Star Wars Megathread

[Crawler89]

Ashoka show symbol:

Time Travel rebels ep:

Yeah I know, I Geeked out when I saw the logo cause of it

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Look at that wall of text no one is going to read

Look at this jerk off braying like a jackass

 

[Myrddin Wild]

One of the rumors for Ashoka show is that its going to have time travel/divergence and basically retcon the sequals

lololololololololol

Let me guess... Mike Zeroh

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Yet what you actually respond with is again picking out a semantic arguement, that doesnt really go against what I said that your posting comes across as very passive aggressive and intent on attacking the poster not the arguement.

I just asked you a simple question so that I can add it to my larger response. You reducing everything that led up to Luke pulling his sword on Kylo to "he just got a feeling" is literally what our discussion is about. All this psychoanalysis is un-necessary. You break things apart as much as me, so please remove that wagging finger from my face.

Really though yes I think "Luke watched Kylo train and got a feeling about him"

Brah...
He literally observed it.

considered murdering a child

He didn't "consider" it though. It was a trigger in him likely from the vision of Kylo blowing up Leia's ship (for example... we know it was something of that depth obviously.) Vader tripped that same trigger regardless of your dismissal of that fact.

Luke's words literally say that it was a temperary & fleeting feeling. iow... he got triggered.

Again Luke having faults shouldn't be an issue, thats the foundation of a good character story but those faults should be well built up and not go against what we know from the OT.

It didn't

I think it would have been perfectly possible to show us more of what happened with Ben, to show Luke's actions being less extreme and better built up but still carrying a sense of failure plus again the idea that he has gained something in his retreat in moving past simpler good/evil feeling based on his experience with Ben.

Its especially galling the film didnt do this when its "B-plot" is so incredibly weak and spends so much time on irrelvant story points and set pieces. That plot could/should have been so much simpler, a Zulu style "good guys under seige" story without all the asides.

Perfectly clear that you would've done it differently. I'm fine accepting things the way they are. I disagree with your opinion about those things being weak & most of your gripes.

That's fine. We're allowed to disagree.

The Holdo plot especially for me is the most distasteful thing in SW history, if you wanted evidence that "establishment liberal" rather than genuinely progressive political thinking was involved in these films this is pretty clear for me. It doesnt even bother to actually sell the idea Poe's morality/thinking is questionable, simply that his fault is lack of obedience to authority that "knows better". That gender alone is viewed as jusifctaion for this as well makes it pretty hard to avoid the feeling its a rather simplistic "Vice Admiral Hilrary vs the Bernie bros in space" metaphor.

lol.... & you talk about me getting semantic.

Gender? You're really going there? I can't be bothered with this stuff. Just view the Holdo situation as Admiral disciplining defiant soldier & it all makes sense.

Why didn't she just tell him the plan though? Don't look now, but it's that very soldier finding out the plan that leaked it to the enemy that killed most of them. Were it not for him knowing the plan, they could've all escaped & the 1st Order would've continued to follow Holdo. Add to that she's on a new ship with a crew she's unfamiliar with & thus people she doesn't trust & it makes so much since that it's almost next to impossible that the Admiral would share the plan that all their lives were hanging in the balance on with a proven defiant soldier.

I'll get your reply to the other one up soon.

 

[FyrFytr998]

Holy moly. This thread became a veritable war zone. I suppose that that makes sense. After all, this franchise is called STAR WARS.

It didn't have to be this way. KK could have had her way AND still placated the old fan base if only she had hired people to tell a good story. F&F have proven this.

There were all kinds of versions of a Luke story like this that could have worked great...like Eastwood in Unforgiven, like Newman in The Color of Money, like Stallone in Creed or Rambo 4, like Bridges in Tron: Legacy...

Any of those would have been fine or even great. Eastwood wasn't humiliated in Unforgiven for an hour and half before he saddled up to avenge Ned. He was an old guy getting back in the groove. Unforgiven would have been a piece of shit if the first hour and a half was Clint molesting his horse, pooping his pants and sucking on pig nipples.

Such a simple concept. Treat the source with respect and give it a noble death.

I've read it.

You're a disciple, you don't count.

 

[One MMA Fan]

You're a disciple, you don't count.

 

[minute bull]

if it's true

Why wait? Brag now.

