Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Funny Stuff for Catholics => Topic started by: Lybus on May 14, 2009, 09:22:49 PM
-
Just out of curiosity, are any of you into Star Wars? What's your favorite character?
-
Obi Wan Kenobi.
Star Wars was one of the few movies I watched before I gave movies up altogether.
Even as a very young man, my favorite character was Obi Wan. I guess I liked the way he was detached from everything else, and was involved with high and important issues.
-
Han Solo. I liked his bluff swagger and then he turns out to be such a peach...
-
I am a big Star Wars buff - believe it or not, Kenobi also had an "affair" with his colleague, Master Siri (as she, just in case anyone was wondering), therefore, it is speculated that he knew the nature of the relationship of Anakin and Padme. My favourite characters are Boba Fett and General Grievous on account of being bad ass.
-
Yoda, my favourite character is.
-
Chewy or Yoda.
-
I used to be a huge Star Wars fan but, I kind of drifted away from it. My favorite characters would have to be Jabba the Hutt, Jango & Boba Fett, and Qui-Gon Jinn.
-
I should point out that, as a guy over 30, I was never into the "new" Star Wars.
The ones that were released in the 70's and early 80's were all I ever enjoyed.
-
I should point out that, as a guy over 30, I was never into the "new" Star Wars.
The ones that were released in the 70's and early 80's were all I ever enjoyed.
With the exception of Revenge of the Sith, the new trilogy was a huge dissappointment.
-
Yoda is probably my favorite character for the reason that he is very knowledgeable, very wise, firm, but also humorous and laid back. He's also a great martial artist.
Personally, I found all 6 of the movies to be pretty good. What was disappointing about the new trilogy, DeMaistre?
-
I should point out that, as a guy over 30, I was never into the "new" Star Wars.
The ones that were released in the 70's and early 80's were all I ever enjoyed.
Yes, I still prefer the 70's and 80's Star Wars over the new ones.
-
For what it's worth, here's what Solange Hertz had to say about "Star Wars" in "On the Contrary" (Chapter 3: "The Old Religion", pp69-70):
Of pre-eminent gnostic inspiration is the science fiction movie "Star Wars", whose hero Luke Skywalker, "a long time ago in a galaxy far far away," fights valiantly for "the Rebel Alliance" against the malevolent Emperor who insists on ruling the universe. Originally subtitled "A New Hope", the screenplay was conceived by its author George Lucas in apocalyptic dimensions. In conjunction with two sequels, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Return of the Jedi", it constitutes only the mid-section of a greater nine-part epic called "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker". Three "prequels", scheduled to begin appearing in 1999, will explain how the "evil" Emperor seized power in the first place, and the whole story should eventually close on what happens after his defeat.
When "Star Wars" came out in 1977 only the sophisticated New Yorker magazine commented on its "neo-Sophoclean" and "mythic" overtones. Although it is not hard to recognize Lucifer in names like "Luke" and "Skywalker", most reviewers declared the production nothing more than good, clean, noisy fun with the simplest of plots. That the rebel group's headquarters occupies a temple described in the book as "converted to modern service by technicians of the Alliance", where an ancient throne room "too beautiful for the architects to modify" was left intact and presumably awaiting an occupant, apparently raised no eyebrows. Nor did the mysterious Obi-Wan-Kenobi, ably portrayed by the English Catholic convert Alec Guinness, who would form a kind of anti-trinity with Luke and the eerie creature Yoda.
If any critics suspected at the show's opening that the plot which appears so simple on the surface actually contained subtleties fully grasped only by adepts of the Old Religion, or that the evil Empire and its foremost defender the sinister knight Darth Vader (who turns out to be Luke's father) might be reverse representations of the Kingdom of God and His Christ, they never voiced their opinions. In the Catholic diocesan reviews no alarms sounded, even when Obi-Wan arms the neophyte Luke with a "lightsaber" for the deadly warfare of mind over matter about to take place and indoctrinates him inot the use of the "Force", a secret power existing in everything, "binding the universe together" and enabling the initiate to control all technology.
There would be a dramatic awakening twenty years later, however, when Newsweek for January 20, 1997 would call the epic "a classic fairytale about good and evil, evoking old-time mythology with futuristic intergalactic cavalries. It has religious, paternal and political overtones". Proclaiming it "part of the culture", the magazine furthermore announced that "the Smithsonian next fall will open a big exhibition on the mythology and social themes of 'Star Wars'" whose "score was a hymn, the plot a parable". Even the general public may be catching on, for at the movie's revival at the Gotham Cinema in Manhattan, a man in the men's room was heard to exclaim "God, this is spiritual, isn't it?" But then, as a gnostic proverb has it... "Nothing is concealed, from him who knows!"
-
Out of curiosity, how many of you Star Wars fans believe the Sun revolves around the Earth?
-
Maybe I should rephrase the question-- how many of you Star Wars fans believe the Earth to rev around the Sun?
-
Maybe I should rephrase the question-- how many of you Star Wars fans believe the Earth to rev around the Sun?
I keep an open mind. I certainly haven't ruled geocentrism out.
-
All Star Wars/ Star Trek movies are utilised in project MK Ultra and should be avoided completely. Tim Mc Veigh's mind was split using Star Wars programming. See chaps 7 and 12
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/illuminati_formula_mind_control.htm
-
On the subject of movies (and maybe I should start a new thread) I recently watched a superman movie - it is eerily incredible all the biblical references they make - as if this conception of superman is the real type of savior that the Jews were really looking for (a material savior v. a spiritual savior) - and of course that he would raise their race to dominate the world. It was very interesting.
