|
Ferrinus posted:So for my money, stuff like Anakin Skylwalker being a confused teen rather than a stone cold badass, and the Republic being morally fraught, and the Jedi going hog-wild as mercenaries/Warcraft III hero units, is way too consistent to plausibly be an accident. It could, in principle, be some kind of incredible multi-stage top-down goof, that ran for two or three movies in a row, but you might as well say the same thing about Vader turning out to be Luke's father. I'm sure it disappointed you that a bunch of characters you hoped would be smart and cool weren't very smart and cool, but that's your own problem. Intent is relevant because the debate boils down to this: Critics say everybody is dumb and boring and irrational and hypocritical and morally incompetent, and defenders say yes, they are, but that's intentional! It's a commentary! It is not commentary. It was not intentional. The film was lovely not as a smart and cynical subversion but by accident and incompetence; therefore, the film is lovely.
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Tezzor posted:Intent is relevant because the debate boils down to this: Critics say everybody is dumb and boring and irrational and hypocritical and morally incompetent, and defenders say yes, they are, but that's intentional! It's a commentary! It is not commentary. It was not intentional. The film was lovely not as a smart and cynical subversion but by accident and incompetence; therefore, the film is lovely. Intention doesn't magically cause things to be good or bad. If Poe had upended his inkpot onto some paper and it randomly landed in the shape of "The Raven", The Raven would still be a good poem. If someone says "What gives, I thought the Jedi were good guys, why do Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon Jin come off like mob enforcers?" And they're told, "They're supposed to, because the Jedi are morally dubious in these times," they are not actually being instructed to update their mental image of a 70-year old man who lives in Modesto. They're being told about the movie. In the movies, the Jedi have lost their way. That's true no matter what the actors and scriptwriters thought they were doing. Now, the idea that a tornado happened to assemble a 747 w/r/t the Jedi being fuckups is kind of funny, I'll admit. But it's hard to believe, and doesn't really appeal to someone who doesn't have some preexisting axe to grind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Serious inquiry that may be related to star wars slave armies. Are modern day conscripted and drafted militaries considered slave armies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
UmOk posted:Serious inquiry that may be related to star wars slave armies. Are modern day conscripted and drafted militaries considered slave armies? Not by anyone in the political mainstream. Conscription service is generally seen as an obligation that comes with citizenship, like paying taxes and voting (in some countries).
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Intention doesn't magically cause things to be good or bad. If Poe had upended his inkpot onto some paper and it randomly landed in the shape of "The Raven", The Raven would still be a good poem. Born in the USA is supposed to be a pro-war song. That's true no matter what Bruce Springsteen says about it. See, I'm smarter than Tezzor now too! You can't use "supposed to" and "true" in any statement that ignores authorial intent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Born in the USA is supposed to be a pro-war song. That's true no matter what Bruce Springsteen says about it. See, I'm smarter than Tezzor now too! ok i'll buy, it now back it up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Born in the USA is supposed to be a pro-war song. That's true no matter what Bruce Springsteen says about it. See, I'm smarter than Tezzor now too! Uh, yeah, you can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Born in the USA is supposed to be a pro-war song. That's true no matter what Bruce Springsteen says about it. See, I'm smarter than Tezzor now too! As Elfgames notes, there is a difference between truth and bullshit, and people can tell when you're fronting. You have a responsibility to write truthfully and accurately. That is the responsibility Tezzor shirks by deferring to Lucas in all matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
Baronash posted:Born in the USA is supposed to be a pro-war song. That's true no matter what Bruce Springsteen says about it. See, I'm smarter than Tezzor now too! Thought experiment: Bruce Springsteen himself avows repeatedly and consistently that Born in the USA is a pro-war song. He never says otherwise to his dying day. Is Born in the USA a pro-war song now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I'm not engaging this line of questioning, it is a trick, and not relevant. Waffles Inc. posted:A trick?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Terrorist Fistbump posted:Not by anyone in the political mainstream. Conscription service is generally seen as an obligation that comes with citizenship, like paying taxes and voting (in some countries). I am not condoning conscription, whether in Star Wars or on Earth, but couldn't that apply to the droid and clone armies?