|
Bongo Bill posted:If you want an in-universe explanation, they're troop transports, and there's no need to transport troops that are already exactly where they're wanted. Rando posted:And it's probably pretty hard to maneuver those things around those big-rear end trees. Ash1138 fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jan 8, 2014 |
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Welp, I tried You tried to be as pedantic and obnoxious as SMG, but sadly you and everyone else have failed. Give me a loving break.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
reagan posted:You tried to be as pedantic and obnoxious as SMG, but sadly you and everyone else have failed. Give me a loving break.  after my post it would have been more obvious, but I'm not trying to make you feel bad in the spaceman film thread
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Ash1138 posted:There's a several second shot of an AT-ST blowing up trees for no other reason than to blow up trees. I'm pretty sure trees weren't a problem. Cut a road for them and yeah, no problem, but good luck trying to pursue into the uncut forest. On Hoth they were there as a mobile gun platform for taking out the shield generators as well as being troop transports. Really though I'm sure the main reason they are in the movies at all is because they're cool looking giant robot dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Yes, yes, use your aggressive feelings, boy! I really appreciate SMG's posts and would like to subscribe to his/her's newsletter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
roses
Rando fucked around with this message at 07:07 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Rando posted:I appreciate them in the same way I appreciate the art of unmedicated schizophrenics. That's a really stupid thing to write.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Holy poo poo AT ATs are only on HOTH in ESB. where else would they be? flying through asteroids?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Rando posted:Cut a road for them and yeah, no problem, but good luck trying to pursue into the uncut forest. Discussing Star Wars robots in terms of plausible war platforms in an imaginary setting, or their inherent meaninglesslness as signifiers in a purely symbolic medium. Rando posted:I appreciate them in the same way I appreciate the art of unmedicated schizophrenics. Discussing film as a material cultural artifact within a formal context.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
puppies
Rando fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Rando posted:Making up meaningless analogies that fool people into thinking it's deep. Great counterargument to his assertions there, basically a "nuh-uh"!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Rando posted:Making up meaningless analogies that fool people into thinking it's deep. All those analogies will be lost in time, like tears in the art of unmedicated scizophrenics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
rainbows
Rando fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
Rando posted:It was never my intent to get in an argument at all. I just think it's funny he can spew the craziest drivel based on spurious assertions and, frankly, poo poo out of nowhere except some connection only he has made in his own mind and a bunch of other people are all like "oh my god that's so astute." So then your argument is based on discussing Star Wars robots in terms of plausible war platforms in an imaginary setting, which are somehow representative of an inherent meaninglesslness as signifiers in a purely symbolic medium? Or is there some inconsistency here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
kittens
Rando fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
Rando posted:No, this just happens to be the thread I was posting in at the time and actually has gently caress all to do with star wars. Ah. I'm sorry, where are our manners? Welcome to the Star Wars thread, where we talk about Star Wars. Neat idea, I know!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
Rando posted:I am of the opinion that the meaning of a film is contained entirely in the film. That makes no sense at all. When you watch a film you're always engaging in interpreting the film, and to interpret the film you're always relying on outside context. Like imagine you're watching a film and a new character emerges from the shadows dressed all in black to the sounds of minor key organ playing, while lightning flashes in the background. Seeing that scene, wouldn't you interpret that the character is being set up as some sort of cartoonish villain? But you recognize all those signifiers of villainy from a cultural context that is not "contained entirely in the film", right? Also who even said anything about being "deep"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:That makes no sense at all. When you watch a film you're always engaging in interpreting the film, and to interpret the film you're always relying on outside context. Like imagine you're watching a film and a new character emerges from the shadows dressed all in black to the sounds of minor key organ playing, while lightning flashes in the background. Seeing that scene, wouldn't you interpret that the character is being set up as some sort of cartoonish villain? But you recognize all those signifiers of villainy from a cultural context that is not "contained entirely in the film", right? No, the movie will tell me everything and give me all the tools to interpret it 'correctly', because there can only be one way to read a film, making SMG an objective villain who must be stopped at all costs by baiting with posts about 'depth' and 'meaninglessness'. All the direct references to other mythologies or pre-existing religions in Star Wars don't actually mean anything, because my knowledge of Buddhism is external to the film. Also, if Star Wars was real...
