|
Broken Loose posted:Which is why I said, "Twice, once in canon." It's even dumber if you know this information. What are you talking about? The Force Unleashed isn't canon. And not many people played it, nobody cares about the Force Unleashed. I doubt they even knew the game used the name when they named the Starkiller Base that. This is the stupidest complaint I've ever heard. Look at how this cool diorama uses lighting 
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
this is a compelling point, but i think that if you consider things further, you'll find that im gay
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are you talking about? The Force Unleashed isn't canon. And not many people played it, nobody cares about the Force Unleashed. I doubt they even knew the game used the name when they named the Starkiller Base that. This is the stupidest complaint I've ever heard. Look at how this cool diorama uses lighting When TFU came out, it was announced as official canon. It's only no longer canon as of the new films wiping the universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
You know I'm fairly sure a throwaway jab at a reused name in the new movie isn't the keystone of Broken Loose's entire argument.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:When TFU came out, it was announced as official canon. It's only no longer canon as of the new films wiping the universe. Yeah, it's not canon. Like I said. Everything before the Disney buyout, except the movies, went into the garbage can. Where it belongs. Flowers 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You know I'm fairly sure a throwaway jab at a reused name in the new movie isn't the keystone of Broken Loose's entire argument. No but just like his argument it is the basis for no part of his argument being logical or sensible. Like the poo poo he complains about is the least of the movies problems. Hey we put a few lines in the movie to let people know the Alliance to Restore the Republic succeeded and Restored the Republic so the bad guys decide to use their weapon to kill the biggest potential enemy. Thats some giant confusing plot hole apparently that shits all over the last 40 years of world building??? Also the Resistance who are resisting the First Order and are being funded secretly by the Republic, after they just stare at the audience and tell you this in one scene to make sure you understand it, only has limited stuff is too hard and confusing to me plz send help. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:You know I'm fairly sure a throwaway jab at a reused name in the new movie isn't the keystone of Broken Loose's entire argument. Well then he should admit it was a dumb criticism. Here's some good fake water 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:What are you talking about? The Force Unleashed isn't canon. And not many people played it, nobody cares about the Force Unleashed. I doubt they even knew the game used the name when they named the Starkiller Base that. This is the stupidest complaint I've ever heard. Look at how this cool diorama uses lighting this is pretty dope
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Hey why did they dissolve the senate? Did the senate do anything? How can you have a senate when your governmental policy is gently caress poo poo up? Why did they have taxation on space trade? Were they trying to take away peoples space guns?boom boom boom posted:Well then he should admit it was a dumb criticism. Here's some good fake water phew I needed that bbb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
i appreciate ya work here boom boom boom also this robot is totally about to get owned by that missile lmao
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
I just wanna be clear here, I was only arguing about the Starkiller thing because it was such a bizarre, stupid thing to say. Broken Loose's main thrust,Broken Loose posted:In 10-20 years, somebody is going to watch all the Star Wars movies as a marathon without regard for the 15-year-gap between 6 and 1 and the 10-year gap between 3 and 7, and Episode 7 is going to be an incredibly jarring transition. For all their faults, at least the prequels attempted original stories. Episode 7 only holds up right now as a source of income for Disney, and in context to the rest of Star Wars it's really loving awful and confusing. Is that ten to twenty years from now, everyone's going to agree with him. Which doesn't even deserve to be argued with. I like the little scenario this diorama presents 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
do not pursue broken loo
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
I mean I know I'm not the best person to ask about Star Wars given that I haven't seen the new movie, saw approximately 5 minutes of episode III, hated eps I and II (but who doesn't?), don't particularly like Jedi, and think even A New Hope and Empire are flawed (but overall pretty good movies worth of praise). I know roughly what happens in TFA because I've never given even a fractional poo poo about spoilers and frankly, nothing about it or the trailers or anything actually excites me about it. I plan on seeing it because at worst I've lost $20 and a few hours of my time, and then I can complain about it or something, but much like GW, Star Wars hasn't held any fascination for me for the better part of a decade. I'm sure the movie will be decent at least, but I find it really hard to care. It's just Star Wars. However, the most essential point (that I have anyway) is that you shouldn't "leave [your] expectations for great writing at the door" just because you're watching a franchise movie. I expect every movie I see - hell, every artistic work of any kind - to do its absolute best and to provide something interesting and (relatively) unique. If your movie is just a rehash of an earlier one without a significant reimagining (*cough* Return of the Jedi), it doesn't really need to exist. In the end, I'm not actually convinced that there are more than 2 movies worth of good content in the Star Wars universe. (There probably are, but the existing movies don't seem to have borne that out.) Now, Star Trek on the other hand,
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Star Trek: Episode 4: The One With The Whales In It is better than the best Star Wars
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Now, Star Trek on the other hand, dominion war, highlight of the series or the worst part???
