Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

sponges: Sep 15, 2011

Cnut the Great posted:

So the idea that someone can achieve lasting personal growth and commit to being a mature adult is silly to you? That's what Star Wars is all about. It's about having faith in yourself and believing that you can be a better person. You may be cynical about those sorts of things, but that doesn't mean Star Wars has to be. That's kind of missing the entire point of fairy tales, I would think.

Noted immature criminal Han Solo suddenly becoming a family man is a bit trite, yes. As noted, families in Star Wars don't often end well. If you want to call my view cynical that's fine but I view it as more realistic given the character. He's not fit for the boring life. It's not who he is.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 02:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 07:34

BrianWilly: Apr 24, 2007; There is no homosexual terrorist Johnny Silverhand

Cnut the Great posted:

Rey seems way more interested in Han Solo as a famous smuggler than Han Solo as a famous Rebel war hero. I don't recall Rey at any point ever committing to the cause of good against evil as a result of the things Han Solo says to her. Rey grows attached to Han Solo, like you said, as a father figure, because he's nice to her and asks her to stay on and work with him on his spaceship. That's all well and good, but I don't see how it connects with Rey's decision to set out on the heroic path at the end of the movie.

Others have suggested that Rey has decided to train to become a Jedi simply so that she can seek revenge on Kylo Ren for killing Han Solo, and that it has nothing to do with any sincere belief in the ideals of the Resistance. Though that's not the direction I would have taken the story, that interpretation actually makes sense with what we are shown. Are those people wrong?

I've never equated "legendary figure" with "legendary Rebellion figure." Han is someone who literally appears to Rey as like a hero from a storybook, a dashing clever cool guy who beats the odds and outwits his foes, like Bugs Bunny. What does his politics have to do with anything? It matters as little to him as it does to Rey, who possesses little more than a child's understanding of galactic conflicts.

The torch Han passes to Rey and Finn upon their association and his death is not any sort of political responsibility, but the burden of importance, of literally being a Main Character, a mover and shaker and Force for pivotal events, whose actions and choices will be felt throughout the galaxy. Neither Rey nor Finn had any wish to be a Main Character, having wanted only to escape out of the frames of the film, but are carrying that title now after his passing. Rey's attire at the end of the film is modeled after Han's, if you'll notice.

Cnut the Great posted:

It's strongly implied that Han Solo and Leia are now going to get married and start a family, and the idea is that this is a happy ending--not a prelude to deadbeat fatherhood and extreme marital discord.

No, there's no implication of this. There's is not a single sentence from the entire breadths of the original trilogy that implies that Han and Leia are equipped to make it as a married couple raising a family, besides the fact that it would have been nice if it happened, I suppose.

Life is a series of challenges. You don't suddenly earn a happily-ever-after because you did one thing well and that's that. Han was invested in Luke and Leia's mission because he loves Luke and Leia and that love helps to save the galaxy. That's great. So what? Does that pay the bills?

Cnut the Great posted:

As it stands, it's unclear whether or not Han was actually just a lovely father or not. You seem to be advocating the view that he was

I'm just telling you what is shown in the movies we watched. I mean there is literally a character who says "He was a disappointing father" in plain simple English but I guess you find that unclear because

Cnut the Great posted:

So the idea that someone can achieve lasting personal growth and commit to being a mature adult is silly to you? That's what Star Wars is all about. It's about having faith in yourself and believing that you can be a better person. You may be cynical about those sorts of things, but that doesn't mean Star Wars has to be. That's kind of missing the entire point of fairy tales, I would think.

"Not My Star Wars"

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:00

HUNDU THE BEAST GOD: Sep 14, 2007; everything is yours

Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:

Noted immature criminal Han Solo suddenly becoming a family man is a bit trite, yes. As noted, families in Star Wars don't often end well. If you want to call my view cynical that's fine but I view it as more realistic given the character. He's not fit for the boring life. It's not who he is.

It's been thirty goddamn years.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:02

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

No, I mean that the plot generally isn't what's most interesting about a movie.

Rey seems way more interested in Han Solo as a famous smuggler than Han Solo as a famous Rebel war hero. I don't recall Rey at any point ever committing to the cause of good against evil as a result of the things Han Solo says to her. Rey grows attached to Han Solo, like you said, as a father figure, because he's nice to her and asks her to stay on and work with him on his spaceship. That's all well and good, but I don't see how it connects with Rey's decision to set out on the heroic path at the end of the movie.

Others have suggested that Rey has decided to train to become a Jedi simply so that she can seek revenge on Kylo Ren for killing Han Solo, and that it has nothing to do with any sincere belief in the ideals of the Resistance. Though that's not the direction I would have taken the story, that interpretation actually makes sense with what we are shown. Are those people wrong?

