|
Lampsacus posted:All in a row and sync up the viewing time so as soon as E7 ends on my phone+earphones I'll look up from my cinema seat to see ...I kinda want someone to try that.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:I misread this and thought you meant sync them up to watch all eight simultaneously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHRsYiPVbE8
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
No one answered my question earlier. Is Luke the only character to call droids robots?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
UmOk posted:I was watching A New Hope the other day and started wondering if Luke is the only character who refers to droids as robots. And if robot is a slur. If robot was a slur, Han Solo would have used it constantly, like "I'm not gonna have some goddam robot tell me how to fix my ship", or "this was a nice neighborhood when I was a kid, now it's just a bunch of loving robots"
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I remember Chefelf sort of being a definitive figure in prequel criticism in the early 2000s, he came up with these bulleted lists of like 90 complaints about each prequel, covered a lot of the same ground RLM did later on Yeah, most of them are really loving stupid, too. Like getting angry that the Clone fighter planes in Ep3 having 6 wings vs the X-Wings having 4 is a plot hole, since having more wings means they're more advanced, yet they're from an earlier time period, or some poo poo. Also, holy loving poo poo, that Maddox article. He's gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Yeah, most of them are really loving stupid, too. Like getting angry that the Clone fighter planes in Ep3 having 6 wings vs the X-Wings having 4 is a plot hole, since having more wings means they're more advanced, yet they're from an earlier time period, or some poo poo. To be fair, it's not wrong to criticize the visual derivativeness of the Prequels from the Original Trilogy applied haphazardly without rhyme or reason. When the "lock S-foils in attack position" moment happens in A New Hope, it's a very visually distinct moment with this just beautiful mechanical screech in a scene that is ramping up the tension to 11, as our ragtag heroes go up against a massive death-pissing testicle. The Arc fighter... doesn't make any sense. It has little wings that jut out from the main wings, but they don't serve any identifiable purpose. Compared to the X-Wing, where Red Leader clearly says "lock S-foils in attack position," so it's inferred that the wings lock together for hyperspace travel and to go faster (bonus points: Han earlier mentions the possibility of hitting debris in hyperspace, so this makes sense within the pre-established logic of the universe) the Arc fighter's purpose for it's extendable tiny wings is... found on Wookiepedia, where they "opened to expose heat sinks and radiators to help cool the ship." This mechanic is never shown or explained in the entirely of the Prequels Universe. It's a visual design that serves no thematic or logical purpose. However, we have to tie the Prequels to the Original Trilogy, so the films recklessly lift design elements from it's predecessors without actually illustrating anything of interest in the universe of the Prequel Trilogy. For gently caress's sake, the Republic actually has it's own "Star Destroyers." Now why would the Republic, a beacon for peace and democracy in the galaxy, and something we want our heroes to actually protect, have a warship called a "Star Destroyer." You know, the iconic ship from the opening shot of A New Hope that is big, bulky, and establishes the power relations of the universe in the opening moments of Star Wars? There's an evil empire with massive warships they call Star Destroyers. So of course, the peaceful Republic safeguarded by the Jedi, would have... Peacemakers? Guardian Spears? Arrowtips? A big, beautiful vessel inspired by Victorian era ships of the lines, that implies the elegance and wonder of the Republic as a galactic mostly utopian idea, that must be defended from the evil invaders (who are secretly manipulated by a power hungry dark lord who wishes to rule over it all for himself) with the unfortunate use of lethal force as a last resort? No, no. There was a Star Destroyer in the Original Trilogy, so we have to have Star Destroyers in the Prequel Trilogy so the "continuity" makes sense, but not in a thematic or emotionally relevant fashion. Oh, and I know someone is going to point out how actually this is a subtle point that perhaps the Republic isn't very good and largely hypocritical but then who caaaaaarrrreeess if this falsely superior Republic falls into the hands of an evil Emperor. Just because something is supposedly intentional doesn't actually make it brilliant or valuable, especially if you have to write your own subtext to justify what isn't actually shown in the film within the rules of cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Good post apart fromTaintrunner posted:Oh, and I know someone is going to point out how actually this is a subtle point that perhaps the Republic isn't very good and largely hypocritical but then who caaaaaarrrreeess if this falsely superior Republic falls into the hands of an evil Emperor. Just because something is supposedly intentional doesn't actually make it brilliant or valuable, especially if you have to write your own subtext to justify what isn't actually shown in the film within the rules of cinema.