This idea is actually explored/employed in the films, which makes we think it is/was somewhat intentional. I'm not trying to say that George Lucas was secretly a genius or anything. I'm pretty sure 99% of what was going on in his head was "stoic chinese monks with lazer swords are cool". However, he explains in interviews and stuff how the light side and dark side represent different emotions and (to some extent) how one cannot exist without the other. It just wasn't executed very well in the movies.
[video=youtube;RElw0dhBsOI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RElw0dhBsOI[/video]
[video=youtube;68dvgRT3Kx8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68dvgRT3Kx8[/video]
The whole concept is just a heavily simplified taoist (ying/yang) type of storybeat, but the expanded material (books, video games, etc) actually deal with it much more effectively.
In the original expanded storyline (before Disney bought the rights to the franchise and made the new trilogy), Luke Skywalker creates a new reformed Jedi Order that allows its followers to express their emotions. In the storylines based in the Old Republic, there are constantly Jedis who are falling to the dark side due to the strict nature of the order, and the order itself attempts to hide the knowledge of the sith until the sith order returns and leads to a massive civil war among the jedi.
There are also Grey Jedi, who are able to, with significant difficulty, maintain the balance between light and dark within themselves (which, for example, allows them to use powers from both sides).
In these stories there are also sith who are not so blatantly evil (or at least, they are honorable). They also deal with the fact that the Jedi Order are not really good guys because they are willing to let people die and even watch genocides happen as long as they believe the balance is maintained.
The original series, prequels and now the disney movie universe don't allow this kind of moral ambiguity though, so all of the movie stories pretty much simplify down to jedi=good, sith=evil and the underdog rebels fighting against the evil empire and blowing up a spherical dooms day device.
I actually liked how, in the newest film, they tried to explore these themes [sp]with Luke rejecting the Jedi and the force,[/sp] but of course instead of elaborating on that they simply reveal [sp]that luke only feels that way because he tried to kill Kylo out of fear of him turning to the dark side.[/sp]
oh fuck it's joshua mcinjosh
I really don't like the way he frames this in relation to expectations of masculinity and the psychology of regular joes.
The reason why emotional discipline and stoicism is stressed so highly is because jedi not only have a lot of power, but are also typically subject to crazy amounts of stress. And if you look at something like the Stanford prison experiment, you can see why you'd want these superhuman space cops to be as objective and impartial as possible.
There's even examples in the extended universe where breaking from the og jedi code leads to jedi abusing their power, which does lead them down a sort of slippery slope. IIRC, Revan's whole deal was "I'm gonna go against the council and do something fairly reasonable" and ended up becoming the fucking Dark Lord.
Their emotional distance is unhealthy as fuck for a dude like you or me (and in no way are the films supporting this type of behavior) but in the context of the setting it's seen as a necessity.
[QUOTE=cdr248;53024128]I really don't like the way he frames this in relation to expectations of masculinity and the psychology of regular joes.
The reason why emotional discipline and stoicism is stressed so highly is because jedi not only have a lot of power, but are also typically subject to crazy amounts of stress. And if you look at something like the Stanford prison experiment, you can see why you'd want these superhuman space cops to be as objective and impartial as possible.
There's even examples in the extended universe where breaking from the og jedi code leads to Jedi abusing their power, which does lead them down a sort of slippery slope. IIRC, Revan's whole deal was "I'm gonna go against the council and do something fairly reasonable" and ended up becoming the fucking Dark Lord.
Their emotional distance is unhealthy as fuck for a dude like you or me (and in no way are the films supporting this type of behavior) but in the context of the setting it's seen as a necessity.[/QUOTE]
A lot of the idea of this kind of cool-detached stoicism stems from the (fictional) concepts of the warrior monk or john Wayne-style stoic cowboy action hero.