There's a little thing called character development that happens in the originals. Han Solo grows as a person and becomes more heroic, less selfish, and more capable of loving people unconditionally. The implication, by the end of the film, is that Han has successfully conquered his demons, just as all the main characters have. It's strongly implied that Han Solo and Leia are now going to get married and start a family, and the idea is that this is a happy ending--not a prelude to deadbeat fatherhood and extreme marital discord.

I'm sorry, but I would have preferred to have seen TFA take up where the originals left off and show Han having to struggle with some different issues. I understand that by their very nature these sequels will have to undermine ROTJ's happy ending to some extent, but the new trials faced by the original characters should still reflect their past character growth. The issues they struggle with should be a bit more adult in nature, a bit more intellectually involved.

One way to do this would be to show Han struggling with the fact that, no matter how good a father he is, he can't ensure that his children will follow his example--he can't ensure that they won't choose to go down a path he can't follow. That's the perennial inter-generational conflict, after all. But TFA didn't show this. As it stands, it's unclear whether or not Han was actually just a lovely father or not. You seem to be advocating the view that he was. I don't think that's a very interesting final direction to take the character in, or one that makes sense given Han's character development in the OT.

I haven't arrived at the conclusion that Han was a poor father. That's why it's poor writing. I don't know if he was or not.

Obi-Wan wasn't a good, well-rounded person in the prequels. He was arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical. He wasn't ready to raise someone like Anakin. Thus he was a poor father. Obi-Wan's character arc in the prequels is about realizing all this and growing as a person, ultimately becoming the person we know him as in Episode IV. If Old Ben Kenobi was as much of a prick in Episode IV as he was in Episode II, then we would have a problem. Thankfully, that's not the case (unless you subscribe to the point of view that Obi-Wan remained an rear end in a top hat even through to the afterlife; I don't).

Han Solo went through a boatload of character development in the originals in order to become a good, well-rounded person. If that's not actually what happened, then the originals were a complete waste of time. It makes no sense for Han Solo to be a bad father, because the previous three movies had him go through a full-fledged character arc whose explicit outcome was that he became a good, responsible, loving person. Whether you agree with it or not, that means Han Solo's character in TFA is a regression from his character at the end of the OT. This is simply a storytelling fact. The Han Solo character already came to terms with his issues pertaining to love and responsibility. TFA regresses him so that he can learn to come to terms with them all over again, because the writers apparently couldn't come up with anything new for the character.

Rey goes to see Luke because she discovers that the stories she heard as a child were true and because she learns to let go of her attachment to her desert planet. Also because she forms human attachments to her new friends John Boyega, Han Solo, and sphere robot, as well as an obligation to carry out the function her mystical vision assigns her, even though she rejects this hero's calling initially.

Han Solo is all hosed up because he turned out to be a bad dad and probably more importantly because he lived through the space version of We Need to Talk About Kevin. Lots of people find fatherhood challenging and deal with it badly.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:06

Cnut the Great: Mar 30, 2014

BrianWilly posted:

I'm just telling you what is shown in the movies we watched. I mean there is literally a character who says "He was a disappointing father" in plain simple English but I guess you find that unclear because

Of course that's what Kylo Ren thinks. But is it the truth? I personally don't think we have enough information to know one way or the other. I guess he was a disappointing father. Okay. I guess I'll concede the point to you.

quote:

"Not My Star Wars"

I don't think Star Wars is supposed to be cynical. I think it's supposed to be fundamentally optimistic and life-affirming. I think it's supposed to inspire and reassure children. That's my opinion. I know, it's a weird one. I'm a gigantic baby who doesn't want to eat his vegetables. I'm sorry?

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:14

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

The Phantom Menace and The Force Awakens are readable as alt-sequels to Return of the Jedi. Both of them are predicated on the observation that people learned the wrong lesson, or no lesson at all, from Luke's victory over the Emperor, and the circumstances which started the Star War recurred. Han and Leia aren't the only ones who regressed to their youths. The new Republic is like the old one, and Luke's new Jedi suffered the same fate as the Jedi Order. The question that nobody in the film is asking is Why are things still the same? Which is a great question for a kid to ask.

There are two characters who would have useful answers to that question: Maz and Kylo Ren. Maz says it's because nothing ever changes and there's always old evil wearing a new skin, but this is like Obi-Wan saying the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace and justice. Kylo Ren would say it's because the person who could have diverted the course of fate was, himself, diverted.

I think the motif of young people redeeming their elders will be resonant with the generation growing up on the third trilogy.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:19

Slugworth: Feb 18, 2001; If two grown men can't make a pervert happy for a few minutes in order to watch a film about zombies, then maybe we should all just move to Iran!

