Star Wars: Episode IX – Teaser

locked

4227 views

Super not interested in rehashing the Star Wars debate around here. This looks fun! The name is definitely intriguing. I wasn’t super thrilled with Abrams doing this movie, but his films are almost always fun watches, if nothing else.

locked

4216 views

The name is definitely intriguing.

I guess Kylo wins.

locked

4171 views

The name is definitely intriguing.

I guess Kylo wins.

Or gets redeemed. Or something else totally unrelated where Skywalker just becomes a thing instead of Jedi.

locked

4157 views

The name is definitely intriguing.

I guess Kylo wins.

Or gets redeemed. Or something else totally unrelated where Skywalker just becomes a thing instead of Jedi.

Or he and Rey are twins. Because they've already been over all the brand beats by now. And we're at the third flick in the trilogy, which is when the incestuous thoughts from the second movie are revealed to be just that.

locked

4115 views

The name is definitely intriguing.

I guess Kylo wins.

Or gets redeemed. Or something else totally unrelated where Skywalker just becomes a thing instead of Jedi.

Or he and Rey are twins. Because they've already been over all the brand beats by now. And we're at the third flick in the trilogy, which is when the incestuous thoughts from the second movie are revealed to be just that.

You mean twin flames?

Reylo shippers unite.

locked

4155 views

Intrigued confusion is a thing.

locked

4217 views

I just haven't particularly enjoyed 7 or 8 and I don't see how 9 could redeem them sadly. I know some people enjoy them, but they just aren't for me.

locked

4245 views

I hope...

Rey has no regal parentage. This is paramount. With this -Legends- angle I perceive, it's possible. With Palpatine they can hit two birds with one stone, and have it all make sense. They could. They might. If they have... then in the end it will all be about execution. They are editing the Movie now. I hope they can do some justice. Historically speaking, Starwars is made in the edit.

It looks like it will be a fun watch. No need to mock the audiences intelligence here! ;P

That's all. For now.

locked

4372 views

They had me when the TIE Interceptor flew by the screen

locked

4177 views

They had me when the TIE Interceptor flew by the screen

That sound is still just absolutely amazing. It’s really perfect for that application. Sinister and powerful and creepy and awesome.

locked

4169 views

1. I agree that Abrams' films are always entertaining, even if they don't stand up to any scrutiny. It'll be fun for a theatrical watch.

2. The Last Jedi was one of the better Star Wars films as far as the universe's concepts go, and I wish they wouldn't retcon it. That said, this entire trilogy has been entirely inconsistent and contradictory, so what else is new.

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

locked

4186 views

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

How's that now? IIRC, we witness essentially the dissolution of the Jedi Order. That's entirely separate from the actual workings of the Force, or the impact the Skywalker lineage has on the SW universe. Much in the same way that our universe has a certain order to it, regardless of whether or not (insert organized religion here) came to be.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you believe was the "the entire point" of tLJ?

PS - $5 says Kylo and Rey are twins.

locked

4200 views

Why would Han and Leia have a twin and ... lose track of it?? Never mention it for two movies?

locked

4131 views

Why would Han and Leia have a twin and ... lose track of it?? Never mention it for two movies?

Same reason that "dying of heartbreak" is a thing in a reality where all sorts of extant high technology could have saved Padme's life. Or why the projectiles from ship's guns are going to have a gravity falloff before they hit their target...in space.

I fully believe anything to do with Rey's lineage in TFA was just a whole bunch of hand-waving to get fans focused on the story and to forget about those links for the time being, because they'd distract from the immediate fun of the moment. I agree that it's super lame, but what is the more likely outcome? There are too many other brand beats in play already. Maybe I'll owe some $5 bills, but we'll see.

locked

4162 views

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

How's that now? IIRC, we witness essentially the dissolution of the Jedi Order. That's entirely separate from the actual workings of the Force, or the impact the Skywalker lineage has on the SW universe. Much in the same way that our universe has a certain order to it, regardless of whether or not (insert organized religion here) came to be.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you believe was the "the entire point" of tLJ?

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

Since then, a theory has cropped up that the "Grey Jedi" (or more importantly, post-dissolution Force wielders) will simply be known as "Skywalkers", due to the legend of that family.

PS - $5 says Kylo and Rey are twins.

Sure would be a good way to shut down the people who want them to get together (like, seriously? How stupid would Rey be as a character?).

locked

4135 views

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

Since then, a theory has cropped up that the "Grey Jedi" (or more importantly, post-dissolution Force wielders) will simply be known as "Skywalkers", due to the legend of that family.

So "Skywalker" becomes a mantle? Eh, I could see that. But then the title is seriously flawed from the get-go. Meh. I still agree that they could have come up with a better title.

PS - $5 says Kylo and Rey are twins.

Sure would be a good way to shut down the people who want them to get together (like, seriously? How stupid would Rey be as a character?).

I'm with you on this. I think we're looking at a larger case of "all of this has happened before, and will happen again".

locked

4143 views

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

This was my takeaway too. A big middle finger to the Divine Right of Kings etc.

Since then, a theory has cropped up that the "Grey Jedi" (or more importantly, post-dissolution Force wielders) will simply be known as "Skywalkers", due to the legend of that family.

Intriguing. This may be the only way I can see a continuity between the latest two entries and the forthcoming one. Sadly, I'm expecting retcons galore and dropped plot threads. This is JJ after all.

locked

4197 views

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

How's that now? IIRC, we witness essentially the dissolution of the Jedi Order. That's entirely separate from the actual workings of the Force, or the impact the Skywalker lineage has on the SW universe. Much in the same way that our universe has a certain order to it, regardless of whether or not (insert organized religion here) came to be.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you believe was the "the entire point" of tLJ?

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

The importance of Luke Skywalker was never his power... it was his behaviour. Luke’s “power” is a direct result of his moral choices, which are expressed in Star Wars terms as his serving the “will of the force”.

Anakin’s tale is a cautionary one that, among other things, warns of the destruction that ensues when you prioritize power over what is right and good. That’s the significance of the Skywalkers. Something that the current creative team at Disney and Lucasfilm seems to have forgotten.

locked

4132 views

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

How's that now? IIRC, we witness essentially the dissolution of the Jedi Order. That's entirely separate from the actual workings of the Force, or the impact the Skywalker lineage has on the SW universe. Much in the same way that our universe has a certain order to it, regardless of whether or not (insert organized religion here) came to be.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you believe was the "the entire point" of tLJ?

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

The importance of Luke Skywalker was never his power... it was his behaviour. Luke’s “power” is a direct result of his moral choices, which are expressed in Star Wars terms as his serving the “will of the force”.

Anakin’s tale is a cautionary one that, among other things, warns of the destruction that ensues when you prioritize power over what is right and good. That’s the significance of the Skywalkers. Something that the current creative team at Disney and Lucasfilm seems to have forgotten.

Have they forgotten? I mean...it seems that these movies could be saying exactly that. We'd need the final entry to know for sure though, no?

locked

4103 views

3. The name is stupid. And it goes against the entire point of the last film, but whatevs.

How's that now? IIRC, we witness essentially the dissolution of the Jedi Order. That's entirely separate from the actual workings of the Force, or the impact the Skywalker lineage has on the SW universe. Much in the same way that our universe has a certain order to it, regardless of whether or not (insert organized religion here) came to be.

Just so we're on the same page, what do you believe was the "the entire point" of tLJ?

When I initially made that post, I was referring to the forced importance of a Skywalker in the Star Wars universe. The point of TLJ was that the Force could be wielded by anyone. Royal lineage or lowly stable boy, it's a force that flows through all living things.

The importance of Luke Skywalker was never his power... it was his behaviour. Luke’s “power” is a direct result of his moral choices, which are expressed in Star Wars terms as his serving the “will of the force”.

Anakin’s tale is a cautionary one that, among other things, warns of the destruction that ensues when you prioritize power over what is right and good. That’s the significance of the Skywalkers. Something that the current creative team at Disney and Lucasfilm seems to have forgotten.

Have they forgotten? I mean...it seems that these movies could be saying exactly that. We'd need the final entry to know for sure though, no?

It depends. If Rey does end up being a Skywalker, as is looking quite likely IMO, then I’d say they have utterly missed the point. I like Rey from a personality point of view, but she’s been developed terribly. She’s just impossibly powerful for no good reason. It isn’t tied to her developing her character, inner strength, moral compass... there’s no echo of Luke or Obi-Wan’s or Yoda’s “power”. For all of the great Jedi, their power was a manifestation of their inner strength and moral character. Rey is perpetually unstoppable, and always right.

The reason any of these stories is compelling on a personal level is that we see characters struggle, make mistakes, fall short, and then grow in strength of character as they make the right choices and proper sacrifices. Luke’s Jedi powers, Harry’s wizard abilities, Neo’s ability to control the Matrix, Aragon’s ascension towards ultimate leadership; these are all outward manifestations of these characters’ inner commitments to truth and goodness. None of that is present with Rey. There’s no real growth. She’s already perfect, without ever earning it (as far as we’ve been shown).

That said, there is loads of potential for Kylo. I mean, they could turn around and deliver a compelling hero’s journey for Rey in episode 9 too, but in Kylo’s case, the groundwork has already been laid in 7 and 8. He has been growing into his position, like a shadow version of Luke in the OT. I’d hoped they’d develop him and Rey in contrast with each other... almost like Neo and Smith. But intentionally or not, he’s the only force user in this new trilogy that has an arch, so far. Fin had a good trajectory of development after 7, and I wondered if they’d develop him into a Jedi, but they went and repeated his exact arch in 8, so I don’t think he’s in a position to be thrust into the true spotlight.

As far as episode 9 is concerned, I’m still waiting and hoping for the filmmakers to treat Jedi as something more than just an warrior with super powers. Because that’s not at all what the Jedi represent. One of the crucial subplots in the prequels was that the Jedi had largely devolved into a group of warriors with super powers, and that’s why they were so vulnerable to destruction. Much as I’ve enjoyed both 7 and 8, I’m not convinced that the current team at lucasfilm actually understands anything that the Jedi are supposed to represent.

locked

4170 views

So, I can totally accept if Rey doesn't jive with you as a character. That's fair, not all characters have to with everyone.

She’s just impossibly powerful for no good reason. It isn’t tied to her developing her character, inner strength, moral compass... Rey is perpetually unstoppable, and always right.

I don't want to reach my arm too far into this bag of cats. However, Rey is handled in EP7 nearly identically to the handling of Luke in EP4, to include the level of explanation of her capabilities. Her arc in EP8 explicitly mirrors that of Luke's in EP5. There is nothing in the movies to support the assertion that she is impossibly powerful, unstoppable, or always right anymore than there is to make the same judgment of Luke. In fact, there is less reasons to suggest that capabilities are without merit than there are for Luke.

there’s no echo of Luke or Obi-Wan’s or Yoda’s “power”. For all of the great Jedi, their power was a manifestation of their inner strength and moral character.

The only defining feature that carries through for the great Jedi in the SW Film Canon is that they are all failed. For every height of inner strength or moral character they are sundered by their hubris, emotional responses, selective ignorance, or some other extreme character flaw keeping them from success. This includes Rey.

I agree with most of the rest of your commentary. Not so much with the groundwork for a redemption arc for Ren, but that doesn't mean it will stop them from doing. Just like there is absolutely no reason to bring in a romantic subplot or superplot regarding Rey or Kylo (let alone both) but that won't necessarily stop them from doing it.

But Rey is more fleshed out as a central character than either Luke or Anakin (if you argue that the Prequels are about Obi-Wan it is much less clear) were by their second, possibly even the third.

locked

4121 views

So, I can totally accept if Rey doesn't jive with you as a character. That's fair, not all characters have to with everyone.

I wouldn’t put it that way, exactly. I really like Rey. I find her very compelling to watch. I think most of the credit goes to Daisy Ridley, and also J.J. Abrams. He’s very good at setting up little moments that allow the audience to connect with a character. Episode 7 had several great little moments with Rey where I felt like I could connect with her. The scene in her home in the desert, her chats with Han, or when Kylo tries to probe her mind. It’s all really great stuff, IMO. My issue is more with how the writers have missed the mark when it comes to her progression through the 2 movies so far.

She’s just impossibly powerful for no good reason. It isn’t tied to her developing her character, inner strength, moral compass... Rey is perpetually unstoppable, and always right.

I don't want to reach my arm too far into this bag of cats. However, Rey is handled in EP7 nearly identically to the handling of Luke in EP4, to include the level of explanation of her capabilities. Her arc in EP8 explicitly mirrors that of Luke's in EP5. There is nothing in the movies to support the assertion that she is impossibly powerful, unstoppable, or always right anymore than there is to make the same judgment of Luke. In fact, there is less reasons to suggest that capabilities are without merit than there are for Luke.

This isn’t about explanations of abilities. In classic hero mythology (which Star Wars certainly is), the hero’s powers and the hero’s ability to succeed over evil are direct manifestations of the development of the hero’s moral character and willingness to make the right sacrifices.

Rey’s arc only matches Luke’s if you’re looking in terms of superficial plot points. Seeks mentor for answers and training, confronts inner demons, leaves mentor, confronts bad guy. But look at what actually happens within those plot points. Luke’s powers manifest as he shifts his focus towards worthy goals. He goes from wanting adventure and action to understanding the stakes of the situation and making the decision to fight for good. Rey’s powers start to manifest like crazy when she decides to run away from her responsibilities, and then gets captured as a result. It’s literally the precise opposite of what should happen.
When Luke meets Yoda, he’s arrogant and impatient, and he fails his first test as a result. When Rey meets Luke, she immediately assumes the moral high ground, and never lets go of it. She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel. Rey’s whole time with Luke was more about showing that he needed her more than she needed him.
When Luke rushes away from Yoda to go save his friends, he does so for the right moral reasons, but thoughtlessly and prematurely. Ultimately, it was arrogant of him to think he could face Vader, and Vader teaches him that lesson quite thoroughly. Rey meanwhile rushes off to confront Wren AND Snoke, gets caught up in Wren’s moment of growth and ascension. Then she walks out as the only one left standing.
I think the important questions with Rey are; how is she different at the end of 8 than she was at the beginning of 7? Barely different at all, in my estimations. What has she learned? Not much that I can tell. She’s a very static character; already (nearly) flawless, already always right, already able to stand up to any evil and win.

The most optimistic interpretation of all this is that at the time we meet her, Rey is already a “hero”. She’s already gone through the personal struggles and development that have allowed her to master herself. Her actions don’t exactly support this, but hey I can look past that. But if that really is the case, then it’s just bad storytelling.

there’s no echo of Luke or Obi-Wan’s or Yoda’s “power”. For all of the great Jedi, their power was a manifestation of their inner strength and moral character.

The only defining feature that carries through for the great Jedi in the SW Film Canon is that they are all failed. For every height of inner strength or moral character they are sundered by their hubris, emotional responses, selective ignorance, or some other extreme character flaw keeping them from success. This includes Rey.

I agree in part, but there’s more to it than that IMO. There’s a reason they stress they age of the order so much. The Jedi had been the guardians and protectors of peace for thousands of years. They’re more than just an order, they represent “order” itself. Order of any kind decays over time. Either through entropy or the failings of individuals or both, that which used to work will not work forever. Not without changing and adapting. Order needs updating to remain effective. But the Jedi order was too traditional, too engrained in their dogmatic ways, and they were completely unprepared for an evil like Palpatine. Even the very best Jedi, such as Yoda, Obi Wan, and Mace had been forced away from their points of strength due to the war. To their credit, both Obi Wan and Yoda recognized that they just didn’t have what it takes to defeat this new power that was facing them.

That’s why they hid. It wasn’t purely out of fear, it was a recognition of their limitations, and the need for something new. Luke and Leia were that “something”. All this matters, because in Luke’s case, his relative lack of training is precisely why he was able to do what needed to be done. If he’d grown up under Yoda and Obi Wan’s tutelage, he’d have gone to the Death Star with the intention to kill Vader, and lost. OR he’d have killed vader (fulfilling his Jedi duty) and then probably turned to the dark side and become the emperor’s new apprentice. That’s the whole crux of Luke he wasn’t powerful enough to defeat the emperor. He never stood a chance that way. All he could do was show his father, through action, what a TRUE Jedi looks like. Vader is the one with the real power. He is all that remains of the once great Jedi order. All their tradition, strength, wisdom and power is in him. He is also the ultimate embodiment of their faults. Their arrogance, lack of foresight, and cowardice. But Luke shows his father love; the one thing the Jedi order has always tried to keep from Anakin, and the thing they were perhaps missing above all else. And in that moment, Vader finally becomes what he’d always been told he’d become. And it takes everything. He is the point where thousands of years of tradition and the unbroken hope and love of his son come together. That’s why he, and no one else, is strong enough to beat palpatine.

I agree with most of the rest of your commentary. Not so much with the groundwork for a redemption arc for Ren, but that doesn't mean it will stop them from doing. Just like there is absolutely no reason to bring in a romantic subplot or superplot regarding Rey or Kylo (let alone both) but that won't necessarily stop them from doing it.

But Rey is more fleshed out as a central character than either Luke or Anakin (if you argue that the Prequels are about Obi-Wan it is much less clear) were by their second, possibly even the third.

I guess it depends what you mean by “developed”. I agree in the sense that I feel like I know her. And if any of my ramblings make sense, hopefully it shows that I’m looking at it with more of an eye for what the story is really about, on the deepest levels. I actually really enjoyed The Last Jedi. I think it’s a great movie. But the more time goes on, the more I can see why so many hardcore Star Wars fans dislike it (no, I don’t believe it’s because of sexism or any of that nonsense... most of the people who bash TLJ will turn around and praise Wonderwoman or Terminator 2, and rightly so). At its heart, The Last Jedi doesn’t seem to be about any of the core ideas that Star Wars has always been about. I still like it for
what it is, and I’m very attached to some of these new characters. I’m just not convinced that episode 9 will buck the trend of this new trilogy; movies that look and sound like Star Wars, but aren’t always true to the spirit of the franchise.

locked

4201 views

Just want to say that I agree with basically everything you said.

But also, I want to point out that everything you said is looked at through the context of what Star Wars has been previously.

At its heart, The Last Jedi doesn’t seem to be about any of the core ideas that Star Wars has always been about.

And maybe that it’s not that thing anymore. I offer no judgment on whether that’s good or bad. But Star Wars has a lot of baggage. It’s hard to forget it all, but I think a lot of the new trilogy is dependent on leaving some of that at the door, for good or ill. The problem comes from the fact that the creators of the new trilogy aren’t fully willing to do that themselves.

When Rey meets Luke, she immediately assumes the moral high ground, and never lets go of it.

When Rey meets Luke, she actually has the moral high ground, as far as I can tell. It’s been a while, and I don’t remember the duel you’re talking about very clearly or her losing her temper, but I’m struck by the thought that her anger is righteous, the frustration of seeing someone with the ability to do real good and work for real change instead choose to sit idly by and let things go to shit and wallow in self-pity.

That’s probably not how the scene plays out. I legitimately don’t remember it well.

But I have so far seen this trilogy (especially with context of the prequels) as at least partially a commentary that the Jedi were wrong, that eschewing all emotional connection, even anger, in favor of stoic acceptance was responsible for their downfall, and for that of the entire galaxy.

Admittedly, that’s a lot of personal bias, as I’ve longed to see Star Wars actually explore that, and see the rise of a less monklike Jedi order.

So I read “Rey got angry,” and I don’t necessarily equate that to “that’s bad.” Anger is natural, and sometimes it is righteous, the appropriate reaction.

locked

4087 views

When Rey meets Luke, she actually has the moral high ground, as far as I can tell. It’s been a while, and I don’t remember the duel you’re talking about very clearly or her losing her temper, but I’m struck by the thought that her anger is righteous, the frustration of seeing someone with the ability to do real good and work for real change instead choose to sit idly by and let things go to shit and wallow in self-pity.

I'm with you on the whole thing about anger being an okay emotion.

However, I'm not sure I get why people are upset at Luke's behavior here.

Yoda: Holy crap, I presided over an order that created Darth Vader- who murdered all his friends- and now the Empire is rising! I'm going to go hide out on a remote planet and be a hermit while the galaxy is at war.

[protege shows up]

Yoda: He can't be trained. He's the kid of that other super-powerful dude and we saw how that went.

Space Ghost: C'mon, just do it!

Yoda: Oh fine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Luke: Holy crap, I presided over an order that created Kylo- who murdered all his friends- and now the Empire is rising. I'm going to go hide out on a remote planet and be a hermit while the galaxy is at war.

[protege shows up]

Luke: She can't be trained. She's got the same kind of power that that other super-powerful dude had and we saw how that went.

[Eventually]

Luke: Oh fine.

No one is angry at Yoda for not saving the Galaxy. If you're mad at Luke, be mad at Yoda. However, I think they both had a point in understanding that traditions and orders have a tremendous power to be weaponized. They also have seen the good and bad results of their meddling in galactic affairs. Taking themselves (and their tradition) out of the equation may have been the best option for a time.

Just my take-away.

locked

4193 views

I don’t disagree with anything you said here.

For what it’s worth, I am disappointed in Yoda. He ran and hid, instead of continuing to fight and trying to fix his mistakes. He could have been instrumental in helping the Rebellion, as could Obi-Wan. Instead they hid for twenty some odd years and let the galaxy fall apart.

Would it have been better for them to fight, at the end of the day? I don’t know. They could have died and left Luke as a directionless farmer (who was all set to join the Empire, remember—how long would it have taken Vader or the Emporer to figure out who he was if he became the galaxy’s best TIE pilot?). But the fact that things sort of worked out doesn’t really mean they made the right call, at least not morally. Obi-Wan was at least ostensibly acting as Luke’s protector. Yoda, however, just straight gave up.

Luke essentially did the same thing. I think it’s a great direction for his character, I think it’s interesting story-telling, and I don’t think it spits on the Luke of the OT like many seem to. I’m just saying that anger at Luke is justifiable, the same way anger at any powerful person that ignores serious problems that they could fix is justifiable. Rey is right to be angry at Luke.

locked

4112 views

I don’t disagree with anything you said here.

For what it’s worth, I am disappointed in Yoda. He ran and hid, instead of continuing to fight and trying to fix his mistakes. He could have been instrumental in helping the Rebellion, as could Obi-Wan. Instead they hid for twenty some odd years and let the galaxy fall apart.

Would it have been better for them to fight, at the end of the day? I don’t know. They could have died and left Luke as a directionless farmer (who was all set to join the Empire, remember—how long would it have taken Vader or the Emporer to figure out who he was if he became the galaxy’s best TIE pilot?). But the fact that things sort of worked out doesn’t really mean they made the right call, at least not morally. Obi-Wan was at least ostensibly acting as Luke’s protector. Yoda, however, just straight gave up.

