|
I'm beginning to think that Star Wars fans do not actually like Star Wars. And this means Star Wars fans like Star Wars ads and then immediately forgetting the actual movie, putting its name on a ranked list, and then complaining incessantly about the incredibly traumatic prequel films. We're talking people who say, like, "The Force Awakens is the second-best film in the series" and yet can't even follow the basic narrative.
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
I simply defy any Star Wars fan to write multiple paragraphs of content about any particular aspect of the filmmaking of TFA.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Maz talks about the sith, the baddies talk about clone troopers, and the republic is based on Coruscant. Kyle is blatantly a version of Anakin, and Luke going missing after his Jedi school is destroyed is a direct reference to Revenge Of The Sith. Jimmy Smitts appears in Rogue One, and the entire plot is about the aftermath of Episode 3. The narrative of Rogue One also addresses the specific issues raised by the prequels (droid personhood, the failure of the Republic's liberal centrism, etc.). All the 'force worshippers' are a reference to midichlorians (i.e. to the fact that only people with midichlorians can use psychic powers). Rey's powers are presented as literal biological traits, not aspects of any religious belief/meditation/whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Why don't people just say this, then? Why blatantly lie and call it Coruscant, when the actual meaning meant to be conveyed is "a planet/system like Coruscant"? The planet is Coruscant in the film. The EU then retconned the film.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
[quote="“jivjov”" post="“477282623”"] At no point is the Hosnian system or Hosnian Prime ever called Coruscant in any film or novel or comic. [/quote] TFA says that the capital of the Republic, previously established as Coruscant, is located in 'The Hosnian System'. Hosnia is therefore implicitly the name of the star that Coruscant orbits. (In real life, Earth is located in The Solar System. Because it orbits Sol). The EU retcons the film with a convoluted story. It claims that there are multiple Republic capitals that all look the same, so what we saw was actually a clone of Coruscant and the real Coruscant survived. The EU also claims that Hosnia is not a star at all, but actually multiple planets that are called Hosnia. (Hosnia 1, Hosnia 2, etc.) This EU stuff sounds suspiciously like a 9/11 conspiracy theory. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
[quote="“Mortanis”" post="“477283855”"] Unless something changed, Disney was explicit that there is Canon and there is Legends; everything Disney publishes, whether film or jointly through the Marvel comics, is Canon. If it’s in distribution in one fashion or another since the Disney acquisition, it is Canon. I don’t see anything that changed that and the Star Wars Canon list currently includes novels and comics. The only retroactive Canon are the movies and, supposedly, the Clone Wars series. Edit: I guess it’s more apt to say that Disney doesn’t give a poo poo about Canonicity and that all its stuff is as legit as anything else until it’s not. If it’s published since the acquisition, it’s Canon, right up until something contradicts it. But there is no “EU” or Lesser Canon any more. [/quote] Disney lied to you. In Star Wars, Han lies about the Kessel run. It's pure bullshit. But in TFA and (apparently) the upcoming Ron Howard film, the Kessel run is suddenly a real event. Disney has made Star Wars: Episode 4: A New Hope NON-CANON. [quote="“jivjov”" post="“477284046”"] Uh....no. That’s not how it works at all. [/quote] That's actually the definition of retconning. If it's eventually 'revealed' that the Luke from the end of TFA is actually an advanced robot duplicate of Luke, and that the guy who trained Kyle died in the fire offscreen, that will be a retcon. You've seriously been tricked into believing a weirdo Bigger Luke / Berenstein Bear conspiracy theory. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:The Phantom Menace is better than the other prequels because Anakin was a cute sassy kid instead of some creepy teen. The romance subplot in Attack of the Clones was cringeworthy. I love when people invent arbitrary prequel-specific rules, like ‘creepy teens have no place in cinema’.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:No but Hayden Christiansen was an awful actor which made the creepy teen worse Yeah we’ve seen this song & dance before. You say teens are bad, then, no, the acting is bad. We ask you to explain what’s wrong with the acting and then you say, well, the script is bad. And so-on. You may as well skip to the “it’s just bad, ok?!” part.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Zeris posted:The actual issue with AOTC's romance is that Padme only confronts the creepiness once. Aside from that, the audience feels tons of discomfort (fine) but Padme shrugs it off (not fine / bad acting or writing) or is totally back to normal by the next scene, as though Anakin hadn't pushed any boundaries at all so far. Well now we’ve got it: the problem has nothing to do with the base concept or the acting or anything else; the problem is that Anakin gets away with it. Nobody stops him, and so the people in the audience feel this nigh-unbearable tension and frustration because Padme simply tolerates fascism. It’s the ‘don’t go in the basement!!!’ effect.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Again, the ‘problem’ is not any flaw in the writing. It’s that fans expect a ‘voice of reason’ character to chime in with play-by-play: “don’t date him, honey; he’s a fascist and you deserve better”. And they want Anakin to be incredibly cool and suave, so that this explains away Padme’s ‘unnatural’ behaviour. It’s ideology: to the fans, fascism is unnatural. It doesn’t appear as a result of systemic problems; it happens because of bad people corrupting the innocent and causing irrational behaviour. So doing away with fascism is as easy as being more rational. So fans get badly confused that Padme, a perfectly intelligent and rational person, likes fascism. Even though the movie is about the rise of a fascist dictatorship.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Christensen is doing a James Dean impression. That is not his normal speaking voice.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
