Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content of Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in my Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a couple of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by switching over to the Dark Side." Har Har.
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether they were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors."
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development to have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the entire time it's been going on.
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to home for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous to see Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II, DeLay and Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter with Samuel L. Jackson.
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about "your ancient religion", etc.)
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the Empire and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The frightening thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type dared to make this comparison (and do it strikingly well), but that it was possible in the first place for such a comparison to even begin to make sense.
-- Jon Somalia
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Yeah, Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink.net>, well... that's just like... your opinion man.
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content of >Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in my >Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a couple >of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by switching over >to the Dark Side." Har Har.>
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the >political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether they >were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's >headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago >coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors.">
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is >not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even >possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development to >have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the entire >time it's been going on.>
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil >inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to home >for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous to see >Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II, DeLay and >Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter with Samuel >L. Jackson.>
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see >how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty >well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same >political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the >adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about "your >ancient religion", etc.)>
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the >parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the Empire >and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The frightening >thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type dared to make >this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well), but that it was >possible in the first place for such a comparison even begins to make >sense.
Heh.
John Rogers AU Class of 1985 The Nail Gun of Quiet Reflection The Al Del Greco of Atlanta
"Subordination is the natural order: there is subordination in Heaven - Thrones and Dominions take precendence over Powers and Principalities, Archangels and ordinary foremast angels; and so it is in the Navy. You have come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink.net>? Shaken, or stirred?
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content> of Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in> my Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a> couple of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by> switching over to the Dark Side." Har Har.>
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the > political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether> they were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's> headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago > coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors.">
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is> not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even > possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development> to have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the> entire time it's been going on.>
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil > inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to> home for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous> to see Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II,> DeLay and Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter> with Samuel L. Jackson.>
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see> how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty > well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same> political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the > adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about> "your ancient religion", etc.)>
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the > parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the> Empire and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The> frightening thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type> dared to make this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well),> but that it was possible in the first place for such a comparison even> begins to make sense.>
Except for the fact that the current leftwing talking points have GW taking us down some kind of road towards Empire, how exactly was Palpatine a rightwing loon vs. a leftwing loon?
There wasn't nearly enough discussion of economics to determine which direction he was leaning, so other than the current lefty dislike of GW, why couldn't there be just a good an argument of Palpatine being a Stalinist?
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
In article <Xns965FAEAC15D67jaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142>, James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Jon Somalia> <somaliaj@earthlink.net>? Shaken, or stirred? >
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content> > of Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in> > my Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a> > couple of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by> > switching over to the Dark Side." Har Har.> >
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the > > political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether> > they were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's> > headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago > > coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors."> >
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is> > not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even > > possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development> > to have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the> > entire time it's been going on.> >
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil > > inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to> > home for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous> > to see Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II,> > DeLay and Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter> > with Samuel L. Jackson.> >
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see> > how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty > > well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same> > political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the > > adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about> > "your ancient religion", etc.)> >
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the > > parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the> > Empire and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The> > frightening thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type> > dared to make this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well),> > but that it was possible in the first place for such a comparison even> > begins to make sense.> >
Except for the fact that the current leftwing talking points have GW> taking us down some kind of road towards Empire, how exactly was> Palpatine a rightwing loon vs. a leftwing loon? >
There wasn't nearly enough discussion of economics to determine which> direction he was leaning, so other than the current lefty dislike of GW,> why couldn't there be just a good an argument of Palpatine being a> Stalinist?
By the same token, what is there to suggest that GW is some kind of conservative, economically speaking?
-- Jon Somalia
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Phillip A. Kallas 24 May 2005 01:39:34 [ permanent link ]
"John Rogers" <tiger7_88@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5nf491hge1seioejo1i3kdjt4l3mhisfj7@4ax.com...> Yeah, Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink.net>, well... that's just> like... your opinion man.>
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content of>>Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in my>>Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a couple>>of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by switching over>>to the Dark Side." Har Har.>>
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the>>political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether they>>were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's>>headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago>>coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors.">>
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is>>not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even>>possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development to>>have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the entire>>time it's been going on.>>
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil>>inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to home>>for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous to see>>Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II, DeLay and>>Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter with Samuel>>L. Jackson.>>
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see>>how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty>>well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same>>political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the>>adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about "your>>ancient religion", etc.)>>
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the>>parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the Empire>>and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The frightening>>thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type dared to make>>this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well), but that it was>>possible in the first place for such a comparison even begins to make>>sense.>
Heh.
I think I'm going to set myself on fire.
-- Phillip A. Kallas, Usenet's Most Eligible Bachelor
"There is no place in a fanatic's head where reason can enter" - Napoleon
Jon Somalia was cut from the Baylor football team for saying...
