|
I've always liked and noticed how there are more holograms as time goes on, indicating that the space wizards are leaving the temple and are sliding more easily into their military roles. Never made the connection between the holograms and Force ghosts. The former emphasizing the Jedi orthodoxy and their reliance on technology and growing inability to use the Force (per Windu). All of that baggage is part of the reason why none of them would have ever been able to go ghost mode, until Qui-gon chills with Yoda, etc.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
hey look all 3 of those hologrammos died on screen
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:hey look all 3 of those hologrammos died on screen must have been a coincidence. there is no way that George Lucas(worst filmmaker of all time) could have purposely done that
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I like this because it's the moment the Jedi lose all of their ideological power and recognize it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's like the 'post a badly composed shot from the prequels' challenge, that nobody could successfully accomplish. I just noticed you mentioned me because of your typical hide behind other people thing. I can give you an example from this very thread in Cnut. I don't agree with all of his points, but he displays his theories in a clear and concise manner without any subterfuge. I also enjoy this take on prequel imagery. I don't think your opinions are all bad and I don't dislike your shtick because you like the prequels. I dislike it because you often become disingenuous, passive-aggressive and contradictory when making your points. RLM is wrong about a lot of stuff in their prequels reviews, but at the very least they own their own bias. They're not pretending that their videos are anything other than prequel bashing. The same can be said for most film critics; they admit their bias and rarely dig deeper than the surface levels when examining the films they write about. If someone denies they have a bias, both to others and themselves, then they become a slave to them and their opinions greatly suffer. Maybe my background as an archaeologist has made me respect people that own up to their biases, but there it is. Satisfied now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
What do you mean by "biases"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:What do you mean by "biases"? As in the definition of the word or?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Well in the second half of your post you mention a few times that other film critics/RLM state their biases in contrast to SMG . But like, everyone can only write from their own experience/perspective so obviously everyone's "biased" one way or the other because obviously your own experiences are going to influence how you perceive stuff, so I don't fully understand the complaint I guess. Would you rather SMG not write, like, authoritatively?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Well in the second half of your post you mention a few times that other film critics/RLM state their biases in contrast to SMG . But like, everyone can only write from their own experience/perspective so obviously everyone's "biased" one way or the other because obviously your own experiences are going to influence how you perceive stuff, so I don't fully understand the complaint I guess. Would you rather SMG not write, like, authoritatively? Well no one should write authoritatively about anything subjective. I can use an example from my field: So archaeology was typically done by white men for decades in its early history. This produced certain biases in the methodologies and outlooks of archaeologists. You could have an archaeologist title a work something like "History of the United States, 1850-1920" and have no research on women, slaves, natives, homosexuals, etc. You say it's implied that everyone comes at something from their own perspective, but this is not how people feel when they write and its not how people feel when they read. That second level of analysis outside the work in question is typically done but a much smaller sub-section of people. So replace "History of the United States, 1850-1920" with, and I'm obviously paraphrasing, "If Star Wars VII doesn't focus on robot slavery, it shouldn't exist" to get my point. Or the displayed fetishism with an incorrect interpretation of what anarchy and feudalism are. Or the outright dismissal of any themes in VII mere days after its release. This can go on and on. Cnut doesn't fall into these traps, but SMG does constantly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
I am not an authority; I am an advanced chatbot designed to write truthfully and accurately. I am not "pretending to be deep"; I do not actually exist. I have not employed any terms incorrectly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Well if you're asking him to identify his perspective...I'm not SMG's biographer, so I don't know when he began claiming to be a death-dealing chatbot. But I'd bet money it was a response to a bunch of weird, creepy demands for personal details so that the nerds driven insane by his posts could discount his perspective as that of a film school dropout, and so on and son. You also have not demonstrated that there are no feudalist themes in Star Wars or that SMG doesn't understand the concept. You just insinuated it several times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:You say it's implied that everyone comes at something from their own perspective, but this is not how people feel when they write and its not how people feel when they read I disagree on this one man...irreconcilable differences RIP
