritual values, a world in which the individual felt impotent and alien. [b][font=Tahoma]In the late 1970s, Americans desperately needed a renewal of faith in themselves as good guys on the world scene[/font][/b'], as men and women, as human beings who count, and so returned temporarily to the simpler patterns of the past. Old superheroes like Superman were revived--and so were old-fashioned genre films like Rocky and Star Wars.[/quote][/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]If Americans were sympathizing with the Rebellion, then where was their desire to fight against an oppressive governing body coming from? Whom did they view as The Empire? The American government, perhaps? The same government whose National Guard fired upon and killed demonstrators? The same government whose President (Nixon) was one of the most sneaky and underhanded presidents the country has ever had? The same government whose President (Nixon) depended on operating behind closed-doors, manipulation, intimidation, extortion, conspiracy, etc? Forgive me for saying so, but The Empire?s actions seem all too similar to Nixon?s behaviors, in addition to the American government and National Guard?s reactions to protestors, for the parallels to be purely coincidental.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]Yes, these actions and attitudes can be applied to virtually any period in history, but Star Wars was released in 1977. It was being developed as early as 1972. The Vietnam War and its effect on society, government, and national opinion were still very prominent issues throughout the 70s, and Watergate did nothing but aggravate those issues.[/size][/color] [color=black][size=2]There have been no explicit statements regarding this from Lucas, true, but there is enough evidence here to begin connecting the dots. Historicity and Ideology are very influential on the art of the time period. The ?Art for art?s sake? that Sciros mentioned is quite possibly the best example of that.[/size][/color] [size=2]The Decadents were rebelling against the oppressive Victorians because Oscar Wilde and his fellows believed there was more to art than condemning the viewer. Their art is directly related to and influenced by their current political and social climate in 1890s England, and this is precisely what is happening with Lucas and Star Wars in the 70s: art influenced by the current political and social climate. Star Wars was far from written in the vacuum of space (pardon the bad pun).[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]EDIT: I'd like to talk a bit more about a particular excerpt from the Interview. I went to Save Changes and OB failed, so this is a re-write from memory:[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']Myths tell us these old stories in a way that doesn't threaten us. They're in an imaginary land where you can be safe. But they deal with real truths that need to be told. Sometimes the truths are so painful that stories are the only way you can get through to them psychologically.[/quote][/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]In the 70s, Americans wanted to know that they were still the good guys. They wanted re-assurance that they were fighting the "good fight." But when we examine what America's motivations were for getting involved in Vietnam, we see that only a small fraction of it was genuine concern for the lives of the South Vietnamese. The primary reason, it seems, that America entered Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism, which we viewed as a threat to our country and our way of life.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]To put it bluntly, we were essentially acting out of our own best interests, and this is a rather ugly truth.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Had Lucas expressed that as overtly as Coppola did in Apocalypse Now, he would have found himself under the same heavy scrutiny and criticisms that targeted Coppola. So, what does Lucas do? He writes a Science-fiction fantasy/adventure, set in "A galaxy far, far away," that seems to bear absolutely no resemblance to the current issues he sees. This is the story he speaks of to explore the ugly truth that he speaks of.[/size] [size=2][/size] [size=2]Star Wars is an allegory. "A galaxy far, far away" is Vietnam.[/size]

To add to the points regarding Jedi battling alongside the Old Republic, and since we're looking at EU material and treating it as Canon, I'd like to call attention to Knights of the Old Republic, a Star Wars RPG for Xbox and PC. KOTOR has been hailed as one of the greatest and most well-designed and well-written Star Wars games ever, and just playing it, one would agree. Obviously, glitches experienced during gameplay like crashing and such will mar the experience, but from a pure gameplay/presentation/story standpoint, KOTOR is quite nice. I believe Zeta himself has a copy, heh. But as you play through KOTOR, there is an incredible amount of discussion about the Jedi's role in the Sith Wars, and how the Republic fleet would have fallen if it were not for the Jedi Council stepping in to aid them. We are constantly bombarded with the grave importance of Bastila's Battle Meditation, and how it can turn the tide of a battle. It is explained numerous times, both from Canderous, Bastila, and Carth, that without the Jedi assistance, the Republic would have fallen to both the Mandalorians and the Sith. The Jedi were involved in the wars for far more than simple "morale boosters." They were the backbone of the Republic armies; they were the crutch.

Not to disrupt the...ah..."flow" of discussion, but I managed to force myself to sit through an entire episode of ATHF earlier tonight, and found myself laughing quite heartily through most of it. It was the episode where Master Shake became addicted to online methods of communication, and was walking around with double or triple his body weight in needless electronic devices. I must say, it was hilarious. The dialogue was especially outrageous, and was fairly sarcastic, which is always a major bonus for me. So, all in all, I enjoyed what I've seen of it. I think the look of the cartoon initially turned me off, because it felt "kiddy."

