Star Wars (1977 - present)

1205206208210211254

Comments

  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,230
    TR007 wrote: »
    Luke shouldn’t have died in TLJ. I really wish he was a bigger part of TROS as he has a stronger connection to Palpatine than any of the new characters.

    Han should not have been killed in tfa either, maybe if he had been injured instead of killed would have made for a better story imo.
    JJ and kasdan should have done better considering their reputations.
    Adam Driver must kop a lot of shit from the fans for killing han ?

    In fairness, at least Hans' death actually impacted on an emotional level. Luke's would have, had the storytelling been better. I think the actual scene where he merges with the force is beautifully done, but I had already checked out of the film long beforehand. Leia's was obviously the best they could do with the cards they were dealt.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    mattjoes wrote: »

    A solid case against dubbing.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 25,360
    I vividly remember watching Han's death scene in the cinema, up to that point I was quite bored, when Han died I thought at least something is happening now.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited January 2021 Posts: 8,201
    I didn't mind Luke dying, because to me his story as a protagonist was effectively done with the ending of ROTJ when he did the most Jedi thing ever: Deciding NOT to fight when he tossed that lightsaber "Never. I'll never turn to the dark side." That was more far compelling than seeing a stunt double slice up a bunch of killer droids like a blow torch through butter.

    I also don't see how him actually fighting Kylo Ren would be any better. I like the concept of Luke using the power of mind to save the day.
  • Posts: 1,165
    I didn't mind Luke dying, because to me his story as a protagonist was effectively done with the ending of ROTJ when he did the most Jedi thing ever: Deciding NOT to fight when he tossed that lightsaber "Never. I'll never turn to the dark side." That was more far compelling than seeing a stunt double slice up a bunch of killer droids like a blow torch through butter.

    I also don't see how him actually fighting Kylo Ren would be any better. I like the concept of Luke using the power of mind to save the day.

    I agree, he saved the day in TLJ in such a wonderful way, but he didn’t need to die from that as it handicapped TROS.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    I think it was absolutely necessary for him to bow out. TROS has its problems, but Luke not being around is definitely not one of mine.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    Sorry if this has already been posted.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,691
    https://www.starwars.com/news/lucasfilm-games-interview

    Hot off of Indy’s return to video games, Star Wars gets an open world one!
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 102
    I loved the ending of Mando season 2 but I wonder if Grogu (Baby Yoda's real name) will die, because Luke took him so it means Grogu will be dead by the time of TFA :(
    Still it was really cool to see Mark Hamill deaged as Luke but my favourite part was seeing live action Ahsoka name dropping Thrawn.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,586
    I loved the ending of Mando season 2 but I wonder if Grogu (Baby Yoda's real name) will die, because Luke took him so it means Grogu will be dead by the time of TFA :(
    Still it was really cool to see Mark Hamill deaged as Luke but my favourite part was seeing live action Ahsoka name dropping Thrawn.

    True but not necessarily dead; a lot can happen in that period of time. It’s possible Grogu could have left on his own path before the events that led to TFA.
  • NoTimeToLiveNoTimeToLive Jamaica
    Posts: 102
    I hope you're right!
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    There's a good 19 years between Grogu being recruited and Luke's Temple being destroyed. Anything could have happened.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,586
    There's a good 19 years between Grogu being recruited and Luke's Temple being destroyed. Anything could have happened.

    Exactly. Also welcome @NoTimeToLive!
  • ThunderballThunderball playing Chemin de Fer in a casino, downing Vespers
    Posts: 815
    I didn't mind Luke dying, because to me his story as a protagonist was effectively done with the ending of ROTJ when he did the most Jedi thing ever: Deciding NOT to fight when he tossed that lightsaber "Never. I'll never turn to the dark side." That was more far compelling than seeing a stunt double slice up a bunch of killer droids like a blow torch through butter.

    I also don't see how him actually fighting Kylo Ren would be any better. I like the concept of Luke using the power of mind to save the day.

    THANK YOU!

