|
euphronius posted:The exchange between Liea and Tuck in 4 indicates there is a framework of law regarding the use of force. Yeah and then noted non-fascist Tarkin went "lol nope" so I think things are pretty clear.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Star Wars fans generally have enormous trouble with characterization, which is why everything tends to boil down to these rules about 'honorable killing'. Like, "batman does not kill, because he has a code of honor". "Luke Skywalker kills, but it's honorable because he's my friend." And so-on. How about we look at setting as an aspect of characterization. Planet Skellig has been Luke's home for ~20 years. Obviously this is important to his characterization. He chose to live there. Why? Right away, we have a continuity error of sorts: Luke: "[The First Jedi Temple was] built a thousand generations ago, to keep these: the original Jedi texts." Luke is conflating the age of the Sacred Jedi Texts with the age of the First Jedi Temple and the Jedi Order, when obviously the Texts must predate both those things if the temple was built to house them. In fact, while the texts are approximately 30,000 years old, the temple is a far more recent construction. In reality, the monastery at Skellig might look 'primitive', but it was actually built and occupied during medieval times. Construction began in the 500s and was in use up until about the 1300s. I'd presume, based on the films, that the temple is likewise 'only' about two thousand years old. (Sure enough, CANON confirms that the Jedi Order - who built the temple at the time they were established - have only existed for like 6000 years.) Luke might have possibly learned this if he had actually read the sacred texts, but we know that he didn't. Luke's there for the Order, for the sect who appropriated these ancient documents and colonized this remote planet. Last Jedi is careful to drop the fact that the actual natives of the planet are those little dinosaur people. Luke considers the church more important than the documents, which no-one has ever read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Wars fans generally have enormous trouble with characterization, which is why everything tends to boil down to these rules about 'honorable killing'. Like, "batman does not kill, because he has a code of honor". "Luke Skywalker kills, but it's honorable because he's my friend." And so-on. Who in this thread has brought up 'honourable killing'?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
multijoe posted:Who in this thread has brought up 'honourable killing'? People have brought up the village massacre as an example of why Kylo is a bad dude, but you have to consider, for example, how many people died when Luke blew up the Death Star. Even if you say gently caress all the imperials, we know they had prison cells. What happened to those prisoners? Couldn't a prisoner of the empire be a good dude? Yet nobody, except Clerks, thinks Luke is a bad guy for what he did. You could call him 'honourable'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:People have brought up the village massacre as an example of why Kylo is a bad dude, but you have to consider, for example, how many people died when Luke blew up the Death Star. Even if you say gently caress all the imperials, we know they had prison cells. What happened to those prisoners? Couldn't a prisoner of the empire be a good dude? Yet nobody, except Clerks, thinks Luke is a bad guy for what he did. You could call him 'honourable'. There a legit difference between attacking a military target (like a mobile genocide satellite that has already annihilated millions of people) and executing civilians/prisoners in your power. What did Kylo achieve by ordering the execution of those villagers other than the satisfaction of murder? No Dignity fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Nov 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Wars fans generally have enormous trouble with characterization, which is why everything tends to boil down to these rules about 'honorable killing'. Like, "batman does not kill, because he has a code of honor". "Luke Skywalker kills, but it's honorable because he's my friend." And so-on. As someone who consumed a lot of Star Wars media before watching the OT, I was genuinely surprised to see Luke strangle that pig man to death in RotJ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
With the sequels we can now say that in hindsight luke killing that pig man was probably the beginning of his downward spiral towards becoming an insane child abuser
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
multijoe posted:There a legit difference between attacking a military target (like a mobile genocide satellite that has already annihilated millions of people) and executing civilians/prisoners in your power. The removal of people opposed to him? I'm not saying Kylo is good, I'm saying what is the difference between him and Luke? In my example, Luke also maybe killed prisoners. Prisoners who could have been aligned with him. Of course he destroyed the death star and saved millions, but there was a cost. So killing is ok if you do a cost/benefit analysis? Doesn't seem very ethical. And with SMG comparing it with Batman and people freaking out over him killing people in the DCEU films (even though Burton Batman killed, as did Nolan Batman, they just lied to you about it), if Batman had done what Luke did in A New Hope, people would say "Thats not Batman, he has a code" and condemn him for it. But Luke can kill without worrying about the same backlash. Are they holding Batman to a higher standard, or as SMG says, their views on killing aren't some guidebook showing how to write a character, but rather a reveal and examination of character flaws. Luke blowing up the Death Star wasn't a mistake. Batman killing goons MIGHT be a mistake, but you should view it as characterisation. Because if you apply the same standard to both, you have to deal with the cognitive dissonance of Batman killing being wrong, but Luke being justified? Batman kills goons at the end of BvS to save a nice old lady from being burned alive, isn't this like Luke saving Yavin IV from the Death Star?