I called this earlier

That's the spirit.

 

[FyrFytr998]

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Why wait? Brag now.

That's the spirit.

Your feelings are noted.

 

[hohner]

Ashoka show symbol:

Time Travel rebels ep:

I can't keep up. Is this one live action or animated?

 

[FyrFytr998]

I can't keep up. Is this one live action or animated?

Live action with Rosario Dawson.

 

[Lovestorm]

Live action with Rosario Dawson.

 

[minute bull]

Your feelings are noted.

*judgment

 

[hohner]

Live action with Rosario Dawson.

Good deal.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I just asked you a simple question so that I can add it to my larger response. You reducing everything that led up to Luke pulling his sword on Kylo to "he just got a feeling" is literally what our discussion is about. All this psychoanalysis is un-necessary. You break things apart as much as me, so please remove that wagging finger from my face.

Seems along the same lines as your original posting here you preffered to focus on a sementic arguement and ignored the rest.

Brah...
He literally observed it.

Well observing something and getting a "feeling" from it doesnt seem that unreasonably to me but again really if you want to focus on semetics that up to you, I'v made my feeling about the scene pretty clear beyond that much you don't seem to care about responding to them.

He didn't "consider" it though. It was a trigger in him likely from the vision of Kylo blowing up Leia's ship (for example... we know it was something of that depth obviously.) Vader tripped that same trigger regardless of your dismissal of that fact.

Luke's words literally say that it was a temperary & fleeting feeling. iow... he got triggered.

It didn't

The issue is though how much provocation Luke needed by the time of ROTJ to give in to anger and against who in what situation, we get an extended encounter with the Emperor and Vader, people who have committed terrible acts, the former is gloating over actually killing Lukes friends and the alliance whilst the latter attacks Luke and threatens his sister.

Compare that to a few lines about visions to justify seriously considering killing an innocent child in his sleep and I think its pretty hard to argue the two are anything close to the same.

I mean you see elsewhere in the film with the way Luke talks about himself and his image that Johnson either isnt aware or is just trying to ignore the shifts in the character across the OT, as with Han in TFA he's basically robbing a character of his gained wisdom so he can retell a similar kind of story that is what drives much of the talk of disrespect.

Gender? You're really going there? I can't be bothered with this stuff. Just view the Holdo situation as Admiral disciplining defiant soldier & it all makes sense.

Why didn't she just tell him the plan though? Don't look now, but it's that very soldier finding out the plan that leaked it to the enemy that killed most of them. Were it not for him knowing the plan, they could've all escaped & the 1st Order would've continued to follow Holdo. Add to that she's on a new ship with a crew she's unfamiliar with & thus people she doesn't trust & it makes so much since that it's almost next to impossible that the Admiral would share the plan that all their lives were hanging in the balance on with a proven defiant soldier.

I'll get your reply to the other one up soon.

No I would argue this is one of the few areas(the arms dealer talk being the other) were the film does more clearly stray into politics rather than just tokenistic marketing.

I think we have a story that clearly presents Holdo as someone acting in an aloof fashion taking actions which seem very poorly advised and then a major plot point of the film is that these actions are actually revealed to be correct. The moral failing of Poe and co is presented as a failure to follow orders with some "mansplaining" gender politics mixed in.

That to be is totally against the kind of morality Starwars had always presented previously were personal moral responsibility is always held upmost, its even a major plot point in Rogue One the year before.

We don't get the story of Poe and co morally evolving, there not presented as failing due to moral flaws in the way they act but simply by not following authority, basically saying you can;t trust yourself you just need to follow orders.

God knows what the idea behind the whole anti violence plot around Poe was, that made no sense at all with people who'd ordered military action that had cost lives suddenly desiding it was wrong.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

You seem to be careful with your language, to avoid conflict & keep things civil, so it's a bit strange to hear you calling me (whether directly or indirectly) a "fanboy" (just below) & so rather than lashing out in response, I'll just tell you that you have insulted me and this puts us on a tight line to where this might escalate if more of this comes up. I also feel it's an insult when my carefully articulated pov is labelled as "defending" Star Wars. I do not defend it... I speak my mind about it just like you... so lets ease up on this language. I'm sure you're aware i can add just as much Jalapeno to this convo as anyone, but despite popular belief, I do prefer civil convos over the Jalapeno versions.

