Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Anyone recon that Anakins Rodian friend (GL calls him "a greedo" is the Greedo that Han kills in Ep4?

I think he is and I also think he'll be in Ep2 for some reason thay SW people have also took his databank entry off the Ep4 section in the last week.

Nah. Greedo turns up in a scene that was cut from the theatrical version, but WILL be in the DVD release. Anakin's friend is called 'Wald', I think.

Besides if he was greedo wouldn't that make him kinda old? Anyway Greedo isn't supposed to have lived on Tatooine anyway.

Same species. Different guys. And I believe you are right on the name, Ush.

Yeah, name's right. As for Greedo, EU sources suggest that Tatooine's loaded with Rodians. If he was, say, 10 in TPM, he would be about 44 in ANH. Not too old to be bounty hunting...

Anyway greedo was supposed to have been born on Rodia and then after the murder of his father at the age of three they relocated to a jungle planet which he did not leave till the age of 15.

Don't make me shoot you for using EU material, Edna... if he turns up on Tatooine in the DVD then that continuity is completely fried.

Hey! That is why I said SUPPOSED! Why did I know youwould jump down my throat for that?

That wasn't jumping down your throat... just a friendly reminder that there is no 'supposed' about EU material...

You see! This is exactly why dont normally post in this forum!

It's hardly rocket science. Just ignore the books when it comes to the films! See?

I think it was a good move for Lucas to cut the Anakin/Greedo fight scene from EpI. It would've been nice to see a little of anny's dark side in the movie, but i think Lucas has already pushed his luck with characters "conicidentally" running into each other from the original trilogy. Examples: Anakin creates C3P0 "Thank the maker" who conicidentally escapes Vader in ep4 and just happens to land on the same world where he was first activated. It also is an odd conicident that (old) obi-wan kenobi ends up on tatooine in an effort to hide from the empire. With all of the thousands of planets to hide on, why would he pick the planet of "Vader's" birth??? I love the original trilogy, but think lucas is expecting us to except too many conicidences like this. Also, I think the greedo/solo scene in the SW special edition was a dreadful mistake by lucas...old greedo was askin' for it!

Maybe Obi Wan was looking for the planet "Farthest from the center of the galaxy"

Personally, I'm waiting for Episode-III before passing a final judgement.

The whole Tatooine thing is set to become clearer in Episode-II, I'm sure of that.

True, RC...I also think everything will be explained by epIII, as far as tatonine etc...But think Lucas has already overused that "dark center of the universe" planet too much already. Like to see some new worlds...perhaps some that seem to possess more than just one climate. Also, how do you think he will manage to fit...the bothans, mon mothma, tarkin, the palpy/sid connection, amidala-anany, anannys' fall, the clones, boba/jango,the clone wars, and the rise of the imperial empire in 2 movies??? Seems like a huge task. I think he is quite capable, but would appreciate a lot more character development than we saw in ep I. Also a Chewie cameo in II or III would be sweet!

Well, Annie lifed on Tatooine so it is of importance to the movie

Insanewookie said something along the lines of greedo's death being cut from the special edition, I keep hearing about that, was it just in the U.S. vertion?

It hasn't been cut from anywhere, just that a lot of people WANTED the new version to be cut and are hoping it will be put back to the original for the DVD release.

I thought the fight anakin has is with Wald anyhow.

Of course, I haven't seen the scene, but from what I hard someone addresses the person he fights as 'Greedo' afterwards.

I think it's in the novel, would have to check though.

Isn't a book also an EU-source?

Pretty much, but in this case it is correct.

Greedo, who is older than Wald. Or at least taller. Accuses Ani of cheating after the Pod race and Ani chokes him. (Source: TPM Novel and cut scenes)

http://www.theforce.net/episode1/graphics/cut_guide.jpg

I think that the fight that Ani has with the young "Greedo" never should have been taken out of Ep I. At least this scene gives us a slight idea of Ani's potential dark future. It's ironic to think of this god-like "chosen one" losing his temper and wailing on a defenseless alien. It shows some duality to the character and might even help us to forget some of those stupid "Yipee"s! ...or maybe not.