Cnut the Great posted:

So the idea that someone can achieve lasting personal growth and commit to being a mature adult is silly to you? That's what Star Wars is all about. It's about having faith in yourself and believing that you can be a better person. You may be cynical about those sorts of things, but that doesn't mean Star Wars has to be. That's kind of missing the entire point of fairy tales, I would think.

Weren't the prequels 6 hours of George Lucas telling us that fairy tales are silly? I swear to god that's been argued here, but I won't attribute it to you specifically because I can't say for sure.

TFA is saying it was silly to think Han would settle down and get a mortgage in a good school district and get together with Chewie once every few months to play space poker in the garage. That's no more cynical than 'everything Obi-Wan and Yoda said was a lie or wrong, and the Jedi were not heroic, they were actually terrible'.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 03:34

sponges: Sep 15, 2011

Slugworth posted:

Weren't the prequels 6 hours of George Lucas telling us that fairy tales are silly? I swear to god that's been argued here, but I won't attribute it to you specifically because I can't say for sure.

On there own, the prequels are cynical, almost nihilistic, movies but you're supposed to look at them within the context of the OT where everything turns out A-OK!

# ? Jan 25, 2016 04:15

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Does any of the canon background information say if "Ren" is the name of some old person that founded the Knights of Ren or if Ren is a location?

# ? Jan 25, 2016 04:22

Empress Theonora: Feb 19, 2001; She was a sword glinting in the depths of night, a lance of light piercing the darkness. There would be no mistakes this time.

Neo Rasa posted:

Does any of the canon background information say if "Ren" is the name of some old person that founded the Knights of Ren or if Ren is a location?

To the best of my knowledge we don't know any of this, just that "Kylo Ren" is the master of the "Knights of Ren".

# ? Jan 25, 2016 04:25

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Empress Theonora posted:

To the best of my knowledge we don't know any of this, just that "Kylo Ren" is the master of the "Knights of Ren".

Thanks you. I like the idea of all these quasi-force knowledgeable spiritual and religious orders and characters like Maz and Max Von Sydow* coming to prominence in the wake of Luke Skywalker disappearing but I can understand why they didn't throw all of that into the movie. It'd probably be difficult to make any more complex discussion of force belief schism not come off as trade guild politics by another name. Still I do hope some of this is revealed in the movies themselves.

*Why did they even give him a character name? A similar flaw was made in The Human Centipede, why would you give your mad scientist a character name when the actor's name is already Dieter Laser?????

# ? Jan 25, 2016 04:40

SuperMechagodzilla: Jun 9, 2007; NEWT REBORN

Bongo Bill posted:

The Phantom Menace and The Force Awakens are readable as alt-sequels to Return of the Jedi. Both of them are predicated on the observation that people learned the wrong lesson, or no lesson at all, from Luke's victory over the Emperor, and the circumstances which started the Star War recurred. Han and Leia aren't the only ones who regressed to their youths. The new Republic is like the old one, and Luke's new Jedi suffered the same fate as the Jedi Order. The question that nobody in the film is asking is Why are things still the same? Which is a great question for a kid to ask.

There are two characters who would have useful answers to that question: Maz and Kylo Ren. Maz says it's because nothing ever changes and there's always old evil wearing a new skin, but this is like Obi-Wan saying the Jedi Knights were guardians of peace and justice. Kylo Ren would say it's because the person who could have diverted the course of fate was, himself, diverted.

I think the motif of young people redeeming their elders will be resonant with the generation growing up on the third trilogy.

The possibility of redemption was already the point of the six-film cyclical structure - redemption through repetition.

"In this case, applied to the nightmare of the [Death Star], the Nietzschean eternal return of the same means precisely that one should will the repetition of the potential which was lost through the reality of the [Death Star], the potential whose non-actualization opened up the space for the [Death Star] to occur."
_-Zizek

Force Awakens introduces little more than redundancy to the series.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 05:02

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:

Noted immature criminal Han Solo suddenly becoming a family man is a bit trite, yes. As noted, families in Star Wars don't often end well. If you want to call my view cynical that's fine but I view it as more realistic given the character. He's not fit for the boring life. It's not who he is.

I agree, and given how immediately Solo took to Rey, the even more likely "realistic" outcome for his arc would have been flying around with a talented female smuggler in a second marriage. The romantics holding out for Han and Leia sitting in a tree, R-E-B-E-L-L-I-N-G would have been even more dismayed, and it would have been a needless complication in an already overstuffed-with-Han-Solo movie. Instead, the old truck driver gets murdered by his son while his dog watches (and then blows up the Starkiller shields).