Honestly it seems that a lot of the purpose of the "full canon" seems to be to enable the kind of argument your making, that details from it can be used to prop up the films, giving ammo to fanboys to defend a product.

There's WAY more canon out there that has nothing to do with the movies than does. I mean, it's all in the same world & it all ties together in that way & some are continuations of stories etc... but doesn't directly prop up a movie. We've got entire novels being written that have nothing to do with the movies. Canon games, comic books, & cartoon series.

Now if you want to specifically talk about the novel from the movie... then I'd say it's "of course" obvious that the novel will be used to answer any major problems that social media has with it. You seem to present that as a negative where-as my pov is that it's completely reasonable & tbh desirable to give the movie makers a chance to answer to the issues a movie has by delaying the novel for 5 or 6 months & answer to those issues that come out in social media... in the novel. I think that's fantastic.

The idea the "full canon" is what is "small by comparison" to the films in terms of importance is I thnk hard to argue against, that a film seen by vastly more people is of greater importance than a tie in novel read by comparatively few.

Viewership of canon material is irrelevant to me.

I don't distinguish between Movies & any other type of Canon. They all exist in the same universe & are all equally valid in my mind. The story that happens in a canon novel, comic book, game, or cartoon happened just like the story in the movie happened. Everything I take in is added in my mind to this wonderful & broad story. It actually seems strange for me to separate a movie from the whole in order to make points to someone like yourself who only wants to talk in terms of the movie & nothing more.

What you're doing is being a movie critic. You are being a stickler about the movie & demanding that it stand on its own. I feel that's valid that a movie should stand on its own, but our differences are that I feel like they do, & you feel like they don't in some ways.

I just showed you how the things you wanted to be in TLJ were in fact in there. Now you're saying you wanted more of that stuff. That's fair enough & you're entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that it is actually there. Maybe it's not enough for you, but it is enough for me.

Luckily for you we have this wonderful world of Canon for folks like yourself that want more detail. All you gotta do is embrace it. It's right there bud. Just take off the movie critic hat & embrace it.

It is truly an amazing thing. I love how they give that guarantee that none of this will be over-written. I've tried to explain how fascinating & wonderful the experience of the full canon is to people who only watch the movies, & obviously they won't get it... but it truly is fantastic that they all tie together. The Mandalorian exists in the same universe as the triple trilogy. How fucking outstanding is that?

Well really if you want to get semantic a "feeling" covers a good deal of ground doesn't it? my use of it was more an implication it downplays how well his motivation is gotten across, technically I think you could have had a situation were a motivation with no exact details was used well if it was sold correctly.

That first line of your quote would indicate that Luke observing Kylo in training is a "feeling." I try not to outright tell someone they're wrong if I'm engaged in a civil conversation like we're having, but "observation" does not qualify as simply a "feeling."

I'll give you the next 2 of my points aren't as cut & dry if we were talking about you & me reading someone's mind & having a vision... but when we contrast that it's a normal thing for force users to "read people's minds" that becomes much more than a feeling. When they read what people think, that's a dun deal. They saw it & there's no doubt about it. it's not a "feeling" they literally read it. Kylo didn't even want the droid any more because he had Rey & he knew that reading her mind was just as physically concrete evidence enough that it would've been equal to printing out the data that droid held. Do you understand now how that is more than a "feeling?"

So we have Luke "Reading" his mind. He's actually observing it. it's as real as reading information printed out from a computer.

Also, Luke is "seeing" a vision & "hearing" his loved ones screaming. hearing & seeing are more than just feeling. In the same way that Jedi mind reading is just as concrete as reading information from the computer in a droid... force visions are also more than "feeling."

You talk to me about these being "Semantics" & that I need to understand your broader pov. This is literally the thing I quoted you to begin with though. I think you saying that Luke wanted to kill Kylo due to a feeling has been shown to be a dramatic under-statement by the things I've said here. I quoted you to begin with because I'm asking you to quit exaggerating your pov & just say what is real. If your point is valid then it should not be a requirement for you to downplay exaggerate it. There's a helluvalot leading up to Luke pulling his sword on Kylo than to just reduce it to "a feeling." You seem to know this is true. I think you're just trying to hold onto your guns for some reason, but that's not necessary. I'm quite free to admit any time I'm wrong. I did it a couple of times recently in this thread alone. It would be refreshing for someone else to drop their ego & just say... "Ya know what, you made a good point."