Yep.

It might have removed the yippies, but not the 'Wizzard' lines

I hope the DVD will have the option to play the scenes in their place, butI doubt it. It will most likely be an extra.

Actually, I want the scene out.

I HATE the idea that people will take this as an indication of Anakin's darker nature, when the entire point of his character in TPM is that he was pure and good! All the dark stuff comes later.

I do not think it was intended to show a darker side- just everyday childish pride- but this is how people will interpret it.

And you don't mind all the other stuff he did? He did kill battledroids without even blinking

You were MEANT to be able to do that without blinking; that is one of the reasons GL used them.

Remember, SW has a very clear morality. Light and Dark, Good and Bad. It is based on Westerns, White Hats and Dark Hats, a lesson in good and evil that George Lucas thought had died out.

It's not meant to be realistic; it is meant to suit the story. You need never fell bad about killing a bad guy in Star Wars because he is BAD. That is how GL wanted it. That is why it is ok to destroy the thousands of people on the Death Stars, because SW morality is very simple indeed.

The ONLY sahes of grey available are the two Skywalkers and that only applies to very specific things for them.

The Death Star was going to destroy them, so it was selfdefence.
You mean it is right to kill everybody because they had another opinion?

In Star Wars, yes. It is good and evil. It really is that simple. Everyone in the Empire is evil and it is ok to kill them.

Like I say, this has nothing to do with real life. It is a very simple structure used for the films.

"What about all the sub contractors that were killed on the Death Star?"

Anyway, the films are also based on pirate films where the good guys sometimes show a dark side.

I think it was GL's intention to show Ani's inklings to the dark side and his favorite execution style. It must have been removed for other reasons. The good of Ani is shown all throught the film so there is no reason not to include the scene. Its called foreshadowing and GL uses it alot.

We can all have our own opinion on this, but I know I'm right

The filns are based on about a hundred things, Jameous, but the MORAL tone is Western (as GL has happily talked about many times), and the division between good and bad is clear. You are never, ever meant to think that the good guys are doing questionable things.

The Skywalkers are the sole excpetion so it is not impossible that Anakin's darker side could have been shown in that scene but I am still pretty sure that it would be mis-interpreted if read that way.

define evil, although obviously the rebels are the good guys, that is mainly only because all of the rebels are so likeable, if it were not for these prequels and the word of ob1 no one would know what the past looked like, having a dictator or an emperor does not necessarily mean being evil, I can't think of anything in ANH that the empire did that wasn't in self defense from the dangerous rebels, I'm sure the rebels would have done just the same if their deathstar had been under attack or their plans had been stolen.

Unfortunately though the good guys do do unquestionable things, just because they have a difference of opinion from the Empires troops doesn't mean they can go round killing people. Even the Jedi do bad things like leave people as slaves, make people become Jedi's, lie to them, trick people, hurt childrens feelings, risk childrens lives for their own gain.

As ob1 says, it depends on your point of view.

No no no! FORGET all that!

This is a KID'S film. It is deliberately designed with a very simple morality. It evcen has the Force- Light and Dark- to justify that! It bears NO relation to real life whatsoever. You have good and evil, and that's it.

No more complication than that is necessary, and ruminating on whether the Rebels were altruistic or not is completely irrelevant to Star Wars mythology!

Hence, the Empire is Evil. Those who serve it are evil. No question.

The whole message of the film only works if you view it like that.

There are plenty of films and stories that work very well by exploiting the moral grey areas that those who profess to be good guys work in... but Star Wars is not one of them.

They are very simple films; try not to read too much into them.

all i'm saying is that it is about opinion.
all four films are based heavily on the so called good guys opinion. in the jedi's opinion the sith are bad, in the sith's opinion the jedi are bad and in the rebels opinion the empire is bad, only because their views contrast with one anothers.
The viewing audience is made to believe that the rebels are the ones with the correct opinion.

