Chefelf.com Night Life: No Attachments, No Interest - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »

No Attachments, No Interest My beef with the PT

#1 User is offline   RisanF Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 18-April 06
  • Country:United States

Post icon  Posted 18 April 2006 - 07:31 PM

People complain about a lot of things about the prequels. The goofy battle droids, the clunky dialogue, the suspect romance, and the endless, endless hatred for Jar Jar Binks. All of this is just icing on the cake for me, though, compared to my problem with the Prequel Trilogy. That issue is, of course, its central theme: the no-attachments policy of the Jedi Order.

I was weaned on the Expanded Universe. I loved hearing about Luke's various relationships; his never-ending stream of feisty girlfriends. And of course, there's all his platonic relationships with his friends and family; Leia, Han, Chewie, the droids, and Vader. Being told that a Jedi can only have superficial, business relationships came like a punch in the face to someone like me, who invested so much in SW relationships.

I can understand the points in favor of this no-attachments policy. It's the whole greater-good over the private-good philosophy, trying to avoid situations like what happened to Luke at Bespin. At the same time, I don't know if it's entirely fair to slap the Dark Side label on someone like Luke for making a decision to save his friends from being tortured. (makes you wonder if the Jedi should take the masked-crimefighter route) Having no attachments is not something someone should train you to live by; you have to decide to live like that yourself.

In the end, the entire thing is taken to ridiculous extremes by the Jedi Order, which turns the whole "only a Sith speaks in absolutes" phrase on its head. (that's right, Anakin, don't bother taking the week or so necessary to free your mother from slavery; let her die instead) Yoda's comments to Anakin about attachments (as well as George Lucas') are cold and chilling, succeeding in ruining the entire Revenge of the Sith film for me. Saying that sealing off your emotions and letting your friends die is the best way to lead a good life is cold and sad, a twisted moral that turns Yoda into the frostiest individual around. And as a moral, I can't see how many people, who are all attached to someone, would take that to heart.

I'll give RotS due credit for making its point about the no-attachments policy. When it comes down to it, Anakin should have let Padme die rather than slay a roomful of kids. However, Lucas’ comments about Anakin loving Padme too much is still suspect in this situation. Even the most devoted husband should be able to step back and see that killing innocent children on the wild hunch that it will lead to your wife living is not a viable option. (this is why Anakin is often referred to as a psycho idiot on Star Wars hate boards)

The no-attachments policy rears its head again when Obi-Wan must slay Anakin for the good of the galaxy. A sad decision for him to make, but it ultimately reveals that Obi-Wan IS actually attached to Anakin, despite the Jedi Code. This presents a double issue concerning the no-attachments policy, the first being that having unfeeling, unattached heroes makes for boring heroes and lame movie making. The second issue is that the no-attachments policy is simply unfeasible; even with the creepy policy of taking a Force Sensitive child away from his mother, the child is just going to form a relationship with their Jedi Master, even if said Master is a by-the-book stickler like Prequel Obi-Wan.

Now that we've got a rundown on the problems with the no-attachments policy, let's get on to perhaps the biggest issue: where does it fit in with the Original Trilogy? There are numerous continuality errors concerning the PT and the OT, and the no-attachments policy is no exception from this. Certainly there are echoes of it in the old movies; Luke's decision to fly to Bespin reflects this clearly. Return of the Jedi touches on this as well...but to what end?

Wading through Return of the Jedi is a murky and confusing affair. Don't get me wrong, RotJ was my favorite Star Wars film for many years, and I maintain it was pretty well put together, Ewoks and all. However, I find there is lots of confusion concerning the final confrontation aboard the Death Star, what with Vader, the Dark Side, and what Luke is actually supposed to do. It's confusing enough that I'm not even sure where to start, but I'll bungle through it anyway.

