|
Yaws posted:Anyway, this whole argument is pointless because the droid thing isn't explored much and doesn't reach a satisfactory conclusion. What would that kind of conclusion even look like? That's not really how themes are explored in film in general. In fact, trying to wrap up such a broad theme in a satisfactory way is how you get facile movies like Crash (2004). As for not explored much, that's insane to me. Take the concept of droids as an oppressed class (as part of the broader class themes) out of the first six films and they would be entirely different; unrecognizable. Like if Luke had never bought R2 and C3PO as slaves then the entire story wouldn't have happened at all. The idea of the prequel trilogy as Just Bad is warping some posters' perceptions so they can't even accept the basics of what happens in their stories. Might as well be arguing that the prequel movies are actually, only about unicorn mating rituals and anyone who says otherwise is "desperate to add some layers" beyond those bad, bad unicorns. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Jul 3, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
The only thing I remember from the prequels is Satan wielding a double lightsaber and that teenage Anakin was even more insufferable than baby Anakin.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Yaws posted:I know you guys are desperate to add some thematic layers to the prequels so you can justify enjoying them, but this is about the worst way to go about it. Except that this applies to the OT as well? Lest we forget the slave auction scene and the "we don't serve their kind here" line in ANH, which really just sets the tone for how droids are going to be depicted from there on out. The droid torture room in ROTJ is also notable. The theme of droid personhood and discrimination is pretty well-depicted in Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's just not persuasive to claim that something in a science fiction story can't be intelligent because it doesn't look human. The geonosians don't really look like people either. The nature of alien intelligence and communication is one of the most interesting themes of science fiction, albeit one which Star Wars doesn't really touch on. Droids are far too human to really explore that territory. You'd think that something like Solaris would blow the minds of someone who doesn't think of droids as human, but my impression is actually that they're the sorts who idealize the idea of science fiction depicting the truly non-human but actually watch neither Star Wars nor stuff like Solaris or the Gundam movie based on the subject 
Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 11:39 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 11:35
|
|
|
At least Yaws recognizes that most droids are people. Just not the "bad" ones.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:The only thing I remember from the prequels is Satan wielding a double lightsaber and that teenage Anakin was even more insufferable than baby Anakin. Maybe you should watch them again before posting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Yaws posted:They speak. Stormtroopers are human. Flesh and blood. This angle of yours is weak and you'd be better off dropping it. Episode 7 tells us they're programmed, have code numbers and no fashion sense, so how are they different from droids?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
turn left hillary!! noo posted:I dont think we're even on that level of discussion. This is like remedial comprehension of super basic storytelling. X in a story talks and makes decisions. Is X a character? If not, are we even speaking the same language, because words must mean different things to you and me. He "[cannot] accept what you're peddling" because he recognizes opposing viewpoints of the films only as determinate negations of his own (Thereby inheriting the contradictions). His viewpoint: the films are inherently unsatisfactory, therefore deriving meaning from it is unsatisfactory, is built into any opposing viewpoint: I like these unsatisfactory films, therefore I need to force alien content to make them satisfying. The thinking is both perplexed and perplexing in its attempt to satisfy these viewpoints, by taking two stances against opposing thoughts. These concepts do not actually exist in the films, and that the concepts are poorly executed. The contradiction becomes apparent: if these concepts are not in the films, they cannot be poorly executed, and if they are poorly executed, they cannot not exist. In asserting any one of the thoughts, the other reveals its emptiness. The real desire is for an impenetrable third stance: The concepts are so poorly executed, that the execution never occurred in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:The nature of alien intelligence and communication is one of the most interesting themes of science fiction, albeit one which Star Wars doesn't really touch on. Droids are far too human to really explore that territory. UmOk posted:At least Yaws recognizes that most droids are people. Just not the "bad" ones. This is actually an entire quiet subplot of episodes 1-3, where the droids onscreen become increasingly abstract and insectile (modelled after spiders, snails, etc.), while the 'heroes' are literally Starship Troopers. There's a direct homage in episode 3, where a Trooper jumps on a "arachnid's" back and fires his gun downwards into its carapace. Episode 2 even reveals that the familiar battle droids are modelled on the termite-like Geonosians, and were only seemingly 'human'. Yaws, as Umok points out, believes that personhood is dependent on his ability to empathize with a given thing. It must literally have a human face (and, preferably, big cartoon eyes) as with James Cameron's Navis. Things that don't meet the criteria for cuteness/fuckability are 'beyond empathy' and therefore nonpersons. What this demonstrates is an inability to fathom a political love that is precisely that: beyond empathy. That is, love for those with whom you do not empathize. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