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I mean I know I'm not the best person to ask about Star Wars given that I haven't seen the new movie, saw approximately 5 minutes of episode III, hated eps I and II (but who doesn't?), don't particularly like Jedi, and think even A New Hope and Empire are flawed (but overall pretty good movies worth of praise). I know roughly what happens in TFA because I've never given even a fractional poo poo about spoilers and frankly, nothing about it or the trailers or anything actually excites me about it. I plan on seeing it because at worst I've lost $20 and a few hours of my time, and then I can complain about it or something, but much like GW, Star Wars hasn't held any fascination for me for the better part of a decade. I'm sure the movie will be decent at least, but I find it really hard to care. It's just Star Wars. The review of 'its got some good likeable characters with solid chemistry and the first half runs strong but then the second half is pretty weak and nobody gives a poo poo thanks to the lack of tension' is the most accurate imo. EDIT: Also yeah Jedi was poo poo, everything that wasnt Luke + Vader was basically filler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Moola posted:dominion war, highlight of the series or the worst part??? DS9 is a loving treasure and I'll fight anybody who claims otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:this is a compelling point, but i think that if you consider things further, you'll find that im gay Hello, Gay, I'm Dad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
kingcom posted:The review of 'its got some good likeable characters with solid chemistry and the first half runs strong but then the second half is pretty weak and nobody gives a poo poo thanks to the lack of tension' is the most accurate imo. Yeah, and from what I've read, it sounds like Broken Loose is basically right about it being a weird choice for a direct sequel to Jedi, especially if you look at Star Wars from the perspective of the sci-fi serials it was inspired by. It sounds like more of a reboot? But again, I haven't seen the movie so I'm talking out of my rear end here. Moola posted:dominion war, highlight of the series or the worst part??? I only ever watched bits and pieces of DS9, although it was probably my favorite series overall. I guess it's because it had the least oversight from idiot managers or something? The nerd arguments I've seen about Star Trek though are always infinitely more interesting than Star Wars though, mainly because Star Trek actually has parts that bear thinking about. I took a "Philosophy of Science Fiction" class once and TNG episodes featured in discussions several times. I remember the one about the teleporter accident that caused two Rikers in particular. How Star Trek managed this despite having the most infantile premise imaginable (it's like a security blanket: "it's the distant future and technology hasn't significantly changed who we are or how we relate to the universe except that we all got a lot nicer") is beyond me. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:DS9 is a loving treasure and I'll fight anybody who claims otherwise. DS9 was pretty drat good. Equal to TNG IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:"it's the distant future and technology hasn't significantly changed who we are or how we relate to the universe except that we all got a lot nicer" In Star Trek humans live in a post-scarcity world where there's no racism,sexism, or poverty. Humans don't fight one another, there's no diseases except weird space diseases almost nobody gets, etc. There's an episode of TNG where they wake up some dudes from the past and explain all that to them, and one dude is crushed to find out that nobody gives a poo poo if he's rich, because that doesn't matter anymore. You can call that just being a lot nicer, but it still seems like a pretty huge change to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Yeah, and from what I've read, it sounds like Broken Loose is basically right about it being a weird choice for a direct sequel to Jedi, especially if you look at Star Wars from the perspective of the sci-fi serials it was inspired by. It sounds like more of a reboot? But again, I haven't seen the movie so I'm talking out of my rear end here. The term I keep hearing is 'soft reboot', where its not a complete reset but the movie exists to set up its own story/characters and waving by the last one. Having said that Han and Leia have more to do in this movie than in Jedi lol. Avenging Dentist posted:I only ever watched bits and pieces of DS9, although it was probably my favorite series overall. I guess it's because it had the least oversight from idiot managers or something? I like when they did the transporter accident creating a new person episode in Voyager and they resolve it by just murdering the person to fix it. Voyager was pretty poo poo imo. kingcom fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:DS9 is a loving treasure and I'll fight anybody who claims otherwise. This is the most correct opinion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYVSkOh3ZBM
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
