|
Effectronica posted:What the gently caress is this bullshit? "Human shields" ?Randomly Capitalizing Nouns? The Death Star operates on terror through the threat "if you dont stop we will murder billions of people". It absolutely operates off of using its own people as human shields. It has absolutely no utility in a war against a mobile guerilla force. quote:Your basic argument is that we should absolutely prioritize plot function over anything else. The problem is that this completely fails when we apply it to something like poetry, so it can't be the obvious and objective theory of art, so your argument fails completely and totally before we get to your difficulty understanding things. You assume that I am acting off of literal adherence to Plot because it conflicts with your interpretation. If my views on the film cause you so much grief that you have to rationalize the friction as "this man is the enemy of Art" then you should re-evaluate your interpretation. quote:The only actual support for your argument is just begging the question, so it fails too. The support for this argument comes from the films, which are topical to this thread, the Star Wars Millenial Trash Discussion Station.
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The Death Star operates on terror through the threat "if you dont stop we will murder billions of people". It absolutely operates off of using its own people as human shields. It has absolutely no utility in a war against a mobile guerilla force. It's introduced as a weapon that is designed to destroy the rebel's military bases and weapon stockpiles. Remember Leia is first scrutinized to reveal the Rebel base, Alderon or civilians weren't the original target, destroyed as "a means to an end." Just as American's nuclear weapons were designed to end wars, not terrorize citizens.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:It's introduced as a weapon that is designed to destroy the rebel's military bases and weapon stockpiles. Remember Leia is first scrutinized to reveal the Rebel base, Alderon or civilians weren't the original target, destroyed as "a means to an end." Just as American's nuclear weapons were designed to end wars, not terrorize citizens. And that declared purpose runs contrary to the operation of guerilla forces and the eventual use of the superweapon. The Death Star is easily and unobjectably compared to nuclear weapons, and the introduction of nukes operated and continue to operate off the same concept; the second atom bomb was unnecessary and used as a show of force, and nukes from then on have operated off the notion "invade us and the world gets it". While I do not have such a negative view of MAD, it's entirely within line of Lucas' stated beliefs and commentary. The largest differences in scenarios is that one acts as a discreet civil uprising, and the other is a localized warring island. It would be trivial to suggest that Lucas intentionally did this to show the brutality of nukes when aimed at an 'unjustified' target (noting that the Vietnam War ended only 2 years prior) and the harm they could cause if used as a blunt solution to all problems plagueing the Empire/America. Within this argument the film succeeds in convincing the viewers that nukes must be destroyed. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:17
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The Death Star operates on terror through the threat "if you dont stop we will murder billions of people". It absolutely operates off of using its own people as human shields. It has absolutely no utility in a war against a mobile guerilla force. I'm not sure what "Plot" is, but when you say that the plot function is more important than anything else about the ioncannon, which is what you were doing in the post that I've quoted, (preserving your shame within the Library of Congress) my point stands and your argument... doesn't. "Begging the question" is a form of circular argument where you answer a question by assuming an answer is true and citing that as the answer, as you are doing to prove that Fuhrer President Mon Mothma has access to the Volk-Wille Force.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm not sure what "Plot" is, but when you say that the plot function is more important than anything else about the ioncannon, which is what you were doing in the post that I've quoted, (preserving your shame within the Library of Congress) my point stands and your argument... doesn't. Literal and abstract readings are most effective and persuasive when working alongside each other. My interpretation is not at all focused on adhering to the literal details of a fictional Stars Wars, but instead uses what happens in the film to back up my reading of what the film chooses to convey. Without the backing of the literal actions of the film you are, in essence, saying "the film does not support this, but you should agree with me anyways because we both have the same views". While useful for making friends, it does nothing for persuading others through cinema. quote:"Begging the question" is a form of circular argument where you answer a question by assuming an answer is true and citing that as the answer, as you are doing to prove that Fuhrer President Mon Mothma has access to the Volk-Wille Force. Not at all; I cite sources outside the Rebels. Luke states disproval of the Empire before enlistment, his guardians are concerned of his Academy plans, Han is persuaded to act against the Empire, Vader does not approve of the current Empire, and Coruscant is shown cheering the end of the Empire. Any depictions of the size of the Rebels and their acceptance by the people are only supportive of this view, they do not form the frame of the view. To continue this in a noncircular faction, you would then bring up examples of non-Empire authoritative figures supporting the Empire or with low views of the Rebels.