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Roger Ebert posted:When I taught the film, I had endless discussions with my students over this scene. Many insisted on explaining it: He is walking on a hidden sandbar, the water is only half an inch deep, there is a submerged pier, etc. "Not valid!'' I thundered. "The movie presents us with an image, and while you may discuss the meaning of the image it is not permitted to devise explanations for it. Since Ashby does not show a pier, there is no pier--a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more,'' etc. Inspiration is one thing, metaphor another but I entirely dismiss the invention of meaning by use of spurious analogy. because I'm a nice guy I will edit away my posts that could be seen as argument bait. Rando fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Rando posted:
Now you're misquoting a dead guy. That quote has absolutely nothing to do with what you are writing about ("invention of meaning"), and says basically the opposite ("you may discuss the meaning"). Consequently, that's a really stupid thing to write. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:No, the movie will tell me everything and give me all the tools to interpret it 'correctly', because there can only be one way to read a film, making SMG an objective villain who must be stopped at all costs by baiting with posts about 'depth' and 'meaninglessness'. All the direct references to other mythologies or pre-existing religions in Star Wars don't actually mean anything, because my knowledge of Buddhism is external to the film. Also, if Star Wars was real... I don't care if I get probated for trolling but you are a straight-up jackass who has no idea what's going on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:52
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Now you're misquoting a dead guy. No, it's no misquote at all and the fact he is dead is meaningless. A movie gives you everything you need to understand the movie. Any movie that doesn't is a bad movie made by poor artists. Works of art stand on their own otherwise they are bad art by a bad artist piggybacking on better artists hoping the viewer knows something of the better artist to give the bad artist's art meaning. And once again, metaphor and the artist's inspirations are meaningless in this. An artist speaks in his or her own voice. Period. edit: and you just simply saying "that's a stupid thing to write" does not make you right, it makes you seem desperate to justify yourself. What of eberts last sentence: a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more Rando fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Rando posted:A movie gives you everything you need to understand the movie. Any movie that doesn't is a bad movie made by poor artists. But that still doesn't make even the tiniest bit of sense. I already gave an example, but an even more simple and basic example is I can watch a movie where the dialogue and text (diegetic and non-diegetic) are both in English. Therefore I need to know English to understand the movie. But the movie doesn't actually give me that knowledge, therefore it is a bad movie by poor artists? No, that's silly. Same goes for the language of cinema itself. Unless you're saying all movies ever are bad and made by poor artists? Count me in as another one who has no idea what's going on, I guess. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:20 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:09
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:No, the movie will tell me everything and give me all the tools to interpret it 'correctly', because there can only be one way to read a film, making SMG an objective villain who must be stopped at all costs by baiting with posts about 'depth' and 'meaninglessness'. All the direct references to other mythologies or pre-existing religions in Star Wars don't actually mean anything, because my knowledge of Buddhism is external to the film. Also, if Star Wars was real... What's your problem, exactly? All I was saying is Star Wars isn't meant to be realistic so it's dumb to argue about numbers or tactical realism. I was just about to come back to this thread to see if it stopped being lovely again but drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Rando posted:I don't care if I get probated for trolling but you are a straight-up jackass who has no idea what's going on. I certainly can't now that you've edited all your posts, so now I can't even check to see what your original point was, but I'll try to explain myself, then. My post was getting at an idea you seemed to imply, that a movie tells you what it means of its own accord. I am contesting this on the grounds that movies can mean different things to different people, something which contradicts this (and the Ebert quote's alleged) point. Movies are not simply what is on the screen, but what you see on the screen. Art reacts to how you choose to view it - try rewatching a film after you've grown or changed as a person since the last viewing, and you'll know what I mean. My post was also making fun of some of the more implicit arguments against SMG's interpretations / the funnier posts people have made more recently in the thread, and not really directed at you specifically. If you think they were, clearly I didn't give you the proper tools to understand this was the case, which is why I'm explaining it for you now. One of your earlier posts was edited because you said you 'don't want to get into a fight about Star Wars'. There is a very strange dichotomy between one half of your posts, which are edited to avoid conflict, and the other half, which directly call people out on perceived bullshit in a really argumentative way. Arguing about Star Wars is what this thread is about and really fun, so please decide if you want to discuss Space Lazers with the rest of us or not. I am super argumentative and abrasive because that, for me, is part of the fun of arguing about space films on the internet. Edit: Billy Idle - No offense intended, I was making a silly joke. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