The underlined part of your quote seems to be you agreeing with me that your statement was over-simplified correct? You seem to be saying that the words were not accurate, but the implication is. That's the reason I quoted you to begin with so we're good if we're in agreement that you did in fact over-simplify that statement.

a few lines of narration to justify killing the child of his sister in his sleep who's been left in his care based on a vision of the future.

First you said it was "nothing but a feeling." I consider this progress. That's 2 things now you've recognized. 2 or 3 more to go & you'll have them all.

Still though... even after all this discussion, you're still exaggerating your pov. this statement in itself completely leaves out the fact that this has been an ongoing recognition by Luke before this fateful night. From content within the movie we know that Luke has been feeling his darkness rising prior to that night. We know that he observed it physically in his training. He "read" his mind & found out it was darker than he could ever imagine. & of course he did also have a vision of the future.

This was my point in quoting you the first time. These quick exaggerations for effect are inaccurate. The reality requires a much broader description. Saying it's just a feeling or it's just a vision completely ignores the fact that this was an ongoing thing that he observed & felt for a long time prior to this. If your pov has validity it should be able to stand with the accurate description of everything the movie shared... being recognized in your statement. These exaggerations are misleading.

You can make a list of whats mentioned but that doesnt change that ultimately your talking about a few lines of dialog gotten across very quickly to justify killing a child in his sleep based on a vision. It just seems like your opinion of a film is based more on whether it can be mined for "lore" based arguments on the net rather than looking at whether its actually successful in what it attempts, I'm not going to engage you in that kind of arguement.

It's my opinion that you are disrespecting those "few lines" & the entire scenes in which they were spoken... by not giving them the credit they deserve for what they say.

Your opinion of me personally here is wrong. I saw the movie in the theaters 3 times in the opening week, & I'm not sure exactly when this particular scene all came together for me, but I was satisfied with Kylo's future tweeking Luke's triggers for a reaction back then. Despite your accusations, I do not just accept things in Star Wars so I can talk about them on social media. I get opinion first & then I discuss my opinion.

You seem to be under some kind of illusion that I'm fronting for effect... but I assure you I'm 100% authentic. I have never in all the words I've written contradicted myself. You just can't do that unless you're authentic. if you're trolling, you have to keep up with a ton of lies. I don't lie though. Everything I say comes straight from my heart. It's straight from what I believe, so there could never be a contradiction in that. The only way you'd find a contradiction in something I say is if I changed my mind about it, or was proven wrong. I'm very open to be proven wrong. I want to know truth. I don't care who delivers it or if I have to yield to a truth. Someone who is a chronic liar would be surprised at how much simpler life becomes when you simply shift to living in truth. There's nothing to keep up with. You just speak your truth in every moment & it cannot be denied or usurped. This is what you get when you talk to me. So don't make me out to be some liar or bullshit artist make me out to be someone who develops opinions just so that I can be someone I'm not on social media. What you get is exactly what I am.

Okay, that said... Instead of the details, you want me to speak to whether or not the movie was successful in what it attempts. I thought I was pretty clear about this, but again... yes, I feel like it's enough. I'm not someone who just accepts everything Star Wars or any of my favorite franchises delivers. I'm actually rather critical... which is why I think about things so deeply.

You like to bring up how uncle Luke wanted to kill his nephew, but you're completely leaving out the fact that his vision showed Kylo killing his other loved ones. This isn't like me or you having a dream, this is a Jedi Force vision on top of the fact that he's seen the darkness rising in him prior & he just realized it was darker than he could've ever imagined & that Snoke has already fully turned his heart. It had gotten to the point where the very reason Luke was going to his room was to confront him about this & have an intervention. So when he got there & saw Snoke had him & "experienced" that vision... he snapped. Personally, if I knew my nephew was going to kill my sister for example. I'd paint the walls with his ass & use the body for garden fertilizer.

irl... I had a similar situation when my nephew got bigger than my sister & as a smaller & single mother... he beat her up one day instead of letting her discipline him. I told the chaotic fucker that I was going to hospitalize him if I ever hear of him even threatening my sister again. Decades later, he's grown up & good with me saying that & thanked me. He knew he was wrong.