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Baronash posted:You can't use "supposed to" and "true" in any statement that ignores authorial intent. In addition to the points already brought up against this position, films don't really have singular "authors" like say novels usually do. A film's meaning comes from the synthesis of the authorial intentions, the actions of the people (actors etc.) who work to bring those intentions to life, and the audience's reactions based on their own biases and cultural baggage. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:You guys asked for it. Anime. Kudos for this excellent and informative post. I've always had an interest in the UC Gundams, even though I've only ever seen the original. It's really fascinating how F91 attempted to deescalate the scale of the conflicts. This is something that a lot of fiction and, more specifically, a lot of war fiction seems to have trouble with. Most of the Gundam series that came after F91, as an example, feature conflict on at least a global scale, and often climax with threats to all human life. Star Wars has a similar problem. The Deathstar already had enough firepower to destroy a planet, and then they built an even bigger Deathstar. The latest Deathstar analog can destroy five planets a shot--and from the other side of the galaxy. If later movies continue the trend of larger and larger Deathstars, then whats the end result? More over, what effect will that have on the story? When the Deathstar destroyed Alderaan it seems like a tragedy, millions of lives taken in an instant! Later, Star Killer Base destroys five planets and nobody cares outside of how it effects themselves. If this trend continues, the end result is the Killer Death Murder Machine destroying the whole galaxy and no one noticing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
UmOk posted:I am not condoning conscription, whether in Star Wars or on Earth, but couldn't that apply to the droid and clone armies? Close but this isn't quite there. The clones, much like the droids, are born into their service. Nether are viewed as anything but a tool to be used, there's no thought given to their personhood for conscription to take place. However, how they are treated and how they function within society is learned from the Jedi Order and by extension, the Republic. "Had he been born in the Republic, we would have identified him early. The Force is unusually strong with him, that much is clear. Who is his father?" - Qui-Gon Jinn
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Intention doesn't magically cause things to be good or bad. If Poe had upended his inkpot onto some paper and it randomly landed in the shape of "The Raven", The Raven would still be a good poem. But if someone says, what gives, I thought the Jedi were good guys, and it turns out that the author wrote them as good guys and tried to make them good guys and solely by systemic incompetence they came off as mob enforcers that means the film failed at what it was trying to do and is a bad film. It is not randomness, as with the 747 analogy. It is the result of systems that took an overrated hack who made some good things as a community effort, removed his collaborators and gave him absolute power free from criticism. It is not randomness, but its opposite: destiny. It could have ended no other way. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:In addition to the points already brought up against this position, films don't really have singular "authors" like say novels usually do. Yeah you can't just go off the authorial intentions. You must also include the statements of the actors and artists involved, none of whom contradict the author's claims and in fact bolster them at every turn. Then when considering if these films were poo poo and failures we must look at the audience's reactions to them, which are, hold on *opens manilla envelope and immediately starts screaming as my face melts off like wax* Tezzor fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Thought experiment: Bruce Springsteen himself avows repeatedly and consistently that Born in the USA is a pro-war song. He never says otherwise to his dying day. All that this would mean is that Bruce Springsteen is some kind of incredible idiot who tried to make a pro-war song and failed spectacularly
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:But if someone says, what gives, I thought the Jedi were good guys, and it turns out that the author wrote them as good guys and tried to make them good guys and solely by systemic incompetence they came off as mob enforcers that means the film failed at what it was trying to do and is a bad film. It is not randomness, as with the 747 analogy. It is the result of systems that took an overrated hack who made some good things as a community effort, removed his collaborators and gave him absolute power free from criticism. It is not randomness, but its opposite: destiny. It could have ended no other way. Yes, yes, I watched the RLM reviews too. Your problem here - as is that of much of the reviews - is that you've invented, in your head, what the movie was "trying to do" because you aren't able to found your criticisms in anything real. It's like, to continue an analogy, saying that the Raven is pretty poo poo for not including any