|
Taintrunner posted:
they dont care about me so gently caress 'em in the eye!
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
I said the speakeasy bit mostly because 2 guys get murked in the 4 minutes Luke is there and nobody cares, also it seemed to be entirely peopled with criminals. I bet to Obi-Wan, Dex's place was unique and had a super fresh space style.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:My objection is in the execution of that undisguised diner. I don't have a need for the references to be hidden or disguised from me; When I'm not jumping on OTHER Retro 50's references like the sleek naboo ships it's fair to say I'm not slamming a reference for "not concealing itself". I jumped into this because I'm sick of seeing arguments that boil down to "it's a reference so it's fine" and "there is an entirely different scene in a different movie, therefore this scene is good." I mean you have Cnut below you insisting it's "perfect" because it's "exactly what you expect" (it isn't). Say you're George Lucas. You want to send Obi-Wan to a cheap neighborhood diner. This diner is located on Coruscant. Given the aesthetic logic of Coruscant, what does this diner look like? That's what makes it so funny. The joke is that it isn't even a joke because "literally a 1950's Googie-style diner" is the only way to go. How are you going to go about making a diner that looks like a diner, and also follows a retro-futuristic aesthetic, and not have it look exactly like one of those diners from the 1950's? And again, this isn't some sort of appeal to practicality intended to excuse a lack of creativity. It’s exactly why the concept is so charming in the first place. That's what Coruscant is. It's the future as it was imagined in the early-to-mid twentieth century. And the whole conceit of those iconic diners from Lucas's youth was that they were themselves visions of that future. The look of the Outlander Club from earlier in the movie is based on the same design aesthetic, but most people don’t even think twice about it because the futurism fad of the 1950’s-60’s didn’t extend far enough to leave a lasting cultural impression of ubiquitous Space Age bars.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
 #SKWAD
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Dang, Bossk has some long forearms
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I think it's awesome that both thematically and canonically, this would be a completely in character thing for Luke to say at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
El Burbo posted:Dang, Bossk has some long forearms It's also quite obvious that the actor can't actually hold anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Not even a ukulele?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
sassassin posted:By the time they crash on Dooku's ship you learn everything you needed to know from the previous two movies about Obi Wan and Anakin and their relationship.  IMO this is one of the greatest moments in Star Wars ever. It's a breathtakingly epic reveal, and it's the perfect pure visual depiction of two incomparable friends, fearless of the consequences, their bond unbreakable, diving down together into a pit of almost certain death--and doing it with a flourish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Taintrunner posted:
What's with all these "___ Explained" channels that keep popping up? I've never actually watched any of them, but as far as I can tell it's mostly just reading off of fan wikis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
You have a very effete way of writing. It's kinda creepy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
Plus they're spinning -- that's a good trick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
This is purely a subjective thing so I'm not going to argue that you feel that way, but these kinds of statements shock me because at no point in this sequence would I say these characters feel they are threatened by this "pit of death". There are individual enemies who rise up to challenge them, but the actual battle might as well be an videogame background since all the buzzing ships and flying missiles are of no threat unless they are introduced as minibosses. Of course, people will probably respond with "and that's why it's awesome!" and you're more than welcome to think that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:What's with all these "___ Explained" channels that keep popping up? I've never actually watched any of them, but as far as I can tell it's mostly just reading off of fan wikis. It's a product of nerdism (the ideology) going mainstream. You can get a dose of info or analysis about some fictional universe as though it were real news and come away feeling like you learned something important about the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:This is purely a subjective thing so I'm not going to argue that you feel that way, but these kinds of statements shock me because at no point in this sequence would I say these characters feel they are threatened by this "pit of death". There are individual enemies who rise up to challenge them, but the actual battle might as well be an videogame background since all the buzzing ships and flying missiles are of no threat unless they are introduced as minibosses. You oddly perceive that gif as a bunch of platforms for Mario to jump on, and not surreal 'war in heaven' imagery, with glittering C-Beams and so-on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You oddly perceive that gif as a bunch of platforms for Mario to jump on, and not surreal 'war in heaven' imagery, with glittering C-Beams and so-on. I watched the entire scene since the original gif wasn't doing anything for me and I wanted to make sure I wasn't shortchanging it, because I was interested in discussing it and not dropping a sick own.