|
mary had a little clam posted:Yeah, and are we expected to believe that all the aliens on the ship use the same bathrooms to poo poo in?? You'd have to have several bathrooms to accommodate Mon Calamri Shits and C3PO shits and... Ewok shits and whatever. Yet we NEVER get a satisfactory explanation for who shits where. In fact, Johnson is so lazy, he avoids showing making GBS threads altogether! This is why the Empire was human only.
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:You just described missiles taking out AA guns. This isn't "sci-fi movie logic." A lot of people (hell even just on the previous page) can't reconcile that they look like things that are dropped downwards in space without hoops like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:This is why the Empire was human only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
You think my last opinion was dumb and bad, just wait till I get started on trash compactors
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
Serf posted:what about the bombers don't make sense? they are bombers. they drop bombs in this movie that is rooted in world war 2 tropes. the only way they could be be closer to actual b-17 flying fortress is if they loving used an actual b-17 flying fortress Space WW2 bombers dropping bombs in space works as long as the metaphor holds. This movie makes Space WW2 too literal in some places and not Space WW2 at all in others. The net result is a breaking of the metaphor, it cant handle the strain that the movie placed on it. TLJ resorts to technobabble more then any other Star Wars movie because its having to justify events instead of being able to rely on a tidy self-sustaining internal logic that lifts the narrative burden of having characters explain why things happen a certain way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
mary had a little clam posted:Yeah, and are we expected to believe that all the aliens on the ship use the same bathrooms to poo poo in?? You'd have to have several bathrooms to accommodate Mon Calamri Shits and C3PO shits and... Ewok shits and whatever. Yet we NEVER get a satisfactory explanation for who shits where. In fact, Johnson is so lazy, he avoids showing making GBS threads altogether! If a movie features an extensive sequence showing the mechanics of a space toilet and involves the logistics of space toilets as a plot point then the viewer is entirely entitled to ask "whats the deal with space toilets?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Ships have internal gravity, but space has no gravity or friction. So, if you drop a bomb that's inside your ship, it'll gain speed as it falls, leave your ship with whatever speed it built up, and keep going in that direction at that speed. There's no technobabble about the bombs because it's obvious how they work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
Alternately they're blown out the bomb bay doors or something, who cares.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
This is just the modern evolution of the "why are there sound effects in space?" complaint that's been thrown around since the first film.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Why AREN'T there sound effects in space in that one scene? Huh? HUH?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
SickZip posted:The net result is a breaking of the metaphor, it cant handle the strain that the movie placed on it. Say, what is the tensile strength of the standard metaphor?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
For example, when Rose explains to Finn the mechanics of how making GBS threads into the hyperdrive will allow them enough fuel to get back to the fleet, it contradicts existing lore regarding onboard sewage processing and raises questions as to why every chair isn't doing double duty as a toilet / fuel injection system, and why this is the first time such a concept is introduced. In previous movies, making GBS threads into the hyperdrive was never discussed as a possibility - in the scene where the Falcon's drive fails while escaping from a Star Destroyer, never does Leia, Han, Chewbacca or the droids suggest that one might poo poo into it to fix it. The dialogue between rose and Finn discussing "the poo poo manoeuvre" (Jesus Christ the dialogue in this movie is atrocious) is largely expository, as both characters are implied to be aware of this already. Finn in particular is very enthusiastic and Benicio Del Toro's hilariously delivered pun ("do-do this poo poo all the time", holy gently caress) further establishes the characters' familiarity with using their feces as fuel by making GBS threads directly into the hyperdrive. So why haven't we seen this before? This feels like a major misstep for the series, as while it was an incredible and memorable scene, it certainly raises far too many questions about the series and the established universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Why do there need to be two gotdam Star Wars threads
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Why do there need to be two gotdam Star Wars threads The other one is free of spoiler tags and exists specifically to serve that purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Why do there need to be two gotdam Star Wars threads In one of them i post cool lego related spoilers