Still missing the point there. It is NOT to do with opinion. It is GL's universe, his word is law, and in the set-up given the good/evil divide is cleary defined and the Rebels are on the correct side.

There is no way you can approach Star Wars from a point of moral relativism; the entire point of the Force having a Dark Side is to show that these guys ARE evil no matter where you might stand on the issue.

You are no more meant to consider their view on it any more than you consider the Dragons point of view with St. George or Mordred's point of view with King Arthur. They ARE evil; there are no two way about it. So it is with the Sith and the Empire in Star Wars. To so so is to completely mis-read the story.

Get of your high horse Ush! You dont know everything in GL's head, No one does but the Maker himself.

He did say it was based on ALL the serials he watched as a kid, IE:
Western, Pirate, and Space. He also said he got alot of ideas from old Errol Flynn films, and I dont ever remember him doing a western.

The line isn't that well drawn, this one quote comes to mind " Holding her is dangerous..." It shows not only his concern about what she could do to the empire through simpathy, but perhaps his dislike for Vaders heavy hand in things.


You cant have it both ways if you follow your belief.
Qui Gon lies and cheats. Obi lies. The rebels are outlaws (even if it is to a dictatership its still agenst the law of the land). Luke and Obi use the dark side to win saber battles. Leia lies (to the Imps). It is not a plane Black and White universe!

Just look at the qoute at the top of my last post and then see the great discussion the the two main charactors of Clerks have about this very point. (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back in the US August 24th!!!) And that is just a brushing of the middle area that is the true SW. The only one that is truly without any question as to good or bad is R2. He's the only one that never lies (3PO to the Stormtroopers). Yoda is the next closest but his saying that Luke is too old when he knows dam well that Luke is the last hope (dont give me the 'there is another' because Leia was the same age as Luke) keeps him from being purely good.

Ok, diatribe over... just wanted to put it all out there for ya'll to have.

What about OB1 line:
The Jedi were guardians of peave and justice for a long time, before the Emperor.

Justice and still killing everyone

well in certain countries have death penalty as part of their judicial system, if only Noray could have the same.
About the jedis, they are there to guard the peace and by doing so you must defend innocent and themselves. This is hard to do without cassulties.

D'eh! Ofcourse there are casualties, but there is also the Jedicode who tells that you can only use the Force for knowledge and defence, not slaugher people or droids.

At LAST bthe forums are back up and I can post this... bloody things went down as I was in the process of typing it!

I am NOT on a high horse and I massively resent that implication. Weidly enough, I am not trying to second guess GL's mind, but merely repeating what he has already said on the matter.

GL has stated that the MORAL basis for Star Wars is WESTERN. All the other inspirations are very valid in many ways, but the main reasoning for it all was that he thought that the basic moral lessons that western taught you had been lost by the period in which he was making Star Wars, or Journey of the Whills, or whatever.

I was stating a fact, nothing more.

Now, next point... one of the entire points of using droids as the bad guys in TPM -mindless droids at that- was that there would be no problem at all in hacking them to pieces, because they are NOT alive, and don't even have droid brains like C3-P0 and co. Weep not for them.

Jedi have to be aware that sometimes they have to kill in their defence and the defence of others. They do NOT strike first; they fight only when threatened, and in that respect act like any police force in a modern day democracy, and you can hardly condemn them for it.

'Holding her is dangerous...' Merely practicality, nothing more. The Empire is EVIL. That is the point. Besides, the officer was probably suggesting that having her killed with the others was the better option, because it would look like an accident.

Qui-Gon is a bit of a rogue, to be sure. But anyone watching him on-screen can be left in no doubt that he is a good guy and that he opposes evil. Liken him to Robin Hood, if you want, and likewise you are not meant to question the mythological goodness of THAT non-existant hero either. Everything these people try to do is for the good of all.

The Rebels may be acting against the law of the land, but the laws are unjust and the Empire had no right to rule over these SOVEREIGN systems (as the Republic was) in the first place. The Empir'es actions were illegal, and the disbanding of the Sente the final straw. Besides, the entirity of the US is based upon the fact that a citizen has a DUTY to resist Tyranny, whether that is 'unlawful' or not.