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political" content of >Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial cartoon in my >Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some Democrat gear and a couple >of kids talking about "I guess that's what they mean by switching over >to the Dark Side." Har Har.>So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the >political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether they >were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from today's >headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote years ago >coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors.">It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out is >not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even >possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a development to >have made it into a movie that has been in post-production the entire >time it's been going on.>Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil >inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to home >for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little nervous to see >Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of Bush II, DeLay and >Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after the encounter with Samuel >L. Jackson.>After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to see >how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so pretty >well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was not the same >political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to be over the >adherence to religion in general (all the comments to Vader about "your >ancient religion", etc.)>If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the >parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the Empire >and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The frightening >thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type dared to make >this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well), but that it was >possible in the first place for such a comparison even begins to make >sense.
I am STUNNED! STUNNED, I tell you!
(Oh wait...no I'm not. I saw this coming while I was sitting in the theater.)
Trent Chairborne "Nine of Diamonds" Ranger
...To be a great NCO, you need three bones: a backbone, a wishbone and a funny bone.
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink.net>? Shaken, or stirred?
In article <Xns965FAEAC15D67jaschrumpfadelphiane@216.196.97.142>,> James Schrumpf <jaspammenotschrumpf@adelphia.nospamnet> wrote:>
How do you prefer your martini, Mr. Jon Somalia>> <somaliaj@earthlink.net>? Shaken, or stirred? >>
Ok, so I have to admit that I had heard about the "political">> > content of Episode III, and there was even a pretty lame editorial>> > cartoon in my Sunday Paper showing Darth Vader wearing some>> > Democrat gear and a couple of kids talking about "I guess that's>> > what they mean by switching over to the Dark Side." Har Har.>> >
So I went to see the thing last night finally, and I did notice the>> > political overtones. What I couldn't decide, however, was whether>> > they were of recent Lucasian origin, opportunities seized from>> > today's headlines by a Hollywood liberal, or simply stuff he wrote>> > years ago coming from the mouths of overwrought "actors.">> >
It doesn't matter. What makes the parallels in the movie stand out>> > is not their heavy-handed delivery, but the fact that they're even >> > possible. The destruction of the Senate is too recent a>> > development to have made it into a movie that has been in>> > post-production the entire time it's been going on.>> >
Quite simply, it is the simple fact that the depiction of the evil >> > inherent in the philosophy of peace through fear hits too close to>> > home for a lot of Republicans, and it makes them just a little>> > nervous to see Darth Sidious standing up there like an amalgam of>> > Bush II, DeLay and Falwell...hell, he even looks like DeLay after>> > the encounter with Samuel L. Jackson.>> >
After I got home, of course I put in Star Wars, Episode IV just to>> > see how well the two tied together. It turns out that they do so>> > pretty well. What seemed to be apparent in Ep. IV, however, was>> > not the same political arguments from Ep. III; rather, it seemed to>> > be over the adherence to religion in general (all the comments to>> > Vader about "your ancient religion", etc.)>> >
If there was a political argument being made in Ep. III, it was the>> > parallel between the decline of the Republic and the rise of the>> > Empire and the shambling of America toward Empire itself. The>> > frightening thing is not, wingnuts, that some effete Hollywood type>> > dared to make this comparison was made (and do it strikingly well),>> > but that it was possible in the first place for such a comparison>> > even begins to make sense.>> >
Except for the fact that the current leftwing talking points have GW>> taking us down some kind of road towards Empire, how exactly was>> Palpatine a rightwing loon vs. a leftwing loon? >>
There wasn't nearly enough discussion of economics to determine which>> direction he was leaning, so other than the current lefty dislike of>> GW, why couldn't there be just a good an argument of Palpatine being>> a Stalinist?>
By the same token, what is there to suggest that GW is some kind of > conservative, economically speaking?>
But that's not the point here. Much of the blather about SWIII is that the gradual sliding of the Republic into Empire mirrors our own War On Global Terrorism's supposed erosion of rights in the US. If -- _if_, I say -- one accepts this allegory, on what grounds does one declare Palpatine to be a conservative tyrant?
Based merely on the grounds that his first action was to do away with the traditional defenders of liberty, the Jedi Knights, I'd have said he was a lefty. A fascist would have found a way to use the "old guard" to do his bidding.
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
Well, look. I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up lookin' like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it. -- Master Shake
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:> [Trent Woodruff woodruffs@cableone.net] > [Tue, 24 May 2005 01:37:13 GMT]>
Oh wait...no I'm not. I saw this coming while I was sitting in the> :theater.)>
Agreed. >
I really feel sorry for anyone who can't get through something as simple > as a movie without putting on their PartisanGoggles. It's just sad.