Luke essentially did the same thing. I think it’s a great direction for his character, I think it’s interesting story-telling, and I don’t think it spits on the Luke of the OT like many seem to. I’m just saying that anger at Luke is justifiable, the same way anger at any powerful person that ignores serious problems that they could fix is justifiable. Rey is right to be angry at Luke.

I can see that angle. From my perspective, struggling without Yoda/Luke probably is akin to a caterpillar escaping it's cocoon. Without the strength they develop along the way, they aren't sustainable without the Jedi constantly holding them up. Giving them room to breath and develop without the weight of 1000 years of conflict warping the shape of what they would become is another bonus.

Also, I get into trouble with my pseudo-pacifism, which doesn't lend itself well to the Star Wars universe. When justifiable violence occurs, "collateral damage" usually accompanies it. Remember how Luke was going to sign up to join the Empire? How many good kids were on that same path to escape poverty? How many of them just had a narrative of a terrorist group blowing up some one in their family, who was building the death star part II and now they are super motivated to pay them back? Clearly, Empire = Evil in the Star Wars universe, but my experience of life makes me want to read a much more complex story into it. As such, I can totally see a leader removing their influence from the equation. That level of moral complexity isn't really in the canon, but it started to show its face in TLJ and I was intrigued.

locked

4046 views

I don’t disagree with anything you said here.

For what it’s worth, I am disappointed in Yoda. He ran and hid, instead of continuing to fight and trying to fix his mistakes. He could have been instrumental in helping the Rebellion, as could Obi-Wan. Instead they hid for twenty some odd years and let the galaxy fall apart.

Would it have been better for them to fight, at the end of the day? I don’t know. They could have died and left Luke as a directionless farmer (who was all set to join the Empire, remember—how long would it have taken Vader or the Emporer to figure out who he was if he became the galaxy’s best TIE pilot?). But the fact that things sort of worked out doesn’t really mean they made the right call, at least not morally. Obi-Wan was at least ostensibly acting as Luke’s protector. Yoda, however, just straight gave up.

Luke essentially did the same thing. I think it’s a great direction for his character, I think it’s interesting story-telling, and I don’t think it spits on the Luke of the OT like many seem to. I’m just saying that anger at Luke is justifiable, the same way anger at any powerful person that ignores serious problems that they could fix is justifiable. Rey is right to be angry at Luke.

I can see that angle. From my perspective, struggling without Yoda/Luke probably is akin to a caterpillar escaping it's cocoon. Without the strength they develop along the way, they aren't sustainable without the Jedi constantly holding them up. Giving them room to breath and develop without the weight of 1000 years of conflict warping the shape of what they would become is another bonus.

Also, I get into trouble with my pseudo-pacifism, which doesn't lend itself well to the Star Wars universe. When justifiable violence occurs, "collateral damage" usually accompanies it. Remember how Luke was going to sign up to join the Empire? How many good kids were on that same path to escape poverty? How many of them just had a narrative of a terrorist group blowing up some one in their family, who was building the death star part II and now they are super motivated to pay them back? Clearly, Empire = Evil in the Star Wars universe, but my experience of life makes me want to read a much more complex story into it. As such, I can totally see a leader removing their influence from the equation. That level of moral complexity isn't really in the canon, but it started to show its face in TLJ and I was intrigued.

To me, Rey was only looking at 1 side of the equation ("we need your help, Luke!") while Luke was looking at both sides of the equation; "bad things are happening, but my involvement will only make them worse". I don't think Luke's assessment is ultimately correct, but he was looking at the bigger picture. He was also quite understandably traumatized over what had happened. Viewers often gloss over this point, but we really put ourselves in Luke's shoes and imagine how he must feel, it is devastating. In his eyes, his failure directly led to the corruption of his nephew, and the death of all his students. He probably couldn't bare to look Leia or Han in the eye after that, not to mention his own immense grief at the destruction of everything he had built.

Then, this girl shows up and tells Luke that his nephew has now killed Han.

Luke's behavior is completely understandable to me.

locked

4079 views

- No text -

locked

4116 views

- No text -

locked

4102 views

Just want to say that I agree with basically everything you said.

But also, I want to point out that everything you said is looked at through the context of what Star Wars has been previously.

At its heart, The Last Jedi doesn’t seem to be about any of the core ideas that Star Wars has always been about.

And maybe that it’s not that thing anymore. I offer no judgment on whether that’s good or bad. But Star Wars has a lot of baggage. It’s hard to forget it all, but I think a lot of the new trilogy is dependent on leaving some of that at the door, for good or ill. The problem comes from the fact that the creators of the new trilogy aren’t fully willing to do that themselves.

When Rey meets Luke, she immediately assumes the moral high ground, and never lets go of it.

When Rey meets Luke, she actually has the moral high ground, as far as I can tell. It’s been a while, and I don’t remember the duel you’re talking about very clearly or her losing her temper, but I’m struck by the thought that her anger is righteous, the frustration of seeing someone with the ability to do real good and work for real change instead choose to sit idly by and let things go to shit and wallow in self-pity.

That’s probably not how the scene plays out. I legitimately don’t remember it well.

But I have so far seen this trilogy (especially with context of the prequels) as at least partially a commentary that the Jedi were wrong, that eschewing all emotional connection, even anger, in favor of stoic acceptance was responsible for their downfall, and for that of the entire galaxy.

Admittedly, that’s a lot of personal bias, as I’ve longed to see Star Wars actually explore that, and see the rise of a less monklike Jedi order.

So I read “Rey got angry,” and I don’t necessarily equate that to “that’s bad.” Anger is natural, and sometimes it is righteous, the appropriate reaction.

I pretty much fully agree. I wasn’t criticizing the fact that Rey got angry. But I am pointing out that as far as her interactions with Luke are concerned, Rey isn’t the one who is growing or changing. That bring the case, the story isn’t actually about Rey at that point. It’s about Luke.
And that’s fine in and of itself. But I don’t think it’s good storytelling to take the supposed “main character” of the movie and use her as a battering ram that all other characters change around and react to. If the story is about Rey, then it should be about her growth. If Luke is the actual protagonist of the story, then make the movie about him :)

locked

4131 views

Ah, I understand. And that’s absolutely a fair point.

For as little as he’s in it, the previous two films are almost undeniably about Luke. I do think that is a weakness of them. I’m as susceptible to nostalgia as anyone, and I loved seeing Han and Leia in TFA, and Hamill as Luke in TLJ was pitch perfect to me. But I’d have loved to see a new Star Wars trilogy without leaning on those past characters. I hope we get there after this trilogy.

locked

4059 views

At its heart, The Last Jedi doesn’t seem to be about any of the core ideas that Star Wars has always been about.

And maybe that it’s not that thing anymore. I offer no judgment on whether that’s good or bad. But Star Wars has a lot of baggage. It’s hard to forget it all, but I think a lot of the new trilogy is dependent on leaving some of that at the door, for good or ill. The problem comes from the fact that the creators of the new trilogy aren’t fully willing to do that themselves.

This is an interesting issue, right here. Just like the Jedi order needed to change, so too do the movies need to update and shift with the times. But there is a line, or a difference, between updating a thing and changing it into something else. This comes up in nerd culture all the time. A new creative team takes over an established franchise, and decides to "do their own thing" with it. More often than not, the fans are not happy. Now, nerds (myself included) can be unreasonable about change. I've used this example before, but the case of X-Men fans freaking out when Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine, because Jackman is 6'2" and Logan is supposed to be 5'3". Now, I'm sure there are exceptions, but most of the fans who were complaining were not actually unable to accept a tall version of Logan. What worried them was the thought that if the filmmakers couldn't even get this kind of superficial detail right, then how could they hope to convey they underlying nuances of the X-Men universe that make it what it is. Its the same reason famous pop stars will put crazy stipulations in their rider, like "I want a bowl of Blue M&Ms in my dressing room". They don't actually care about the M&Ms, but they want a quick and easy way to confirm upon arrival at the venue that the promoters have properly read the rider, and are committed to fulfilling their end of the agreement.

So nerds can be detail-obsessed, and they often go too far. But look at what happened after the first X-Men movie was released. It was ok... decent, overall. But Jackman was fantastic. He nailed the character, as much as could be hoped for given the constraints of the movie. The same fans who had been complaining a few months earlier were now praising Jackman's casting and his performance. He got Wolverine right.

Any character or franchise that is beloved has something way down at its core that makes it what it is. Batman is fundamentally different than Superman. Both characters have gone through countless iterations and incarnations. The 60s Batman TV show and The Dark Knight are barely recognizable as the same character. But they are both, at their core, the same in a certain way. Just as they are both different from any incarnation of Superman. These differences matter. They are what make these characters, universes, and franchises what they are.

I think Batman is actually a great example of just how elastic the fan base can be when it comes to the range of interpretations of a character they will accept, as long as the core of that character is maintained. Batman is a realist. He is all too familiar with how ugly the world can be. He is, unlike Superman, physically vulnerable, and threatened by all the same problems that threaten those he protects. There are other elements of his character that he shares with most archetypal heroes, such as Superman. He takes personal responsibility for the wellbeing of the people of Gotham. To the degree that he can protect them from evil, he feels that any
act of evil that befalls the people of Gotham is his problem, his fault. The Joker is his responsibility.

If someone makes a Batman movie and gets either of these sides of his personality wrong, then it isn't a Batman movie. Not really. It might still be a good movie, but the fans will not accept it as part of "cannon" in their own minds.

So the question then becomes "well, if you're not maintaining the true core of the character or franchise, then why are you making a Batman movie? Why not make your own original thing?". Inevitably, the perceived answer to that question is "because Batman is popular" or "the costume looks cool" or something like that. The fans know when they are being exploited. I wouldn't go as far as to say that Star Wars fans are in that situation. Not yet. But there was an unmistakable feeling during The Last Jedi that Ryan Johnson was going out of his way to make a Star Wards movie that was as un-Star Wars-y as possible in certain ways (he has basically said so himself). And that ticks some fans off. Yes its only a movie. But people don't like having something that they love twisted and altered beyond recognition and then sold back to them because "we know you'll watch it anyway". And then when they complain, the creators insult them or question their character, to boot.

I was trying to think of examples of franchises that have been updated without pissing off the fans. I'm sure there are several, but the first one that came to my mind was James Bond. It's another example of a franchise that has gone through so many interpretations that it is hardly recognizable as the same character, but just like Batman or Wolverine or Star Wars, there is a core to the character that makes him who he is. The Bond franchise has been re-vamped and re-launched twice in recent memory, both times to great success and praise from the fans (and both times by the same director, I believe). Goldeneye was a great modernization of the franchise when it came out in 1995. The older Bond films were saturated in cultural trends and fashions that... have not aged well, to say the least. Humor that was perfectly acceptable in the early 70s could be flagrantly misogynistic by the standards of the 90s. But this is where the filmmakers of Goldeneye showed some insight. They realized that times have changed, but they also knew that Bond is not a man who lets himself get emotionally attached to anyone, women included. And any man who goes through life that way is bound to end up treating people, including romantic partners, as disposable. That attitude is part of what makes James Bond who he is. So rather than turning James Bond into a proud feminist and emotionally available partner, they kept his attitudes the same and framed it as a personal failing. And BAM, you have a movie where the character feels true to who he is, while the trappings around the story are updated to fit modern times. They pulled it off again with Casino Royal, once again telling a story that felt more contemporary and complex without throwing away the core elements that make Bond archetypal and timeless.

TL;DR

I think change is good, and often necessary. But sometimes the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater, so to speak :)

locked

4083 views

- No text -

locked

4056 views

- No text -

locked

4069 views

I like the thinking, but distilling what is essential about something is going to vary from person to person. Things that are essential to me about Star Wars are weighted much more in the original trilogy. However, that may be very different for someone who grew up watching the Clone Wars series.

It's a version of the no-true-Scotsmen conundrum mixed with relativism that makes essentialism in this matter fairly impenetrable.

Ultimately, creators playing with the universe are going to have to make decisions that some will find acceptable and for others will be a bridge too far. This happened to me with Halo 4. They couldn't just remake Halo again- the formula was pretty worn out. But the choices they made rendered the things I loved about the franchise unrecognizable and I parted ways with it.

locked

4090 views

It's a version of the no-true-Scotsmen conundrum mixed with relativism that makes existentialism in this matter fairly impenetrable.

This is a very apt distillation of what happens with adaptation and evolution of any property. I will probably keep this in a pocket for later.

locked

4089 views

I like the thinking, but distilling what is essential about something is going to vary from person to person. Things that are essential to me about Star Wars are weighted much more in the original trilogy. However, that may be very different for someone who grew up watching the Clone Wars series.

It's a version of the no-true-Scotsmen conundrum mixed with relativism that makes essentialism in this matter fairly impenetrable.

Great points. The trick with any “what is Star Wars?” train of thought is that the whole “the medium IS the message” concept plays a big role. I like to dig down into the substructure of these stories, but that runs the risk of discounting the fact that movies are an extremely visual medium. From 1 perspective, lightsabers and TIE Fighters and Vader’s helmet are utterly superficial, yet from another perspective there is nothing more “Star Wars” than those visual elements. Then there’s the audio and music, the cinematography, the swashbuckling adventures, the corny dialogue... they all go together to forge a cohesive identity.

All that said, I think there are important limits on the relativistic elements of this discussion. I don’t think anything becomes as popular as Star Wars unless there is something fundamentally real and true at the core of it. When we watch the original trilogy, we see a portrait of the human experience that rings true in ways that we can’t fully describe or understand it, but we know it when we see it. It jumps out at us. And when later Star Wars movies fail to ring true, that jumps out at us too. That’s why midiclorians are so hated by Star Wars fans. It’s not that it’s a silly idea (there’s plenty of silly in Star Wars) it’s that the very idea runs completely counter to message of the original trilogy. The Force runs through EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, and learning to follow the good side of its nature will transform you, for the better, in ways that seem impossible. This takes the form of superpowers for dramatic purpose, but the moral and message in that story is absolutely true. There are countless ways that a storyteller might try to tell that story (at their core, The Matrix, Harry Potter, Wonder Woman, Star Wars... they’re all the same story), and different people will click with different tellings, for countless different reasons. But when something like midiclorians comes along it sticks out like a sore thumb because we all know it is WRONG, as far as the moral and message of the story is concerned. Lucas took this ever-present, universal “force” that touches everyone and everything and changed it into something that only some people can feel because of something they’re born with and everyone else is SOL.

As you pointed out, someone who grew up watching The Clone Wars May have a different take on what Star Wars “is”. But kids who grew up watching Clone Wars are not in generally crazy in love with Star Wars. Clone Wars was not a cultural phenomenon. People watch it and enjoy it, because it seems to be a generally well made show (I’m only vaguely familiar with it). But it hasn’t grabbed a generation by the heart. For many in that specific generation, it was Harry Potter. Or maybe Lord of the Rings.

I’m not trying to argue that fans who prefer the Clone Wars aren’t “real fans” or any nonsense like that. I’m just observing the fact that at a certain point, cultural phenomenons speak for themselves to a degree. There’s a lot of top notch storytelling out there, but almost none of it becomes “timeless”. Star Wars might not be timeless. It’s waaaaaay to soon to tell. But, IV-VI have already proven they have more staying power than most movies. And I don’t think it’s too much of a reach to say that the franchise to this day is running off the fumes of those 3 original movies. Nobody perfectly understands why. But we can look at the few other franchises that have had similar impact, and notice some key similarities. They have something in common that speaks to people in a profound way.

Ultimately, creators playing with the universe are going to have to make decisions that some will find acceptable and for others will be a bridge too far. This happened to me with Halo 4. They couldn't just remake Halo again- the formula was pretty worn out. But the choices they made rendered the things I loved about the franchise unrecognizable and I parted ways with it.

I had a similar experience. Most Halo players did. And that’s where subjectivity and relativism start to wash away. Plenty of us have our own personal likes, dislikes, agreements, and disagreements around a game like Halo 4. But there is no questioning the simple fact that it failed to connect and resonate with gamers the way Halo CE did. Maybe that’s impossible. Maybe what Halo “is” (whatever that is) just isn’t as impactful anymore. But I’m not so sure. I’ve had moments playing other games in the past 5-6 years where I feel like something hits me in the head and I realize “holy crap, this is Halo. There is a mission in the Titanfall 2 campaign that feels more “Halo” to me than anything in the Halo 4 or 5 campaigns. There’s something there I think. I don’t exactly have the language or understanding of it to describe it (much less make it!). But I’d bet money that sooner or later, either intentionally or by accident, some developer will make a game that instantly and undeniably jumps out to us as the new “Halo”. And I’ll bet that game will be a huge hit :)

locked

4075 views

I had a similar experience. Most Halo players did. And that’s where subjectivity and relativism start to wash away. Plenty of us have our own personal likes, dislikes, agreements, and disagreements around a game like Halo 4. But there is no questioning the simple fact that it failed to connect and resonate with gamers the way Halo CE did. Maybe that’s impossible. Maybe what Halo “is” (whatever that is) just isn’t as impactful anymore. But I’m not so sure. I’ve had moments playing other games in the past 5-6 years where I feel like something hits me in the head and I realize “holy crap, this is Halo. There is a mission in the Titanfall 2 campaign that feels more “Halo” to me than anything in the Halo 4 or 5 campaigns. There’s something there I think. I don’t exactly have the language or understanding of it to describe it (much less make it!). But I’d bet money that sooner or later, either intentionally or by accident, some developer will make a game that instantly and undeniably jumps out to us as the new “Halo”. And I’ll bet that game will be a huge hit :)

It is like everything a product of its time.

Playing the MCC you realize how Halo now feels off; you glide around surfaces when you run instead of that kinetic feeling in Destiny where your character has weight. But at the time it was the best feeling game out there. Remember: FPS games on consoles were pretty much all terrible (Goldeneye was unplayable even then). But it contrasted with PC FPS games at the time with its slower pace and more intelligent feeling AI.

But if Halo were released today, I doubt it would make a splash.

Nothing is timeless. There will never be a new HALO. Because it'll just be something else. A lesser company would have just made another Marathon game for the XBox. But Bungie left behind what was done and went forward.

I wish they would do that with Destiny right now though…

locked

4050 views

I had a similar experience. Most Halo players did. And that’s where subjectivity and relativism start to wash away. Plenty of us have our own personal likes, dislikes, agreements, and disagreements around a game like Halo 4. But there is no questioning the simple fact that it failed to connect and resonate with gamers the way Halo CE did. Maybe that’s impossible. Maybe what Halo “is” (whatever that is) just isn’t as impactful anymore. But I’m not so sure. I’ve had moments playing other games in the past 5-6 years where I feel like something hits me in the head and I realize “holy crap, this is Halo. There is a mission in the Titanfall 2 campaign that feels more “Halo” to me than anything in the Halo 4 or 5 campaigns. There’s something there I think. I don’t exactly have the language or understanding of it to describe it (much less make it!). But I’d bet money that sooner or later, either intentionally or by accident, some developer will make a game that instantly and undeniably jumps out to us as the new “Halo”. And I’ll bet that game will be a huge hit :)

It is like everything a product of its time.

Playing the MCC you realize how Halo now feels off; you glide around surfaces when you run instead of that kinetic feeling in Destiny where your character has weight. But at the time it was the best feeling game out there. Remember: FPS games on consoles were pretty much all terrible (Goldeneye was unplayable even then). But it contrasted with PC FPS games at the time with its slower pace and more intelligent feeling AI.

But if Halo were released today, I doubt it would make a splash.

Nothing is timeless. There will never be a new HALO. Because it'll just be something else. A lesser company would have just made another Marathon game for the XBox. But Bungie left behind what was done and went forward.

I wish they would do that with Destiny right now though…

Some things are pretty darn close to timeless, at least in human terms. Hero mythology has been retelling the same basic story for like 20,000 years, probably much longer. Star Wars, Beowolf, Saint George, The Mesopotamian creation myth, they’re all the same story. That’s a story that LASTS. It keeps getting updated to fit the society of the day, but the core of the story doesn’t change. Because it’s equally power and meaningful now as it was 300, 2000, or 15000 years ago.

Video games are a whole different issue. They’re way too new for us to know if they’re going to last (I suspect they aren’t going anywhere anytime soon). They’re also technologically driven, and technology is changing so fast that games today age way faster than any other medium. Movies made in the 1940s put most movies made in the 20s to shame because the medium was developing super fast, like games are today. You’re right; if Halo CE came out today, it would not have been a hit. But that’s kind of missing the point. Halo was a hit because it tapped into a certain kind of experience that is thrilling and captivating, and it did so to the best degree possible with the technology of its day. Our standards are higher now because we’re accustomed to more powerful technology, but the feelings that developers are trying to evoke using technology are still there, waiting to be tapped into.

It’s easy to get lost in the weeds with this stuff, because who knows how many countless elements go together to create an experience like playing Halo CE in 2001. You can dig down into the art and sound design, the exact feel of the weapons and movement, enemy behaviour... it all matters. And yet I can play Titanfall 2, which shares none of those elements, and have distinctly “Halo” moments. They’re fleeting, because Titanfall 2 is largely a different kind of experience. But when I played the mission where you’re finally back together with your militia and you group up with a squad of friendly titans to drop down in front of an enemy fortress and storm it, I felt like I was playing the opening section of The Silent Cartographer for the first time. It was the exact same emotional experience for me. Obviously, that’s no guarantee that others will have the same experience with it or draw the same connection, but both those moments are among the most exciting and memorable experiences within their respective games, and I suspect that’s because they’re both tapping into something. I know that’s about as vague as possible, but that’s just because I don’t understand it well enough to nail it down. All I know is that there’s a kind of emotional chord that they both struck, and for me it was the exact same chord.

locked

4078 views

Some things are pretty darn close to timeless, at least in human terms. Hero mythology has been retelling the same basic story for like 20,000 years, probably much longer. Star Wars, Beowolf, Saint George, The Mesopotamian creation myth, they’re all the same story. That’s a story that LASTS. It keeps getting updated to fit the society of the day, but the core of the story doesn’t change. Because it’s equally power and meaningful now as it was 300, 2000, or 15000 years ago.

I think you overestimate the number of people who actually read the classics.

You’re right; if Halo CE came out today, it would not have been a hit. But that’s kind of missing the point. Halo was a hit because it tapped into a certain kind of experience that is thrilling and captivating, and it did so to the best degree possible with the technology of its day. Our standards are higher now because we’re accustomed to more powerful technology, but the feelings that developers are trying to evoke using technology are still there, waiting to be tapped into.

The rallied patriotism of 9/11 also helped Halo, whether we want to admit it or not.

It’s easy to get lost in the weeds with this stuff, because who knows how many countless elements go together to create an experience like playing Halo CE in 2001. You can dig down into the art and sound design, the exact feel of the weapons and movement, enemy behaviour... it all matters. And yet I can play Titanfall 2, which shares none of those elements, and have distinctly “Halo” moments.

