|
Serf posted:"I'm just saying, has anyone ever actually seen Master Diyas and Senator Palpatine in the same room?" If there's anything to take away from the PT (besides the fact that the trade confederacy must fall) it's that little kids are apparently hyper talented pilots, detectives, and killers. In this brand new context it was totally reasonable for Anakin to lust for child blood. Yep
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
I was looking up a transcript of dialogue from the prequels and I noticed that on TheForce.net forums, the biggest Star Wars fansite of all time, they're talking about how awful the prequels were?? The place was the fanatical vanguard of prequel apologism last time I checked many years ago. Do you guys feel like that Japanese soldier who was still fighting WWII well into the 1970s
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I'm glad tezzor is here cause they say everything I can't. It isn't that hard to misunderstand film, you should try it some time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
PBS Newshour posted:Sypho Dias used to been awesome because its so obviously a joke name by Sidious and you can tell he is laughing at everyone but then they had to make Sypho into a real person. No, that was the original idea back when the character was going to be named Sido-Dyas. But then a typo turned it into Sifo-Dyas, which made Lucas realize that his original idea made the Jedi look too dumb, and that it would make more sense if Sifo-Dyas was a real person who the Jedi could choose to believe created the clone army despite the uncertainty surrounding his death. This change coincided with his changing Jango's line "I was recruited by man called Darth Tyranus" to "I was recruited by a man named Tyranus." Ever since the name was officially changed to Sifo-Dyas, the character was intended to have been an actual person. It was all part of a minor rewrite intended to make the Jedi's confusion more understandable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I'm glad tezzor is here cause they say everything I can't. Thank you friend. Your reward awaits in the kingdom of good star wars movies
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
cargohills posted:It isn't that hard to misunderstand film, you should try it some time. He was bitching in another thread about how he got probated for telling people to kill themselves, as though that's a big affront to humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Ersatz posted:OK. But the films don't show us that the battledroids are self-aware. In AOTC, C3PO gets his head stuck onto a battledroid body. This is symbolic of their equivalency. If you do not think that C3PO is a character ("self aware"), then I think that your interpretation of the film will be fundamentally opposed to many others in a way that is very hard to pin down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I was looking up a transcript of dialogue from the prequels and I noticed that on TheForce.net forums, the biggest Star Wars fansite of all time, they're talking about how awful the prequels were?? This place was the fanatical vanguard of prequel apologism last time I checked many years ago. Do you guys feel like that Japanese soldier who was still fighting WWII well into the 1970s Do they still work religion into just about every post over there? I fled screaming from the site in about 2004 and haven't looked back there since. It was extremely creepy to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
cargohills posted:It isn't that hard to misunderstand film, you should try it some time. There is no misunderstanding art; you see it, you read it, you take away whatever interpretation you want. That's the beauty of art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He was bitching in another thread about how he got probated for telling people to kill themselves, as though that's a big affront to humanity. No I wasn't. Why would you make up such hideous lies just to defend terrible movies? Would it be be easier to have empathy for me if I told you that I am a robot
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:He was bitching in another thread about how he got probated for telling people to kill themselves, as though that's a big affront to humanity. But enough about Effectronica,
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:No I wasn't. Why would you make up such hideous lies just to defend terrible movies? Would it be be easier to have empathy for me if I told you that I am a robot Not you, Vintersorg.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:How can i be vomiting from every hole simultaneously. Someone call a doctor Stop hurting my feelings, Tezzor. I'm a real person, you know. And I'm sure you're a real person, too. I know--I just know--that deep down, beneath your hard shitposting exterior, behind all the layers of mean-spirited irony, there indeed lies a human heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:How can i be vomiting from every hole simultaneously. Someone call a doctor Instead of being a prick why not contribute something of value on the topic if you disagree with Cnut on this reading? Any interesting textual evidence to backup your obvious disagreement regarding a Grievous / Vader parallel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:There is no misunderstanding art; you see it, you read it, you take away whatever interpretation you want. That's the beauty of art. OK, I have typed up this question and deleted it about three times now, but since you said that I guess I'll actually post it this time. If I see a film, and the meaning I take away from it differs from that which the director/auteur intended, does that make my reading wrong? It's art in the form of moving pictures/sound, and its meaning is entirely subjective, as Neurolimal said, is it not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Yah in this very thread! I said it with love.... with love. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:Instead of being a prick why not contribute something of value on the topic if you disagree with Cnut on this reading? Any interesting textual evidence to backup your obvious disagreement regarding a Grievous / Vader parallel? What do you mean the two coughing lightsaber-wielding cyborgs might be similar in some way???
