• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

My (ahem) version of The Empire Strikes Back.

My version can't be any worse than the fiddling George Lucas has done with his original trilogy - and it would be a lot better than the prequels, which isn't saying very much.

This is the scene where Luke meets Darth.

Code:
The carbon freezing chamber is dark and foreboding. Luke walks in and sees Darth. Both put out their lightsabers, and Luke attacks.
[CENTER]
Darth
That’s right, release your anger – only your hate can destroy me now.

Luke
You sure about that?

Darth
Absolutely – it works every time. 

Luke (grimacing and striking at Darth’s lightsaber with his lightsaber)
Aaarrgh!!! How’s that?

Darth
More hate! More anger!

Luke (striking at Darth’s lightsaber even harder)
Better?

Darth
Much better – I’m almost ready to surrender. Now, pour on your negative feelings. [/CENTER]

Luke continues his attacks, driving his opponent back. 

[CENTER]Darth
Well done. Now, complete your transformation and join the dark side of the Force. 

Luke
Never! I’ll never be a liberal!

Darth
Luke, if you only knew the power of evil. You can use high taxes and a welfare state to cheat hard-working people of their money.

Luke
I’ll never join the Democrats!

Darth
Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.

Luke
He told me enough! He said you killed him!

Darth
No, Luke, I am your father.

Luke (eyes wide in horror)
Nooooo!!!!

Darth 
Search your feelings, and you know it is true – that your father is a tree-hugging environmentalist. Now, take my hand, and, when we rule this galaxy as father and son, we will fill it with pinkos who watch Jane Fonda’s Exercise Videos!
[/CENTER]


By the next movie, of course, Darth would become a God-fearing Republican – like all true Jedi.

What do you think? :D
 
Last edited:
ESTABLISH: To set up (an organization, system, or set of rules) on a firm or permanent basis.

So how exactly does one establish anarchy? What are the rules and who enforces these rules?

-Birdman

Well, one man CAN establish something. But if we're talking about Anarchy, there is nothing to establish. The man needs somehow to ruin everything, all governments and constitution to create a complete chaos.
 
Well, one man CAN establish something. But if we're talking about Anarchy, there is nothing to establish. The man needs somehow to ruin everything, all governments and constitution to create a complete chaos.

Correct! "Establish" and "Anarchy" are mutually exclusive. One person can theoretically bring about world-wide anarchy, but s/he cannot establish it.

From the moment anarchy is brought about, structure would form within. Structure would grow and grow until you have exactly what we have today.

...it's just human nature.

If you are interested in stories about life after "global chaos", watch the "Revolution" TV series. All the power goes out and the world is plunged into chaos. The writers show how structure might emerge from the chaos.

-Birdman
 
Cherry picker. ;)

In this regard, I'm pretty sure the Imperial Darth Vader et al would be more politically aligned with the republican party, not the democrat party.

Otherwise, you've only laid down a very light overwrite of largely well known material.
Hardly political satire (even if you had the correct parties identified).

So, what you do now is go back, read a little wikipedia on the republican agenda, then rewrite this with that material.
It'd probably make considerably more sense = more favorable response.
 
We're discussing Darth Vader? Well, of course he's not Democratic. BTW, in Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith, it is clearly stated that Pallatin turned their political structure into Empire. Empires are not Democratic - they are Authoritarian.

Correct! "Establish" and "Anarchy" are mutually exclusive. One person can theoretically bring about world-wide anarchy, but s/he cannot establish it.

From the moment anarchy is brought about, structure would form within. Structure would grow and grow until you have exactly what we have today.

...it's just human nature.

If you are interested in stories about life after "global chaos", watch the "Revolution" TV series. All the power goes out and the world is plunged into chaos. The writers show how structure might emerge from the chaos.

-Birdman

Well, I know that. Just the same is about any structure - it will go back into chaos someday, no matter how strong it is. Roman Empire is a good example.
 
Last edited:
Rome was a complex societal structure residing in a world of less-complex structures. As other societies increased in power and structure (and as Rome extended its structure to an unsustainable level) then Rome lost its power.

Many "Superpower" structures have come and gone by way of over-reaching, moral decline or other civilizations surpassing their power. (I.e., England, Germany, Egypt, Greece, Soviet Union and probably the USA soon on its present course). However, even with the fall of History's superpowers, there hasn't been a single point of global anarchy in mankind's history.

Structure gives way to more structure.