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Within this argument the film succeeds in convincing the viewers that nukes must be destroyed. But your also implying the people of the Empire should be destroyed for the sin of employing a Deathstar. Your acting as if the Empire chooses to use the Death Star (since it's evil) and the Rebels are choosing to use the Hoth Cannon (since they are good). Which boils down to "things would be good if people who know restraint and don't abuse power were in power, unlike in this sad situation where abusive people with no restraint happen to be in power" instead of a reading where power itself is shaping the actions, and technology, of those who have access to it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:But your also implying the people of the Empire should be destroyed for the sin of employing a Deathstar. Only to the extent that aggressive combatants are fair targets in war; if Hitler somehow succeeded in making his wacky town-sized tank, it would still be moral to destroy it and its operators. This is a large reason why I'm against drafts; the military of a state should be composed of those willing to die in that states' defense. If I'm misreading you and you're not talking about the Death Star's crew, my apologies. quote:Your acting as if the Empire chooses to use the Death Star (since it's evil) and the Rebels are choosing to use the Hoth Cannon (since they are good). They both made the decision to field them, and bear the responsibility for their superweapons' actions. Neither are evil or good for their uses, but they are both guilty of anything their weapons do. Within the context of nukes the Hoth Cannon has a unique limitation in its immobile defensive nature, which is difficult to associate with any Real-Life war machine that isn't say, anyi-air cannons. quote:Which boils down to "things would be good if people who know restraint and don't abuse power were in power, unlike in this sad situation where abusive people with no restraint happen to be in power" instead of a reading where power itself is shaping the actions, and technology, of those who have access to it. They're hand-in-hand. Things WOULD be good if those in power knew restraint, and power itself corrupts the individuals in control. The answer depicted in Star Wars repeatedly is that of self-sacrifice; to harm oneself to refuse power. Within the context of the Republic, the answer presented in Episode 7 is that they found no answer; their closest was that of total inaction, which results in their destruction. A benevolent reading would be that the best of the republic accepted their eventual deaths over violent coups, and as a result the 'clock' has been reset for the Resistance to find the answer.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
I like the prequels, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Speaking of foreign policy, it always feels like large aspects of readings ITT are reliant on a "Shock and Awe" approach to imagery; establish a strained point, reveal image comparison for less radical points that still surprise the reader, then insist that the comparison only serves the initially established reading (which the reader accepts as a result of being persuaded on lesser points, instilling credibility in the creator of the interpretation). Let's back up a bit here, really not sure what you're trying to say with all these scare quotes and singling out Cnut; However your general position of "After all, the best 'lies' are the ones that hold some truth" is interesting. To put it more straightforwardly you're using some truths in order to tell the best lie, this might be intentionally disingenuous and argumentative for arguments sake or something else altogether. Regardless, this is why your position seems to be ever-revolving, you don't even seem to really believe it exists; Otherwise you'd assert something concrete rather than this scare quote stuff and complaints of bias over natural conclusions - this is pure ideology.  You want to bring up the Death Star, then don’t ignore the germination of this idea and how closely it ties into the transition of the Republic into a new Empire.  Padmé: So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.  So the strange isolation of details and skirting with fascist examples actually demonstrate the importance of reading these movies carefully, but just not the way you intended. brawleh fucked around with this message at 20:51 on May 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
brawleh posted:Let's back up a bit here, really not sure what you're trying to say with all these scare quotes and singling out Cnut; However your general position of "After all, the best 'lies' are the ones that hold some truth" is interesting. To put it more straightforwardly you seem to be using some truths in order to tell the best lie, this might be intentionally disingenuous and argumentative for arguments sake or something else altogether. Regardless, this is why your position seems to be ever-revolving, you don't even seem to really believe it exists; Otherwise you'd assert something concrete rather than this scare quote stuff and complaints of bias over natural conclusions - this is pure ideology. The quotation marks are to make it easy to distinguish between each statement, Cnut was mentioned because it calls back to an earlier discussion, and I did not lie in that post. I am not trying to decieve nor trick you. It would be nice if these insistent remarks about me contradicting myself or lying would be backed up by quotations, instead of just insisting it really hard. I am not "complaining". There is no inherent superiority in any