Obi-Wan: Why were you banished Jar-Jar? Jar-Jar Binks: It's a longo taleo buta small part of it would be mesa... clumsy Obi-Wan: You were banished because you were clumsy? Jar-Jar Binks: Yousa might'n be sayin dat. Mesa cause one, two-y little bitty axadentes, huh?  ("It's on automatic pilot!") Yud say boom de gasser,  ("Oops!") den crashin der bosses heyblibber,  ("Yippee!") den banished.  ("Peace!")
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Dude I want to defend the Han/Leia romance on the grounds of it being inherently a fantasy and not necessarily something intended to be emulated in real life The scene is neither fantasy nor something to be emulated in real life. The point of the scene is simple characterization: Han is a misogynist, in the same way Quigon Jinn is a racist. Before you leap into moralistic value judgment here, you must first accept that this is simply true. From there, you can point out how C3PO plays a structural role in the relationship narrative: “When the lovers meet for the last time at the desolate train station in David Lean’s Brief Encounter, their solitude is immediately disturbed by Celia Johnson’s noisy and inquisitive friend who, unaware of the underlying tension between the couple, goes on prattling about ridiculously insignificant everyday accidents. Unable to directly communicate, the couple can just desperately stare in front of themselves. This common prattler is the big Other at its purest: while it appears as an accidental unfortunate intruder, its role is structurally necessary. When, towards the film’s end, we see this scene for the second time, accompanied by Celia Johnson’s voice-over, she tells us that she did not listen to what her friend was saying, not understanding even a word of it – however, precisely as such, this prattling provided the necessary background, a kind of safety-cushion, to the lovers’ last meeting, preventing its self-destructive explosion or, even worse, its turn into banality: the insignificant prattling has to go on in order to prevent the catastrophe, so the intruding friend arrives exactly the right moment. That is to say, on the one hand, it is this very presence of the naïve prattler which ‘understands nothing’ of the true tension of the situation that enables the lovers to maintain a minimum of control over their predicament, since they feel compelled to ‘maintain the proper appearances’ in front of this gaze. On the other hand, one should recall that, in a couple of words the lovers succeed exchanging in privacy prior to being interrupted, they come to the edge of confronting the unpleasant question: if they really love each other so passionately that they cannot live without each other, why don’t they simply divorce their spouses and part together? The prattler arrives just at the right moment, enabling the lovers to maintain the tragic grandeur of their predicament – without this third intruder, they would have to confront the banality and the vulgar compromise nature of their predicament. The shift to be made in a proper dialectical analysis is thus the one from the condition of impossibility to the condition of possibility: what appears as the ‘condition of impossibility,’ as the obstacle, is a position, enabling, condition to what it appears to threaten.” -Zizek It’s no coincidence that Leia only reciprocates at the point where Han is about to be permanently removed from the picture.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2017 06:43
|
|
|
viral spiral posted:I liked the OT before it was butchered by a narcissistic man who can't make up his mind. Nobody would have a problem with him if he simply allowed the theatrical releases which made Star Wars a cultural phenomenon still commercially (legally) available, like Blade Runner. By making it all about him, he's essentially erasing history in the process. Film preservation should always be protected, and Lucas himself spoke against modifications and revisions in 1988. You are mad because you want to buy official Star Wars merch, because there isn’t enough of that apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
josh04 posted:What do you find lacking in the existing original cuts you can get online? The problem with those is that they exist, for free, unofficially. Fans want to pay over a hundred dollars for the official versions that don’t exist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The ability to watch them on my couch without issues? I just want to push play and there they are in HD. And enjoy them without scoffing at the lousy effects added for idiots. It’s incredibly easy to get a video file to play on a TV.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