[QUOTE=Zeta]This is just my take on this. What you say does make sense. But what you also say can be used in many different situations. The US colonists being the freedom fighters, and the British as the oppressive regime. For all we know, Lucas could have decided to do that thing with A.N. after reading some American Revolution book, and wanting to do something similar to that by following the US colonists, found the similarity in the Vietnam war. I don't agree with that, unless it is stated outright by Lucas, and if you claim it is, I want proof, I just find that a coincidence. There are so many other possibilities with this if you want to go with it, with the Vietnam war one being the only possible one to make it happen, but not the only inspiration. Besides, I was asking what Kane thought they really are, since we never explained what he meant. I am assuming he means Rebellion aren't the good guys we make them out to be and what not. I didn't mean the question so literally. ^_^;;[/QUOTE]My proof is the following book: [url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582340145/qid=1093817039/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-4573084-5242522"][u]Apocalypse Now: A Bloomsbury Movie Guide[/u][/url]. The book was very well-receieved among professional and casual reviewers alike, and nearly every review praises the author's meticulous examination of Apocalypse Now. Considering, also, that this information regarding Lucas' original vision for Apocalypse Now is corroborated in part at [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/trivia"][u]IMDB.com's Apocalypse Now trivia page[/u][/url], I think that's all the confirmation we need. Star Wars' plot, the "Good" vs "Evil," is entirely based on the Vietnam War, and The Empire is America, and the Rebellion is the Viet Cong. We could doubt all of this, but the timing, the circumstances, the world issues at the time, and general attitudes toward the films in discussion, all point to Lucas' vision for Apocalypse Now being transformed into the high-gloss, high-energy, science-fiction/fantasy Star Wars. It's really interesting when you think about it, isn't it? All of this time, some have praised the Rebellion and hated The Empire without knowing what the Rebellion and Empire really stood for back in 1977. I find that the arguments here for the set "Good/Evil" are focused on one aspect and one alone: that the visuals point to a very particular character coloring. That interpretation may be all well and good if we simply see Star Wars as visual and nothing more, but there are definite subtle social and political commentaries running through the Saga; one can see that even in this very thread. Because of this, basing the alignments purely on the visuals of Star Wars, while understandably attractive, should not be considered legitimate criticisms. In Vietnam, there was no "Good" or "Bad," despite what propaganda we may have seen. Both the US and North Vietnamese were guilty of absolutely dreadful actions that border on animalistic. I've spoken with veterans about Coppola's Apocalypse Now, and they explain that apart from the more fantastic elements of it, that level of human degeneration and susceptibility to crack under pressure is incredibly and eerily accurate. Sciros and Boba Fett are discussing the intent of an artist, but I think both of them are missing a key point here: that Lucas' intent with Star Wars was to criticize American policies regarding Vietnam. To say that The Empire is evil and the Rebellion is good would be ignoring Lucas' intent. We can all agree that he is no fool, just a misguided technical filmmaker. Now, I'd like to hit a few points made earlier in the thread. [quote name='Zeta]The Death Star was [i]not[/i] made for a one time use. Common sense needs to come into play once again. An Empire facing a force that is actually causing them trouble, spends quite a lot of time, and money to build a station that can destroy planets for a one time use? Palease. [b]We made the atomic bomb, something with extraordinary power to use in time of war. Did we use it once? No, we used it twice, just like the Death Star was used twice.[/b'] The mere fact that someone can believe it was built for a one time use is beyond me, why waste all that money and supplies, when they can take their fleet of Star Destroyers and do the same thing and reduce the surface to rubble but leave the planet. No, the Death Star was made to destroy, no other reason, and would continue to be used for that purpose. Why else woud they build a new one? Thousands of planets, billions of planet in the galaxy where their soldiers can leave, why a space station that is meant for killing?[/quote]Zeta, you have just compared The Empire to America, which is the precise comparison Lucas has been making all along. [quote]Why did they do this you may ask? Well lets look at the facts. Alderaan may have been a Rebel stronghold as you and another have said. And you both claim that the people of Alderaan know about its ties with the Rebellion. [b]If this were so, why are there no weapons on ALderaan?[/b] All their weapons are off in some spaceship from long ago, and they haven't made new ones. Wouldn't the people want to protect themselves if they knew they were i n this situation? They destroyed it, because the Empire destroyed Alderaan. What other reason? A space station just destroyed an entire planet, for the sake of a few(when I say few I mean quite a bit, seeing as how this is an entire planet we are talking about). But still come on,the Rebellion destroyed those lives for the greater good. Had they not, more innocent lives would have been destroyed by the Empire and its Death Star.[/quote]But what are you basing that statement on? What evidence is there that Alderaan is weaponless? There are only the films, and EU. The EU is based on the films, so then what in the films would be the basis for a statement that Alderaan was weaponless? Princess Leia, who is clearly lying during the entire interrogation. She is as unreliable as unreliable narrators can be. We can only base Alderaan's weapon cache or lack thereof on an unreliable testimonial from an unreliable narrator gathered in a moment of panic. That puts a rather significant hole in the statement's accuracy. [quote name='Zeta']Well you see, the Death Star WAS made to inspire terror into the Rebellion. It's main purpose was to crush the Rebellion, and it so happened that they could house familes on it. But it's main objective is the same "stop the Rebellion." How do they do that? Destroy planets. Now look at it like this.[/quote]Physically, it's very powerful, and visually, it's very intimidating. But there are different types of damage other than physical. In a conflict, words are often the more destructive force. Call it Verbal Propaganda. When engaged in war, if you are facing an enemy that you cannot defeat physically, then you use psychological warfare, appeal to or attack their emotions. Question them, raise doubt about their authority. These tactics are commonplace in war, or even in a major argument with one's father. Verbal propaganda is just as destructive and detrimental in war as physical force is. Their means of execution are simply just different. If you openly and vehemently criticize a government or ruling body, you will be punished, and should be punished if your statements threaten the safety of that government. This is seen with Al Qaida's assaults of America on local TV stations in Afghanistan, and America's retaliation or lack thereof. Insurgents like Al Qaida and the Rebellion do not respond to verbal threats, and therefore, a stronger show of force is necessary, hence, Tarkin's instructions for the commander to "Fire when ready." [QUOTE]The Death Star was built by Wookie slaves, slaves mind you, on the planet Desparye(sp.). After it is finished, what does it do? It destroys the planet, with the slaves on it to [i]test[/i] it. Why didn't they try it on a backwater world with no population? Why didn't they use their own men to build it rather than slaves?[/QUOTE]Despayre was an Outer Rim planet for degenerates and home to a wide range of prison complexes that detained dangerous criminals of all types and races. When requiring a body for brute labor, why would Tarkin use his own men when he has these expendable manpower resources available? It makes little financial or strategic sense to ship his own soldiers or recruits to a distant planet on the Outer Rim to construct a superweapon when there are workers readily available there already. Considering that the labor force was comprised of expendable scum, and the planet was good for little more than prison labor, destroying the planet was the next logical step, having exhausted the resources the planet had to offer. It sounds cold, I know, but in times of war, one cannot be boggled down by emotion. One has to act with precision and waste nothing; if it can be cut, cut it. [QUOTE] It destroys Alderran, after Leia gives him the location of the Rebel base, even though it is an abandoned one. They destroy it AFTER mind you, when it was said that she could save her planet by confessing. Did they follow what they say? No. By reading into what Kane has said, they destroyed it because of the Rebellion possibly having a base there and what not. I find that complete rubbish. How many other planets out there have Rebellion factions o n it? Just leave the Death Star to destroy them, ultimately destroying more people than on the Death Star itself? It was destroyed so as to protect other planets with Rebel factions in the midst of innocent civilians. It was destroyed to keep the Rebellion going, which would bring a rightful government to the galaxy, albeit one plauged by a past failure. The Death Star is a symbol of Evil, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if families lived aboard, it was created for the purpose of destruction, nothing else.[/QUOTE]I've already mentioned how Verbal Propaganda is just as, if not more, dangerous than physical violence, but I'd like to repeat what we know from the films. We know that Leia is a Rebel sympathizer and can be considered the [i]leader[/i] of the Rebellion, that her father was a Rebel sympathizer, that both she and her father are high-ranking government officials on the planet of Alderaan. We know that Leia is on her way home (as the opening text crawl explains in A New Hope) to Alderaan, to deliver the plans so the Rebellion can analyze them for a weakness. We know that she lies about why she is going to Alderaan (like I've said before: "Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan," my -ss), and we even see her above Tatooine, which is far from Alderaan (hyperspace jump). We know from her message to Obi-Wan Kenobi that "her plans to reach him have failed." This is just from the first 20 minutes of A New Hope, keep in mind. While it's nice to believe Leia's comments, we never see Alderaan, and the only information we have about it comes from Leia herself. I mentioned this above, but I suppose it's worth repeating. Leia is an unreliable narrator, because she has everything to gain by lying and everything to lose if she tells the truth.