    The protagonist of the sequel trilogy was Rey, not Luke. And I don’t really have any problems with how he was depicted in these movies.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    This is a pretty accurate take on TROS and how Disney fumbled the sequel trilogy.


  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,586
    I'm rewatching the Star Wars films in chronological order, and I've been having a blast with it. I watched Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith with an intentional mind to understand the politics that were at play that led to the rise of the Empire. Had a lot of fun with it.
    Then went on to Rogue One, and enjoyed that more than I had the last time as well. The Scarif scenes are all really brilliant.
    One thing that I noticed more this time as I went on to A New Hope, is the beginning of that film doesn't jive too well with the end of Rogue One. Darth Vader's behaviour is very different from one film to the next, and Leia's insistence that they're on a diplomatic mission is quite bold, considering the corvette was jettisoned from the rebel command ship that received the Death Star plans and was generally involved in the battle over Scarif between what was the entirety of both the Rebellion and the Empire.
    Just some thoughts having watched both films in short succession.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I'm rewatching the Star Wars films in chronological order, and I've been having a blast with it. I watched Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith with an intentional mind to understand the politics that were at play that led to the rise of the Empire. Had a lot of fun with it.
    Then went on to Rogue One, and enjoyed that more than I had the last time as well. The Scarif scenes are all really brilliant.
    One thing that I noticed more this time as I went on to A New Hope, is the beginning of that film doesn't jive too well with the end of Rogue One. Darth Vader's behaviour is very different from one film to the next, and Leia's insistence that they're on a diplomatic mission is quite bold, considering the corvette was jettisoned from the rebel command ship that received the Death Star plans and was generally involved in the battle over Scarif between what was the entirety of both the Rebellion and the Empire.
    Just some thoughts having watched both films in short succession.

    I'm gonna havta disagree there. I think Vader's behavior lines up well because in ANH, he's just outright angry that of all the ships in the Rebel fleet, this one escaped him. Then he gets on board and people he knows are straight up Rebels are lying to his face. He slaughtered an entire hallway for nothing and these people were basically laughing at him.

    So did you skip Solo? That's between Revenge of the Sith and Rogue One, after all.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,586
    I did skip Solo; I really enjoy it, but I was more focused on the core story for this viewing.

    It's just a bit jarring to see Vader windmilling rebels with his lightsaber, rushing after the plans, and then when he watches the corvette leave and then boards it in A New Hope, suddenly he's very content to take his time. I get what you're saying about his anger, but he's controlling his anger extremely well if that's the case.
  • NickTwentyTwoNickTwentyTwo Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Posts: 7,586
    It's a shame. She was a great character on the show, but I understand Lucasfilm wanting to part ways with her.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,201
    I didn't care much for her character, so she's no big loss for me.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,573
    Just seems insane these people do this to themselves. Surely her agent or manager told her it was a bad idea to stay on Twitter after the last load of problems she had?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,248
    I doubt she and I are on the same page politically and people who furthermore need to dive into the sewers of the Internet, into asocial media like Twitter and FB, in order to share their opinions with the world, are definitely people I have little patience with.

    However... I'm tired of these film and TV bosses just firing people over something they have said in public. I understand they're trying to keep their houses clean in order not to offend their viewership, that they wish to avoid associations that can reflect badly on them, but audiences likewise have to learn to accept that we happen to live in a world in which your best friend, neighbour, sister and idol are still permitted to have views that you may not like or agree with.

    What she wrote was a gross exaggeration, but so is being fired over it. Her tweet is in poor taste, but poor taste still isn't a crime. We are asked to embrace diversity but we cannot handle diversity in terms of opinions? We cannot handle a big mouth? And yes, kids watch The Mandalorian, so the whole role-model thing factors in too. Well, I guess now is the time to keep our poor, vulnerable kids away from the Bond films as well, because didn't James Bond nr. 1 give his wife a good beating every now and then and publicly talked about it with a sense of pride even? What an awkward role-model... Let's just cancel the first couple of Bond films from our TV programming then. Let's pretend they don't even exist to people under 25.