Lucas said that Luke was given the same choice in RotJ as Anakin was in RotS, only that Luke says no. Taking his comment at face value, I'm going to assume that he's talking about when Luke throws his lightsaber aside instead of killing Vader for threatening his sister. Bear in mind I'm not at all sure about that, but let's assume the point of this is that Luke is willing to sacrifice his sister for the greater good. As displeasing as this concept is, this should help considerably in making Lucas' point valid.

If Lucas was really serious about driving home the no-attachments policy, if he was trying to create this theme from Day 1, Return of the Jedi should've ended with the death of Leia. (and perhaps Han and Chewie) We should've been treated to an image of Luke looking at the graves of his fallen friends, knowing that with their death, he has saved the galaxy for many people. But in the end, we just can't believe Lucas' claim that everything ties together is the real truth. Let's explore what actually happened in RotJ.

After Luke lays down his arms, Palpatine gets to torturing Luke with his Force Lightning. Luke appeals to his father for help, seeming to hope that some humanity remains in the black machine-man. After some hesitation, Vader bites and sends the Emperor on a one-way trip down a Death Star energy well, saving his beloved son. A very attachment-driven decision, and one with a positive outcome.

Moving on, we see Luke trying desperately to save his father by dragging his fallen body through the Death Star. Vader shares some touching words with his son, wanting to look at him "with his own eyes." Luke pleads with his father to hang on, refusing to give up on him. In the end Anakin Skywalker dies, and Luke breaks down in tears, just like any son would when their father passes on.

Finally, we move on to the Ewok celebration. Luke shares many warm greetings with his war buddies, all smiles and hugs. At one point, he steps back to view the spirits of those that have left this world, who all look upon him with pride. Then, Leia appears, and drags him back to the party, back to the world of attachments.

So we can clearly see that the overall moral of Star Wars is...what? Luke didn't give up a single attachment; not his sister, not his father. The Expanded Universe authors, despite being in a position to truly understand Star Wars, obviously didn't get this either; Luke maintains relationships with people throughout the books written before the Prequel Trilogy, some platonic, some romantic. If the people who contribute to the fandom can't see no-attachments policy, then maybe it wasn't even there to begin with.

It's hard enough deciding what the meaning of the Original Trilogy is without the no-attachments policy. Yoda and Obi-Wan imply that Luke must eliminate his father to secure the future of the galaxy, yet killing his father because he threatened his sister is a one-way trip to the Dark Side? Obi-Wan didn't think Vader could be saved, yet Luke spends all his time with Vader trying to save him, and in the end succeeds. Why is it bad for Luke to kill the Emperor, but okay for Vader?

All of this leads back to the same point that we've all realized long ago; that Star Wars is a mess. The no-attachments is a mess, and doesn't fit in any better with the OT than Padme Force-Feeding memories in Leia does. I haven't read everything on what Lucas has to say on the matter, and I admit I don't wish to; I find his approach to Star Wars cold which rubs me entirely the wrong way. Given his perchance of weak excuses (in my opinion; I’m not a Lucas fan), it may not be worth all that much; nothing he says can change what is shown on the screen.

All things considered, I maintain that I just don't like the no-attachments policy, so I'll make up my own mind on the issue; attachments should be cherished but handled responsibly. Anakin may be wise to forgo saving Padme in exchange for murder, but he should spend every second trying to save her without hurting anyone. Obi-Wan choosing to put aside personal feelings and slay his twisted apprentice may have merit, but he damn well better feel like crap afterwards. Making these kinds of decisions is what any human might have to do, and I believe the right path can be taken without turning yourself into a stone-cold husk.