I didn't watch much of DS9, because when it started it was all about the Bajorans and I just don't give a poo poo about the Bajorans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:I didn't watch much of DS9, because when it started it was all about the Bajorans and I just don't give a poo poo about the Bajorans. Neither do the Cardassians.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
kingcom posted:Voyager was pretty poo poo imo. And it was all true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
The most iconic thing I can say about the relationship between Star Trek and Star Wars is that when the most recent technical encyclopedia for Star Wars was written, the guy who wrote it double-checked the equivalent Star Trek stats for the ships and just added a bunch of zeroes so that Star Wars fans could be able to say their poo poo would win in a fight. edit: I'd like to point out that "Broken Loose says that people will agree with his point in several years" has happened repeatedly, to the point where it's almost become satire in my life. I remember goons talking so much poo poo about how I was overreacting to Tyranid changes by literally posting their stats with no opinions offered whatsoever. My observations about things are basically a looking glass into the future. Even boom boom boom's last attempt to lambast me, in a thread about a Gundam show, I said that the main Gundam looked dumb because (A) it had giant handles on its head that would make it really vulnerable in close combat and (B) the giant handles blocked the main camera. Goons spent pages screaming at me (and even bought me a new avatar!) and lo and behold, first episode of the show, the Gundam is grappled into submission by a first time pilot in an unarmed grunt because he grabbed it by the gigantic bunny ears. I was proven wrong about the camera bit not because I was actually wrong, but because the show demonstrated in episode 3 that the writers don't actually take into account when somebody is completely blind (the character can only see out of his open cockpit which is blocked by his shield when he kills yet another enemy ace). In before Men's Rights Activists start talking poo poo. Broken Loose fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:In Star Trek humans live in a post-scarcity world where there's no racism,sexism, or poverty. Humans don't fight one another, there's no diseases except weird space diseases almost nobody gets, etc. There's an episode of TNG where they wake up some dudes from the past and explain all that to them, and one dude is crushed to find out that nobody gives a poo poo if he's rich, because that doesn't matter anymore. The implication is that we're fundamentally good right now and the only reason we have any problems is that we live in a world with scarcity. I think that's pretty reductive (and inaccurate!) and doesn't leave room for a lot of the stories I find interesting in science fiction, which are mainly the ones about how unusual circumstances can affect people or even what it is to be a person. Moon's a pretty good example of this, since it does a great job of showing how fundamentally Sam changed as a person during his stay on the Moon. And you know, the spoilery poo poo that happens there. The effect of being post-scarcity on humanity would be an interesting premise for a movie, but it doesn't have the legs to sustain several TV series. At least not to give me all the stuff I want from sci-fi. Notably absent from Star Trek are cases where other technologies have changed how people think. Genetic engineering, cybernetics*, etc are explicitly banned, and all that does is to eliminate an opportunity to show future humans as something strange to our eyes. There appears to have been no significant research into combating aging, despite disease being effectively eradicated; if you're post-scarcity, it's not like you'd have a problem dealing with a species of immortals. The one case I can think of that addresses this (Insurrection) strongly implies that such research is immoral. Even without anti-aging, immortality in the Federation is achievable. Various episodes of Star Trek establish that you could use transporter technology (combined with the storage systems for the holodecks) to create backups of people. Imagine if they had used that technology to "restore" Picard from a backup when he was kidnapped by the Borg. That would have made for a really interesting episode, and not just because more Picard = more good. Computers are about the same, too. They're usually just depicted as simple tools, despite having incredibly advanced capabilities. Aside from Data and friends, there don't appear to be any intelligent computers (and Lore's existence implies that research into such things is fraught with danger). The closest are the borg, who are an example of a fundamentally-changed person thanks to technology (cybernetics) and they're flatly depicted as evil. Watching TNG especially, I often get a sense that the show has very negative attitudes towards technology that has the potential to reshape people. That's not to say that such technology is all good; it's usually a mix of both. But these kinds of technologies are strange and unsettling and as such, they make for exactly the kind of stories I like to see. Star Trek just misses a lot of opportunities for me. * Geordi's visor is cybernetic technology, but it's notable in that it's only used to restore a previously-existing human function, and not to enhance a person. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Star Trek just misses a lot of opportunities for me. This is why DS9 is good cause it goes into poo poo. Like the time Sisko helps assassinate an ambassador to help drag people into a war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Star Trek just misses a lot of opportunities for me. Watch DS9.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Watch DS9. I think I've watched about half of it, but so out of order that I don't know any of the multi-episode plots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