particular interpretation. That's the beauty of art. You and Effectronica seem to be getting hung up on the word "natural:; I usually assume the best in people, so I'm hoping that this is a misunderstanding and not willful ignorance. By "natural conclusions" I mean ones a viewer are most likely to discover or assume first. I bring them up because I consider them important to the persuasive power of art. And to address what SMG said a while ago: I use weasel words because there is no objective truth in art that isnt accepted by the viewer. I present my arguments for your delectation, and try to make clear that they are what I believe and accept. I am not interested in "winning" so much as allowing other posters the opportunity to humor my arguments and judge their worth to themselves. I consider that a far more valuable 'victory' than strongarming strangers with misinterpretations, unneccessary chearleading hyperbolic posts, or speaking with authority.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
As for your actual argument; I have never suggested that the Republic does not become corrupted. Only that the Republic in TPM is and is intended to be a flawed but noble and 'good' society. It saves a planet, unites segregated societies, rescues a slave child, and all within respect to the peoples' representatives. You can point to Quigon being rude to Jar Jar or not executing the entire planet to make sure Schmi is freed, but ultimately those are the events of TPM, and they are positive.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
All that is achieved in TPM results in the fall of the Republic and the Jedi.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Neuro, I don't believe you're trying to intentionally deceive, or at least I hope not. However you aren't aware of what's implied by saying 'natural' when drawing conclusions, regardless of intent this is a heavily-ideologically-loaded word. This is where your opinions on bias are coming from, it's misguided. The examples I made are to stress reading the text carefully, they’re not arguments. It’s to draw your attention to things that might have slipped past you, or better yet are worth re-examining. The corruption of the Republic is deeply embedded in their ideal of peace. Pointing towards Qui-Gon's attitude is an attempt to demonstrate just how deeply ingrained this issue of race is within the Republic and Jedi Order(guardians of the peace). Until you begin to acknowledge this basic truth the conclusions you draw from then on will be distorted. Like getting drawn into a defence of the creation and use of a clone army, I just want you to take time and think on this carefully. Qui-Gon doesn't decide to rescue Anakin because he's a slave or because it's good: Qui-Gon gambles for Anakin's life because he believes Anakin to be 'the one' and because it will help him reach Coruscant - Anakin gambles with his life in order to help someone in need. Can you recognize the importance of this contrast?    Shmi Skywalker: Can you help him? Qui-Gon Jinn: I don't know. I didn't actually come here to free slaves.  This isn't about intent either, make no mistake this is about actions. Take care when talking about short-sighted results, TPM is a catalyst for what's to come in Anakin's life. brawleh fucked around with this message at 19:47 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
EX-GAIJIN AT LAST posted:One of the irksome features of many prequel-haters' posts has been these fanfiction proposals of alterations and "improvements" they would have rather seen than what we got. Rightfully they are usually ignored or decried. You're better than this, Cnut. Where else is there to go? We already got a trilogy where the heroes gently caress up and lose to the villains. We already got a trilogy where the heroes fix the other heroes' gently caress-ups and win. Isn't the natural next step a story which shows the culmination of the experiences of the two previous generations in a new generation? This is in fact the very story that Abrams and co. are clearly attempting to tell. There was really never any way around it. The new dark side threat was always going to be a Skywalker child. By its very nature as a sequel to the previous six films, it was always going to be a film where the children were, in some capacity, the problem. What I'm proposing is pretty much exactly what we were given, only without Han and Luke and Leia being gently caress-ups. I've been railing on that point for ages, in case you haven't noticed. The problem with the people doing fan fiction rewrites of the prequels isn't that they're suggesting alterations and "improvements." The problem is that their alterations and "improvements" are almost invariably facile and lovely compared to what we got.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Just saw an alleged Episode 8 script leak. Rey's backstory is real real dumb in it. But someone's just cranking out bullshit "I've read the script" leaks every month or so, right?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 00:56