Phantom Menace switches protagonists halfway in, like Psycho. It’s initially Jar Jar, then he gets replaced by Anakin - because the racist Jedis literally perform a blood test that determines Anakin is genetically superior.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Yaws posted:The problem is Jar Jar only get introduced 1/4 into the movie. That’s not a problem. Unless you mean that it is also a problem in Alien, 2001: Space Odyssey, and Star Wars Episode 4 A New Hope. The rule you invented is a fake rule. You made it up because, instead of simply reading the film, you decided to work backwards from your preexisting conclusion. You will now say anything and everything, regardless of whether it’s true or accurate, so long as it leads to a ‘win’. “The protagonist must be introduced in the first 15 minutes”, “the protagonist is the character with the most magic powers”, whatever. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
Yaws posted:Unlike Jar Jar Binks the examples you provided were given what we call character arcs. I am writing about your stance, which is continually changing. Your first post said that Jar Jar cannot be the protagonist because he is racially inferior. Your next post said that Jar Jar cannot be the protagonist because he appears onscreen 12 minutes into the narrative. You are now claiming that Jar Jar has no character arc. That latest claim is also false. The character begins the film as a slacker who only helps out of a sense of obligation to Quigon, but then takes a moral stance when he learns yousa [Amidala’s] people gonna die. He fights at the end despite being terribly afraid.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I read the threads a little before the first Rey one and I remember SMG arguing with everyone that the prequels we're good, I liked his posts cause the Christian anarchist deconstruction stuff is more fun to read than "it good. No it bad" Christian radical. But yeah, the trouble is that I’ve covered basically everything. Like I could write more about individual background characters or something, but it’d be a bit redundant. TFA, on the other hand, is not a even a real film. Like, its fans actually tune out the narrative, because it’s a shambles, and just imagine Poe and FN kissing eachother. I’ve gone into a few specific examples already, but the entire film is like that. There’s not much to gain from analyzing it. And since there will no longer be any ~~~mysteries~~~, fans themselves have already started to turn on it. They can no longer rely on the belief that TFA will be fixed retroactively, with enough supplementary material. They are being confronted with the fact that it is a broken film. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 01:15 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Yaws posted:~~likable characters~~ When people talk about TFA’s “likeable characters”, they are invariably actually referring to the actors’ performances - in isolation. Like if you subtract everything that contributes to characterization except the performance (and, perhaps, elements of the costume design), that’s what you’re talking about. Characterization in the film is messy because the actors’ performances don’t gel with the visual narrative or the writing, thanks to the obvious copious reshoots. Kylo being Han’s son, for example, was very obviously a twist that got nixed at the last minute - hence the extremely clumsy scene where Snoke reminds Kylo who his father is. This leads to problems when, for example, FN knew about the Death Star 3 all along. People gloss over this, but Boyega is acting so ridiculously terrified in the film because FN terrified of being blown up. Knowledge of the Death Star 3 has driven him mad - and his self-serving lies have condemned billions to die. That’s the core of his character. FN’s original, pre-reshoot characterization was all about the dramatic irony of wearing heroes’ clothes despite being a genuinely terrible person. Originally the protagonist, he would redeem himself by effectively giving up his life for Rey. As in Jurassic World, though, the character’s negative traits were hastily scrubbed from the film to make him more likeable - even though doing so removed his narrative purpose. Remember: the entire point of FN is that he’s a stormtrooper who turns good. But FN’s complicity in building the superweapon is heavily downplayed in the final cut, until he becomes ‘just a janitor’ who has never done anything even remotely bad. His only negative character trait is being... mildly boastful? It’s awful characterization - dramatically inert.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:FN is just weird. We meet him with Kylo Ren and Phasma, showing it to be an important mission, and he's this frontline combatant on it. Then Finn is just a janitor, and this, like, isn't a lie to cover up his FO crimes or anything. There's nothing to Poe beyond him being 'one hell of a pilot' (although I do wonder who would've popped Starkiller pre-reshoots). And Rey is just there, too, who is defined by 'lots of power' and 'wants to stay at home', maybe. I’ve seen enough bowdlerized movies to know what they were going for. TFA deals in very familiar narrative cliches, so it’s easy to see where they made desperate, last-minute changes. FN is the “Winter Soldier” archetype, from the Captain America sequels. He has definitely participated in massacres. He has helped build the Death Star. FN was brainwashed, but he still feels enormous guilt over what he did. Abrams introduces him with a Starship Troopers reference, and the basic image of a stormtrooper says “American GI in ‘Nam.” He’s been in some very bad poo poo and now his brain’s all hosed up. Poe Dameron is the “Captain Amazing” archetype from Mystery Men. He was originally meant to die as a joke, as we all