(January 18, 2016 at 10:39 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(January 18, 2016 at 4:12 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: First off, what does sameul jacksons skin color really have to do with anything? Also, darth vaders skin color has nothing to do with his alignment, its because he has 2 pasty white kids. Black parent != White kids, not how gentetics work. Also that particular moment to which you refer hardly makes mace windu morally ambigious because he knew that to put the emperor on trial would mean the death of the republic.

Okay, I'm just going to answer the Darth Vader question. In the first two movies he's evil, and he's black, and voiced by a black man. In Return of the Jedi he's still evil, and still black, and still voiced by a black guy. But when he is redeemed and comes back to the light side, his son removes his mask to reveal a white face. When he was on the dark side everything about him was black, when came back to the light side suddenly he's white. And for the first, and only time, in the original trilogy, he's also voiced by a white guy instead of a black guy. Given that this colour theme runs out throughout the entire trilogy - even in terms of the spaceship interior colours (black & battleship grey for bad, white for good), I conclude this was an intentional doing by George Lucas.

This leads us nicely back to Samuel L Jackson - he's the black speck in the white section (the Yang) of the Yin and Yang. And so, for that matter, is Lando. He is the black speck of Yin in the white Yang.

Actually Vader's actually skin color is pretty obvious from the start. Again luke is pasty white. Black people don't birth pasty white kids. Simple as that. Also look at the rest of the bad guys in star wars. The emperor, crusty old white dude, tarkin, crusty old white dude. So Vader being a white guy is perfectly in keeping with the theme that the bad guys are all crusty old white dudes. Also the guys portraying Vader in the suit was the same white dude the whole time and the movie never once makes any illusion to James Earl Jones race in any way. However I think that you associate the age old cultural meme of white=good, black= bad speaks a lot about your character. This js a ancient cultural thing that appears fucking everywhere. Its because in ancient agrarian societies night, which is black, ment hard times and death because you can not grow crops in the dark. The sun, which looks white from the ground, ment life because you can grow food in the sun. Anthropological we no race has fuck all to do with it because it appears in all races.

The fact that you think there are multiple human races speaks of your character.

(January 21, 2016 at 3:52 am)Aractus Wrote: The fact that you think there are multiple human races speaks of your character.

Uh what? That doesn't even make sense? Uh there are races in the sense that people of different skin colors exist. This is readily demonstrated. Now granted race the differences based on race and physical properties are minisicule, but some are scientifically documented, like white mans predisposition to get sunburns. However these differences are really minisicule and hardly reason to judge anyone on anything but they do exist.

(January 21, 2016 at 8:44 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Uh what? That doesn't even make sense? Uh there are races in the sense that people of different skin colors exist. This is readily demonstrated.

Okay, 1. skin colour had nothing to do with the original definition of "race". 2. List the "races" please.

(January 21, 2016 at 8:44 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Uh what? That doesn't even make sense? Uh there are races in the sense that people of different skin colors exist. This is readily demonstrated. Now granted race the differences based on race and physical properties are minisicule, but some are scientifically documented, like white mans predisposition to get sunburns. However these differences are really minisicule and hardly reason to judge anyone on anything but they do exist.

There isn't scientific consensus that humans can be divided into "races", however I feel that most of those scientists just don't like the word "race" and the negative connotations that come with it (i.e. racism). There are clear differences between certain sets of humans that seems to be genetic, and denying those differences is dangerous. Whether you call it race or not is irrelevant IMO.

Disclosure: At university one of my friends was a biology PhD student who has done lots of work on human taxonomic diversity so I'm probably slightly biased towards his research in this matter.

(January 21, 2016 at 11:52 am)Tiberius Wrote: There isn't scientific consensus that humans can be divided into "races", however I feel that most of those scientists just don't like the word "race" and the negative connotations that come with it (i.e. racism). There are clear differences between certain sets of humans that seems to be genetic, and denying those differences is dangerous. Whether you call it race or not is irrelevant IMO.

The word "race" describes something that doesn't exist. It's an ancient term used to distinguish "us" from "them". You can see examples of it in the Bible where certain people living in specific 5km radius Canaanite cities are described of being a different "race" to the Hebrew race, or if you prefer, God's "holy race" as in Ezra 9:2: "For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands."

There are certainly ethnic traits - but do bare in mind that our understanding of ethnicity is far more fluid than that of "race". And there are actually several ways in which to describe a person's ethnicity, with no one way being perfect.

