|
How would blowing up Pluto rank?
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
sassassin posted:How would blowing up Pluto rank? ...the uninhabited planet?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:...the uninhabited planet? Pluto's not a planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
You justify the destruction of the Death Star using the same logic Obi-Wan uses for the destruction of Darth Vader: they are unnatural entities, 'more machine than man', acceptable targets less worthy of life (see also: droids). But as Luke says, there is still good in him/it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Pluto's not a planet. I am defeated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
sassassin posted:You justify the destruction of the Death Star using the same logic Obi-Wan uses for the destruction of Darth Vader: they are unnatural entities, 'more machine than man'. Sure, but should there be no strike back against the Death Star, which just destroyed an entire planet? I didn't say destroying the Death Star was fine because it was unnatural, or a machine. I said it was a military installation, a non-civilian target. And I also said it was bad to do so, but no where near the same level as the destruction of an entire planet. Again, it's the equivalent of nuking the entire state of Washington to keep the other 49 states in line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:Sure, but should there be no strike back against the Death Star, which just destroyed an entire planet? And killing Darth Vader is fine because he's equipment staffed by a guy who's military and therefore asking for it. In Star Wars planets are often largely uninhabited (Hoth, Tattooine), space stations can be mistaken for moons, and everyone got confused over what the forest moon of Endor was to begin with. In the last one a planet literally is a super weapon. To draw a line between Alderaan and the Death Star and saying 'there's no comparison' is ignoring, like, 80% of Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:28
|
|
|
sassassin posted:And killing Darth Vader is fine because he's equipment staffed by a guy who's military and therefore asking for it. Killing Darth Vader at pretty much any time during the series would have been morally justified. "There was still good in him," sure. But he was a brutal enforcer of a dictator. The distinction between planet and military space station is pretty easy to make, especially when the latter was also the weapon itself. It's a state vs. a military base.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Two opposing viewpoints here, one looking at the movies as if they were real life, and the other looking at them as if they are art. It's important to understand both of these perspectives. I have my own biases, as well as others, but I always try to be able to look through the lenses of people I disagree with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:41
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Two opposing viewpoints here, one looking at the movies as if they were real life, and the other looking at them as if they are art. It's important to understand both of these perspectives. I have my own biases, as well as others, but I always try to be able to look through the lenses of people I disagree with. Yeah, you are right, I'm talking the literal text of the movie, focusing on the plot. It's a problem I have a lot in this thread, not seeing the forest for the trees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:I'm talking the literal text of the movie, focusing on the plot. These are two different things, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:The distinction between planet and military space station is pretty easy to make, especially when the latter was also the weapon itself. It's a state vs. a military base. It's easy to make an arbitrary distinction that is considered not so straightforward in the "literal text", yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Rogue One's original scripted ending pre-filming per Gary Whitta: http://ew.com/movies/2017/03/20/rogue-one-alternate-ending-revealed/ This was the first draft ending, and not the pre-reshoot ending, which condensed the data vault and separate transmission tower into the same building.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Vader says he wants to "end this divisive conflict" in literally the best known scene in the entire series. He doesn't say "divisive."
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Zeris posted:It's impressive how closely that guard's head dress resembles the royal guard helmet thing. The Imperial Guards are the coolest because it looks like they can't turn their heads and only complete badasses would choose to do a job like "guarding the Emperor of the galaxy" and be like, nah I don't think I'll ever need to scan the horizon or anything. I was always disappointed that we never got to see one in action (besides fighting them in the SNES Super Star Wars game).