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:This isn't actually a subtle point. Its really overt. The Republic was always the Empire. Just look at the way they negotiate their trade deals. There is a subtle subtext written into those giants ships in the opening battle of E3. It's that you need to match covfefe Then who cares? Why am I even watching this movie? Why am I invested in anything and why do I care about the characters who are fighting for something that is actually the Empire? You're arguing for the films being actually unwatchable as a subtle political commentary on American imperialism in what is a space fantasy. Wizards and knights with laser swords and poo poo. It's a very simple setting so we can focus on the character drama and the characters are brutally unlikeable. I mean, this is probably a trollpost and I just took the bait, but this is the Star Wars thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer A starship that is a destroyer
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Jumped to a random point, got Anakin and Shmi sharing a touching goodbye while Luke, Han, and Leia try to shoot them with lasers. Works for me.Taintrunner posted:For gently caress's sake, the Republic actually has it's own "Star Destroyers." Now why would the Republic, a beacon for peace and democracy in the galaxy, and something we want our heroes to actually protect, have a warship called a "Star Destroyer."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Then who cares? Why am I even watching this movie? Why am I invested in anything and why do I care about the characters who are fighting for something that is actually the Empire? You're arguing for the films being actually unwatchable as a subtle political commentary on American imperialism in what is a space fantasy. Wizards and knights with laser swords and poo poo. It's a very simple setting so we can focus on the character drama and the characters are brutally unlikeable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Much of the prequel-era technology is more magnificent and slick than the brutal, utilitarian Imperial designs. But it's also noticeably clumsier. You've got the two Jedi starfighters that need external hyperspace rings; the later iteration seen in ROTS even includes piddly little TIE wings. For the ARC-170 that you brought up, Oddball does actually say the exact same line about locking S-foils in attack position, so you can draw the same inferences as with the original X-wing scene—but these S-foils visibly don't do as much, because they don't spread apart the ship's guns, and they make the craft look more ungainly. The ship has soft, smooth curves, unlike the boxier X-wing, but it functions worse. There's other military hardware showing similar progression, like the AT-TEs and the open-air walkers seen in ROTS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Hmm, why indeed. 🤔 Why does the Republic, a beacon for peace and democracy, need to destroy stars? Not that the original Star Destroyer actually does this, but it's implied. Because they're the Empire. They're comically evil and make it painstakingly obvious in every single aspect of their presence in the films. Only a loving Republican would come away with a positive reading of them. Assuming the fanwritten subtext of the Prequels is actually true and it's all a subtle political commentary on American imperialism, the film is actually unwatchable. The power relations make it so the viewer has no emotional attachment to any actual element in the film. Oh, a secret evil space wizard has been plotting for decades to seize control of the Republic, but who cares, since they're nearly as bad as the Evil Empire he wishes to install. Thus, our protagonists aren't actually fighting for... anything. At all. Hell, decades later, Obi-Wan doesn't mention this at all. quote:For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times, before the Empire. In a space fantasy film, we learn there was a glorious time in the galaxy as peace and justice were in place and defended by Jedi Knights. Hence, Luke going with Obi-Wan to Alderaan to bring the Death Star plans to the Rebellion to help them defeat the Empire will help restore that peace and justice. We're shown that our protagonists are fighting for something right, and just. Insisting, "no actually the Republic was evil all along" handwaves the entire emotional motivation for the central conflict of the Original Trilogy away for hamfisted, poorly subtexted political commentary that could have been told in an actually compelling series of films. It feels like you're reaching for a story that HBO's Rome told, with far better nuance and detail. Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo manage to in some ways tell the story you're implying the Prequels tell. Lampsacus posted:Only the last bit was a trollpost but. Yeah, you can still enjoy fighting the empire while acknowledging that the republic was always the empire? Like, surely the fact the central 'good' faction of the series is a band of rogue underdog rebels should give away we're not exactly pining for the restoration of the republic here. Even if that is their 'goal' its obvious they are really for fighting something better. The whole quandary of logistics in TFA also gives this away. ...No? Because they want to otherthrow the Empire and establish a new Republic? As TFA clearly shows, even though it's immediately wiped out and this is only confirmed via some Lucasfilm rando on Twitter months later? Also TFA is terrible in this regard in how a remnant faction of the Empire is somehow able to make weapons and ships bigger and dumber than what the Empire had, even though they're essentially a terrorist group? It's not as if there's material in the EU with relevant opponents for the Republic (slash Resistance because sure, that makes sense) like Admiral Thrawn (an alien tactical mastermind that has risen to Grand Admiral rank within a racist military empire) or the TIE Interceptor pirates in Lando's Commandos as told in Star Wars Tales, to naturally oppose the goals of a newly established Republic trying to establish a new order of peace and justice throughout the galaxy. Instead, because Disney is afraid of doing anything new with a beloved franchise they want to make billions from, instead mine the Original Trilogy both thematically and visually. They even have a lovely B-Wing and bigger, dumber AT-ST in The Last Jedi! Now you're arguing that the Republic is just as bad as an Evil Empire, so actually, I should be cheering when it's brutally destroyed in Force Awakens, with a loving closeup on two new Canon Expanded Universe characters. Taintrunner fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Its called a destroyer because that's what the boats are named. There are frigates and corvettes and cruisers too
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
El Burbo posted:Its called a destroyer because that's what the boats are named. There are frigates and corvettes and cruisers too The Death Star is an artificial moon, not an actual star. You don't have to do this! Regardless, this is a forest-for-the-trees argument avoiding the larger point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
The story has always been that the Republic rotted from the inside to become the Empire. Like, the basic plot of the prequels was spelled out before the first movie even came out (specifically, in the prologue to the novelization). Palpatine was modeled off, among others, Richard Nixon - the idea of a Republic falling internally to its own corruption was pretty much current events as Lucas was writing Star Wars. This isn't some sort of reading grafted on later, it's literally the basis of the entire saga. It sounds like your problem with it isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that you're uncomfortable with the implications. Which sounds like the movie is doing its job to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Thanks to the Wonder Woman thread, I'm listening to Dan Carlin's excellent podcast series on WW1, appropriately called 'Blueprint for Armageddon' (if you have a few days free, do listen to it) and the podcast draws attention to just how astonishing a thing Germany's WW1 army was, in terms of logistics, training and organisation. The interesting thing, though, is that there's a couple of things that I assumed the Nazis came up with, that they simply co-opted from the older German/Prussian military traditions. The Death's Head, for instance, was a regiment of Hussars long before it was another name for the SS. It kind of reminds of this. Also, hate to nerd out, but the Republic ships aren't called Star Destroyers. The ones you're most likely thinking of are 'Acclamator class Assault ships'
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:It sounds like your problem with it isn't that it doesn't make sense, but that you're uncomfortable with the implications. Which sounds like the movie is doing its job to me. See! This right here is my problem. It's the smug self-satisfaction that your supposed reading of the film (which is actually closer to fanfiction) makes you smarter than me and the film is actually "doing it's job" by somehow slowly convincing a hardcore anti-militarist leftist who despises liberals like the Obama Administration for idiotic, senseless drone assassinations across multiple nations and the bootlickers that justify poo poo like that and selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb kids in Yemen. The film doesn't need to "do it's job." It's bad at the thing you're arguing it's supposedly doing. It's a space fantasy series of films with wizards, knights, laser swords, and lightning that horribly hosed up everything after the initial three films because extended franchises with extra material crammed into them over the course of decades are actually a terrible ideal when done with a straight face and not serving the purpose of complete schlock. Snowman_McK posted:Thanks to the Wonder Woman thread, I'm listening to Dan Carlin's excellent podcast series on WW1, appropriately called 'Blueprint for Armageddon' (if you have a few days free, do listen to it) and the podcast draws attention to just how astonishing a thing Germany's WW1 army was, in terms of logistics, training and organisation. The interesting thing, though, is that there's a couple of things that I assumed the Nazis came up with, that they simply co-opted from the older German/Prussian military traditions. The Death's Head, for instance, was a regiment of Hussars long before it was another name for the SS. It kind of reminds of this. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Venator-class_Star_Destroyer You're half right but the Republic still wants to destroy stars because... that dril tweet about two opposite things both being bad goes here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:See! This right here is my problem. It's the smug self-satisfaction that your supposed reading of the film (which is actually closer to fanfiction) makes you smarter than me and the film is actually "doing it's job" by somehow slowly convincing a hardcore anti-militarist leftist who despises liberals like the Obama Administration for idiotic, senseless drone assassinations across multiple nations and the bootlickers that justify poo poo like that and selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb kids in Yemen. The film doesn't need to "do it's job." It's bad at the thing you're arguing it's supposedly doing. It's a space fantasy series of films with wizards, knights, laser swords, and lightning that horribly hosed up everything after the initial three films because extended franchises with extra material crammed into them over the course of decades are actually a terrible ideal when done with a straight face and not serving the purpose of complete schlock. It might be closer to say that the Empire is implicit in the Republic. If it weren't, one could not have become the other. Palpatine draws out the oppression that is already lurking under the surface and makes it explicit, much as Trump (less competently) draws out the racism and imperialism of America and makes it... uh, real dumb. Trump isn't exactly Darth Sidious, but do you see what I'm getting at here? e: unless... my god. Darth Covfefe...!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:Jumped to a random point, got Anakin and Shmi sharing a touching goodbye while Luke, Han, and Leia try to shoot them with lasers. Works for me. I got Shmi force lighting a bunch of storm troopers
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Taintrunner, do you believe that for a tragic story to be effective, the protagonists must be unambiguously good, or that they must at least be correct that the thing they're fighting for is good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Taintrunning just isn't as entertaining as Taint Reaping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:See! This right here is my problem. It's the smug self-satisfaction that your supposed reading of the film (which is actually closer to fanfiction) makes you smarter than me and the film is actually "doing it's job" by somehow slowly convincing a hardcore anti-militarist leftist who despises liberals like the Obama Administration for idiotic, senseless drone assassinations across multiple nations and the bootlickers that justify poo poo like that and selling arms to Saudi Arabia so they can bomb kids in Yemen. The film doesn't need to "do it's job." It's bad at the thing you're arguing it's supposedly doing. It's a space fantasy series of films with wizards, knights, laser swords, and lightning that horribly hosed up everything after the initial three films because extended franchises with extra material crammed into them over the course of decades are actually a terrible ideal when done with a straight face and not serving the purpose of complete schlock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Star Destroyers are Destroyers that travel the Stars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 10:35
|
|
|
The Death Star is a Star that delivers Death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 10:36
|
|
|
The podracer is a pod now that's racing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
I like the implicit assumption that stories set in the contemporary United States are inherently worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
A lightsaber is a sword that's a laser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:Then who cares? Why am I even watching this movie? Why am I invested in anything and why do I care about the characters who are fighting for something that is actually the Empire? You're arguing for the films being actually unwatchable as a subtle political commentary on American imperialism in what is a space fantasy. Yes, why should we ever be able to analyse a film as well as enjoy it on a character and plot based level? How could one possibly look at something in two separate ways and derive enjoyment from both of them?   Because these films aren't political at all. Nope. No political message whatsoever. None.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:I am very upset that I just read this: UmOk posted:Dude just turn your brain off and have fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