But this is NOT real life, guys, this is a STORY! As a writer can set the morality any way you like! If GL wants to make a clean war where people can clearly come out of it as either good or evil, then fair play to him as it is HIS story. Furthermore, this is a kid's story. A child does not want to worry about the moral complications of whether the good guys are actually good or not. Meanwhile, the bad guys in the film are faceless or sombre, whole the Rebels are freshfaced and jolly. The division is so clear it is almost painful. Bringing in questions like 'are they actually RIGHT to do this?' is irrelevant to the film.

Honestly, this moral analysis of Star Wars is pointless. GL made a very clear-cut moral structure for his films with a simple message to go with it.

BTW, the conclusion of the conversation in Clekrs is that the people working on the Death Star chose that job with their 'heart'. But in any case, that is entirely irrelevant. You are not meant to consider the fate of such things. By the moral rules of Star Wars there would be NO innocents on the Death Stars when they blew, or then the Rebels WOULD be (questionably) evil, which they are NOT, by the basic rules of the Universe he has created!

THIS is how he meant it:

Rebels/Jedi: Good

Empire/Sith: Bad.

As he has discussed muchly. So, all facts in the films go to fit THAT conclusion, and no other.

In support, here is a quote from Irvin Kershner (ESB directot and major contributor to Star Wars mythos):

"Star Wars was different from other films of its ilk. And it became very popular, I think, because of the same reasons that kids love Westerns. The Western has to do with good and evil, VERY CLEARLY DEFINED..."

And from GL:

"I wanted to make a kid's film that would strengthen contemporary mythology and introduce a kind of basic morality... The Western was the last mytholoigcal format that had been developed in this country and it had pretty much died by the sixites, and I wanted to see if I could resurrect that."

Now, you can disagree with GL's portrayal if you want, and there are several people who think his moral tone is insidious and irresponsbile. But really, that is going into a very complex sociological area. GL MEANT this to be very simple indeed, and if you think otherwise you are launching into your own interpretation that has nothing to do with what he wanted.

Oddly enough, this all leads us back to the topic name, because of course GL changed the Greedo scene with Han precisely bewcause he was worried some would think Han a not-nice person for shooting first. I think that was unneccessary, because Greedo was clearly going to shoot Han and he was out of options.

Some things:
ofcourse, droids are not human and I never said that, but if you can think on your one and can speak you are a 'person' none the less. If you still kill them it is wrong, only in defence can that be justified.
To give a rude example:
When it was WOII, who was the bad guy? Hitler or the soldiers or everybody?
It's not because there is one rotten fruit the others are rotten too.
The soldiers (in SW the stormtroopers) just carrie out orders and do not have any politic influence. So are they also bad?

The Western thing: ok, but I think you make a link between Lucas and the other guy. But making the Jedicode was than a big mistake.
See Revange of the Jedi => Return of the Jedi

Those Battle Droids were NOT sentient. That was part of the point. They were just hardware; walking gun carriers. If they were full realised independant beings, they wouldn't need the central computer on the control ship to stay functional. If anything was sentient, that computer was, and even that is doubtful.

That WWII question is incredibly complex and tricky and could occupy us all day. However, the major point is, again, that that is a real-life example. This is not real life, it is a story- a KID'S story- and such complex moral issues can be ignored, like, as I say, they can be in Robin Hood, King Arthur, Jason and the Argonauts, and so on.

Again I don't agree.
We ALL need are to life, right?
Does that make us all hardware?

Not at all, but that is an entirely irrelevant example. That computer was not providing their sustenance, it was actually making their decisions for them. Because they were incapable of decision, because they were NOT sentient.

The entire point of those droids is that they were NOT alive. Living droids have their own brains.

Even if yuou do consider the basic function they had as 'life' (and in that case you should be darn careful about turning off your PC as it was little more advanced than amodern day computer programme), then you STILL should not fret, as all the possible brainpower in the droids was in that computer, not the droids themselves, which are just shells. All you were doing is destroying terminals of that computer.

