|
Basebf555 posted:I'm only responding to your own words. Your claim is that to analyze and elaborate on Star Wars beyond the surface elements amounts to "wanna-be film criticism". Why would you assume it wouldn't be totally legitimate and worthwhile criticism? I didn't make that claim. What I did say that the deeper meaning to the prequels being discussed here only exists in the minds of wanna-be film critics posting on a comedy forum. I did not say any analysis of Star Wars is wanna-be film criticism. The devil is in the details, you see. There's no authority of proven proficiency behind any of the things about the prequels that are allegedly rad and good, despite being some of the most hated things about them, and I'm convinced it's just an elaborate troll or just pure distilled contrarian-ism. Neither would surprise me given the people who post these defenses of the prequels and the kinds of posts they make elsewhere. I guess I'm too much of an Occam's Razor guy. It's more likely that the prequels are just flawed than it is likely that all this cool stuff just went right over everyone's head except Lucas himself and SMG. They are fun movies that get too much hate but they are deeply flawed and could've been just better films and it's a shame they weren't.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That's a silly, if common, way of dismissing interpretation. Watching films is inherently seeing things that aren't there. The laserswords and space wizards are just as 'not there' as any thematic meaning people are getting from the series. That's a silly, if common way of dismissing criticism of interpretation. All interpretation is not automatically correct and valuable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I didn't make that claim. What I did say that the deeper meaning to the prequels being discussed here only exists in the minds of wanna-be film critics posting on a comedy forum. I did not say any analysis of Star Wars is wanna-be film criticism. The devil is in the details, you see. Really? Because this: Noam Chomsky posted:Eh, not really. I don't have any elaborate, intricate analysis or opinions on the films. I just view them as fun, somewhat flawed movies with ray gun and laser sword wielding heroes fighting against a dark lord and his evil empire. sure reads like you're saying that engaging in "elaborate, intricate" analysis of Star Wars amounts to being a wanna-be film critic. You were responding to someone who called you a wanna-be film critic after all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 20:57
|
|
|
quote:Open World RPG "like" Star Wars Game (Canceled)  I don't regret reporting him to Disney, but wtf?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
EDIT: gently caress it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Your assumption that I must have no self-confidence or opinions about films, because I view Star Wars as a really fun series about laserswords and space wizards and that's it, says everything that needs to be said about wanna-be film critics posting on a comedy forum. I don't think it's bad that people are discussing the details of Star Wars but I do believe that if you continually search for meaning in something, you'll find it even if it isn't there. I agree, actually, that "critical theorist"-types are frequently almost apophenic in the way they find everything is somehow representative of their ideology or ideologies they oppose, that's why I disagree with SMG on a lot of things even though his posts are interesting. But the notion that relatively basic observations like "The prequels are the story of how the Jedi and the Republic became complacent and corrupt" is looking for meaning where there is none is silly. Just because lots of people had a knee-jerk reaction to the prequels doesn't mean there's nothing there beyond what those people initially reacted to, and people like Cnut, for example, are mostly basing their interpretation on the films themselves and on official materials about the films, like interviews and Making-of books. Star Wars is something that can be appreciated on multiple levels, and was kind of designed to be, given the things Lucas values and is interested in/was interested in when he was making these movies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Our relationship to film ought to bear no resemblance to our relationship to cocaine. "Snoke" is actually short for "Sniffs Coke"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Princess Leia is Snoke?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
Beeez posted:I agree, actually, that "critical theorist"-types are frequently almost apophenic in the way they find everything is somehow representative of their ideology or ideologies they oppose, that's why I disagree with SMG on a lot of things even though his posts are interesting. But the notion that relatively basic observations like "The prequels are the story of how the Jedi and the Republic became complacent and corrupt" is looking for meaning where there is none is silly. Just because lots of people had a knee-jerk reaction to the prequels doesn't mean there's nothing there beyond what those people initially reacted to, and people like Cnut, for example, are mostly basing their interpretation on the films themselves and on official materials about the films, like interviews and Making-of books. Star Wars is something that can be appreciated on multiple levels, and was kind of designed to be, given the things Lucas values and is interested in/was interested in when he was making these movies. I don't disagree with any of that. I guess I was originally trying to point out that the interpretations of SMG and others should not be taken as the canonical meaning behind the films simply because they provide very detailed claims and analysis, doubly so if it impedes your enjoyment of the films; all it is is their interpretation, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:That's a silly, if common way of dismissing criticism of interpretation. All interpretation is not