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Space WW2 bombers dropping bombs in space works as long as the metaphor holds. This movie makes Space WW2 too literal in some places and not Space WW2 at all in others. The net result is a breaking of the metaphor, it cant handle the strain that the movie placed on it. you're gonna have to get into specifics on where its too literal and where its not. please, spare no detail
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
It really bugs me that Han et al can just walk out onto an asteroid that seems to be about the size of Uluru, with only a flimsy oxygen mask and no space suits. I mean, it really grinds my gears. That is to say, it really crawls up my rear end. Oh wait, I forgot, he was in the stomach of a giant worm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Why do there need to be two gotdam Star Wars threads That’s funny, you think there are only two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Wacky explanation ? Starwars apologetics ahead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plTKgkW10Ps&t=1162s The EU have been doing non-propulsion based space bombs since Tie Fighter at least. The bombs are attached to rails which may have some mechanism which adds some momentum. Also the bombers were super old. The resistance really has a lot of crap and patched together stuff, maybe they just looted their bombers from some disused provincial military shipyard somewhere, specced to do planetary bombardments, which would explain the lack of torpedo missile action. The one thing that irked me was that as the bombs hit, only the bottom bombs would have done anything, as the explosions should have detonated the still falling bombs prematurely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 03:10
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:Why AREN'T there sound effects in space in that one scene? Huh? HUH? Engines and laser blasts and explosions are really loud, so that's why you can hear those things in space, but other things are quieter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I was really sad that guy got killed so fast, it would have been great to have someone actually competent for Ren to play off of instead of dumbass Hux or windbag Snoke. Hux is going to go out like Admiral Piett with an A-Wing crashing into his star destroyer bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 06:50
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Well it's not like he's supposed to be surprised by slavery and suddenly do something. It's that he's been actively working to enforce the system that creates slaves the whole time. For instance, by stepping into this bullshit taxation dispute. They're not a bunch of "uppity aliens." They're corporate assholes in charge of a private monopoly who are starving a planet to death because they don't want to pay taxes. How are these guys the sympathetic ones in a Marxist reading? quote:Picture, in your mind, a galactic empire that tolerates racism, slavery etc (as much we do in the real world). You are now told that in this universe (unlike our own) is an organization of warrior monks who wield magical powers and laser weapons. Their creed is one of balance and peace between all living things in the universe. Do you feel like "government mandated strike breakers" is the most natural fit for these guys? Or would you agree that what the Jedi are doing in these movies is sort of... incongruous? And you missed my point that these magical monks aren't omnipotent superheroes who can do whatever they want. You and others seem to be operating under the assumption that Tatooine is the only planet where bad things are happening. There are bad things happening all over the place. You seem to think the Jedi should be going around toppling governments and completely redefining the social and political order of the entire galaxy, because it's just that easy for them. It's not that easy for them. They're people, like you and me. Slightly more powerful, but not all-powerful. J_RBG posted:You do realise these are individual spiritual victories which have implications for an entire galaxy? The basic stuff of romance narrative, blown to cosmic proportions? This is a line of argument hiding the central point which is that it's not at all implausible for Jedi to free the slaves. The only limit in this genre literally is your imagination, not a set of rules: this makes the choices made to make the films what they are richer, not poorer. Why is the outcome this particular outcome? Why has Lucas made a story where Jedi explicitly don't free the slaves? You're basically asking why there's still slavery, injustice, and evil in the world if Jesus supposedly won the ultimate victory 2,000 years ago. The spiritual victory is important because it's the blueprint for social change. It's not an instant panacea that magically turns the world into a paradise. The struggle for justice never ends. There's no endpoint. There's never going to be a time when you can say, "Nothing bad is happening anymore, everything is perfect." Things can always get better. Change is always necessary. You're the one missing the point. But I know exactly what you think should have happened. You think the Jedi should have joined with the galactic proletariat to form a vanguard movement and gone around slaughtering all the bourgeois oppressors with their lightsabers in order to bring about a communist utopia. Sorry, that's just not what these movies are about. These movies are, I'm sorry to inform you, insufficiently Marxist. They are Bad Movies. They have the Wrong Ideology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 07:27