owls. In the prequels, the Jedi are good guys, but the Jedi end up acting as mob enforcers and mercenary warlords because they've become complacent in their power and otherwise lost their way. That's why you get a tension between their ideals and intentions on one hand and the practical results of their actions on the other. Since the prequels are about the dissolution of the Jedi order and the downfall of the Republic, it's not really correct to say that they failed at what they were trying to do. They succeed at showing us the downfall of these edifices which are supposed to be good but have gone astray. In fact, it would make a lot less sense if the Jedi and Republic were completely blameless in their respective downfalls! You're saying that this is some kind of accident - that the Jedi were supposed to be, I don't know, hypercompetent paragons of virtue, but by sheer incompetence they were portrayed again and again and again as arrogant and complacent, because this Lucas guy just tried his hardest but oops, he slipped on a banana peel and wrote a scene in which two jedi intimidate some fishmen, whoops, he stepped on a rake and put Yoda on a troop transport, etc. It's stupid. Same thought experiment I gave to the other guy: you comb over all the prequel commentary and every comment by George Lucas sounds like a Cnut post. All you can find are quotes of Lucas talking about how he wanted the Jedi to look morally dubious and out-of-touch. The actual movies do not change. What is your conclusion? Tezzor posted:All that this would mean is that Bruce Springsteen is some kind of incredible idiot who tried to make a pro-war song and failed spectacularly So it wouldn't mean that Born in the USA is a pro-war song. So Bruce Springsteen's intent is immaterial to the content or quality of Born in the USA. This isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Yes, yes, I watched the RLM reviews too. No, I am going from the statements from Lucas and everyone involved in the films, which indicate that there was no moral complexity offered or intended and the films were meant as simplistic black-and-white stories of good and evil, which is a claim not even touched upon even slightly by the RLM reviews. Yes, I am saying that Lucas tried to make them hypercompetent paragons of virtue, and further, I claim *sniffs, pulls collar, makes disgusting noise* he said this, repeatedly, over and over, without contradiction, dozens of times, over hours and hours. Your incredulousness at this factual statement is derived from ignorance and its fat ugly cousin, fanboyism. He did not want the Jedi to look morally dubious and out of touch. That is simply a lie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:
You could, in this thought experiment, despite Bruce Springsteen's intent, read Born in the USA as an anti-war song. I have never disputed that. You cannot, however, claim that he intentionally made an anti-war song. He tried to make a pro-war song and failed because he was an idiot. That would be a relevant consideration when talking about the genesis and background of "Born in the USA" and how its general interpretation as an anti-war song was an implicit criticism of the competence of its author.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:No, I am going from the statements from Lucas and everyone involved in the films, which indicate that there was no moral complexity offered or intended and the films were meant as simplistic black-and-white stories of good and evil, which is a claim not even touched upon even slightly by the RLM reviews. Yes, I am saying that Lucas tried to make them hypercompetent paragons of virtue, and further, I claim *sniffs, pulls collar, makes disgusting noise* he said this, repeatedly, over and over, without contradiction, dozens of times, over hours and hours. Your incredulousness at this factual statement is derived from ignorance and its fat ugly cousin, fanboyism. He did not want the Jedi to look morally dubious and out of touch. That is simply a lie. No, the statements only indicate that Lucas claimed not to be putting moral complexity into the films.* Since the movies contain moral complexity and lack hypercompetent paragons of virtue, we must assume that Lucas was lying or that he introduced all the moral complexity by accident. The former is more likely than the latter by several orders of magnitude. Are you going to answer my last line there? Would your opinion on the films change if every frame remained identical, but Lucas's testimony about the films was reversed? It sounds like it would, but that's insane. * I do not actually agree, and I think that if we were to actually go over his statements carefully we would not find him e.g. disavowing that there is any complexity to Star Wars, but it would also be a waste of our time; it literally doesn't matter what George Lucas says or believes, because he is not a movie. He's just a fat rich guy. Tezzor posted:You could, in this thought experiment, despite Bruce Springsteen's intent, read Born in the USA as an anti-war song. I have never disputed that. You cannot, however, claim that he intentionally made an anti-war song. He tried to make a pro-war song and failed because he was an idiot. That would be a relevant consideration when talking about the genesis and background of "Born in the USA" and how its general interpretation as an anti-war song was an implicit criticism of the competence of its author. Enough with this mealy-mouthed bullshit! It's not a matter of oh, well, you could, if you wanted to, not that I would, but you could, you know, if you were some kind of maniac, I SUPPOSE you could read it as an anti-war song. It just is an anti-war song. It doesn't matter what other people tell you about it. You have the responsibility of making up your own drat mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:52