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:If I see a film, and the meaning I take away from it differs from that which the director/auteur intended, does that make my reading wrong? It's art in the form of moving pictures/sound, and its meaning is entirely subjective, as Neurolimal said, is it not? There's different schools of thought on that and you aren't going to get an easy answer here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:OK, I have typed up this question and deleted it about three times now, but since you said that I guess I'll actually post it this time. No, it doesn't. Death of the author is a very legit concept. However a number of people seem to think that "death of the author" for some reason doesn't apply to their own subjective take on a film. Nobody has an obligation to conform to any other person's interpretation. All this remains true no matter how obvious you feel the message is; many nerds grew up unironically loving Starship Troopers. Some people genuinely want Robocop as a reality. Full Metal Jacket gets shown in barracks. They're not wrong for "missing" the point. It just fails to persuade them Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
I want to know what SMG's thoughts on the role of C3PO are - not as a unit with R2 mind, but acting on his own. Specifically, the scene where he is thrown around the factory in Episode II. Is that him being tossed around carelessly by the Force? It seems his role in all of these movies is to be at the center of the most high-drama places in the story, but ones he ultimately has no control over - from his creation, to being literally caught between Padme and Anakin in Sith, to of course the start of Star Wars and the events at Cloud City, to ultimately his place as the golden god of the Ewoks. What should I be seeing in that - the culmination of his role as being literally dragged around by the Force at times, to the point where it actually comes in handy (it just so happens the planet the Death Star is being built at is inhabited by "savages" who worship a god similar to the droid built by the guy overseeing this new Death Star)? Is it possible then that with the death of Vader, C-3PO has the red arm in the story somewhat inextricably - with the final death of his creator it becomes something of a black gown like a widow might wear?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Empress Theonora posted:I knew that Grievous was meant to foreshadow Vader's cyborg future, but I noticed this before, which kind of rules?? It's even better. What makes Grievous so uniquely dangerous is his ability to turn the Jedi's own weapons against them:  So, naturally, Obi-Wan defeats Grievous by stealing Grievous's own weapon and using it against him:  It's always important that the villain have an ironic death. Seriously, how could you not love these movies?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Seriously, how could you not love these movies? You like quality in your acting, directing, cinematography, story, dialogue, characters, and/or art design
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:There is no misunderstanding art; you see it, you read it, you take away whatever interpretation you want. That's the beauty of art. I disagree, because I believe that the assertion that "perspectives are true" is not true. It seems to clear to me that people can be wrong in their subjectivity, even about interpretation of art. For example, it would be wrong to interpret The Scream, by Edvard Munch, as "representative of a sense of control, concreteness of one's view of self and exterior". I see it as kind of like science. In science, you can't get "the answer". There's always an error bar on your measurements and calculations. You can say "this is probably true, because I am sure of it up to this point of accuracy". In science you don't get 100% right answers. And you don't get 100% wrong answers. But an answer that is very far from being true shouldn't be seen as true. Like uh, the issue with galactic rotation velocity with respect to distance from the center. Our understanding of it in a Keplerian model was that it should drop off and get lower and lower the further you go out. But what we see with our eyes is that the rotational velocity of the galaxy stays almost constant all the way past where we'd expect it to drop. There's two particular explanations for this: one is MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), which posits that our scientific theory for the law of gravitation is flawed in some way, especially at galactic-scale distances. The other one would be that there is a halo of "dark matter" surrounding the galaxy which interacts gravitationally with matter but does not interact with electromagnetic radiation (light), so we cannot observe it directly. The first one sounds sensible, rational and logical. The second one is like what the gently caress, this is insane and makes no intuitive sense. You're just making poo poo up to solve your problem. But the more we study the universe, the more dark matter appears to be the best explanation for the problem. There's never really a point where you can say "MOND is wrong", because the whole idea of MOND is a modification to what we assumed was true, and therefore we must alter our formulae to fit the data. But in science there's this idea of beauty, or elegance. A scientific theory is seen as beautiful and elegant if it is simple to express, mathematically or whatever. F = GMm/r^2 is a very nice and pretty equation, and it can be used to explain and model so much in our universe. MOND is not as pretty, it's got a lot of weird poo poo going on. MOND is like the theory that the earth is at the center of the universe. You can use it to explain stuff, sure, but they had to add these things called epicycles in order to match the theory to reality. But one set of epicycles didn't work. Nor did two, or three or four. Instead of a nice simple model of orbits in single paths going around with (relatively) simple dynamics, you have this big loving mess that STILL doesn't work as well as the beautiful, elegant theory that we use today. This goes back to the discussion about "justification" earlier in the thread. In science it's somewhat easy to decide whether you've justified yourself or not. But in art, it's very difficult to say that, because of its complexity and because of dis-alignment of perspectives. The "meaning" of a work of art is not something we can study with instruments and make measurements upon, but the analogy is that the error bars on your scientific measurements show you that your knowledge is not absolute. The difference in interpretations of a work of art come about because there is a True Meaning. THe "problem" is that we can never know the True Meaning; it is out of our reach. Like the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, you can never know the exact value. But this isn't an actual problem because knowing THE TRUTH is not what delivers you to self actualization, it's what happens on the way. quote:"Good Morning," said Deep Thought at last.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