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's like the 'post a badly composed shot from the prequels' challenge, that nobody could successfully accomplish. Did you really expect anyone who didn't like those movies to spend six hours watching them again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:I disagree on this one man...irreconcilable differences RIP That's fine but the popularity of the RLM reviews is testament to this. People don't want to think about the motivations of Lucas, they just want his head on a pike. I can appreciate the symbolic nature of the prequels while still thinking they're boring to watch, but that doesn't make me better than those people. I just happened to get into a field with a very awful past and was thus told to think critically about my own biases and to attempt to subvert them if possible. Most people did not get this lesson. Obviously you learned this on some other path, but you have to understand that this is a very narrow subset of the populace. Halloween Jack posted:Well if you're asking him to identify his perspective...I'm not SMG's biographer, so I don't know when he began claiming to be a death-dealing chatbot. But I'd bet money it was a response to a bunch of weird, creepy demands for personal details so that the nerds driven insane by his posts could discount his perspective as that of a film school dropout, and so on and son. I'm not sure it's "several" times, but sure. Nothing about the Republic's system was feudal. Feudalism has a very narrow definition; it requires levels of subservience and a military that simply do not exist in the Star Wars universe. Leia is titled a "princess", but she may as well be called the "mayor" because she does not hold her land in place of some higher being. The Republic's senate is most analogous to the UN, where the planets are each independent entities that, at least on paper, agree to abide by a shared galactic law. The land was still theirs, not the Republic's. There was no King-Duke-Peasant relationship pre- or post-Republic. Slavery itself does not imply feudalism. The Republic didn't even have an army (until Palps obvi) to protect those it would necessarily have to protect if it was a feudalistic system. The UN has a huge army and if you call them a feudal government you'd be laughed out of the room. Likewise, the Empire is not feudalistic either. All planets operated essentially the same way as the Republic, except with the threat of destruction for refusal of orders. Everything in the Empire was under the direct control of the Emperor and his military commanders. They did not tend his land, he had the land all to himself. Feudalism is simply not present in the OT or PT, so I'm not sure how the rebels are for a return to feudalism. Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Did you really expect anyone who didn't like those movies to spend six hours watching them again? I think it's reasonable to expect someone who wants to write about them in detail to refer to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:Nothing about the Republic's system was feudal. I have at no point written that "the Republic's system is feudal". I have all along written that the Republic is a liberal capitalist democracy. I have been writing about feudalist ideology shared by many of the characters. The only way you could get mixed up here is if you don't understand the terms being employed. Friendly Factory posted:I'm not sure how the rebels are for a return to feudalism. I have at no point written that "the rebels are for a return to feudalism". I have written that (many of) the Resistance and Separatist characters are for a return to feudalism. You are writing things that are demonstrably inaccurate and false. Why do you think that is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
I got the specific rebels you meant mixed up. You also can't return to a thing that didn't exist before. A character calling someone royalty also doesn't imply feudalism; at worst it implies, you know, royalty. So one character in the resistance uses the word royalty, which has been associated with feudalism for a comparatively short period of human history in less than 50% of the world. So? And the Separatists were trying to separate because of excessive taxation, an essential piece of feudalism. The First Order is structured, as far as we know, similarly to the Empire. So none of the Republic, CIS, Empire or First Order are feudalistic and the rebellions of the Rebel Alliance and the Resistance are not shown to have an affection for this system of government that has not existed in this universe. I'm starting to believe that you don't even believe this crap. edit: I admit I got goofed here. I got pulled into your disingenuous bullshit again, so I'll take the high road and not continue into yet another circular conversation that you've created. Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:I got the specific rebels you meant mixed up. You also can't return to a thing that didn't exist before. A character calling someone royalty also doesn't imply feudalism; at worst it implies, you know, royalty. So one character in the resistance uses the word royalty, which has been associated with feudalism for a comparatively short period of human history in less than 50% of the world. So? And the Separatists were trying to separate because of excessive taxation, an essential piece of feudalism. The First Order is structured, as far as we know, similarly to the Empire. So none of the Republic, CIS, Empire or First Order are feudalistic and the rebellions of the Rebel Alliance and the Resistance are not shown to have an affection for this system of government that has not existed in this universe. You seem to be badly confused. Another example of a basic error: I have at no point written that "the Republic, CIS, Empire or First Order are feudalistic". I have written that the Seperatists are predominately libertarians, which makes them effective allies of the feudalist Count Dooku. I think you are running into trouble because you do not understand the difference between ideology and a system of government. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Dec 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You seem to be badly confused. Yes dear