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Rough Lobster posted:The Imperial Guards are the coolest because it looks like they can't turn their heads and only complete badasses would choose to do a job like "guarding the Emperor of the galaxy" and be like, nah I don't think I'll ever need to scan the horizon or anything. Also people mocked Donnie Yen's character after the Rogue One trailer dropped but note how the most badass bodyguards in the galaxy also are only armed with sticks. In the canon it's a similar deal also, they're like glorified stun baton type things but the guards can kinda sorta use the force enough that when they use them it's versatile and really strong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Or they just have blaster carbines hidden under those flowing robes. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Timby posted:He doesn't say "divisive." Oh right he says "...(???)"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Isn't it "destructive conflict"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Oh right he says "...(???)" destructive. edit: goddamn beaten by jivjov.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:destructive. Well you know what they say. No shame in being beaten by the best.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Awww shucks guys
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
I can't believe people are defending the Galactic "literally built a warcrimes machine" Empire. The point of the Old Republic in the prequels was that it had lost sight of its ideals and that this allowed it to be destroyed from within. Not that its ideals themselves were bad or flawed. The Empire by contrast has "being evil" as its core philosophy and the movies are very blunt about this. The heroes of the original trilogy are trying not to resurrect the Republic as it was when it died, but instead bring back the ideals and actions that made it such a good thing that the Sith had to spend generations corrupting it before it was sick and decadent enough that they could destroy it. We even see in the prequel trilogy that the future founders and leaders of the Rebellion such as Mon Mothma, Bail Organa, (and in spirit) Padme, were already fomenting resistance to the corruption that found its ultimate expression in Palpatine and meant to show that the Republic still had good people in positions of power that could have potentially turned things around had there not been magical space wizards and ancient prophecies running around. The Rebellion vs Empire conflict can in this light be seen as the final ultimate "taking sides" of these corrupting, decadent, and selfish parts of the Old Republic coalescing as the Empire, while its founding ideals and purpose joining together as the Rebellion. The Force Awakens deciding that no, everything remains crappy forever, says a lot about both the massive cultural cynicism of the modern age, and the commercial need to keep all stories in a never changing status quo so the merchandise is always recognizable. Also I enjoy the Space Wizards and the Pew-Pew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
If u think ppl r doing "defenses" of stuff like that then u don't understand their point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:I can't believe people are defending the Galactic "literally built a warcrimes machine" Empire. The point of the Old Republic in the prequels was that it had lost sight of its ideals and that this allowed it to be destroyed from within. Not that its ideals themselves were bad or flawed. The Empire by contrast has "being evil" as its core philosophy and the movies are very blunt about this. The heroes of the original trilogy are trying not to resurrect the Republic as it was when it died, but instead bring back the ideals and actions that made it such a good thing that the Sith had to spend generations corrupting it before it was sick and decadent enough that they could destroy it. The Rebels are literally terrorists. The Sith Lords are the ones who want peace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Alderaan was asking for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Darth Vader did not come to bring peace, but the Lightsaber. He will set Father against Son, and Brother against Sister.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
UmOk posted:The Rebels are literally terrorists. "Peace" through the death of all who oppose them. We're not unaware observers. We know their motives. We know the Sith are doing to this for revenge, and for "unlimited power", which their leader screams while shooting lightning out of his finger tips. And, you know, the whole Death Star thing. Pretty much any definition of "terrorist" includes using violence to incite terror or fear. And, again, we know who does this. The Empire flat out says this is their goal with the Death Star. "Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
thrawn527 posted:"Peace" through the death of all who oppose them. We're not unaware observers. We know their motives. We know the Sith are doing to this for revenge, and for "unlimited power", which their leader screams while shooting lightning out of his finger tips. And, you know, the whole Death Star thing. No. In a private conversation between Siths one of them confesses that now that the Sith rule they will have peace. The Republic used fear but it wasn't enough to keep the local systems in line. So they decided to have a war across an entire galaxy. Fought by slaves. The Empire/Sith and the Republic/Jedi are the same.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
