I finally saw the new Star Wars flick today, and considering it was after all a war movie, the violence was noticeably unnoticeable. Even during the land war scenes it was just about impossible to see anything even remotely humanoid being killed. In one scene where a character is stabbed through the heart by a light-saber (and even a few moments later when we see the body again), there is no blood in the vicinity of the wound. I don’t see it as a ratings issue, because there were severed bloody appendages in both of the first two movies, and they were both PG. By going to such lengths to keep blood & gore out of his film, do you think George Lucas has taken sides in the argument that violence in the media incites violence in children?
Well, the latest Star Wars flick was in production too long to have been affected by the latest bout of anti-violence. Without having seen the movie, my guess would be that Lucas was more interested in portraying a heroic, good vs evil conflict than a bona fide war movie. Besides, who’s to say exactly what a light saber does to the body? Except for the guy who’s going to tell me scientfically what a light saber does, of course 
“I guess it is possible for one person to make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn’t.”
If a light saber can melt blast doors, I’m guessing that it would cauterize a wound the instant it was made–thus bloodless wounds. But this isn’t new to Star Wars. When Luke Skywalker got his hand cut off in **The Empire Strikes Back ** he didn’t bleed. So Lucas has been doing it that way since 1980, it’s not a reaction to anything new.
Jim Petty
A Snappy message should appear here
I agree with Jimpy… I havent seen the new film yet, but on a side note I have a question relating to that - when Obi Wan was killed in Star Wars by Darth Vader he was sliced through the middle if I remember right. Why did Obi completely disappear? Wouldnt it stand to reason if he was cut in half, for his two parts to hit the floor and not vaporize? (or something like that) Was there any explanation for that, besides maybe mystical jedi powers that allows one to vaporize when killed?
The lightsabers are principly plasma based wands of energy that are surrounded by a protective something so as to not instantly burn the face off the user when he lights it up. At least, that was the explanation made by a engineer on a show I saw recently. She also explained that in theory a lightsaber is scientifically sound, just not practical since we are unsure how to build one.
As to when we can get one? She stated that if we totally shifted all our scientific reasearch into building them…maybe about 20 years. Hmm…I can;t think of a better way my taxes can go than to have a lightsaber.
As to why Obi Wan disappeared. Well go spritual with me and you can say that Obi Wan, a hard nosed follower of the force “ascended” to the next level because of his mastery of the semantics of the force (like Yoda when he died). Quin did not because he was the supposed rebel of the Jedi council refusing to be on it for something or another and having problems with other members decisions. So he did not have the true nature of the Force to carry him to the next level. Woo…can I spout the BS or what?
Or maybe Lucas was too cheap back then or wants to use Quin for something else later. Who knows with him.
Lucas has done nothing but maintain the status quo. Hollywood rarely, if ever, accurately portrays the amount of blood produced by mayhem, gunshot wounds or any other type of physical violence. It’s a messy business, that, and not a pretty picture the public at large wants to see. Gratuitous violence is fine with us, as long as it does not produce liquids - and the same goes for our taste in movie sex.
Imho, the removal of the immediate effects of violence trivializes it and sends exactly the wrong message… but I certainly would not insist Lucas have his 'droids spewing lubricating fluids all over the landscape, either.
Light sabers seem to be a little erratic in their behaviour. In STAR WARS, when Ben Kenobi cuts off the guys arm, there is blood (although not much). In EMPIRE, Luke’s hand is decapitated (so to speak) by Vader’s light saber, with no blood, the laser presumably cauterizing. In PHANTOM MENACE, the guy who is stabbed through has clear burn marks on the clothing on his back, presumably the laser cauterized… ditto the other death by light saber a few moments later, no blood.
Maybe it depends whether the light saber is on full strenght or just on stun?
But remember that Ben Kenobi does call the light saber a more elegant weapon.
I forgot to add, in STAR WARS, Ben Kenobi is clearly NOT killed by the light saber: he disincorporates a few seconds before the light saber blade hits his empty clothes.
Yoda seems to sort of disincorporate similarly in RETURN OF THE JEDI. So this would appear to be something that Jedis can do. The death of Annakin, and the deaths by light saber in PHANTOM MENACE, do not involve this “vanishing.”
I think I’ve seen these movies too often.
Th’s a book out by Jeanne Cavelos titled “The Science of Star Wars”. Prety good read if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
Also, check this out as well:
http://www.synicon.com.au/sw/ls/sabres.htm
This guy, arguably, has too much time on his hands. But he’s done a pretty good job of examining the numerous sources of ‘how Star Wars works’, with links to other sites and publications as well.
Enjoy!
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
“An elegant weapon, from a more civilized age.”
