|
Grex > Cinema > #68: Grex goes to the movies - The Summer Movies Review Item |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 323 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 256 of 323:
| 
Sep 11 05:33 UTC 2004 |
no no, we have already established that anakin skywalker was immaculately
conceieved, his mother explained in episode I that he had no father. Star
Wars is a religious parable and Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker is a Jesus
Saviour figure, fighting the eternal conflict between good and evil
|
richard
|
|
response 257 of 323:
|
Sep 11 06:12 UTC 2004 |
Okay here's what I think happens. It is clear that Star Wars is a
religious parable, and that Anakin/Darth Vader is a Jesus figure, a
Saviour caught in the middle of the ultimate struggle of good vs.
evil. his destiny is the confrontation at the end of Episode VI where
he kills the Emperor. It is also clear that Emperor Palpatine is
Satan. So Anakin is Jesus, and Emperor Palpatine is Satan, that means
that Anakin's father is God. Thio since we know from Episode I that
Anakin was a product of immaculate conception.
Consider too one big thing that has yet to be explained and I assume
will be in Episode III. Which is that when the other Jedi die, their
bodies vanish, as if they are divine, as if they are Gods. Obi Wan
dies in Episode IV, and Yoda dies in Episode VI, and both of their
bodies vanish. But when Anakin/Vader dies in Episode VI, his body
DOES NOT disappear. Luke has to cremate his body. What is implied
here? That Anakin is human, the other Jedis are not. The other Jedi
Knights are a race of Gods.
Consider then the possibility that the Jedis, this race of Gods, have
been wallowing in their own perfection, and some of them, led by
Emperor Palpatine, have turned to the Dark Side. The head God, the
God of Gods, then realizes that the Dark Side is so powerful that in
order to defeat it, the Gods NEED the humans. The Gods, the Jedis,
need to JOIN with the humans. So he decides to divinely impregnate a
good human woman, and have his only begotten son, to be the Saviour,
the great merging of the humans and the Gods. This is Anakin
Skywalker. However the merging of the humans and the Gods, as played
out in the life of Anakin, does not go smoothly. Anakin's destiny is
to be a God, but his yearning is to be human. He realizes that God is
his father, and when his true love is taken away from him, he blames
God and turns to the Dark Side and becomes Darth Vader.
Thus it ends up the responsibility of Anakin's son, Luke, to turn his
father back to the good side, to help his father gain control of his
soul.
All of which leads to the big question-- if Emperor Palpatine is
Satan, and Anakin is Jesus, then who is Anakin's father? Which is to
say, who is God, the head God, the God of Gods? The one who has given
his only begotten son, and let him be human, to save the human race?
Pure conjecture here, but I think we are going to find out that
Anakin's father, God Himself, has been with us all along. That it
will turn out to be Obi Wan Kenobi. Think about it, Obi Wan has been
there all along, and goes out of his way to protect Anakin, and we
know that it is Obi Wan that he ultimately turns against and has his
climactic battle in Episode III where he loses and becomes Darth
Vader. I suggest that the catalyst for this final confrontation
happening, is that Emperor Palpatine revealing to Anakin that Obi Wan
is not who appears to be, but is in fact God, or the head Jedi or
whatever. That God took the form of Obi Wan Kenobi when Anakin was
born and kept his true identity a secret, but that the Emperor using
his evil ways found out.
Think about it. This is why Anakin will blame Obi Wan for the death of
his wife, and will turn on him. This is also why Obi Wan Kenobi is
still there in Episode IV, on Tattoine, quietly protecting Luke as he
grows up. This is why it is Obi Wan appearing intermittently
throughout episode V and VI giving heavenly guidance to Luke. Obi Wan
only ACTS inferior to Yoda, because we aren't supposed to know who He
is.
This would also give deeper meaning to the final shot in Episode VI,
where we see Anakin, having been saved, at the side of Obi Wan
Kenobi. He has fulfilled his destiny as a human being and is now
taking his place at the right hand of God. Anakin, and his son Luke,
have helped the human race learn to control its own destiny, and
overcome the pompous, arrogant race of Jedi Gods.
Its kind of Wagnerian actually. But then again, maybe Lucas has a
better idea :)
|
richard
|
|
response 258 of 323:
|
Sep 11 07:23 UTC 2004 |
Oh and it also fits because the climactic father vs. son battle in episode
V and VI (Luke vs. Darth Vader), where Luke loses the first battle and
wins the second, mirrors the two battles between Anakin/Vader and Obi Wan.
We know that in Episode III, even though we have yet to see it, that
Anakin loses his battle with Obi Wan. That is how he gets disfigured and
turns into Darth Vader of course. But we also know that in Episode IV, in
the second battle between them, Vader/Anakin wins. Or rather Obi Wan lets
him win. Two father vs. son battles, in both cases, the father wins the
first battle, and in both cases, the son, the more human one-- uses the
depth of his human emotions to win the second battle.