UmOk posted:No. In a private conversation between Siths one of them confesses that now that the Sith rule they will have peace. In a private conversation between two Sith they also say they will have their revenge. Revealing their true purpose. And you didn't respond to a single thing I pointed out. (Beyond simply saying "No".) The Empire's goal is to rule through fear. Show me where the Republic ruled through the same of level fear as the Death Star. And, again, the peace they want is through the death of all who oppose them. Peace is pretty easy when you've killed everyone who disagrees with you. As for my question to you, yes, they created the Clone Wars, but that was a direct machination of Palpatine, who was creating his Empire. So the worst you can say is that it was susceptible to take over by evil forces. But the Empire is the evil force. It's led by a literal dark wizard. The films say the Republic is bloated, ineffectual, and useless. The films say the Empire is evil. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
It's really interesting to see linguistic evolution in a real world context like this with "Terrorism". No one would ever have called the Rebellion terrorists before 2001. It was always freedom fighters, rebels, etc. At worst you got the movie Clerks sarcastically calling them "Left-Wing Militants". Yet Post-9/11 no one is allowed to resist with violence of any kind without someone saying "But thats terrorism!" because the fear of Saddam-bin-Laden of Middle-Eastistan has gripped the West like a vice. What is the Rebellion supposed to do? peacefully petition the fascist regime that preemptively blows up planets that maybe one day might revolt against them? The point of the Death Star (besides being a cool enemy super-weapon to drive the urgency of the plot) is to show the audience that the Empire has no interest in listening to the peoples grievences or establishing dialogues. They just want to kill some people to scare the others into never lifting their voices against their own enslavement. The Rebellion actually shows remarkable tact and restraint in what we see. Every target that we ever see them attack is a valid military one, and they maintain an organized chain of command and clear spheres of responsibility. The Empire meanwhile we see repeatedly attack non-hostile civilian populations, and when we see how it is run in IV, V, and Rogue One, that it is a collection of squabbling cliques who's members consider their own stations more important than all other concerns. Plus they dress like Nazis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:It's really interesting to see linguistic evolution in a real world context like this with "Terrorism". No one would ever have called the Rebellion terrorists before 2001. It was always freedom fighters, rebels, etc. At worst you got the movie Clerks sarcastically calling them "Left-Wing Militants". Yet Post-9/11 no one is allowed to resist with violence of any kind without someone saying "But thats terrorism!" because the fear of Saddam-bin-Laden of Middle-Eastistan has gripped the West like a vice. False. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."—Gerald Seymour, Harry's Game, 1975, in reference to the IRA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
We're talking about common colloquial usage though. Sure the words terrorist and terrorism existed before 9/11, but they never held the kind of all encompassing "everything must be compared to it" nature the word has now. The word has become so broad as to become not just useless, but downright harmful to rational debate. edit: to be fair I'm mostly discussing American usage, for all I know Ireland has a much different history with the word. galagazombie fucked around with this message at 04:07 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
galagazombie posted:We're talking about common colloquial usage though. Sure the words terrorist and terrorism existed before 9/11, but they never held the kind of all encompassing "everything must be compared to it" nature the word has now. The word has become so broad as to become not just useless, but downright harmful to rational debate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 04:24
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:Yeah I was going to say maybe you are speaking for America. And even then, surely it's pretty localized to lovely network television. I would be very surprised if the Rebellion wasn't debated to be terrorists in some early 90s stoner flat. Unfortunately for us lovely network television is how most people get their understanding of the world.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
UmOk posted:The Sith Lords are the ones who want peace. They follow in the footsteps of the Humongous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
They're guerrillas rather than terrorists, I would say. The terms describe tactics. Whom are the rebels trying to terrorize? They are only ever seen attacking military targets. I guess things get a bit more ambiguous in Rebels and Rogue One.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
I'm kind of shocked that people in this thread aren't aware of this early Onion classic: http://www.theonion.com/article/death-star-to-open-day-care-center-19913 For context, it parodies Timothy McVeigh's comparison of his bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma to the destruction of the Death Star.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 07:04 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:They're guerrillas rather than terrorists, I would say. The terms describe tactics. Whom are the rebels trying to terrorize? They are only ever seen attacking military targets. "Terrorist" always has been a political term used to delegitimize violent resistance, irrespective of the actual tactics used.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 07:22
|
|