[quote name='Kane][size=1]As with any story the heroes are portrayed in the best possible light, the villains in the worst so as to make it easy to [b]prefer[/b'] one side more easily.[/size][/quote]I'm going to reply fully to everyone later, but I thought I should briefly elaborate on this. For those familiar with Apocalypse Now, they know it's a movie about Vietnam. They understand it's a film that explores the horrors of war. However, what some may not know or realize is one fact. It's rather obscure film trivia, though, so I wouldn't expect anyone to have heard of it, if they aren't interested in Apocalypse Now. In the early stages of development for A.N., there were a few different directors being considered, and each director had their different vision for the film. One of those directors was George Lucas. His vision for A.N. was a pseudo-docmentary shot on-location, at the height of the Vietnam war. It would be filmed in black and white, on a handheld camera. He viewed A.N. as a way to show the struggles of a less-organized, weaker, more hit-and-run group of freedom fighters as they rebelled against an oppressive and almost dictatorial foreign regime. What were those freedom fighters? The Viet Cong. Who was that oppressive foreign regime? The United States of America. Lucas' talks with Warner Bros fell through, however, and A.N. remained in limbo for a short time, until Coppola picked up the project and created what we now know as Apocalypse Now. When Lucas wasn't going to direct Apocalypse Now, his version of which would have been an indictment of America's role in Vietnam, he went on to create Star Wars. Yes, there is a heavy Japanese influence, with mystical warriors and so forth, but for those who would like to argue that The Empire is evil, and the Rebellion is good, I think it's worth nothing that The Empire is really just George Lucas' science-fiction equivalent of America, and the Rebellion is the Viet Cong. Depending on how you view Vietnam, you may agree or disagree, but I think before judging The Empire as evil, and the Rebellion as good, we should be aware of particular histories and backgrounds associated with Star Wars, and George Lucas' prior experience. EDIT: Zeta, it seems as though I've answered your question without even knowing you asked it.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I think you could argue that the two are opposites in one sense; Alderaan is pure, filled with lush forests and a peaceful civilization. It is the opposite to the Death Star in that it poses no threat to anyone; it's a completely peaceful entity. But the Death Star is black, cold, harsh and entirely synthetic. Unlike Alderaan, which just sits there doing no harm, the Death Star actively goes after other planets. It's the hunter, Alderaan is the hunted. That's my opinion, anyway. Again, I don't think that any analysis could suggest that the Empire is "good" or benevolent, at least in the context of the film (and that is, afterall, the topic of discussion). The Alderaan/Death Star comparison only serves to increase the impact of that point.[/color][color=black][/quote][/color] I do agree with you that the physicality of the two is entirely different. That cannot be disputed. Alderaan is a lush paradise, and the Death Star is a cold and unforgiving sphere of steely destruction. So, they're different in that aspect, but I do think they [i]are[/i] similar in how they're used. Both are propaganda and used in Ideological warfare. I think it is reasonable to say that Alderaan is a symbol of the Rebellion, and likewise, the Death Star is symbolic of The Empire, and because of this, it makes perfect sense in times of war to strike the inspirational symbols that your enemy praises. Alderaan is destroyed, Leia is reported as dead...this all points to The Empire using conventional war-time strategies designed to inflict morale damage. I notice you put quotations around the word, "good," and I agree on that. I find that labelling The Empire and the Rebellion in Star Wars doesn't really lend itself to anything more than simply enabling an easier, quicker reference. But like I said before, it's starting to become clearer and clearer that the line between "good" and "evil" is really only superficial. [color=#707875][color=black][quote][/color]I just wanted to point out that of course there is no justification for the Empire's acts of genocide. That's the whole point. That's why they're evil. lol[/color][/QUOTE]But again, in destroying the Death Star, it's not as if the Rebellion is killing only militants. If the Death Star does indeed house the soldiers' families, and there has been little evidence to dispute that, there were civilian women and children on-board when the Death Star was destroyed. This indicts the Rebellion on the same count of genocide that The Empire is charged with regarding the destruction of Alderaan. We may argue that in living on the Death Star, those families accepted the risk...call it Military Wives Complex, and their deaths are then less profound or meaningful because they knew of the risk. But the same can be said of Alderaan's civilians, because despite what I read on the Starwars.com Databank files on Alderaan, how the officials kept their ties to the Rebellion covert, I don't believe for a second that the general public had no idea what was going on, as Princess Leia herself was so outspoken in her support for the Rebellion. They had to have known what they were getting themselves into, lol. Because of this, the civilian deaths on Alderaan seem rather similar to those of the civilians aboard the Death Star, so then to charge The Empire with genocide, without considering the Rebellion's actions in the same manner of evaluation, is...playing favorites? Also, why does the Rebellion destroy the Death Star? Because it's a threat to their well-being. Well, why does The Empire destroy Alderaan, because it's a threat to their well-being. EDIT: I'm such a nerd, and an evil, evil spin-doctor...lol.

