|
Elfgames posted:why? what changed. A bar isn't segregated, therefore classism is over.
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 07:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:A bar isn't segregated, therefore classism is over. Humans go out of their way to prevent a droid from being enslaved, droids are not scrapped for being suboptimal (in the PT droids are constantly scrapped for newer war machines, in the NT a diplomat is not only outdated but can't even shake hands with communicatees, he gets a new arm and is provided a senior position in the Resistance), droids are allowed to do non-servile things like take naps or relax in bars. It's not perfect, it shows flaws, but it's still progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:06
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Humans go out of their way to prevent a droid from being enslaved, droids are not scrapped for being suboptimal (in the PT droids are constantly scrapped for newer war machines, in the NT a diplomat is not only outdated but can't even shake hands with communicatees, he gets a new arm and is provided a senior position in the Resistance), droids are allowed to do non-servile things like take naps or relax in bars. Again why did this happen? what changed to make this so?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
The basic point of highlighting droid slavery in the previous films was to make a political point about egalitarianism - radical egalitarianism. Human rights for the inhuman, alien. The Force Awakens does not depict any sort of classless society, so the only conclusion is that the droid slaves are concealed from view. Somebody is building those skyscrapers that got blown up. Somebody is paying for those pet reptars, and so-on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The cycle isn't a good thing. It's an endless spinning death machine that gradually consumes whole planets, built on the backs of the droids and other oppressed. The cycle isn't a good or a bad thing. It's just a thing that happens. There is no perfect, permanent utopia. Human beings are imperfect creatures who create imperfect systems and, sooner or later--whether it's in a thousand years or ten thousand years--that system's going to become dysfunctional and collapse. Things can definitely get better. Like, you can free the droids and end slavery on the Outer Rim, for instance. But there's always going to be people taking advantage of other people. There are always going to be subtle flaws in the system that will someday prove to be its undoing. Nothing lasts forever, and you have to accept that. That's what the movies are about. You're right, though. Sidious wanted to end the cycle and make everything perfect and orderly forever by bending the universe to his own unitary will. Anakin fell in with Sidious because he had a similar goal in wanting to attain supreme power over life and death. As far as can be told at this point, Kylo Ren is following at least partially in both their footsteps. It makes sense that Kylo Ren would want to disrupt the cycle. But I have a problem with the way the movie treats Luke, Leia, and Han in the service of getting Kylo Ren to that place. The story is literally that Han Solo was too selfish and set in his roguish ways to settle down and provide a proper upbringing for his child. It was Han Solo's inability to just be a loving responsible adult that unleashed this horror upon the galaxy. That's awful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:Again why did this happen? what changed to make this so? Yet more good questions introduced in the first episode of the New Trilogy, The Force Awakens. I don't think its a huge stretch to believe that ousting the all-white male human Imperials and having two heroes of the rebellion be droids gave them a bit more respect in the republic. E: I actually agree with the assertion that Snoke is not an immediate bad guy. Its obvious from Kylo that disney/abrams/the writers want more understandable, Darth Vader style villains. Snoke has undeniable fatherly tones to his scenes (especially since Hux and Kylo are set up to be in a sibling rivalry), and I doubt its a coincidence that neither he nor his pupils use the Sith title. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:It makes sense that Kylo Ren would want to disrupt the cycle. But I have a problem with the way the movie treats Luke, Leia, and Han in the service of getting Kylo Ren to that place. The story is literally that Han Solo was too selfish and set in his roguish ways to settle down and provide a proper upbringing for his child. It was Han Solo's inability to just be a loving responsible adult that unleashed this horror upon the galaxy. That's awful. Weirdly, Leia says that she lost both Han and Ben when she sent Ben away to Luke. So maybe Han really wanted to be present in his son's life, and Leia convinced him that being just a father (and not a Force-sensitive) wasn't good enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Weirdly, Leia says that she lost both Han and Ben when she sent Ben away to Luke. So maybe Han really wanted to be present in his son's life, and Leia convinced him that being just a father (and not a Force-sensitive) wasn't good enough. Mom was never around due to political responsibilities, Dad kept taking shortcuts and thinking he fixed things when he didn't. Then Snoke came in and actually did a good job paying attention (or at least pretending to) and steered Ben down a dark path.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