kingcom posted:This is why DS9 is good cause it goes into poo poo. Like the time Sisko helps assassinate an ambassador to help drag people into a war. I think the guy means "to explore weird sci fi poo poo which is depicted as possible", rather than "is gritty and morally nuanced". I hear lots about DS9 being the latter, with a lot of less-shiny perfect futurepeople ethos to it, but I've never really heard of them doing in depth exploration of the technologies they obviously have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
I recently re-watched the entirety of DS9 over the course of maybe three months, mostly watching one or two episodes a night on my kindle before going to sleep. It's overall good. Much better than any other star trek franchise. It's still littered with bad episodes, poor acting performances, etc. One of the key things that makes it remarkable is that it's a departure from Rodenberry's vision of the future. In DS9, characters like Quark and Odo routinely flout Federation (read: idealistic human) positions on morality. Kira is a straight-up ex-terrorist. Garak is an assasin, probably, ok definitely. Even the initially straight-laced Federation guy, Sisko, is essentially corrupted by the influence of the rest of the crew, plus his experience with the wormhole aliens (who have basically altered his mind). Even the Federation is revealed to be pretty hypocritical when it comes to its much-vaunted ethics, once its placed into genuine threat. The writers also occasionally remember that their characters have been traumatized (although not always). They recognize and lampshade the fact that the Klingon "way of the warrior" ethos is incapable of sustaining a stable civilization. The show directly confronts its audience with the impossibility of the utopia Rodenberry dreamed up. When people say it's "dark," well, not at all by current standards of television, but for its time, for a network TV show, and especially for a Star Trek show, heck yes it's dark. Mostly. When it's not an episode about Quark's mom, or whatever. boom boom boom posted:I didn't watch much of DS9, because when it started it was all about the Bajorans and I just don't give a poo poo about the Bajorans. When I originally saw DS9, while it was airing, the Bajorans were by far the thing I hated the most, and I especially hated Kira's character. Re-watching it now... Nana Visitor delivers one of the probably top five Star Trek acting performances across all of the series. Her performance is magnificent, but you don't really see it until you've gotten through three or four seasons. Her character has a severe case of PTSD. She's a loving terrorist, having to cope with the idea that her lifelong personal war against the Cardassian occupation is now over. The interaction between her and the main Cardassian villain, Gul Dukat, evolves over time and is fantastic. Sometimes she's betrayed by poor writing, in the early seasons in particular, but she injects her character with a subtlety and nuance that is really surprising given the initially one-dimensional role the writers had in mind for her. The writers also gave us the horrible Bajoran religious leader, Kai Wynn, to hate, and they really seemed to understand how to make a character hateable without having them be an outright villain. Anyway. DS9, yeah. Watch it, if you can get through the poo poo episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
Honestly I kind of liked the "people are fundamentally good and scarcities create conflict" thing. I don't think it really matters if it's not true. Like that thing in Terry Pratchett about believing in things because they're important even if they're not verifiable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I think the guy means "to explore weird sci fi poo poo which is depicted as possible", rather than "is gritty and morally nuanced". I hear lots about DS9 being the latter, with a lot of less-shiny perfect futurepeople ethos to it, but I've never really heard of them doing in depth exploration of the technologies they obviously have. Don't get me wrong. I want both, if possible! It's actually part of why I got into 40k in the first place. I know the setting is pretty dumb, but when done well (and viewed charitably), it shows human beings as fundamentally flawed and deeply changed by their relationship to technology. The Imperium is largely turned in on itself, oppressing its own people for only-occasionally justifiable reasons (daemonic possession), and things have gone so bad in the past that technology has created a religion around it. The Adeptus Mechanicus are pretty loving cool overall, and when done well, they're these weird amoral cyborgs