I can easily imagine an enlightened future where simulations of war are no longer found fun, and the classics no longer ring true because we have moved beyond the human failings of then and now.

locked

4016 views

Some things are pretty darn close to timeless, at least in human terms. Hero mythology has been retelling the same basic story for like 20,000 years, probably much longer. Star Wars, Beowolf, Saint George, The Mesopotamian creation myth, they’re all the same story. That’s a story that LASTS. It keeps getting updated to fit the society of the day, but the core of the story doesn’t change. Because it’s equally power and meaningful now as it was 300, 2000, or 15000 years ago.

I think you overestimate the number of people who actually read the classics.

Forget reading. These stories have been passed down as part of aural traditions for tens of thousands of years. As soon as humans developed written language, the stories spread there. Same with radio, movies, television, video games... whatever new media we come up with, they’ll spread there too.

You’re right; if Halo CE came out today, it would not have been a hit. But that’s kind of missing the point. Halo was a hit because it tapped into a certain kind of experience that is thrilling and captivating, and it did so to the best degree possible with the technology of its day. Our standards are higher now because we’re accustomed to more powerful technology, but the feelings that developers are trying to evoke using technology are still there, waiting to be tapped into.

The rallied patriotism of 9/11 also helped Halo, whether we want to admit it or not.

I see zero evidence to support that. First of all, Halo was a hit worldwide, not just in the US.. 2nd, it was hit among people of all backgrounds and political leanings. Stories of overcoming an external threat have ALWAYS been popular, because it is a danger that human beings, and our ancestors, have ALWAYS faced.

It’s easy to get lost in the weeds with this stuff, because who knows how many countless elements go together to create an experience like playing Halo CE in 2001. You can dig down into the art and sound design, the exact feel of the weapons and movement, enemy behaviour... it all matters. And yet I can play Titanfall 2, which shares none of those elements, and have distinctly “Halo” moments.

I can easily imagine an enlightened future where simulations of war are no longer found fun, and the classics no longer ring true because we have moved beyond the human failings of then and now.

That is profoundly ignorant thinking. Halo is not a “simulation of war”. It features dramatized combat, but only a very naive person would play Halo and think “yes, this is what war is like”. It’s about facing existential destruction courageously and honourably, which is what human beings have strived to do for as long as we’ve been on this planet. The natural world was constantly trying to kill us (and for many people in less developed parts of the world, it still is). Predators, natural disasters, drought and famine are ever-present threats. And of course, humanity can be its own worst enemy. People can become corrupt, or destructive, or worse. And to think that humans can easily enlighten themselves beyond these flaws... well that’s exactly the train of thought that has lead to the worst totalitarian regimes in history. “If people would just live the way I tell them to, then everything would be perfect!”. Doesn’t work that way :)

locked

4111 views

That is profoundly ignorant thinking. Halo is not a “simulation of war”.

That's… literally what it is dude. You are a guy who shoots other guys who are at war with you.

It features dramatized combat, but only a very naive person would play Halo and think “yes, this is what war is like”.

It's not a simulation of actual wars dude, but it's still a simulation.

It’s about facing existential destruction courageously and honourably, which is what human beings have strived to do for as long as we’ve been on this planet. The natural world was constantly trying to kill us (and for many people in less developed parts of the world, it still is).

Solved by controlling the environment and industrialization.

Predators, natural disasters, drought and famine are ever-present threats.

Solved with Urban planning and agriculture.

And of course, humanity can be its own worst enemy. People can become corrupt, or destructive, or worse.

Solved with philosophy, a sense of morality, and secular humanism.

And to think that humans can easily enlighten themselves beyond these flaws... well that’s exactly the train of thought that has lead to the worst totalitarian regimes in history. “If people would just live the way I tell them to, then everything would be perfect!”. Doesn’t work that way :)

There does exist a culture and belief system that is the most moral, yes.

locked

4066 views

You’re right; if Halo CE came out today, it would not have been a hit.

I kinda disagree. Obviously, you’re not saying Halo is bad, just that it’s old. I know there are some games (Like the Marathon trilogy) that I won’t play because the core concepts like twisty-turny maps feel too dated for me. But Halo? I think it’s gameplay and level design and story hold up incredibly well. Yes, the graphics are old and some things like the first person walk animations are a bit glidey, but slap on (another!) updated graphic engine and put a bit more bob and sway into walking and Halo: Combat Evolved would absolutely stand up today. It has all the story beats, gameplay challenges, and core shooter elements to still be a hit even in 2019.

locked

4079 views

You’re right; if Halo CE came out today, it would not have been a hit.

I kinda disagree. Obviously, you’re not saying Halo is bad, just that it’s old. I know there are some games (Like the Marathon trilogy) that I won’t play because the core concepts like twisty-turny maps feel too dated for me. But Halo? I think it’s gameplay and level design and story hold up incredibly well. Yes, the graphics are old and some things like the first person walk animations are a bit glidey, but slap on (another!) updated graphic engine and put a bit more bob and sway into walking and Halo: Combat Evolved would absolutely stand up today. It has all the story beats, gameplay challenges, and core shooter elements to still be a hit even in 2019.

I was strictly speaking about releasing Halo CE, exactly as it originally existed, today.

In theory, I agree that a version of Halo CE with the right technological updates could be extremely popular. Where that gets tricky though is that as soon as things start getting tweaked, you risk messing up the formula that made it work so we’ll back in 2001. Something as simple as adding a little more texture detail to the Forerunner architecture might in fact ruin the appeal of their design, rather than enhance it. I’m not saying such an update is theoretically impossible, just that any changes are equally or more likely to harm the formula rather than enhance it.

locked

4042 views

I would say it is less that it wouldn’t be a hit and more that if we lived in an alternate reality where a different game did “Halo” back in 2k1 that if an updated Combat Evolved were released today it would probably suffer a great deal of criticism (it even did on release) for the same sorts of things folks criticize about modern releases. Things that we look back on fondly as fans (some folks really like the repeating play spaces; the AI is predictable but feels reactive) wouldn’t go over as well with a modern audience.

locked

4014 views

Yeah... but these days so many games are released half functional and deeply fundamentally flawed. The rarities like Dad of War did so well because they were solid. I miss the days of buying a game and it being good on day one.

Bungie games (up until Destiny?) have always been very solid. (And even Destiny is pretty good compared to its peers...)

locked

4053 views

- No text -

locked

4032 views

- No text -

locked

4062 views

It’s basically a story of Kratos learning to be a father.

It’s not particularly clever, but people called it Dad of War for a while.

locked

4107 views

How to be a father while teaching his son how to be a man (eh... well, a god...).

If you enjoy 3rd person hack n slash genre at all, the new God of War is absolutely fantastic. The story, characters, acting, cutscene animation, and depth of emotion are all best of the best of the best. I think the gameplay is extremely good as well, but maybe someone might not gel with it in the same way I cannot stand bullet hell shooters or battle Royale fps games.

We call God of War (2018) Dad of War because there is already a God of War (from 2005) and several sequels. "Dad of War" is both a very fitting title and a good way to distinguish it from its predecessor of the same name.

locked

4082 views

- No text -

locked

4020 views

- No text -

locked

4087 views

Half functional and deeply flawed release aren’t new, though. Now that parching exists across platforms there is a perception that releases come out half baked intentionally, but with the way such games are receivedI find that highly unlikely. We’re also in a market where independent releases are much more visible and AAA games are under greater scrutiny.

Most games folks used to buy that were good Day 1 were known quantities and much more contained and directed experiences than just about any modern game.

locked

4071 views

If someone makes a Batman movie and gets either of these sides of his personality wrong, then it isn't a Batman movie. Not really. It might still be a good movie, but the fans will not accept it as part of "cannon" in their own minds.

And this is one of the reasons why comic books are bad in my opinion.

Why can't Batman change? Evolve? Be 'wrong' then learn 'right'? If your character is unflexible and unchanging, then you are losing a powerful storytelling tool.

Characters change all the time in Television and Film. It's when you get these larger-than- life must-coninue-eternally franchises that you are locked into bullshit like this. Comics always have to have another issue. So nothing can REALLY change. Just like a large franchise must always have another story to tell.

locked

4040 views

This is why Marvel’s “What If?” And DC’s “Elseworlds” are the best things the big two do in comics.

Also if that is your broad takeaway from comics you are missing a very large portion of comics and some really, really great storytelling.

locked

4047 views

This is why Marvel’s “What If?” And DC’s “Elseworlds” are the best things the big two do in comics.

Also if that is your broad takeaway from comics you are missing a very large portion of comics and some really, really great storytelling.

I was going to point that out too. He’s comparing comics to TV and Film as if the medium is the genre. Everything I’ve been talking about is within the genre of hero mythology, which follows roughly the same rules across all genres. There are loads of comics that aren’t hero mythology.
Not to mention the fact that characters in hero mythology change all the time... they’re pushed or manipulated or they evolve. The whole reason the characters are considered Heroes is that there’s an ideal that they are approximating. Sometimes their determination or ability to live up to that ideal runs into trouble. Punisher will show up and throw Daredevil’s whole worldview into question. And there will be a story that explores that conflict. But in the end, the hero returns to the ideals that made them a hero in the first place, usually stronger or sharper. They change by becoming even more like the ideal they’ve always aspired to.

locked

4030 views

If someone makes a Batman movie and gets either of these sides of his personality wrong, then it isn't a Batman movie. Not really. It might still be a good movie, but the fans will not accept it as part of "cannon" in their own minds.

And this is one of the reasons why comic books are bad in my opinion.

Why can't Batman change? Evolve? Be 'wrong' then learn 'right'? If your character is unflexible and unchanging, then you are losing a powerful storytelling tool.

Characters change all the time in Television and Film. It's when you get these larger-than- life must-coninue-eternally franchises that you are locked into bullshit like this. Comics always have to have another issue. So nothing can REALLY change. Just like a large franchise must always have another story to tell.

While I get your critique, it seems based on fandom rather than what’s written. It can be a complicated topic. I assume we’re just referring to superhero comics in this case, right? And not necessarily something like Watchmen? Yes, there generally must always be another issue. As writers change and potentially get to make their own mark on a character, the stories and characterizations can and often do change. Using your Batman example, he has evolved, been wrong, learned right. If you take each writer’s particular story as a snapshot of time within the character’s life, you’ll end up with plenty of repetition and some pretty core concepts, but then you’ll get some very satisfying and unique stories and arcs that you’re describing. It’s just a matter of who wants to take the risks and attempt to change up the norm. Also, will the next writer(s) allow it to stand and build off of it, or will they just revert back? And if they do revert back, you can still take it as a separate story from a separate time in the character’s life.

Also, when a character is compelling enough, it can be great to see different interpretations, similar and different. And you know that same thought applies to TV and movies, what with constant remakes and sequels going back to the early 1900s. Some shows and movies, new or remade, push character’s forward; others show a relatively unchanging but engaging character in different yet compelling situations. Some suck, some rock. Depends on the film, franchise, graphic novel, comic series, purpose, intent, etc. But you know all this.

locked

4108 views

Yeah, I always stayed away from comics because, as a kid, I couldn't understand why people would want to read the same stories about the same characters who had been around since the 1930s or whatever... It's only in recent years that I've better realized that, yes, it's the same character, but everything from motivations to art styles to story structures varied greatly. Instead of looking at a comic as a whole and claiming nobody grew, it's better to look at each author's/artist's runs as self contained stories that do feature all the triumphs and defeats and decisions and consequences and growth you could want.

One of the things I've always wanted was for the things I enjoy, be it a single great song, or a long running tv show, or a beloved video game, is more of that good thing. Why couldn't the fantastic last minute Chicago's Hard To Say I'm Sorry go on for an hour? Why couldn't Avatar: The Last Airbender have four more seasons that were just as good as the first three? Why couldn't Halo: Combat Evolved have another 10 excellent levels?

Well, with comics and the way that they continue on for decades, you kinda do get that...Or, at least, there's enough good spread out over the decades that you get several good runs instead of just one.

locked

4067 views

One of the things I've always wanted was for the things I enjoy, be it a single great song, or a long running tv show, or a beloved video game, is more of that good thing. Why couldn't the fantastic last minute Chicago's Hard To Say I'm Sorry go on for an hour? Why couldn't Avatar: The Last Airbender have four more seasons that were just as good as the first three? Why couldn't Halo: Combat Evolved have another 10 excellent levels?

I've felt that way with a lot of things and agree. On the other end of the spectrum, I've also sometimes felt that things are so good with a particular game/movie/show/comic that I'm perfectly fine with no more. It's great that you named Avatar: The Last Airbender. That show right there is one perfect example on a personal level that I feel lasted precisely as long as it needed to, and it was perfect. More might have sullied it. I just couldn't ask for anymore or anything differnt, you know? But it's so damn good that I completely get why you or others would want more! Especially if they could somehow provide more that's just as perfect and satisfying and doesn't ruin it somehow? But in its entirety and its ending, I feel it ended as perfectly as it possibly could. I'm content.

And using comics as another example, Geoff Johns did a run on Green Lantern (fleshing out not just the Green Lantern Corps but the whole color spectrum of lanterns) that culminated in one of the best comic book events I've ever read. Once he finished his run and it was time to pass the torch to someone else, I dropped Green Lantern. It was all I could have ever hoped for, imagined, and needed. And I'm totally fine with it continuing with someone else's stories and another perspective on Hal Jordan and the many other Lanterns doing awesome things informed by the previous run or unrelated to it, but I'm okay finishing off that story for myself in the state that I saw it.

I don't really read many superhero comics at all anymore, but I've been on Amazing Spider-Man for well over a decade and probably will never drop it. I assume it's like Cody with his Sonic comics (though I'm not sure if he actually reads them). With Spider-Man, people hated it a little over a decade ago when Marvel did away with Peter and Mary Jane's marriage and changed/started all kinds of crazy situations, but it follows with being in the service of the new, daring, and providing a character a chance for growth and to explore new stories that couldn't have happened otherwise. Dan Slott just spent a decade of some of the best Spider-Man comics I've ever read (and there's so many people who absolutely hate Slott's run all because of the aforementioned changes). Slott's run just ended and we're on to a new writer who has definitely re-established some of the older things that got brushed aside, but he's also fully continued and built off of Slott's character arcs and stories for a multitude of characters. The universe continues to push forward in new and interesting ways (while also showing some of the repetitive things that Cody hates about comics). It can be hard to find a balance with the new and the old in something so long-running, and I really appreciate how it's being handled.

But to get back to your point in a way, with Spider-Man, I'm really loving the fact that I can have my cake of a thing I love that keeps going while also getting to experience things that Cody wishes comics as a whole presented, even if it's filled with the things that Cody readily acknowledges can hold a character or an IP of any sort back. And when all else fails, we get fantastic movies like Into the Spider-Verse that know exactly what story beats and characters and situations to zoom in on that allow a different showcasing of characterization, growth, and in-universe perspective. Yay fandom!

locked

4062 views

One of the things I've always wanted was for the things I enjoy, be it a single great song, or a long running tv show, or a beloved video game, is more of that good thing. Why couldn't the fantastic last minute Chicago's Hard To Say I'm Sorry go on for an hour? Why couldn't Avatar: The Last Airbender have four more seasons that were just as good as the first three? Why couldn't Halo: Combat Evolved have another 10 excellent levels?

I've felt that way with a lot of things and agree. On the other end of the spectrum, I've also sometimes felt that things are so good with a particular game/movie/show/comic that I'm perfectly fine with no more.

Oh, sure. There are various works I'm completely content to have left alone. For instance:

- There's a recent anime called Land of the Lustrous. In it, humanoid living gemstones struggle against strange creatures called Lunarians that come from the moon, appear on clouds, and try to shatter and steal away the gems for an unknown purpose. (Yes, it sounds odd... it practice it is really good...) The show ends on a cliffhanger mystery in that the sensei who taught each gem how to talk and to perform their duties has something ominous to do with the Lunarians. Normally, I'd want more of a show I consider to be good, except I know from the manga where the story goes next... and I don't like it. So, I'm super content to end on a nice stopping point.

- Toy Story. Both 2 and 3 did the impossible. They continued Toy Story but equaled or surpassed their predecessor. And Toy Story 3 ended on a perfect note. I've loved the various shorts Pixar has put out since then (like Toy Story of Terror) but I am nervous as hell about Toy Story 4. I'll see it near opening day, but can that perfect winning streak continue a 4th time? I'm just not sure...

- Puella Magi Madoka Magica. - This anime was only 12 episodes but it made the absolute most out of those 12 and has one of the most satisfying endings of any show. It has a follow up movie (Rebellion) that I also like a great deal... but which did move beyond that perfect ending. This one is kinda strange, in that I both never wanted more but was happy when more came... except the more ended on one heck of a cliffhanger. So now fans like me are stuck with a perfect show, a really good follow up movie that ends in a cliffhanger... and that same sorta Toy Story 4 level of trepidation of whether or not a second perfect ending can even be achieved.

- Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. - One of the very very few perfect games out there. It had good gameplay, the best of the best acting, and a perfect ending. As much as I wouldn't mind more, I'm very content to leave it's well told story alone and have the developer just go do something else.

- Speed Racer. - People laugh at me when I tell them it is one of my all time favorite movies. It's goofy. It's dumb. But it is also awesome and thrilling and heart warming. It is the perfect example of an anime -> live action movie, but trying to ever do anything else would never be as good.

It's great that you named Avatar: The Last Airbender. That show right there is one perfect example on a personal level that I feel lasted precisely as long as it needed to, and it was perfect. More might have sullied it. I just couldn't ask for anymore or anything differnt, you know? But it's so damn good that I completely get why you or others would want more! Especially if they could somehow provide more that's just as perfect and satisfying and doesn't ruin it somehow? But in its entirety and its ending, I feel it ended as perfectly as it possibly could. I'm content.

Sure. A:TLA is another perfect show. And then they did a four season follow up in Legend of Korra that wasn't as good. Some of the concepts in Korra were interesting, like moving the time frame forward into a sorta industrial revolution era... but the show never completely worked out for me. Mostly... Aang was just a young kid who had to grow into his powers, so there was a good reason for him to be on the run or be outmatched, or occasionally be defeated. By season 2, Korra was a fully realized Avatar. She should have been unstoppable, instead she spent a whole lot of time struggling against her enemies. Some of the plots and stories and characters in Legend of Korra were very good, but, in my mind, it never reached the heights of The Last Airbender.

And using comics as another example, Geoff Johns did a run on Green Lantern (fleshing out not just the Green Lantern Corps but the whole color spectrum of lanterns) that culminated in one of the best comic book events I've ever read. Once he finished his run and it was time to pass the torch to someone else, I dropped Green Lantern. It was all I could have ever hoped for, imagined, and needed. And I'm totally fine with it continuing with someone else's stories and another perspective on Hal Jordan and the many other Lanterns doing awesome things informed by the previous run or unrelated to it, but I'm okay finishing off that story for myself in the state that I saw it.

I don't really read many superhero comics at all anymore, but I've been on Amazing Spider-Man for well over a decade and probably will never drop it. I assume it's like Cody with his Sonic comics (though I'm not sure if he actually reads them). With Spider-Man, people hated it a little over a decade ago when Marvel did away with Peter and Mary Jane's marriage and changed/started all kinds of crazy situations, but it follows with being in the service of the new, daring, and providing a character a chance for growth and to explore new stories that couldn't have happened otherwise. Dan Slott just spent a decade of some of the best Spider-Man comics I've ever read (and there's so many people who absolutely hate Slott's run all because of the aforementioned changes). Slott's run just ended and we're on to a new writer who has definitely re-established some of the older things that got brushed aside, but he's also fully continued and built off of Slott's character arcs and stories for a multitude of characters. The universe continues to push forward in new and interesting ways (while also showing some of the repetitive things that Cody hates about comics). It can be hard to find a balance with the new and the old in something so long-running, and I really appreciate how it's being handled.

Cool. (Not trying to be snippy, comics just aren't something I know a ton about. I'm glad you liked the stuff you talked about, though! Sounds like good examples.)

But to get back to your point in a way, with Spider-Man, I'm really loving the fact that I can have my cake of a thing I love that keeps going while also getting to experience things that Cody wishes comics as a whole presented, even if it's filled with the things that Cody readily acknowledges can hold a character or an IP of any sort back. And when all else fails, we get fantastic movies like Into the Spider-Verse that know exactly what story beats and characters and situations to zoom in on that allow a different showcasing of characterization, growth, and in-universe perspective. Yay fandom!

Yeah, exactly. There is a ton of good Spiderman out there to enjoy. And they are making more. The current MCU Spiderman is pretty good, in my opinion, and Into The Spider-verse... It rightly won the academy award for Best Animated Feature Film in a year that included The Incredibles 2.. It was Amazing.

locked

4017 views

- Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. - One of the very very few perfect games out there. It had good gameplay, the best of the best acting, and a perfect ending. As much as I wouldn't mind more, I'm very content to leave it's well told story alone and have the developer just go do something else.

I want to like this game as much as everyone else, but I just don't see it. I've tried twice now.

It is immediately interesting. The presentation is masterful. The sound design is amazing. The story grabbed my attention immediately.

I bought the game on PS4 when it came out. I got to the big door you have to open by beating the two bosses. I went to face Sutr first, but I lost interest and just sort of forgot about it.

When the game came out on Game Pass, I downloaded it again. This time I went to face Valravn first, and it's incredible. That are is so perfectly creepy (they eyes really got me--that effect was so well done. I didn't even realize what I was seeing for a bit, and when I realized, it literally gave me chills). The puzzles aren't mind-blowing, but they were interesting and fun, and that boss fight is cool.

Then I went to face Sutr again, and lost interest again. That area is the most boring thing I've ever played in a video game. I'd rather play the beginning of The Order 1886 or Metal Gear Solid V, and I'd rather watch paint dry than do either of those two things. Lining up runes in trees and shit is not fun or interesting, and, by that point, the combat was starting to wear thin. It's not difficult, it's not interesting, it honestly feels like it might as well not even be there for as little engagement as it offers. It feels like busy-work.

I want to love this game. I think if I pushed through, I'd probably end up really liking it, but I just have shit to do, and spending thirty minutes in the fire area was all I could handle.

So many people praised the game for it's price point, and being an ambitious indie game. I came away with the opposite reaction--I desperately wish it was a $60 game with fleshed out mechanics and combat to go along with it.

I'll give it another try, someday, maybe, I hope. The list of games that I'll get back to, someday, maybe, is already too long, though.

locked

4033 views

It's interesting, because while I died a bunch my first play through, when I came back roughly a year later, I really enjoyed the combat. Sure, it's not super extensive and there's not a ton of moves or powers you have access to, but it does expand over the course of the game a fair amount. For instance:

After beating Valravn, you gain access to a mirror that grants you temporary time slowing powers.
Eventually, you'll also earn a sword that has a sort of magic/power strike capability.
New enemy types like a slow one with a powerful heavy sword that you can't block, a quick one that dual wields, and one that rushes you are added to the regular sword guys and the shield guys.
There are also enemies that will become insubstantial and require you to trigger your more powerful abilities like time slow to engage them.
Later on, it will throw a mix of units at you and while you can kinda stumble your way to eventual success, it was pretty satisfying to me to use the various moves and skills to do really well in the later combat sections. Managing the mix of slow, fast, defensive, and offensive enemies and doing it well was pretty enjoyable to me.