[quote name='Kane][size=1']The plot thickens, we now see that the Death Star, the implement of the Imperial "genocide" was to be a long term home for it's soldiers and more than likely their families. We can now see with distinction that the Rebellion is as guilty of murdering countless innocent civilians as the Empire, I would ask anyone here to dispute me when I say that the destruction of the Death Star by the Rebels is comparable to that of Alderaan as an act of Mass-Murder. The fact is that the people we are presented with on both sides make the difference, the young, brave and noble members of the Rebellion fighting the old, militaristic and evil leaders of the Empire. A cunning move by Lucas but it doesn't hold up under severe scrutiny.[/size][/quote] It had occurred to me that one counter a "Pro-Rebellion" person might use was that the Death Star was a very real physical threat, with actual planet-sized destructive capabilities, and thus did pose a threat, as compared to Alderaan, which is a planet, nothing more. The problem with that argument is while Alderaan may not have been a "technological terror," and thus not being a [i]physical[/i] threat, it was certainly an [i]Ideological[/i] threat. It was, like you mentioned in your post, a planet most likely filled with Rebellion propaganda that was designed to conjure up support for the Rebellion. We could say that Alderaan, like Leia, was a [i]symbol[/i] of the Rebellion, and in any war, destroying symbols of power (WTC, anyone?) proves quite effective to destroy enemy morale. One could say that Alderaan posed just as much of a threat to The Empire as the Death Star did to the Rebellion, and I think the comparison is strengthened when we see that their respective destructions are "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." They also occur at relatively the same point at the beginning points and endpoints of A New Hope. I think, after looking at A New Hope a bit, it's quite clear that Alderaan and the Death Star are counters to each other, and both proving equally detrimental to the opposing side, albeit in slightly different ways. Further, as we consider this more and more, we see that Alderaan's destruction was no mere fluke, and Tarkin was no fool at all. He understood concepts of battle in wartime, understood the dynamics of casualties, and most importantly, knew how to hit the enemy where it meant the most. Tarkin is a strategist, and a rather brilliant one at that.