I think this video does a much better job of explaining it and why it has troublesome implications when applied to real-life situations:
[video=youtube;8JUXtUeWUTQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JUXtUeWUTQ[/video]
All of the baseline story beats of Star Wars rely on this exaggerated fantastical theme of exaggerated stoicism, where, outside of the purely evil 'Emperor Palpatine'-type characters, if any of the characters in any of the stories just sat down and talked about their feelings then all of the complications in the plot would be pretty much solved immediately. So, by necessity, they have to be stoic warrior monks, because if the Jedi order wasn't hiding the secret knowledge of the sith and restricting their pupils from having relationships there would be no conflict in the story outside of paper-thin "we gotta beat the irredeemable bad, evil emperor dude".
I don't think it's an absurd idea to think children (or less so, adults) are influenced by the gender roles they see in media, he may have mistaken bad writing for malicious ideology though.
[QUOTE=Zyler;53024069]This idea is actually explored/employed in the films, which makes we think it is/was somewhat intentional. I'm not trying to say that George Lucas was secretly a genius or anything. I'm pretty sure 99% of what was going on in his head was "stoic chinese monks with lazer swords are cool". However, he explains in interviews and stuff how the light side and dark side represent different emotions and (to some extent) how one cannot exist without the other. It just wasn't executed very well in the movies.
-snip for length-[/QUOTE]
Didn't George Lucas also say that the Light Side was the natural state of being and that the Dark Side was a perversion of The Force, which is why Anakin being prophesised to "bring balance to The Force" actually was supposed to mean the eradication of the Dark Side?
I think this video is stupid and misguided and trying to relate this space opera to real events to much.
Jedi have to be free of emotion. They need to be a force guided by the greater good an not by singular emotional ties. Anakin's emotion ties to his mother led to him slaughtering a village of Tusken that obviously damaged his mental stability, leading him down a darker path. In The Clone Wars his emotional connecting to Asohka led to him feeling abandoned and a bad teacher when she left the order. His emotional ties to becoming a master led to disappointment when he was rejected by the council. His ties to Padme let to fears and doubt (while manipulated) that led to him killing and destroying things that he once held dear. If he had followed Jedi ways and not had these emotional ties he would have probably stayed strong... although why the Jedi council didn't see this and remove him from the order is another story (prophecy's).
The prequels were intended to be about how this was what led to the fall of the jedi, but writing and cinematic problems led to that getting really muddled up. [sp]Last Jedi kinda hints at this too[/sp] and obviously KOTOR exists. While I agree with a lot of the criticisms of the Jedi in the fiction I'm not sure it applies too much to the real world, misguided is the word I would use. I don't think Star Wars ever had anything to say about gender roles, but I sure as shit think the prequels were supposed to criticise stoicism.
Basically the problem in this video is not his point, but his framing of it: it was that way on purpose, and it's not explicitly about masculinity.
I don't know, am I being an arse or is this [I]really [/I]obvious stuff?
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53024393]Basically the problem in this video is not his point, but his framing of it: it was that way on purpose, and it's not explicitly about masculinity.
I don't know, am I being an arse or is this [I]really [/I]obvious stuff?[/QUOTE]
I think this video was just created to target feminists and politically correct crowds that would find the idea of it interesting. It's a click bait. And especially with all the people trawling the internet at the moment for Star Wars related stuff, and stuff related to the Jedi and the Jedi code.
This guy is reading too much into it. As has already been said, it wasn't to do with masculinity but was because Jedi hold significant power and a lack of clear logical judgement would lead to misuse of that power, which is exactly what ends up happening with Anakin, he doesn't control his emotions and then ends up being manipulated with them. It was more meant to resemble eastern religious philosophy rather than be about masculinity.