automatically correct and valuable. I didn't say anything about all interpretations being automatically correct and/or valuable. This dichotomy of shallow vs. deep meaning is not there. It exists only in the minds of people who want to dismiss film interpretation/discussion instead of engaging with it. Noam Chomsky posted:I guess I'm too much of an Occam's Razor guy. It's more likely that the prequels are just flawed than it is likely that all this cool stuff just went right over everyone's head except Lucas himself and SMG. They are fun movies that get too much hate but they are deeply flawed and could've been just better films and it's a shame they weren't. When you get right down to it a lot of the major criticisms rely on the idea that Lucas didn't realize the content of his own films- not even the "deep" meaning we've discussed here, but just basic stuff. I find that doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor. Noam Chomsky posted:I don't disagree with any of that. I guess I was originally trying to point out that the interpretations of SMG and others should not be taken as the canonical meaning behind the films simply because they provide very detailed claims and analysis, doubly so if it impedes your enjoyment of the films; all it is is their interpretation, nothing more. What else is there? Who decides the "canonical meaning", and why should anyone else accept it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Why would they base Plagueis on some EU stuff they went out of their way to make non-canon? Bits of Darth Plagieus' backstory got "re-canonized" by Tarkin. That said; he no longer has a canonical species.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Red posted:
Truly hatred won this day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
You should try to push for the most generous interpretation you can with the evidence before you. The fact is a lot of stuff really did go over the audience's head, or clashed with their preconceived notions of what they imagined should have happened and was thus rejected as bad or a mistake or sloppy writing by Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:I don't disagree with any of that. I guess I was originally trying to point out that the interpretations of SMG and others should not be taken as the canonical meaning behind the films simply because they provide very detailed claims and analysis, doubly so if it impedes your enjoyment of the films; all it is is their interpretation, nothing more. So what's the canonical meaning behind the films then? Please no interpretations, just lay out the true meaning of the films for me, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Red posted:
If he had been allowed to continue, he might've been the next SuperShadow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
SuperShadow rules. I'd love to hear that guy's memoir of trolling the gently caress out of Star Wars fans for a decade.Red posted:
He's clearly autistic. Or just dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
greatn posted:How could someone trained in the force possibly determine if someone was trustworthy? Look, you can argue it all you want, I'm just saying that the prequels retcon mad poo poo that were in the OT. They are also lovely movies with accidentally decent ideas behind them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:23
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
feedmyleg posted:SuperShadow rules. I'd love to hear that guy's memoir of trolling the gently caress out of Star Wars fans for a decade. Your ideas will be forwarded to Lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:There's no authority of proven proficiency behind any of the things about the prequels that are allegedly rad and good, despite being some of the most hated things about them, and I'm convinced it's just an elaborate troll or just pure distilled contrarian-ism. Neither would surprise me given the people who post these defenses of the prequels and the kinds of posts they make elsewhere. The thing is, do we really need "proven proficiency" or authority for someone to read those things as positive? If an individual finds something in a movie to be a positive does it matter if that was the intention of the artist? As an example, in the movie King Kong, Kong's hair frequently can be seen to kinda swirl and mat about for no reason. That's because the rabbit hair the model was covered in would react to the animator's manipulation- it wouldn't stay in place when the model was being posed between shots, and Willis O'Brien realized this too late to do anything about it. The filmmakers were a little nervous then showing the first animation reels to the studio heads, only for one of the studio guys to exclaim "Wow, Kong is mad, look at him bristle!" It's something that the filmmakers did not intend to be there at all, it's a limitation of the technology, but for some viewers it worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Look, you can argue it all you want, I'm just saying that the prequels retcon mad poo poo that were in the OT. They are also lovely movies with accidentally decent ideas behind them. It sounds more like you are saying they are bad movies BECAUSE they retcon, in which case you could at least pick an example that was actually a contradiction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hN74bOubUug
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
greatn posted:It sounds more like you are saying they are bad movies BECAUSE they retcon, in which case you could at least pick an example that was actually a contradiction. No I said why they were bad earlier. That was just a gripe I had as I was watching RotS earlier. edit: also your argument has not convinced me, obi-wan wants a pilot but he himself is a pilot. why would u involve more people in ur poo poo? i dunno maybe ya'll have no idea how to not get noticed when ur doing illegal poo poo, but the best idea is to involve as few people as people if you dont want to get caught. hiring someone else to do a job that you can already do is a bad idea. Dubplate Fire fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