You'll notice this first appears in the movie where the Republic becomes the Empire. In fact, as the PT progresses, there's a steady move towards more Imperial-like designs. TPM has very few; in fact, the first Republic ship we see is more reminiscent of the Rebel Corellian corvette: By the end of AOTC, proto-stormtroopers are boarding proto-Star Destroyers:  By ROTS, we have straight up Star Destroyers and the clone troopers are looking even more stormtrooper-like:  And sure enough, by the end of ROTS we have an Empire instead of a Republic. The point isn't "the Republic is exactly as evil as the Empire". It's that the evil of the Empire was born in the Republic, and the corruption and complacency of the latter allowed the Empire to be formed. Palpatine doesn't conquer the Republic, they voluntarily hand over power to him. The tragedy of the Jedi is, I think, the same point you're having trouble with - the Republic, by the end of the PT, isn't worthy of them. They feel they have to defend it because it's what they know and what they think is the only hope for keeping peace in the galaxy, and in the end, it fails them. Before even Order 66, before it explicitly turns against them, it ceases to be something worth preserving in its current form. Since this is a movie series that relies a lot on visual storytelling, this is expressed as the Republic donning more and more elements that we've learned to identify as Imperial, including Star Destroyers. If the Jedi flying TIE fighters out of Star Destroyers to fight alongside stormtroopers in ROTS seems weird, that's how it should be. The lesson of Star Wars isn't that democracy isn't worth having, but that it takes work, that its principles need to be defended as much or more than its security. The only thing needed for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, that sort of thing. The Jedi are in general good people, defending a system they believe to be good. Where that setup fails is the point of the PT.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
The line "I am your father" kinda sums up the Republic -> Empire thing too. Just like how the audience discovers that Luke is Vader's son, we discover that the Empire was spawned from the Republic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
There's no "reading" even necessary for this stuff, it's like THE point of the entire trilogy. I mean, if we're not watching the Republic rot from the inside out then what's the point of all those Senate scenes? Or ten other things I could name that make no sense other than to show that the Republic is not functioning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:The point isn't "the Republic is exactly as evil as the Empire". It's that the evil of the Empire was born in the Republic, and the corruption and complacency of the latter allowed the Empire to be formed. Palpatine doesn't conquer the Republic, they voluntarily hand over power to him. By analogy, see: the French revolution leading to the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, the Russian revolution leading to Stalin, Rome in the transition from the Republic to the Empire under the Caesars... The point wasn't "Ha ha! Now we'll create an evil government that will terrorize the people!" But what happened...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:There's no "reading" even necessary for this stuff, it's like THE point of the entire trilogy. I mean, if we're not watching the Republic rot from the inside out then what's the point of all those Senate scenes? Or ten other things I could name that make no sense other than to show that the Republic is not functioning. I mean, Vader is the one who's more machine than man, so why does Anakin have a robotic limb in AOTC? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:The podracer is a pod now that's racing. Podracing is real, and powerful. https://zippy.gfycat.com/SeveralQuerulousGnat.webm
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:35
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:You'll notice this first appears in the movie where the Republic becomes the Empire. In fact, as the PT progresses, there's a steady move towards more Imperial-like designs. TPM has very few; in fact, the first Republic ship we see is more reminiscent of the Rebel Corellian corvette: It works the other way around, too. You have the bad guys in the first film starting off with a very obvious Empire-like aesthetic:  But then by the third film the lines between "good" and "bad" have been blurred so much that the bad guys from the first film are slowly starting to adopt the aesthetic of the heroic Rebels:   And meanwhile the Republic is deploying proto-X-wings piloted by proto-stormtroopers into battle alongside proto-TIE fighters piloted by Jedi, all of them launched from the hangars of massive "Jedi cruisers" that are clearly just Star Destroyers with some red paint on them. Everything's intentionally all mixed up and confused. "There are heroes on both sides."
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
Who is heroic on the Separatist side? And don't say General Wheezius.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Toph Bei Fong posted:By analogy, see: the French revolution leading to the Reign of Terror and Napoleon, the Russian revolution leading to Stalin, Rome in the transition from the Republic to the Empire under the Caesars... Napoleon and Caesar are bad examples as they were better than anything that came before and what came before was not liberal democracy. Hitler and Mussolini are probably better examples and the other fascist dictators of the 20th century. Pinochet, Franco.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 17:47 |
|
|
FuturePastNow posted:Who is heroic on the Separatist side? Droid 45-82.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 16:53
|
|