Stoicism or just emotional distance is often practiced by martial artist masters. It's all about distancing yourself from things that cloud your judgement. So Jedi distance themselves to keep neutral outlook.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;53024562]I think this video was just created to target feminists and politically correct crowds that would find the idea of it interesting. It's a click bait. And especially with all the people trawling the internet at the moment for Star Wars related stuff, and stuff related to the Jedi and the Jedi code.[/QUOTE]
Oh don't get me wrong, I actually quite like this Pop Culture Detective thing Macintosh is trying, considering that a lot of what he used to say was batshit crazy. Especially about games. His video on Big Bang Theory was pretty cool, and yeah while clearly the sexism in that show isn't intentional it's also a behaviour that we're OK with as a society and are normalising, so it's neat to talk about that. Same with Star Wars in a sense.
The thing is that the Jedi had problems in the prequels and the prequels were supposed to be about those problems. But those problems weren't really about sexism, they might have been about toxic masculinity at a stretch but viewing them through that lens leaves a picture of the topic but an incomplete one.
[QUOTE=$$>MUFFIN<$$;53024364]I think this video is stupid and misguided and trying to relate this space opera to real events to much.
Jedi have to be free of emotion. They need to be a force guided by the greater good an not by singular emotional ties. Anakin's emotion ties to his mother led to him slaughtering a village of Tusken that obviously damaged his mental stability, leading him down a darker path. In The Clone Wars his emotional connecting to Asohka led to him feeling abandoned and a bad teacher when she left the order. His emotional ties to becoming a master led to disappointment when he was rejected by the council. His ties to Padme let to fears and doubt (while manipulated) that led to him killing and destroying things that he once held dear. If he had followed Jedi ways and not had these emotional ties he would have probably stayed strong... although why the Jedi council didn't see this and remove him from the order is another story (prophecy's).[/QUOTE]
Do you have a good explanation why the jedi couldn't bring anakin's mother with him in the first place?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53025154]Do you have a good explanation why the jedi couldn't bring anakin's mother with him in the first place?[/QUOTE]
George Lucas probably forgot that she wasn't dead or gone or something.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53025154]Do you have a good explanation why the jedi couldn't bring anakin's mother with him in the first place?[/QUOTE]
Anakin and his mother were both slaves to Watto. Qui-Gon tried to make a bet with Watto to get ownership over both Anakin and his mom Shmi, but Watto is only willing to part with one or the other. He makes the decision on the roll of the dice, which Qui-Gon uses force powers to mess with to ensure it ends up being Anakin that is freed because he was the only reason he made the bet in the first place.
[QUOTE=Hinterlight;53025306]Qui-Gon tried to make a bet with Watto to get ownership over both Anakin and his mom Shmi, but Watto is only willing to part with one or the other. He makes the decision on the roll of the dice, which Qui-Gon uses force powers to mess with to ensure it ends up being Anakin that is freed because he was the only reason he made the bet in the first place. [/QUOTE]
But if he's using his Jedi powers to fix a legitimate bet, then why didn't Qui-Gon Gin just steal the slaves from Watto? He could sneak in in the middle of the night and just take them, or take them by force. And I don't mean that kind of Force, I mean choke Watto while Padme grabs the slaves and they run out of the shop. Basically, it's the same as trying to trick him into accepting a worthless currency for the slaves. In the end, Watto's just out of the slaves.
And any serious critique of Star Wars that includes the prequels now only makes me think of one question: What do you guys think are Rey's and Kylo Ren's midi-chorian counts? :thinking:
[QUOTE=Marphy Black;53025328]But if he's using his Jedi powers to fix a legitimate bet, then why didn't Qui-Gon Jin just steal the slaves from Watto? He could sneak in in the middle of the night and just take them, or take them by force. And I don't mean that kind of Force, I mean choke Watto while Padme grabs the slaves and they run out of the shop. Basically, it's the same as trying to trick him into accepting a worthless currency for the slaves. In the end, Watto's just out of the slaves.[/QUOTE]
I get your reasoning, but (at least in my opinion), the whole point of the exchange is to show that Qui-Gon is the kind of guy who would rather use trickery to accomplish the greater good than violence. In his mind, Anakin was the "Chosen One" so bending the rules of the Jedi code to ensure he wins a simple bet is a much easier choice for him to make than choking out an innocent trader and stealing his slaves. Sure, they might morally object to it but they aren't on Tatooine trying to enforce Republic law. They were trying to lay low on a planet controlled by the criminal Hutts and didn't want to raise any suspicions while they acquired the parts they needed to escape. Basically, coming across Anakin was a total fluke, getting him off the planet was a bonus. Qui-Gon didn't really care if he got Shmi or not.