(unless this was Lucas' point all along, in which case this post many be a bit redundant)

This post has been edited by RisanF: 18 April 2006 - 07:50 PM

0

#2 User is offline   Sailor Abbey Icon

  • Queen of the Harpies
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,122
  • Joined: 29-March 05
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:the land of Huskies
  • Interests:Defending the forces of evil from the whiney forces of good; spreading awareness about violence and its ability to solve all problems - from the very smallest to the very stupid…est…; sticking up for the little guy, as long as the little guy shares my point of view or is willing to convert in exchange for some ‘sticking up for’; and of course, plotting world domination and putting and end to reality tv once and for all. <br /><br />Oh, and beautiful women.
  • Country:United States

Posted 22 April 2006 - 08:33 AM

Personally, I hated the goofy jester outfit they made Amidala wear. That was by far the worst part of the PT.
0

#3 User is offline   Casual Fan Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 118
  • Joined: 25-March 05
  • Country:United States

Posted 22 April 2006 - 02:42 PM

Actually I have the exact opposite opinion. The "no attachments thing" is one of the few things in the Prequels that makes some sort of sense.

Monastic orders, including fighting monastic orders have actually existed. Making the Jedi one is not stretching the bounds of credibility. Since the Jedi have "powers" ordinary humans don't have, its understandable why they would not want to see those "powers" used to help relatives (imagine using the mind trick to get your son into the college of his choice), and would otherwise want to limit the personal behavior and choices of members of the orders. To some extent, all orders do this. That is why they are called orders.

This doesn't contradict the OT in any way. Luke, Ben, Yoda, and for that matter the Emperor and Vader are all unmarried. It is never suggested that they ever were married or have the slightest interest in getting married. Other characters are shown as married or get together during the movie. We learn very little about the Jedi during the OT except by watching Obi Wan, a hermit, so Lucas was working from a blank slate. Making the Jedi a monastic order makes more intuitive sense than putting them in a penthouse in Trump Tower, having them endorse slavery and cloning adults, or including members that have anatomies that are physically impossible.

One thing that is clear about any potential plot of the prequels is that Anakin must be given a motivation to turn towards the Dark Side that the audience can sympathize with. Otherwise he can't be both a "good man" and turn towards something the audience from the OT has been taught to associate with evil. This is really the main difficulty of the prequels. You could make Anakin rotton from the start, or make the adherents of the Dark Side turn out to be the good guys, but this is cheating (btw, the real life prequels sometimes veer in both these directions). So what a better way to do this than to have Anakin fall in love, but he can't care for the girl without in some way going against the Jedi order? Its a very logical solution.

The problem with the prequels is that everything EXCEPT the "no attachments" idea is completely incoherent. So is the execution of Anakin's dilemna, since Lucas for some reason neglects to PUT PADME IN ACTUAL DANGER THAT TURNING TO THE DARK SIDE CAN HELP. But the basic idea is sound. Lucas needed to have a few sound basic concepts in these movies or there wouldn't have been any plot at all.
0

#4 User is offline   jariten Icon

  • making the nature scene
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Joined: 18-August 04
  • Location:in the bin
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 22 April 2006 - 06:04 PM

QUOTE
At the same time, I don't know if it's entirely fair to slap the Dark Side label on someone like Luke for making a decision to save his friends from being tortured


It doesn't instantly make you go dark side, just make you more susceptabile to its trappings (wanting to keep things=greed=greed for more power etc.)
0

#5 User is offline   ion eon Icon

  • Evolved
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Joined: 12-August 05
  • Location:My Location
  • Interests:stuff....
  • Country:United States

Posted 22 April 2006 - 07:16 PM

good quote

good quote
OH NO!!!
0

#6 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 23 April 2006 - 08:19 PM

I agree with RisanF 100%. This was one of the weaker elements of the PT to me. I always assumed that Luke being the offspring of a Jedi was normal and, also, that if these Jedi traits are genetic, they'd be effectively running themselves into extinction if they weren't allowed to procreate.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#7 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 23 April 2006 - 09:47 PM

its little things like this that have geeked out the movies....

this is where star treck has gone all wrong too. too many bloody stupid concepts that try to fill out an otherwise simple idea. and the more they add to simple ideas and concepts, the thinner they become.
0

#8 User is offline   Jedi_1138 Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 51
  • Joined: 04-May 06
  • Location:Germany
  • Interests:Mythology, Fantasy, Martial Arts, Aikido, Kenjutsu, BtVS, Angel, CSI
  • Country:Germany