(January 19, 2016 at 2:41 am)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 18, 2016 at 4:08 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: And Parsec is a unit of distance not time.

To Lucas' credit, he explained this one in commentary. In the Star Wars universe, ships can't travel through hyperspace in straight lines because they have to avoid collisions with objects (planets, moons, stars, etc). The Millennium Falcon's navigation computer was superior to other ships of its class, and could plot shorter routes between the same two points via hyperspace. So the boast that the ship can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs is basically a boast that the ship can get through hyperspace faster than most ships because it can calculate shorter routes. The Kessel Run isn't a set route via hyperspace, and presumably most ships have to fly more than 12 parsecs in order to complete the run.

There's an alternative explanation in the expanded universe which states that the Kessel Run is a popular route for smuggling operations, and is usually 18 parsecs long, because you have to navigate around a cluster of black holes and pilots don't want to fly too close to them. Solo's boast is a way of telling people that he is such a daring (and skilled) pilot that he managed to shave over 6 parsecs off the route by flying dangerously close to black holes.

There's a simpler explanation in the shooting script. After Han boasts about the parsecs thing, there's a stage direction to the effect of "Ben reacts at the obvious disinformation". You can see Alec Guinness doing this in the scene; he gives a sort of "I can't believe you just said that" look.

(January 19, 2016 at 6:58 am)Mathilda Wrote: Any thoughts as to why Luke wears black when he confronts Vader? I noticed that even as a child. I put it down to him coordinating his wardrobe on the off chance that he ends up turning to the dark side.

It's to symbolise Luke's temptation to the dark side and his replacing his father. You'll notice that after the confrontation, he opens the front of his shirt to reveal a white panel underneath, showing that he had the light side within him all along. I believe this is confirmed officially.

(January 22, 2016 at 12:57 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(January 19, 2016 at 2:41 am)Tiberius Wrote: To Lucas' credit, he explained this one in commentary. In the Star Wars universe, ships can't travel through hyperspace in straight lines because they have to avoid collisions with objects (planets, moons, stars, etc). The Millennium Falcon's navigation computer was superior to other ships of its class, and could plot shorter routes between the same two points via hyperspace. So the boast that the ship can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs is basically a boast that the ship can get through hyperspace faster than most ships because it can calculate shorter routes. The Kessel Run isn't a set route via hyperspace, and presumably most ships have to fly more than 12 parsecs in order to complete the run.

There's an alternative explanation in the expanded universe which states that the Kessel Run is a popular route for smuggling operations, and is usually 18 parsecs long, because you have to navigate around a cluster of black holes and pilots don't want to fly too close to them. Solo's boast is a way of telling people that he is such a daring (and skilled) pilot that he managed to shave over 6 parsecs off the route by flying dangerously close to black holes.

There's a simpler explanation in the shooting script. After Han boasts about the parsecs thing, there's a stage direction to the effect of "Ben reacts at the obvious disinformation". You can see Alec Guinness doing this in the scene; he gives a sort of "I can't believe you just said that" look.

I think it's ironic that people who wouldn't bat an eye at sounds in vacuum, the misrepresentation of distance and relative speeds of flying and fighting in space, and reflexively adopt a total contempt for most basic physical concepts like action/reaction, and conservation of momentum, should quibble about whether a somewhat esoteric unit of distance had been misapplied to measure time.

Science fiction, let alone space opera, shouldn't be synonymous with anything goes. Gene Roddenberry once said that a fantasy story needs to have no more than one major fantastic thing, with two or three subsidiary and related fantastic things, in order not to stretch audience credulity. Like any other drama in any other genre, there have to be internal consistencies; as long as things play by the rules and everyone knows what they are, the drama will work regardless of how impossible it really is. Having spaceships roar past the camera pulling off unrealistic space dogfights comes from the same storytelling stable as laser swords and giant space stations. Maybe in this galaxy far, far away a parsec really is a measure of time; but mentioning it and having characters react to it the way they do demonstrates a directional choice about those characters.

When the Pixar animators were researching fish behaviour for Finding Nemo, the consultants they brought on board had issues with the characters using their fins the way we use our hands, saying fish wouldn't do that; then it was pointed out that fish don't often talk either. There's a trade-off between actual reality and the unreality of storytelling. Why is there sound in space? Because Lucas was making a WWII dogfight movie at that point and audiences expect to hear the battle - try watching it with the sound off. Even with the London Symphony Orchestra playing their hearts out, it's deadly dull.