Don't forget to towel off.
I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of it. Well, maybe you and Woodruff, but not normal, thinking people.
-- Jon
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
In article <1116959731.762537.109980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, deemsbill@aol.com wrote:
Jon Somalia wrote:> > In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> > btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote:> >
I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star> Wars> > >
movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I> don't> > > >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance> of> > > >it.> > >
I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such> > > things.> > >
But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for> > > entertainment.> >
Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either> with> > us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.>
You do realize that line has been used in a lot of movies?
Sure. But 9/11 Changed Everything(TM).
-- Jon Somalia
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
[Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] [Tue, 24 May 2005 18:32:07 GMT]
:In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, : btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote: : :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars :> :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of :> >it. :> :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such :> things. :> :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for :> entertainment. : :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.
He didn't say that. Try again.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:> [Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] > [Tue, 24 May 2005 18:32:07 GMT]>
:In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> : btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote:> :> :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars> :> > :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't> :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of> :> >it.> :> > :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such> :> things.> :> > :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for> :> entertainment.> :> :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with > :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.>
He didn't say that. Try again.
Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me." Either way...
-- Jon
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
somaliaj@earthlink.net (Jon Somalia) You're digging it round, when it aughta Be SQUARE
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:>> [Trent Woodruff woodruffs@cableone.net] >> [Tue, 24 May 2005 01:37:13 GMT]>>
Oh wait...no I'm not. I saw this coming while I was sitting in the>> :theater.)>>
Agreed. >>
I really feel sorry for anyone who can't get through something as simple >> as a movie without putting on their PartisanGoggles. It's just sad.>
Don't forget to towel off.>
I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars>movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't>see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of>it. Well, maybe you and Woodruff, but not normal, thinking people.
I didn't even think in terms of real world stuff, when I'm in a movie I divorce my self from reality...
-- "People who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to" - Jerry Seinfeld "Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" - Will Durant "We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom." - E.O. Wilson "the glass is not only half full the first half was delicious" --Me To Reply: Scrape off the end bits...
Jon Somalia <somaliaj@earthlink.net> You're digging it round, when it aughta Be SQUARE
In article <1116959731.762537.109980@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,> deemsbill@aol.com wrote:>
Jon Somalia wrote:>> > In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,>> > btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote:>> >
I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star>> Wars>> > >
movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I>> don't>> > > >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance>> of>> > > >it.>> > >
I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such>> > > things.>> > >
But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for>> > > entertainment.>> >
Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either>> with>> > us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.>>
You do realize that line has been used in a lot of movies?>
Sure. But 9/11 Changed Everything(TM).
pick up a copy of 1984, read it. I could make similar claims that GeorgeOrwell has an anti Bush Bias, and he's been dead for about 55 years now.
-- "People who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to" - Jerry Seinfeld "Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" - Will Durant "We are drowning in information, while starving for wisdom." - E.O. Wilson "the glass is not only half full the first half was delicious" --Me To Reply: Scrape off the end bits...
[Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] [Wed, 25 May 2005 13:35:50 GMT]
:Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote: :> [Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] :> [Tue, 24 May 2005 18:32:07 GMT] :> :> :In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, :> : btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote: :> : :> :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars :> :> :> :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't :> :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of :> :> >it. :> :> :> :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such :> :> things. :> :> :> :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for :> :> entertainment. :> : :> :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with :> :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid. :> :> He didn't say that. Try again. : :Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says :something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me." :Either way...
He said, "If you're not with me you are my enemy.", which is not the same thing, nor is it an uncommon line/theme in movies.
You're reaching.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
[Ralph Kennedy kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu] [Thu, 26 May 2005 01:37:10 GMT]
:> :Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says :> :something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me." :> :Either way... :> :> He said, "If you're not with me you are my enemy.", which is not the :> same thing, : : Bwahaha. And you say Kerry is too nuanced. : : Bush said, "If you're not with us, you're :with the terrorists." : : That's even closer. Not much of a reach there.
Pathetic. Snip out the part of my post that nullifies the above, then reply as if it didn't exist.
-- Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
Trevor Zion Bauknight 26 May 2005 17:47:22 [ permanent link ]
In article <MPG.1cfeec513cfc1d26989702@news-40.giganews.com>, Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:
:> :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars> :> :> > :> :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't> :> :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of> :> :> >it.> :> :> > :> :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such> :> :> things.> :> :> > :> :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for> :> :> entertainment.> :> :> :> :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with > :> :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.> :> > :> He didn't say that. Try again.> :> :Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says> :something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me."> :Either way...>
He said, "If you're not with me you are my enemy.", which is not the > same thing, nor is it an uncommon line/theme in movies. >
You're reaching.
So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause.