-
Reeves died under mysterious circuŠ¼stances-- the Superman logo is a triangle.
-
I hear songs from time to time or even see movies and I pickup terms that are used in the programming of these people. I really even have a hard time with Disney or Mr. Roger's (not that he was a part of it himself. Never heard that). The ruin everything they touch these evil world leaders.
Hope that made sense, rather late for me.
-
That's right Dawn-- Disney was no good from the beginning. All kinds of stuff like the Wiz of Oz is really no good and yet the great majority of people have no idea at all as to what is happening. Are you talking about Bob Hope or something because he was deeply involved in MK Ultra type stuff.
-
Interesting analogy from The Rad Trad Review:
A RadTrad Editorial: A Star Wars Liturgical Analogy
By Nicholas Wansbutter
I liken the Star Wars Special Edition that we were stuck with on DVD lo these many years (until the release of the unedited version for a limited time in September '06), to the 1962 Missal. As the readers of RadTrad reviews will know, the '62 Missal it was one of Hannibal Bugnini's early attempts at destroying the Mass. To name just three of the more eggregious examples: the Confiteor before the distribution of Communion to the faithful was suppressed, St.Joseph was inorganically added to the Canon, and perhaps worst of all, the kalendar was gelded.
I forgive the C.G.I. being grafted onto the original Star Wars because, well, what self-respecting Star Wars fan doesn't want to see more creatures, better Death Star and Alderaan explosions, more Cloud City backdrop instead of blank walls, &c. just as traditionalists' devotion to St. Joseph allowed his name to be wrongly placed in the canon. The Special Edition is still the "original trilogy", but subtly altered (often to the movies' detriment) as George Lucas tried to cram in more fancy effects and other cheesiness that foreshadowed the debâcles that are the "new" Star Wars films. I mean, the C.G.I. Jabba in Episode IV complete with Boba Fett in his entourage (at a time that Boba Fett would definitely not be serving the Hutt) was plain cheese; the updated Sarlacc was dumb looking; and Greedo shooting first wussified Han Solo (not to mention made him stupid). George Lucas truly was the Hannibal Bugnini of his own work!
So if the unaltered version that they are giving us is clearly a pre-1956 missal, and the Special Edition is 1962; then Episodes I, II, and III are obviously the Novus Ordo of Star Wars. While they are vaguely of the same Star Wars universe in that we still have the Jedi, the Force, the Republic, &c., they are clearly a totally new and different creation. They are watered down, campy, lacking in the dirt and grit that made the original Star Wars universe feel "lived in", and replete with weak characters. There's lots of eye candy, but almost none of the substance that made the old films great classics of science fiction. Like increased lay "participation", "culturally relevant" music, improvisation, and use of the vernacular, they provide us with appealing visual goodies like stylish weaponry and great lightsabre duels, massive battles with lots of explosions, the very pretty Natalie Portman, big celebrities like Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson and Jimmy Smits (versus the mostly unknown cast of the old films, especially the solid core of British actors) and "fan favourites" likeBoba Fett. Well, okay, Jango Fett, but we all know he was written into Episode II just because Boba is one of the favourite characters of the original movies -- i.e. letting the laypeople shape the liturgy. Yet more proof that what is popular makes neither proper liturgies or StarWars films.
Episode III, the last of the "new" films, is the Latin Novus Ordo; it was significantly better (in my view) than Episodes I & II, yet still not the true Star Wars. It had some of the trappings (the "smells and bells", if you will) of the original, perhaps enough that it might fool the uninitiated. It has a much better plot than its predecessors, is less watered down and "darker", the battle scenes are not quite as over-the-top and overwhelming as Episode II (which was like watching someone else play a video game, really) and actually had something to do with the plot. But do not be fooled, it is still the Novus Ordo: it still lacks the "lived in" feel of the originals and thanks to C.G.I. is far too polished; the characterisations remain lacking and overly black-and-white compared to the beloved populace of the classic S.W. (not that Luke Skywalker was outstanding, but he was better than "Annie"), not to mention idiotic and blatant liberalisms like "only the Sith deal in absolutes".
Fortunately, George Lucas didn't descend to the levels that the Novus Ordo has in his foray into novelty with Episodes I-III: he didn't go for a Life Teen soundtrack and kept John Williams for the scores; he didn't introduce lay Eucharistic Ministers or stealth priestesses and kept lightsabres and manipulation of "the Force" firmly in the hands of Jedi (well, there was General Grievous -- I guess that was a lay lector), he didn't opt for liturgical dance and kept the films clean (i.e. no sex). But as with the Novus Ordo, even an Episode with fewer abuses than are possible or seen elsewhere (i.e Episode III) does not make it as worthy as the traditional form.
***
I wrote this in August of '06 ... I've since thought that Return of the Jedi may well be the 1965 liturgy given that it features Princess Leia in that immodest bikini, and the Ewoks who were silly. It certainly wasn't up to the standard of Episodes IV and V. Also, friends have pointed out to me that the scene with "Annie" naked from the waste up in bed with Padme might constitute a sex scene. Others have said that JarJar Binks and Medichlorions bring Episodes I, II, and III down to the level of clown Masses and liturgical dance -- they may be right, but at least JarJar was suppressed by Lucas in Episodes II and III. http://tradreviews2.blogspot.com/2007/07/radtrad-editorial-star-wars-liturgical.html