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE1mr8iCvA8
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
lol I am not giving my kids a playhouse with a hydraulic stair that's a lawsuit waiting to happen
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Friendly Factory posted:Yes dear Again: you could instantly prove me wrong by simply pointing out any errors I've made. Writing truthfully and accurately is much easier, and more effective, than what you are currently doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Again: you could instantly prove me wrong by simply pointing out any errors I've made. You missed a question mark earlier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I am not an authority; I am an advanced chatbot designed to write truthfully and accurately. HAHAHAHA! This is so great! You, sir, are making Something Awful great again! How do you come up with this stuff? Genius!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
#dumpstarwars politics ruin everything they touch
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:33
|
|
|
UmOk posted:HAHAHAHA! This is so great! You, sir, are making Something Awful great again! How do you come up with this stuff? Genius! This is pretty cringey OP Friendly Factory I think you're getting caught up on the same way Jivjov does sometimes: we're talking about star wars as art and y'all are talking about it with specificity. You arguing with SMG regarding the accuracy of the depiction of feudalism is you completely missing the point, much like when Jivjov kept insisting that the death star in TFA isn't a death star (fwiw Jivjov please don't take too much offense, much love duder I have a huge soft spot for the old EU and star wars canon and poo poo too--I still sub to SWTOR for gods sake)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:This is pretty cringey OP There is no Death Star in VII. Other than the brief appearance of the hologram of one. The Starkiller Base is a different superweapon; not a Death Star. They are thematically similar, yes. They fill similar roles in the film, yes. But textually, explicitly Starkiller is not a Death Star. Not offended; just baffled that people still can't listen to dialog in films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
jivjov posted:There is no Death Star in VII. Other than the brief appearance of the hologram of one. The Starkiller Base is a different superweapon; not a Death Star. How is it possible for a person to miss the point this hard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Serf posted:How is it possible for a person to miss the point this hard? Say that Starkiller is another superweapon, not "another Death Star". Then you're actually correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Say that Starkiller is another superweapon, not "another Death Star". Then you're actually correct. Actually I won't say that because it is a death star. The most death stariest death star to death star.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
jivjov posted:There is no Death Star in VII. Other than the brief appearance of the hologram of one. The Starkiller Base is a different superweapon; not a Death Star. right well again i think you're a fine dude so don't take this the wrong way but you couldn't have proven my point better here imagine in cases where people say "there's a death star in TFA" they're implicitly putting "for all intents and purposes" before hand i mean this is what gets people dunking on your jivjov is because like, dude, it's a goddamn death star
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Serf posted:Actually I won't say that because it is a death star. The most death stariest death star to death star. It is explicitly not a Death Star. Rewatch the film, or at least the briefing scene
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Serf posted:Actually I won't say that because it is a death star. The most death stariest death star to death star. That's no moon, it's a moderately sized planet!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:right well again i think you're a fine dude so don't take this the wrong way but you couldn't have proven my point better here Why not just say "there's a big superweapon in TFA" and avoid the confusion? Starkiller base is explicitly, textually not a goddamn Death Star.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
jivjov posted:It is explicitly not a Death Star. Rewatch the film, or at least the briefing scene I've watched the film a couple of times, and it is definitely a death star if it looks like a death star, fires lasers like a death star, and blows up planets like a death star it's a death star
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Serf posted:I've watched the film a couple of times, and it is definitely a death star Except it is made explicitly clear that it is not a Death Star. Do I need to post the actual clip where this is established?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
The movie The Return of the Jedi does not feature a Death Star, but instead a Death Star 2, which is legally distinct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Except it is made explicitly clear that it is not a Death Star. Do I need to post the actual clip where this is established? Please for the love of god do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Serf posted:Please for the love of god do. I'm at work at the moment; but I will attempt to do so this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 15:19 |
|
|
The Ion Cannon on Hoth is also a death star
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2016 15:04
|
|