I do get that the combat feels a bit limited at first, and the feel of it doesn't take any drastic game-altering turns, but I'd still make the gentle argument that you're not getting the full effect until a good bit after you beat Surtr and Valravn. Personally, I came to really appreciate the subtleties of Senua's combat:

How different attacks are needed to deal with different enemies
How the slow approach of enemies from different distances and directions combined with the "focus on one enemy at a time" gameplay to create miniature strategic puzzles of which enemy you need to focus on/ignore to best handle several enemies at once.
How a bad block might mitigate most or all of an enemy's attack, but a perfect block would help recharge your powers and soon let you strike back against entire groups once your time slow and power attacks were ready.
How the voices would warn you of incoming attacks that you couldn't see.

The following video isn't the best showcase, but I was pretty proud to cross this bridge while taking only one hit. I didn't use any powers, but at one point I dodged an unseen attack thanks to the voices and I generally took apart the enemies with skill...

locked

4107 views

Thanks, I honestly appreciate the post. I need someone to talk me into giving it another shot. This got me most of the way there. Finding the time is another thing. I can’t imagine the Sutr area is too long, judging by the Valravn part. I just need to push through it. But man, that area is a huge drag.

locked

4012 views

Thanks, I honestly appreciate the post. I need someone to talk me into giving it another shot. This got me most of the way there. Finding the time is another thing. I can’t imagine the Sutr area is too long, judging by the Valravn part. I just need to push through it. But man, that area is a huge drag.

By the Surtr area, I assume you mean the three burnt areas where you have to find the runes and then run through the fire? The fires aren't 100% straight forward since you have to divert through buildings or around obstacles, but there's only one path for each so it isn't too terrible to find your way. The runes, though, are frustrating the first time you search for them. So, I made a quick no-nonsense, no "Hey! What's up my peoples?! Please like and subscribe and click that bell and gofundme and follow my live journal and watch my other series" distractions. The Surtr area is actually quite short once you know what you are doing.

4:30. All 7 rune locations. Brilliant use of the "film burn" transition.

(Please forgive the random pauses in the video... my Xbox was being stupid...)

locked

4028 views

Yeah, that’s the area. It’s not that it’s difficult or tricky or even all that bothersome. It’s honestly just boring. It’s not engaging gameplay. I literally just lost interest in progressing because of how dull it is.

locked

4010 views

Yeah, that’s the area. It’s not that it’s difficult or tricky or even all that bothersome. It’s honestly just boring. It’s not engaging gameplay. I literally just lost interest in progressing because of how dull it is.

To you. Which is fine, but you have to remember that the gameplay in this section was designed to closely mimic the kind of weird pattern finding that sometimes goes on in the minds of the mentally ill. I found this section frustrating the first time through because it took me a really long time to find the shapes. But I seem to recall that some of the people with mental illnesses that Ninja Theory invited to play the game in production related heavily to this part.

Does that make it good gameplay? I suppose not. But between Druth's narrations and the highly researched intent of this section, I appreciate it for what it is doing. I'm sure that the frustration that I felt was part of the intent, even. In an offhand way, your not enjoying searching for shapes in ordinary, boring locations is also part of that intent.

Plus, the story that Druth tells is somewhat important to Senua's story. Without going into the entire plot of the game, but a bit...:

Senua's village was attacked, and her boyfriend/lover/the one who helped her fight her mental illness was murdered in a particularly violent way by the viking attackers. Senua gives in to what she thinks is the darkness inside her and chases the attackers down. Along the way she encounters Druth, a slave who had managed to escape his captivity but was badly burned and slowly dying. Druth was critical in helping Senua begin to cope with her grief and mental illness by providing her with an objective to rescue the soul of her boyfriend, if nothing else.

I guess I'm a little sad that you might not see the game the same way I do, and I'm not agreeing with your dislike... but I'm also not saying you were wrong. The game is very deliberate about what it sets out to do, and I can see how many people might not find that groove where they get onboard with all of its intentional frustrations.

locked

4038 views

I can appreciate all of that conceptually and logically. Really. I think it’s great.

I just don’t find it fun, to the point that it made me put the game down. I make no judgment on how well it met its design goals. Sounds like maybe it nailed it.

But it’s first and foremost a video game, and I wasn’t enjoying it.

locked

4017 views

I started playing Hellblade again tonight. I got through Surtr and crossed the bridge. I'm definitely going to play again tomorrow. I was much closer to getting through the Surtr area than I realized--I was in the last symbol area before facing Surtr. That fight wasn't particularly impressive, but it was fine. The fight with the big guy right after crossing the bridge was pretty fun, though.

I'm optimistic that I'll stick with the game this time. It sort of pulled me in tonight, even for the brief time that I played it.

locked

4029 views

Cool.

I enjoy the Valravn fight more, of the two of them. He has more attacks and you have to be more clever / skilled to deflect his blades and dodge his rushing charge. Funnily enough, I actually didn't get across the bridge this time. I made the video for you and then jumped over to Dad of War.

I'd like to do Hellblade again (and it's always funny since I seem to do those two games back to back and they're both heavily Norse god related... you even hear different variants of the same stories!) but it'll have to wait a while...

I'm glad you're enjoying it more. I didn't want to overpromise on the combat, there's another basic enemy type or two you won't have encountered yet, but I enjoy it for sorta being exactly what it wanted or needed to be. Also for being a different approach. Dad of War, Batman Arkham, Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, and even Assassin's Creed (at least the older ones, I haven't played either of the new generation yet) all have a similar feel while Senua's fights are almost part spacing/movement puzzles and part combat/combo-breaker puzzles.

Plus the game and Senua's model and movements are... honestly I think it is the prettiest game I've played. In addition to the best acted. So yeah, I like it a lot. :)

locked

4005 views

I do like the way the combat feels. I just wish there was a bit more going on there. Maybe that new enemy type will be enough.

I do really like how positional it is. The really close up camera makes getting surrounded a real danger. In most games it doesn't seem to matter, but the lack of any HUD and the close up camera make positioning really important, which is a nice change of pace.

I started a new play through of God of War last week, but I only made it to the first troll fight. I do want to get back into it, though!

locked

3977 views

Probably not the one or two enemies themselves, but I remember at least a couple of fights where instead of having to deal with 3ish enemies they threw maybe 5 or 6 at me at once. All of different types. So a normal sword guy, a heavy sword guy, a shield guy, a fast/dual wielding guy, and a phase out of reality (like Valravn's ability) guy all at once? And you can really only get hit maybe 5 times? It gets fun. Especially if you learn to string attacks and movements and special abilities (mirror time freeze, charged sword attack, standard attack combos) together to take out multiple enemies at a time and buy yourself some breathing room.

Let me know if/when you get to the end, 'cause I'd love to talk about that too. :)

locked

3994 views

Especially if you learn to string attacks and movements and special abilities (mirror time freeze, charged sword attack, standard attack combos) together to take out multiple enemies at a time and buy yourself some breathing room.

I just got the special sword. The part after that where you're walking through all the blood with bodies everywhere, there's a pretty heavy combat section with a mix of every enemy type. It's a lot of fun! I died once because I got caught on a wall, and it wouldn't let me roll left or right with a dual-wielding guy standing right in front of me. I died and stopped for the night, but I'm eager to do it again tomorrow.

Let me know if/when you get to the end, 'cause I'd love to talk about that too. :)

Will do!

I've really been enjoying it so far. The warrior challenges to reforge the blade were really great. The labyrinth in the burial grounds was probably my favorite. Just had a great creepy atmosphere, and the voices were perfect. It wasn't really a difficult puzzle, and I really wish that area had been expanded so that it really felt like a labyrinth you could get lost in, instead of a relatively small area with just a few branching paths. That whole sequence was just fun.

The one with the glowing enemy chasing me when I had to do the symbol hunt was great, too. It was really tense!

The time-puzzle one was fine. It's a neat concept, but both Titanfall and Dishonored have done it better. Still, it was engaging enough, and that it had the Baldur story in it was a plus.

The blind challenge was really great, too. Playing out a version of one of Senua's darkness episodes with Dillion leading me out was really cool. The sound design in this game is truly the best I've ever heard. It's just incredible.

locked

4050 views

I’ve somehow forgotten all about a glowing enemy... oh wait. Not glowing! Flaming with LOTR Balrog-style light rays streaming through the fence post walls! Yeah, that part is incredible. The Surtr fire runs were one thing. Having to navigate the maze and find the symbols while backtracking after wrong turns is pretty pulse pounding.

And yep, the blood fight is the big one I was thinking of. I believe that’s the largest fight in the game. Not necessarily the most difficult, but it’s the one I remember best for challenging me with simple numbers. (Technically, it’s the second largest, but... you’ll see.)

I want to talk about story stuff (like Dillion’s role) but I think it’ll be better for me to wait a few days so I don’t have to exclude other things. Naturally, everything is connected. :)

locked

3987 views

I’ve somehow forgotten all about a glowing enemy... oh wait. Not glowing! Flaming with LOTR Balrog-style light rays streaming through the fence post walls! Yeah, that part is incredible. The Surtr fire runs were one thing. Having to navigate the maze and find the symbols while backtracking after wrong turns is pretty pulse pounding.

I feel like such great sections like these cause the Fafnir segment to feel like a step down from the concept (even though it's the culmination of everything, and the lore about Sigurd and then Ragnarok is great), and the game starts to drag until you reconstruct the final bridge. But then they payoff comes...

And yep, the blood fight is the big one I was thinking of. I believe that’s the largest fight in the game. Not necessarily the most difficult, but it’s the one I remember best for challenging me with simple numbers. (Technically, it’s the second largest, but... you’ll see.)

The "Just like Sleep" segment is one of the most fantastic game segments in recent memory. Remembering how weak and terrified Senua was when she first saw Hela, how afraid of her father she was, and the way he was mocking her before and after the encounter to the point of her self-harm with the sword to close the wound... and how that sharply contrasts with the strength she has now, gunning right for Hela and tearing through the barely-there monsters, with the furies replaced by music and ultimately, her mother...

I want to talk about story stuff (like Dillion’s role) but I think it’ll be better for me to wait a few days so I don’t have to exclude other things. Naturally, everything is connected. :)

I'm likely going to do one more run on Xbox to get that 100% I accidentally missed. Eager to see how Cheap feels when he finishes.

locked

3984 views

I'm likely going to do one more run on Xbox to get that 100% I accidentally missed. Eager to see how Cheap feels when he finishes.

I really liked it! Honestly, it's right up there with The Last of Us, in terms of games I really feel are "art."

The Garm section was incredible. It really is amazing to me that I can know the game is designed so that I'll always make it to the next section of light before Garm gets me, but it's still terrifying every time.

I mostly liked the last section. Fighting on those platforms, surrounded, with the great music felt truly epic. The very last fight, however, feel really flat. Obviously you're supposed to die, but the game just spawns enemies immediately behind you. It felt cheap. But worse, it also wasn't hard. I guess it fits with the theme, in that I wasn't defeated--I had to willingly let go and die voluntarily. But it still just feels bad.

I still don't like the Surtr area. In the grand scheme of things, it's fine, but it's still a bummer, and, honestly, it might be enough to prevent me from playing through the game again. Maybe not, though. We'll see in a year.

I really loved this game, but part of me would still really like to see what a real AAA $60 version of it would be like. Expand the combat mechanics a bit (although, I did really end up enjoying the combat in the game), expand on some of the areas for reforging Gramr. I'm not really sure the game would benefit from that, though. As it is, just about everything is compelling without overstaying its welcome. I'm not sure it would work as a 30 or even 20 hour game quite as well.

locked

3987 views

I'm likely going to do one more run on Xbox to get that 100% I accidentally missed. Eager to see how Cheap feels when he finishes.

I really liked it! Honestly, it's right up there with The Last of Us, in terms of games I really feel are "art."

The Garm section was incredible. It really is amazing to me that I can know the game is designed so that I'll always make it to the next section of light before Garm gets me, but it's still terrifying every time.

Yep! I've played its a few times and I still get to the next light and only the next light. I think it's the pictures of Senua cowering / in pain that flash on screen that does it. They nailed that effect, for sure.

I mostly liked the last section. Fighting on those platforms, surrounded, with the great music felt truly epic. The very last fight, however, feel really flat. Obviously you're supposed to die, but the game just spawns enemies immediately behind you. It felt cheap. But worse, it also wasn't hard. I guess it fits with the theme, in that I wasn't defeated--I had to willingly let go and die voluntarily. But it still just feels bad.

I love the music. Epic is exactly how I'd describe it. I also like that in those fights Senua has a new animation for standing back up after being knocked down. Instead of being wounded and one step away from giving up on the ground, she rolls back onto her feet and continues to fight with a much shorter delay. I think you can still be killed in the first platforms if you play badly enough, but for the most part you are kinda invincible. It works so well along side Senua's evolved sense of sell worth and courage. I love it!

I still don't like the Surtr area. In the grand scheme of things, it's fine, but it's still a bummer, and, honestly, it might be enough to prevent me from playing through the game again. Maybe not, though. We'll see in a year.

I like the story bits that Druth narrates, but yeah, there's the least amount of gameplay going on there than any of the other sections. Honestly, I don't mind it at all, but I can totally see why you might have stopped there the first time without knowing how long it was or what was coming after.

I really loved this game, but part of me would still really like to see what a real AAA $60 version of it would be like. Expand the combat mechanics a bit (although, I did really end up enjoying the combat in the game), expand on some of the areas for reforging Gramr. I'm not really sure the game would benefit from that, though. As it is, just about everything is compelling without overstaying its welcome. I'm not sure it would work as a 30 or even 20 hour game quite as well.

Right. And that's why I call it "perfect." Is it completely perfect? Nah. But for the most part it achieves what it set out to achieve in that way that it's really really hard to fault them for not doing more. Like you say, more might have been too much. The acting is incredible. The gameplay is good and has just enough variation that it doesn't overstay its welcome. The combat is good enough that I kinda wouldn't mind a second game where Senua just revenges it up some more without all the emotional turmoil.

And... speaking of story... here's what I think happened:

Senua's mother had the same psychological disorder that Senua inherited. She heard voices and could have spells where she blacked out, but she also had some savant-like abilities to solve problems and anticipate problems long before others in their village knew something was wrong.
Senua's mother taught her daughter that the voices they heard and the problems they saw before others did was a gift. They probably also shared a heightened sense of the wonders of nature, given that final monologue.
Senua's father, however, was perhaps partially a liar, but probably mostly abusive and crazy. He tried to drive the voices out of Senua's mother through beatings and rituals, and when that did not work he eventually sacrificed her, burning her alive. I don't think Senua saw her mother die, but somewhere in the back of her mind she knew that's what happened. (Maybe she saw her father sacrifice others at a later time... and that's how Senua pieced together the vision of her mother being burnt alive?)
Senua's father also tortured Senua. Physical abuse along with mental / emotional abuse. He convinced her that she was possessed by a darkness and he was the only one keeping it at bay.
At some point, Senua starts leaving her house and watches Dillion practicing his sword combat. She learns from afar and gets very good at it, maybe better than him even, before one day she approaches him and they meet.
Senua and Dillion fall in love and Senua leaves her father's house to live with Dillion. The two at some point journey together and take part in real life warrior trials.
Senua still hears her voices and still has spells of blacking out or losing herself to visions of darkness, but with Dillion's help, she she begins to learn to overcome them.
At some point a while later, Senua goes down to the local river and something feels very wrong with her. There's something in the water... a sickness... a death that only she can sense. Her sense of it is probably based on smell and maybe a little on touch, the water feels different to her. She warns people about it, but no one believes her. Perhaps they even mock her... until villagers begin catching ill.
It turns out some sort of plague has come down the river and it kills many within the village. The plague even kills Dillion's father, who is the village leader. At some point the villagers even begin to blame Senua for the plague. Dillion himself, in a moment of grief, even lashes out at Senua.
At some point, the village tries to rid itself of Senua by locking her in a building and burning her alive, but she manages to find her way out. Dillion rescues her and apologizes to her for blaming her for his father's death. But, Senua has been badly shaken by all of this.
Senua leaves Dillion to go on a spiritual trek into the forest in order to try and rid herself of her darkness once and for all. In the forest, I think maybe she encounters a madman who possibly rapes her (the scene with Valravn over her is... disturbing...) but she eventually fights this person off, possibly killing them. Perhaps this was someone else from her village also on a spiritual trek into the forest, or maybe it was a Norseman cutoff from his army?
Either way, Senua, believing that she has finally conquered her darkness, returns to her village to find it in ruins. While she was gone, Norseman raided her village, burned it, slaughtered or captured everyone, and strung up Dillion in an especially vicious and ritualistic manner since he would now have been the village leader.
Senua finds her lover murdered and believes that he is more than dead. She believes that the Norseman have taken his soul. The voices that she had managed to drive away return in full force thanks to her emotional trauma. They mock her and taunt her and are generally against her. But, Senua loved Dillion, so she persevere and sets out on a quest to retrieve his soul.
Along the way, Senua encounters Druth, a noble of some other tribe who was captured and forced into slavery by the Norsemen. Druth had his own story about his sister being sold into slavery (or something similar) which lead him to seek her out only to eventually be captured himself. He was tortured and endured years of working for the Norsemen as they raided more villages. Eventually, though, he ran through the fire of a village they were torching and escaped... not quite with his life as he was badly burned, but he was able to live long enough...
Senua encounters Druth as she follows the Norsemen back to their... home?... village?... war camp? He regales her with many stories about himself and about the Norse gods. He promises that if he spares him and gets revenge on the Norsemen, that he will travel to hell with her and act as her guide. He dies and Senua continues her chase. Could it be that Druth escaped as the Norsemen burned Senua's village?
Senua, now in a tragically grief-stricken psychotic state wanders the Norse camp. On one hand I think maybe she attacked and killed everyone there. That the battles we fight were against real people. Overlaid by her psychosis, but real, nonetheless. On the other hand, I think maybe she was simply walking around and through an abandoned Norse camp, and most everything was in her head.
But, during this time, Senua, as lead by her memories of Druth and Dillion, manages to confront her demons and ultimately realizes the lies and deception and cruelty of her father. She eventually convinces herself that she must let go of Dillion. That he is dead and never coming back. In the end she literally lets go of his head which she really had been carrying around with her for the days or weeks after she found him murdered.
With that, she has largely overcome her psychosis. I think she probably still has some of the voices in her head, but they are friendly and help her now instead of trying to mock her or hurt her. It's all in her head, but she is finally at peace with herself. She goes on to have new adventures that we will never see.

Anyway, I love the game. It set a new bar for emotionally charged acting and showed the depths of storytelling that can now be achieved with video game level facial capture and rendering. And it did it without being a massive AAA money waster. Ninja Theory turned a profit early and went on to continue to sell the game first on the PS4, the the XBone, and now on even the Switch. So, it was a big success story in more ways than one.

locked

3974 views

I think this illustrates an impasse. I disagree with your reading of The Hero’s Journey itself (as presented here) as well as your readings of both Rey and Luke. I’ve reread your post a few times to formulate a response. I don’t think your arguments against Rey are supported by the films themselves, except maybe in some surface level readings. For example your continued use of absolutes (specifically) about her being right (which TLJ spends almost the entire movie showing us [and trying to show her] that she is not) leaves a sour taste to the discussion. You would be hard pressed to convince me you are giving her an unbiased shot.

However, I will say that your reading of why the Jedi failed is probably accurate. Even the stuff leading to Luke showing that he still cared for Vader. But that is part of what I mean by the characters being defined through failure. The thing about Luke is that at the end of RotJ, he accepts his failure. And only because he sees the path that denial of his failures will lead him down.

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

locked

4082 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

locked

4059 views

- No text -

locked

4043 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

My gripe’s with Rey’s arc aside, I really enjoyed that portion of the story, too. The personal, human moments are always my favourite:)

locked

4133 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

The best part of Star Wars has always been story, plot, and emotion. Leaving the bullshit virture signaling aside, TLJ doesn't work for me because Luke's fall is premised on actions that went against the core of who he was in the original trilogy. Call it a character retcon.

locked

3993 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

The best part of Star Wars has always been story, plot, and emotion. Leaving the bullshit virture signaling aside, TLJ doesn't work for me because Luke's fall is premised on actions that went against the core of who he was in the original trilogy. Call it a character retcon.

Or call it he grew up or he got smarter? I don't think you can treat him as the same person as the original trilogy because he isn't the same person.

locked

3997 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

The best part of Star Wars has always been story, plot, and emotion. Leaving the bullshit virture signaling aside, TLJ doesn't work for me because Luke's fall is premised on actions that went against the core of who he was in the original trilogy. Call it a character retcon.

Or call it he grew up or he got smarter? I don't think you can treat him as the same person as the original trilogy because he isn't the same person.

So his instincts to appeal to the good in Darth freaking Vader was such a success that he got smarter or grew into someone who threw those instincts out the window and decided to murder Darth's grandson in his sleep.

Umkay.

locked

4032 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

The best part of Star Wars has always been story, plot, and emotion. Leaving the bullshit virture signaling aside, TLJ doesn't work for me because Luke's fall is premised on actions that went against the core of who he was in the original trilogy. Call it a character retcon.

Or call it he grew up or he got smarter? I don't think you can treat him as the same person as the original trilogy because he isn't the same person.

So his instincts to appeal to the good in Darth freaking Vader was such a success that he got smarter or grew into someone who threw those instincts out the window and decided to murder Darth's grandson in his sleep.

Umkay.

I mean, I feel like there is a big difference from already evil Darth Vader and appealing to his good side to a kid you are training and watching him get more and more evil and having to do something about it.

They both deal with good and evil, but they aren't the same thing.

locked

3978 views

So his instincts to appeal to the good in Darth freaking Vader was such a success that he got smarter or grew into someone who threw those instincts out the window and decided to murder Darth's grandson in his sleep.

Umkay.

I mean, I feel like there is a big difference from already evil Darth Vader and appealing to his good side to a kid you are training and watching him get more and more evil and having to do something about it.

They both deal with good and evil, but they aren't the same thing.

I’m with. It was also a split-second gut emotional response. A realization that he could put an end to it right then and there.

The important part of that is that he stopped himself, not that he had the thought in the first place. And that is the Luke we know.

locked

3985 views

Regarding the backlash and capturing what Star Wars is, honestly I put TLJ up pretty high in capturing the essence of Star Wars. This essence not being limited to the modern canon. The biggest complaints (and we’ll sidestep the sexism - though a lot of the more vocal and vitriolic complaints were from that angle) stemmed around 30 years of one expectation of Luke as a character. TLJ allowed him to remain flawed and multidimensional, but it harmed an idol shaped like Luke Skywalker for a lot of people. But a lot of those complaints about the handling of Luke missed the point of OT Luke’s arc. So, what can you do.

