|
Uh, well, I have to say I didn't see that coming.
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
stawk Archer posted:It must be easy to play the stock market in Star Wars. Yeah, they mention credits a lot. PTM even has a plotline where Qui-Gon's ~space money~ is no good on Tatooine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Oh yes, I'm by no means advocating that the EU be adapted into Episodes VII-IX. I made my peace months ago with the fact that we're going to have two divergent continuities, one of which is the films, one of which had the EU. And I do agree that its pretty crazy to think otherwise. But as evidenced by the last couple of posts, there's some blatant hostility to fans of the EU in any capacity. Because the EU is bad. It is incredibly, atrociously, awfully bad and this is coming from someone who read the books growing up. The few redeeming qualities it had are well smothered under the infinitely greater amount of completely awful piles of tripe and even then they're not that great. You can point to Zahn and... that's about it when it comes to EU stuff which isn't completely embarrassing. I have no problem with people liking stupid pulp stuff. I do myself. Actually wanting that stupid pulp stuff to be part of the main films or getting upset that it's being retconned is where it becomes dumb. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Apr 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's a little disingenuous because stupid pulp stuff is what made the original films (or at least the first one) good. You need well executed pulp stuff, though, and the EU has very very little of that. Star Wars was well-crafted pulp. The EU stuff is all "how many lightsabers can I shove on a guy" or "You know what people really want to read about? Han Solo and Leia's children being murdered and having bug orgies" or occasionally "Let me do military masturbation but dress it up as Boba Fetts." Clipperton posted:Zahn is pretty embarrassing himself. I never understood why the fans threw a tantrum over midichlorians after they'd already given Force-resistant lizards a pass. Yeah, I'm not defending Zahn. Thrawn and the lizards and all that bullshit is stupid as balls.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Pobama posted:So are the new movies going to be about Dash Rendar/Shadows of the Empire? Nobody wants to see the film adventures of Knockoff Han Solo and Princess Leia vs the Rape Monster.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Pobama posted:I for one do. The cut-scenes from the Shadows of the Empire game for the N64 have a more coherent plot and better characters then the new trilogy. You may want to check them again when it isn't 1996. Shadows of the Empire was as awful and toxic as anything from the EU. Dash Rendar was a remarkably stupid character who only existed because they couldn't use Han Solo. Xixor (or whatever his name was) was the worst kind of stupid supervillain and there is not a single chance that Disney is going to film a scene where Princess Leia is almost raped for a kid's film. It was an awful thing that inexplicably got a merchandising push.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I remember hearing that Darth Maul got chopped in half really early on in Episode 1 and he came back with a weird hover-wheelchair. I'm guessing that one came from shots of him on his cool little speeder bike thing, There was a dude in one of the video games who basically was a proto Darth Maul and had this happen. That's probably where the rumor came from. His name was even Maw. (I don't think it was Darth Maw but he was an evil Sith so whatever.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
I am sort of confused at the idea of partaking of something in a social setting and then getting upset when people have social responses to things. I mean a guy talking over a film is one thing but being confused that people cheer or get excited at a film (or sports?!) is bewildering.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
I dislike the PT because the story was a strong core concept that was poorly executed. The strong actors were poorly used, the combat choreography was genuinely uninteresting, and the pacing was incredibly bad. The core basic story is engaging and interesting and I think part of the reason people flock towards edited versions is that it's easy to see the strong core concepts of the PT stand out. It is not a case of a fundamentally flawed work but a poorly executed work. Anakin being whiny or Jar Jar BInks existing or whatever are meaningless flaws but that doesn't mean the actual films managed to succeed at what they tried to do. My genuine concern for the new films is they will be the opposite. Competently executed but with little or nothing of substance, focused more on creating something that doesn't upset people without actually having a good strong fundamental concept ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Nov 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
My little sister and all her friends enjoyed the hell out of the original trilogy so "little kids get bored easy" isn't really objective fact there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
When I was young I dragged my father to a Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers stage show which took place in a crowded stadium. The final villain had to be defeated by "everyone in the stadium screaming as loud as they can for as they can." What I'm saying is that I think sometimes parents are justified for getting a little payback with terrible room decorations.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I'm being flip but inculcating the love of the Brand in your child's young mind is warped. The quote might as well come with a TM at the end. I'm not really sure what you expect from parents except to lock their children in an empty cube through which no advertising can exist then. Parents enjoy sharing interests with their children and many of those interests are going to be (TM) a big corporation (probably the Disney corporation) because that is how the world works. Do you think children shouldn't be taken to Disney World?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