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Where else is there to go? We already got a trilogy where the heroes gently caress up and lose to the villains. We already got a trilogy where the heroes fix the other heroes' gently caress-ups and win. Isn't the natural next step a story which shows the culmination of the experiences of the two previous generations in a new generation? We haven't even gotten enough out of the film to know that the now elder generation is the problem. That lack in itself can be a source for objection, I grant you, but the common element in all their problems is Ben. Han, Leia, and Luke didn't necessarily fail him just because he feels they did. His turn to Kylo Ren seems more due to Snoke than any particular failing on their part. That's the thing about kids, you can do everything "right" and still lose them. You can also screw up and they turn out fine. In Han and Leia's conversation she says she lost him only after they lost Ben, and we have no idea yet what happened with Luke and the Jedi he was training. This film introduced new characters and is even told mostly from their perspective, but it's still about the old characters. Alright, the Republic didn't go as planned, but we've already been over the fact that the Old Republic was flawed, and the Rebellion to restore it fell short of the vision needed for true progress. This too was predictable from the Lucas films. If the cycle from Republic to Empire is to be broken, the characters must also see that it's a cycle before they can break it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Han Solo was already a known galactic gently caress-up who didn't pay his debts. Leia is "a politician, and they're not to be trusted" Kylo's parents are a criminal and a terrorist.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 04:49
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Just saw an alleged Episode 8 script leak. Rey's backstory is real real dumb in it. But someone's just cranking out bullshit "I've read the script" leaks every month or so, right? Much like the case with all the Episode VII leaks in the months leading up to the release, there's usually 1 or 2 small things in each consecutive leak that turn out to be legit, and then the other 99% of it is terrible fanfic. If I remember correctly, it was only 5 or 6 months before last December that we started to see truly substantial leaks that could be trusted.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Only to the extent that aggressive combatants are fair targets in war; if Hitler somehow succeeded in making his wacky town-sized tank, it would still be moral to destroy it and its operators. This is a large reason why I'm against drafts; the military of a state should be composed of those willing to die in that states' defense.   Naturally, but what would be more important would be to eradicate the ideology that justifies the use of a wack town-sized tank in the name of the greater good, and a step toward that is understanding it's development and the fears (or hopes) that underpin such justifications. In the Prequel trilogy interpretations of The Force is constantly invoked to justify the extremely important political actions- from the Jedi's embroilment in the Seperatist kerfuffle, the introduction of the Chosen One, Palpatine's actions, ect. quote:They're hand-in-hand. Things WOULD be good if those in power knew restraint, and power itself corrupts the individuals in control. The answer depicted in Star Wars repeatedly is that of self-sacrifice; to harm oneself to refuse power. Self-Sacrifice is only good if it erases something evil. It's interesting that when the force-users in the film sacrifice themselves they disappear/die. R2D2, C3P0 and Han Solo make self sacrifices that results in their temporary destruction, dismemberment or petrification but their bodies return. A lot of the readings your are in dispute with attempt to equate the Force, or at least beliefs about the Force, with the way power is being employed and distributed. Force-Users pull the strings, in a manner, throughout the series. Do you think the series is exploring how certain hierarchies of power lead to abuse? Is their evidence of these hierarchies carefully planted throughout the film?    quote:Within the context of the Republic, the answer presented in Episode 7 is that they found no answer; their closest was that of total inaction, which results in their destruction. A benevolent reading would be that the best of the republic accepted their eventual deaths over violent coups, and as a result the 'clock' has been reset for the Resistance to find the answer. I can sort of see where you are coming from, as well as Cnut re the sequel trilogy, but have to ultimately agree with brawleh that (something is fundamentally different, the clock can never return back, spiral not cycle, ect) and really feel out and engage with the differences. I feel theirs a difference between how the Resistance and the Rebels talk about power. The New Republic isn't interested in restoring the Old Republic, they do(did) not want war with The First Order so it was a government that accepted pluralities. Furthermore, the "common people" of the new sequels seem to have knowledge of legends like Luke, Han, Leia are but vastly different interpretations of what they mean or if their actions were good or not. In the OT people seemed to remember events but not people-Luke only had vague rumors about who Obi Wan was, where Darth Vader came from, let alone who Yoda is. The main power-holders and string-puller's aren't the most public "characters" in the earlier films while in the new films they are. Theirs very much a tension and movement of power from the rulers to the public in the films that JJ Abrams vision can't help but deal with the fall-out from.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Why do you and brawleh keep posting random screenshots in the middle of your posts that seemingly have nothing to do with what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