One could say that Luke could've worked it all out with Kylo. however that is exactly the conclusion Luke came to. It just so happened that Kylo woke up before Luke put his saber away.

It's my opinion, you haven't let all this sync in yet. You shifted your pov from how "it isn't in the movie" to "it's not enough," but maybe you just need to let this sync in a bit now that you've taken a closer look. You don't have to back everything you say up. I pride myself on admitting when I'm wrong or a little off or whatever. You don't have to have this white knuckle grip on it now that you know the things you thought weren't in there are in fact in there.

IMO... you're way to quick to dismiss very important things such as the fact that Luke saw who Kylo was going to kill. All you're focusing on is sweet innocent nephew lying there in bed all peacefully. You're also making it out like it was a decision Luke made, but it wasn't... he just snapped in a moment of raw instinct but then he contained himself to better judgement. Despite your dismissal, this is the same raw instinct from when he attacked pops like a ravenous beast. BTW, they were goading him along for a long time as you said, but Luke was relatively cool, not even losing too much composure over his entire fleet entering a trap. As soon as pops talked about killing his sister though he fooking snapped. The situations were different but the mechanism is the same. You talk about fooking with Leia... Luke snaps. That's the mechanism.

The idea that "There is no need for his own inner thought process" of Ben seems very strange to me, I mean one of the key points of the script is that Snoke is a bit of a red herring and the focus is very clearly on Kylo. To have the motivation for Ben's turn to the darkside seems of great importance to me in that situation and it would as I mention also give a lot of potential to make Luke' sturning against him more effective.

You're taking what I said out of context. My intention was to say that we don't need more of his inner thought process on top of what's already there. There's enough there for me with Snoke fooking with his head, Luke seeing him turning dark, his daddy issues, his bad temper etc, to see how Snoke got him. You feel like it's not enough, but you only just now were shown things you overlooked in the movie that you said weren't in there, so maybe you should watch it again now that you know.

How many times have you watched it?
Once isn't enough imo for a movie of this magnitude & depth.

(...I'm going to separate this top part & get into the rest in another segment since this got long)

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Honestly if you asking me why people don't "acknowledge the things you show" is that they simply don't agree with the points you make and indeed that a lot of those points are IMHO strawmen looking to attack anyone who disagrees with you.

It was rhetorical. I wasn't asking. The context was that I'm sharing information & very few actually show appreciation for it.

How can you not agree with me though? You literally told me that you were exaggerating for effect. (specifically you used the word "downplay.") That was the very point I was making when I quoted you to begin with. So we're in agreement.

It's not fair to critique me saying I attack people who disagree with me without bringing up a specific example so that I can defend myself. I typically only attack people who attack me first. If I'm not attacked... we have a civil discussion. I slip from time to time if someone's spitting nasty venom at Star Wars for sport, but that's very rare that I draw first blood. For example: We''ve been having a civil conversation & I haven't attacked you. I even let you call me a fanboy without returning a favor by calling you a hypocrite. So I feel your statement is unfounded.

As for the point that the film is some kind of "reverse adaptation" well that seems like an arguement invented for this purpose that really doesnt stand up to much thought IMHO. I mean films adapted from books have been criticized for not standing on their own feet for decades so why would the reverse be any different?

I didn't say "the movie was reverse adaptation." I said that the situation of making a movie off of a book is the reverse of making a book off of a movie. Also, I'm not implying a success guarantee. I'm simply implying the advantage of having the story hashed out by critics before you even started on the movie. You obviously understand this.

That's a point that KK has made... that it's much easier to make a movie that has been previously released as a book. It gives you an advantage with the story having been hashed out on social media & critics. IMHO KK has probably been involved in the creation of enough movies to negate your opinion that this pov is "not well thought out."

On the real... why would you not take advantage of the novel being released after the movie to answer to people's critiques. It makes no sense to do otherwise.

Luke "was" a hot head in the OT in ANH and ESB, which shows exactly my point that I think the sequels basically "reset" his and Han's characters, removed wisdom they gained though those films so they could replay the drama, something I would say is very disrespectful to the source material.