Keep in mind that Lucas sees his idea of “the Force” as something of a distilation of the various religious traditions of this galaxy (that we know about anyway). From this perspective, the scenes of Ben and Yoda dissapearing are not totally baseless. Although I can’t think of any religious traditions about people disapearing per se when killed, Jesus’s body supposedly assended into heaven after the resurection. According to the Catholic Church, the same thing happened to Mary at her death. Both of these were no doubt influenced by similiar OT stories referring to Enoch (Gen. 5:24) and Elijah (IIK. 2:11), the latter of whom ascended in a whirlwind. Obviously, the idea is that if you’re really holy, God won’t leave your body just lying around to decay like some lesser mortal.
It’s also worth noting that in Star Wars, Ben chose to die, and Yoda was at least prepared for it to happen. Qui Gong, Vader, and Maul were all struck down. That might affect it. Or maybe they just weren’t as “Force-ful.”
Oh, yeah–with regards to the OP, I thought it was pretty silly, too, that in the whole Gungun battle, you never saw a single one get shot. It makes me wonder if the droids were really trying. It seems like with that many people to shoot at, you’d actually have to aim pretty well to avoid hitting any of them! They should have been wiped out! At least in Jedi we got to see one stinkin’ Ewok die. Personally, I think there should be a sequal to all the movies, in which the Gunguns and the Ewoks have a war and both species are totally destroyed. Painfully.
I think the disappearing jedi isn’t Biblical, but from science fiction origins. Heinlein’s STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND, as I recall, gives the Martians the power to discorporate, suicidally dissolve themselves into the cosmic wossname.
You all talk about how Vader, Maul, and Qui were struck down unlike Yoda and Obi-wan who crossed over… but didn’t Luke see Anakin along with Yoda and Obi-Wan at the end of Jedi?
[QUOTE}Keep in mind that Lucas sees his idea of “the Force” as something of a distilation of the various religious traditions of this galaxy [/QUOTE]
Is it just me, or was anyone else annoyed by the metachlorion explanation in Episode I? It kind of ruined the mystical nature of the Force by breaking it down into a biochemical phenomenon.
“[He] beat his fist down upon the table and hurt his hand and became so
further enraged… that he beat his fist down upon the table even harder and
hurt his hand some more.” – Joseph Heller’s Catch-22
No, you’re not the only one…I hope that Lucas will explain away the phenonmenon as a legend or as a localized event, since Episodes IV-VI made no mention of it.
Oh, and as to Obi-Wan’s disappearance…it seems that Vader was just as surprised as we were (he pokes at the clothing with his foot for a moment). Maybe Anakin didn’t vanish at his death because he didn’t know how.
-
-
- I haven’t yet seen it but several resasonable, intelligent people who aren’t Star Wars freaks say that the production is disappointing in several respects.
-
- Also, the Star Wars freaks at work say the same thing as Heath said - in the Star Wars books, what happens to somebody when they are killed has to do with if they are good Jedi, neutral Jedi or Dark Side. There’s a couple characters that die in ways other than these, but saying why would spoil the story.
I don’t know about the consistency of Jedis’ deaths, but it seems to me that in ANH, Kenobi knew he was going to disincorporate upon Vader’s death blow.
At the beginning of their battle, he tells Vader somthing like, “Strike me down now, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.”
Seems he knew what was going to happen …
~ Complacency is far more dangerous than outrage ~
Is it just me, or was anyone else annoyed by the metachlorion explanation in Episode I? It kind of ruined the mystical nature of the Force by breaking it down into a biochemical phenomenon.}}
That was one of the most bothersome things about the movie. (That, and Jar-Jar Binks, or whatever the hell his name is.) If they had this metachlorion thing in the Episodes 4-6, they probably would have figured out Leia was a Jedi. But mainly, I was bothered because this wonderful, mysterious Force became a genetic phenomenon.
I guess the movie could never have lived up to all the hype. I still went and saw it. I may see it again. And I'll buy it on tape, just to have it. There were some enjoyable things, like Darth Maul.
Neil
“. . .they could as easily have been carrying euphoniums and wearing war paint for all the notice their quarry would have taken of them.”
-Douglas Adams, “Life, the Universe, and Everything”
I wouldn’t have minded Jar-Jar if they had given her (him?) it subtitles.
Mastery is not perfection but a journey, and the true master must be willing to try and fail and try again
While were on the subject of Episode 1, has anybody else noticed some (probably unintended) racial steriotypes represented in the aliens. Jar Jar’s people seem like some kind of pre-civil rights idea of “step’n’fetchit” black folks. The greedy, economically emperious Trade Federation species had noticably asian accents. And the junk dealer could have played Shylock at the Globe.
If we can get over the fact that all of these different species are even speaking English to begin with, I suppose sprinkling in a few accents is only one more tiny step in the same direction. I noticed the Asian accent almost immediately, as did my Vietnamese friend. He was not offended, but thought that most people probably would be. We did wonder why Queen Amidala was wearing what appeared to be ceremonial Japanese headdress & Geisha face paint throughout the movie, I suggested it was an attempt at making the character a quickly identifiable exotic figure of royalty.
I was most annoyed at the excessive use of current day slang, I mean- moolah? Really.