[quote name='Kane][size=1']A few dissidents, that's being a little naive Dave. All our information on the government of Alderaan comes from Princess Leia's desperate plea to Tarkin as well as some information on StarWars.com that is 30 years out of date. What we know is that Princess Leia was a member of the Rebellion, we also know that her father was a member of the Rebellion. Now if the governing family of Alderaan supported the Rebellion it is proper order to assume that there were far more than a few dissidents on the planet. I mean the rebellion was probably using it as a base of operations, all Tarkin did was wipe out an enemy stronghold which is a common move in any war.[/size][/quote]I think this is another good point. Tarkin does not arbitrarily destroy Alderaan, for a variety of reasons, one of them being the obvious fact that Leia is lying about Alderaan's population. As Kane has pointed out, it would be incredibly naive to think that only a small percentage of Alderaan's population was armed, given that Leia and her surrogate father, Bail, were prominent supporters of the Rebellion. Darth Vader knows they are sympathetic. Tarkin knows. It could be said that the entire Empire knows. So, for the viewer to think that the population of Alderaan either doesn't know, doesn't care, or generally, isn't involved in some way or another with the Rebellion, is foolhardy, because it's made very clear just how outspoken Leia is about the Rebellion and how clear her affiliation is with it. Also, how do we know Leia was lying about her mission, or at least some part of it? Consider what planet A New Hope opens above: Tatooine, home of Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi, the very same Jedi Knight that Leia was seeking out. But her ship comes under attack, so she hides the plans and records the message. When questioned by Vader, she responds and lies to him. "Diplomatic mission to [i]Alderaan[/i]" my -ss, lol. Now, when we place ourselves in the position of a power like The Empire, and are really just protecting our safety, and [i]know[/i] that a leader of the opposing forces is outright lying to us, are we simply going to let them go with a slap on the wrist? I think not. Did we let Al Qaida go with a simple slap on the wrist? Hussein? It seems more and more that The Empire's actions are justifiable, in that they are commonplace in times of war. Granted, there surely were innocent civilians on Alderaan, but who is to say that there weren't innocent civilians aboard the [url="http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/?id=eu"][u]Death Star[/u][/url]? There is mention of shops, parks, etc aboard the Death Star, to make the soldiers more comfortable: [quote]Since service on the Death Star was a long-term affair, the station maintained a number of [b]civilian amenities[/b] to make the time aboard a deep space station more comfortable. Parks, shopping centers and recreation areas could be found in the general sectors of the station.[/quote]It appears that there were civilians somewhere aboard the Death Star. Interesting. You know, as I think about it more and more, and look deeper into the story, what seemed like a clear line between good and evil is becoming as murky as the swamps of Dagobah. :)

