From: trogers@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re: Solving Ben's Lightsaber
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:31:52 GMT
Distribution: all
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: trogers@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In <1992Dec10.230552.16882@ll.mit.edu> shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.145118.78018@watson.ibm.com> trogers@yktvmv.vnet.ibm.com writes:
>>
>>Please lets have proof to backup claims that a lightsaber even partially
>>draws its power from the Force of the holder.  Again, the rule on the net
>>is that if you are going to defend something then you need proof.
>
>As a Math PhD, I question the ability to call anything that has to do with
>SW (or any movie) a "proof". At best, we can have "indications"
>
>>I agree Ben knew he would never leave the DS, I agree he was stalling.  I
>>agree his powers were weak.  I still see now evidence (other than what
>>can be better explained as an spfx goof) that is lightsaber was petering
>>out.
>>
>>It's put-up or shut-up time on this one.  Everyone that states that the
>>scene is question was an spfx group is correct until proven wrong.
>>The saber looked *exactly* like the prop minus the spfx laser effect.
>>This can be proven from the 'Making of Star Wars' video.
>
>On the conterary, the burden of "proof" is on anyone who claims that what we
>see is not what was meant (i.e. a spfx goof). If the movie is cannon at all,
>then it is cannon all the way - anything that's in it can be used as "proof".
>With the possible exeption of Lucas himself, no one has the right to say "what
>you see is really not what the movie does...". 'Making of...' video, while
>entertaining and insightfull, are MARKETING gizmos - like novelizations and
>toys. They can lend supporting evidence, but can never compeat with the movies
>themselves for cannonity (great word, huh).
>
>>
>>If it was really Lucas' intent to display that the lightsaber was losing
>>power (either force-generated or battery generated) don't you think he
>>would explicitly spell it out in the script and the novelization, and
>>don't you think ILM would come up with a better effect to convey this?
>>I think so.
>
>I think it was quite explicit! Immediatly after the first power-loss event,
>Vader, in obvious refernce to events, says: "Your powers are weak old man".
>
>>So far we have *speculation* that a Jedi channels his/her force energy
>>to power the lightsaber coupled with the fact that Ben was weakened
>>in his own stamina and the Force.  This does not make for 'real'
>>proof that the scene in question is not anything more than an spfx
>>goof.
>
>Even though the burden of proof is on anyone who claims a goof, I will point
>out why this is unlikely:
>In ANH we see lightsabers in action many times:
>Ben's home (showing Luke)
>Cantina fight (killing the thug)
>On board of the MF (Luke practicing)
>Ben-Vader battle. (we see two sabers there)
>
>Now, what's the chance that the FX goof will occuer SEVERAL times during the
>Ben-Vader Battle, and not even once in the other instances?
>
>>A Jedi draws his power from the force; yes, this is fact.  A Jedi
>>can use the Force to make is weapons (including a lightsaber)
>>extremely deadly and skillful weapons.  Again, this is fact.  However,
>>no where is there proof that a Jedi uses the force to power (or aid
>>in the power) of the lightsaber.  And, for proof to the contrary,
>
>Hard to see why a lightsaber that requires the force for construction, that
>require the force for skillfull use, and that is never carried by non-force-
>users, would still be usable without the force.
>
>>I submit the Han Solo slice/dice Tauntaun scene from ES (again).
>
>Admittedly that's a tough one. (Personally I prefer to think THIS is the goof,
>but I try to explain it anyway).
>Possibility: Luke was present, while not quite himself at the time, there 
>might still be enough "force-power" to keep the lightsaber going - at least to
>do this "easy" job. Another possibility: Ben's ghost still exerted a presense,
>force-wise, or was making it possible for Luke to power the lightsaber (Luke,
>talking of Degobah, was clearly still in the "religious exxperience").
>Don't like either possibilities, I admit, but for "artistic" - not consistancy
>- reasons.
>
>>Nuff said.  Still waiting for proof.
>
>Your wait is over, I trust.
>
>Dan Shoham               shoham@ll.mit.edu
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The view presented are not necessarily those of my employer, etc.
>
>Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>Lincoln Laboratory
>244 Wood Street
>Lexington Massachusetts, 02173-9108
>Office B-373
>617-981-3515
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>


Sorry, I still see no strong indications to backup the following claims:

   1)  A Jedi uses the Force to power or help power a lightsaber.

   2)  Ben's lightsaber was low on power.

As for why we saw Ben's lightsaber peter out *several* times, as you state,
I must ask - "Where do you get several from?"

I only remember one scene were the lightsaber spfx was missing.  And, this
is factual.  The spfx element is missing.  This is FACT.  The scene(s) in which you
say the lightsaber had dimmed because Ben was weak are scenes that are void of
of spfx that colors/enhances the blade.  Whether you believe the "Making Of.."
to be canon or not, it is factual, and if you watch it you will see *exactly*
what I mean.

Why did the spfx fail only in this scene?  Easy answer.  They were done by hand.
This is the only scene were you have a duel, and an extensive dual at that.  This
was lots of manual work here.  To miss a couple of frames here and there would be
easy.  Especially on Ben's lightsaber because his light-blue color is so close to
the color of the untouched reflective prop (also explaining why Vader's red saber
never shows this effect).  All the other scenes were pretty calm in regard to the
wielding of the lightsaber.

Also, I disagree with your statement of 'If its in the movie, its Canon.'  Many
say that Luke yells 'Carrie' when returning from the DS battle (while leaving
his X-WING).  I am not saying that he did, but if he did, by your comments, it
would be canon that Princess Liea's nickname is 'Carrie'.  I think not.  Goofs
are not canon.  The question is, is this a goof or deliberate.  You say that it
is deliberate until proven otherwise.  I think that spfx goofs such as fuzzy
matts around tiefighters in space or lightsabers that are not touched up are goofs.

Regards,
Tom Rogers
roy@trigger.watson.ibm.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Disclaimer:  The comments in this post  | - What is your name?     |
|              are not necessarily shared | - What is your quest?    |
|              with my employer           | - What is...             |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Doctoral student, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA