Quantcast
The Rise of BS - Star Wars Epi 9 SPOILERS

Forums - Movies Discussion - The Rise of BS - Star Wars Epi 9 SPOILERS

Lonely_Dolphin said:

You were claiming people complain about TLJ for political reasons even after giving explicitly critical reasons and looking down on them for it. Now here you are, complaining about TROS for political reasons. "Do I as I say but not as I do."

I'd still like to know why you believe representation is so important as if it can cause change. You are even aware that the scene was removed in territories where oppression for women/lgbt/etc. is actually real, meaning supported by the majority pop and the government. It hasn't done anything, naturally as representation is not even allowed until the oppression has ended. Companies don't care about causes more than money so they'll only push them where it's safe as it's free easy brownie points.

Representation can only be the result of change, not the start of it, and change requires risk and sacrifice, as those in power generally don't give a shit about intangibles like words and movies.

Pretty sure I was complaining about hypocrisy on the part of the filmmakers that I observed as an individual, not trying to organize a political boycott movement or anything like that.

Yeah, there are many reasons why I dislike The Rise of Skywalker: some of them are aesthetic and some of them are political. That isn't the same thing as organizing a movement to try and prevent everyone else who might like this film from seeing it by getting anything comparable cancelled in the production stages and the leading people (okay mostly just the women specifically) associated with it fired and socially cancelled. Just because I don't like this movie doesn't mean you can't. It's the participation in cancel culture that I don't like about the #StarWarsFans.

I mean aren't these conservative people the same ones who otherwise go around complaining about liberal censorship of free speech all the time? Live by your own standards! You can dislike something without trying to actively prohibit me from seeing it.

EDIT:

Concerning the whole representation issue you raise, I don't know. I mean you could go all the way back to the early 1930s and find Western movies like Madchen in Uniform, for example, providing quite positive and at the time legitimately groundbreaking representation for lesbians in the popular, relatively new medium of film. It's potential to change public opinion was taken seriously enough by the subsequent Third Reich that they first censored it and then banned it outright and ordered all copies destroyed (most of which, in fact, were). If film or other artistic mediums have no potential to change the world, then why do repressive governments, as in this example, so often see them as threats of a magnitude that merits prohibition in the first place?

Last edited by Jaicee - on 12 January 2020

Around the Network
S.Peelman said:
Barkley said:

It just didn't feel like a Star Wars movie. Sure it had lightsabers and x-wings but...

The sequel trilogy should have had a single director from start to finish, if JJ had been in control of 8 and 9 from the beginning I think they would have been very different films.

IX while not as bad as TLJ felt extremely rushed and the brief addressing of the "holdo maneuver" made me cringe hard. Force Awakens tried to set up plot points, TLJ ripped them down. Rise of Skywalker was stuck trying to continue a story that didn't exist.

TLJ set nothing up, it left a complete blank slate by wiping out the resistance and it killed off a major villain that should have been important to the trilogies plot.

Snoke being alive, and revealed to have been palpatine all along at the end of IX could have worked but without Snoke alive we start IX and suddenly, oh there's Palpatine ok.

But all the blame can't be laid on TLJ. Star Destroyers with Planet Killing Weapons? Are you telling me that the empire had to build a space station the size of a moon, but now we can have 100's of small star destroyers with the same capability? Out of nowhere? WTF?

All logic and sensibility is thrown out of the window to achieve unnecessary escalation such as the holdo maneuever and the planet destroying fleet that completely break the universe.

I think you hit the nail on the head here for the most part. Though IX felt more "Star Wars" to me than VIII, you can't be more right with those last two paragraphs. I thought Starkiller Base was already bad enough in that regard.

I thought Starkiller base was too much at first too, but the more I thought about it the less impressive it became. It's a planet after all, it can't move. No idea what the range of the thing is but it's possible they used it's full potential with that one attack. It's not crazy to think that building a weapon on a planet (regardless of it's immense size) is easier than building a gigantic structure in outerspace too. In terms of volume I assume the death star is bigger also than the trench/facilities they built on the planet.

So I don't think Starkiller base is as useful, expensive or as difficult to make as the Death Star so what first appeared as the first order exceeding the capabilities of the galactic empire actually might not be that at all.

I think the thing about IX that didn't feel like Star Wars to me was the whole Palpatine ritual with the hordes of faceless ghosts watching on, it was really weird. Sure Star Wars has a lot of mysticism, moreso in some of the games, but this just felt like really strange fanfiction.