Yeah... that's a great way to put it. Everyone was ready for Luke to be the wise master and teach Rey the ways of the Force... and that would have been awesome, but I think we got something much more interesting instead. We got a Luke Skywalker who failed, who cut himself off from the Force, but who ultimately found his way back... all without having to murder younglings! To me, everything that happened between Luke, Kylo, Rey, and Yoda is the best of Star Wars. No, it's not flashy space battles or duels with laser swords. It's better. It's story and plot and emotion.

The best part of Star Wars has always been story, plot, and emotion. Leaving the bullshit virture signaling aside, TLJ doesn't work for me because Luke's fall is premised on actions that went against the core of who he was in the original trilogy. Call it a character retcon.

Or call it he grew up or he got smarter? I don't think you can treat him as the same person as the original trilogy because he isn't the same person.

So his instincts to appeal to the good in Darth freaking Vader was such a success that he got smarter or grew into someone who threw those instincts out the window and decided to murder Darth's grandson in his sleep.

Umkay.

I mean, I feel like there is a big difference from already evil Darth Vader and appealing to his good side to a kid you are training and watching him get more and more evil and having to do something about it.

They both deal with good and evil, but they aren't the same thing.

So you’re saying kill the kid, but hope that old man will change. If anything his response should have been the reverse. I’m not saying that something like Luke’s arc could not have happened, but such a story needs to be told carefully and well. That’s not The Last Jedi. It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

locked

3952 views

It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

I mean . . . the hero's journey literally is antiquated.

Let Star Wars do something else for once without taking it so personally.

I'm not saying you have to enjoy it . . . but you also don't have to be so mad at it.

locked

4011 views

It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

I mean . . . the hero's journey literally is antiquated.

Let Star Wars do something else for once without taking it so personally.

I'm not saying you have to enjoy it . . . but you also don't have to be so mad at it.

Can... opened......... worms... everywhere ;p

Gotta disagree with you re: the hero’s journey. Assuming I have the same understanding of the word “antiquated” as you do, that is.

The hero’s journey doesn’t need subverting, because the things that make a “hero” have not changed. I’m all for updating stories so that they better reflect the times in which they are told (which I believe is what the creators of The Last Jedi *thought* they were doing), but if someone’s updated version of the hero’s journey includes the removal of key elements of heroic development, well then it simply isn’t a hero’s journey anymore.

Personally, I don’t think TLJ totally undermined the hero’s journey as completely as some people feel. I just think the way it played with the various elements in such chaotic and haphazard ways shows that the filmmakers don’t fully understand the themes they were dealing with.

locked

3966 views

It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

I mean . . . the hero's journey literally is antiquated.

That's what so dumb. No one can say that in 1977 the hero's journey was appreciably less antiquated.

Let Star Wars do something else for once without taking it so personally.

What made Star Wars so great was that it did something old in a new way. Mark my words. At some point, after I'm dead but maybe before you're dead, The Last Jedi will seem like one of most dated films of the bunch precisely because of its focus on currency. Meanwhile, the first film will be considered a classic.

I'm not saying you have to enjoy it . . . but you also don't have to be so mad at it.

Sure, I'm not happy, but it's because they took a series that at its best spoke to something universal and timeless, and they made an elitist film for elitists. And I was every bit as mad at Lucas for making the prequels into kids' toy commercials.

locked

4009 views

It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

I mean . . . the hero's journey literally is antiquated.

That's what so dumb. No one can say that in 1977 the hero's journey was appreciably less antiquated.

Fair point. I'm making no arguments on the merit of the hero's journey as a concept.

Let Star Wars do something else for once without taking it so personally.

What made Star Wars so great was that it did something old in a new way. Mark my words. At some point, after I'm dead but maybe before you're dead, The Last Jedi will seem like one of most dated films of the bunch precisely because of its focus on currency. Meanwhile, the first film will be considered a classic.

Sure, I'm not happy, but it's because they took a series that at its best spoke to something universal and timeless, and they made an elitist film for elitists. And I was every bit as mad at Lucas for making the prequels into kids' toy commercials.

I guess I just don't see whatever you're seeing.

locked

4023 views

https://mobile.twitter.com/Dataracer117/status/996486979578662912

Dude has even been on record after the fact stating his pleasure about all the people who are mad about VIII.

I’d even personally put money down on what Kermit said about VIII not aging well. From a pacing, plot, and writing standpoint, the thing is a mess. And I actually didn’t mind the film all that much. However, I’d say it’s very forgettable, and I really only enjoy the parts with Rey, Kylo, and Luke. I also seriously like the Yoda portion even though I’m thoroughly bothered with Yoda’s portrayal through dialogue and tone. To me, VIII feels like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies. Fun and in many ways good action movies, but awful Star Trek movies. And there is VIII, a fun and in many ways good action movie, but an awful Star Wars movie. It’s the least watched of the Star Wars movies I’ve seen other than the prequels. Can’t wait to see how IX deals with it. Genuinely excited for it.

locked

4047 views

I think many actors are pretty dumb. Like they have one brain cell for bodily functions, one for memorization, and one for mimicry, and not much else. I don’t think Mark Hamill is dumb. Without the success of, say, Harrison Ford, he’s had a lot more time to think about the role that made him into a household name. I think it’s significant that he resisted the direction Rian Johnson took Luke. The thing is, I feel like I understand Rian Johnson. His viewpoint in that clip is valid. I also like movies that are challenging and not everyone “gets.” My favorite movies tend to be art house films. My interest in tentpole movies has decreased with each passing year. I adored “Roma,” for instance, and I have plenty of friends who just don’t get it. I wanted it to sweep the Oscars. I didn’t care that it didn’t follow some hero’s journey template. I didn’t care that it had things to say about politics in 1970s Mexico, the rigidity of the class system there, or male privilege. If those things had been its primary focus, I don’t think it would be the masterpiece I think it is, but that gets into ideas I’ve discussed before regarding the difference between art and propaganda.

I remain an admirer of Rian Johnson for directing the Breaking Bad episode “Ozymandias,” which I consider one of the best TV episodes ever made. He brought depth to a pivotal moment in a long story arc. He brought a bit of pretension to the material, but it worked because he understood the material. For the Last Jedi, I don’t think he did. I don’t blame him for taking the opportunity given to him, but I think a part of him did not respect or understand what made Star Wars tick, and he felt the need to interrogate, deconstruct and demythologize it, which undercut the power of myth (to coin a phrase) that lies at its heart. Add in some narrative beats that speak (in the correct way) to current cultural debates, and viola, suddenly you’ve got people who have never liked Star Wars loving Star Wars, and now they’re the right people, such as the artsy critics, and the cultural elite who normally don’t go near the cineplex.

I agree with you, Avateur, The Last Jedi isn’t a good Star Wars movie. It’s different kind of movie, wearing the carcass of Star Wars as a suit. I suspect Rian Johnson never thought there was much worth preserving at its core, so there was no harm in gutting it for his art. Good for his art. It’s not like George Lucas didn’t have artistic pretensions. His peers were making freaking The Godfather. He had uncommon (read not topical) enthusiasms for the 1970s—Flash Gordon serials, comic books, WWII dog fighting. Before making Star Wars, he studied how fairy tales worked, how myths worked. And part of what makes fairy tales and myths work is they are not specific to a time and place. At its best Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. The Last Jedi is 2017 through and through.

locked

4040 views

I think many actors are pretty dumb. Like they have one brain cell for bodily functions, one for memorization, and one for mimicry, and not much else. I don’t think Mark Hamill is dumb. Without the success of, say, Harrison Ford, he’s had a lot more time to think about the role that made him into a household name. I think it’s significant that he resisted the direction Rian Johnson took Luke. The thing is, I feel like I understand Rian Johnson. His viewpoint in that clip is valid. I also like movies that are challenging and not everyone “gets.” My favorite movies tend to be art house films. My interest in tentpole movies has decreased with each passing year. I adored “Roma,” for instance, and I have plenty of friends who just don’t get it. I wanted it to sweep the Oscars. I didn’t care that it didn’t follow some hero’s journey template. I didn’t care that it had things to say about politics in 1970s Mexico, the rigidity of the class system there, or male privilege. If those things had been its primary focus, I don’t think it would be the masterpiece I think it is, but that gets into ideas I’ve discussed before regarding the difference between art and propaganda.

I remain an admirer of Rian Johnson for directing the Breaking Bad episode “Ozymandias,” which I consider one of the best TV episodes ever made. He brought depth to a pivotal moment in a long story arc. He brought a bit of pretension to the material, but it worked because he understood the material. For the Last Jedi, I don’t think he did. I don’t blame him for taking the opportunity given to him, but I think a part of him did not respect or understand what made Star Wars tick, and he felt the need to interrogate, deconstruct and demythologize it, which undercut the power of myth (to coin a phrase) that lies at its heart. Add in some narrative beats that speak (in the correct way) to current cultural debates, and viola, suddenly you’ve got people who have never liked Star Wars loving Star Wars, and now they’re the right people, such as the artsy critics, and the cultural elite who normally don’t go near the cineplex.

I agree with you, Avateur, The Last Jedi isn’t a good Star Wars movie. It’s different kind of movie, wearing the carcass of Star Wars as a suit. I suspect Rian Johnson never thought there was much worth preserving at its core, so there was no harm in gutting it for his art. Good for his art. It’s not like George Lucas didn’t have artistic pretensions. His peers were making freaking The Godfather. He had uncommon (read not topical) enthusiasms for the 1970s—Flash Gordon serials, comic books, WWII dog fighting. Before making Star Wars, he studied how fairy tales worked, how myths worked. And part of what makes fairy tales and myths work is they are not specific to a time and place. At its best Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. The Last Jedi is 2017 through and through.

Star Wars was about the Vietnam War... he said as much.

locked

4003 views

Yeah, nothing bolsters your street cred among critics like retroactively claiming you were making a political statement with which they agree. Already covered this. I’ll say this, if Lucas had a political motive for making the original trilogy, I’ll give him props for subtlety—something he lost completely for the prequels and Rian Johnson didn’t demonstrate.

locked

4002 views

Yeah, nothing bolsters your street cred among critics like retroactively claiming you were making a political statement with which they agree. Already covered this. I’ll say this, if Lucas had a political motive for making the original trilogy, I’ll give him props for subtlety—something he lost completely for the prequels and Rian Johnson didn’t demonstrate.

Yeah. Read the secret history of star wars. A lot of what Lucas has said is after the fact bullshit.

locked

4026 views

Yeah, nothing bolsters your street cred among critics like retroactively claiming you were making a political statement with which they agree. Already covered this. I’ll say this, if Lucas had a political motive for making the original trilogy, I’ll give him props for subtlety—something he lost completely for the prequels and Rian Johnson didn’t demonstrate.

Yeah. Read the secret history of star wars. A lot of what Lucas has said is after the fact bullshit.

2005 is pretty after the fact for A New Hope...

locked

3978 views

My favorite movies tend to be art house films.

Go see High Life dude.

locked

3981 views

Trailer looks interesting.

locked

4053 views

Sure, I'm not happy, but it's because they took a series that at its best spoke to something universal and timeless, and they made an elitist film for elitists. And I was every bit as mad at Lucas for making the prequels into kids' toy commercials.

Sorry for fighting you on that point. I honestly was just giving my opinion on Luke. I also don't take the Star Wars series and characters and what they represent as seriously as most of the people on the forum, which is fine on both sides. I simply have enjoyed all of the Star Wars movies for what they are (but not equally). Some might call me naive, but hell if I"m going to getting into a battle about cannon or something that I honestly don't care about. I thought the Red field on the last battle was cool artistically. Shit that like makes me smile in movies.

*shrug*

locked

3941 views

an elitist film for elitists

they go to Canto Blight and explicitly call out the complicit nature of the wealthy ruling class
it criticizes the elitist notion that your lineage is the most important part of your identity
they set fire, literally, to scripture, a device oft used by the elite class to "guide" the masses
it literally ends with a visual that communicates that the force is universal

The movie has issues, but that it's an elitist movie for elitists... doesn't make sense to me.

locked

3980 views

an elitist film for elitists

they go to Canto Blight and explicitly call out the complicit nature of the wealthy ruling class

it criticizes the elitist notion that your lineage is the most important part of your identity

they set fire, literally, to scripture, a device oft used by the elite class to "guide" the masses

it literally ends with a visual that communicates that the force is universal
The movie has issues, but that it's an elitist movie for elitists... doesn't make sense to me.

Wow, it's like you actually watched the movie or something. All those things are true and actually happen!

locked

3981 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

locked

4013 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

If they make those statements well and in a culturally relevant manner yes. And last Jedi was so relevant it actually scared people when the message confronted them.

locked

4033 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

If they make those statements well and in a culturally relevant manner yes. And last Jedi was so relevant it actually scared people when the message confronted them.

Okay, Jedi mind reader.

Its overwrought concern for "cultural relevancy" is exactly what will make it unwatchable down the road.

I have more to say. For instance, I have different expectations for different kinds of movies. For now I'll just say (on this point because it's only one of my criticisms) The Last Jedi is for a certain audience what most recent "Christian" movies are: pablum that makes its intended audience feel good about their moral superiority.

locked

3970 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

If they make those statements well and in a culturally relevant manner yes. And last Jedi was so relevant it actually scared people when the message confronted them.

Okay, Jedi mind reader.

Its overwrought concern for "cultural relevancy" is exactly what will make it unwatchable down the road.

I have more to say. For instance, I have different expectations for different kinds of movies. For now I'll just say (on this point because it's only one of my criticisms) The Last Jedi is for a certain audience what most recent "Christian" movies are: pablum that makes its intended audience feel good about their moral superiority.

No I think it directly tackles and confronts the audience with issues like Toxic Masculinity, indulgence, dynasties, etc. Things we need to tackle these days!

Also don't kid yourself that many well regarded works today weren't uncomfortable on release because of the issues they raised.

locked

3923 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

If they make those statements well and in a culturally relevant manner yes. And last Jedi was so relevant it actually scared people when the message confronted them.

Okay, Jedi mind reader.

Its overwrought concern for "cultural relevancy" is exactly what will make it unwatchable down the road.

I have more to say. For instance, I have different expectations for different kinds of movies. For now I'll just say (on this point because it's only one of my criticisms) The Last Jedi is for a certain audience what most recent "Christian" movies are: pablum that makes its intended audience feel good about their moral superiority.

No I think it directly tackles and confronts the audience with issues like Toxic Masculinity, indulgence, dynasties, etc. Things we need to tackle these days!

But it doesn’t “tackle”. It preaches. It begins from a thin, under-developed, ignorant, and often pathological view of deeply complex issues, and then preaches to the audience about what is good and bad based on that world view. It does nothing to truly examine. It paints things as utterly black and white. They literally make the argument in TLJ that the ONLY way to get rich is through immoral means. Now, I’m all for someone making a movie that explores that thesis. But, just like a literal thesis defence, you don’t get to walk into a room and make grand proclamations of that nature and have everyone else just accept it. You need to examine the arguments for AND against your point.

That’s the difference between “examining” and issue, and propaganda. Hollywood’s flavour of social commentary is just another religious worldview, with its own blasphemy and dogmas, sins and virtues. And like many other religious world views, it only ever references itself to prove its point.

More often than not, Hollywood filmmakers aren’t equipped to tackle these issues with the depth or complexity that they really deserve. They don’t understand them. And is it really that surprising that when a group of ultra-elites who work in a morally corrupt industry decide to get on their soapboxes and preach down at the rest of the world, a good chunk of the population just rolls their eyes and says “sorry, I don’t buy that coming from you”?

locked

3947 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

If they make those statements well and in a culturally relevant manner yes. And last Jedi was so relevant it actually scared people when the message confronted them.

Okay, Jedi mind reader.

Its overwrought concern for "cultural relevancy" is exactly what will make it unwatchable down the road.

I have more to say. For instance, I have different expectations for different kinds of movies. For now I'll just say (on this point because it's only one of my criticisms) The Last Jedi is for a certain audience what most recent "Christian" movies are: pablum that makes its intended audience feel good about their moral superiority.

No I think it directly tackles and confronts the audience with issues like Toxic Masculinity, indulgence, dynasties, etc. Things we need to tackle these days!

But it doesn’t “tackle”. It preaches. It begins from a thin, under-developed, ignorant, and often pathological view of deeply complex issues, and then preaches to the audience about what is good and bad based on that world view. It does nothing to truly examine. It paints things as utterly black and white. They literally make the argument in TLJ that the ONLY way to get rich is through immoral means. Now, I’m all for someone making a movie that explores that thesis. But, just like a literal thesis defence, you don’t get to walk into a room and make grand proclamations of that nature and have everyone else just accept it. You need to examine the arguments for AND against your point.

They're movies dude, I'm sorry that you're unable to get Rian Johnson to show up to your debate club. Not every point in every movie has to engage in both sides-ism. It's the same reason I'm not interested in whether or not The First Order/Space Nazis have a point or not.

That’s the difference between “examining” and issue, and propaganda. Hollywood’s flavour of social commentary is just another religious worldview, with its own blasphemy and dogmas, sins and virtues. And like many other religious world views, it only ever references itself to prove its point.

Look the movie made a point, it wasn't there to argue with you.

More often than not, Hollywood filmmakers aren’t equipped to tackle these issues with the depth or complexity that they really deserve. They don’t understand them. And is it really that surprising that when a group of ultra-elites who work in a morally corrupt industry decide to get on their soapboxes and preach down at the rest of the world, a good chunk of the population just rolls their eyes and says “sorry, I don’t buy that coming from you”?

Uh sure, gestures at all the people who didn't "buy it"

locked

4037 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

locked

3953 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

Surely, you can see the irony of Hollywood filmmakers criticizing the rich and powerful?

These filmmakers ARE the elite. Heck, by worldwide standards, almost everyone in America is the “elite”. And by historic standards, most people alive today are the “elite”.

There is certainly PLENTY of corruption going on that is dangerous and harmful and needs to be addressed. But there’s an element to how this topic often gets discussed that is deeply influenced by jealousy, pure and simple.

“Down with the 1%!”

“Which 1%?”

“The 1% that have more than I do!”

Corruption should be the focus. And rich, powerful people who are also corrupt are very dangerous. But as soon as we begin to conflate wealth with corruption, things get real nasty, real fast. We end up persecuting the innocent. It also draws attention away from the reality that there is corruption at ALL levels of society, not just the rich.

locked

3948 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

Surely, you can see the irony of Hollywood filmmakers criticizing the rich and powerful?

So it's bad because they themselves are elite? I don't follow that logic.

These filmmakers ARE the elite. Heck, by worldwide standards, almost everyone in America is the “elite”. And by historic standards, most people alive today are the “elite”.

Why the hell would we care about "historic standards"???? What?

There is certainly PLENTY of corruption going on that is dangerous and harmful and needs to be addressed. But there’s an element to how this topic often gets discussed that is deeply influenced by jealousy, pure and simple.

“Down with the 1%!”

“Which 1%?”

“The 1% that have more than I do!”

Wow that is massive oversimplification of that movement. Who the hell was asking "which 1%" let alone answering "The 1% that have more than I do". Like are you going to catch them by asking "1% wealthiest americans or 1% worldwide? huh, got you there" and it's like yeah sure, the top 1% wealthiest worldwide owe it to the other 99% to make it a more humane world. What is wrong with that? Do you think I'd give a damn if I was wrapped up in the 1%? Hell no.

Corruption should be the focus. And rich, powerful people who are also corrupt are very dangerous. But as soon as we begin to conflate wealth with corruption, things get real nasty, real fast. We end up persecuting the innocent. It also draws attention away from the reality that there is corruption at ALL levels of society, not just the rich.

Wealth is power, I'm sorry if I'm pre-occupied by the corruption of the most powerful part of society. Like it is seriously disturbing that we're arguing over whether it's ok to criticize the elite...

Look, I'm sorry this movie was mean to wealthy people.

locked

3973 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

You're kidding, right? No one criticizes the elites like the elites. It's one of the primary ways they gain moral standing.

locked

4025 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

You're kidding, right? No one criticizes the elites like the elites. It's one of the primary ways they gain moral standing.

No I'm not kidding. I'm utterly confused by this idea. Can you point me to where I can learn about how elitist it is to criticize the wealthy ruling class.

Like I get it, what better position is there to witness how gratuitous obscene wealth is.

What I haven't gathered is, why is it bad to criticize the wealthy ruling class?

locked

3962 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

You're kidding, right? No one criticizes the elites like the elites. It's one of the primary ways they gain moral standing.

No I'm not kidding. I'm utterly confused by this idea. Can you point me to where I can learn about how elitist it is to criticize the wealthy ruling class.

Like I get it, what better position is there to witness how gratuitous obscene wealth is.

What I haven't gathered is, why is it bad to criticize the wealthy ruling class?

It's not necessarily bad per se, but doing so in Star Wars movie can be bad because it detracts from what makes Star Wars great. And that was just one example of his signaling his tribe that he was above these silly entertainments for the great unwashed.

locked

3987 views

I'm talking about a kind of elitist audience, who believe that a sign of good art is that it makes statements about issues like, for instance, a wealthy ruling class.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're asserting that criticizing the wealthy ruling class is elitist?

You're kidding, right? No one criticizes the elites like the elites. It's one of the primary ways they gain moral standing.

No I'm not kidding. I'm utterly confused by this idea. Can you point me to where I can learn about how elitist it is to criticize the wealthy ruling class.

Like I get it, what better position is there to witness how gratuitous obscene wealth is.

What I haven't gathered is, why is it bad to criticize the wealthy ruling class?

It's not necessarily bad per se, but doing so in Star Wars movie can be bad because it detracts from what makes Star Wars great. And that was just one example of his signaling his tribe that he was above these silly entertainments for the great unwashed.

Yeah, just not following you there. How does it detract from what makes Star Wars great? The movie pretty clearly revels in the Star Wars universe. It has an amazing light saber battle, they fight space nazis, cool millenium falcon piloting, explorations of what the force IS, and a brilliant play on Obi-Wans fight vs Vader.

locked

4033 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

locked

3986 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

[Edit]
I guess what I'm trying to say is, I feel like I should feel bad for only knowing what 20% of the movie is "about". We keep talking about how TLJ didn't have the same core idea that the original trilogy did. But to me, overall, it still has the same Star Wars vibe. Maybe that's because I never took the deep dive of how every nuance emulates the culture of the period it's watched in or how the force relates to string theory in one but not the other. Yes, that's obviously exaggerated, to make the point that I honestly don't care, because what I get out of it still makes the movie great. And I'm not just watching the movies for the explosions.

locked

4000 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

Hmm. If you're referring to any of my points, I suspect you're both misunderstanding. The elites I'm referring to like the political angles (I'm not talking about politics as they are portrayed in that fictional universe, but how The Last Jedi checked the boxes for the very specific politics of our time in our world). Yes, the original trilogy is a personal story, but it has a timeless mythic quality that speaks to universal themes that have existed as long as humans have told stories. There are many things that are much more important than politics.

locked

4036 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

Hmm. If you're referring to any of my points, I suspect you're both misunderstanding. The elites I'm referring to like the political angles (I'm not talking about politics as they are portrayed in that fictional universe, but how The Last Jedi checked the boxes for the very specific politics of our time in our world). Yes, the original trilogy is a personal story, but it has a timeless mythic quality that speaks to universal themes that have existed as long as humans have told stories. There are many things that are much more important than politics.