Also, I don't really see how assaulting a dude and trying to trick him into taking Republic currency are morally equatable. Sure, the money doesn't have value on Tatooine but it does have value somewhere.
Also again, aren't the Jedi supposed to give up all familial ties once they join the Order? If that is the case, Qui-Gon was probably relieved that Watto wouldn't give up both Shmi and Anakin.
Why does the movie have to come up with a reason for Smhi to be saved? The only reason why she exist is to serve as a reason that Anakin begins to fall towards the dark side (if Lucas even though that far ahead). If his mom were to have been rescued by Qui-Gon it would have been to the detriment of Anakin's arc in the second film.
Tatooine slaves were implanted with small but potent RC explosives to discourage and prevent escapes
so if the Jedi take Anakin by force, Watto only has to press a button and little Darth Vader goes *splat* all over the Naboo cruiser walls
[QUOTE=Joazzz;53025503]Tatooine slaves were implanted with small but potent RC explosives to discourage and prevent escapes
so if the Jedi take Anakin by force, Watto only has to press a button and little Darth Vader goes *splat* all over the Naboo cruiser walls[/QUOTE]
I think that's the worst plot device ever shoved into a movie for convenience. What purpose did Shmi Skywalker serve to Watto? That she cleaned her own dishes?
[QUOTE=Marphy Black;53025509]I think that's the worst plot device ever shoved into a movie for convenience. What purpose did Shmi Skywalker serve to Watto? That she cleaned her own dishes?[/QUOTE]
Slavery is very well established in the Star Wars universe tho, especially on tattooine which has a large Hutt presence. It wasn't really forced into the movie suddenly out of convenience.
Watto won her and Anakin in a bet from a Hutt. And he probably just used her for some manual labor along with (more importantly) having her raise Anakin to become a valuable worker, since he had good engineering/mechanical skills.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53025154]Do you have a good explanation why the jedi couldn't bring anakin's mother with him in the first place?[/QUOTE]
I mean, it's the Jedi Order. They literally pick up kids with Force potential from their parents before either side can really make attachments typically, which is the equivalent of drafting gifted children into a magical galactic FBI force. Putting all the fucked up moral values of this aside, which are seen as a major honor in the Star Wars prequel timeline, their big mistake was picking up Anakin when he was old enough to have these attachments in the first place. Granted, Palpatine was likely responsible for that if I remember right, but everything past that was the Order just.. completely failing to comprehend or accommodate for this, even when signs point to the fact that he's far from detached. Repeatedly.
[QUOTE=Marphy Black;53025328]But if he's using his Jedi powers to fix a legitimate bet, then why didn't Qui-Gon Gin just steal the slaves from Watto? He could sneak in in the middle of the night and just take them, or take them by force. And I don't mean that kind of Force, I mean choke Watto while Padme grabs the slaves and they run out of the shop. Basically, it's the same as trying to trick him into accepting a worthless currency for the slaves. In the end, Watto's just out of the slaves.[/QUOTE]
Because Qui-Gon Gin is a fucking prick.
poe dameron did nothing wrong, alderaan deserved 9/11, deathstar was an inside job
[QUOTE=gameplaya89;53025744]poe dameron did nothing wrong, alderaan deserved 9/11, deathstar was an inside job[/QUOTE]well i mean that last one is technically right
[QUOTE=Marphy Black;53025509]I think that's the worst plot device ever shoved into a movie for convenience. What purpose did Shmi Skywalker serve to Watto? That she cleaned her own dishes?[/QUOTE]
Gotta save face on Tatooine, bad enough to be seen losing one slave.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