-- Trev
"Every Democratic Senator is to the right of Kerry..including Kucinich." - C. Beauchamp
Randolph M. Jones 26 May 2005 23:44:09 [ permanent link ]
Bryan S. Slick wrote:> [Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] > [Wed, 25 May 2005 13:35:50 GMT]>
:Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:> :> [Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net] > :> [Tue, 24 May 2005 18:32:07 GMT]> :> > :> :In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,> :> : btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote:> :> :> :> :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars> :> :> > :> :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't> :> :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of> :> :> >it.> :> :> > :> :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such> :> :> things.> :> :> > :> :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for> :> :> entertainment.> :> :> :> :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with > :> :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.> :> > :> He didn't say that. Try again.> :> :Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says> :something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me."> :Either way...>
He said, "If you're not with me you are my enemy.", which is not the > same thing, nor is it an uncommon line/theme in movies. >
You're reaching.>
I agree with Bryan here (about the line/sentiment being common). The fact that the movie includes a line that GWB happened to use once is not remarkable. What's remarkable is that GWB uses lines commonly used in movies and comic books to drive foreign policy.
Randolph M. Jones 27 May 2005 22:44:40 [ permanent link ]
Dan Bretta wrote:>
rjones@colby.edu wrote:>
Dan Bretta wrote:>>
rjones@colby.edu wrote:>>>
Dan Bretta wrote:>>>>
Randolph M. Jones wrote:>>>>>
Bryan S. Slick wrote:>>>>>>
[Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net]>>>>>>>[Wed, 25 May 2005 13:35:50 GMT]>>>>>>>
:Bryan S. Slick <onyx_hokie@yahoo.cem> wrote:>>>>>>>:> [Jon Somalia somaliaj@earthlink.net]>>>>>>>:> [Tue, 24 May 2005 18:32:07 GMT]>>>>>>>:>>>>>>>>:> :In article <1116942970.503620.62740@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,>>>>>>>:> : btpage0630@yahoo.com wrote:>>>>>>>:> :>>>>>>>:> :> >I'm not sad about it. Are you seriously suggesting that the Star Wars>>>>>>>:> :>>>>>>>>:> :> >movies were somehow above the political and religious fray? I don't>>>>>>>:> :> >see how you can watch it *without* seeing the political signifance of>>>>>>>:> :> >it.>>>>>>>:> :>>>>>>>>:> :> I don't see why anyone would *want* to watch it thinking of such>>>>>>>:> :> things.>>>>>>>:> :>>>>>>>>:> :> But maybe that's just me, I tend to like to watch movies for>>>>>>>:> :> entertainment.>>>>>>>:> :>>>>>>>:> :Fine. But when Darth Vader is standing there saying "you're either with>>>>>>>:> :us or against us," it makes it kind of hard to avoid.>>>>>>>:>>>>>>>>:> He didn't say that. Try again.>>>>>>>:>>>>>>>:Jesus...I haven't got the script memorized yet, Master Slick. He says>>>>>>>:something to that effect...maybe it was "with me or against me.">>>>>>>:Either way...>>>>>>>
He said, "If you're not with me you are my enemy.", which is not the>>>>>>>same thing, nor is it an uncommon line/theme in movies.>>>>>>>
You're reaching.>>>>>>>
I agree with Bryan here (about the line/sentiment being common). The>>>>>>fact that the movie includes a line that GWB happened to use once is not>>>>>>remarkable. What's remarkable is that GWB uses lines commonly used in>>>>>>movies and comic books to drive foreign policy.>>>>>
If the line is so common I would think someone could tell me another>>>>>movie that it has been used in. I'm still waiting.>>>>
Magnum force>>>
I still think there is no doubt that Lucas added that line (and a few>>>others) to make a political statement directed at the Bush>>>administration. Episode one contained a character named Nute Gunray>>>(an amalgam of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan). And it's not like>>>Lucas has been shy about political statements in the past either.>>>American Graffiti 2 may have sucked, but it was overtly political.>>>Lucas' first film THX 1138 makes political statements. His best friend>>>is Francis Coppola who has been known to make political statements of>>>his own. The lines in Episode III are so overt I don't know how anyone>>>can dismiss them.>>
I guess you and I are making different points in this thread, because I>>don't really care if Lucas stuck it in there as a jab against Bush or>>not. To me, the whole "for us or against us" thing is entirely a>>black-and-white cartoon type of sentiment that has no place being taken>>seriously in global politics. It fits in perfectly to a *fictional*>>battle of good vs. evil like Star Wars.>
Oh. Well I thought you were agreeing with Slick that Lucas wasn't> making any connection.
No, I was agreeing with Slick that it's a very commonly used rhetorical device. Sorry for the confusion.