A Steampunk Gent posted:Building a shrine to a film franchise in your child's bedroom is pretty weird Did I miss something where it was implied that this was all done without the kids whatsoever? Because the assumption here seems to be "A parent did it over the screaming protests of their poor abused child" and not "A kid really likes Star Wars and his family supported his interests with bedsheets and a goofy slogan on the wall."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:That's a hell of a false dichotomy. I'm pretty sure I would've thought my dad was a weird guy if he decorated my bedroom to be a color coded Chico And The Man playset. It would be funny in retrospect but come on, have some dignify. I have a little sister who, until recently, probably had more brightly colored ponies in her room than free space and who only swapped over from that when she got addicted to watching Once Upon A Time and asked for the entire house to be redecorated in OUAT style for the party including her room. Shockingly kids are capable of enjoying things without their parents forcing it upon them against their will.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:We're not talking a kid's room. We are talking about a picture of an ad from the Disney catalog. ... Then why the gently caress are people talking about it like it's child abuse and not literal advertising? 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Danger posted:It's awful as either. Oh no, a still shot of a room containing multiple items for sale in the same category arranged to show them all off in a magazine designed to sell things. This is terrible because they're... advertising in a magazine? I was a little confused when it was people getting upset over someone's room but I'm utterly bewildered that people are getting angry at an advertisement for advertising.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Because that is an actual child's room reappropriated to display an advertisement for the parent's youth. There is something grotesque about it. Or the more simple answer is "it is an advertisement for a property that is popular among younger children." Like you can't even argue it is just about nostalgia from 50 year olds because it contains prequel trilogy stuff, including the big stupid quote. It's really freaking weird to see an advertisement for Star Wars bedsheets and go "loving horrifying! How dare adults force that stuff onto children!" ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
I am legitimately curious why star wars bedsheets are a grotesque mockery of all that is good but taking children to Disney World(tm) where they stay in rooms decorated with Pixar Cars(tm) and then go in Aladdin's Flying Carpet (tm), eat at Elsa and Anna's Norwegian Food (tm) followed by a dip in the Finding Nemo Kid Pool (tm) for the low low price of several thousand dollars is totally a fun outing for kid and parents alike. Or else your argument is that Disney World is a horrifying over-expensive excess that indoctrinates children into enjoying the Disney Brand which isn't incorrect but it's also kind of difficult to avoid unless you become a literal hermit. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Danger posted:People who grew up watching the Pre-quel trilogy have kids now. As advertising, it is clearly targeted towards adults which makes the big ol' quote even sillier. As near as I can tell your argument is that it is impossible for any Star Wars advertising to be targeted at children, including advertisements for children's bedsheets and toys. Like I don't have any complaints with the idea "this sort of targeting at children is crass and consumerist" which it is. The confusing part is that people seem to only think that Star Wars exists as a horrifying thing that parents have to force on their children.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Danger posted:What? How does that follow at all from what I posted? I'm talking about the picture that was posted earlier. Why is your assumption that is only for adults? Especially if it's from a Disney-targeted magazine. I know for a fact both from my own childhood and those of family members that poo poo comes directly to the house and is specifically branded and advertised in such a way that children are encouraged to look through it. Which is, yes, gross and crass and consumerist but the bitter angry "adults forcing their love of things onto kids" stuff seems to be entirely unwarranted in this case.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:There are absolutely people out there like that. I read an article in The Wallstreet Journal not long ago where they interviewed a self-proclaimed Star Wars superfan who has a room devoted to his action figures, all the Star Wars poo poo, etc. and the thrust of the article was he won't let his kids watch the Prequels. Like, he's trying to conceal from them that the Prequels exist (if he was also a homeschooler the article didn't mention), for "as long as possible." Like holy poo poo, talk about trying to project your own childhood back on your own. It's like stage moms except for buying plastic crap instead of actually doing anything. Yes, there are absolutely absurd superfans who try to force their stuff onto uninterested children. The assumption that these exceptions are the norm doesn't track from that. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Not care all you like, it's just an observation. In my opinion (IMO) that brand loyalty is repugnant to foist on kids and I'm not sure why that's something that needs a caveat. Do you think it is inappropriate for parents to ever share something they enjoy with their children? Because if a dad decides to watch Star Wars with his son that is foisting brand loyalty on that kid. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:My parents encouraged the things I was interested in but that didn't mean they were painting slogans on my wall about fuckin Dino Damage dude. So if a parent buys a poster for a child they are doing terrible things? Like where is the barrier here where it stops being "supporting what you're interested in" and becomes "foisting brand loyalty." I'm not seeing a huge difference between the two.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Danger posted:Others have pointed out better than I why it garners so much ire: it's clearly marketed towards an adult idea of a kid's room Yes, the flaw there is that you're assuming this is targeting towards adults instead of being how advertising is. Have you watched children's commercials while sitting for younger kids or something? That is how things are in all of them, including specifically kid-targeted brands. They are safe and sterile and simple because they are in actual sets designed to draw eyes to the product. Like you're pointing the the Minions room but it is just as implausible. It just features more brightly colored characters by default. Like look at it again:  It's a bland beige sterile room dominated by Minions toys and literally nothing else. This is not a good children's room. The fact that the Minions are bright yellow doesn't suddenly make it so.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Colonel Whitey posted:At least my dad tried to force cool stuff like Clint Eastwood and BB King on me. I had this really awesome bed shaped like Lucille and a .44 magnum desk lamp. Though I admit the stenciled quote about a butchers knife and a hardon was a bit weird in retrospect. It's true, Clint Eastwood is very cool. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
I am pretty comfortable in saying that my threshold for abuse is something above "my parents give me a new room decorated in the style of something I most likely enjoy." In fact I would even argue that "my parents try to get me interested in the same things they are" is not abuse but is in fact kind of completely normal.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:There is no child you ignorant bomb. I googled the picture and the source is a Reddit poster who said his friends created the room for their child so v  v
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Yaws posted:A lot of people would say adults arguing about Star Wars with anonymous people on the internet is weird. But here we are. Now now, that was what the internet was created for. Well, it and Star Trek. Arglebargle III posted:You've been had. Okay? Do you have a source that isn't a years old reddit post then? Because people in this thread have argued that its from a magazine, that its real, that it's a real thing made to look like a magazine, ect, ect. So I'm curious where the actual source is. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:37 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Like how IRL, you can't say you're 'fighting for world peace' and then consign yourself to sitting in your nation's borders arguing with the occasional uppity traders in service to the elites, without someone calling bullshit. There's a reason why people turn on them so easily. It's because they suck. Sure you can. Claiming that the only people who are truly doing things are those who are perfect and unobtainably free of restrictions is basically setting an unobtainable goal. The argument that you can only be working towards peace if you're Batman is laughable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Luckily, that isn't my argument. Phew! Yes it is. You claimed they can only be acting in a heroic ideal if they ignore all borders to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:See this is where its not helpful to relate Star Wars to real life(or Batman), because the Jedi have crazy superpowers that actually would allow them to ignore all borders. So your argument is that any force that has enough power is completely justified to use that power, even if it means encroaching on the rights of countries they do not have belong to, in order to enforce their idea of justice onto the people of those nations? After all it would be completely fine for the Jedi to do that. They are obviously ideologically pure and not faced with, at the very best, a diverse and complex world filled with multiple species of conflicting religion, culture, race and countless other factors, and the decision they make to enforce with their power, based entirely off their power and their belief in their religion, is objectively right. The Jedi in the prequel trilogy have power but they also are trying to avoid become tyrants and god-kings who enforce their will on others. That was one of Anakin's biggest flaws and the flaw of the entire clone war. They lose the ability to do that. They began using their powers to enforce a war. Remember that to the outside views the Clone War is a Jedi Civil War. Nobody knows Count Dooku is Darth Evilus or whatever his name was. He was a Jedi who used his influence and power to start a rebellion. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Bad example. How so, aside from Batman also being terrible at it. The Batman example was supposed to be a case of "this is why it isn't a good idea." Basebf555 posted:The Jedi aren't automatically justified in whatever they do simply because they are powerful. We're discussing slavery specifically, so yes I'm saying they're justified in fighting against it, regardless of borders. Right. So the Jedi are justified in fighting against slavery regardless of borders because slavery is objectively bad. Where does that stop?