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:No, I am going from the statements from Lucas and everyone involved in the films, which indicate that there was no moral complexity offered or intended and the films were meant as simplistic black-and-white stories of good and evil, which is a claim not even touched upon even slightly by the RLM reviews. Yes, I am saying that Lucas tried to make them hypercompetent paragons of virtue, and further, I claim *sniffs, pulls collar, makes disgusting noise* he said this, repeatedly, over and over, without contradiction, dozens of times, over hours and hours. Your incredulousness at this factual statement is derived from ignorance and its fat ugly cousin, fanboyism. He did not want the Jedi to look morally dubious and out of touch. That is simply a lie. How is that possible, though? He didn't know that a line like "there were heroes on both sides" made it into one of his movies? He accidentally wrote and directed a pivotal scene where Yoda, a supposed good guy, commands an army of storm-troopers, a group who were established in previous films as bad guys visually linked to Nazi soldiers? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:56 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:54
|
|
|
Who were the heroes on the other side, even? I just remember dumb robots and dumb clone troopers and racist aliens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
lfield posted:Who were the heroes on the other side, even? I just remember dumb robots and dumb clone troopers and racist aliens. I assume that it's "heroes" in the classical myth sense (or, if you prefer, the MOBA sense) where it's just that each side has its own champions who have a lot of battlefield exploits and inspire their respective troops and such.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 07:58
|
|
|
Even if Lucas did say his films contained no complexity, this assumes he's being honest anyways. There have been many examples in the mere century of cinema of directors outright lying about their work, trying to underplay the thought they put into their films, or just generally being misleading for various reasons. Some examples would be Ford, Welles, Hitchcock, Riefenstahl, Ulmer, Griffith, Lang etc. Hell some of those directors have movies directly referenced by Lucas in Star Wars even. While a director's comments can be interesting, actual interpretations are better off being supported by the text itself. Raxivace fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Doesn't Neil Blomkamp, when asked about the political themes of such movies as District 9 and Elysium, consistently respond like "huh? what politics  " ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
lfield posted:Who were the heroes on the other side, even? I just remember dumb robots and dumb clone troopers and racist aliens. the poor robot slaves forced to fight against their will
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
Tezzor isn't hard to analyze, unfortunately. Check this weird sentence, posted earlier:Tezzor posted:If it helps, pretend that I wrote an elaborate Yep, that's all one sentence. And it's unambiguous: Tezzor is afraid that, if people criticize Star Wars, the FN character will have his memory erased(???), and there will be no such thing as heroism(???), and we'll lose immortality(???), and reality itself will crumble into meaninglessness(???). The only way to escape death is to worship the Jedi, because the Jedi let you live on as 'Force Ghosts'. So, if you defy the Jedi in any way, you are robbing Tezzor of his immortal soul. Lucas failed the Jedi, so he must be attacked with relentless triple-posting. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Tori BIOS posted:now it's too real to be a new star wars movie. i literally spend in excess of $1000 a year and manchildren will line up to be twelve again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
I think you're reaching SMG. Trezzor likes heroes and he likes black and white morality The ot says the jedi are good but the PT makes them not seem so good. Gorge lucas "says" the jedi are still good though but that is wrong and thus makes him bad. It's also why he likes TFA as it clearly states that "The light side" is real and good and there is clear good and evil sides to root for. In essence Trezzor represents Millennials, His Childish view of the world is being dragged into adulthood and he doesn't like it one bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
.
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:You guys asked for it. Anime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
I think there are plenty of people in modern politics who see nothing wrong with a 'Trade Federation' - isn't that kind of how the EU works?