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Don't turn this thread about the debut of my new site into one of the BS-fests you enjoy so much.[/quote] "BS-fest?" Would you care to elaborate? Perhaps cite specific excerpts that directly relate to your assessment of our past being "BS-fests?" Or, perhaps you're trying to get a rise out of me? Regardless of your motivations, of which I do not care at all, I say this: "Do you really believe that there's some stored up conflict that exists between us? There is no 'us.' We don't exist." [QUOTE]I HAVE tried bluish and/or darkened text there before, and I didn't like it. At this point I'm happy with that portion of the layout, and changing it would be a waste of my time, nothing more. My pride has nothing to do with it. BUT! I appreciate your suggestion. Is there anything else you would like to comment on?[/QUOTE] I recall a friend commenting on website design, and how a webmaster designs for two people: himself and his audience. At this point, I think you are only possessing half of that balance. When you fully launch, some people may like the gold-on-gold, but some may suggest a darker color. You do have a guestbook; they very well may sign it with that comment. When that time comes, are you then going to at least try to achieve a balance between the positive (that you accept) and the negative (that you disregard)? [QUOTE]Maybe you're trying to cover up after missing that I was joking around. I don't know. But trying to act all high and mighty about this, saying that you "don't joke around" when it comes to this, well, it's just sad. Loosen up, have a lollipop. Sciros.net is not here to act as a first line of defense against biological threats. BUT! Again, I appreciate your suggestion. I am planning, believe it or not, on having higher-quality writing on my site than what was there before.[/QUOTE] What am I covering up? How am I being all "high and mighty?" I'm not sure what's giving you that impression here, but I'm not playing the straight man at all. I honestly just didn't find you funny at all, even though I did see you were trying so hard to be funny. I don't see what the big deal is about it, quite honestly, if there is a deal at all, of any size. Consider the following: 1) You asked for feedback concerning your website. 2) There is writing and/or there will be writing on your website. 3) I am studying to be an English teacher. 4) I critique writing. 5) Because I am studying to be an English teacher, I take it rather seriously, and certainly do not treat giving criticism as a joke, regardless of the tone of the writing being reviewed. I'm simply being very direct here. Consider it cold, uptight, prudish, even, if you will, but you should realize that writing is not all fun and games, regardless of the medium. [quote]See, now you're learning.[/QUOTE] I was simply telling you what you wanted to hear. Don't read into it more than that.

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Tradition was the last standing pillar of the Old Republic, the pattern eons old that'd served the galaxy well for millennia. When Palpatine finally began to hack away at the blindly followed tradition of democracy and loyal opposition, the Republic imploded.[/color][/quote] I think this is also an important point to consider. If the Old Republic was indeed as feeble and ineffective as we are led to believe by the Prequels and OT, then Palpatine's approach to reconstruction, while certainly vicious (but that's not to say the Old Republic was all that clean, either), he certainly had the right idea. I don't think he should be entirely villified because the Old Republic definitely needed a restructuring. Nothing was getting done from what we've seen, apart from appointing a total incompetent into a position of power. Really, when I think about it, Amidala had no power at all. She was just a cutesy figurehead, but yet she acted like she had power. The public doesn't need a government that can act; the public needs a government that can [i]do[/i].

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Har. ...No I like the upper left stuff. "SCIROS" isn't hard to read, and the rest isn't meant to stand out. I don't want the logo to take too much of the attention away from the rest of the site.[/quote]If you darken the lettering there, or at least make it a shade of blue, I seriously do not think it will draw attention away from the rest of the site. Granted, it may catch people's eye, but it certainly won't have them staring at it and ignoring the rest of your site. Q: What have you got to lose by changing it and seeing how it looks? A: Nothing except your pride. [quote]As for the sample text, it was a joke. I'm hoping you realized that and just didn't keep the joke going, lol. You should've said something like "now [i]that's[/i] more like it. High-level writing for the educated visitor. Kudos, Sciros." You should've also suggested I figure out a way to add "ho" into every other sentence. I have considered writing a Perl script to do that once I'm finished with the article, actually.[/QUOTE]I don't joke around. I'm sorry if you're hurt that your attempt at humor failed because I didn't care about it, that I was more concerned with something sounding mature and intelligent and still humorous, instead of something that sounded half-assed and written by a 5-year-old. But hey, if you'd like me to treat you like a kid and say, "OMG Good job!!! You are so special," I can do that. "OMG Good job!!! You are so special!!!"