|
|
|
post
Friendly Factory fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Jun 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:They're not a bunch of "uppity aliens." They're corporate assholes in charge of a private monopoly who are starving a planet to death because they don't want to pay taxes. How are these guys the sympathetic ones in a Marxist reading? I don't know about Marxist, but two hosed up things are happening in this scenario: A) the government is sending scary tough guys to force a settlement in a trade dispute B) the scary tough guys turn out to be the holy monks we thought were guardians of peace and love. Maybe the basic difference in perception here is that you don't think that slavery, racism, exploitation can be stopped in the real world. In fact, you think it's such a constant that you don't even think it's possible in a magical fantasy world. So when these "galactic peacekeepers" fail to keep any significant kind of galactic peace you don't see a dichotomy, because you know that it's fundamentally impossible. They're just "doing their best". I disagree, and my take on the films is different: The Jedi are (well-meaning) hypocrites. This is a cool ambiguity to place front and center in your sci fi epic, particularly when the (even cooler) bad guy takes great pleasure in using that against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I think the transformation to Darth Vader works pretty well except the killing younglings thing. That I just can't really buy, I don't feel he would be crazy or devoted enough quite yet. He should have been killing adult Jedi on Sheev's orders and the younglings either ignored by the film, order 66'd, or blamed on a fake separatist terrorist attack. Removing that scene I still find all his actions on volcano planet believable. Though I think Padme should have died more directly by his hand. If you already totally buy that he's capable of doing it, then the moment loses most of its shock value. The dramatic impact of him slaughtering the Younglings comes from the dissonance between the image we still have of Anakin and the reality of what he's actually become willing to do. That dissonance is necessary because it defines who Anakin is at this juncture: In a real way, he still is that Anakin who's a good person and who knows that what he's doing is 100% wrong--but he does it anyway. The whole point is that he does all these things because he's selfish, not because he's been tricked, or lost his grip on reality, or become a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue. There are aspects of all those things influencing his behavior, but none of them overrides his fundamental agency in everything. He knows exactly what he's doing and exactly why he's doing it, but he chooses to deceive himself by leaning on those excuses. This is obviously a hard story for a lot of people to buy. It's hard for a lot of people to accept all this and still go along with the idea that Anakin can still be in any sense a good person worthy of redemption. But that's what the story is. You can quibble about execution in terms of dialogue and acting, but in a strictly mechanical sense there's no other way to tell this story that Lucas chose to tell. It's not a mistake that it is the way it is. It either works for you it or doesn't. The Making of Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith posted:"Steven saw the rough cut," Lucas says, sitting at home at a table in his kitchen. "I felt I needed to show it to Steven to figure out what the reality was, because we'd earlier had a rough-cut screening for ILM to test the film, and some of the people had strong opinions about things that were contrary to the way I was going. Some people were having a hard time with the reason that Anakin goes bad. Somebody asked whether somebody could kill Anakin's best friend, so that he really gets angry. They wanted a real betrayal, such as, 'You tried to kill me so now I'm going to try and kill you.' They didn't understand the fact that Anakin is simply greedy. There is no revenge. The revenge of the Sith is Palpatine. It doesn't have much to do with Darth Vader; he's a pawn in the whole scheme. Again, it's the kind of story that's actually challenging and subversive. It's arguing for a pretty radical philosophical stance that everyone is simply not going to agree with. It's not like TLJ. Pretty much everyone would agree with the statement "It's okay to make mistakes; failure can be learned from." It's an utterly facile statement to build a supposedly radical film around. The objection to it is simply one of tonality, not philosophy. Just because failure is a thing that happens doesn't mean it would have been a good idea to have all the heroes die and the Rebellion get crushed by the Empire at the end of ROTJ. That's not challenging anyone's philosophical notions or making anyone really think about something in a new way--it's just being a buzzkill. It's the ultimate storytelling cliche employed by people desperately trying to avoid storytelling cliches, frequently mistaken for being a bold storytelling choice, when the really brave thing is to be totally unapologetic in your schmaltzy dancing teddy bear happy ending where all the heroes survive to the end and live happily ever after, because that's what you believe in. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 10:39