    The actress did a clumsy thing for sure, but what's worse, in my opinion, is this cancel culture. The lesson we teach people is that rather than talk, debate, find consensus amidst conflicting opinions, we should just fire, throw away, "unfriend", ... And Disney is particularly good at that, even if the great Walt himself was not without his own bits of controversy.

    In the end, I don't care all that much. I liked the character but I can do without it just as easily.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 16,573
    I think there are very much degrees of that; it's not a black and white issue. Saying the election has been stolen is stupid and, yes, potentially dangerous if it's someone in the public eye, but it is ultimately an opinion, as you say. When someone starts to stray into matters of race and the Holocaust, and they're in a workplace shared by other people, then I think their employer does have to take a look at whether they're creating a safe workplace environment by having that person around. Plus, yes, it creates massive bad publicity for their show and their brand, and cast members in the public eye should have some awareness of that- part of their job is publicity. This is a show with a massive appeal, so having a cast member making light of the tragedy of a whole swathe of its viewership's race is basically her failing to do her job. And if you do a bad job, you get fired.

    So I think saying it's all bad is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the 'cancellations' we've seen have been kneejerk (I think the James Gunn one was pretty stupid, wasn't it? I didn't follow it too closely), but sacking someone for bringing the show into disrepute and pissing off the audience by trivialising their race... I can't get too upset about that. It's not just 'clumsy'. I certainly don't think firing someone is worse than the act of doing it, no not at all.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,248
    mtm wrote: »
    I think there are very much degrees of that; it's not a black and white issue. Saying the election has been stolen is stupid and, yes, potentially dangerous if it's someone in the public eye, but it is ultimately an opinion, as you say. When someone starts to stray into matters of race and the Holocaust, and they're in a workplace shared by other people, then I think their employer does have to take a look at whether they're creating a safe workplace environment by having that person around. Plus, yes, it creates massive bad publicity for their show and their brand, and cast members in the public eye should have some awareness of that- part of their job is publicity. This is a show with a massive appeal, so having a cast member making light of the tragedy of a whole swathe of its viewership's race is basically her failing to do her job. And if you do a bad job, you get fired.

    So I think saying it's all bad is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the 'cancellations' we've seen have been kneejerk (I think the James Gunn one was pretty stupid, wasn't it? I didn't follow it too closely), but sacking someone for bringing the show into disrepute and pissing off the audience by trivialising their race... I can't get too upset about that. It's not just 'clumsy'. I certainly don't think firing someone is worse than the act of doing it, no not at all.

    I guess you're right about these tweets being rather damaging in particular. But yes, the James Gunn episode was ridiculous, and it is since then, combined with the whole J.K. Rowling hysteria, that I'm much less willing to agree with firing people or publicly casting shadows of doubt over their professional future, at least before a debate has been had in which the actor or director or whoever can explain their tweets and possibly apologize for them.

    In the end, though, I think actors and other filmmakers should just stay the hell away from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and similar platforms. No opinion will ever be met with 100 % approval. And like you said, part of their job is publicity.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,573
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think there are very much degrees of that; it's not a black and white issue. Saying the election has been stolen is stupid and, yes, potentially dangerous if it's someone in the public eye, but it is ultimately an opinion, as you say. When someone starts to stray into matters of race and the Holocaust, and they're in a workplace shared by other people, then I think their employer does have to take a look at whether they're creating a safe workplace environment by having that person around. Plus, yes, it creates massive bad publicity for their show and their brand, and cast members in the public eye should have some awareness of that- part of their job is publicity. This is a show with a massive appeal, so having a cast member making light of the tragedy of a whole swathe of its viewership's race is basically her failing to do her job. And if you do a bad job, you get fired.

    So I think saying it's all bad is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the 'cancellations' we've seen have been kneejerk (I think the James Gunn one was pretty stupid, wasn't it? I didn't follow it too closely), but sacking someone for bringing the show into disrepute and pissing off the audience by trivialising their race... I can't get too upset about that. It's not just 'clumsy'. I certainly don't think firing someone is worse than the act of doing it, no not at all.