And in the ultimate confrontation, Vader/Anakin realizes the depth of HIS
own emotions-- that the power of his human side is as great or greater
than the power of his Jedi side-- and he is able to fulfill his destiny
and defeat the Emperor.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 259 of 323:
|
Sep 11 20:54 UTC 2004 |
Gui-Gon Jinn's body was also cremated. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda *chose* to
let go of their bodies; neither really "died." If you look carefully, you
note that Obi-Wan was gone *before* Vader's saber touched Obi-Wan's cloak,
much less his body.
|
twenex
|
|
response 260 of 323:
|
Sep 11 20:57 UTC 2004 |
Jews have never practised the odious custom of cremation. Jesus never went
bad, nor was he ever (to my knowledge) decked out in fetching black.
|
twenex
|
|
response 261 of 323:
|
Sep 11 22:26 UTC 2004 |
Well, the odiosity of cremation may, I suppose, be disputed. That is, however,
how I've always thought of it.
|
richard
|
|
response 262 of 323:
|
Sep 12 03:05 UTC 2004 |
#260...I disagree that the practice of cremation is "odious" A dead body is
going to turn to ashes eventually anyway. It is not environmentally prudent
to bury dead bodies and let them decay naturally. There is not enough ground
left for new cemeteries today as it is. Being "buried" is a decadent exercise
for those who are wealthy enough to afford plots of land that their bodies
can lay in forever. And your body will decay anyway. So whats the point?
When I die, I want to be cremated and end up in a nice china vase, and maybe
then get sprinkled in some ocean or river. Back to nature as I say. I find
that far preferable than being my body being buried in some cemetary among
a bunch of people I don't kno.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 263 of 323:
|
Sep 12 06:21 UTC 2004 |
And how are all cemetaries going to be maintained in-perpetuity? They aren't.
Buring just delays the inevitable - and at great cost with no benefits.
|
bru
|
|
response 264 of 323:
|
Sep 12 07:19 UTC 2004 |
cremation is a good, sound solution with no religious drawbacks that I know
of. (in my opinion) not as good as being ground into mulch, which would be
more environmentally friendly.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 265 of 323:
|
Sep 12 15:13 UTC 2004 |
I believe that Dick Cheney's energy council is working on a way that
bodies of poor people can be converted directly into oil, without
needing to decompose for lots of years first.
|
other
|
|
response 266 of 323:
|
Sep 12 15:15 UTC 2004 |
Before or after they're finished with them?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 267 of 323:
|
Sep 12 17:42 UTC 2004 |
That depends how successful "compassionate conservatism" is, but just
the executions in Texas should allow them to have Hummers for some time
to come.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 268 of 323:
|
Sep 12 20:11 UTC 2004 |
My brother-in-law died and was cremated earlier this year. We hired a boat
and had a party on Tampa Bay, and distributed his ashes there: appropriate
too, as he had a degree in marine biology. This apparently against the
law, but the wind was too high to go out into the Gulf. I think that they
fear that Tampa Bay would get filled in, if it is allowed. But then they
could build more condominiums on, say, Ash Acres.
|
drew
|
|
response 269 of 323:
|
Sep 12 20:31 UTC 2004 |
Re #265:
I thought they were going to make red, yellow, and green food wafers
out of them instead.
|
tod
|
|
response 270 of 323:
|
Sep 12 21:25 UTC 2004 |
Just the terrorists
|
krokus
|
|
response 271 of 323:
|
Sep 13 01:28 UTC 2004 |
re 262
Actually being buried isn't environmentally unfriendly. But the way
that people are burid in modern times is.
|
twenex
|
|
response 272 of 323:
|
Sep 13 02:30 UTC 2004 |
Yeah. I don't agree with cremation, as I don't see it as natural, any more
than I see the opening of a coffin at a funeral natural. And if it's a case
of not bothering to delay the inevitable, you might as well get someone to
shoot you now; you're going to die sometime anyway.
|
richard
|
|
response 273 of 323:
|
Sep 13 03:30 UTC 2004 |
#272...cremation is a lot more natural than spending thousands of dollars so
you can be buried whole in a fancy box with a marble monument to yourself,
taking up eternally a piece of land that you don't possibly need. It is also
a fact that there are not enough cemetaries or places for cemetaries left
anyway.
You can always be frozen. Ted Williams was frozen. Then his daughter sued
his son. The son wanted him frozen. The daughter wanted him thawed out and
cremated. They settled out of court. Ted is still frozen. He's taking up
space in a refrigerator, which is using electricity. Total waste.
|
twenex
|
|
response 274 of 323:
|
Sep 13 03:33 UTC 2004 |
So buy a wooden box.
|
twenex
|
|
response 275 of 323:
|
Sep 13 03:35 UTC 2004 |
As for Ted Willians, being buried fashionably must be about the most decadent
thing one can arrange for on God's polluted Earth.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 276 of 323:
|
Sep 13 05:44 UTC 2004 |
I think cremation has a lot of beauty to it. Your substance returns quickly
(if spread) to the natural world from which it came. It is the ultimate
personal recycling. Above-ground burials - laying out - is similar, but
in crowded area creates some danger. Indians and Zorastrians practiced
this. The recycling is also rather rapid as scavengers eat what they
need.
Re #272: what's unnatural about cremation? All humans on earth will be
cremated in the distant future when the sun expands into a red giant.
Also, I was speaking of the inevitable for inanimate objects - bodies. I
have no reason to deny people living out their natural lives. But when
one dies, that is the end of the person's conscious presence. I see no
sense in extolling the corpse.
|
twenex
|
|
response 277 of 323:
|
Sep 13 14:00 UTC 2004 |
The chances of anyone being alive by the time the sun expands into a red giant
are not good.
I don't like cremation. It may be irrational. But I don't like the idea of
a body burning up like that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 278 of 323:
|
Sep 13 15:24 UTC 2004 |
You like better the idea of it decomposing into a putrid glob of bacteria and
molds?
|
twenex
|
|
response 279 of 323:
|
Sep 13 15:32 UTC 2004 |
Yes.
Not in the kitchen, but in the ground, yes.
|
mfp
|
|
response 280 of 323:
|
Sep 13 15:33 UTC 2004 |
Who cares what ideas you like?
|