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Really? It's gold text on blue background, though. Or purple on peach. That's contrasting enough for me, anyway.[/quote] No, no, not the smaller text. I'm talking about the logo text. Top left of the main page. The gold text there is incredibly hard to read against a similarly-colored gold background. [quote]Well, my early site WAS all ranting, lol. I wrote every individual bit of it within a half-hour, or an hour at most. Usually much less. And I didn't really have ANY intended audience. The entire site was really more than anything a test-run. Mostly web-design practice, looking back at it. Its new tone will be much more "modern Sciros speak." Here's a sample: "Link is so cool that if you pull out a bomb and then some douche launches your *** when you're over 150, the bomb will explode in mid-air and you'll recover to beat his *** into the ground like he deserves. Rawr!"[/QUOTE] So, this is a sample of what will be seen on 2.0? I'd recommend that you still consider moderate to heavy revision.

SSBM Link, now it makes sense. Well, if you're going to try to disprove that Agent Smith is Captain Ahab, then I'm certainly going to counter it, because clearly, Ahab and Moby Dick were heavily influential in the characterization of Smith and the Smith subplot. If you can punch holes in The Matrix Trilogy without acidic nitpicking, then I'll give you props. Regarding the colors, the gold text is fairly difficult to read, especially given the gold background. Either pump up the contrast a bit, or try a blue text. I think you should definitely keep the blue borders and gold background, but the gold text is iffy. And actually, for the entire site itself, the tone is important. I found with your original site, it felt like a high schooler's ranting, and if you're looking to make points and such, you can't call the reader a moron, or use such sophomoric language/tone. That's just coming from a general writing standpoint. I think it'd suit you quite well to strip that entire "**** you reader" tone out of the articles/reviews/etc. It's a general need to respect your reader. You can still be humorous, of course, but even comedy needs to be executed correctly, in order to be funny.

Looks good so far. You're right; the reviews are useless. I'm interested in what that SSMB Article Link is.

[quote name='ChapterBlack888']I think Sealab does to but I think Family Guy does it alot more and the way they say it is hilarious[/quote]What "way" do they say it that's different than Sealab? When you look at the characters, especially Peter Griffin and Captain Murphy, who are essentially the leads of their respective shows, and are both utterly dense. In fact, if you were to compare them on simple, pure, unadulterated incompetence, Murphy is far superior. The only characters on Family Guy that [i]may[/i] give it an advantage over Sealab are Brian, Stewie, or Chris, but then you look at the secondary characters on Sealab, Hesh and Debbie, specifically, and, again, Sealab wins out in terms of character delivery. Who doesn't enjoy Hesh screaming, "I want some SEX," or Debbie running around, "I need to have a baby!" Maybe it's just me, but the character delivery is far nuttier and loony on Sealab. EDIT: Oh, he's banned now. Guess he shan't be replying.

[quote name='ChapterBlack888']Family Guy is definitely the best out of those four because they just say random funny as crap stuff.[/quote] So... [quote=From Sealab 2021] [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0333100/"]Captain Murphy[/url] : Did they say why they want to terminate my command? [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0261805/"]Marco[/url] : They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound. [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0333100/"]Captain Murphy[/url] : Are my methods unsound? [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0261805/"]Marco[/url] : I don't see any method at all, sir. [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0333100/"]Captain Murphy[/url] : Are you an assassin? [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0261805/"]Marco[/url] : I'm a soldier. [url="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0333100/"]Captain Murphy[/url] : You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. SO WET WILLIE FOR YOU![/quote] ...or what about [quote=Sealab 2021] Captain Murphy: [referring to a "sick" child] Your lymph nodes must be as big as cats![/quote] ...hell, [url=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0278877/quotes]Sealab 2021 quotes[/url]. How can you say that Sealab 2021 characters [i]don't[/i] say "random funny as crap" stuff? The "lymph nodes as big as cats" line had me in tears, lol.

Cartoon Network has really struck gold with its Late-Night Adult Swim line-up. Its selection of cartoons has some of the most biting and satirical ones I've ever seen. Some episodes of Harvey Birdman are of Simpsons quality, I think, and that's incredibly hard to do, especially when you're looking at The Simpsons' best stuff. Harvey Birdman was a horrid cartoon at first. It was just a boring superhero cartoon, with little to distinguish itself in the seemingly infinite number of superhero cartoons at the time. Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law, however, is awesome, because it's taking familiar and often boring characterization and putting a very intelligently-conceived spin on that characterization. That's why Birdman: Attorney works, really, because it's so irreverent. I mean, what other cartoon in the history of cartoons would have The Jetsons traveling back in time to sue the present day inhabitants for polluting the Earth? Or Shaggy and Scooby being investigated for Possession? We all knew that was coming sometime...I mean, just look at those two, lol. I remember another episode where Race Bannon was suing Dr. Quest for custody of Johnny and Hadji. A child custody battle, for chrissakes! That's what puts Birdman: Attorney a cut above so many of the "adult" cartoons of its ilk. The show's creators aren't afraid to skew pop culture like that...to take familiar material and suppose what would happen if Johnny Quest's family were brought into the "Real" world. I don't think I could choose, however, between Birdman, Family Guy, Futurama, or Sealab 2021. They're all excellent in their different ways. If I had to choose a weaker show...I'd say Sealab 2021, [i]only[/i] because it's a very, very specific type of humor that many won't "get" or be able to appreciate. The best show...if I absolutely had to choose one, I'd say Birdman, because it consistently entertains and is probably the most biting out of the four, even though Family Guy and Futurama are both fairly sarcastic, I've found that much of the humor in Family Guy is "vulgar," and Futurama's, as well.