    I guess you're right about these tweets being rather damaging in particular. But yes, the James Gunn episode was ridiculous, and it is since then, combined with the whole J.K. Rowling hysteria, that I'm much less willing to agree with firing people or publicly casting shadows of doubt over their professional future, at least before a debate has been had in which the actor or director or whoever can explain their tweets and possibly apologize for them.

    I don't disagree in principle, but I think each case is different and has to be weighed up. Saying that all cancellation culture should be cancelled is kind of as sweeping an action as the responses you're saying should be cancelled :D
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In the end, though, I think actors and other filmmakers should just stay the hell away from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and similar platforms. No opinion will ever be met with 100 % approval. And like you said, part of their job is publicity.

    I just think it's utterly mad she stayed on Twitter considering the warning shot she had fired across her bows. If she wasn't warned to ditch it by her management I'd be amazed.
  • FatherValentineFatherValentine England
    Posts: 737
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think there are very much degrees of that; it's not a black and white issue. Saying the election has been stolen is stupid and, yes, potentially dangerous if it's someone in the public eye, but it is ultimately an opinion, as you say. When someone starts to stray into matters of race and the Holocaust, and they're in a workplace shared by other people, then I think their employer does have to take a look at whether they're creating a safe workplace environment by having that person around. Plus, yes, it creates massive bad publicity for their show and their brand, and cast members in the public eye should have some awareness of that- part of their job is publicity. This is a show with a massive appeal, so having a cast member making light of the tragedy of a whole swathe of its viewership's race is basically her failing to do her job. And if you do a bad job, you get fired.

    So I think saying it's all bad is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the 'cancellations' we've seen have been kneejerk (I think the James Gunn one was pretty stupid, wasn't it? I didn't follow it too closely), but sacking someone for bringing the show into disrepute and pissing off the audience by trivialising their race... I can't get too upset about that. It's not just 'clumsy'. I certainly don't think firing someone is worse than the act of doing it, no not at all.

    I guess you're right about these tweets being rather damaging in particular. But yes, the James Gunn episode was ridiculous, and it is since then, combined with the whole J.K. Rowling hysteria, that I'm much less willing to agree with firing people or publicly casting shadows of doubt over their professional future, at least before a debate has been had in which the actor or director or whoever can explain their tweets and possibly apologize for them.

    I don't disagree in principle, but I think each case is different and has to be weighed up. Saying that all cancellation culture should be cancelled is kind of as sweeping an action as the responses you're saying should be cancelled :D
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In the end, though, I think actors and other filmmakers should just stay the hell away from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and similar platforms. No opinion will ever be met with 100 % approval. And like you said, part of their job is publicity.

    I just think it's utterly mad she stayed on Twitter considering the warning shot she had fired across her bows. If she wasn't warned to ditch it by her management I'd be amazed.

    While we can argue the rights and wrongs of individual cases, for me, it just comes down to what kind of world do we want to create. We do not seem to be too far away from a world where only people who have the 'correct' opinions (whatever they may be) can work in the public eye. That is not a desirable world and one I want no part of, to be honest.

    The issue of free speech obviously means that some people will say awful things, but the alternative, where only a rigid set of thoughts are allowed to be expressed in the public eye, lest you risk your job and social standing, is truly dystopian. We know where this ends up - just look at the history of China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia...(I am not saying we are there yet, but demonising people for opinions or being the 'wrong sort' never ends well).

    I think the trans issue really will changes things irrevocably, because certain aspects of the trans right movement (not all of it by any means), clearly in my opinion clashes with some core tenets of feminism (such as sex based rather than gender based protections).

    Now I don't want to get into that, but the fact that many feminists think that there is an inherent contradiction with some aspects of trans rights and their own rights, means that conflict is inevitable, especially when reactions to so called 'TERFs' is clothed in such violent language. And this issue can only be resolved by public and open debate where both sides can learn from each other and evolve. Shutting that down just leads to two trenches of opinion which cannot be bridged except through insults, threats, and eventually violence (as we have seen in some cases involving clashes between feminist lesbians and trans rights activists).