TFA is a very colorful movie http://i.imgur.com/Yiycijn.gifv http://i.imgur.com/p0FUutp.gifv http://i.imgur.com/U2Z1zZ0.gifv
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Weirdly, Leia says that she lost both Han and Ben when she sent Ben away to Luke. So maybe Han really wanted to be present in his son's life, and Leia convinced him that being just a father (and not a Force-sensitive) wasn't good enough. But again, this is apparently according to Abrams: quote:Abrams also added some backstory saying that Han couldn’t stay in one place and that Leia couldn’t stop fighting. His nature as a rogue and her nature as a freedom fighter clashed. Against that backdrop, Snoke targeted Kylo because of his powers and potential. The implication was that in the absence of solid parenting, Kylo Ren emerged. http://makingstarwars.net/2016/03/secrets-of-the-force-awakens-a-cinematic-journey-breakdown/ It's a description of not-yet-released behind-the-scenes content, not a direct quote, so maybe there's some nuance being lost. But I think the consensus even from people who loved TFA was that we were supposed to understand Han wasn't a very good father to Kylo. Filthy Casual posted:Mom was never around due to political responsibilities, Dad kept taking shortcuts and thinking he fixed things when he didn't. Then Snoke came in and actually did a good job paying attention (or at least pretending to) and steered Ben down a dark path. Yes, it's a logical enough backstory. The problem is, it makes all the original characters look like a bunch of clueless deadbeats who didn't learn a single drat thing from the past. e: You know what's a really simple solution that would have solved a whole lot of major problems with the story? Ditch Maz and have Han take over her role in the story completely. Go all the way with making him the new Ben Kenobi. It would show a dramatic progression in Han's character, it would give him a natural opportunity to build a more meaningful emotional connection with Rey, and it would make his death at the hands of his son even more tragic and heroic. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Ben Solo Joins Space ISIS (Sp...Spicis?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yes, it's a logical enough backstory. The problem is, it makes all the original characters look like a bunch of clueless deadbeats who didn't learn a single drat thing from the past. It's consistent though: neither of them learn to settle down in the OT. They just become less-relevant. Han becomes more caring but he's still a smuggler, Leia attends a care bear party and loves a guy but she's still the iron leader of the rebels. Neither of those are hospitable roles for raising children. And just like in ROTJ, where the actual job of confronting Vader and the Emperor was up to Luke, they dumped their newest problem on Uncle Luke. Sure, it makes them more flawed, but it's entirely human for work-oriented and commitment-adverse parents to send their neglected child to boarding school.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Terry Grunthouse posted:here are a few more gifs That guy was what I looked like in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The story is literally that Han Solo was too selfish and set in his roguish ways to settle down and provide a proper upbringing for his child. It was Han Solo's inability to just be a loving responsible adult that unleashed this horror upon the galaxy. That's awful. This and some other things you've said make me think you are in the same boat as a lot of people were with regard to the PT, in that the story being told now is not the one you would have preferred to see. If Han being a bad parent, Leia refusing to quit fighting, and Luke biting off more he can chew with starting a new Jedi Order are the root causes of all this, yes it's awful and sad. But it seems to me that the alternative is to have the three of them the same as they were 30 years ago after Endor, champions of justice and saviors of the Galaxy, now having to face some new threat. I feel like that was done to death over a period of years in a lot of trash EU stories. In the big picture they won, but now thirty years have passed and people being people, governments being governments, there are still a lot of problems even though the Empire is gone. At a smaller, more personal level, each of the three are flawed characters who have made mistakes. At least in the case of Han and Leia, their particular mistakes don't surprise me at all, tragic and sad though they may be. I don't think it is bad storytelling, though. The character flaws have led to conflict and strife, and to me this provides a much better setup to the new trilogy than the alternative where they are good flawless heroes resting on their laurels and getting old, until some new threat pops up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Is there something wrong with imgur right now? DNS isn't resolving it for me, dunno if it's the site itself or shithead Time Warner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:This and some other things you've said make me think you are in the same boat as a lot of people were with regard to the PT, in that the story being told now is not the one you would