I don't think it was lazy to do what they did with Solo. Sometimes in life you don't have any good choices, and Harrison Ford for just one movie + the eternal threat of fan fury = fewer good choices. Lazy would have been stealing directly from Firefly and having him pull a Wash.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 05:24

Friendly Factory: Apr 19, 2007; I can't stand the wailing of women

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

The possibility of redemption was already the point of the six-film cyclical structure - redemption through repetition.

"In this case, applied to the nightmare of the [Death Star], the Nietzschean eternal return of the same means precisely that one should will the repetition of the potential which was lost through the reality of the [Death Star], the potential whose non-actualization opened up the space for the [Death Star] to occur."
_-Zizek

Force Awakens introduces little more than redundancy to the series.

So the prequels have remakes of OT shots and occasional themes that are exactly the same as OT themes and this is good... but if the ST does it it's bad? Makes sense. Lucas was at one point happy to leave the series a trilogy, so how can this same argument not be used to claim the PT is redundant?

# ? Jan 25, 2016 06:39

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Friendly Factory posted:

So the prequels have remakes of OT shots and occasional themes that are exactly the same as OT themes and this is good... but if the ST does it it's bad? Makes sense. Lucas was at one point happy to leave the series a trilogy, so how can this same argument not be used to claim the PT is redundant?

I think the claim is that the OT and PT follow a cycle: society becomes corrupt, is brought down/taken over, is defeated by a rebellion, and is reformed as a new society, repeating itself. What TFA does is just say "okay let's do that again" and goes back to the society being fought by a rebellion (the corruption/downfall is alluded to but otherwise skipped).

Instead of that, TFA could've taken the franchise in a new direction. Like, the Yuuzhan Vong for example has conceptual issues but the premise of an outside invasion (or whatever you want to do) is a new take instead of "the Jedi hosed up their training again, creating the ~~Empire~~ First Order again".

# ? Jan 25, 2016 06:50

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

at thinking Ford in Crystal Skull was good. He was pure on auto-pilot there, even worse than Ender's Game.

He was ALIVE in Force Awakens - it was awesome seeing him show what makes him so goddamn great.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 06:51

SuperMechagodzilla: Jun 9, 2007; NEWT REBORN

computer parts posted:

I think the claim is that the OT and PT follow a cycle: society becomes corrupt, is brought down/taken over, is defeated by a rebellion, and is reformed as a new society, repeating itself. What TFA does is just say "okay let's do that again" and goes back to the society being fought by a rebellion (the corruption/downfall is alluded to but otherwise skipped).

Exactly - but, on top of creating an endless cycle, the satirical prequels underline the potential that was lost in every repetition. This lost potential, the potential to redeem the whole dark universe, is a pretty succinct definition of the authentic Light Side.

The montage of happy people at end of Episode 3 is a case in point. The paradox is that these scenes read as hopeful even though we know all these happy couples will soon die screaming. It's not a cynical joke; it's the very definition of what the Light Side is: pure belief.

In other words, Star Wars always held the potential for radical exegesis, leading to a redemptive interpretation centered around the question of droid slavery.

TFA is not about droid slavery, so why does it exist?

If you would like to see a 'Star Wars: Episode 7' that shows an authentic Light Side government at work, it's called Elysium.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 08:58

Friendly Factory: Apr 19, 2007; I can't stand the wailing of women

computer parts posted:

I think the claim is that the OT and PT follow a cycle: society becomes corrupt, is brought down/taken over, is defeated by a rebellion, and is reformed as a new society, repeating itself. What TFA does is just say "okay let's do that again" and goes back to the society being fought by a rebellion (the corruption/downfall is alluded to but otherwise skipped).

Instead of that, TFA could've taken the franchise in a new direction. Like, the Yuuzhan Vong for example has conceptual issues but the premise of an outside invasion (or whatever you want to do) is a new take instead of "the Jedi hosed up their training again, creating the ~~Empire~~ First Order again".

But that's not at all what happened. The First Order and the Republic both exist. There was no "fall"; the galaxy was just not completely conquered by the Republic. You can call it the First Order or the Imperial Remnant or whatever, but the principle is the same: you don't end a revolution when you have a majority of control. We've seen this phenomenon in our own world, with the most notable example being the USSR's never-ending revolution and enemies of the revolution. It's a completely new dynamic that has some thematic callbacks to the previous movies, the same way the PT tried a new dynamic where the rebels were the bad guys. The PT and OT were both civil wars, while the ST is an actual war of aggression.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

TFA is not about droid slavery, so why does it exist?