MrSmokes posted:Why do you and brawleh keep posting random screenshots in the middle of your posts that seemingly have nothing to do with what you're saying? I can't speak for brawleh, but his last posts/pictures combos seem to directly mirror each other in a very straightforward manner ( Words on Death star plans----pic of death star plans, Words on Gambling----pic of dice) ( Words Fall of Old Republic---- Pic Funeral of Padme) When I'm debating about abstracts like about whether big-rear end machines of wars are portrayed as good or evil I like starting with an image of big-rear end machines of War that I think (?) naturally relate to my argument when you look at the details. Or when I talk about something as general as self-sacrifice meaning different things when undertaken by different folks I like having images of the four different character's I referred to right before entering danger zones. C3P0 and R2D2 rely on each other as friends, Force-User Luke has that puckish, almost self-satisfied grin when he's turning tables after purportedly being sacrificed to the Rancor, Han puts on the macho bravago in front of Lando when he takes the decoy mission. Other folks might see the images and be reminded of what they felt during those scenes and tell me what they see, I feel it keeps the debate grounded so we don't get too far afield. And to be fair I lost a shitload of my last post by copy/pasting and losing a bit of stuff on the clipboard, but I kept the Padma laughing at the ant-headed cow with the huge belly because I thought it was funny and kind of mirrored the "singular head leader commanding vast body politic" VS "vast body politic created evil head leader" fight that has been going on. The tiny headed massive bellied beast is a pretty old and loaded symbol for malfunctioning democracies. Shakespeare posted:Note me this, good friend; -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Pictures keep the argument grounded around a single pole, and ensures it does not fork off into random,fruitless sub-debates.  Pictures justly allow my opponents to use the same weapons I am using.  Pictures allow one to show where in the films seemingly unrelated concepts and polemics are established.  Pictures are the superior tool for talking about a visual medium.  Pictures help assure that honey-covered words and other manipulative linguistic methods aren't used.  Pictures are worth a thousand words, and allow us to cover vast territory without endless walls of text. But if "the people" think its occult I can stop, be more wordy or learn how to inbed gifs.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Yeah, it’s basically to reorient the discussion back to the movies, so somewhat hasty real world examples are avoided - or at least employed fully. The points raised by these movies are finer than designations of good guys versus bad guys, a lot of it is about the manipulation of power. This comes back to vague allusions of progress (scientific - technological - social?) along with the idea expressed in natural conclusions and this issue of bias; So for Neuro it all comes from a position that's ideologically soaked to the bone, seemingly liberal-communism. You forget that the kingdom of heaven suffers violence: and the kingdom of heaven is like a woman. - James Joyce Padmé: So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause. The not so subtle and darkly humorous tragedy of this image from the funeral of Padme, is about the death of Lady Liberty. It's also happens to be one of the most striking images from all the movies, for me personally. It's directly contrast here with the birth and rise of a new Empire - The construction of the Death Star, both images from the end of Revenge. Now there's an important point being made about the idea of progress in these movies, with the escalation of technology and terror (being confronted with the Force). So the Empire and the Death Star have inseparable ties to the Republic and the civil war. This idea of a Death Star was initially conceived around the same time as the Separatist movement, the above image is from ATOC (technological progress). Contrast this major theme and small detail with the opening of Attack of the Clones. [Note: The Death Star may have been conceived long before the civil war started, much like the creation of the Clone army]  The Separatist movement and the flare up of tensions it represents was eventually suppressed, so their plans never really got off the ground; But the ideas born from this conflict remained alive and were eventually brought to fruition by the new Empire; An Empire born from the actions of the Jedi and the Republic's war; A war waged to maintain and restore their ideal of peace which resulted in unimagined loss of life. (this is pointing towards the cycle of structural violence) Giving into fear - being blinded by it - is integral to this transition of the Republic into an Empire. Governor Tarkin: The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. Again the not-so-subtle subtext of the above dialogue is about restoring and maintaining peace (what does the ideal of this peace entail?). Contrast with the Force, a violent radical act of love, Luke throwing away the lightsaber - Vader throwing Sidious down a giant space well. "This is why one should oppose the fascination with Hitler according to which Hitler was, of course, a bad guy, responsible for the death of millions—but he definitely had balls, he pursued with iron will what he wanted. … This point is not only ethically repulsive, but simply wrong: no, Hitler did not ‘have the balls’ to really change things; he did not really act, all his actions were fundamentally reactions, i.e., he acted so that nothing would really change, he stages a big spectacle of Revolution so that the capitalist order could survive. In this precise sense of violence, Gandhi was more violent than Hitler: Gandhi’s movement effectively endeavored to interrupt the basic functioning of the British colonial state" - Zizek Now to one last point while bringing it around to the beginning. Note Anakin's fear of losing Padme, the vision of her death and the possessive nature of this fear taking hold of him (power and manipulation - theatricality and deception). This again is to emphasize the importance of one love, one truth and to remind us there's always A New Hope. brawleh fucked around with this message at 01:10 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