Posted 04 May 2006 - 02:21 PM

Ah, finaly. Someone who shares my point of view. I have to admit I am with RisanF on this one, 100%. Actually, I think it's even worse.
I think part of why the OT was enjoyable while the PT seemed so boring was because in the PT we where never presented with characters that actually cared about each other like in the old movies. How do we know? Because in every OT movie, some of the heros put their lives on stake to save another. Luke and Han walk straight into the dentention block to free Leia, and this motive goes on an on. It gives the heros the chance to do something etirely stupid, but it works out, so it is, in fact, heroic. What actually does one of the characters in the PT do to be considered a hero? At wich point do Yoda, Mace Windu, Obi Wan or even Anakin do something desperate just because to help someone else?
I think a good fantasy story needs a party. A party that is drawn together by friendship and respect as much as something like "destiny". From my point of view, the PT lacks that, while we had it in the OT. If the main characters don't care about each other, why should we?

But it gets worse. If having "no attachments" is so important for a Jedi - as Yoda points out in ROTS and TESB - why doesn't he behave that way? Why does Yoda at the final battle in AOTC care to save Obi Wan and Anakin when he could have used the chance to finish Dooku? Why, if the "no attachment policy" is so important for the Jedi, does Dooku even try to distract Yoda that way?

Oh, and one more thing. I know there have been - or still are - orders that give in to their faith and have no romantic relationships. Some of them are regardet as great warriors. From the ancient Templer Order to the Shaolin. And, yes, it's never hinted at that Obi Wan or Yoda had a wife or significant other.
Then again, it's also nowhere mentioned in the OT that Lukes and Leias birth was something extra ordinary either.
And...if the Jedi never had relationships and kids...how exactly do they know that the force sensivity can be passed on to ones offspring? Doesn't seem to make sense to me.
0

#9 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 04 May 2006 - 03:05 PM

That's a great point about the lack of heroism. I, for one, was incredibly bored by the action and fake heroics of th e PT. There was no sense of danger in any of the fight sequences. Luke had to dodge laser blasts and fire back at stormtroopers. Obi-Wan and Anakin and all the Jedi were essentially invincible as they deflected a never-ending stream of laser blasts and destroyed an unlimited number of anonymous battle droids.
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#10 User is offline   Gobbler Icon

  • God damn it, Nappa.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,560
  • Joined: 26-December 05
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Three octaves down to your left.
  • Interests:Thermonuclear warfare and other pleasantries.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 04 May 2006 - 03:16 PM

Yup... exactly the same feeling the stupid Jedi Knight games gave you. Oh, I've got a lightsaber. Cool. You there, come over here. Tshak. Dead. You there, come over here. Tshak. Deaded. You there... oh, don't run away. Force pull. Tshak. Deaded. Oh somebody's firing at me, nevermind, force defense will get rid of it while I sip on some tea... dum~dee~dum~dee...

Quote

Pop quiz, hotshot. Garry Kasparov is coming to kill you, and the only way to change his mind is for you to beat him at chess. What do you do, what do you do?
0

#11 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 May 2006 - 09:16 PM

QUOTE (Chefelf @ May 4 2006, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There was no sense of danger in any of the fight sequences.


and when there was, it was just stupidly over the top...

like van helsing.

in fact alot like van helsing....

hotie female character doges swords and projectiles, people with supernatural powers, and jumps from great hieghts luckily catching the million to one cable swining past and other such dangers....
then dies from crash tackle.

then padme... who pretty much lives the same life as above only to will herself dead at the prospect of being a single mother like her mother-in-law.
0

#12 User is offline   Gerhard Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 24-June 05
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal
  • Country:Portugal

Posted 06 May 2006 - 02:09 PM

QUOTE (Jedi_1138 @ May 4 2006, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Then again, it's also nowhere mentioned in the OT that Luke's and Leias birth was something extra ordinary either.