I love everything about this sentence. Holy poo poo.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 09:02

SuperMechagodzilla: Jun 9, 2007; NEWT REBORN

Friendly Factory posted:

But that's not at all what happened. The First Order and the Republic both exist. There was no "fall"; the galaxy was just not completely conquered by the Republic.

The Republic, in TFA, effectively does not exist. The imagery is of the Republic - onscreen for maybe twenty seconds - being 'transformed into'/'revealed to be' the New Order.

Identical imagery is employed in Independence Day, when the White House is replaced by a giant resource-harvesting death machine. That's a metaphor.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 09:12

Cnut the Great: Mar 30, 2014

Slugworth posted:

Weren't the prequels 6 hours of George Lucas telling us that fairy tales are silly? I swear to god that's been argued here, but I won't attribute it to you specifically because I can't say for sure.

TFA is saying it was silly to think Han would settle down and get a mortgage in a good school district and get together with Chewie once every few months to play space poker in the garage. That's no more cynical than 'everything Obi-Wan and Yoda said was a lie or wrong, and the Jedi were not heroic, they were actually terrible'.

I've never said any of those things. The Jedi are heroes. Obi-Wan and Yoda are heroes. They were wrong about many things in the PT and that led to a great tragedy, but they learned from their mistakes and passed on their knowledge so that the next generation could do better.

I am not SMG and SMG is not me. We are different posters with different usernames who both happen to make long spergy careposts about Star Wars.

Y Kant Ozma Diet posted:

On there own, the prequels are cynical, almost nihilistic, movies but you're supposed to look at them within the context of the OT where everything turns out A-OK!

Even on their own, they're not anywhere close to being cynical or nihilistic. Even when things are at their darkest at the end of ROTS, the prevailing message is that there's still hope for things to get better and for our heroes' sacrifices to have had some meaning.

The ending of TFA doesn't even give us that. The last shot of Rey offering the lightsaber to Luke doesn't communicate a message of hope. Did you see Luke's face? The guy is loving wrecked emotionally. The whole point of that final shot is that we don't even loving know if Luke has it in him to accept what he's being offered. So much poo poo has happened to him. Everything he's fought so hard to rebuild has since fallen into ruin and despair. Arguably, it's all his fault. And is Rey there to give him strength? No. She's begging, pleading for Luke to help her. Because she's just as lost as he is.

It's just a weird tone to end a Star Wars movie on, especially one as dark as TFA. It's the bleakest ending of any Star Wars movie ever.

Vintersorg posted:

at thinking Ford in Crystal Skull was good. He was pure on auto-pilot there, even worse than Ender's Game.

He was ALIVE in Force Awakens - it was awesome seeing him show what makes him so goddamn great.

He was sleepwalking through most of his scenes in TFA, just like he was sleepwalking through the scenes he clearly care about in Crystal Skull. If you couldn't see that Ford was having a genuinely good time acting opposite Shia LaBeouf, I don't know what to tell you. He didn't have nearly the same amount of natural chemistry with either of the young leads in TFA, as good as they both were on their own.

computer parts posted:

I think the claim is that the OT and PT follow a cycle: society becomes corrupt, is brought down/taken over, is defeated by a rebellion, and is reformed as a new society, repeating itself. What TFA does is just say "okay let's do that again" and goes back to the society being fought by a rebellion (the corruption/downfall is alluded to but otherwise skipped).

Instead of that, TFA could've taken the franchise in a new direction. Like, the Yuuzhan Vong for example has conceptual issues but the premise of an outside invasion (or whatever you want to do) is a new take instead of "the Jedi hosed up their training again, creating the ~~Empire~~ First Order again".

I think the basic premise of the conflict is fine, and makes sense. In order for the Republic to become whole again, it has to confront the shadow of the Empire and make peace with it. Just like Luke confronted the shadow of his father and made peace with it in ROTJ.

I just didn't like how TFA went so far so fast in taking things in such an utterly depressing, cataclysmic direction.

Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Jan 25, 2016

# ? Jan 25, 2016 11:53

Kurzon: May 10, 2013; by Hand Knit

Cnut the Great posted:

Did you see Luke's face? The guy is loving wrecked emotionally. The whole point of that final shot is that we don't even loving know if Luke has it in him to accept what he's being offered. So much poo poo has happened to him. Everything he's fought so hard to rebuild has since fallen into ruin and despair. Arguably, it's all his fault. And is Rey there to give him strength? No. She's begging, pleading for Luke to help her. Because she's just as lost as he is.

No, he's just astonished that somebody found him and came to visit when he was certain he would be alone forever.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 14:29

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

SORRY KID. LOoks like you brought a knife...

*awkward three second pause*

Oooh woooww

*awkward three second pause*

*visibly embarrassed* ...to a GUNFIGHT.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 14:51

RBA Starblade: Apr 28, 2008; Going Home.