I was referring to how we are becoming the movie elitists (the 1%) by examining this movie to the nth degree. While the other 99% that watched the movie have no problem with any of this because it's still a great movie.

locked

3971 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

Hmm. If you're referring to any of my points, I suspect you're both misunderstanding. The elites I'm referring to like the political angles (I'm not talking about politics as they are portrayed in that fictional universe, but how The Last Jedi checked the boxes for the very specific politics of our time in our world). Yes, the original trilogy is a personal story, but it has a timeless mythic quality that speaks to universal themes that have existed as long as humans have told stories. There are many things that are much more important than politics.

I was referring to how we are becoming the movie elitists (the 1%) by examining this movie to the nth degree. While the other 99% that watched the movie have no problem with any of this because it's still a great movie.

Ah, gotcha. Don't think I've examined it to the nth degree here. I've not gotten into too many particulars because I don't want to get into that kind of extended debate. I also might quibble with your numbers. I think the percentage of people who had problems with it is greater than 1%. All that said, I understand that this conversation can be tiresome if you simply enjoyed the movie.

locked

3963 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

Hmm. If you're referring to any of my points, I suspect you're both misunderstanding. The elites I'm referring to like the political angles (I'm not talking about politics as they are portrayed in that fictional universe, but how The Last Jedi checked the boxes for the very specific politics of our time in our world). Yes, the original trilogy is a personal story, but it has a timeless mythic quality that speaks to universal themes that have existed as long as humans have told stories. There are many things that are much more important than politics.

I was referring to how we are becoming the movie elitists (the 1%) by examining this movie to the nth degree. While the other 99% that watched the movie have no problem with any of this because it's still a great movie.

Ah, gotcha. Don't think I've examined it to the nth degree here. I've not gotten into too many particulars because I don't want to get into that kind of extended debate. I also might quibble with your numbers. I think the percentage of people who had problems with it is greater than 1%. All that said, I understand that this conversation can be tiresome if you simply enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, I generalize :D But I also have no problem with people digging into movies. I just don't like people who seem to think that if you don't understand a movie at that level then you can't enjoy the movie. When usually, the majority of people just want to watch a movie at whatever depth of understanding they care to use. So when I hear people talk to this depth I'm just like "Yeah, I never got that, but I still really enjoyed the movie"

locked

3958 views

I’m with you.

I’m all for a Star Wars universe that examines itself, instead of pretending that killing the space Nazi leader solves all the galaxy’s problems.

I understand that the original trilogy was a personal story, and not one concerned with the grander politics of the entire galaxy. But I think giving us a glimpse of those politics doesn’t detract from what makes Star Wars great. I think the reaction to The Last Jedi is justification enough for why the movie should have been made, to be honest.

I agree. And I understand that people still want the feel of the original trilogy, but from what I've read about it so far, you apparently have to be elitest to even understand what it's about. Kudos to the 1% who understand all of that and get something out of it. I consider myself a smart guy, but I never got all of that from any of the star wars movies. And I'm all for Sci-fi being a tool to help us understand ourselves and our culture through another medium.

Hmm. If you're referring to any of my points, I suspect you're both misunderstanding. The elites I'm referring to like the political angles (I'm not talking about politics as they are portrayed in that fictional universe, but how The Last Jedi checked the boxes for the very specific politics of our time in our world). Yes, the original trilogy is a personal story, but it has a timeless mythic quality that speaks to universal themes that have existed as long as humans have told stories. There are many things that are much more important than politics.

I was referring to how we are becoming the movie elitists (the 1%) by examining this movie to the nth degree. While the other 99% that watched the movie have no problem with any of this because it's still a great movie.

Ah, gotcha. Don't think I've examined it to the nth degree here. I've not gotten into too many particulars because I don't want to get into that kind of extended debate. I also might quibble with your numbers. I think the percentage of people who had problems with it is greater than 1%. All that said, I understand that this conversation can be tiresome if you simply enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, I generalize :D But I also have no problem with people digging into movies. I just don't like people who seem to think that if you don't understand a movie at that level then you can't enjoy the movie. When usually, the majority of people just want to watch a movie at whatever depth of understanding they care to use. So when I hear people talk to this depth I'm just like "Yeah, I never got that, but I still really enjoyed the movie"

I think its legitimate to criticize a movie that includes elements that seem to, in a hamfisted way, flatter a particular audience. Otherwise, if I'm come across as begrudging anyone who simply enjoys a movie as entertainment, that wasn't my intention. Most people get way more out of Marvel movies, for instance, than I do. The Star Wars franchise means more to me than most IPs because of how it influenced me at age 13 when there was nothing else quite like it, and its influence was profound. It affected my intellectual development. It expanded my interest in science fiction, fantasy, and story telling in general. Just like the Beatles made me a fan of everything that influenced the Beatles and everything they influenced, so it was with Star Wars. Empire was more mature movie, and by that time I had matured. I read Joseph Campbell. I began to understand on a more cerebral level why these movies had the staying power they did. That understanding is what drives my critique. The movies can still be plenty entertaining, but for me Star Wars was something special in that it was a phenomenon--something that was tremendously popular, yet there was substance underneath (very similar to the Beatles' music, the more I think about it). I'm not saying everyone has to think about it the way I do. Obviously, many don't, and that's okay.

locked

3993 views

Sure, I'm not happy, but it's because they took a series that at its best spoke to something universal and timeless, and they made an elitist film for elitists. And I was every bit as mad at Lucas for making the prequels into kids' toy commercials.

I looked forever but couldn't find a huge chested shirtless Kylo figure.

locked

4038 views

Sure, I'm not happy, but it's because they took a series that at its best spoke to something universal and timeless, and they made an elitist film for elitists. And I was every bit as mad at Lucas for making the prequels into kids' toy commercials.

I looked forever but couldn't find a huge chested shirtless Kylo figure.

Okay, so I'll admit that most of what I turned up was either fan-made or just a joke... but this one is real:

[image]

locked

3950 views

If anyone send me this I'll be so happy.

locked

3986 views

It’s a sloppy movie more concerned with fucking with expectations from one minute to the next because of some juvenile idea that the hero’s journey is somehow antiquated and needs to be subverted.

You know… the hero's journey is not some kind of requirement or anything. It's merely a description of traits in some kinds of stories. It refers to underlying dramatic principles of storytelling and nothing more. Why do you care so much about the particular manifestation of those structures rather than the story being told?

I feel like Joseph Campbell has done so much damage to viewers, critics, and screenwriters over the years.

locked

3987 views

- No text -

locked

3980 views

She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel.

Whoa whoa whoa! No. Watch that scene again. While Rey does get the upper hand in the end by wielding her lightsaber vs Luke's walking stick, Luke was clearly toying with her up until then. It was very nearly the "dueling with one hand while stifling a yawn with the other" trope. He easily blocks and dodges her first few attacks then hits her in the back. He fends off her next attacks and then catches her staff and disarms her, throwing her staff away from her. That is not Luke being beat. If he'd had a lightsaber he would have equally embarrassed her. I enjoy the heck out of that scene because it shows that Luke still has it. That he was still the master in the moments he allowed himself to be.

Rey’s whole time with Luke was more about showing that he needed her more than she needed him.

I look at Luke and Rey's time as almost two completely separate stories that just happen to temporarily cross.

Rey's story is about separating herself from what she believed was her past. She needed to accept that her parents were not coming back and that even the legendary Luke Skywalker was not someone who was going to solve all her problems. It's so much the trope of "us old guys need to get out of the way, it's the young / current generation that has to solve our problems now." My hope is that Luke's teaching about the Jedi and Sith both being wrong becomes important in IX. But beyond that, Luke was just a minor temporary character in Rey's own story.

Luke's story, similarly, is only tangentially and indirectly affected by Rey. What Luke needed was to learn that failure was not the end. Luke was stuck, trapped in a moment of regret (kinda like his father was), but Rey didn't help him out of it. Look at Luke's two lessons. They are both stuck talking about what Jedi weren't and how they failed.

And this is the lesson: That "Force" does not belong to the Jedi. To say that if the Jedi die the Light dies is vanity. Can you feel that?

Lesson 2: Now that they're extinct, the Jedi are romanticized, deified, but if you strip away the myth and look at their deeds, the legacy of the Jedi is failure. Hypocrisy. Hubris.

When Rey left, Luke was ready to destroy everything and end the Jedi Order. It wasn't Rey who cured him of that. She offered him one last chance to help her and he refused, so she left him to it. It took Yoda to remind him that passing on the lessons of failure is just as important as anything. And even though Luke was stuck on his failure, he did pass on those lessons, both about the Jedi's failures and about his own.

I really hope episode IX address that. It's why I like that theory about Skywalker becoming the new name of Force users who are in balance. The Sith can keep their Chaos, the Jedi can keep their Order. The Skywalkers can be the balance the galaxy really needed. Plus, if Rey is the first of this new order of Skywalkers, then she would also be The Last Jedi... and syncing up with the title of the previous movie in a clever way would make me smile.

locked

4220 views

I really hope episode IX address that. It's why I like that theory about Skywalker becoming the new name of Force users who are in balance. The Sith can keep their Chaos, the Jedi can keep their Order. The Skywalkers can be the balance the galaxy really needed. Plus, if Rey is the first of this new order of Skywalkers, then she would also be The Last Jedi... and syncing up with the title of the previous movie in a clever way would make me smile.

When I first heard that theory for, I just rolled my eyes, but you just convinced me that Skywalker would be a good name for the next generation of Force users. Plus, divorced from the context of it being a name of a person, "Skywalker" is actually just a cool word with some cool imagery. Like Windrunner from Stormlight Archive.

locked

4076 views

I really hope episode IX address that. It's why I like that theory about Skywalker becoming the new name of Force users who are in balance. The Sith can keep their Chaos, the Jedi can keep their Order. The Skywalkers can be the balance the galaxy really needed. Plus, if Rey is the first of this new order of Skywalkers, then she would also be The Last Jedi... and syncing up with the title of the previous movie in a clever way would make me smile.

When I first heard that theory for, I just rolled my eyes, but you just convinced me that Skywalker would be a good name for the next generation of Force users. Plus, divorced from the context of it being a name of a person, "Skywalker" is actually just a cool word with some cool imagery. Like Windrunner from Stormlight Archive.

Also, as Yogurt would say: Merchandising! :)

locked

4078 views

I like your take on a lot of this stuff, but I did want to talk about this first point:

She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel.

Whoa whoa whoa! No. Watch that scene again. While Rey does get the upper hand in the end by wielding her lightsaber vs Luke's walking stick, Luke was clearly toying with her up until then. It was very nearly the "dueling with one hand while stifling a yawn with the other" trope. He easily blocks and dodges her first few attacks then hits her in the back. He fends off her next attacks and then catches her staff and disarms her, throwing her staff away from her. That is not Luke being beat. If he'd had a lightsaber he would have equally embarrassed her. I enjoy the heck out of that scene because it shows that Luke still has it. That he was still the master in the moments he allowed himself to be.

I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control. If anything, he looks genuinely afraid. My read on that scene is that Luke is reluctant to fight, only really trying to defend himself, but then starts to see that Rey’s attacks are growing ferocious to the point where he is in real danger. She literally knocks him off his feet. Yes, he does use the force to cushion his fall, showing that he is not utterly defeated, but I see no evidence that he is toying with her. Like vs Kylo? THAT is what toying with an opponent looks like. But I don’t see anything in his scrap with Rey that suggests he is anything other than on the defensive, and possibly desperate.

locked

4043 views

I like your take on a lot of this stuff, but I did want to talk about this first point:

She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel.

Whoa whoa whoa! No. Watch that scene again. While Rey does get the upper hand in the end by wielding her lightsaber vs Luke's walking stick, Luke was clearly toying with her up until then. It was very nearly the "dueling with one hand while stifling a yawn with the other" trope. He easily blocks and dodges her first few attacks then hits her in the back. He fends off her next attacks and then catches her staff and disarms her, throwing her staff away from her. That is not Luke being beat. If he'd had a lightsaber he would have equally embarrassed her. I enjoy the heck out of that scene because it shows that Luke still has it. That he was still the master in the moments he allowed himself to be.

I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control. If anything, he looks genuinely afraid. My read on that scene is that Luke is reluctant to fight, only really trying to defend himself, but then starts to see that Rey’s attacks are growing ferocious to the point where he is in real danger. She literally knocks him off his feet. Yes, he does use the force to cushion his fall, showing that he is not utterly defeated, but I see no evidence that he is toying with her. Like vs Kylo? THAT is what toying with an opponent looks like. But I don’t see anything in his scrap with Rey that suggests he is anything other than on the defensive, and possibly desperate.

Come on man, you have to concede something here! Movement by movement:

1. Luke uses the Force to grab his stick in time to block Rey's first attack. (Victor Luke)
2. Rey swings wildly, Luke ducks below her swing. (Victor Luke)
3. Rey swings back to the right, Luke leans backwards not even bother to block. (Victor Luke)
4. Rey swings overhanded, Luke sidesteps left and then slaps her on the back with his stick and then lowers his stick to a resting position. This look on his face is somewhere between "try again" and "you aren't going to beat me that easily" (What, besides playing with her do you intend to call Luke's actions here?!)

From here, the tide of the battle becomes more even as Rey gets angrier after Luke gets his shot in. Luke does not get in any more embarrassing blows for the next several movements and he is falling back instead of holding his ground:

5. Rey jabs, Luke blocks it aside.
6. Rey attack overhead, Luke blocks.
7. Rey swings across, Luke dodges.
8. Rey spins, Luke blocks.
9. Rey swings left, Luke blocks.
10. Rey swings right, Luke blocks
11. Wide shot... a couple of Rey attacks and Luke blocks.
12. Close shot, Rey attacks, Luke blocks.
13. Rey swings left, Luke blocks then grabs her staff, pulls it from her, and tosses it away. (Victor Luke. At this point Rey would be out of the fight. This is less play from Luke and more disarming a threat, but Luke is literally in control at this point because Rey is deprived of her weapon!)
14. Rey very quickly uses the Force to pull her lightsaber, she does not attack but takes an intimidating step forward.
15. Luke stumbles away from the clearly superior weapon and falls down only catching himself at the last second with the Force. This is not just a stumble from a more powerful weapon, though. This is Luke finally conceding that Rey is right. (Victor Rey.)

Now, this is a very complex scene. We're dealing with combat ability, Force mastery, stubbornness, and moral high grounds all in the space of ~20 seconds. But, Luke is clearly in the advantage in movements 1, 2, and 3. And in moments 4 and 13 he had Rey soundly beaten.

At this point in the movie, Rey does have the moral high ground here. It's why she wins the fight, really. She was coming close to (maybe?) turning Kylo Rey back to the light when Luke interrupted. Then, she was also trying to get the real truth out of Luke in regards to what happened between Luke and Ben. Luke gave her a big lie of omission earlier in the film. In Luke's version he was just standing there above Ben and Ben attacked. Ben lied to Rey, too. In his version, Luke came in with murderous intent and attacked.

Once Rey has Luke beat by wielding a lightsaber vs a stick, Luke is forced to admit his mistakes. And tell the whole story. He wasn't just standing there observing when Ben attacked. Instead, he'd activated his lightsaber, but regained control of himself when Ben, frightened and heart darkened, attacked.

Yes, Rey won the battle. But, also yes, when she and Luke were armed with relatively equal weapons, Luke didn't just defend himself. He twice embarrassed her in ways that would have ended the fight if he had intended to harm her. If you can't admit that, then... I just don't know what you are here for. I've enjoyed this entire thread... but this will be the end if you can't give me something here.

Video for reference:

locked

4275 views

I like your take on a lot of this stuff, but I did want to talk about this first point:

She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel.

Whoa whoa whoa! No. Watch that scene again. While Rey does get the upper hand in the end by wielding her lightsaber vs Luke's walking stick, Luke was clearly toying with her up until then. It was very nearly the "dueling with one hand while stifling a yawn with the other" trope. He easily blocks and dodges her first few attacks then hits her in the back. He fends off her next attacks and then catches her staff and disarms her, throwing her staff away from her. That is not Luke being beat. If he'd had a lightsaber he would have equally embarrassed her. I enjoy the heck out of that scene because it shows that Luke still has it. That he was still the master in the moments he allowed himself to be.

I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control. If anything, he looks genuinely afraid. My read on that scene is that Luke is reluctant to fight, only really trying to defend himself, but then starts to see that Rey’s attacks are growing ferocious to the point where he is in real danger. She literally knocks him off his feet. Yes, he does use the force to cushion his fall, showing that he is not utterly defeated, but I see no evidence that he is toying with her. Like vs Kylo? THAT is what toying with an opponent looks like. But I don’t see anything in his scrap with Rey that suggests he is anything other than on the defensive, and possibly desperate.

Come on man, you have to concede something here! Movement by movement:

1. Luke uses the Force to grab his stick in time to block Rey's first attack. (Victor Luke)
2. Rey swings wildly, Luke ducks below her swing. (Victor Luke)
3. Rey swings back to the right, Luke leans backwards not even bother to block. (Victor Luke)
4. Rey swings overhanded, Luke sidesteps left and then slaps her on the back with his stick and then lowers his stick to a resting position. This look on his face is somewhere between "try again" and "you aren't going to beat me that easily" (What, besides playing with her do you intend to call Luke's actions here?!)

From here, the tide of the battle becomes more even as Rey gets angrier after Luke gets his shot in. Luke does not get in any more embarrassing blows for the next several movements and he is falling back instead of holding his ground:

5. Rey jabs, Luke blocks it aside.
6. Rey attack overhead, Luke blocks.
7. Rey swings across, Luke dodges.
8. Rey spins, Luke blocks.
9. Rey swings left, Luke blocks.
10. Rey swings right, Luke blocks
11. Wide shot... a couple of Rey attacks and Luke blocks.
12. Close shot, Rey attacks, Luke blocks.
13. Rey swings left, Luke blocks then grabs her staff, pulls it from her, and tosses it away. (Victor Luke. At this point Rey would be out of the fight. This is less play from Luke and more disarming a threat, but Luke is literally in control at this point because Rey is deprived of her weapon!)
14. Rey very quickly uses the Force to pull her lightsaber, she does not attack but takes an intimidating step forward.
15. Luke stumbles away from the clearly superior weapon and falls down only catching himself at the last second with the Force. This is not just a stumble from a more powerful weapon, though. This is Luke finally conceding that Rey is right. (Victor Rey.)

Now, this is a very complex scene. We're dealing with combat ability, Force mastery, stubbornness, and moral high grounds all in the space of ~20 seconds. But, Luke is clearly in the advantage in movements 1, 2, and 3. And in moments 4 and 13 he had Rey soundly beaten.

At this point in the movie, Rey does have the moral high ground here. It's why she wins the fight, really. She was coming close to (maybe?) turning Kylo Rey back to the light when Luke interrupted. Then, she was also trying to get the real truth out of Luke in regards to what happened between Luke and Ben. Luke gave her a big lie of omission earlier in the film. In Luke's version he was just standing there above Ben and Ben attacked. Ben lied to Rey, too. In his version, Luke came in with murderous intent and attacked.

Once Rey has Luke beat by wielding a lightsaber vs a stick, Luke is forced to admit his mistakes. And tell the whole story. He wasn't just standing there observing when Ben attacked. Instead, he'd activated his lightsaber, but regained control of himself when Ben, frightened and heart darkened, attacked.

Yes, Rey won the battle. But, also yes, when she and Luke were armed with relatively equal weapons, Luke didn't just defend himself. He twice embarrassed her in ways that would have ended the fight if he had intended to harm her. If you can't admit that, then... I just don't know what you are here for. I've enjoyed this entire thread... but this will be the end if you can't give me something here.

Video for reference:

I'll start by saying that theres no need for the self-righteous indignation. We're talking interpretations of a movie scene here, sharing our respective points of view. Believe it or not, I noticed all the same things you've pointed out in my previous viewings of the movie, considered them, and come to a different conclusion. So don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you. That tune is a bit played out at this point :)

Your blow-by-blow does nothing to prove your point. You're counting dodged attacks as sign of Luke's victory, only to concede the same outcome that I saw. I already said that Luke had no interest in a real fight, as is early dodges and counters show. His counters were designed to make light of Rey's attacks, but what Luke didn't consider IMO is that Rey's initial attacks weren't serious either. But the fight became serious, whether he wanted it to or not, and when Rey did fully ramp up her attacks, Luke was unable to repel her. Dodging a few early attacks means nothing if you lose the fight in the end, as Luke obviously did.

And I actually completely agree with your assessment that Rey really did hold the high ground in that moment. She wanted to get the truth out of Luke, even if she had to literally beat it out of him. When luke saw that he had lost the moral AND physical battles, he finally realized he had no path forward but to tell Rey what had happened.

locked

4105 views

It’s easy to see both interpretations here. The scene is short and turns quickly.

Something I hadn’t considered before, though, is that Rey igniting her lightsaber over Luke is a sort of mirror of Luke doing the same to Ben. The angle of the shot of both Rey and Luke holding their lightsabers is nearly identical. Maybe just pointing out the obvious here, I guess, just not something I’d ever given thought to before.

locked

4012 views

It also mirrors Luke only overcoming Vader through anger.

locked

4051 views

It also mirrors Luke only overcoming Vader through anger.

While I love A New Hope... I'm glad Star Wars seems to be moving a little away from the idea that a good guy isn't allowed to get angry to defend a loved one. Those ideas lead or... hmm, or rather they came from... a Jedi Order who failed to protect the galaxy. If Luke did anything wrong there, it was attacking without being in control of his anger.

locked

4003 views

- No text -

locked

4042 views

Antenna v. Lightsaber: Today in Unfair Fights.

I don’t think you can use Luke dodging all be Ben Solo’s attacks as “toying” while also saying Luke dodging all of Rey’s attacks isn’t toying. There is an inconsistency in your assessments.

locked

4015 views

Antenna v. Lightsaber: Today in Unfair Fights.

I don’t think you can use Luke dodging all be Ben Solo’s attacks as “toying” while also saying Luke dodging all of Rey’s attacks isn’t toying. There is an inconsistency in your assessments.