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:04
|
|
|
McDowell posted:I think there are plenty of people in modern politics who see nothing wrong with a 'Trade Federation' - isn't that kind of how the EU works? The militaristic trading cartel doesn't represent people democratically. The EU has also been accused of not being democratic. Thankfully Disney purged it. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 12:27
|
|
|
Yeah it's really not the same. Think of the Trade Federation as the The Free Market manifest, a conglomeration of companies like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Goldman Sachs, Lockheed Martin etc. Now imagine this conglomerate being given the same rights as EU member states like France, Greece, Germany, Spain and so on. Allowing them to apply, in a very direct way, The Free Market upon the other states legally. Applying their own taxation laws, having their own standing army, giving them legal rights to impose trade sanctions(blockades) on other states within the EU who refuse to recognize their authority. So they can effectively isolate and starve these individual states with a degree of impunity, due to a corrupt bureaucracy that lets them do all this within the letter of the law. brawleh fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Kudos for this excellent and informative post. I've always had an interest in the UC Gundams, even though I've only ever seen the original. Yeah, this same desire to always escalate things, to always try to make things bigger, lead to some really bad books and stupid stories in the old Expanded Universe. I legitimately think TFA (which I like) would have been a stronger movie without Starkiller Base. There is no need to make a sequel bigger, all it needs is to be interesting. But it's very easy to understand that drive. Look at most big movie franchises: they also haven't learned that lesson. Cardboard Box A posted:This is a good effort post. It seems that while Star Wars has taken much from Gundam, they have not learned all the lessons they could have from Gundam's mistakes. Gundam hasn't learned all the lessons they could from Gundam. Tomino left after Victory, and all the series and movies and other things after have been directed by a wide variety of people, all with their own strengths and weaknesses. So some of the series, at least, make the mistakes others had learned to avoid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:How is that possible, though? He didn't know that a line like "there were heroes on both sides" made it into one of his movies? He accidentally wrote and directed a pivotal scene where Yoda, a supposed good guy, commands an army of storm-troopers, a group who were established in previous films as bad guys visually linked to Nazi soldiers? The "heroes on both sides" line makes no sense, is supported by nothing we are shown, and is so laughably contradictory that even George's professional apologist Rick McCallum says it made no sense and he did not buy it. He put the scene with Yoda commanding storm troopers because he thought it would be cool for Yoda to be a badass kung fu general without considering the implications of this or how it contradicted his character and was generally a stupid idea. And, as a matter of fact, the ILM animators on the commentary track make it explicitly clear that George told them that the clone troopers were Good Guys, and, funnily enough, it was a "struggle" for them to show this
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:No, the statements only indicate that Lucas claimed not to be putting moral complexity into the films.* Since the movies contain moral complexity and lack hypercompetent paragons of virtue, we must assume that Lucas was lying or that he introduced all the moral complexity by accident. The former is more likely than the latter by several orders of magnitude. We must believe that Lucas lied about how he wanted to make a film with clear delineations of Good Guys and Bad Guys, a film that paid literally zero attention to any of the grim undertones of Slave War, and that he not only lied but lied without fail, in dozens of statements, consistently over hours and hours, as did everyone else without exception, as a way to trick us into believing he was incompetent and didn't know what he was doing. Or he is an overrated hack who put stuff like clone soldiers and robot enemies and child Jedi and into the films because they were PG friendly business decisions and he thought it would be neat to be able to put his kids and his friends' kids into his films without any consideration of the Deep Ethical Quandaries of these things. Your belief that the former is more likely is a result of your bafflingly cultish fanboyism and not any evidence or logic we can infer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This isn't difficult: according to the Republic, it's legal for corporations to blockade planets. no it isn't
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:34 |
|
|
Elfgames posted:I think you're reaching SMG. Trezzor likes heroes and he likes black and white morality The ot says the jedi are good but the PT makes them not seem so good. Gorge lucas "says" the jedi are still good though but that is wrong and thus makes him bad. It's also why he likes TFA as it clearly states that "The light side" is real and good and there is clear good and evil sides to root for. In essence Trezzor represents Millennials, His Childish view of the world is being dragged into adulthood and he doesn't like it one bit. But Lucas did not intend the PT to make the Jedi seem not so good. That the Jedi came out looking like amoral idiots is yet another failing of the films. He meant to show them as great heroes at the height of their power fighting evil but ultimately being betrayed by evil through no fault of their own except, perhaps, to be generous, the arrogance of thinking they were invincible. Which I would argue is not really arrogant according to a logical interpretation of what he's told us - the Sith have been dead for 1000 years and there's been almost total peace for that same amount of time. That's like if it turned out that Ghengis Khan was still alive and had magic and he had pitted the US and USSR against each other while secretly being the leader of both parties in a convoluted master plan to finally conquer hated Japan. How arrogant and blind we were to not see this coming! Tezzor fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2016 16:56
|
|