I just saw this movie StarWars.
And its really bad. I mean, first episode was real garbage, some sort of joke movie (i suspect the directors didnt take it seriously), and then the second one seemed more serious, but poor acting.
And now this, its suppose to be the last one if i understood it correctly, and i rarely see such poor acting in a movie. Seriously. Perhaps the actors are new to all of this, i saw a negro which i also seen in Pulp Fiction (one of the few i recognized), and he is pretty good in that movie (Pulp Fiction that is). But in this one, cheeezes, i say.
In any case, perhaps you guys seen this to? I remember the original movies, they where pretty good, but what is this ?
I saw this movie StarWars
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
The tall guy which is going to be Darth Vader says "If they are not with us......" <- And i almost screamed THERE AGAINST US, remembering that the director was American, and most likely wanted to show how great United States was, and putting his faulty propaganda in the movie.. But when continued he said something else.. cant remember.I haven't seen the movie, but from what I know of George's script-writing abilities, and from what I've read in reviews, this sounds right. I heard one characters even says something as ridiculous as, "I am sad"?
I dont know what dictatorship has to do with destroying planets, i think you have a huge problem with seeing different relevances here. Its like me complaining about a Cat, because people in Africa died.. its like. .Erhm, what?In episode two Count Duku(sp?) escaped with the plans for a weapon that can destroy whole planets. Later on in the series, Luke Skywalker's home planet is destroyed. I would call that a brutal dictatorship.
All the ones dying in the movie deserved it, That little green fellow should have been terminated to in my eyes, clear ignorant character.
IndeedGuilty are those who use the word "whom" wrongly.
Post #13
They would have been a threat to a stable Empire if they would have been let alive. I assumed you understood this obvious fact.I'm a little confused as to why you think the small children should have been brutally murdered. Why did they deserve it?
Palpatine clearly wanted a stable and good Empire. The actions of the others showed clearly they did not want this (they wanted democracy).Why would you say Anakin and Palpatine 'deserved' to live any more than any other characters?
Post #14
They would have been a threat to a stable Empire if they would have been let alive. I assumed you understood this obvious fact.I'm a little confused as to why you think the small children should have been brutally murdered. Why did they deserve it?
Palpatine clearly wanted a stable and good Empire. The actions of the others showed clearly they did not want this (they wanted democracy).Why would you say Anakin and Palpatine 'deserved' to live any more than any other characters?
Post #15
I guess this all ends up branched out once opinion comes into play.
I do not see efficiency and stability as a reason to murder countless millions.
It seems to me that you believe the ends justify the means. Eventual stability (which never actually takes place) justifies murdering people that might want freedom in the future.
Anakin and Palpatine did not want a happy little stable government, they wanted power. Of course, it's much easier to rest a government on one person rather than the entire populous, so stablity would be more likely.
I think, in a roundabout way, I'm asking: Do you think the stability and efficiency of production in a dictatorship worth the means in which it is kept stable? If all who threaten the power of the highest leader are brutally murdered, not for wanting a less stable government, but simply wanting freedom, does the stability still seem worth it?
I do not see efficiency and stability as a reason to murder countless millions.
It seems to me that you believe the ends justify the means. Eventual stability (which never actually takes place) justifies murdering people that might want freedom in the future.
Anakin and Palpatine did not want a happy little stable government, they wanted power. Of course, it's much easier to rest a government on one person rather than the entire populous, so stablity would be more likely.
I think, in a roundabout way, I'm asking: Do you think the stability and efficiency of production in a dictatorship worth the means in which it is kept stable? If all who threaten the power of the highest leader are brutally murdered, not for wanting a less stable government, but simply wanting freedom, does the stability still seem worth it?
Post #16
Yes.I think, in a roundabout way, I'm asking: Do you think the stability and efficiency of production in a dictatorship worth the means in which it is kept stable?
Yes.If all who threaten the power of the highest leader are brutally murdered, not for wanting a less stable government, but simply wanting freedom, does the stability still seem worth it?
Post #17
Honestly, I agree with you. Who cares about freedom and personal liberties when there's no war and everything is stable! Who cares about the millions being slaughtered by the local government. At least there's peace and stability!
You just have to watch out for those bastards that want "freedom from opression". It's easier to squelch the uprisings in the beginning stages, rather than let them get out of hand. You don't want too many people running around with "ideals" and "free speech". That's just dangerous.
You just have to watch out for those bastards that want "freedom from opression". It's easier to squelch the uprisings in the beginning stages, rather than let them get out of hand. You don't want too many people running around with "ideals" and "free speech". That's just dangerous.
Post #18
Why would anyone want to? If they live in a happy society, there is nothing to complain about. Thats why the United States is like it is. You constantly moan about your "freedom", because in reality, you dont have any. In Europe, no one never EVER speak about any freedom, constitution and so forth, yet, we are free... Strange eh?You just have to watch out for those bastards that want "freedom from opression". It's easier to squelch the uprisings in the beginning stages, rather than let them get out of hand. You don't want too many people running around with "ideals" and "free speech". That's just dangerous.
Free Speech should under no circumstance be allowed as long as we have normies around.
Post #19
Do you live in a dictatorship?
What you're saying is, it's okay to opress people as long as you only opress those with different viewpoints from yourself? (I realize you might see it differently, but, in essence, isn't this it?)
You see a perfect society as everyone having the same opinions of religion, etc. as yourself. It seems to me that your intellectual vanity has given you the belief that everyone but you is wrong and shouldn't have the right to question it.
I wouldn't think such a society would work, as long as people have different opinions, ideals, etc.
You believe everyone without your outlook on religion, government, etc is less than you, and/or deserves to die? Who are you to say anyone's life is less valuable than your own?
What you're saying is, it's okay to opress people as long as you only opress those with different viewpoints from yourself? (I realize you might see it differently, but, in essence, isn't this it?)
You see a perfect society as everyone having the same opinions of religion, etc. as yourself. It seems to me that your intellectual vanity has given you the belief that everyone but you is wrong and shouldn't have the right to question it.
I wouldn't think such a society would work, as long as people have different opinions, ideals, etc.
You believe everyone without your outlook on religion, government, etc is less than you, and/or deserves to die? Who are you to say anyone's life is less valuable than your own?
Post #20
I can only wishDo you live in a dictatorship?
Correct.What you're saying is, it's okay to opress people as long as you only opress those with different viewpoints from yourself? (I realize you might see it differently, but, in essence, isn't this it?)
No religion, religion is ignorance, remember?You see a perfect society as everyone having the same opinions of religion, etc. as yourself. It seems to me that your intellectual vanity has given you the belief that everyone but you is wrong and shouldn't have the right to question it.
No vanity here, only reality. WrongThinkers and weaklings should be terminated, period. I want a good world, just because you dont, dont make me a bad person.
ehe.I wouldn't think such a society would work, as long as people have different opinions, ideals, etc.
Correct.You believe everyone without your outlook on religion, government, etc is less than you, and/or deserves to die? Who are you to say anyone's life is less valuable than your own?
I am an Illuminati, They are not. Simple as that.