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:This is purely a subjective thing so I'm not going to argue that you feel that way, but these kinds of statements shock me because at no point in this sequence would I say these characters feel they are threatened by this "pit of death". There are individual enemies who rise up to challenge them, but the actual battle might as well be an videogame background since all the buzzing ships and flying missiles are of no threat unless they are introduced as minibosses. He didn't say they felt threatened. In fact he specifically said "fearless of the consequences." Even when they get to Grievous's ship, Obi-Wan grins mischievously as he says their next step is to spring the trap. That's who these two are. Winifred Madgers fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I watched the entire scene since the original gif wasn't doing anything for me and I wanted to make sure I wasn't shortchanging it, because I was interested in discussing it and not dropping a sick own. Your assumption seems to be that in order for "pit of death" to be meaningful, the thing being depicted must be menacing to our protagonists. This would render all depictions of the Harrowing of Hell in Christian art meaningless, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:He didn't say they felt threatened. Even when they get to Grievous's ship, Obi-Wan grins mischievously as he says their next step is to spring the trap. That's who these two are. I'd argue that "fearless of the consequences" and "plunging into a pit of certain death" aren't apt descriptors if the characters are sure there will not be any consequences and death is the opposite of certain. If you like them as glib adventurers that's totally fine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Your assumption seems to be that in order for "pit of death" to be meaningful, the thing being depicted must be menacing to our protagonists. This would render all depictions of the Harrowing of Hell in Christian art meaningless, for one thing. For me to perceive a character as diving into a pit of certain death, there has to be some threat of certain death. I did not say it was meaningless. Again it's totally fine if you enjoy the scene of Obi-Wan and Anakin easily navigating a battlefield.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I'd argue that "fearless of the consequences" and "plunging into a pit of certain death" aren't apt descriptors if the characters are sure there will not be any consequences and death is the opposite of certain. If you like them as glib adventurers that's totally fine. It would be certain death for almost anyone else, which is what I took him to mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:For me to perceive a character as diving into a pit of certain death, there has to be some threat of certain death. I did not say it was meaningless. Again it's totally fine if you enjoy the scene of Obi-Wan and Anakin easily navigating a battlefield. I don't understand this post except as a way to backhandedly say that the scene is bad without committing yourself to saying it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:I don't understand this post except as a way to backhandedly say that the scene is bad without committing yourself to saying it's bad. Which part are you having trouble understanding? I am trying to explain why the scene does not resonate with me without saying the scene is bad because this thread doesn't like me to say a scene is bad. I will fully commit to saying the scene is bad if you'll agree not to jump on my post and complain that I used the word bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Which part are you having trouble understanding? I will fully commit to saying the scene is bad if you'll agree not to jump on my post and complain that I used the word bad. Ah, there we go. That explains everything. Some advice for you: people took exception to the relative lack of content in your posts, not the word "bad".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That fuzziness could very well be a choice. Her background has given her a tough mask, but it is just that. She wants to do good, but is held back by wondering what to do and who to sign on with. We see early on that her instinct is to save a child in the middle of a violent gunfight. It shines out to her as a clear moment. It's a key moment since, even in that gunfight, the different rebels can't get along. K-2S0 embodies this by having his opposition actually reprogrammed. The two guardians of the temple have no temple to protect. Galen Erso gave self-certainty to the defecting pilot but the others struggle with his uniform, his social identity. Jyn lost her parents but found a new identity (through a fake name) in her rebellion child soldier years. She was yet unable to reconcile with her father helping the enemy, and after Saw abandons her, she survives through cynicism. Jyn is able to resolve her self-identity through her father's message, goes on to inspire the Rogue One unit after the alliance abandons them. Once they assert these self-identities, they're able to infiltrate Scarif by freely assuming false identities of an imperial ship and soldiers. The actual battle itself (A battle they lose) is merely a distraction for the real victory, a revitalization of the rebellion through the true identity of the Death Star. Tender Bender posted:You seem to be under the impression that 'I' tried to conceal my criticism of the prequels (to what end?), but failed due to sleepiness. Multiple posters have expressed bewilderment towards your writing, including yourself (The "fatal mistake"). To reassert the stability of your position while avoiding writing more specifically, you chose to appeal to the truth of the amorphorous collective known as the "outside of this thread" through the "[universally] understood" "descriptors".