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:You also seem to be confused - you seem to think that it is a good idea to respect slavery if it is a part of someone else's 'culture' or 'religion'. You are actually wrong - slavery is bad, everywhere, all the time, and to be opposed even if someone tells you its important to their culture. So your argument is that as long as the culture has something you believe is morally unjustifiable (and I don't disagree slavery is) then the only justified and heroic thing to do is engage in war? Because it would have to be war. That or some sort of horrifying terrorist campaign where they used their powers to sneak in and murder every slaver they could. This goes back to the thing that was mentioned earlier where people only analyze characters in terms of being ideologically pure at the cost to all else.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Did you not watch the prequel trilogy? That's all they do. They divide their time between crushing a rebellion and politicking with their boss. If by that you mean "A very specific part of the prequel trilogy" then yes. We see them, even in limited terms, doing quite a lot of things. The first film involves them dealing with a trade embargo that devolved into literal concentration camps where they actually got involved to attempt to free people. The film is about them struggling with the balance between their limits and their morals and it actually has long-term consequences when they go outside of them despite their best intentions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Luke went to war. Luke went to war and almost fell because of it. Luke's greatest success was not blowing up the death star or choking a guard with his magic powers. It was putting down his blade and redeeming space Hitler.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Oh well that's okay then. And once again: "If it isn't ideologically pure and self-sacrificing without any concern for long-term consequences, it's meaningless."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
sassassin posted:The Jedi did literally nothing to save those people in concentration camps. The extricated a Queen so she could petition the senate. Yeah, they sure didn't fight the lightsaber-wielding dude who showed up to murder her. That wasn't intentionally and clearly them finding a way to act within their limitations while still aiding them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Lincoln shouldn't have risked a civil war, it's far too dangerous and a lot of people would have died. It was better to allow the ownership of sentient beings as property to continue unopposed. If the Jedi were in the same position as Lincoln that might be a different story. (Also obviously the social and economic factors in the Civil War were more complex than that.). Lincoln didn't just sit up one day and go "y'know, slavery is bad. General Grant, go kick the poo poo out of the South with your magic powers." The Jedi are not the leadership of the Republic. What you are arguing is more of a military coup by a religious organization at best, or the start of a group of terrorists at worst.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:What sort of person brands a group whose job is to bring justice by ending slavery 'terrorists'? This is a dumb argument and you know it. There are plenty of real-world examples of this right now. Are you arguing that America is morally and ethically justified to go invade North Korea right now and that it is a good and intelligent idea for us to do so?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
sassassin posted:What makes you think that Darth Maul - whose only line of dialogue in the film is about getting revenge on the Jedi - was there to kill the queen? Wrongo. Darth Maul was specifically sent to assist in the capture (and later the death) of Queen Amadala as well as to prevent the Jedi from interfering in that. If the Jedi weren't going to interfere then Darth Maul wouldn't have been necessary. Darth Maul has one line but Darth Sideous has many. Hbomberguy posted:I am not attempting to order America to invade North Korea. That isn't what i asked. Nobody said anything about ordering. Are you saying they are justified. That the failure to do so is a failure morally and ethically. If not why not?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
LesterGroans posted:The point is that the Jedi shouldn't be actors for the Republic. The movie knows this and shows that it's bad. The movie actually argues the opposite. While Qui-Gon Jinn has noble ideals he goes outside of the structure of multiple occasions and every single time he does he causes a long-term problem in order to achieve a short-term goal. Likewise the Republic refuses to support Padme when she seeks help and so she actually calls for a no-vote of confidence in them because of that, which in turn allows Palpatine to take control. If anything the prequel trilogy is a post-Iraq condemnation of taking action without concerns for long-term consequences. Hbomberguy posted:I guess what I'm saying is, if you can only imagine the solution to slavery as requiring some hot sweaty state-on-state action, you're looking at the problem wrong. What is your solution? Because so far it's been nothing but absurdly childish "Slavery is bad! Don't you understand slavery is bad?!" stuff. As well as frankly offensive attempts to claim that anyone who disagrees with you is pro-slavery. Basebf555 posted:They can't make the moves they would otherwise make to fight against injustices like slavery because of their attachments, So your ideal view of the Jedi are a group of stateless actors who 'take action to fight against injustice' where injustice is defined by their religious code? I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you expect the Jedi to be. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2015 17:21
|
|