know, but the point remains that Poe is an idiot who stands for a faux-uplifting defense of the status quo. The original version of TFA was therefore based on the mystery of what went wrong - why did the new Republic backslide even further into a fascist nightmare world? Why is Poe such an idiot? And that’s where we get the original twist: Han and Leia gave birth to the villain. They hosed it all up, and the kids are bearing the brunt of it. Their failure as parents is the failure of the Republic in microcosm: Leia couldn’t function without an external enemy Other to rally against, and Han put all responsibility on the Jedi to figure something out.... This was all removed from the film, to give it a ‘brighter tone’ and ‘more likeable characters’. FN was ironically made into a Jar Jar redux - a hapless innocent janitor in exile, as the story shifted more towards Kylo being a psycho for no reason, while Leia bravely fights this purely evil external enemy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's almost like charisma is important. If that is what matters to you, then you must admit that there is a ton of chaff on that wheat. The cinematic qualities of the movie are obstacles getting in the way of what you really want - which is watching John Boyega do live improv.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 08:59
|
|
|
Milky Moor posted:Still lolling at Luke turning to the camera and saying SMG was right. Of course, but the question is whether Luke interpreted my posts correctly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Zane posted:it doesnt work. the entire dramatic arc is an abortion because anakin doesn't fall for an intelligible reason. you're dumb. Anakin is trained and encouraged to kill ‘the right people’, in the service of the capitalist Republic, from the age of 8 or whatever. He kills like 3 million people in the first film, and gets a parade partly in his honour. Then, the twist: capitalism is bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Zane posted:mind: blown The satirical point is that Anakin falls to the dark side halfway into Episode 1 and none of the good guys noticed, because they fuckin love the dark side. You didn’t notice either.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:In essence you could edit Finn out of both movies with nothing lost. The joke here is that FN is the protagonist of Force Awakens, up until the point where he ‘dies’. Rey is such a bland character because she stands for FN’s latent heroic spirit or something. She enters his narrative at roughly the point where he puts on the Resistance jacket, and suddenly Rey just loves to kill stormtroopers. Not coincidentally, Rey does all her most questionable violent stuff when FN isn’t around. Force Awakens isn’t easy to absorb; it’s easy to tune out. Nobody gives a poo poo about the conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:JJ can make a movie to spec. The Force Awakens being safe was a strategic decision to prove that Disney can wage Star War. That’s the standard take. The truth is that Force Awakens is mostly a really poor riff on The Terminator.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 09:50
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:But then The Terminator is a riff on Star Wars. Not really. In TFA, Skynet sends a Terminator to ruthlessly kill everything in its path in an effort to track down and eliminate legendary hero John Connor. A PTSD’d future-soldier (terrified of the looming apocalypse) arrives in the present, disguises himself, and goes on the run with an unassuming young woman. Unbeknownst to her, this woman holds the key to John Connor’s location. The soldier is killed in combat with the Terminator, but the woman finds the resolve to defeat it. Now alone, she pledges to deliver John Connor to the anti-Skynet Resistance. She drives off in a truck, with her new dog and a tape recorder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I'd call it a scathing indictment of elitist opinions of elder politicians and intellectuals that think repeating ideas to each other is more important than embracing reality and communicating with the people and their problems. Luke is not a politician, an intellectual, or an elitist. Luke is a grimy old hermit / dairy farmer. What makes him an intellectual? The fact that he owns a book?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:probably the part where he lead a jedi school and had many pupils being taught under him, also the part where his entire role in the film is an advisory one where he commentates on the force and provides wisdom (albeit in a more brash and less elegant way than other characters in a similar role) So it’s about a guy who doesn’t run a He only talks with like one person in the entire movie.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:My perspective is that farmers can become intellectuals, and Luke takes up the role of being one of the representatives of old intellectuals in TLJ. Your claim is that ex-guru and current dairy farmer Luke is an intellectual because he is ‘a representative’ of the offscreen people who are actually intellectuals (who?). In other words, you yourself say that Luke isn’t an intellectual. Your vocal anti-intellectualism is based on the idea that intellectuals don’t communicate, when of course professional philosophers and such spend their lives writing books and giving lectures. What you mean is that they don’t communicate ‘successfully’ because they are ‘unrealistic’. What do you mean by this? Who qualifies as an intellectual, and which intellectuals have unrealistic ideas? All of them? When you get specific, wrote that Luke