As it is, they blew the lot in the end, of course, but that was in self-defence. And in any case, those droids don;t even approach sentience; you should be far more worried about the service droids (like the one from the start, though it wasn't on that ship) and, of course, the Neimodians.

"Captain, take them to camp 4"
"Roger, Roger"

Good thing the computer decided that on his own!
Why that discussion when you take a decission alone?

Simple. The computer relays all signals to the yellow command droids, who then sub-route it to the troopers.

In any case, GL wanted to give them droids an amusing quality to them., which is impossible if they are silent. But the basic design of the droids is that they can be killed without guilt and without blood, thus saving GL a lot of trouble.

You don't have to see them as just robots, they are puppets to the Trade Federation.
OK. there is no blood. But you still killed a 'thing' that can speak and do things, wich I think is a pretty close definition of a human

Seriously they are no more sentient than your PC, as opposed to people like C3-P0. They made them like that precisely to try and avoid this sort of dilemma.

WOW!! You have a super computer!! Mine can't speak, move or shoot!!
They are not human but they can feel pain (the d'oh! after the force push)
So they see, feel, and think.
The computer they destroy is just what they need to life, like air to us.

No, it gave them their programming. Their equivalent of air is power, which they still had, it was just useless. That 'd'oh' was just an amusement; could have been a malfunction.

Those droids in no way pass for human. They would fail a Turing test and do not come close to true sentuence.

And that comment about computers was pretty silly. SENTIENCE wise they are no more advanced than a PC; obviously their programming is better.

Besdies you are arguing directly against the direction of the film. As presented, the droids are non-living objects you can kill without remorse.

There are robots that assemble cars. I would hardly call them human.
There are robots that assemble other robots, I would still not call them humanoid. They can't think, have no emotions. They just carry out what their programme tells them. Just things that move, like a toy car.

Thanks Queeq.

Exactly. They are no different in basic principle to assembly robots.

Heck, I even saw robots teaching another robot how to use it's wheels. Still, it's just a little machine without consciousness. It just does what it's programmed to do.

There are different robots.

There are robots that assemble cars. I would hardly call them human.
There are robots that assemble other robots, I would still not call them humanoid. They can't think, have no emotions.

They don't have the technolegy to become independent. Like us millenias ago, we didn't had the technolegy to stay at one place. We had to move all the time. That's what we missed than, what those robots missed are the software (=inventions) to do something else, heck, they don't have legs!

The whole point was ectually from the first time that even if you kill a droid it's murder because robots and humans do the same things. If YOU don't call it a murder, ok, but if you killed a robot you can also kill a droid and don't feel sorry for it.

Robot, droid, whatever. It has no consciousness. There is no loss other than economical. Mere hardware, the contents is just data than can be stored, copied etc.
So no, you can't be sorry for it as a person. And those battle droids certainly didn't do anything by themselves, they just performed battle duties in the way they were programmed. No individuality, once you pull the switch they're gone. Mere scrap metal.

It really is a very odd thing you are arguing for there, Yerssot. GL goes to al,l the trouble of building an enemy that has no consciousness so you can destroy it without guilt and you STILL call it murder. Very odd indeed.

The droids have no brain! They have virtually no independant capacity; all they do have is the ability to execute a programme, just like a modern day PC, but in a more sophisticated (but still mass-produced) mobile shell.

I man, do you feel sorry when they blow up the AAT's? Because the only difference between the droids and the tanks they were in is that the tanks need a driver- same principle as the droids needing programming by the Central Computer on the control ship. They could put voice units on the tanks if they wanted, but why bother?

They are just war machines. Walking and talking does not sentience make; it is far more fundamental than that.

Guess I'm a pacifist.

The droids have no brain! They have virtually no independant capacity; all they do have is the ability to execute a programme, just like a modern day PC, but in a more sophisticated (but still mass-produced) mobile shell.

So what is it different than from a brain?

I man, do you feel sorry when they blow up the AAT's?
No, they can't see, feel or anything. They don't resamble humans by a long shot.