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:As someone who consumed a lot of Star Wars media before watching the OT, I was genuinely surprised to see Luke strangle that pig man to death in RotJ. I always just assumed he choked him out
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
multijoe posted:There a legit difference between attacking a military target (like a mobile genocide satellite that has already annihilated millions of people) and executing civilians/prisoners in your power. The tatooine village was a military target. It was a training base for pro-Jedi/Leia paramilitaries, which is why they immediately opened fire on outsiders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Harsh, for him to snap a pig man's neck in cold blood for the crime of guarding a door. No wonder jabba was pissed honestly
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:As someone who consumed a lot of Star Wars media before watching the OT, I was genuinely surprised to see Luke strangle that pig man to death in RotJ. That pig man sold poison milk to schoolchildren. BravestOfTheLamps posted:The tatooine village was a military target. It was a training base for pro-Jedi/Leia paramilitaries, which is why they immediately opened fire on outsiders. You're still not allowed to kill surrendering soldiers genius.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
porfiria posted:You're still not allowed to kill surrendering soldiers genius. it's okay to kill fascists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:The removal of people opposed to him? I'm not saying Kylo is good, I'm saying what is the difference between him and Luke? In my example, Luke also maybe killed prisoners. Prisoners who could have been aligned with him. Of course he destroyed the death star and saved millions, but there was a cost. So killing is ok if you do a cost/benefit analysis? Doesn't seem very ethical. It seems very disingenuous to ignore the context of why the characters' acts of violence take place in their various films. Whilst Luke blowing up the Death Star wasn't treated with the moral weight it warranted, it was also a clear and present dangers to countless people, comparing it to Kylo leading a fascist death squad and executing people he'd already captured and disarmed is nonsense. Kylo did not have to kill anyone, he just wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
No Mods No Masters posted:Harsh, for him to snap a pig man's neck in cold blood for the crime of guarding a door. No wonder jabba was pissed honestly Pig man was no angel
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
multijoe posted:It seems very disingenuous to ignore the context of why the characters' acts of violence take place in their various films. Whilst Luke blowing up the Death Star wasn't treated with the moral weight it warranted, it was also a clear and present dangers to countless people, comparing it to Kylo leading a fascist death squad and executing people he'd already captured and disarmed is nonsense. Kylo did not have to kill anyone, he just wanted to. I'm not BotL, I know Kylo is a bad dude. The point is, what makes Luke a good one? If we're talking about context, remember large parts of ESB and ROTJ are about Luke nearly falling to the dark side. Last Jedi is about how he hosed up bigtime. You could use these films to re-examine his actions in blowing up the death star and see maybe the start of something there. But the point is as SMG said, Luke is liked by the audience, he is a good guy, so anything he does is good, justifying his actions. Like Luke is everyone's friend and they are making excuses for him. You can see it in this thread, were people excuse him contemplating murdering his nephew in his sleep, saying it was only momentary and gently caress Ben anyway. An uncharitable read of the film is that Luke's mistake was sparing Ben, if he killed him he could have avoided all this. It's a bit troubling. SuperMechagodzilla posted:Star Wars fans generally have enormous trouble with characterization, which is why everything tends to boil down to these rules about 'honorable killing'. This is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