Games Idiot Court Jester

quote:

TFA is not about droid slavery, so why does it exist?

The prequel thread was bad but the new thread's pretty good.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:07

Neurolimal: Nov 3, 2012

I don't hold any malice towards Cnut, and he's by far one of the better posters to post their readings ITT, but I don't think he's going to be winning many people over with his suggestion that Harrison Ford gave a better performance in Crystal "Part Time?" Skull than The Force Awakens.

I would also say that it's rather bizarre to denounce a series for being too dark based off the first film in the series (which also had to tackle the fact that the previous film ended on a positive note, ala The Empire Strikes Back situation). I would also say that it's rather strange to suggest that TFA's stance is "nothing changed, everything is poo poo." after seeing Takodana. In the two planets outside Jakku you see droids treated with respect, lush environments, free citizens interacting with each other peacefully, a situation where things are safe enough that Han Solo doesn't think twice about letting a new friend go over to a weird alien and ask for work.

It should also be noted that Han Solo's death was not meaningless nor a cynical end. What was cynical was keeping him alive after The Empire Strikes Back. Han Solo is given the closure he deserved thirty years ago. That's why Ford was happy to return to the role.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:10

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

Cnut is a pretty good poster iMO

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:31

Beeez: May 28, 2012

Cnut the Great posted:

I think the basic premise of the conflict is fine, and makes sense. In order for the Republic to become whole again, it has to confront the shadow of the Empire and make peace with it. Just like Luke confronted the shadow of his father and made peace with it in ROTJ.

I just didn't like how TFA went so far so fast in taking things in such an utterly depressing, cataclysmic direction.

Yeah, I agree with everything you say here. That's why I've been harping on about how I feel Luke and Leia have to be more than glorified props who are there only to pass the baton to the new characters. They need to be an essential part of "making things right," with Luke resurrecting the Jedi and Leia's Republic not being totally replaced by the Empire again. Rey can be the Mace Windu or Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke's Yoda in the new Jedi, but if we end this trilogy with Rey at exactly the point Luke was thirty years ago, as the only living Jedi who is now tasked with rebuilding their Order, it'd be the most boring place they could possibly take both those characters. Same with if they go the route of "Well, after Starkiller Base destroyed the Hosnian System, the First Order took power and the Empire is now the dominant power in the galaxy, again. The Resistance has to start a New New Republic."

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:44

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Beeez posted:

Yeah, I agree with everything you say here. That's why I've been harping on about how I feel Luke and Leia have to be more than glorified props who are there only to pass the baton to the new characters. They need to be an essential part of "making things right," with Luke resurrecting the Jedi and Leia's Republic not being totally replaced by the Empire again. Rey can be the Mace Windu or Obi-Wan Kenobi to Luke's Yoda in the new Jedi, but if we end this trilogy with Rey at exactly the point Luke was thirty years ago, as the only living Jedi who is now tasked with rebuilding their Order, it'd be the most boring place they could possibly take both those characters. Same with if they go the route of "Well, after Starkiller Base destroyed the Hosnian System, the First Order took power and the Empire is now the dominant power in the galaxy, again. The Resistance has to start a New New Republic."

Maybe they will start their own Empire for some hot Empire-on-Empire action.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:49

Beeez: May 28, 2012

homullus posted:

Maybe they will start their own Empire for some hot Empire-on-Empire action.

Maybe eventually there will be a Republic of Empires where every Empire has it's own representative in the Senate.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 15:55

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Maybe we'll see the Knights of Ren and/or Max Von Sydow's force church become major players in galactic politics. Like originally there was a democratic republic, then the empire took form with regional governors, it was broken apart so a bunch of different spiritual belief systems are what everyone gathers around now and how people try to hold their parts of the galaxy together. Wouldn't be a bad way to go since in the setting now it seems like most folks know outright that the force is a real thing and Jedi/Sith were a big deal a while ago so outlooks like Han's in A New Hope are less likely.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 16:05

Snooze Cruise: Feb 16, 2013; hey look,
a post

Vintersorg posted:

Cnut is a pretty good poster iMO

I remember a time when I hated Cnut because of how he was in some other thread. But now I love Cnut. Cnut good.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 16:18

Soggy Cereal: Jan 8, 2011

The Force Awakens has a bittersweet ending that leans more optimistic, I think. It's a costly victory but it's still a victory. Starkiller Base is destroyed, the First Order hasn't hunted down Luke, and the Resistance/Rey actually find Luke. On the other hand the Republic (or at least its main system + fleet) is gone, Han Solo didn't turn his son and died to him, and Luke is unsure about what to do next. But if Snoke was correct, the new Jedi are supposed to show up any minute now. Also there are a bunch of new friendships and bonds formed.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 16:43

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

gently caress it, let's talk about TFA. And anime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is7A_htB54g

So, as I was watching The Force Awakens, I was struck by similarities to an old anime series from 1993: Victory Gundam. Not due to similarities of plot or characters, but of factions.