While TFA played it safe and wasn't perfect I do think it was a good setup to start a trilogy that could have been so much more.



LTD: PS4 - 125m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 51m

2020: PS4 - 10m, Switch - 21.5m, XBO - 2.5m, PS5 - 4.5m, XBX - 2.8m

Was watching some more Star Wars critique videos, this one really drove the idea of plot holes home.



Jaicee said:

Pretty sure I was complaining about hypocrisy on the part of the filmmakers that I observed as an individual, not trying to organize a political boycott movement or anything like that.

Yeah, there are many reasons why I dislike The Rise of Skywalker: some of them are aesthetic and some of them are political. That isn't the same thing as organizing a movement to try and prevent everyone else who might like this film from seeing it by getting anything comparable cancelled in the production stages and the leading people (okay mostly just the women specifically) associated with it fired and socially cancelled. Just because I don't like this movie doesn't mean you can't. It's the participation in cancel culture that I don't like about the #StarWarsFans.

I mean aren't these conservative people the same ones who otherwise go around complaining about liberal censorship of free speech all the time? Live by your own standards! You can dislike something without trying to actively prohibit me from seeing it.

EDIT:

Concerning the whole representation issue you raise, I don't know. I mean you could go all the way back to the early 1930s and find Western movies like Madchen in Uniform, for example, providing quite positive and at the time legitimately groundbreaking representation for lesbians in the popular, relatively new medium of film. It's potential to change public opinion was taken seriously enough by the subsequent Third Reich that they first censored it and then banned it outright and ordered all copies destroyed (most of which, in fact, were). If film or other artistic mediums have no potential to change the world, then why do repressive governments, as in this example, so often see them as threats of a magnitude that merits prohibition in the first place?

I remember you claiming I was biased and insinuating that I'm sexist/racist/whatever after trying to show that TLJ isn't widely hated for the reasons you imagine. Are there Star Wars fans that hate it for political reasons, sure but they are just a tiny minority. That you'd believe I hate it for such reasons despite what I said tells me you think anyone who doesn't like the movie only does so because they're racist/sexist/whatever. It'd be like if I said anyone who doesn't like TROS only hates because of the way Rey and Kylo's romance turned out, lumping you in with the crazy Reylo fans making death threats and demanding Kylo's actor divorce his wife.

Because they're corrupt petty and stupid. Is Winnie the Pooh a threat, that China banned him because he could single-handedly topple their regime? lol no. Two people loving each other that happen to be the same sex is similarly no threat, it effects absolutely nothing. It's just banned because ego and immaturity. That it's not an issue is the whole reason it shouldn't be outlawed. Actual threats would be strikes boycotts and protest, actions that involve real people putting their livelihoods on the line.



Lonely_Dolphin said:

I remember you claiming I was biased and insinuating that I'm sexist/racist/whatever after trying to show that TLJ isn't widely hated for the reasons you imagine. Are there Star Wars fans that hate it for political reasons, sure but they are just a tiny minority. That you'd believe I hate it for such reasons despite what I said tells me you think anyone who doesn't like the movie only does so because they're racist/sexist/whatever. It'd be like if I said anyone who doesn't like TROS only hates because of the way Rey and Kylo's romance turned out, lumping you in with the crazy Reylo fans making death threats and demanding Kylo's actor divorce his wife.

Because they're corrupt petty and stupid. Is Winnie the Pooh a threat, that China banned him because he could single-handedly topple their regime? lol no. Two people loving each other that happen to be the same sex is similarly no threat, it effects absolutely nothing. It's just banned because ego and immaturity. That it's not an issue is the whole reason it shouldn't be outlawed. Actual threats would be strikes boycotts and protest, actions that involve real people putting their livelihoods on the line.

First of all, I've never said nor "insinuated" that you were a racist before ever and you know it.

I can vaguely recall an earlier convo we had months ago wherein you made a statement that seemed very clearly sexist to me at the time, but it's been long enough now that I don't even remember specifically what it was. If you haven't noticed, I don't follow your posts. It was on a thread about films that got deleted by its creator shortly after it was started. Whatever. I don't really know you very well, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now that we're (hopefully) past your baseless personal attacks on my character, let's move on to issues of more substance.

...Okay you know what, I'm just going to not respond to the rest of your first paragraph, because all it is is attacks on my character and contentions that don't make any sense to me. Moving on to your second paragraph...

