Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:40 PM']Microscopic isn't immaterial. The force was an immaterial energy field in the first movies, that is one reason why Yoday said that we are, "luminous beings." If the force is measurable by physical instruments, then it is a material reality. It was a non-sensical idea, much like Jar Jar Binks. [right][snapback]648665[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Not necessarily; in my interpretation it is not material, the force is still an immaterial thing, ultimately. But it has effects on the material world. Granted I'm taking some interpretive license at this point, but the stuff in the newer movies doesn't make this impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:45 PM']I bet the real reason for this change in how the force is measured, was so that Lucasfilm could sell "force detection" toys. [right][snapback]648669[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LOL, you maybe be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 04:48 PM']Not necessarily; in my interpretation it is not material, the force is still an immaterial thing, ultimately. But it has effects on the material world. Granted I'm taking some interpretive license at this point, but the stuff in the newer movies doesn't make this impossible. [right][snapback]648672[/snapback][/right] [/quote] In my opinion the philosophy underlying the two trilogies as it concerns the nature of the force is different. I really do think that Lucas moved from a more or less immaterialist position to a materialist one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:41 PM']The only way that it was measured in the first movies was by a person with the force sensing the force in and around another person. [right][snapback]648667[/snapback][/right] [/quote] My interpretation is that what is measured is the effects of the force, not the force itself. It remains immaterial. Although they did seem to indicate that metachlorians sort of channel the force somehow. I understood them as an intermediary, but this is still a difficulty... Not really though, if a priest can channel the immaterial through the sacraments then why not. The metachlorians are sacramentals, with regards to the force. hehe j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 I think they added metachlorians not to give star wars a materialist metaphysics, but probably just to explain how they could measure the force in a person since this was a crucial part of the story of Anakin Skywalker. I doubt Lucas gave it that much thought. A lot of things in the movie actually seemed like Star Trek rip offs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Jul 18 2005, 04:54 PM']I think they added metachlorians not to give star wars a materialist metaphysics, but probably just to explain how they could measure the force in a person since this was a crucial part of the story of Anakin Skywalker. I doubt Lucas gave it that much thought. A lot of things in the movie actually seemed like Star Trek rip offs. [right][snapback]648678[/snapback][/right] [/quote] They "measured" the force in the original movies too, but not with instruments. This was a bad move on Lucas' part, because it really made the force seem less mysterious. If a thing can be measured with man made instruments then it can be known and quantified. It really was a let down. It would be like if I said, "I can now measure the divine energy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reelguy227 Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 The Phantom Menace is the most mistinerpreted Star WArs movie there is ,so there was some bad acting by a little boy ,so what . Its a great Star Wars movie,only true Star Wars fans see its glory and where its going in the saga. It starts it off ,its the beginning ,whatever George Lucas envisions is what star wars is ,he created it and if he wants Jar Jar in it ,he can do whatever he darn well pleases . Whatever he says is Star Wars ,is Star Wars. No offense ,by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 [quote name='reelguy227' date='Jul 18 2005, 05:49 PM']The Phantom Menace is the most mistinerpreted Star WArs movie there is ,so there was some bad acting by a little boy ,so what . Its a great Star Wars movie,only true Star Wars fans see its glory and where its going in the saga. It starts it off ,its the beginning ,whatever George Lucas envisions is what star wars is ,he created it and if he wants Jar Jar in it ,he can do whatever he darn well pleases . Whatever he says is Star Wars ,is Star Wars. No offense ,by the way. [right][snapback]648776[/snapback][/right] [/quote] True enough, and no matter what he says, it was a bad Star Wars movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I just finished watching the movie "Volcano" on FX, and I must admit, that movie makes Phantom Menace look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 18 2005, 07:57 PM']I just finished watching the movie "Volcano" on FX, and I must admit, that movie makes Phantom Menace look good. [right][snapback]648786[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That must be a bad movie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 18 2005, 06:16 PM']That must be a bad movie! [right][snapback]648813[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [i]Bad[/i] is only one adjective that could be used in order to describe the movie "Volcano." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 Wow... I live this thread, expecting the ovbious and then a huge boom takes toll.. lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I have yet to see Volcano, but to return to the metachlorians: I guess I'm just trying to look at the whole thing in the best possible light. But of course I wish George would not have added that. It's lame. There I said it. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 19, 2005 Share Posted July 19, 2005 I wanna copy you Apotheoun.. the Church scholars should match. hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted July 19, 2005 Author Share Posted July 19, 2005 Valcano is better than Dantas Peek. other unrealistic valcano film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now