Now, the Gundam series has always been kind of Japan's answer to Star Wars: a huge sprawling series of sci-fi stories, with a huge expanded universe, toys, spin-offs and crazy fans. Yoshiyuki Tomino, the creator of Gundam, was born a mere three years before George Lucas, and they both grew up watching similar stuff. They both ended up making stories about fighting Space Fascism in the late 70s (Gundam came out in 79, Star Wars in 77), and both had beam/light sabers and psychic teenagers and were critical of imperialism (George of the Vietnam War, Tomino of the old Imperial Japan). Some have accused Gundam F91 (the movie created right before Victory) of being a "Star Wars Ripoff", with a bad guy with a metal mask who's the father of the main heroine and a similar sounding soundtrack (the Cosmo Baylon theme sounds a bit like the Imperial March, but then again they both sound similar to Mars Bringer of War), but I always felt it was more a case of both men drawing from similar inspirations.

Victory and The Force Awakens were made in almost opposite circumstances: both franchises had recently been bought by a new owner, more focused on commercial gains. Disney in Star Wars's case, and Bandai (a toy company) in Gundam's case. Except where TFA is the new beginning made by an hopeful newcomer, Victory is the last series made by a bitter creator who feels he has lost control ove rhis creation. And this shows in the final products: TFA is overall fairly optimistic, with the heroes winning a hard-won victory and finding Luke, while Victory Gundam is probably one the bleakest entries in the Gundam franchise (a series that begun by telling us a war had wiped out half the human population in the Earth Sphere). And yet, both end up with similar political set-ups. Both take place 30 years after the previous entry in the franchise, both have a new opponent that the Republic/Federation is unwilling to fight, with a third faction (the Resistance/League Militaire) taking it's place to fight, with hidden support from the Republic/Federation. Both also have a pretty huge theme of the old generation vs the new generation.

The First Order is almost entirely made up of young people, more fanatic than before. Likewise, Zanscare (the villains in Victory Gundam) are also mostly made up of younger people (with a few older commanders in the background), fanatics willing to commit atrocities in the name of their nebulous causes. Both have crucial exceptions: Supreme Leader Snoke is a crumbling corpse, while Zanscare is eventually revealed to being led from the Shadow by an old man from Jupiter, cynically manipulating the population's devotion to their younger Queen for his own designs. Likewise, both the Resistance and the League Militaire are led by old people still fighting the same old wars, while serving the role of mentors to the new generation caught in the conflict by circumstances rather than choice. One of the best scenes in the series is when the old men sacrifice themselves in the last episode (here). Tomino has always had a theme running through his series of the old generation using and throwing away the new one, using them in their pointless wars and destroying the hope of a better future. In this scene the trend is reversed and maybe a new future will emerge (it doesn't, there are new wars after this). Similarly, the old guard shown in the Resistance (Admiral Ackbar, General Leia, etc.) will need to make way for Finn and Rey's generation eventually, or risk just repeating the same cycle ad vitam aeternam.

Anyway, the similarities between the Resistance and the League Militaire have been stuck in my head ever since watching the movie. I don't think it's super meaningful or anything, but I do find that kind of stuff interesting.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:08

Chickenfrogman: Sep 16, 2011; by exmarx

Cnut's posts are good. I strongly disagree with his opinions about Ford and Hans death but he made me think a lot about the prequels in a different way and acknowledge some things I think are really solid.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:28

corn in the fridge: Jan 15, 2012; by Shine

MonsieurChoc posted:

gently caress it, let's talk about TFA. And anime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=is7A_htB54g

So, as I was watching The Force Awakens, I was struck by similarities to an old anime series from 1993: Victory Gundam. Not due to similarities of plot or characters, but of factions.

Now, the Gundam series has always been kind of Japan's answer to Star Wars: a huge sprawling series of sci-fi stories, with a huge expanded universe, toys, spin-offs and crazy fans. Yoshiyuki Tomino, the creator of Gundam, was born a mere three years before George Lucas, and they both grew up watching similar stuff. They both ended up making stories about fighting Space Fascism in the late 70s (Gundam came out in 79, Star Wars in 77), and both had beam/light sabers and psychic teenagers and were critical of imperialism (George of the Vietnam War, Tomino of the old Imperial Japan). Some have accused Gundam F91 (the movie created right before Victory) of being a "Star Wars Ripoff", with a bad guy with a metal mask who's the father of the main heroine and a similar sounding soundtrack (the Cosmo Baylon theme sounds a bit like the Imperial March, but then again they both sound similar to Mars Bringer of War), but I always felt it was more a case of both men drawing from similar inspirations.