|
|
|
Shanty posted:I don't know about Marxist, but two hosed up things are happening in this scenario: A) the government is sending scary tough guys to force a settlement in a trade dispute B) the scary tough guys turn out to be the holy monks we thought were guardians of peace and love. Yeah, I weep for the Cliven Bundys of the world as well. The Jedi aren't there to hurt anybody. They're there to resolve a dispute that the Trade Federation started in a way that leaves everybody as well off as possible. This is a sci fi fantasy universe, you can't take everything so literally. There's no such thing as magical samurai diplomats in the real world and there never will be. You shouldn't take every aspect of the Jedi as some sort of sober-faced social prescription. It doesn't improve the movies and it doesn't make anyone any smarter. quote:Maybe the basic difference in perception here is that you don't think that slavery, racism, exploitation can be stopped in the real world. In fact, you think it's such a constant that you don't even think it's possible in a magical fantasy world. So when these "galactic peacekeepers" fail to keep any significant kind of galactic peace you don't see a dichotomy, because you know that it's fundamentally impossible. They're just "doing their best". I disagree, and my take on the films is different: The Jedi are (well-meaning) hypocrites. This is a cool ambiguity to place front and center in your sci fi epic, particularly when the (even cooler) bad guy takes great pleasure in using that against them. No, I don't think a utopia where all suffering and exploitation ceases to exist is possible in a world where human beings are still recognizably human beings. When capitalism inevitably collapses and is replaced by socialism (as I believe it will be), various power imbalances will still exist and new problems will still arise because people are (at least partially) selfish and short-sighted and don't always agree about things. If humans are still around a million years from now, they'll look back on post-capitalist societies just as we look back on feudalist societies today. They'll condemn us for not realizing the obvious gross iniquities we were continuing to perpetuate through our inept social organizational structures but didn't even have the civilizational maturity to appreciate. Things will get better, we can totally get rid of chattel and wage slavery, but we can never get rid of the basic fact that humans are born limited in their knowledge and wisdom and unequal in their individual advantages and weaknesses. Anyone who argues to the contrary is irretrievably delusional. Furthermore, "gross injustice" is a relative term that shifts based on the social attainments of a society. For that reason, I assure you there will always be gross injustice in the world. The Star Wars films are not about the attainment of any sort of utopia, but rather about the underlying means whereby social progress can be achieved. They depict a society that both harks back to earlier periods in history but that is also recognizable and familiar to us in the present; the particular form of the society depicted isn't the point, because evil is eternal, struggle a fundamental component of the human condition, and social progress an everlasting goal. But maybe you're one of those Singularity guys or something, I don't know. I can't help you with that. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 11:11 on Jan 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The Jedi aren't there to hurt anybody. The Jedi are knights. Their purpose is to hurt people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 11:17
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Why do there need to be two gotdam Star Wars threads Hah, look at this dumb guy who thinks there's Star Wars discussion in only two threads.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 11:46
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Yeah, I weep for the Cliven Bundys of the world as well. All fair points. Well you say Star Wars "isn't about" that. I sort of think it is, just because the Jedi Knights seem to be spouting this deep philosphy crap all the time. They're not omnipotent, but they seem to think that the Force is in some way. They're not going "well we do the best with what we have", they claim to have a direct line to basically God, which to my mind changes the stakes a bit. The distance between "we know what's Right and God has our back" and "welp can't change the system better tweak the minutiae of taxation as much as we can" is a big element here, right? It's like Christ comes back and goes "love thy neighbour if at all convenient". An understandable sentiment for some random dude, but coming from the son of God that's weird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 12:09
|
|
Shanty posted:All fair points. Well, I mean, it's basically them finding Christ and turning him from a sweet good boy to a child-murderer so that might be intentional?