UmOk posted:At least Yaws recognizes that most droids are people. Just not the "bad" ones. It's defensible in theory to claim that certain droids are the equivalents of animals rather than people based on their shapes and behavior, but then you turn around and remember that BB-8 is a one-eyed orb with tentacles that only clicks and beeps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLmOteqmDYc Artoo is my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Episode 7 tells us they're programmed, have code numbers and no fashion sense, so how are they different from droids? When Hux is talking about that and Ren sarcastically suggests ordering a clone army instead was another moment where it's made clear that stormtroopers/clones/droids are the same because they're treated the same way by their creators/trainers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Little detail I've always loved, after everyone else treats him like garbage, JarJar seeks solidarity with the droids. "Hello boyos!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:It's defensible in theory to claim that certain droids are the equivalents of animals rather than people based on their shapes and behavior, but then you turn around and remember that BB-8 is a one-eyed orb with tentacles that only clicks and beeps. Yeah, but the eye is big, so,
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I wish I could say with certainty that no one wants to gently caress Jar Jar. We both know better though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Things can be sympathetic and deserve empathy and lack personhood. Serf posted:It's sorta like how humans work. If even a single one of them is a person, then they all are. There are plenty of background characters, both human and alien, who have about as much personality and characterization as a rolly droid but we don't question whether they are people. Many human characters in films lack personhood, it's essential to countless films that lean on sanitized violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
What about something screaming in agony during a medieval torture ritual? Were the torturer and the victim just acting out their prescribed functions? Usually the purpose of torture is pure vengeance or to extract information. In either case, there's no reason a non-human would be invested with these skills/weaknesses on purpose. Like, one of the first lines in the entire series is a droid lamenting its own suffering. When was the last time your iPod cried to itself about how lovely its life is?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Many human characters in films lack personhood, it's essential to countless films that lean on sanitized violence. We've achieved maximum velocity. Rather than admit the films have a layer of subtext, reality has come undone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:We've achieved maximum velocity. Rather than admit the films have a layer of subtext, reality has come undone. ? Do you disagree? Do you understand the concept of personhood? Jewmanji posted:What about something screaming in agony during a medieval torture ritual? Were the torturer and the victim just acting out their prescribed functions? Usually the purpose of torture is pure vengeance or to extract information. In either case, there's no reason a non-human would be invested with these skills/weaknesses on purpose. There are Droids in star wars with personhood, there are also Droids that do not. Droids are so diverse that they range from basically metal humans to walking toasters that display zero characteristics of any kind, so a blanket statement that applies to all of them is like saying chimpanzees and starfish are all the same because they're Animals. Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jul 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Many human characters in films lack personhood, it's essential to countless films that lean on sanitized violence. Human beings in films are understood to have personhood even when the film does not specifically assert such, because they are humans, and humans are people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:? Do you disagree? Do you understand the concept of personhood? Do you walk around in reality, constantly uncertain if the people around you are actually people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Do you walk around in reality, constantly uncertain if the people around you are actually people? No, but then again I understand that reality is not film, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Film is an illusion, of course, but interpreting it sometimes means stepping past the fact that you are watching lights projected onto a screen and interpreting what those images represent. For instance, if the image resembles a human, then in the overwhelming majority of cases you can infer that it represents a human, and therefore represents a person. This is literacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Film is an illusion, of course, but interpreting it sometimes means stepping past the fact that you are watching lights projected onto a screen and interpreting what those images represent. For instance, if the image resembles a human, then in the overwhelming majority of cases you can infer that it represents a human, and therefore represents a person. This is literacy. You can go a step further and see a human in a film, and understand that due to its role and function in the film, things like context and tone, that character lacks personhood.. Surely you can understand this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I'm imaging that scene from Freakazoid where the cast is watching Congo and trying to decide which monkeys are monkeys and which monkeys are a guy in a suit, only instead they're trying to decide which humans are people and which humans are non-people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:You can go a step