resembles Slavoj Zizek, presumably because Luke has a beard. Luke doesn’t say anything about Hegelian dialectics, radical Christianity, communism, or Lacanian psychoanalysis. Luke stated beliefs in the film are some New Age sort of stuff about panpsychism. He says nothing Zizekian. You also call him an elitist politician. He lives on a rock. Your many obvious errors show that are engaged in deceit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Sinding Johansson posted:Esb did a great job of Luke confronting his failed idealism. Tlj Luke is like what if he founded a Jedi school after episode 4 and episode 5 and 6 never happened to him. Disney canon is that Episode 6 is ‘EU’ - a collection of plot points from wookieepedia, but not part of the narrative progression of the films. You can currently replace it with a text that reads “forty years later...”. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Less than a month, and people in the Ep 9 thread have run out of things to say. The prequels are back, as was inevitable. Prequels for life. Prequel supremacy.AndyElusive posted:I'm just pointing out even the actors who did it well still had a hard time forcing out those lines without them sounding like trash at the end of the day sometimes. But let's face it: you are unable to give a single example of a 'trash' line from A New Hope that was saved by extreme... exertion(?) by the actors. You haven't even established what you mean by 'trash' writing. This is because memes have infected you. You didn't look at any aspect of Ford's performance, or a single line of dialogue, before ostensibly talking about them. It doesn't matter to you if what you wrote is true or not, or even if it refers to anything that actually happened in reality. The meme just pulled the strings and you typed out words we've all seen before, as if in a trance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
In the alternate universe: Star Wars fans are all incredibly into the science of film editing, and they gather on message boards to discuss montage and eyeline matches for 100 pages at a time while ceaselessly disparaging Paul Martin Smith.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:Just imagine watching A New Hope and Luke misses the shot and has to fly around again to take another shot. What you are describing is the plot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:I was actually defending the PT but uh, sure. Whatever you say, SMG. No more memes. No more takes. Tenzarin posted:That's another character, originally Luke also misses a shot. I understand that. And what you are describing is the plot in an unreleased earlier version of the film. "Luke drives through the desert" or "the death star has a laser" --- these are phrases that have nothing to do with editing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Since we're on the topic, the CG hologram scene in Return Of The Jedi is actually a good example of where the prequel aesthetic comes from. This set from Episode 3:  is a synthesis of these sets from 1950s semi-classic This Island Earth:   and this set from Episode 5:  We should note that the prequel film has the best cinematography of the three, here. (And to be clear: that is a massive physical set that Ewan McGregor is walking around in.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:how in the world is revising the film from an earlier version not editing Tenzarin did not write anything about revision. He only described events in the plot of a film he hasn't seen. Even if you compare the plots of two different films, as you are doing, you are still not talking about editing. To be clear: you are writing as though tension comes from the plot - i.e. 'Luke only has one chance to blow up the death star' - instead of how editing techniques are used to generate tension. And that's because, of course, you can't talk about which editing techniques were used. You haven't seen how the assembly cut was edited. No-one has. dont even fink about it posted:That gentleman sitting on the console in ROTJ has a Robot Chicken skit dedicated to him by way of making fun of EU writing (almost every character in every shot of the movies is given a backstory in one story or another): Right, and we're getting to what people are talking about when they complain about "CGI" and contrast it with "practical effects": both scenes use the same 'amount' of digital effects, but the frame in Return of The Jedi is cluttered with extras and props like the console and the glass radar screens up on the ceiling. The cinematography is worse in a way that could be conflated with naturalism, but is really more like indifference. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Dec 29, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:And the slaves were already freed in ROTJ. Leia frees herself from her enslavement to Jabba, Jabba and the slave empire he represents is destroyed, Anakin frees himself from his last master and is truly free for the first time in his life, the movie ends with scenes from across the galaxy of the formerly enslaved masses celebrating their newfound freedom from their oppressors. Anakin's dream in TPM that he "came back" and "freed the slaves" is finally and truly fulfilled on a universal scale. Slavery is not caused by literally two people. You are using 'slavery' and 'oppression' interchangeably. And, even then, all oppression in the universe hasn't ended with the death of the emperor. Like it's the basic Christ myth. Christ did not end slavery, poverty, and so-on when he died. That comes later. The 'New Republic' is not the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 06:47
|
|