Victory and The Force Awakens were made in almost opposite circumstances: both franchises had recently been bought by a new owner, more focused on commercial gains. Disney in Star Wars's case, and Bandai (a toy company) in Gundam's case. Except where TFA is the new beginning made by an hopeful newcomer, Victory is the last series made by a bitter creator who feels he has lost control ove rhis creation. And this shows in the final products: TFA is overall fairly optimistic, with the heroes winning a hard-won victory and finding Luke, while Victory Gundam is probably one the bleakest entries in the Gundam franchise (a series that begun by telling us a war had wiped out half the human population in the Earth Sphere). And yet, both end up with similar political set-ups. Both take place 30 years after the previous entry in the franchise, both have a new opponent that the Republic/Federation is unwilling to fight, with a third faction (the Resistance/League Militaire) taking it's place to fight, with hidden support from the Republic/Federation. Both also have a pretty huge theme of the old generation vs the new generation.

The First Order is almost entirely made up of young people, more fanatic than before. Likewise, Zanscare (the villains in Victory Gundam) are also mostly made up of younger people (with a few older commanders in the background), fanatics willing to commit atrocities in the name of their nebulous causes. Both have crucial exceptions: Supreme Leader Snoke is a crumbling corpse, while Zanscare is eventually revealed to being led from the Shadow by an old man from Jupiter, cynically manipulating the population's devotion to their younger Queen for his own designs. Likewise, both the Resistance and the League Militaire are led by old people still fighting the same old wars, while serving the role of mentors to the new generation caught in the conflict by circumstances rather than choice. One of the best scenes in the series is when the old men sacrifice themselves in the last episode (here). Tomino has always had a theme running through his series of the old generation using and throwing away the new one, using them in their pointless wars and destroying the hope of a better future. In this scene the trend is reversed and maybe a new future will emerge (it doesn't, there are new wars after this). Similarly, the old guard shown in the Resistance (Admiral Ackbar, General Leia, etc.) will need to make way for Finn and Rey's generation eventually, or risk just repeating the same cycle ad vitam aeternam.

Anyway, the similarities between the Resistance and the League Militaire have been stuck in my head ever since watching the movie. I don't think it's super meaningful or anything, but I do find that kind of stuff interesting.

Lol

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:29

Vintersorg: Mar 3, 2004; President of
the Brendan Fraser
Fan Club

I would shake Cnuts hand IRL and him a Padme action figure from the first movie, whispering, "the prequels still aren't good".

jk jk jk

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:30

Lunchmeat Larry: Nov 3, 2012

PBS Newshour posted:

I remember a time when I hated Cnut because of how he was in some other thread. But now I love Cnut. Cnut good.

I�ve been thinking that as well but I have absolutely no idea what thread it�s from and it�s giving the ol� prodromals

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:32

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

corn in the fridge posted:

Lol

Yeah, I know, anime right?

That's why I was hesitant at first, but then I thought "at least it's not a post about how the prequels are bad and people who like them are evil/stupid/some other tezzorism".

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:33

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Vintersorg posted:

I would shake Cnuts hand IRL and him a Maul action figure from the first movie, whispering, "The Jedi cannot become involved. They can only protect the
Queen. Even Qui-Gon Jinn will not break that covenant.... Even this will work to
our advantage...".

jk jk jk

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:40

Detective No. 27: Jun 7, 2006

MonsieurChoc posted:

gently caress it, let's talk about TFA. And anime.

I've been wanting to get into Gundam, but doing that these days isn't easy. Last year, I binged through Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It's just about the greatest space opera I have ever seen. A true epic. Neither side is particularly portrayed as good or evil. The status quo changes constantly and no character is immune from death. There are 110 episodes, but there's no filler. And it has a really cool take on the Death Star.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 19, 2024 07:34

MonsieurChoc: Oct 12, 2013; Every species can smell its own extinction.

Detective No. 27 posted:

I've been wanting to get into Gundam, but doing that these days isn't easy. Last year, I binged through Legend of the Galactic Heroes. It's just about the greatest space opera I have ever seen. A true epic. Neither side is particularly portrayed as good or evil. The status quo changes constantly and no character is immune from death. There are 110 episodes, but there's no filler. And it has a really cool take on the Death Star.

It's been on my watch list since forever. One day I'll actually sit down and watch it.

# ? Jan 25, 2016 17:55

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

«‹›1055 »