desperately seeking knowledge. Unfortunately, the writing is so hackneyed and GW is so obsessed with being "grim" that it all falls apart, but man, the potential was right there. I could probably write a lot more about the potential 40k had but gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Oh yeah alsoAvenging Dentist posted:I remember the one about the teleporter accident that caused two Rikers in particular. How Star Trek managed this despite having the most infantile premise imaginable (it's like a security blanket: "it's the distant future and technology hasn't significantly changed who we are or how we relate to the universe except that we all got a lot nicer") is beyond me. I love that episode. I saw it recently, having forgotten all about it since I first saw it when it originally aired. It's striking because it basically constitutes proof that Federation transport technology literally murders whoever uses it, creating a new copy of that person on the arrival end. The new person receives a copy of all the memories of the original, and has the same brain structure, so they believe themselves to be the original person. But if it's possible to beam someone up and still leave them behind, then that means every time they're not left behind, they're killed. The writers apparently wrote that episode and either didn't realize what they'd done, or decided to just gloss over it, but man, what a missed opportunity. Imagine if they wrote the next episode as a Federation-wide crisis bordering on outright collapse, as countless billions of people discover that they are in fact perfect clones of their original selves, and that if they ever get transported again, they'll die, and someone else (a copy of them) will take over their lives. The Riker "clone" (actually, the original Riker who got left on that planet) actually shows up in a DS9 episode, where he is killed off in kind of a cool way. He's a more sympathetic character than the Riker we got in TNG, too. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Jan 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Yeah, that episode is a great example of a technology that they actually used in Star Trek that forces you to ask uncomfortable questions about the nature of self once you start looking at it. And when they actually looked at it, it was for a single episode that didn't really get that deep into it, and was never addressed again to my knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Granted while I dig the star trek idealism I totally get what you mean about no transformative tech. It's why I tend to write settings for sci fi where people are born in pods and nobody really has a concept of family anymore or something when I'm not just doing shlocky space-pulp. Or Gundam because Gundam is basically just a WW2 movie but in space and with robots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Well, they follow up with the extra Riker in DS9, but no, they never acknowledge or consider what the existence of transporter technology really says about the nature of consciousness and the "soul." What, really, is the difference between having your component subatomic particles torn to shreds, and then reassembled later, to being killed, and then having a new copy of you assembled somewhere else? How does your "you" get from one body to the other? For that matter... when you woke up this morning, did your brain reboot the same "you" that fell asleep last night? Or does today's "you" only think you're the same, because your brain provides full access to all of the experiences and memories that shaped you, plus the physical neuron connections that give rise to the same patterns of conscious thought as "you" had yesterday? But what if the actual experience of consciousness is a series of one-day lives, each ending in absolute death? What if when you go to sleep, you - the person reading this right now - never wakes up? It's some other jerk piloting around your meat tomorrow. I don't expect Star Trek writers to actually answer that kind of question, but when they have an extra Riker pop up, I think it would have been nice for some of the characters to at least ask it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 00:00 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted:The most iconic thing I can say about the relationship between Star Trek and Star Wars is that when the most recent technical encyclopedia for Star Wars was written, the guy who wrote it double-checked the equivalent Star Trek stats for the ships and just added a bunch of zeroes so that Star Wars fans could be able to say their poo poo would win in a fight. Dude, you literally argued the show was going to be bad because of the camera placement on the main robot. It was hilarious. But I remember more your argument that the show was sexist because one of the female characters was a mom, and another cried sometimes. But the really great thing is I didn't remember you complaining about Cahill's death. So you've, completely unprompted, brought up another stupid, absurd criticism. It doesn't matter that Bellri couldn't see, because literally all he does is bring up his gun and and fire it when the barrel hits the robot that's right in front of him. There's a lot of good wrecked Zaku dioramas 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 03:33
|
|