Anakin Skywalker Explained

[the long undertow]

I only caught a few minutes of these Star Wars specials, and the one comment I heard was that General Grievous was a sort of prototye for Darth Vader.  With the physical injuries and the labored breathing it makes sense, and is an interesting idea, but I never would have come to that conclusion for two reasons.  1) I try to think about the prequels as little as possible, and 2) there's nothing in the films to indicate that the similarities were meant to be interpreted that way.
It's a shame, too.  Fleshing out that idea could have added some depth.

[RobtheBarbarian]

It was kind of embarrassing to see the prequels treated with such abject admiration, especially after the Rifftrax. I couldn't take the program seriously at all because of the seriousness that they treated Jar-Jar with, for example.

[Hobbit]

It was kind of embarrassing to see the prequels treated with such abject admiration, especially after the Rifftrax. I couldn't take the program seriously at all because of the seriousness that they treated Jar-Jar with, for example.

That was the only part of the special that I hated.  The rest of it seemed to dance the prequal clips around Jar-Jar, minimizing his exposure, which is always good.

[LadyKenobi]

I like this whole "retroactively attach a lot of meaning to something" thing people do. Star Wars was a sci-fi movie. It was made after some people got together and wrote a script. They weren't scouring history and legend to construct some ultimate story, they were trying to entertain. Jar Jar Binks wasn't some call back to the Brittish's dealings with the Polynesians, (or however they explained away that CGI monstrosity,) he was just a failed attempt to entertain.

I actually think people do this a lot with art, too.

But oh, my fellow esteemed poster, that is what makes the study of literature so very wonderful, and so very necessary. 

As one of the "aging professors" (the same age as Star Wars) one of the other posters mentioned, and a writer myself, I found the special quite interesting.  Truly good art will deeply affect a number of people-- and they will all come at it in different ways.  Your reaction depends upon your experiences, opinions, and backgrounds, so each person can have a different conversation with the same piece.  What a fantastic experience it is to have people come to me and mention themes, imagery, or word patterns in my writing that I didn't even know were there.  It is beautiful, and it is part of the human experience.

I thought the special was more about those archetypes which are repeated over and over... part of our cultural DNA; and to me, that is the underlying reason why Star Wars was such a massive hit.  Even though Lucas might not have deliberately gathered from each influence mentioned, he hit on some major themes in such a combination that it struck a deep cultural chord.  So I was fascinated. 

Well.  Except for the part in which Jar-Jar was discussed with straight instead of retching faces, and the last half-hour when it suddenly became a freaking discussion on the Iraq War.  Other than that, I say, good show. 

[Variety of Cells]

Thank you for posting that.  I wanted to say it, just didn't know how to put it.  Art is completely subjective. 

[Junkyard]

Art may be subjective, but at this point it's so subjective that you would do better to go out for a nature walk and try to interprit the meaning behind a tree. No, seriously- why spend so much time trying to understand what some oversensitive artist meant by drawing three dots on a canvas when you can go out and do the same thing with creation? Not only is it cheaper, but you also may, by odd chance, become enlightened.

Admittadly, I don't like "interpriting." Not art, not poetry, and not scripture. If you want to say something, put it in a damn essay. Meanwhile I'll continue to divide art into "pretty," "boring," "interesting," and "offensive." Sorry.

[LadyKenobi]

But see, that's exactly what's so cool about it.  You don't have to engage.  If you get more out of nature than someone else's personal expression, then that's that.  It's what speaks to you.  Me, I'm huge into nature myself, but I also get so much out of literature because it's another human being's interpretation.  It forms a connection.  I love the idea that I can write something and 100 years later someone could pick it up and we'll be in the same mind-space for a while.  A rock may be gorgeous and inspiring, but it didn't put any thought into being there.

[Junkyard]

I suppose I DO actually apreciate literature beyond just the literal words. Reading Kepler's Somnium to get a glimpse of the moon through the eyes of a scientist before the word "Scientist" came into use, reading Bradbury to catch some of the magic inherint in the optimism of the 50's towards space travel.
Reading Dante to hear a whiney Italian condemn everyone he doesn't like to Hellish torture. (Never did appreciate his stuff as much as the scholors did.)

And of course Robert Frost is beutiful even when I'm not sure what he's saying.