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
Everyone seems to miss this about the space chase, but the plan was to let the First Order think they had destroyed the Resistance while actually almost everyone gets away on the transports. That’s why Holdo is continuing on course - so the baddies don’t realise something is up. If all the previous ships had tried (and failed) to lightspeed ram then they’d know that they were really mostly empty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 12:53
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Well, I mean, it's basically them finding Christ and turning him from a sweet good boy to a child-murderer so that might be intentional? Right, right, that's my point. The Jedi are hypocrites, and the movies are absolutely about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Right, right, that's my point. The Jedi are hypocrites, and the movies are absolutely about that. Rose's actions in the new movie throw that fact into stark relief.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 13:23
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:If you already totally buy that he's capable of doing it, then the moment loses most of its shock value. The dramatic impact of him slaughtering the Younglings comes from the dissonance between the image we still have of Anakin and the reality of what he's actually become willing to do. That dissonance is necessary because it defines who Anakin is at this juncture: In a real way, he still is that Anakin who's a good person and who knows that what he's doing is 100% wrong--but he does it anyway. The whole point is that he does all these things because he's selfish, not because he's been tricked, or lost his grip on reality, or become a dyed-in-the-wool ideologue. There are aspects of all those things influencing his behavior, but none of them overrides his fundamental agency in everything. He knows exactly what he's doing and exactly why he's doing it, but he chooses to deceive himself by leaning on those excuses. It's less I think those actions make him irredeemable and more I think those actions make him a really stupid and gullible lackey. I think he has been tricked, because "Padme will die unless you kill all the Jedi, yes even the babies, to end the war" sounds really far fetched. Maybe if he more specifically sensed she would be killed by a Jedi rather than the more generic war. That actually came true
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
He had to increase his dark side power. That was the point (lie).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 14:25
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Jedi are knights. Their purpose is to hurt people. That's why The Phantom Menace opened with a squadron of Jedi battleships opening fire on the Trade Federation ships around Naboo. It was the best space battle Lucas ever did, and the scenes showing Nemoidian crew members being massacred when the lightsaber bombs exploded on the bridges was the wickedest scene ever shot on film. Think of how much different the Jedi would have been seen by the audience if instead only two Jedi came quietly in a single ship in an attempt to understand what the Nemoidians were up to with the goal to mediate some kind of non-violent resolution. Imagine if Lucas made even a little attempt to show that the Jedi acting as "guardians of peace and justice".
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 14:33
|
|
|
I have just caught up on about 1600 posts and while I am not a huge fan of either the Original Trilogy or the Prequel Trilogy, I do love this new trilogy. I really appreciate seeing all this interesting reading into the prequels that I never realised could be inferred. It was nice to see other people were able to have fun with them where I could not. Something I wanted to ask for people who have seen TLJ more recently than me, (Spoiled just in case) The ending shot of what is left of the resistance seems to be upbeat and a bit jolly. Am I remembering correctly that we have the rest of the resistance all in frame and they all look renewed with determination for a brighter future and facing the camera? If so, then it makes a nice opposition to the end of ESB where the remaining main characters are all facing away from the screen and looking towards the emptiness of space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:Exactly! the movies show the jedi saying one thing and doing another. its almost as if they are hypocrites
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 14:43
|
|
|
Removing your sarcasm, you're saying thatCheesus posted:...two Jedi came quietly in a single ship in an attempt to understand what the Nemoidians were up to with the goal to mediate some kind of non-violent resolution. [...] Lucas made [...] a little attempt to show that the Jedi acting as "guardians of peace and justice". Which doesn't quite gel with the fact that Qui Gon immediately admits that they're here to scare some cowards into submission. The Nemoidians are making GBS threads themselves in response, "we dare not go against the jedi", "we will not survive this". Qui Gon is absolutely going to threaten to lop off Nute's head if he doesn't play ball. So much for peace. You might argue for "justice" inasmuch as justice is what the Jedi say it is. Their actions certainly won't stand up in galactic court, or the Supreme Chancellor wouldn't have had to "secretly dispatch" them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:03 |
|
|
Also he's kind of ignoring the sequels where they DO show up in special Jedi space ships and wreck house, and Yoda loads a bunch of proto Star Destroyers with a clone army
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2018 15:10
|
|