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited February 2021 Posts: 16,573
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I think there are very much degrees of that; it's not a black and white issue. Saying the election has been stolen is stupid and, yes, potentially dangerous if it's someone in the public eye, but it is ultimately an opinion, as you say. When someone starts to stray into matters of race and the Holocaust, and they're in a workplace shared by other people, then I think their employer does have to take a look at whether they're creating a safe workplace environment by having that person around. Plus, yes, it creates massive bad publicity for their show and their brand, and cast members in the public eye should have some awareness of that- part of their job is publicity. This is a show with a massive appeal, so having a cast member making light of the tragedy of a whole swathe of its viewership's race is basically her failing to do her job. And if you do a bad job, you get fired.

    So I think saying it's all bad is a bit of an oversimplification. Some of the 'cancellations' we've seen have been kneejerk (I think the James Gunn one was pretty stupid, wasn't it? I didn't follow it too closely), but sacking someone for bringing the show into disrepute and pissing off the audience by trivialising their race... I can't get too upset about that. It's not just 'clumsy'. I certainly don't think firing someone is worse than the act of doing it, no not at all.

    I guess you're right about these tweets being rather damaging in particular. But yes, the James Gunn episode was ridiculous, and it is since then, combined with the whole J.K. Rowling hysteria, that I'm much less willing to agree with firing people or publicly casting shadows of doubt over their professional future, at least before a debate has been had in which the actor or director or whoever can explain their tweets and possibly apologize for them.

    I don't disagree in principle, but I think each case is different and has to be weighed up. Saying that all cancellation culture should be cancelled is kind of as sweeping an action as the responses you're saying should be cancelled :D
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    In the end, though, I think actors and other filmmakers should just stay the hell away from Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and similar platforms. No opinion will ever be met with 100 % approval. And like you said, part of their job is publicity.

    I just think it's utterly mad she stayed on Twitter considering the warning shot she had fired across her bows. If she wasn't warned to ditch it by her management I'd be amazed.

    While we can argue the rights and wrongs of individual cases, for me, it just comes down to what kind of world do we want to create. We do not seem to be too far away from a world where only people who have the 'correct' opinions (whatever they may be) can work in the public eye. That is not a desirable world and one I want no part of, to be honest.

    No, you're talking about something else here. This is a person trivialising the Holocaust and making bad publicity.
    Also there's nothing really 'in inverted commas' about matters of race.

    Not sure what you mean about not wanting to be part of the world. Please don't contemplate your own life because a well-off person lost her role playing a space lady in Star Wars.
    The issue of free speech obviously means that some people will say awful things, but the alternative, where only a rigid set of thoughts are allowed to be expressed in the public eye, lest you risk your job and social standing, is truly dystopian.

    Not really, people have always been ostracised for saying awful things. It's how human nature works. Having more sensitivity to how workplaces are run as not being harmful to people isn't a bad thing. Dystopian societies aren't about people being concerned for the wellbeing of others.
    And again, generalising on this matter is just as bad and sweeping as this supposed 'cancel culture' is. Each one is different.

    I agree that appeasing the mob isn't something we should do and that conversation is always good, but that doesn't really apply in this case.
    I think the trans issue really will changes things irrevocably, because certain aspects of the trans right movement (not all of it by any means), clearly in my opinion clashes with some core tenets of feminism (such as sex based rather than gender based protections).

    I think you're looking to talk about trans issues and not what's happened here with Carano, though.

  • I felt / feel that the James Gunn and J.K. Rowling cases were / are completely overblown. It does currently seem (in the case of social media) that if you disagree with a celebrity's opinion, don't agree to disagree in your head or learn to separate the art from the artist (I feel I am mature enough to still be able to enjoy Harry Potter and the world that Rowling created regardless of whether or not I agree with her views) - just try to silence them or shut them down and destroy their careers over it, and disown whatever enjoyment you may have got from their work in the past. Yes, that's very mature of you.
Sign In or Register to comment.