quote:Seriously, how could you not love these movies? By watching them, sadly. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:By watching them, sadly. Don't watch them, sadly. Watch them, thoughtfully.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
All the major non-Sheev villains of the prequels are meant to be different reflections of Anakin and/or Darth Vader. Darth Maul is an angry, revenge-driven evil black-and-red guy who has Force powers and mad lightsaber skills. This is pretty much identical to Anakin in RotS. We're not shown that he has a Shmi or a Padme to mourn over, but what we do see is that there are other aliens like him - on the Jedi Council, even - but with their horns filed down and without the tribal tattoos. Something happened - something the Republic did - to his people, that he can't accept. He's an alien Islamist - but then, so is Anakin. Count Dooku is the aristocratic Lord of the Sith who rules with terror over the weak-willed. He's also a master duelist, but relatively subdued compared to Maul - more like the OT Vader than RotS Anakin. He even gets a dramatic confrontation with Obi-Wan which directly parallels Vader revealing the truth to Luke. Then he gets decapitated by Anakin in RotS, directly next to Sheev. Then Grievous is the cyborg abomination with a human heart, obsessed with killing the Jedi, who (willingly or not) identifies with the inhuman yet all too human battle droids. Again, there's strong visual parallels betwen his fight with Obi-Wan and Luke's clash with Vader, which tie in with their thematic similarities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:
Even after all that he still wants Luke to cold kill Vader because "He's more machine now than man..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.” This is apropos of nothing, but I just now made the connection between Douglas Adam's Deep Thought and Isaac Asimov's The Last Question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Obi-Wan defeats General Grievous the same way Luke defeats Darth Vader--by realizing that, deep down, behind all that hard metal plating, underneath the cold robotic exterior, there indeed lies a human heart: I agree on all this, but you miss the full implication: Greivous does not have a human heart. He has an inhuman heart. Beneath the 'cold' exterior, there is only a mass of sputtering, alien meat. Strip away the cyborg augmentations, and there is no 'human' inside. There is only a lump of grey matter - no evidence of a soul. When Obiwan asserts that Vader is "more machine than man" and Luke asserts that "there is still good in him", they both retreat from the inhuman core of Vader - what makes him truly universal. Vader is a droid. We are all droids. In fact, what seperates Grievous from Vader is that Grievous makes ridiculous, petulant displays in an attempt to look human. He bullies and mistreats his subordinates to 'stay human', and that - not his literal heart - is the source of his humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
cargohills posted:What do you mean the two coughing lightsaber-wielding cyborgs might be similar in some way??? And I think the movies might even encourage us to directly compare and contrast different situations with each other using certain visual similarities as starting cues!     Obi-Wan duels a lightsaber-wielding cyborg inside a giant metal sphere which serves as the enemy's headquarters, while a gaggle of dumbfounded army drones stand spectating in the background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Greivous does not have a human heart. He has an inhuman heart. Beneath the 'cold' exterior, there is only a mass of sputtering, alien meat. aaaah i'm vomiting from every hole and there's blood in it now
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:07
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:aaaah i'm vomiting from every hole and there's blood in it now AIDS will do that to you
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:aaaah i'm vomiting from every hole and there's blood in it now This is a very good example of making strange displays to assert your humanity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is a very good example of making strange displays to assert your humanity. A thing a conquering space lizard would say when presented with the creation of art with emotional resonance by our protagonist
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
so we've basically reached peak tezzor in the star war thread now right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:so we've basically reached peak tezzor in the star war thread now right? I certainly hope not. Don't peak too early, Tezzor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
General Grievance was supposed to be the classic mustache-twisting villain; that is he was created without as much depth as the other PT villains. 80% robot, 20% alien according to one off-the-cuff remark. His cough was that of a sickly George Lucas recording his bronchitis problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:aaaah i'm vomiting from every hole and there's blood in it now no need to describe your posting lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:aaaah i'm vomiting from every hole and there's blood in it now The Death Tezzor has only one weakness - a shitpost port two metres in diameter. Nobody can make that post! That's impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:General Grievance was supposed to be the classic mustache-twisting villain; that is he was created without as much depth as the other PT villains. 80% robot, 20% alien according to one off-the-cuff remark. In his postures and movements Grievous is clearly modeled on Snidely Whiplash.   The thing you're missing is that Grievous is doing that on purpose. He doesn't dramatically drape his cape over one arm and knead his fingers like that by accident. The simplest explanation is he just loves to ham it the gently caress up, which fits with his theatrical fighting style. More to the point everything about him, from using the Jedi's own weapons against them to his theatrical gestures, is about sticking it to the Republic and the Jedi. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Jan 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2016 01:55
|
|