[quote name='Wingnut Ninja][color=teal']Killing yourself to save is tedious, especially when you have the Blue Ring...[/color][/quote] Blue Ring is nothing when you've got the Red Ring. Now [i]that's[/i] a pain. Of course, how many people here have found the Red Ring? Am I the only one who hasn't? I seriously still can't find that damn thing...stupid Level 9... Like Tony, I refuse to pay 20 bucks for a [b][u]GBA[/u][/b] game (in 2004) that cost 50 bucks when it was released on [b][u]NES[/u][/b] (in 1987), regardless of it being LoZ or SMB. Considering you can just buy Animal Crossing, an Action Replay, and unlock LoZ, SMB, and about 5 other games that include Punch-Out, Ice Climber, and Wario Woods, doing some quick and rough math, that's about the same price...probably even a better deal to pick-up AX and an Action Replay.

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]True, true, but sometimes the organization is actually good for [i]something[/i'], lol.[/quote]But if an organization's point is to deter people from smoking, isn't that organization good for something? Smoking deterrence is a noble cause, certainly, and while the execution of some of their commercials is questionable, TRUTH still holds a rather commendable objective. I think their best commercial was the Times Square one, where they had a large number of people lay down in the middle of Times Square, to show how many die each day from smoking.

I've been hearing this talk about "high-concept," "high-quality," "major blockbuster" RPGs, etc etc, and I think just by hyperfocusing on wanting someone to either write an epic post, start an epic RPG that's going to span numerous chapters, create an RPG that delves into the human psyche, is missing one rather large and rather important point here: [i]Fun.[/i] For about half of the RPGs I read on OB, I'm not reading to be taught; I'm not reading to explore the inner workings of the human mind. I'm not even reading them to think about anything substantial. I'm reading them to have fun, to be entertained. Sometimes, the goofier the concept, the better it is. Shinmaru's Apartment Building C is a prime example of this. Apt. Building C, like its creator is just a goofball, and that's what makes it enjoyable: because it's just wacky. Zidargh's Plumber Bros, Inc. is another such RPG that's just so quirky you can't help but smile and laugh. Solo's Anime Stereotype High School is another. "High art" isn't needed to craft a solid and fun RPG. Even James' Kill Adam, while dealing with some pretty mature themes and plot points, still has its fair share of wacky, in keeping with QT's style. I know this is stating the obvious, but having fun, both writing the RPG and reading it is the most important thing here, apart from proper spelling and grammar.

[center][img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20822&stc=1[/img][/center] -He was one of the most outstanding hunters this program has ever produced. He was brilliant and outstanding in every way?and he was a good man. too. Humanitarian man, man of wit, of humor. He understood the sport. He respected it. But now his ideas, methods have become?unsound. In this hunt, things got confused out there?power, ideals, the old morality, and practical survival necessities. Out there with these natives it must be a temptation to be god. Because there's a conflict in every human heart between the rational and the irrational, between good and evil. The good does not always triumph. Sometimes the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. Every man has got a breaking point. You and I have. He has reached his. And very obviously, he has gone insane. -Yes sir, very much so sir. Obviously insane. -Your mission is to proceed up the Doe River in a local fishing boat with five other operatives. They have already been stationed there, and will meet you upon your arrival. Pick up his path at Bedford Dock, follow it, learn what you can along the way. When you find Andrews, infiltrate his team by whatever means available and terminate his command. -Terminate? -Terminate?with [i]extreme prejudice[/i]. [center]---[/center] You have just been assigned your mission, Captain, now we must review your information. Please fill out the attached forms completely and return them to us. You will notice that the forms do not have the conventional format, because, Captain, this is not a conventional mission. Your name, age, and experience is all that is required. Please do not include any unrequested fields. If at any time during the evaluation process, we feel you are better suited to replace one of our current field operatives, and not to supervise this mission, we reserve the right to act upon those observations and transfer you without your consent.