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Ah, there we go. That explains everything. Some advice for you: people took exception to the relative lack of content in your posts, not the word "bad". So which part of what I posted did you not understand?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:
Let's not pretend SMG is doing anything other than feigning ignorance to drop sick burns with posts like this: SuperMechagodzilla posted:You oddly perceive that gif as a bunch of platforms for Mario to jump on, and not surreal 'war in heaven' imagery, with glittering C-Beams and so-on. SuperMechagodzilla posted:You seem to be under the impression that 'they' tried to conceal the American Graffiti reference (to what end?), but failed due to sleepiness. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Yes; that is what it says in the post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:So which part of what I posted did you not understand? You wanted to communicate that you thought the scene was bad, but made a point of not actually saying "I thought it was bad." When you don't say what you mean, it is impossible for people to understand you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:You wanted to communicate that you thought the scene was bad, but made a point of not actually saying "I thought it was bad." Rather than use a vague descriptor, I explained why the scene failed to resonate with me, as this thread requested. That was exactly what I intended to communicate. Can you explain which part of my reaction to the scene you don't understand?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Rather than use a vague descriptor, I explained why the scene failed to resonate with me, as this thread requested. That was exactly what I intended to communicate. Can you explain which part of my reaction to the scene you don't understand? Actually, what you did was engage in a passive-aggressive reaction to what other people have said to you in this thread. Furthermore, your reaction to the scene was Tender Bender posted:This is purely a subjective thing so I'm not going to argue that you feel that way, but these kinds of statements shock me because at no point in this sequence would I say these characters feel they are threatened by this "pit of death". There are individual enemies who rise up to challenge them, but the actual battle might as well be an videogame background since all the buzzing ships and flying missiles are of no threat unless they are introduced as minibosses. Which does not explain why the scene fails to resonate with you. Do you find that only scenes in movies where the protagonists are in a "real" danger of dying are resonant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:Actually, what you did was engage in a passive-aggressive reaction to what other people have said to you in this thread. Furthermore, your reaction to the scene was That specific scene does not resonate with me in the manner Cnut described ("two incomparable friends, fearless of the consequences, their bond unbreakable, diving down together into a pit of almost certain death"). I understand that he feels that way. It does not resonate with me in that manner, because I do not feel they are under threat of death. Other, different scenes in other, different films do resonate with me, in many of those scenes the protagonists are not under threat of death. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
It's an odd shot to pick out and reading to make given that the movie going forward doesn't feature "two incomparable friends, fearless of the consequences, their bond unbreakable". They fear, they break, they're not even friends...
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:That specific scene does not resonate with me in the manner Cnut described ("two incomparable friends, fearless of the consequences, their bond unbreakable, diving down together into a pit of almost certain death"). I understand that he feels that way. It does not resonate with me in that manner, because I do not feel they are under threat of death. Other, different scenes in other, different films do resonate with me, in many of those scenes the protagonists are not under threat of death. But the scene as described does not require them to actually be under threat of death. In fact, if the point is to demonstrate their abilities, the fact that they are never in any real danger seems entirely relevant. Indeed, since this is the opening scene of the movie, establishing a baseline for our understanding of the characters, their relationship, and their abilities seems far more structurally useful than attempting to create false ambiguity about whether they'll survive or not. So what you're saying is that the scene does not conform to your predefined beliefs about what it should be, that it's "like a video game" or whatever. This is actually an extremely strange criticism to make, because video games do often create a sense of you being under threat of imminent death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
I'm glad that diner scene was brief at least. It's a bizare scene slapped rather haphazardly into the middle of fairly bleak movie. I don't know what Lucas was going for but it didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Let's not pretend SMG is doing anything other than feigning ignorance to drop sick burns with posts like this: Saying what we mean is far more difficult than it appears: Hegel argues it's impossible. If this was not the case, translating philosophy/literature would be perfunctory. SMG's writing style is unusually straightforward, to the point that you feel he's insincere. He prods for clarity due to the abstract layers of intersubjectivity inherent to communication. Of course you already feel that what you write makes perfect sense (This is the very nature of subjectivity), therefore he's intentionally misunderstanding you for "Sick burns." As acerbic as his "Sick burns" can be (This is a comedy forum after all), they are also attempts to cross this barrier, by rendering his interpretation of what your writing means (Because it's impossible to say what we mean).