I never claimed it was a fair fight :)

The issue that is being missed here, IMO, is that the fight between Luke and Rey progresses. I’ve already said that I agree with the assessment that Luke is toying with Rey somewhat dismissively at the start of the fight. But I also pointed out that it clearly goes beyond that dynamic, and by the end of the fight, Luke has clearly lost. Against Kylo, Luke is 100% in control from the start of the fight until Kylo realizes what’s happening. Against Rey, Luke goes from being the one in control to desperately trying and failing to retain control.

Plus, I look at Luke’s face towards the end of that fight with Rey, and he looks clearly afraid to me. It looks to me like that fight ends only because Rey decides to stop attacking. Luke no longer seemed confident in his ability to stop her.

I also thought this was an intentional contrast with his later duel against Kylo. Luke did not hold the moral high ground against Rey, and lost. He did hold the moral high ground against Kylo, and he won. That’s how it looked to me :)

locked

4033 views

I would suggest there is a difference between “winning” and someone “not fighting you anymore because they realize you won’t learn anything from it and greater shows of force would do more harm than good.”

Also the only thing Luke is afraid of in that moment is creating another Kylo Ren.

locked

4077 views

That’s sort of how I read it, too.

Luke only “lost” because Rey seems willing to use a deadly lightsaber to kill an old man while they were fighting with sticks.

locked

4094 views

- No text -

locked

3978 views

I like your take on a lot of this stuff, but I did want to talk about this first point:

She even loses her temper and beats him in a duel.

Whoa whoa whoa! No. Watch that scene again. While Rey does get the upper hand in the end by wielding her lightsaber vs Luke's walking stick, Luke was clearly toying with her up until then. It was very nearly the "dueling with one hand while stifling a yawn with the other" trope. He easily blocks and dodges her first few attacks then hits her in the back. He fends off her next attacks and then catches her staff and disarms her, throwing her staff away from her. That is not Luke being beat. If he'd had a lightsaber he would have equally embarrassed her. I enjoy the heck out of that scene because it shows that Luke still has it. That he was still the master in the moments he allowed himself to be.

I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control. If anything, he looks genuinely afraid. My read on that scene is that Luke is reluctant to fight, only really trying to defend himself, but then starts to see that Rey’s attacks are growing ferocious to the point where he is in real danger. She literally knocks him off his feet. Yes, he does use the force to cushion his fall, showing that he is not utterly defeated, but I see no evidence that he is toying with her. Like vs Kylo? THAT is what toying with an opponent looks like. But I don’t see anything in his scrap with Rey that suggests he is anything other than on the defensive, and possibly desperate.

Come on man, you have to concede something here! Movement by movement:

1. Luke uses the Force to grab his stick in time to block Rey's first attack. (Victor Luke)
2. Rey swings wildly, Luke ducks below her swing. (Victor Luke)
3. Rey swings back to the right, Luke leans backwards not even bother to block. (Victor Luke)
4. Rey swings overhanded, Luke sidesteps left and then slaps her on the back with his stick and then lowers his stick to a resting position. This look on his face is somewhere between "try again" and "you aren't going to beat me that easily" (What, besides playing with her do you intend to call Luke's actions here?!)

From here, the tide of the battle becomes more even as Rey gets angrier after Luke gets his shot in. Luke does not get in any more embarrassing blows for the next several movements and he is falling back instead of holding his ground:

5. Rey jabs, Luke blocks it aside.
6. Rey attack overhead, Luke blocks.
7. Rey swings across, Luke dodges.
8. Rey spins, Luke blocks.
9. Rey swings left, Luke blocks.
10. Rey swings right, Luke blocks
11. Wide shot... a couple of Rey attacks and Luke blocks.
12. Close shot, Rey attacks, Luke blocks.
13. Rey swings left, Luke blocks then grabs her staff, pulls it from her, and tosses it away. (Victor Luke. At this point Rey would be out of the fight. This is less play from Luke and more disarming a threat, but Luke is literally in control at this point because Rey is deprived of her weapon!)
14. Rey very quickly uses the Force to pull her lightsaber, she does not attack but takes an intimidating step forward.
15. Luke stumbles away from the clearly superior weapon and falls down only catching himself at the last second with the Force. This is not just a stumble from a more powerful weapon, though. This is Luke finally conceding that Rey is right. (Victor Rey.)

Now, this is a very complex scene. We're dealing with combat ability, Force mastery, stubbornness, and moral high grounds all in the space of ~20 seconds. But, Luke is clearly in the advantage in movements 1, 2, and 3. And in moments 4 and 13 he had Rey soundly beaten.

At this point in the movie, Rey does have the moral high ground here. It's why she wins the fight, really. She was coming close to (maybe?) turning Kylo Rey back to the light when Luke interrupted. Then, she was also trying to get the real truth out of Luke in regards to what happened between Luke and Ben. Luke gave her a big lie of omission earlier in the film. In Luke's version he was just standing there above Ben and Ben attacked. Ben lied to Rey, too. In his version, Luke came in with murderous intent and attacked.

Once Rey has Luke beat by wielding a lightsaber vs a stick, Luke is forced to admit his mistakes. And tell the whole story. He wasn't just standing there observing when Ben attacked. Instead, he'd activated his lightsaber, but regained control of himself when Ben, frightened and heart darkened, attacked.

Yes, Rey won the battle. But, also yes, when she and Luke were armed with relatively equal weapons, Luke didn't just defend himself. He twice embarrassed her in ways that would have ended the fight if he had intended to harm her. If you can't admit that, then... I just don't know what you are here for. I've enjoyed this entire thread... but this will be the end if you can't give me something here.

Video for reference:

I'll start by saying that theres no need for the self-righteous indignation. We're talking interpretations of a movie scene here, sharing our respective points of view. Believe it or not, I noticed all the same things you've pointed out in my previous viewings of the movie, considered them, and come to a different conclusion. So don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you. That tune is a bit played out at this point :)

I'll start out by replying: Take a look in the mirror. All I did in my first reply was share my point of view. Your hissy fit over it, including bringing up my past posts as if they are somehow relevant, is facepalm worthy. Have you noticed you do that to me a lot? We disagree and you make vague references to posts from years ago? Sometimes, you're quite the broken record. Besides, your past ain't so peachy either, cupcake. Is a thread about Star Wars really where you want to get into all that? I'm game if you are. :)

(And yes, I made a Star Trek reference in a Star Wars thread... Should I have gone with "Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong." instead? :p)

Your blow-by-blow does nothing to prove your point. You're counting dodged attacks as sign of Luke's victory, only to concede the same outcome that I saw. I already said that Luke had no interest in a real fight, as is early dodges and counters show. His counters were designed to make light of Rey's attacks, but what Luke didn't consider IMO is that Rey's initial attacks weren't serious either. But the fight became serious, whether he wanted it to or not, and when Rey did fully ramp up her attacks, Luke was unable to repel her. Dodging a few early attacks means nothing if you lose the fight in the end, as Luke obviously did.

Maybe I shouldn't have used "victor" and should have gone with something more like "advantage." We don't disagree on the outcome of the battle. We disagree on who had the advantage during the battle. Luke clearly had the advantage during the two times I pointed out. He had it when he hit Rey in the back. He had it when he yanked her weapon away from her. I was also going to put something like (Tie.) (Tie.) (Tie.) after the several times where Rey attacked and Luke successfully blocked those attacks but it seemed a bit too repetitive.

Again, Luke did repel Rey's attacks, no matter how often you say he didn't. During the entire battle she never landed a single blow. Not one. Luke landed two. One of which was after the time you claim Rey got serious. (Or is Rey having her weapon taken away from her somehow a sign that she was winning?)

When you claim Luke literally never had control when he literally took control of Rey's weapon... well, I don't even know what to say anymore. Yes, you have an opinion. Yes, you disagree. But Having an opinion and disagreeing doesn't make you right. The facts are against you here, but you're taking the Luke Skywalker path of stubbornness. I give you top marks for the roleplaying.

And I actually completely agree with your assessment that Rey really did hold the high ground in that moment. She wanted to get the truth out of Luke, even if she had to literally beat it out of him. When luke saw that he had lost the moral AND physical battles, he finally realized he had no path forward but to tell Rey what had happened.

Yeah. And it's quite an interesting set of actions from our hero character, isn't it? It's yet another reason why I love the Luke & Rey stuff in The Last Jedi. Rey was about to literally smack Luke upside the head for being stubborn! It's also interesting, of course, that Rey confronts Luke based on nothing but the word of a galactic mass murderer. Kylo Ren isn't exactly the first person I'd trust to tell the truth. It wasn't but a few days earlier that Rey straight up tried to shoot him and yelled that he was a monster, after all.

This is a bit beyond the scope of our current topic, but not much: During our discussion, I've watched the end of The Last Jedi a few times now. When Rey shuts the door on her link to Kylo I take that to mean that he won't get a redemption arc. Do you think with JJ coming back to direct we'll see that change? If it does, I'll consider it something of a copout. What about you?

locked

4127 views

I was tempted to just move on, but I have to come Cruel’s defense here.

All Cruel did was share his views on the scene. He said absolutely nothing out of place until you straight up told him you didn’t know why he was here if he didn’t see your point of view and told him the conversation was over unless he did so.

You’re so eager to jump on everyone for any perceived slight, but you refuse to ever acknowledge that the way you write is often very accusatory and certainly abrasive. Then you get all huffy when people respond in kind. It’s honestly pretty tiresome.

FWIW, I know that I am guilty of the same thing. My language is often harsher than I intend. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, until I pointed this out to you at some point last year and you told me that you came off exactly how you intended to. So I don’t know if you really are that hypocritical and abrasive and get some sort of kick out of it, or if you really just don’t understand that you get defensive and offended for people responding to a shift in tone that you start.

locked

4037 views

I was tempted to just move on, but I have to come Cruel’s defense here.

All Cruel did was share his views on the scene. He said absolutely nothing out of place until you straight up told him you didn’t know why he was here if he didn’t see your point of view and told him the conversation was over unless he did so.

You’re so eager to jump on everyone for any perceived slight, but you refuse to ever acknowledge that the way you write is often very accusatory and certainly abrasive. Then you get all huffy when people respond in kind. It’s honestly pretty tiresome.

FWIW, I know that I am guilty of the same thing. My language is often harsher than I intend. I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, until I pointed this out to you at some point last year and you told me that you came off exactly how you intended to. So I don’t know if you really are that hypocritical and abrasive and get some sort of kick out of it, or if you really just don’t understand that you get defensive and offended for people responding to a shift in tone that you start.

Ok. Let's look at it from my point of view. My first entry into this part of the conversation was here. I see that as a good first post. Yeah, I disagree, but I laid out my point of view about the fight in a friendly manner and went on to talk about other story points further on down. What did I get back? Well, from you, I got "+1 Good post." I didn't jump on him out of the blue with harshness or abrasiveness. I was there to have a conversation. But from CruelLEGACEY I got back the following:

I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control.

It's an absolute assertion combined with a delightfully dismissive opening statement. Yes, I felt slighted. It's always great fun when you are told that you are absolutely wrong and that you are absolutely wrong because you are letting some other opinion (in this case, presumably a disagreement on Rey's poor/overly-perfect character arc) cloud your interpretation of a scene.

My next post was here. I went back and recorded the fight in case CruelLEGACEY was right. I hadn't watched it in a while. I believe strongly in doing the research to make sure I wasn't misremembering. I detailed what I saw. And remember, I am now squaring off against "literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control". That's a very high bar to overcome, so I took extra time to try and demonstrate my point. I wasn't trying to be mean or abrasive with the movement by movement breakdown. I was responding to an absolute with an abundance of data.

Next, in that same post, I got on to talk about Rey winning the fight and why she did both physically and plot wise. I was afraid CruelLEGACEY and I were going to get bogged down in him talking about the conclusion of the fight (which I totally agree with him about, Rey won.) and me talking about the events before the conclusion of the fight. I didn't want that to happen because I am well aware that me and him (and you) have a tendency to get miffed at each other around here.

Now, my closing statement, let's look at it again:

Yes, Rey won the battle. But, also yes, when she and Luke were armed with relatively equal weapons, Luke didn't just defend himself. He twice embarrassed her in ways that would have ended the fight if he had intended to harm her. If you can't admit that, then... I just don't know what you are here for. I've enjoyed this entire thread... but this will be the end if you can't give me something here.

First sentence, I am trying to be diplomatic and again am trying to make sure that CruelLEGACEY and myself are focusing on the same issue. Not the conclusion of the fight, but the "literally nothing in that scene to suggest Luke is the one in control" parts that came earlier. Was that unreasonable?

After that, yes, I express some exasperation. I'm up against absolute. I've been told I'm reading something into the scene. But I wasn't looking to be mean. I was looking for ANYTHING more diplomatic from CruelLEGACEY. A response. An acknowledgement. And I said if I didn't get something I would end the conversation.

Up to this point, I don't see that I did anything wrong. Saying that I'm going to end the conversation is not "nice", but it's not nice in the same way that "agreeing to disagree" is also not nice. Sometimes a consensus cannot be reached. The proper thing to do is to leave it at that. Unfortunately... I didn't do that after saying I would.

But why is that? Because CruelLEGACEY went from talking about Star Wars to talking about me:

I'll start by saying that theres no need for the self-righteous indignation. We're talking interpretations of a movie scene here, sharing our respective points of view. Believe it or not, I noticed all the same things you've pointed out in my previous viewings of the movie, considered them, and come to a different conclusion. So don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you. That tune is a bit played out at this point :)

Hissy fit? Self-righteous? A reference to some unnamed past interaction between me and... who? Him? You? Cody Miller? What happened to the Star Wars conversation?! So, yeah, I replied where I should have just given my customary "Good day, Sir!" But let's look at that reply.

I start by basically making the same point here that I just made above. That bringing up someone's past in a vague way in the middle of a completely different topic of conversation was, in itself, something... A hissy fit? A long held grudge? Something like that. While you're jumping in to defend people, maybe note that I didn't take it personal first. I didn't refer to CruelLEGACEY's past out of the blue when talking about a disagreement about Star Wars. So yeah, I replied in kind. The key word being replied, because I didn't start it.

The rest of my post? I tried to explain my use of the word victor and noted that maybe a better word choices would have helped. I reiterated my point of view that Luke got shots in. Because, again, remember, I'm up against "literally nothing in that scene to suggest". And then, yes I talk about facts and opinions and how one can be wrong with their opinion. But I did so because I had taken the time go back and research the scene. I think my two bolded points are pretty good cases when faced with the "literally nothing" assertion, so I said so. As diplomatically as possible? No. But I had yet to see an ounce of diplomacy from CruelLEGACEY.

And finally, I tried to end on a more friendly note. I didn't want this to descend into all this crap. I was enjoying the conversations about the legacy and viability of Halo and about what made The Last Jedi interesting to all of us who seem to agree that it has a lot of good stuff tucked away.

The way I see it, your intervention here is based on some past grudge. You have decided to continue said grudge by ignoring what CruelLEGACEY said to me and by massively inflating the abrasiveness of my replies. I am not perfect, but I do not believe I'm anywhere near as awful as you make me out to be. You say that I am tiresome, but I get this crap from both of ya'll most times we interact. I feel like I have to be double extra careful to not have ya'll spiral into insults and weird, vague accusations about some past posts I made. You talk about me not accepting other's points of view, but at the same time mine are given literally zero consideration.

It's dragging the forum down guys. I'd love to find some better way to work past this with the both of you. What can I do to help with that? And, will I ever see some concession from either of you for your parts in all this?

Or should we just never ever reply to each other ever again?

locked

4041 views

I’m on mobile so I don’t have a great way to reply to all this, so this will be quick and does skip over some of what you said here.

As always it’s probably just down to communicating effectively in this manner is difficult. People will naturally interpret the same words in different ways.

But I honestly don’t know how to read “if you can’t admit that then I don’t know why you’re here and this conversation is over” as anything other than abrasive. It feels very much like “concede or get lost,” to me.

Likewise, I don’t see Cruel’s initial “I think you’re just seeing what you want to see” as very problematic, personally, but I can absolutely understand how and why you might interpret it the way you did. Partly, it’s because I play with Cruel all the time, and I’ve only played with you very few times. I personally feel like I know the way Cruel actually speaks far better than the way I know how you speak, and it gives me just a little more ability to parse what he’s actually saying and forgive some error in language.

It's dragging the forum down guys. I'd love to find some better way to work past this with the both of you. What can I do to help with that? And, will I ever see some concession from either of you for your parts in all this?

Oh, you mean something like this:

FWIW, I know that I am guilty of the same thing. My language is often harsher than I intend.

Or should we just never ever reply to each other ever again?

That would be unfortunate. I certainly hope that isn’t what happens.

Many times when I read these threads, I feel like I see you demanding people evaluate and reconsider things they’ve said in a very specific manner, but you ignore the effect of specific things you say at the same time.

I hold no grudge against you, no hard feelings at all. Truly. I like reading your posts on this forum, and if I was still playing Destiny I’d love to play with you.

As I said, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you told me very specifically once not to, and I won’t ignore that. You seem to want to fight fire with fire, and I won’t blame you for that. But you have read offense in many things where I believe none was intended. That is easy for me to say, as those things were not aimed at me however.

I am far from innocent on this forum. I have made more than my fair share of emotional outbursts and accusations, there’s no denying that. I often feel like I am the least analytical person on this forum.

Again, I chalk a lot of this up to the difficulty of trying to interpret inflection in the written word. I completely understand having a viceral emotional reaction to something that is perceived as a personal attack.

I don’t know what the answer is.

locked

4084 views

I’m on mobile so I don’t have a great way to reply to all this, so this will be quick and does skip over some of what you said here.

Cool. I can tell you read it all, so skipping around a bit is perfectly fine. Heck, this is quite the reply for being on mobile! :)

As always it’s probably just down to communicating effectively in this manner is difficult. People will naturally interpret the same words in different ways.

But I honestly don’t know how to read “if you can’t admit that then I don’t know why you’re here and this conversation is over” as anything other than abrasive. It feels very much like “concede or get lost,” to me.

It was more meant as a "if you can't back down from your 'literally nothing' stance then we will have to agree to disagree." But, yeah, said with a somewhat harsher tone. But in reply to a wall of stubbornness, so I'd argue I get some leeway there...

Likewise, I don’t see Cruel’s initial “I think you’re just seeing what you want to see” as very problematic, personally, but I can absolutely understand how and why you might interpret it the way you did. Partly, it’s because I play with Cruel all the time, and I’ve only played with you very few times. I personally feel like I know the way Cruel actually speaks far better than the way I know how you speak, and it gives me just a little more ability to parse what he’s actually saying and forgive some error in language.

Yeah... let me explain that one a bit more. It actually involves Star Wars. I see Cruel as one of a sizable crowd that is unhappy with Rey's role in these new movies. That she has too much power/luck/ability/plot significance to truly be a good character. He's stated this more or less around here. I saw his "you're reading into it" reply as essentially an accusation that I was defending Luke / attacking Rey because I believed Rey was a perfectly fine, fully well rounded character. The Star Wars community itself... it's not like horribly fractured down this line, but there is some solid disagreement. The funny thing is though... I'm not sure what I think on the issue. I like the way Rey is acted. I think she's gotten a lot of good moments of everything from awesome to troubled to making bad decisions out of fear and longing. But, at the same time... I think there is at least some truth to the "Rey is overpowered" line of thinking. I've been sniped at quite cruelly elsewhere for not agreeing that Rey is too perfect or for not conceding that she is a perfectly realized character, for instance. (Accusations of sexism came into play. If it's not fun when we argue around here, I can assure you it's 100x less fun to try to have a conversation once accusations of gender bias start getting tossed around!)

So... when I get told that I'm reading things into the fight when I myself am neutral on Rey and her over/under significance... yeah... it's one of those "how can you claim to know what I'm thinking when even I don't fully know what I'm thinking" type moments. And thus "you're reading what you want to see" stings all the more.

That said, I assume that's where Cruel was coming from / going. I didn't verify it. That's a big mistake on my part.

It's dragging the forum down guys. I'd love to find some better way to work past this with the both of you. What can I do to help with that? And, will I ever see some concession from either of you for your parts in all this?

Oh, you mean something like this:

FWIW, I know that I am guilty of the same thing. My language is often harsher than I intend.

Yes. That's a solid "my bad" on my part. I do see similar attitudes from the both of you regarding my postings so I saved a bit of time by combining them. I did read what you'd said and meant to reply to that part but it got lost along the way. You totally deserved to have your words recognized there.

Or should we just never ever reply to each other ever again?

That would be unfortunate. I certainly hope that isn’t what happens.

Many times when I read these threads, I feel like I see you demanding people evaluate and reconsider things they’ve said in a very specific manner, but you ignore the effect of specific things you say at the same time.

I hold no grudge against you, no hard feelings at all. Truly. I like reading your posts on this forum, and if I was still playing Destiny I’d love to play with you.

As I said, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you told me very specifically once not to, and I won’t ignore that. You seem to want to fight fire with fire, and I won’t blame you for that. But you have read offense in many things where I believe none was intended. That is easy for me to say, as those things were not aimed at me however.

I post different ways at different times. Like our argument about cheating recently. I was in a playful mood and choose to draw out my point over a few posts to emphasize it. It was a bit unfair in terms of straight up debating and notably, was very different from the straight up way I approached this conversation. But you had no way to know the difference, so it's not your problem. So yes, when in doubt hold my feet to the fire. Because when you do so we all get to move forward a bit with discussions like these.

I am far from innocent on this forum. I have made more than my fair share of emotional outbursts and accusations, there’s no denying that. I often feel like I am the least analytical person on this forum.

Again, I chalk a lot of this up to the difficulty of trying to interpret inflection in the written word. I completely understand having a viceral emotional reaction to something that is perceived as a personal attack.

Sometimes it also happens that someone doubles down on an absolute. "Literally nothing" is a straight up conversation ender. And yet, I got blamed for not being open to others' opinions. That's just unfair. But I do appreciate this reply post of yours. A lot. I think it helps when we can explain ourselves free of accusing the other of hissy fits and what not.

I don’t know what the answer is.

I think "wait a second... time out, let me explain my thought process" posts earlier in these threads would help. I think there were some assumptions on both sides here that shouldn't have been made and a more thoughtful single post derail instead of weaving in insults and personal attacks until it all blows up would be a better way to proceed. My previous post (the one you just replied to) is what my version of that looks like. Next time I have a disagreement with you or Cruel I'll try and reach that point faster instead of sniping or sniping back.

locked

4023 views

Thanks for that. It clears up pretty much everything, at least for me.

I have skipped replying to some of your posts in the past, with the knowledge that it would probably only devolve into this conversation yet again. It was just a week ago that we did this, I think.

I very often write out a long reply and then post it, only to realize later that I forgot to say the thing I originally wanted to say in the first place. I get distracted and long-winded pretty easily, so I understand meaning to reply to something and forgetting.

I truly have never meant to single you out. Maybe there is some bias there, just because we have had this conversation so many times. I really don’t know. And also, you’re one of the few people here I get into any real debates with in the first place. I do appreciate your willingness to engage rather than just picking a single statement out of a page to give a one sentence reply.