The PT contradicts itself in this respect, didn't GuiGon asked to Shimi (sp?) Skywalker who was Anakin's father? From that line I suspect that Jedi's having kids was normal. And why Shumi was not tested for midicrap?

In my opinion the "no attachment" policy was brought to the PT to give more drama to Anakins turn, something that Lucas is a master at, make things as he go's.

IN ESB Yoda asking for Luke not going to the cloud city to save is friends, was only to protect him from Vader since he was not a jedi yet. It had nothing to do with the stupidity of a Jedi having no attachments.

QUOTE (Jedi_1138 @ May 4 2006, 08:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
at wich point do Yoda, Mace Windu, Obi Wan or even Anakin do something desperate just because to help someone else?

In fact Anakin saves Kenobi in the start of Ep. 3 , however in a direct comparison I never doubted Luke's/Han's Friendship in the OT, I don't understand why Anakin either is saving Kenoby, either is ranting on him on is back. More than anything, for me, Anakin's characterization is a mess. I'm still wondering where is "the good friend" Kenoby talked about in the OT.

This post has been edited by Gerhard: 06 May 2006 - 02:29 PM

0

#13 User is offline   Otal Nimrodi Icon

  • Miracle Ghost
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5,442
  • Joined: 26-June 05
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I like my my little pony characters like I like my suspected criminals. Mirandized.
  • Country:United States

Posted 06 May 2006 - 07:21 PM

QUOTE (Sailor Abbey @ Apr 22 2006, 09:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Personally, I hated the goofy jester outfit they made Amidala wear. That was by far the worst part of the PT.


Yeah, I REALLY hated that thing!
Want a Tarot reading?

PM me, we'll talk.
0

#14 User is offline   jariten Icon

  • making the nature scene
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,845
  • Joined: 18-August 04
  • Location:in the bin
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 06 May 2006 - 08:33 PM

QUOTE
IN ESB Yoda asking for Luke not going to the cloud city to save is friends, was only to protect him from Vader since he was not a jedi yet. It had nothing to do with the stupidity of a Jedi having no attachments.


In fact, it has everything to do with attachements. Luke rushes off to face Vader too early to help the friends he cares about. He fears they will die so he abandons his training for them.

He is on the brink of killing his own father and (like Anakin) falling to the dark side in RotJ because of his attachment to Leia.

Imagine he (like the other Jedi could) was able to disconnect himself and keep himself distanced from them; he would have finished his training on Dagobah with Yoda until he was ready to face and beat the Emperor, instead of immaturely rushing off like he did. Obi was right to think that Luke could be lost to Sidious, he'd already seen Anakin fall into the exact same trap.
0

#15 User is offline   Gerhard Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 164
  • Joined: 24-June 05
  • Location:Lisbon, Portugal
  • Country:Portugal

Posted 07 May 2006 - 06:02 AM

QUOTE (jariten @ May 7 2006, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
In fact, it has everything to do with attachements. Luke rushes off to face Vader too early to help the friends he cares about. He fears they will die so he abandons his training for them.


But that is not the point, Yoda does not want Luke to go because his not ready to face Vader. Yoda does not imply he should not care for his friends. Just make a sacrifice, at this time, for more important things.

QUOTE (jariten @ May 7 2006, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
He is on the brink of killing his own father and (like Anakin) falling to the dark side in RotJ because of his attachment to Leia.

Imagine he (like the other Jedi could) was able to disconnect himself and keep himself distanced from them; he would have finished his training on Dagobah with Yoda until he was ready to face and beat the Emperor, instead of immaturely rushing off like he did. Obi was right to think that Luke could be lost to Sidious, he'd already seen Anakin fall into the exact same trap.


Palpatine and Vader explored the emotional side of Luke in order to turn him to the dark side using Leia and his rebel friends. But that exploration does not base on the fact that Luke cared for his friends, but for the hate it may generate inside Luke to protect them.

I never saw any hint in the OT that Luke should not have any attachments to protect himself from dark side.

This post has been edited by Gerhard: 07 May 2006 - 06:04 AM

0

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size