It's a psychological reality that we have the ability to rock up & negate our personal shortcomings in our lives when needed... but those under-lying tenancies don't just disappear. They're very capable of re-surfacing under less intense need. Think of how middle aged people commonly look around & say "fook... I became my parents." It's that kind of thing. What is at our base can always re-surface no matter how hot we run in the intermittent. That's real. I don't know how old you are, but if you haven't seen that play out in reality for others or even yourself, then hang in there, you'll see it, because this is very common.

Also I'd point out the paradox of you saying that they were disrespectful of the source material when it's the writer of the source material himself who wrote this version of Luke. The Luke we're given is one who did in fact digress back to his original tendencies just like so many of us "regular folk" do. I think that's the biggest issue with "Not my Luke" is that the inner child wanted that super hero. I mean they got it... but it came after Luke dealt with some baggage.

My pov is contrary to yours & that's okay. I see "Not my Luke" as a realistic extension of the character. They're showing the human side of Luke. It doesn't seem disrespectful at all to show that he has problems like we all do... & then they use that platform to show us how he worked out his issues with a few bits of wisdom from Grogu's dad... & then he came out the other side rocking up to save the rebels at the expense of his own life. Quite heroic in the end yeah?

 

[Myrddin Wild]

Well observing something and getting a "feeling" from it doesnt seem that unreasonably to me but again really if you want to focus on semetics that up to you, I'v made my feeling about the scene pretty clear beyond that much you don't seem to care about responding to them.

No idea what you're talking about here. I told you very clearly that I was still working on the rest of your reply when I sent you that one simple question. Here ya go... Just look up for all the responses you could ever wish for.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

If I respond to those posts peice by peice its going to be simply massive and end up repeating myself alot.

Instead I'll just say that I'm not against the idea of any kind of tie in novel existing, what I am against is the idea that a tie in novel can somehow correct the flaws of a film iand I think it encourages inferior film making.

Were talking about a key dramatic element within a film in terms of Luke considering murdering Ben, to say that you need to read some kind of supporting novel to understand that is something you would find almost zero support for among any film goer beyond IMHO those who simply want to prop up this franchise by any means they can.

 

[Myrddin Wild]

The issue is though how much provocation Luke needed by the time of ROTJ to give in to anger and against who in what situation, we get an extended encounter with the Emperor and Vader, people who have committed terrible acts, the former is gloating over actually killing Lukes friends and the alliance whilst the latter attacks Luke and threatens his sister.

Compare that to a few lines about visions to justify seriously considering killing an innocent child in his sleep and I think its pretty hard to argue the two are anything close to the same.

I mean you see elsewhere in the film with the way Luke talks about himself and his image that Johnson either isnt aware or is just trying to ignore the shifts in the character across the OT, as with Han in TFA he's basically robbing a character of his gained wisdom so he can retell a similar kind of story that is what drives much of the talk of disrespect.

What's the trigger though. Fook with Leia, Luke snaps.

It wasn't a thought out process. he was triggered. It was fleeting.

No I would argue this is one of the few areas(the arms dealer talk being the other) were the film does more clearly stray into politics rather than just tokenistic marketing.

I think we have a story that clearly presents Holdo as someone acting in an aloof fashion taking actions which seem very poorly advised and then a major plot point of the film is that these actions are actually revealed to be correct. The moral failing of Poe and co is presented as a failure to follow orders with some "mansplaining" gender politics mixed in.

That to be is totally against the kind of morality Starwars had always presented previously were personal moral responsibility is always held upmost, its even a major plot point in Rogue One the year before.

We don't get the story of Poe and co morally evolving, there not presented as failing due to moral flaws in the way they act but simply by not following authority, basically saying you can;t trust yourself you just need to follow orders.

God knows what the idea behind the whole anti violence plot around Poe was, that made no sense at all with people who'd ordered military action that had cost lives suddenly desiding it was wrong.

As mentioned all this is not something I care to discuss. The "perceived" relationships between what's seen on screen & some underlying irl political agenda can be twisted in any direction the user wishes imo. If they're really trying to metaphysically castrate the male population through some SJW agenda then I'll be just fine because my ballz are made out of fooking Beskar boiy!