have preferred to see. The point is that TFA specifically makes it so Han, Luke, & Leia are exactly the same as they were 30 years ago. Han is a conman working with Chewie who gets on the wrong side of gangsters. Leia is the head of the computer parts fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It's consistent though: neither of them learn to settle down in the OT. They just become less-relevant. Han becomes more caring but he's still a smuggler, Leia attends a care bear party and loves a guy but she's still the iron leader of the rebels. Neither of those are hospitable roles for raising children. And just like in ROTJ, where the actual job of confronting Vader and the Emperor was up to Luke, they dumped their newest problem on Uncle Luke. It's telling that you have to willfully ignore the meanings of crystal clear character arcs and basically miss the entire point of the OT in order to mount a defense of TFA's shortcomings in this area. quote:Sure, it makes them more flawed, but it's entirely human for work-oriented and commitment-adverse parents to send their neglected child to boarding school. It's also entirely human to learn from the mistakes of your own parents and become a good, responsible person who doesn't selfishly bring a child into the world and then grievously neglect them. Which is what was clearly implied as the outcome of the OT, but which TFA unceremoniously undid so that everything could be reset to the ANH status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The point is that TFA specifically makes it so Han, Luke, & Leia are exactly the same as they were 30 years ago. Han is a conman working with Chewie who gets on the wrong side of gangsters. Leia is the head of the In the context of the film commentating on its audience, generational shifts, and what fans are willing to accept in established universes, this makes perfect sense. It seems unlikely to be a mistake when Han literally commentates on it to Leia. Even if you dont accept that, if you -do- accept the narrative that they backed away from space-politics, it should be equally acceptable to believe that they backed away from putting vast swathes of character-defining scenes offscreen or in the scrolling text, PT style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:It's telling that you have to willfully ignore the meanings of crystal clear character arcs and basically miss the entire point of the OT in order to mount a defense of TFA's shortcomings in this area. Neither Leia nor Han know their parents. Leia barely even acknowledges that Vader is her father. They have no basis for what not to do. You're essentially saying that the characters must be perfect because they completed An Arc. Thats not how humans work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
net cafe scandal posted:That guy was what I looked like in the theater. Man when he entered the scene with his upper lip quivering I just lost it hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
When would they have learned this in the OT? The only people shown being parents die a half hour in. How would they know they're definitively being neglectful?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:This and some other things you've said make me think you are in the same boat as a lot of people were with regard to the PT, in that the story being told now is not the one you would have preferred to see. Well, yes, that's exactly right. But the difference this time is that the story being told actually is completely incompatible with what came before, and it doesn't even seem as if doing such a thing was even the intention of the filmmakers. If there's any irony in the fact that I now make this particular charge, it's not an irony which reflects poorly on me. quote:If Han being a bad parent, Leia refusing to quit fighting, and Luke biting off more he can chew with starting a new Jedi Order are the root causes of all this, yes it's awful and sad. But it seems to me that the alternative is to have the three of them the same as they were 30 years ago after Endor, champions of justice and saviors of the Galaxy, now having to face some new threat. I feel like that was done to death over a period of years in a lot of trash EU stories. The alternative is to have the three of them better people than they were 30 years ago, but older and slower and unable to continue on fighting all the next generation's battles for them. They can pass the torch on to the next generation without being portrayed as failures. The new calamities that befall the galaxy don't have to be specifically because of things they themselves failed to do. quote:In the big picture they won, but now thirty years have passed and people being people, governments being governments, there are still a lot of problems even though the Empire is gone. At a smaller, more personal level, each of the three are flawed characters who have made mistakes. At least in the case of Han and Leia, their particular mistakes don't surprise me at all, tragic and sad though they may be. I don't think it is bad storytelling, though. The character flaws have led to conflict and strife, and to me this provides a much better setup to the new trilogy than the alternative where they are good flawless heroes resting on their laurels and getting old, until some new threat pops up. Why is that better storytelling? No one said the original heroes have to