brawleh posted:
While your whole post was excellent (both in and of itself and for giving context to your earlier posts) this one pun in particular was sublime.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
brawleh posted:one love, one truth and to remind us there's always A New Hope. Nice, I had forgotten about those. Wish more teasers did this.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
It's a shame they didn't do them for the other films.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
Hey so this is external to the movies and also kind of hundreds of pages late, but regarding earlier debates on droids and Force connection, wherein many argued from "canon" that droids cannot connect to the Force... It looks like a droid taught Yoda. This comes from a sign in Disneyland's Star Wars area, the "museum" in Tomorrowland, so it has the new corporate master's seal of approval. Thought it was interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 06:11
|
|
|
Huyang, huh? Interesting...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Huyang, huh? Interesting... Played by David Tennant.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
SuperKlaus posted:Hey so this is external to the movies and also kind of hundreds of pages late, but regarding earlier debates on droids and Force connection, wherein many argued from "canon" that droids cannot connect to the Force... Huyang isn't Force sensitive. He's in the Clone Wars. He's just a really old droid that knows how to make lightsabers so the Jedi have him teach the Younglings how to make their first saber.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Kart Barfunkel posted:Played by David Tennant. Who won an Emmy for it.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
KiteAuraan posted:Huyang isn't Force sensitive. He's in the Clone Wars. He's just a really old droid that knows how to make lightsabers so the Jedi have him teach the Younglings how to make their first saber. I found it really appropriate that a droid would be the one to instruct the Jedi in the construction of their lightsabers. The lightsaber is incredibly integral to a Jedi's spiritual life, and yet it's a piece of technology. It's an interesting contradiction. Though it's worth noting that at the heart of that piece of technology is a crystal which makes a direct spiritual connection with its user. Perhaps in a similar manner as droids like Artoo and Threepio are able to make connections with people, due to the spark of undeniable humanity within their metallic bodies. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 13:41
|
|
|
One of the younglings also doubt that Huyang can help guide them with the spiritual parts of Lightsaber making because he is a droid IIRC. I think the droids inferiority was conceived as a moot or eternally ambiguous point, which reinforces the faith theme. Is Disney expanding Yoda's backstory? I wonder how much of ancient Jedi poo poo their going to deal with on the The Yoda/Droid-master contrast does subvert, given that Luke associates Yoda with foggy primordial nature 
crowoutofcontext fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:Who won an Emmy for it. What a world we live in.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:Scottish islands Skellig Michael is in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
MrSmokes posted:Why do you and brawleh keep posting random screenshots in the middle of your posts that seemingly have nothing to do with what you're saying? This is possibly the most insightful post ever made in Cinema Discusso, the forum for discussing cinema, a visual medium.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Crion posted:This is possibly the most insightful post ever made in Cinema Discusso, the forum for discussing cinema, a visual medium. You're a visual medium. (cause no one wants to touch you.)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2016 11:37
|
|
|
Elfgames posted:You're a visual medium. (cause no one wants to touch you.) I'm guessing they're more of a visual XL
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Somehow the whole "Yoda ever using a lightsaber ruins the whole point of him," thing takes on a different perspective if you learn Yoda is using the Star Wars equivalent of the Level 1 Wooden Training Sword to slice open tanks.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Somehow the whole "Yoda ever using a lightsaber ruins the whole point of him," thing takes on a different perspective if you learn Yoda is using the Star Wars equivalent of the Level 1 Wooden Training Sword to slice open tanks. I think the Lightsabers would be more analogous to the FF2 weapons that level up when you use them, you embed them with a crystal that your soul activates or something. Violence is a given for prequel Yoda since he believes people can be truly evil.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
crowoutofcontext posted:I think the Lightsabers would be more analogous to the FF2 weapons that level up when you use them, you embed them with a crystal that your soul activates or something. I was always under the impression, from various implications in main materials and scenes in side materials, that Jedi initially make a simple underpowered training lightsaber under heavy supervision when they're younglings, then make a second fully-functional lightsaber under a master's guidance (or are given one made by a master) when they become a padawan, and finally make their own lightsaber as the final part of their training to become Knights.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2016 02:31
|
|