I will certainly try to be more mindful of my language, and try to be more generous with my interpretation of yours.

locked

4034 views

Raga...

Let me get this clear. I wrote:

"I think, in this case, you might be reading what you want to see into the scene. I see literally nothing in that scene to suggest that Luke is the one in control."

And these words made you feel this:

"It's an absolute assertion combined with a delightfully dismissive opening statement. Yes, I felt slighted. It's always great fun when you are told that you are absolutely wrong and that you are absolutely wrong because you are letting some other opinion (in this case, presumably a disagreement on Rey's poor/overly-perfect character arc) cloud your interpretation of a scene."

I think... you might... I took the most polite and delicate approach I possibly could to voicing my opinion and went on to describe why my interpretation does not line up with yours. I said "think" and "might", and you claim it was "absolute assertion" and "delightfully dismissive". That goes beyond poor reading comprehension… it's as if you're reading my words, then running them through some kind of internet troll translator and reacting to what comes out the other end. And this isn't an isolated incident with you. In my experience, the manner in which someone communicates their disagreement with you doesn't matter so much as the fact that someone dares to disagree with you at all. The fact that you would feel "slighted" by such a polite and respectful response speaks volumes about your lack of good faith when it comes to your communications with me. If it really bothers you that much that someone disagrees with your opinion, well, there's nothing I can do about that.

But I honestly don’t know how to read “if you can’t admit that then I don’t know why you’re here and this conversation is over” as anything other than abrasive. It feels very much like “concede or get lost,” to me.

It was more meant as a "if you can't back down from your 'literally nothing' stance then we will have to agree to disagree." But, yeah, said with a somewhat harsher tone. But in reply to a wall of stubbornness, so I'd argue I get some leeway there...

How about next time, you type what you mean? I use polite and respectful language, and you interpret it harshly. You use harsh and abrasive language, but we're all supposed to understand that you mean it lightheartedly. See how that doesn't line up?

As far as your "in a reply to a wall of stubbornness" comment goes, I hope you will truly listen to what I'm about to say.

I really think about what you post in general, and your replies in this thread are no exception. I never assume I'm right. But, I do consider things quite carefully before taking a position. If I'm expressing an opinion on something, it is not something I am just blurting out. I've thought it through. And in the case of this specific discussion, I had already considered most of the points you were bringing up. I considered the same factors that you did, and I still feel that you're interpretation is incorrect. I never said anything condescending or dismissive about your interpretations. I merely said that I don't agree with them, and out of respect for you and the discussion, I went on to explain the reasoning behind my interpretation.

You seem to expect that simply by voicing your opinion, I should be saying "hey, I hadn't thought about that... good point!". And if that were my honest reaction, I would absolutely say so. But you didn't change my mind, because you didn't say much that I hadn't already considered, and the bits that were new to me failed to convince me. So... does this make me a jerk? Or are you simply assuming that I am being "stubborn" because I didn't immediately shift my position upon exposure to your thoughts? The reality is that your thoughts on this subject just aren't convincing to me. This is jumping ahead a bit, but when I say that "literally nothing" that you've said proves your argument in my eyes, I really, honestly, mean it. And I mean it without scorn or pettiness. I mean it respectfully. It is possible that you are just that wrong... and it's equally possible that I am. Or maybe we both are. And that is OK!!! I'm still interested in hearing your opinions. I still read them because I'm curious to know what you think. Once again, your replies to me take the stance of someone who is being insulted or attacked, when in reality, there are no insults or attacks present in my post.

So... when I get told that I'm reading things into the fight when I myself am neutral on Rey and her over/under significance... yeah... it's one of those "how can you claim to know what I'm thinking when even I don't fully know what I'm thinking" type moments. And thus "you're reading what you want to see" stings all the more.

That said, I assume that's where Cruel was coming from / going. I didn't verify it. That's a big mistake on my part.

But instead of saying any of that in your reply to me, you assumed the worst possible intentions from me and got combative and hostile. Once again, it's "let's assume the worst about Cruel's motivations". It's not my intention to hammer you on this point, as you're openly saying that it was a mistake, for which I am grateful. I am, however, trying to stress the fact that this is an ongoing pattern with your communications with me.

It's dragging the forum down guys. I'd love to find some better way to work past this with the both of you. What can I do to help with that? And, will I ever see some concession from either of you for your parts in all this?

That depends? Are you expecting me to make concessions for the perceived slights that bare no similarity to the actual words that I used? Please believe me, I've gone over this entire thread, and I can't find a single thing that I've said that warrants a hostile interpretation. If I'm missing something, please tell me. I'm not claiming to be faultless or blameless here. But I simply can't tell for certain how or why the words I write illicit such feelings from you. I have some guesses. I've assumed for some time now that you simply don't like me. And if true, that's fine. I expect harsh and combative responses from you, despite all my attempts to be even and measured and respectful. I see no reason for you to believe me when I say this, but I will add that I have come to expect overly aggressive and combative responses from you towards anyone disagrees with you. I won't say that it happens every time, but often enough that I expect it. And then, when people here try again to explain their point of view, either to clarify their position or continue the discussion, you have a tendancy to get even more deffensive and reply as if you are being ganged up on or bullied. I'm stepping into brutally honest territory here, because like you, I want to try to avoid these patterns in the future, and I don't see how we can do so without fully understanding where we both stand. So here's my brutally honest position: I don't trust your interpretations of my posts. If someone tells me that I've offended them or hurt their feelings, my instant reaction is to assume that I have made a mistake, look at what I've said, and try to see it from their perspective in as many different ways as I can manage. Maybe I didn't clarify my thoughts correctly, maybe I made certain incorrect assumptions, etc. But I'm in a situation with you where you seem to constantly and reliably assume the worst possible intent with everything I say. On top of that, it is my genuine opinion that you get worked up in a negative way when people disagree with you, no matter how respectfully they do so. You might think I'm wrong, but I've seen it enough to know how I feel about it, regardless of whether or not you agree. And that leaves me feeling unsure of how to fix this.

In the end, all I can say is this: if I disagree with something, that does not a sign of disrespect. If we're discussing something and I don't change my mind, that is not evidence of me being stubborn. I actually change my mind all the time, and have no problem admitting it when it happens. Finally, I assume that every post I read, yours incuded, are meant in good faith and in the spirit of friendly and respectful discussion. I will continue to do so. You can interpret my posts in whatever manner you wish. And if I have a bad day or make a mistake and say something that truly and clearly is insulting or dismissive, I would expect to be called out on it. But if you're interpretations are based on assumptions about me that include arguing in bad faith or with the intention to dismiss, insult, or belittle, then don't expect me to respond to your objections. Because in such a case, whatever you would be objecting to, it is not me.

locked

4025 views

So... one thing you might not know about me is that I enjoy referencing movie quotes when I get really serious. There's something about the writing and flow and feel and effort that all goes into a truly memorable quote that I think deserves recognition. Memorable quotes says what a lot of what we'd like to say if we were half as clever as the rooms full of writers that came up with them... at least that's what I think. I feel like I've mentioned this somewhere around her long ago, but it's not worth tracking down. I had a couple of possible quotes I wanted to use for my reply, but the one I finally settled on was:

René Belloq: You and I are very much alike. Archeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light.

Henry Jones Jr.: Now you're gettin' nasty.

And, given my behavior, I was playing the role of Belloq in our recent dealings. :(

That's all to start off by saying that I'm being very serious here. But it's also true that I don't do the movie quotes thing to people who I don't consider at least a good advocacy.

So, let me start out with the really important parts. Three of them I think...

First:

You use harsh and abrasive language, but we're all supposed to understand that you mean it lightheartedly. See how that doesn't line up?

You are right here. If I stand for anything, it's that tone matters as much as message, and I failed in that regard in some of my replies to you. Most notably, the way I phrased what was intended to be something much closer to "let's agree to disagree". For that I sincerely apologize. Bad tone spoils any message. Makes it hard if not impossible to have a conversation. And I did that in this thread.

Second:

I've assumed for some time now that you simply don't like me.

No. Again, if I didn't like you, if I didn't think you were someone worth listening to, you would never hear from me. There were certainly places in our back and forth where I was significantly overly harsh in tone. But, I also put in real efforts to engage with you on a variety of different subpoints. I'd still like to hear your thoughts one whatever it was I asked you at the end of my last reply to you. (The stuff about JJ possibly changing tone and direction again.) I know I've said it pretty explicitly in the past (probably during a different one of our clashes) but I really do enjoy engaging with you and have a great deal of respect for the way you handle yourself around here. I'd say you were a worthy advocacy, but that word, advocacy, is to negative. You are someone worth paying attention to because of the high quality of your opinions and the way you express them.

Third:

I do not agree with all the points you made about my behavior, or all of the ones you made about yours. I am going to address both. I am going to share where I think you are wrong about you and about me. You probably won't like or agree with everything I have to say, but like you, I'm not approaching any of this out of malice or pettiness. Instead, I'm doing all of this in the hopes of fostering a better understanding.

First, I'd like to address your thoughts about your first reply to me. The "reading what you want into the scene" & "literally nothing" reply. You say:

I think... you might... I took the most polite and delicate approach I possibly could to voicing my opinion and went on to describe why my interpretation does not line up with yours. I said "think" and "might", and you claim it was "absolute assertion" and "delightfully dismissive". That goes beyond poor reading comprehension… it's as if you're reading my words, then running them through some kind of internet troll translator and reacting to what comes out the other end.

I've got a few problems with this one...

1. Saying someone is reading what they want to see into a scene is not particularly polite or delicate, no matter the words proceeding it. From the very start, I had to wonder what you thought my motivations were. I made a guess when responding to cheapLEY earlier, that maybe you thought I was a part of the "Rey isn't too perfect" crowd. But the truth is, I really didn't like being labeled right out of the gate. You talked a lot about my behavior seeming to be pre-prejudiced against you or anyone who disagrees with me. I see the same thing from you here. As I indicated to cheapLEY, I don't have a strong option either way on Rey. Really, the truth is I wish I did have a stronger opinion, but I feel the movies have been somewhat mediocre at giving either side of that debate enough evidence to prove their points.

So, even the implication that I might be reading into the scene... well, it wasn't correct. It was a bad assumption. You later say you were only relating an opinion that you strongly held based on giving real consideration to the scene. The same goes for me! I didn't just make it up off the top of my head or blurt it out. I double checked myself. I watched closely to see if I agreed with your point of view. And ultimately, I did not. We're very much alike, you and I. At least in that regard.

2. This part of your reply:

I said "think" and "might", and you claim it was "absolute assertion" and "delightfully dismissive".

I read/read the opening of your reply as two separate sentences. Two separate, disconnected statements. The first being that I was reading into the scene. The second being that you absolutely did not agree with my interpretation. Given the rest of our posts, I think it is extremely fair to say that you did, in fact, make one or absolute assertions as to what went on with the scene. Even if it is a well considered opinion, you still held to it in an absolute, no compromise fashion. And that is why I went to great lengths to try and demonstrate my points.

I also still do think it is dismissive to claim that maybe someone is wrong because they are reading something into a scene. If you are allowed to consider things quite carefully before taking a position, aren't I allowed the same? I don't feel you gave me the same credibility as you gave yourself.

So... that all leads to this:

The fact that you would feel "slighted" by such a polite and respectful response speaks volumes about your lack of good faith when it comes to your communications with me. If it really bothers you that much that someone disagrees with your opinion, well, there's nothing I can do about that.

I hope you better understand where I was coming from. My issue wasn't that you disagree with me. It was that you did so while dismissing me. That your very first words seemed to be writing off my point of view as reading something into a scene.

Next I'd like to address this:

That depends? Are you expecting me to make concessions for the perceived slights that bare no similarity to the actual words that I used? Please believe me, I've gone over this entire thread, and I can't find a single thing that I've said that warrants a hostile interpretation. If I'm missing something, please tell me.

I think there was one other part of your replies to me that was super uncalled for. This:

So don't throw a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with you. That tune is a bit played out at this point :)

Now, I admit, I instigated things a bit with my closing sentence about ending the conversation if you wouldn't concede something. I should have said something more along the lines of "Ok. Let's agree to disagree." But hissy fit? Primarily, I was responding in detail to your absolute assertion that you saw literally nothing that you agreed with me on. I had what I believed, and still believe, are at least one if not two irrefutable actions in the Luke vs Rey duel that proved you wrong. But, I was not throwing a fit. I was stepping through The Last Jedi frame by frame writing down what I saw. Nothing more than that. The moment to moment part of my post was made in good faith and in the spirit of friendly and respectful discussion. I know I repeated it a lot to cheapLEY, but I'll say it here too. From a certain point of view, namely mine, I was talking to someone who saw "literally nothing" of what I saw. To me, such a strong assertion demands an equally strong explanation. That's what I was trying to provide. So, yes, I see the accusation of a hissy fit as hostile. It wasn't kind. It wasn't accurate.

I also don't like that it seems like our every conversation devolves into you calling me out for things I've done in the past. You're right about a lot of stuff. I don't always make the best posts. I still have a bad habit of... sharpening the end of a post into a cruel point instead of softening it into a friendly conclusion. But, at the same time, I feel like I can't talk to you at all without you making vague references to something else that happened some other when. You say that you assume that every post you read, mine included, are meant in good faith and in the spirit of friendly and respectful discussion... but over and over I get this hostility about the past from you. I got the exact same thing from you in our discussion about The Last Word, for instance. Back then, you said that the person who made a very nice video explaining his point of view was jumping through hoops to justify himself. Now, when you and I disagree on the specifics of a scene, I am reading something into it instead of having an honest considered opinion.

You were brutally honest with me, so let me be so with you: While I'm not as good as I think I am at debate and keeping my cool, you're not as innocent as you think you are, either. When you slip up, you phrase your insults and dismissals in a nicer, tamer way that I do when I slip up. It's easier for you (or anyone else) to pick apart my slip ups, for sure. Maybe you don't even realize that what you are saying isn't 100% respectful... but it isn't. And perhaps it's unfair and perhaps it's hypocritical because of how bad I am, but I don't go after you for disagreeing with me. I do it to try and show you your slips ups. And that's always been true of everyone. You, cheapLEY, Cody Miller. Anyone and everyone I've ever gone after, it has been to point out a dismissive tone or a belittling stance. It's only the rarest times that I have objected to their actual points or opinions. Narcogen's accusation that Bungie fans were sexist is one of the few examples that comes to mind. Now, is it fair for me to focus so heavily on tone given my own behavior? Probably not. But making this about my reaction to differences of opinions is simply not accurate. It is deeply hurtful. I'd far rather you accuse me of what I am guilt of, not what I'm not...

Now... those were some harsh words from me to you. Take a breath. This is the point where I want to help us both move on. I think you take into consideration my past any time you deal with me, and I do the same with you. Instead of going around in this same circle, can we maybe let the past die? Kill it if we have to? I really do appreciate your posts and points of view. I even appreciate this post you made to me. I'd say there's some points that hit closer to home than I'd like to admit because they were true.

So, for my part, I'm going to try and do a better job of interacting with you and everyone else in the way that I demand that you and they interact with me. I am sorry for my hypocrisy. I can and will do better.

Oh, and maybe this is too much to ask or maybe you might feel it is too dangerous of a thing, but there was something cheapLEY said earlier. He basically said he tended to take your side in all of this because ya'll played Destiny together. The last time we played together I had a good time... and not just because you were racking up the kills. I made a jest about The Last Word hoping I wasn't going to far and you took it well. I was relieved and enjoyed the evening and that we could apparently laugh a bit about our heated interactions in this slow, easy to misinterpret form of communication. I think maybe more of that would help us to have better interactions here. You may not be playing Destiny anymore. Or maybe you're so fed up with me that you'll think its a bad idea. But at least give it some consideration. I promise, it's not a trap!

And that's that. The only other thing I can say is I look forward to our next interaction here on the boards, and I intend for it to go better than this one.

P.S. I sprinkled some Star Wars references throughout. I hope you and others find and appreciate them. :)

P.P.S This was a 3.5 hour long post. If there's some weird typo or sentence that cuts off at random, please ask. I probably meant to type something more coherent than ended up on the screen...

P.P.P.S. The board said you posted at 4:15am? That's crazy! But... it's my kind of crazy, cause I know I would have too if I'd seen your reply in the wee hours of the morning...

locked

4053 views

Sometimes it also happens that someone doubles down on an absolute. "Literally nothing" is a straight up conversation ender.

So... Cruel used those two words, in that order, yes... but not in a vacuum. He didn't say "there is literally nothing" - he said "I see literally nothing". That's not a conversation ender - that's an opportunity for you to say "here's what I saw, how does that differ from what you saw?"

You'd have the same general conversation as you had - but without the resentment. He's not trying to shut you down, he's saying that from his point of view, it's pretty cut and dried. There is ALWAYS an implied "change my mind!" in there, I think - but if you respond with "well, if that's your view, I can't even talk to you", the conversation DOES end.

I guess what I'm saying is, it DOES look, from the outside, like one of you is being super-rigid... but it ain't Cruel. :)

I think "wait a second... time out, let me explain my thought process" posts earlier in these threads would help.

Yes, yes, and more yes! This sort of thing helps a lot, and keeps us from reacting to perceived slights; it can be made clear what, specifically, you're reacting to, and the other participants can chime in with "oh, that's not what I meant at all" if they want to.

locked

4033 views

That's not a conversation ender - that's an opportunity for you to say "here's what I saw, how does that differ from what you saw?"

I’ve been wanting to respond to him all day but have not had the time. There were problems with my posts, but... I can’t do much more than break a twenty second scene into 15 observations. My post could have been better in some areas, but I don’t think not talking about what I saw is one of them.

locked

4045 views

That's not a conversation ender - that's an opportunity for you to say "here's what I saw, how does that differ from what you saw?"

I’ve been wanting to respond to him all day but have not had the time. There were problems with my posts, but... I can’t do much more than break a twenty second scene into 15 observations. My post could have been better in some areas, but I don’t think not talking about what I saw is one of them.

I guess i wasn't clear. That's what I meant by "You'd have the same general conversation as you had - but without the resentment. " You DID show him exactly what you saw, but instead of inviting him to engage, you demanded that he concede that you were right or that post would '"be the end".

What I was suggesting was that you do what you did... except for the demanding part. :) (Well, and the interpretation part that made you annoyed enough to demand.)

locked

4017 views

That's not a conversation ender - that's an opportunity for you to say "here's what I saw, how does that differ from what you saw?"

I’ve been wanting to respond to him all day but have not had the time. There were problems with my posts, but... I can’t do much more than break a twenty second scene into 15 observations. My post could have been better in some areas, but I don’t think not talking about what I saw is one of them.

I guess i wasn't clear. That's what I meant by "You'd have the same general conversation as you had - but without the resentment. " You DID show him exactly what you saw, but instead of inviting him to engage, you demanded that he concede that you were right or that post would '"be the end".

No... I'm sorry, Claude, but I strongly disagree. When two people hold completely different opinions and neither of them are willing to concede any points to the other, the proper thing to do is to agree to disagree. As I explained in a previous post, that's what I intended to do before I was accused of throwing a hissy fit. So, a good bit of the fault lies with me simply for posting again after I said I wouldn't. I also used a very poor, confrontational tone when I really meant to indicate that Cruel and I would need to agree to disagree if he did not wish to change his opinion after I fully laid out my point of view. I've always said that tone matters... and mine was awful. Again, fault mine.

But, both of us were unwilling to change our minds. Yet, only one of us is labeled as super-rigid. That's the part I respectfully do not accept. I really will have to agree to disagree with you on that point.

locked

4052 views

Ok. Let's look at it from my point of view.

locked

3972 views

locked

4122 views

- No text -

locked

3999 views

That’s the significance of the Skywalkers. Something that the current creative team at Disney and Lucasfilm seems to have forgotten.

You mean JJ forgot. Last Jedi had that down.

locked

4110 views

I just like the "will they won't they" relationship between Kylo and Rey. That's all I care about.

locked

4172 views

- No text -

locked

4140 views

just trying to downplay my excitement. I watched that teaser four or five times in a row!

locked

4098 views

The Last Jedi was a good film, very well made, but an awful Star Wars movie.

I don't know how to feel about this one tbh.

locked

4132 views

The trailer for Respawn's new Star Wars game was released today. The game launches in November. It looks interesting! No real indication of what the gameplay is (save for that glimpse of their signature wall running).

locked

4161 views

The trailer for Respawn's new Star Wars game was released today. The game launches in November. It looks interesting! No real indication of what the gameplay is (save for that glimpse of their signature wall running).

I’m totally in. They do combat and movement better than anyone in the business, IMO. That PLUS a lightsaber? Doesn’t get much better than that :)

locked

4145 views

Yep. While I'm not preordering, they would actually have to show me some real gameplay for that, I am pretty optimistic. This will be the first Star Wars game I've given any consideration to in several years.

locked

4090 views

I was reminded that this exists today:

locked

4080 views

Not convinced the title is great, but I'll reserve judgment till the movie comes out.

locked

4126 views

Wish I cared more about this franchise and thread, if only because I used to care so much. The Last Jedi was a shoddy mixed bag at best, and at worst undermined the soul of Star Wars with it's too-clever-by-half subversiveness and insistence on scoring virtue points about various "isms." I'm tired of trying to explain what makes it bad and being accused of being a bad person too unsophisticated to understand its so-called "depth."

locked

4102 views

Man I loved The Last Jedi, it's hands down my favorite Star Wars

Everything about Rose
Putting a fist through opulence and war profiterring
A lesson in failure and perseverence
The visuals of the throne fight, my god
Every ounce of meaning in that final shot as the kid reaches for the broom...

Ughghghg so good

locked

4049 views

Ughghghg so good

Exactly what Like said drinking alien monster milk.

locked

4103 views

[image]

locked

4028 views

... I wonder what they have to say ...

*Reads (some not all)*

[image]

You know... I am smart enough (?) to realize that humans live many lives, walk in shoes and all that but... dang it! We really are irrational things, and I mean that both ways. Ya'll crazy. :P

locked

3966 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Star Wars: Episode IX – Teaser (Off-Topic)

Looks fun!

Looks fun!

Looks fun!

Looks fun!

Looks fun!

The face I made when the name came up.

I'll maybe watch it for $1 on Redbox

Thoughts. Cus' you know I have 'em.

Star Wars: Episode IX – Teaser

Star Wars: Episode IX – Teaser

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

But what about Midichlo..... </kills self>

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Agreed

Good points

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

On updating a classic

I really love Alien 3.

I really hate babies. 3

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

I totally and completely agree

Dad of War...?

The new God of War

The new God of War

Got it. Thanks!

The new God of War is only $25 on PSN this week, BTW.

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

+1

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

On updating a classic

The Intent Behind The Symbols

The Intent Behind The Symbols

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Hellblade

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.

Looks kind of dumb, so it's very Star Wars alright.