be flawless. But they shouldn't be making the exact same mistakes their parents did. That's not good storytelling, that's lazy storytelling. In the big picture, no, they didn't really win. They built a new Republic which stood for thirty years before falling whereas the old one stood for a thousand. Ditto for Luke's new Jedi Order. They lost everything as a result of their hubris and selfishness, and now their children have to save them. It's the same thing that happened to their parents. What was the OT even about if, at the end of it all, none of the characters ever really conquered any of their demons? The ending of ROTJ is now a triumphant celebration of the establishment of a new Republic and Jedi Order that are inevitably doomed to fail as a direct result of the insurmountable character flaws of the heroes tasked with rebuilding them. It's not just that the happy ending was undone. It's that the happy ending doesn't even exist anymore. The consummation of Han and Leia's romance in ROTJ is now a harbinger of freaking cosmic doom. There's no way around that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Neither Leia nor Han know their parents. Leia barely even acknowledges that Vader is her father. They have no basis for what not to do. You're essentially saying that the characters must be perfect because they completed An Arc. Thats not how humans work. No, I'm saying that when characters complete an arc, they shouldn't suddenly regress for shallow, unexplained reasons. At the very least, it shouldn't happen entirely off-screen. We left them in a certain emotional place in ROTJ. TFA should have picked up roughly in the same place emotionally, and then proceeded from there. Obi-Wan certainly got a little older and wiser in between Episodes III and IV, but he didn't inexplicably regress back to his Episode I self. He was exactly where you would expect him to be after all that he'd learned and experienced in the prior trilogy. Anything else would have been baffling, and emotionally unsatisfying, as it is in TFA. Remember, we're talking about a fictional story here. Luke, Han, and Leia aren't real human beings. They're fictional avatars which represent certain aspects of real human beings. When a fictional characters goes through an arc, it's generally to be expected that, when the story next picks up with that character, the consequences of that arc will still be in effect with that character--unless there's a dramatically compelling reason otherwise. I don't think there was a dramatically compelling reason, in this case. Filthy Casual posted:When would they have learned this in the OT? The only people shown being parents die a half hour in. How would they know they're definitively being neglectful? So Luke, Han, and Leia quite clearly learn how to be mature, selfless, caring people in the OT, but somehow this has no bearing on and no implications for their future roles as parents and mentors. The obvious takeaway from the ending of ROTJ is that our heroes are a bunch of maladjusted dumbfucks who should never copulate. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Mar 26, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, yes, that's exactly right. But the difference this time is that the story being told actually is completely incompatible with what came before, and it doesn't even seem as if doing such a thing was even the intention of the filmmakers. If there's any irony in the fact that I now make this particular charge, it's not an irony which reflects poorly on me. I didn't mean it as a slap, like "haha Cnut, shoe's on the other foot now!" Kids making the same mistakes their parents did is to me a kind of reflection of real life. Not everyone does of course, but some do. Maybe a lot do, but I realize this is my own experience, my own perception. YMMV. I wouldn't call anyone a failure yet though. the siblings still have two more films to try to make things right. And as for Han, at least he went made an attempt to do so, belated as it was. I have my own set of problems with the new film, but I don't count the way this aspect of the story has begun among them. Now if this turns into another redemption story where they turn Kylo back to the "light side" (the entire concept of which is total bullshit to me) and team up to fight the big bad, I will be very pissed off. That's the kind of thing that should have been left to garbage EU stories which I find a lot easier to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Shallow unexplained reasons like "just became parents"
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Cnut's got it half-right on this one. The basic idea that Leia and Han are fuckups is not a bad one, because of course they are. The ending of Jedi is a farce. But we needed to see the Republic faltering. As far as this film is concerned, the Republic just spontaneously combusts, and it's unearned. The irony is that TFA relies entirely on the prequels to establish why the Republic is bad - and those are different films. It's the same problem with Episode 6, where they coast on the good parts of A New Hope, and fail to establish what's so bad about the Death Star 2. If you can't make a Death Star seem threatening, you've hosed up somewhere. Ahem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