By the way, here is the original context for that Ebert quote: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-being-there-1979 I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying there at all, Rando. I mean, he goes on to say "the movie's implications are alarming". Isn't talking about the film's implications the opposite of sticking to only what's there on the screen?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Edit: Billy Idle - No offense intended, I was making a silly joke. Oh all right, sorry I guess. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
Rando posted:No, it's no misquote at all and the fact he is dead is meaningless. That is a stupid thing to right [sic], because you've decontextualized the quote - thereby misquoting it. Here's what it doess [sic] say (my italics): quote:...a movie is exactly what it shows us, and nothing more," etc. Ebert says film images show things with cultural associations and philosophical implications. Ebert is against the student's attempts to find a 'canonical' explanation for the evocative imagery. Ebert even makes explicit associations to other artworks: the Bible, and Looney Tunes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Vader seems to be rather ambivalent about the Emperor. In the original version of Empire Strikes Back, before the Special Edition dialogue changes, Vader has been hunting Luke long before the Emperor steps in to specifically command it - and is the one who suggests recruiting Luke rather than just killing him. I don't think this was changed in the Special Editions. Vader is still hunting Luke and all but knows for certain that he is his son, even before he speaks with the Emperor. There were about two lines of dialogue added into the Emperor scene to address the fact that, given what was shown in Episode III, it would now make sense for Vader to have to feign disbelief and ignorance at the notion of his offspring surviving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Why is it that interviews with cast, crew and the director and so on can supplement my reading of the film? Am I stupid for turning to outside sources to see how it affects my reading, or is the film stupid for not supplying me with information that turns out to be valuable to how I view the film? The answer is that there is a false dichotomy being made here, you either give everyone the complete set of tools required to make sense of what's going on or you're a Jackson Pollack installation. Things...don't work like that. That's really the only way I can put it. Edit: I see your point there. I suppose it is possible to miss the forest for the trees when viewing a film, but when something is in the film, that's just how it is. Darth Vader is not happy with the Empire - the first thing he does when he tries to 'turn' Luke is reveal his plan for them to overthrow the Emperor and do things their own way. That's not Dark Side, that's something else entirely. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Alright, I concede your point. It's just that I think digging for meaning where there is none, either intended, implied or incidental, can go too far and step over the actual meaning and into fantasy and a bit of viewer wish fulfillment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Rando posted:Alright, I concede your point. It's just that I think digging for meaning where there is none, either intended, implied or incidental, can go too far and step over the actual meaning and into fantasy and a bit of viewer wish fulfillment. How could you determine when "there is none", though? What constitutes "the actual meaning"? In the Ebert article you quoted he's "digging for meaning" in that film. And he's not waiting around for someone to tell him if it was intentional or not. I mean, just look at this: Ebert posted:The movie's implications are alarming. Is it possible that we are all just clever versions of Chance the gardener? That we are trained from an early age to respond automatically to given words and concepts? That we never really think out much of anything for ourselves, but are content to repeat what works for others in the same situation? Are those implications part of the "actual meaning", or are they "fantasy and a bit of viewer wish fulfillment"? Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:[sic] [sic] I will go on record as saying you are an obnoxious dickhead for acting like typos mean more than just being a typo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Edit: I see your point there. I suppose it is possible to miss the forest for the trees when viewing a film, but when something is in the film, that's just how it is. Darth Vader is not happy with the Empire - the first thing he does when he tries to 'turn' Luke is reveal his plan for them to overthrow the Emperor and do things their own way. That's not Dark Side, that's something else entirely. Is it not dark side? Just because he wants to do things differently than the Emperor doesn't mean his plans aren't just as evil. Based on the political views he expresses in Episode II and what he says during his attempt to recruit Padme during Episode III, his ideal form of government is a "benevolent" dictatorship with himself at the top. Seeing as he was willing to kill children and destroy planets in order to put himself into that position, I have a hard time believing his reign would have been significantly better than Palpatine's. After all, Palpatine said he wanted peace, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:57
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Are those implications part of the "actual meaning", or are they "fantasy and a bit of viewer wish fulfillment"? If we're talking Being There I'd go the Loony Tunes route and say Chance is too unaware of the greater world to even know he should be sinking and/or that's just how lucky Chance is: even physics gives him a pass sometimes. Someone should make a thread about Being There. Good flick. My only point in this whole debacle is that anyone can try to find meaning in anything and it doesn't actually mean anything to anyone except the person who came up with the idea of meaning. I apologize if I seemed surly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