With regard to your second paragraph, I think we've miscommunicated. I wasn't attempting to suggest that a Third Reich that permitted same-sex weddings could not stand (), but that the prohibition of films such as Madchen in Uniform shows that forces like the Nazis (and other repressive regimes) have recognized the ability of art to change public opinion, in this case on something they felt was intolerable: same-sex relationships. See what I'm saying? I mean that's what we're arguing about here, is it not? Whether art has the power to affect public opinion on social issues?

Anyway, if you're wanting evidence that films can impact politics directly, you need to look no further than the Guy Fawkes masks brandished by the Anynomous anarchist crowd on a regular basis or the Wonder Woman costumes you've seen at the Women's Marches or the Obama in Joker paint signs you saw at tea party rallies shortly after his election or the three-finger salute from the Hunger Games utilized by Thai protesters in their actions against the military government earlier this decade for that. It's obvious that the movies, and other art for that matter, that people consume can, in fact, inspire them to political action. (I mean the online alt-right movement's quasi-official icon/mascot is the frog character Pepe from a comic book series even!) Art DOES have the power to change the world! For the better, and sometimes for the worse as well. That's why authoritarian governments are always keen to carefully screen and censor it.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 13 January 2020

Around the Network
Jaicee said:

First of all, I've never said nor "insinuated" that you were a racist before ever and you know it.

I can vaguely recall an earlier convo we had months ago wherein you made a statement that seemed very clearly sexist to me at the time, but it's been long enough now that I don't even remember specifically what it was. If you haven't noticed, I don't follow your posts. It was on a thread about films that got deleted by its creator shortly after it was started. Whatever. I don't really know you very well, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now that we're (hopefully) past your baseless personal attacks on my character, let's move on to issues of more substance.

...Okay you know what, I'm just going to not respond to the rest of your first paragraph, because all it is is attacks on my character and contentions that don't make any sense to me. Moving on to your second paragraph...

With regard to your second paragraph, I think we've miscommunicated. I wasn't attempting to suggest that a Third Reich that permitted same-sex weddings could not stand (), but that the prohibition of films such as Madchen in Uniform shows that forces like the Nazis (and other repressive regimes) have recognized the ability of art to change public opinion, in this case on something they felt was intolerable: same-sex relationships. See what I'm saying? I mean that's what we're arguing about here, is it not? Whether art has the power to affect public opinion on social issues?

Anyway, if you're wanting evidence that films can impact politics directly, you need to look no further than the Guy Fawkes masks brandished by the Anynomous anarchist crowd on a regular basis or the Wonder Woman costumes you've seen at the Women's Marches or the Obama in Joker paint signs you saw at tea party rallies shortly after his election or the three-finger salute from the Hunger Games utilized by Thai protesters in their actions against the military government earlier this decade for that. It's obvious that the movies, and other art for that matter, that people consume can, in fact, inspire them to political action. (I mean the online alt-right movement's quasi-official icon/mascot is the frog character Pepe from a comic book series even!) Art DOES have the power to change the world! For the better, and sometimes for the worse as well. That's why authoritarian governments are always keen to carefully screen and censor it.

If you don't want your character being put into question, probably not a good plan to do so to others. Obviously I don't know what you were insinuating as you were deliberately vague, but it was clearly something along the lines of racism/sexism, and cool you admit that it was indeed. My post explaining why I didn't like TLJ somehow proved I was such to you, meaning you just believe what you want to believe rather than what was actually said. I think that's an important detail to know about someone.

I know that's not what you suggested, I'm saying what the actual reason is for such things being banned, that what you suggested is wrong. If you don't agree please explain how Winnie the Pooh encourages people to rise up against the CCP. It's true I don't get your example, sure as hell wasn't a movie that took down the Nazis. I don't buy that a 2 hour movie meant to entertain that not everyone will even see is somehow gonna change public opinion on things people knew as correct their whole life that is supported by their family, friends, and government, but ok fine, sure. They banned them out of fear they'll change things somehow rather than what I said. So, what good it is then when they're banned and no one can see them?

If you think protest were started because of art rather than real world circumstances... yikes! They can be used as symbols to represent the cause, but are not the cause. Other than being used as a symbol (likely without the original creators consent), they have nothing to do with real world events, cause, you know, they're fiction. I certainly don't think of Obama when watching Batman or Thailand when reading Hunger Games.