Star Wars III

By -
Zzzzzzzzz.....
Zzzzzzzzz.....

The only (mild) surprise for me was how Padme died -- everything else was telegraphed by putting together the plot of II and IV.

Go here for comments with spoilers, like:

"I'm still not sure why Yoda and the Jedi Fun Club don't realize that the most evil guy in the freakin' galaxy lives and works, like, 20 feet away. And yet, in Episode II, we learn that Yoda can sense the hurt feelings of his fellow Jedi millions of miles away—sorry, Mr. Jedi, I don't get it."

Comments

  1. Anonymous11:31 PM

    But what about the struggle between good and evil? Granted from Hayden's Christensen acting - the struggle came through as a grimace vs a scowl (exactly how did he audition for that role - OK Hayden now scowl... now scowl like you really mean it...). While it wasn't exactly a cinematic tour de force, I was keenly nostalgic about the fact that it was over. This was a "coming of age" for a lot of Americans ( and from the audience in that theater this "age" varied from 20 to 45 - so it wasn't a chronological coming of age...) . I have to give George Lucas credit where it's due - he carried it through - I think he really just wanted to deliver closure to hundreds of Americans - who can now go home and say - Honey, thank god it's over!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more