No individuality, once you pull the switch they're gone. Mere scrap metal.

Once you shoot someone trough the head he is gone, mere scrap bones, see the point?

No I don't Yerssot, because you can turn a droid like that back on again, and it will be back to its same, completely unsentient self.

It is utterly different from a brain in the same way a computer programme is nothing like a brain! Just some binary instructions, entirely identical to those car-building robots we mentioned earlier, or this messageboard programme we are hysing now. It's just a combat programme. More complex, but fundmantally similar.

You rule out the AAT's as being like the droids because they are not like humans. Well, true, but except for looks and speech neither are the battledroifs, and the ability to see or mimic speech does NOT make you sentient; we can do both today with machines. In fact, we can make machines that can fire weapons, responding to simple instructions. They are so, so, SO far from being alive- just like those droids- that a comparision between them and truly sentient beings is beyond laughable.

Just some binary instructions, entirely identical to those car-building robots we mentioned earlier, or this messageboard programme we are hysing now. It's just a combat programme. More complex, but fundmantally similar.


Because they work binary they are not good enough to resemble droids?

but except for looks and speech neither are the battledroifs
???? killing animals is murder, they look and have speech

Sorry, I don;t understand your first comment.

As to the second, I'm not sure what you are getting at there either. I just meant the only way in which battledroids resemble humans is looks and speech, which is a long way from them being alive. In fact, it has no bearing on how alive they are at all.

Ki-Adi-Mundi (I think) HAS a binary brain so no discussion about it that having a binary brain is not good to resamble a human.

What I was trying to say was that animals also look and have speach

The whole point is not that droids are human, but that if you kill a droid, the chances that you kill a human whitouth blinking are more likely

That;s very lose thinking, yerssot- if the droids are just hardware I very much doubt if fighting them makes you more of a killer.

KAM's binary brain has nothing at all in common with droid computer programming. And above all else, HE is presented as sentient, while the droids are not.

KAM's binary brain has nothing at all in common with droid computer programming

computers are binary; battledroids are also binary.

- if the droids are just hardware I very much doubt if fighting them makes you more of a killer.

They move, speak, think etc. they resemble humans, so it doesn't make you a killer, I said that if you kill a droid whitouth blinking, you probably kill a human also whitouth blinking.

So what you're saying is, is that when you shoot droids you lose perspective on the value of living things. Because they both move and resemble each other, you won't mind killing either of them on the long run. Okay, well, that's a long debate. Similar to the debate on the effect of 1st person shoot 'm ups computer games.

Some argue that by constantly playing shoot-em-ups, once gets so used to shooting at people (or monsters or droids) that sort of forms a callous on your soul.

Okay, now there are two problems with that. One is that there is still no hard evidence that there is a correlation between the two, despite some unpleasant killings in the US by teenagers who did in fact spend A LOT of time behind their computer playing such games.
The other is that the Jedi don't spend weeks or months non-stop killing of battle droids. Nor is that all we get to see in SW. It's more like taking out flack or cannons, offensive or defensive armoury that is out to get your hide. The fact that they move and talk makes no difference.

And there will always be the difference in your mind between taking out a machine and a living, breathing organism. Unless your brain is already so blunt that one should wonder if you can be called human at all.

So what you're saying is, is that when you shoot droids you lose perspective on the value of living things.

That's correct

Well, Jedis are trained to keep the peace and justice. They train with lightsabres to preserve that. If you train with lightsabres too others, you get the same effect with the shoot-'m-uppers. You have to realize that they come in at age 1 and leave at age 14, they than have a master (if they are lucky) and go on for another ... years, so they already did learn alot with the lightsabre. With that you can say that when they kill something like a walking, speeking, thinking droid they can easily kill a human or an alien (they are also there in the SW universe)

"A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense. Never for attack."

There.

I said that a few pages before.
I'm still trying to say that even if it is for defences you should feel remorse for killling a living thing, droids represent very closely such living things so if you kill one, you should at least feel sorry for it

"A Jedi must have the deepest commitment, the most serious mind." I don't think feeling sorry for a computer falls under that category. It defies any common sense.