The Republic just seems to stand around not caring about anything, apparently for years prior to this film, treating the Resistance as troublemakers who want to upset the status quo, until it is blown up by an enemy that was in plain sight all along. Probably it cares now but its fleet is now gone. How you gonna fight a Star War with no fleet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Cnut's got it half-right on this one. The basic idea that Leia and Han are fuckups is not a bad one, because of course they are. The ending of Jedi is a farce. How does your belief that Starkiller is meant to be imposing, with the fact that the resistance was going to specifically have a weapon to stop death stars, the base taking up around 10 minutes of film, and the fact that three people die to stop Starkiller? Aren't you one of the posters who gawk at the idea of film concepts, tones, metaphors, etc. Happening 'By accident' ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:Man when he entered the scene with his upper lip quivering I just lost it hahahaha When he gets dragged over you can hear his boots scraping against the ground - its loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How does your belief that Starkiller is meant to be imposing, with the fact that the resistance was going to specifically have a weapon to stop death stars, the base taking up around 10 minutes of film, and the fact that three people die to stop Starkiller? I didn't say anything about 'meant to be'. Accidentally or not, I won't celebrate a film that says a holocaust ain't that bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I didn't say anything about 'meant to be'. Accidentally or not, I won't celebrate a film that says a holocaust ain't that bad. Its not saying the holocaust isnt bad. It's saying the new generation knows enough about the Holocaust to be able to stop an imitation attempt in record time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Its not saying the holocaust isnt bad. It's saying the new generation knows enough about the Holocaust to be able to stop an imitation attempt in record time. What?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
TFA is primarily about the generational shift and millenials. The starkiller sequence is about the new generation decisively trouncing old-generation ideas and tactics. Conservatives blow up the liberal-controlled white house, then the leftists usurp the conservatives
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:TFA is primarily about the generational shift and millenials. The starkiller sequence is about the new generation decisively trouncing old-generation ideas and tactics. Conservatives blow up the liberal-controlled white house, then the leftists usurp the conservatives Your posts are all about, like, "there's this new generation of millenials and they don't take no guff! They're not down with that hitler guy, no way! They're cool and ready to do what it takes!" And it's extremely nonspecific and comes across as weird marketeering. Who the man? Yoda man. In the actual film, the death star thing is blown up by Chewbacca and this guy Poe. Rey has no connection to the resistance whatsoever, except that she feels bad for BB8 at the start of the film. And the resistance aren't leftists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:TFA is primarily about the generational shift and millenials. The starkiller sequence is about the new generation decisively trouncing old-generation ideas and tactics. Conservatives blow up the liberal-controlled white house, then the leftists usurp the conservatives How does the idea that the First Order represents old-generation tactics mesh with their portrayal as a hip new big tent, Young Republicans-type version of the Empire?
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Toilet Mouth posted:How does the idea that the First Order represents old-generation tactics mesh with their portrayal as a hip new big tent, Young Republicans-type version of the Empire? Because said individuals are ultimately slaves to old ideals that are ultimately to their own detriment.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
I watched TFA last night. I did notice just how much of the imagery is about "oppressive light". Interesting stuff and fun movie. Anyway, what do you guys think of the connection of BB8's rope things and how the rathtars seem to have the exact same things? While also being big ol' balls, they come out with the same tether things that BB8 was using just a few minutes before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Because said individuals are ultimately slaves to old ideals that are ultimately to their own detriment. If the First Order really are just hapless idiot cosplayers (which I agree is how they come across, by design or not), then it brings us back to the question of who the real bad guys of this series are going to be. Unless the arc of the trilogy is going to be about them finding their footing and coming into their own as a competent insurgency, adapting to unconventional warfare, etc. Which would be kind of cool I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
That was my takeaway, the First Order will grow into a more refined threat right alongside the protagonists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:28 |
|
|
The First Order will be the most immediate, violent threat, but the true villain will be associated with "light" I think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2016 23:48
|
|