This was pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:No I said why they were bad earlier. That was just a gripe I had as I was watching RotS earlier. He hates flying. I like to assume that most people in the Star Wars universe can basically fly a spaceship, like you get your license at 16 to operate non-commercial vehicles, but there's a difference between being able to land and being a full blown pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:No I said why they were bad earlier. That was just a gripe I had as I was watching RotS earlier. He doesn't know how to avoid the empire, he doesn't have a ship and can't afford one, and the guy he hired is a professional at smuggling and avoiding the empire.(also he hasn't flown in 20 years and hates flying)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
I watched Attack of the Clones last night, my first time since being introduced to a lot of interesting ideas about Star Wars by this thread. I liked it well enough the previous two times I saw it, but it was a whole new thing (since it was also my first time seeing it on blu-ray) this time. Really enjoyable. Thanks, thread!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Red posted:
quote:I always wanted to be captain jack, but I think Mr. Depp is to good to be replaced. Well said.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:He hates flying. yea except he does it when he has to... which he has shown. this is the thing, who really gives a gently caress? there is so much poo poo in the prequels that are there just to look cool, and thats the problem with the movies. everything there is just to look cool because now they could pretty much do anything they wanted with special effects so lucas went loving nuts. whatever its his movie i don't care, i just can't believe that people have deluded themselves into thinking they are good movies. if you want to enjoy them that's fine, but seriously u people are grasping at straws.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:You should try to push for the most generous interpretation you can with the evidence before you. If Lucas was attempting to convey what SMG claims he was, then he failed, since the only person I've ever anyone say this kind of stuff about the PT is SMG. So, one person got it, I guess. Huzanko fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Look, you can argue it all you want, I'm just saying that the prequels retcon mad poo poo that were in the OT. They are also lovely movies with accidentally decent ideas behind them. Very little is really retconned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Very little is really retconned. Why doesn't Chewbacca explain to Han Solo that the force is real since he loving knows Yoda? edit: midochlorians is a huge ret con also (from a certain point of view)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Why doesn't Chewbacca explain to Han Solo that the force is real since he loving knows Yoda? Definitely funnier to imagine Chewbacca and Han Solo bickering about the Force before they meet Obi-Wan. Solo's derision of the Force comes from being so sick of hearing about the magic green man Chewbacca says he met.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Why doesn't Chewbacca explain to Han Solo that the force is real since he loving knows Yoda? If your friend said magic is totally real and he saw an imp with a laser sword, would you believe him or think he's loving with you?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Why doesn't Chewbacca explain to Han Solo that the force is real since he loving knows Yoda? I doubt that would change Han's mind. Dude is shown to be very set in his ways. E: there's also a difference between believing that people have magic powers and believing that those magic powers are connected to a singular spiritual force.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If your friend said magic is totally real and he saw an imp with a laser sword, would you believe him or think he's loving with you? I would believe he was telling me the truth since everyone knows what the gently caress a Jedi is, until everyone forgot. Also if he was gonna believe anyone it would be Chewie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If your friend said magic is totally real and he saw an imp with a laser sword, would you believe him or think he's loving with you? I've had friends and family that I otherwise respect tell me 100% sincerely that they've seen or somehow had contact with a dead loved one, i.e. ghosts are real. They're always mildly offended that I don't just take their word for it because we're friends, but yea they've never been able to make me seriously reconsider my position on that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Just admit that the movies are trash but you like them. I would have more respect for you if you did that, you don't have to justify every single bad decision made by the lord and savior george lucas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Why doesn't Chewbacca explain to Han Solo that the force is real since he loving knows Yoda? Because Han says he doesn't believe in The Force controlling his destiny, not the Force itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Dubplate Fire posted:Just admit that the movies are trash but you like them. I would have more respect for you if you did that, you don't have to justify every single bad decision made by the lord and savior george lucas. Every one of the Star Wars movies are "trash" to varying degrees, but I like them all anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:28 |
|
|
El Burbo posted:Because Han says he doesn't believe in The Force controlling his destiny, not the Force itself. He says that it's parlor tricks, implying that it's an illusion, not the real deal. Then in the greatest film in the franchise, TFA, he admits that its all real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 21:59
|
|