I'm finding this particular conversation to be kind of interesting because it's one that's been addressed several times within the series itself, starting with the second film (or fifth, or sixth, or whatever). Luke begins the film disillusioned with the Rebellion and the war against the Empire, and ends with his attempted suicide -- in response to his enemy all but begging him to take action which will end the conflict. The question being asked, as I see it, is: who are the good guys? In the prequels, you have the Republic versus the Seperatists. Both sides profit from slave labor, both fight using slave armies, one is (somewhat) democratic but also imperialist, one is feudalist but has legitimate grievances, heroes fight on both sides, etc etc. If the Republic wins the war Emperor Sheev becomes de jure King of Everything, while if the Seperatists win, Dark Sheev becomes de facto King of Everything. You can argue as Cnut had that the Republic was an unambiguous good that was sadly corrupted by space-satan, or as Wheat Loaf has that the Seperatists would have proven themselves genuine if only they had been given a chance. But for all of their possible virtues, the ultimate outcome of their war against each other was always going to be a dictatorship. The closest thing to a "good guy" in the prequels is Padme, a person of very questionable judgement, yet who does try to prevent the war. In the original trilogy, you have the Empire versus the Rebellion. One side is lead by noted peace maker and mass murderer Sheev, the other by a group of dispossessed noblemen/politicians out to reclaim their power and maybe help the little guy along the way. One has a professional fighting force, one has a ragtag bunch of loyal retainers, feudalist fantasists, with the occasional genuine revolutionary. Heroes fight on both sides, etc etc. The Empire may be worse, but that doesn't make the Rebellion good. Luke lost faith in those losers not ten minutes into film #2. So, are the "good guys" the ones who genuinely believes in the Rebellion/Republic cause? That's Leia. Are the "good guys" the ones who saw the whole rebellion as fundamentally flawed, and chose to lay down arms? That's Luke. Are the "good guys" the ones who'll reach out to the aggrieved on the opposing side to try and find common cause? That's Darth Vader. And now into the new trilogy, are the "good guy" the ones who wants to bring an end to the conflict, or the ones who boastfully proclaims that the destruction is only beginning? Which one of them is wearing the white hat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 01:53
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I'm finding this particular conversation to be kind of interesting because it's one that's been addressed several times within the series itself, starting with the second film (or fifth, or sixth, or whatever). Luke begins the film disillusioned with the Rebellion and the war against the Empire, and ends with his attempted suicide -- in response to his enemy all but begging him to take action which will end the conflict. Luke and Leia and Han are the good guys, the emperor and Tarkin and the storm troopers are the bad guys. I hope this helps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
You guys are having the death star conversation from the Kevin Smith movie Clerks, but without the jokes, and in 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 01:59
|
|
|
garycoleisgod posted:So killing is ok if you do a cost/benefit analysis? Doesn't seem very ethical. This is only true if your understanding of the word "ethics" has been informed solely by Star Wars movies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
you have forums cancer in the year 2018
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 02:10
|
|
|
Milkfred E. Moore posted:you have forums cancer in the year 2018 I haven’t seen that in a long long time
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
are you ycs or lf?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
He came from the past to open our eyes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Captain Jesus posted:He came from the past to open our eyes. Kill the past, imho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 13:13
|
|
|
Right, so, unexpectedly, we immediately have a debate over the honourability of killing. Nobody gives a poo poo about what Luke is doing on this island. This is because things are really poorly conveyed. These Sacred Jedi Texts have been lost for millennia, so how has Yoda read them? Were copies made, and then all destroyed when Coruscant got blown up? In any case, what Luke actually means is that “it’s time for the Jedi Order to end” - which is not an interesting statement. Nobody likes the Jedi Order. Nobody watching TFA was worried that Rey was operating outside the strictures of the Jedi Order. Jedism evidently survived over 24,000 years without an Order. But then, the Sacred Jedi Text are also worthless. The flipside of Yoda’s “that library contained nothing that the girl Rey does not already possess” joke is that the Sacred Jedi Texts undoubtedly do contain only the lamest commonsense assertions. So, outside the vague intimation that the books could help Rey unlock some new weaponizable mutant ability, it’s entirely unclear what’s at stake. The contents of the books are not depicted because they are ultimately irrelevant to the story, which concerns itself mainly with the ambiguity of Rey. Because despite internal monologues and lengthy scenes of contemplation, we have altogether no idea what she might do with them. And despite the insistence that Rey might ‘democratize the Force’, pretty much every plausible outcome is bad. When Luke went to train with Yoda in Empire Strikes Back, there wasn’t a time limit. Luke made that decision after several years of slogging through ‘the dark times’ and questioning Republicanism. Once a time limit was imposed, by a vague feeling that Han might be in danger at some point, Luke quit the whole thing. Rey’s motivations don’t make sense, regardless of how many times the film refers back to her mission from Leia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Luke