- Birdman
 
Well, one man CAN establish something. But if we're talking about Anarchy, there is nothing to establish. The man needs somehow to ruin everything, all governments and constitution to create a complete chaos.

I don't think you know what anarchy means in terms of a government system. It's a complete decentralization, but that always results in many smaller organizations governing themselves. The moment two+ people get together, there is a small form of government, even if the prevailing government is "anarchy". It does not mean chaos, nor everyone killing everyone.

For instance, the Internet was an anarchy in its infancy (pre-DNS). It was even called a "cooperative anarchy" to describe the primary forums, Usenet. That does not mean everyone was coming down on everyone's necks, it just meant there was no true central authority and everyone tried to work together. This anarchy WAS established, intentionally, as it was the best way to govern the Internet. Later it was intentionally changed as it grew too big for anarchy to support meaningful connectivity.

The term anarchy in the 80's was closer to a "let's cause chaos" in order to expend government resources, but this caused more issues for those folks. This is probably the definition most people think of, but it's certainly not the only one for "anarchy".
 
However, even with the fall of History's superpowers, there hasn't been a single point of global anarchy in mankind's history.

I agree, but it requires some time to recover and build new structures. After a while, when people see there's no order, no morality, no system, they tend to create a new structure. It doesn't happen immediately.

The moment two+ people get together, there is a small form of government, even if the prevailing government is "anarchy". It does not mean chaos, nor everyone killing everyone.

But there must be a reason for 2 or more people to unite. Usually one man comes and says, - "Guys, we can't keep being alone. Let's unite under one flag". And people will agree, because at last they see some hopes of restoring peace and order.
 
......In other news...theres this place called indie talk. its a community where people forget their differences and celebrate and discuss all things to do with cinema. Its a nice little spot where we set aside issues of real life and enjoy meaningful discussion on our love that is film...you guys should check it out sometime.


On Indie talk...the 11th rule is..

"We are a group of filmmakers. Politics only serve to divide us. We do not allow political discussions unless they are related to film. If they turn into political bickering, they will be closed."

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=4567
 
Last edited:
......In other news...theres this place called indie talk. its a community where people forget their differences and celebrate and discuss all things to do with cinema. Its a nice little spot where we set aside issues of real life and enjoy meaningful discussion on our love that is film...you guys should check it out sometime.


On Indie talk...the 11th rule is..

"We are a group of filmmakers. Politics only serve to divide us. We do not allow political discussions unless they are related to film. If they turn into political bickering, they will be closed."

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=4567

I did get pulled into it and I poked at the TEA party.

I apologize and will make no further posts which imply or push any agenda (although I don't consider discussions of "what is anarchy" or "Is Darth Vader a democrat or republican" to be a political discussion per se).

It is true that many political discussions do indeed attempt to divide, categorize, intimidate, or marginalize. Outside of relevant commentary about film, it's probably not appropriate here.
 
If someone wants to censor and shut down a thread, that's their problem. Nobody needs to apologize for what's been posted in this thread because nobody has been forced to read any of it.

This is the problem you run into with "rules and regulations" regarding this discussion.

The OP's post was a "supposed" politically based adaption of Star Wars. I'm sorry (FFP) but you're gonna get discussions on politics just like you would get with a dissuasion about Wall Street if it was a screenplay about a "Boiler Room" type stock selling movie.

I do, however, find it humorous seeing posts about how Conservatives are the "Rule Mongers" ....and it's usually a liberal who wants to cite a "rule" to shut down the discussion.

Too funny !

I have ZERO problems with anything that people have posted in this thread (even RayW);)

- Birdman
 
Last edited:
I just think that you guys risk pissing off potential viewers/fans of your work by discussing your personal political thoughts.

Somebody once said "never discuss Religion, or Politics at the dinner table"
I think they were right.

Ah well, I'm not trying to stop you, if you want to continue I don't care. Just thought you guys were risking reputation in bringing something so personal to the dinner table.
 
Ah well, I'm not trying to stop you, if you want to continue I don't care. Just thought you guys were risking reputation in bringing something so personal to the dinner table.

Reputation? Now THAT IS funny! I nave no "reputation". ...I'm just an anonymous key-tapping hack!

I would, however, like to see what Aspiring Mogul could do if he really put his heart into it. That would increase his reputation exponentially in my eyes.

-Birdman
 
I don't see anything bad about discussing religion or politics on cinema forum. It shouldn't be taken personally. After all, many movies touch these subjects, and nobody gets hurt.
 
Back
Top