Rando posted:My only point in this whole debacle is that anyone can try to find meaning in anything and it doesn't actually mean anything to anyone except the person who came up with the idea of meaning. I apologize if I seemed surly. Well that's why some of us find it fun and interesting to discuss this stuff. Because I might never normally interpret the films the way others here do, but sometimes reading their interpretations can add to my own and enrich my experience. Like I enjoyed the Star Wars Prequels a million times better after reinterpreting them because of the discussions here. Sometimes that won't happen, of course, and that's fine too. And that's not your only point; you've made lots of other declarations here. Like all this. I'm not looking to make you apologize or even admit you're wrong, just maybe you could defend or explain these declarations that you seem to think should be self-evident. quote:If we're talking Being There I'd go the Loony Tunes route and say Chance is too unaware of the greater world to even know he should be sinking and/or that's just how lucky Chance is: even physics gives him a pass sometimes. But is that explanation shown on the screen? Is it "given to you" by the movie? If not that makes it "a bad movie made by poor artists", right? I mean, Loony Tunes is a reference point outside the film- exactly what you don't want us to rely on. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:08
|
|
|
Billy Idle posted:I don't think this was changed in the Special Editions. Vader is still hunting Luke and all but knows for certain that he is his son, even before he speaks with the Emperor. There were about two lines of dialogue added into the Emperor scene to address the fact that, given what was shown in Episode III, it would now make sense for Vader to have to feign disbelief and ignorance at the notion of his offspring surviving. In the Special Edition, Vader has been obsessively hunting a random 'Young Rebel' and he needs to 'search his feelings' to realize it's Luke. The Emperor is practically omniscient, so Vader's not really able to feign anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:18
|
|
|
Rando posted:If we're talking Being There I'd go the Loony Tunes route and say Chance is too unaware of the greater world to even know he should be sinking and/or that's just how lucky Chance is: even physics gives him a pass sometimes. Someone should make a thread about Being There. Good flick. I can see your point. Fiction analysis can't be entirely about the author's intent, because the author's intent is often either 1) unknowable or 2) irrelevant when compared against the larger societal forces which shape and give context to their self-professed intentions. But I don't think it makes sense to discount the author's intentions entirely, especially if the author outright informs us of them in interviews and so on. I think when we have a case where the author tells us his intentions, and yet you're arguing for a contrary interpretation, it would be nice if you'd talk about how the author's vision was subverted by outside circumstances of reality, or about why the author might be mistaken or lying about what they truly meant to express (which is obviously a possibility). Otherwise, all we're doing is having a philosophical argument using the trappings of a movie as props. Which is cool, I guess, but if that's what we're doing it seems a bit silly to limit ourselves to what happens to map one-to-one to the elements of a movie. SuperMechagodzilla posted:In the Special Edition, Vader has been obsessively hunting a random 'Young Rebel' and he needs to 'search his feelings' to realize it's Luke. The Emperor is practically omniscient, so Vader's not really able to feign anything. But Vader knows the rebel's name is Luke Skywalker, and he knows he's Force-sensitive. He clearly knows what's going on. And the Emperor isn't omniscient, not even in the original version. Even back in the old version, the Emperor "informs" Vader that they have a new enemy, and that his name is Luke Skywalker--as if he was unaware that Vader had just been obsessively searching for him. And Vader is still the one to suggest that they recruit him instead of kill him in the SE. Billy Idle fucked around with this message at 09:35 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Well that's why some of us find it fun and interesting to discuss this stuff. Because I might never normally interpret the films the way others here do, but sometimes reading their interpretations can add to my own and enrich my experience. Like I enjoyed the Star Wars Prequels a million times better after reinterpreting them because of the discussions here. Sometimes that won't happen, of course, and that's fine too. No, I'm just in a bad mood and shouldn't have posted at all. And I'd say the "Chance just happens to be that preternaturally lucky" interpretation is supplied by the film with no outside reference necessary. But, I can totally see why someone's mind would go toward the Road Runner or Jesus. As I said, I shouldn't have posted at all tonight and I'm just going to leave it. My sincere apologies for the silly and childish derail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Billy Idle: I know what you mean with that last bit. But can "the author" even be said to exist for most films? Most films are made by many, many people who all effect the final product and all have their own ongoing interpretations of what that final product will mean, which may change over the course of the production.Rando posted:No, I'm just in a bad mood and shouldn't have posted at all. Ok I'll leave it too, then. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 09:41 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:37
|
|