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
I mean it when I say that I don't care what Hegel has to say. Take that, Hegel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
What's interesting about this is the idea that "cantina" is somehow less localized than "diner", and, for that matter, that chain sports bars are less localized than diners. It's one you see commonly in discourse about sci-fi online, but it's also bizarre because it demands that "real sci-fi" bury its relationship to the presumed audience of Middle Americans under layers of alienation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Pachakuti posted:But the scene as described does not require them to actually be under threat of death. In fact, if the point is to demonstrate their abilities, the fact that they are never in any real danger seems entirely relevant. Indeed, since this is the opening scene of the movie, establishing a baseline for our understanding of the characters, their relationship, and their abilities seems far more structurally useful than attempting to create false ambiguity about whether they'll survive or not. I think there is a difference between the audience being sure the characters won't die (attempting to challenge this would be the false ambiguity you refer to), and the characters themselves being sure they won't die, and the absence of the latter kept me from feeling the things that Cnut described in his post. I do not feel as if I'm watching two incomparable friends face certain death. I feel like I'm watching two people navigate the most epic battlefield of their lives, which is almost entirely unthreatening to them. It's not engaging for me to watch this unless I see impressive displays of skill which render the battlefield unthreatening to them, and I do not see this in the scene. Pachakuti posted:So what you're saying is that the scene does not conform to your predefined beliefs about what it should be, that it's "like a video game" or whatever. This is actually an extremely strange criticism to make, because video games do often create a sense of you being under threat of imminent death. In many games there will be a chaotic battle raging in the background to give you the feeling of being in a large conflict, but you know you only have to worry about the enemies that are within your field of play; everything else essentially doesn't exist. For example if a formation of missiles come flying at you you are able to fixate on those and maneuver around them without worrying that other ships or missiles or enemies or stray blasts of fire will take advantage of your maneuvering; things that may be a threat are clearly presented in the interests of fairness (there are games where this is untrue, even Star Wars games, but those are not what I am referring to here). Much like how Anakin and Obi-Wan are free to fixate on the exact enemy Droid or missile that challenges them at any given time, knowing that the rest of the battle is basically a colorful backdrop. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jun 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:38 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I think there is a difference between the audience being sure the characters won't die (attempting to challenge this would be the false ambiguity you refer to), and the characters themselves being sure they won't die, and the absence of the latter kept me from feeling the things that Cnut described in his post. I do not feel as if I'm watching two incomparable friends face certain death. I feel like I'm watching two people navigate the most epic battlefield of their lives, which is almost entirely unthreatening to them. It's not engaging for me to watch this unless I see impressive displays of skill which render the battlefield unthreatening to them, and I do not see this in the scene. The post doesn't rely on it being threatening to them, it relies on it being threatening to us, so that when we see them navigate it with only minor annoyances, just like a James Bond cold open, we understand how capable and in-control they are, so that the rest of the film has a means by which the challenges they face can be understood. quote:In many games there will be a chaotic battle raging in the background to give you the feeling of being in a large conflict, but you know you only have to worry about the enemies that are within your field of play; everything else essentially doesn't exist. For example if a formation of missiles come flying at you you are able to fixate on those and maneuver around them without worrying that other ships or missiles or enemies or stray blasts of fire will take advantage of your maneuvering; things that may be a threat are clearly presented in the interests of fairness (there are games where this is untrue, even Star Wars games, but those are not what I am referring to here). Much like how Anakin and Obi-Wan are free to fixate on the exact enemy Droid or missile that challenges them at any given time, knowing that the rest of the battle is basically a colorful backdrop. Oh dear, now we're at the point of rendering a chaotic event comprehensible by narrowing focus being something inherently bad to do? This seems like an absurd statement to make- is Shin Godzilla (2015) a videogame movie because the viewpoint characters face obstacles that are clearly communicated to us in advance of their becoming immediately threatening or obstructing? Are diaboli ex machina good from a structural perspective?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2017 23:16
|
|