Did it ever occur to you, Yerssot, that the fact that Jedi are able to so casually 'kill' Battle Droids is PROOF that they are non-sentient? I would reckon the Jedi know what they are doing.

Amen

Did it occured to you that killing droids cassual is a result that they have trained longenough and that they are blurred by that so they don't even feel sorry for killing a droid?

No it didn't, Yersot, because the Jedi are good guys in a world with simple black and white morality (just like a Western as I explained above), so there can be no doubting them.

Haven't the films hammered in long enough just how good and true and noble the Jedi were? Just as GL wanted them? They would not do anything bad! They are pretrty much incapable of it unless they fall. Being on the Light Side precludes evil, or even questionable actions.

Little wonder they drum into you so hard just how bad the Dark Side is!

Haven't the films hammered in long enough just how good and true and noble the Jedi were? Just as GL wanted them? They would not do anything bad!
And the 12 fallen jedi?

Oops, Ush brought out the big guns now.

Those guns are already 12 days old

Yes, 12 failing out of 10,000. Falure is inevitable in any walk of life.

The fact that these people are such a source of shame goes to show something, doesn't it?

Assuming these '12' you talk of are evil, then the point of them is to show what happens to those who DO mess up. Their verey exostence goes to contrast against the good person that is a normal Jedi.

Those 12 are so blurred by fight-training that they can't see good and evil.

Yes, I'm sure it's the fight training. That's it.

12 fall after thousands of years with a total of millions of Jedi and the only motivation man has to go bad is excessive fight training. Not really VERY believable.

Those 12 just lost it, the others are on an edge

Proof please?

This is a VERY strange point you are making, Yerssot. The Jedi are unquestionable good guys; GL designed them as such. Why do you insist on creating grey areas that do not exist?

Besides, they all die. No edge there.

Yes, the Jedis are good, no doubts there but what I'm trying to say is that even the good guys must show remorse for killing something, even a droid, wich like the battledroids, resembles very closely a human/alien being.

No, because they are smart enough to realise that no matter how human they seem, they are not alive in any true sense of the world.

they are not alive in any true sense of the world.
explain please what is the true sense for you

AH, that somewhat indefinable quality of sentience? Not to be found in basic terminal droids without free will, that's for sure.


So, free will, independant thought process, TRUE heurestic learning, the ability to create rather than just process thought... all essential ingredients for true life.

Most important of all is that quality which philosophers call the 'point of reference' and religion calls the soul, something that cannot possibly reside inside a droid shell desinged to process combat instructions. Battle droids don;t even come to aniamls. They are just computers.

If it is possible to create life (except in the old fashioned way) min an artificial form, it will far more likely be in the complex robot brains that droids like C3-P0 have

It's because it's dificult to define that there are problems.

So, free will, independant thought process, TRUE heurestic learning, the ability to create rather than just process thought... all essential ingredients for true life.

If I remember correctly C-3PO said that he didn't want to get on a spaceship after the story of R2 in TPM, he LEARNT that it isn't safe and after 3PO was in pieces in Cloud City, R2 recreated him.
You can't speak of a free will because droids are slaves they don't have it because they must obey there master (like Darth Vader said in ROTJ)

I wasn't saying tht C3-P0 wasn't sentient. he has an artifical brain that seems to copy sentience, though it is a difficult conceot.

The battle droids, on the other hand, are not alive at all.

Hey, a human can be forced to serve someone, it doesn't mean he is not alive. Free Will isn;t about always being able to do what you want, it;cs a concept that embodies far more than that. It's about controlling what you do moment to moment, rather than having what you do moment to moment ordained by something else.

I just took 3PO as an excample,
I don't tink you got my point: some droids (not the 'gonkgonk' ones) resemble ALOT to humans, so if you kill a droid, with the resembling of a human, you are more affective to kill a human.
You should feel remorse because you killed a living thing that can moves and speek. I don't say you should have a nice funeral and things like that, I just want to say that you should feel remorse for that.
If it happend for defence, well, you were quicker but you still killed something that RESEMBLES like a human being.