went to train with Yoda in Empire Strikes Back, there wasn’t a time limit. Luke made that decision after several years of slogging through ‘the dark times’ and questioning Republicanism. Once a time limit was imposed, by a vague feeling that Han might be in danger at some point, Luke quit the whole thing. Rey’s motivations don’t make sense, regardless of how many times the film refers back to her mission from Leia. Rey wants to reenact Return of the Jedi, but she fails because it's the second movie of the trilogy and not the third. What the movie wants to do is show that Rey was "inspired" by watching Return of the Jedi. She is inspired to have a cool action scene and float a bunch of rocks, but ultimately that inspiration only refers to itself. Being inspired is an inherent good, says the movie. Personally, I think it's just meant to pander to the real Star Wars fans who like dressing up as their favorite Star Wars characters, since that's really what Rey's doing. In reality, this kind of inspiration isn't good or bad, it just kind of exists. If you don't have a strong emotional or normative attachment to pop cultural inspiration, the core of the movie's not going to land.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
I want a star wars story about the guy in the cell next to Leia. He thinks they are coming to rescue him and the audio from the rescue plays muffled behind the door as he waits. Fans will know what those sounds are and clap
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Ingmar terdman posted:I want a star wars story about the guy in the cell next to Leia. He thinks they are coming to rescue him and the audio from the rescue plays muffled behind the door as he waits. Fans will know what those sounds are and clap He dies a few hours or days later, alone in his cell as Luke Skywalker blows up the Death Star
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But then, the Sacred Jedi Text are also worthless. The flipside of Yoda’s “that library contained nothing that the girl Rey does not already possess” joke is that the Sacred Jedi Texts undoubtedly do contain only the lamest commonsense assertions. So, outside the vague intimation that the books could help Rey unlock some new weaponizable mutant ability, it’s entirely unclear what’s at stake. It makes you wonder why the movie introduces the Jedi Texts at all. The movie never makes clear what they represent other than a vague idea of "Jedi Orthodoxy" (I'm not sure what that would even look like), and also declines to make any definitive judgement of whether or not they're worth preserving.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
It's an object that can always appear in a future film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:It's an object that can always appear in a future film. Are there any action figures that come with the Jedi Texts as an accessory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
It represents the ideal
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It represents the ideal The ideal what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The ideal what? Laser master
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:14
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The ideal what? Schrodinger's EU, explanations for everything that are available to purchase but no one in the films will ever read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The ideal what? The Ideal, the Jedi texts are written by Hegel
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:The ideal what? the ideal S
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
General Dog posted:It makes you wonder why the movie introduces the Jedi Texts at all. The movie never makes clear what they represent other than a vague idea of "Jedi Orthodoxy" (I'm not sure what that would even look like), and also declines to make any definitive judgement of whether or not they're worth preserving. Well again, it’s to foster a pointless ambiguity. Yoda’s burning of the church and preservation of the texts could stand for a shift from a Catholic style to a Protestant style - where authority rests not in the church but in the text, and each individual is burdened with the freedom of interpreting the word of God for themselves. (This is loosely what people mean when they hope Rey will ‘democratize the Force’ - albeit in a libertarian sense rather than an egalitarian one. “I want to 3D-print a handgun and blow stuff up with my mind, and your rules can’t stop me!”) At the same time, however, the texts more likely stand for a return to origins and to pagan-styled esoteric secret teachings - as signalled by the gnostic imagery surrounding Luke’s death, which only Rey and Leia comprehend. (Most people think Luke was stabbed to death while defending the gate, but they don’t know the ancient wisdom that teaches us that the universe is a Matrix-styled hologram....) The third possibility is, of course, that Rey will simply resurrect the exact same Jedi Order of the prequels with incremental modifications. “We need the Jedi Order back!”, Rey says. Rey is such a blank slate that you may as well roll a chance cube here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 01:06 |
|
|
Rey is pretty much a stand in for JJ, a talented but utterly unoriginal and shallow person called in to serve as short-notice messiah, with no apparent convictions to speak of beyond the belief that star wars are cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 23:10
|
|