further and see a human in a film, and understand that due to its role and function in the film, things like context and tone, that character lacks personhood.. Surely you can understand this? I understand that you're confused about what "person" means. Some of the people in movies aren't characters, instead being effectively scenery, like extras. An extra walking around in the background of a scene, however, still indicates to the audience that the scene is to be understood as taking place in a public location inhabited by humans, and the audience's prior knowledge that humans are people is still applicable to the scene even if it is not directly relevant to what's happening in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Half the posters in this thread are just chat bots looped with the same circular arguments. The other half are one guy's alt accounts arguing with each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Things can be sympathetic and deserve empathy and lack personhood. This is absolute madness. "Sanitized violence" in relation to what are clearly humans/persons is a pretty hosed-up fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:Do you understand the concept of personhood? Do you? Your weird post inferring that beings that have violence done to them are not people says otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
You understand that humans in real life can be deprived of personhood as well? Slaves, women, prisoners, (if you're pro-life, unborn children) are among the examples of people who have been deprived of personhood (and in some cases continue to be deprived of it). I am not endorsing this by any means, of course, but it's a fact. Personhood is not an observable, tangible thing, it is an attribute that a humane society grants. A film can withhold personhood from its characters. Serf posted:This is absolute madness. "Sanitized violence" in relation to what are clearly humans/persons is a pretty hosed-up fantasy. I mean, I agree, but if you are trying to attribute this madness to me you seem to be either unaware of huge swathes of cinema history, or greatly overestimating my level of influence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
UmOk posted:Do you? Your weird post inferring that beings that have violence done to them are not people says otherwise. Please read more carefully, think harder, and try again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:You understand that humans in real life can be deprived of personhood as well? Slaves, women, prisoners, (if you're pro-life, unborn children) are among the examples of people who have been deprived personhood (and in some cases continue to be deprived of it). I am not endorsing this by any means, of course, but it's a fact. Personhood is not an observable, tangible thing, it is an attribute that a humane society grants. A film can withhold personhood from its characters. In the sense of "person" which everybody else has been using, slaves actually are people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:I mean, I agree, but if you are trying to attribute this madness to me you seem to be either unaware of huge swathes of cinema history, or greatly overestimating my level of influence. Nah, this madness is pretty well all you my dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:You understand that humans in real life can be deprived of personhood as well? Slaves, women, prisoners, (if you're pro-life, unborn children) are among the examples of people who have been deprived of personhood (and in some cases continue to be deprived of it). I am not endorsing this by any means, of course, but it's a fact. Personhood is not an observable, tangible thing, it is an attribute that a humane society grants. A film can withhold personhood from its characters. You understand that if you believe a character in a film was killed, that it means they were alive? That if you see characters subject to treatment that you believe deprives them of their personhood, that they are people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:You understand that humans in real life can be deprived of personhood as well? Slaves, women, prisoners, (if you're pro-life, unborn children) are among the examples of people who have been deprived of personhood (and in some cases continue to be deprived of it). I am not endorsing this by any means, of course, but it's a fact. Personhood is not an observable, tangible thing, it is an attribute that a humane society grants. A film can withhold personhood from its characters. Absolutely sure you don't know what a person is now. Slaves and women are always people regardless of the way they are treated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
What kind of heartless bastard do you have to be to watch Return of the Jedi and assume that there's nothing wrong about torturing the Gonk droid... Why, why would they program it to scream like that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
New viewing order: Blade Runner Blade Runner theory youtube videos Enter this debate
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Personally, I believe a person's a person, no matter how small. Or metal. E: add Chappie to that viewing list I Before E fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jul 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Sometimes in more contemporary science fiction, the kind written by authors who might have been exposed to a real robot sometime in their formative years, you do see robots that are explicitly just a pretty convincing simulacrum of personhood. An arguable example would be GERTY from "Moon" (2009). Often you also see the human characters anthropomorphize them anyway, because if there's an object in a film, the way people treat it is almost always inherently more interesting than the object itself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Tender Bender posted:No, but then again I understand that reality is not film, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2017 01:26
|
|