And again, you are putting form over substance. The droids are not living. Jedi have their heads screwed on tight; they know what is and isn't sentient and know they need feel no more sorry for a battle droid than for a toaster, and this does not affect their attitude to livjng things in any way.

I want to excuse myself if I had everyone fooled to believe that I said that they are truly humanoid with the things Ush describes.
I just want to say that they look like humans, and because they look-like you should also consider that you are now close to killing a human. I mean that this will bring you closer to the Dark Side. That was my whole point and not that robots are humans

I appreciate what you say, Yerssot, but I still think the Jedi have such a firm view of what is and isn't right that there need be no question of this problem. It won;t rbing them even vaguely closer to the Dark Side because their ability to destroy a non-living piece of hardware, no matter how living it SEEMS, will have no bearing on their preparedness to extinguish sentient life.

You have something read wrong in my replay, or I typed it wrong:
Destroying a droid, ie battledroid or a 3PO-unit; wich resembles like a human-being, can bring you closer to killing a human being, and killing a human being will bring you closer to the Dark Side. So you have to look at it as the start of the downfall.

I haveb;t mis-read it. I fundamnetally disagree with your assertion that killing a droid will bring you anywhere closer to killing real human, just because a droid resembles a humanoid. It strikes me as a flawed assertion.

Well after you get up from the fall , read my answer:
If you kill something that resembles a humanbeing, and you have to agree that the didn't killed 1, you are more likely being able to kill a human, what I mean with this is that your 'chances' to do this grows, it doens't mean that when OB1 sees a Neimodian he will kill it because it looks like a battledroid.
I still think that you should be remorsfull for killing a droid, because of the reason above.
When you kill them, for defence only, you can't say you are bad, because it was eiter him or you, which makes the 'chances' not to raise because there was no choice.

PS: What the heck are the Hyperspace Wars?

No, I do not think your chance to kill humans increases if you kill non-sentient but humanoid droids. Not at all, not an inch, and DEFINITELY not for a Jedi.

The Hyperspace Wars are an EU thing that saw the founding of the Republic, I think...

I heard the Hyperspace wars had a duration of 30 years and that QGJ and a guy from the Council fought in it.

I don't understand you, Ush!
You kill something very close to a human, more than once, and you are still not a tiny little bit influenced to the more 'heavy' work? By this I mean that you actually kill a guy,
if you killed something ressembelings a guy, you will feel the same thing when you fight a guy

No, I don;t think I would, and I am CERTAIN that a Jedi wouldn't, because they have a clear idea about what is and isn't.

And you are certain because of the western-thing?
I don't find that a good resource, GL can still change his thoughts

Well, the Western thing simply states that the good guys are good guys, the bad guys are bad and there is no grey area in-between (the sole exception being the main plot of the film, in the form of the Skywalkers).

So while the Western thingn(BTW, those quotes I gave you about the Western thing are only two years old so he hasn't changed his mind) would preclude the Jedi doing anything questionablel, I think I just disagree with your idea on fundamental grounds. I do not agree that destroying facsimiles of life (so long as you are aware they are facsimiles) makes you more likely to destroy real life.

there is no grey area
Wel there is no balance in the Force, wich results in a grey area, see another reply on the board, don't know where.

(BTW, those quotes I gave you about the Western thing are only two years old so he hasn't changed his mind)
2years=712days=17088hours, that's long isn't it?

facsimiles
What does that mean in plain English?

Two years ago was AFTER TPM was made, Yerssot, so he has not changed his mind about the morality for the new films. Mind you, it IS all a bit more of a mess.

And don't confuse imbalance with the Force with the morality distinction between good and bad guys.

A facsimile is a copy (hence fax machine), usually a false one.

And I am afraid that I have to close this topic now (if I can find the button to do it), as it is off-topic at the 100 mark. Feel free toopen another on this subject if you wish.