-
Posts
1,491 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Mattris
-
-
What do you think was the point of the original trilogy?
Was there a point to make the prequels? Do you think Episodes I, II, and III significantly added to the story, lore, and themes of the Saga?
-
36 minutes ago, Chen G. said:
Totally a token-redemption. Felt morally bankrupt to me.
Who said anything about redemption?
33 minutes ago, mstrox said:The moral of The Rise of Skywalker is that you never pay JJ Abrams to finish things, only to start them.
JJ Abrams didn't start the Star Wars Saga, nor did he finish it. It should be noted that Episodes VI and IX ended identically... and that Daisy Ridley said that IX was just "an end. Not the end".
23 minutes ago, Demodex said:The message of TROS was that Lucasfilm had no idea what they were doing.
No, what's happening is that you have no idea what Lucasfilm are doing with Star Wars... unlike me.
-
6 minutes ago, Tallguy said:
Well, Kylo did die from it. I don't call that "free".
We only saw that Ben Solo's body disappeared, just like the bodies Anakin, Luke, Leia, Yoda, and Obi-Wan.
1 minute ago, GerateWohl said:The reason why Yoda was dressed in rags in all the movies was, that he didn't have a family name.
Ah, but Rey did have a family name. She just didn't know it until the middle of the film.
-
I addressed @greenturnedblue and await his response. But I want to move on from this unproductive unpleasantness, so I will not respond to him or anyone else on this topic.
The point I wanted to get across, one that I made previously, one that people here laughed or scoffed at, one that should be clearly obvious after Lightyear:
For some - if not, most - storytellers, making (the most) money is not the priority. Telling the story is... that, and/or conveying an agenda/message. This very much applies to Star Wars.
I look forward to tomorrow's Star Wars discussion.
-
Your questions are assuming, leading, and far too personal, @greenturnedblue. I never said being gay was "wrong".
I listed possibly-objectionable/inappropriate things a parent might not want their child to be exposed to in a film made/marketed for children. I implied no equivalence.
Once again, I'm not talking about an adult not wanting to pay to see a film for any number of personal reasons. I'm talking about parents' right to choose what to show their children.
Should parents have the right to decide what to show their children?
-
1 hour ago, greenturnedblue said:
You are missing the point again... Monetary support is irrelevant, the "ew gay" attitude is all that matters.
No, you're missing my point. I'm talking about a parent declining (to pay) to see a movie containing objectionable/mature-themed content along with their young child, content the parent does not want to be presented to their child, especially not in a film made/marketed for children.
The objectionable/mature-themed content be any number of things such as foul language, violence, nihilism, Satanism, pedophilia, conservatism, liberalism, and yes, homosexuality.
Parents have the right to decide what to show their children, don't they?
-
41 minutes ago, Jay said:
No. They could choose not to see the movie for some other reason too
Choosing not to take one's child to Lightyear because Tim Allen did not reprise his role - among other reasons - gets one out of being a bigot?
41 minutes ago, Jay said:But yes, if that's their only reason and they had planned on seeing it otherwise, then yes, congratulations, you've defined bigotry once again.
By definition, bigotry means that a person is being "unreasonable". What is unreasonable about a parent choosing to not monetarily support a product - and share it with their child - if the product contains content or a message to which they disagree... or content they do not want their child to see?
37 minutes ago, greenturnedblue said:As a crim student, this reminds me a case involving a Christian bakery refusing to make a cake for a same sex couple getting married. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, look it up, interesting read
The Lightyear situation may remind you of that case, but they are not similar. The former involves customers freely choosing not to monetarily support a product - or show it to their kids - due to objectionable/controversial content. The later involves a business refusing service on moral/religious grounds.
-
Let me get this straight, guys...
A parent must monetarily support a product - share it with their kids, no less - even if the product contains content or a message to which they disagree... or they are a bigot.
Is that what you think?
The dictionary definition of "bigot" denotes a person being "unreasonable". Would free market capitalism not apply in my hypothetical situation? (Though in reality, this situation did play out on a mass scale.)
-
I never said that, @Datameister.
I support storytellers being given the freedom to tell the story they want. I also support the (paying) public not supporting projects to which they object due to specific controversial content, especially when said projects are marketed for kids, like cartoons.
Ultimately, the parents of children are responsible for the content their kids see, their responsibility to talk with their kids about the content they do see. If a parent doesn't want to (pay to) show their kids Lightyear, do you think that makes them a bigot?
-
3 hours ago, Jay said:
Yes, exactly; Two people kissing each other for 1.5 seconds is not "mature" material. It's just two people kissing each other. If you consider it to be "normal" when the 2 people are different genders, but "mature" when the two people are the same gender, then you are bigoted against homosexuality. It's fine if that's what you are, you're not going to be banned because you feel that way, but you should certainly expect people to treat you differently now that you have revealed this about yourself.
I do not want to be misconstrued. Allow me to clarify my position.
My stance on this topic was based on the fact that the theatrically-realeased Pixar film Lightyear - a spin-off from the Toy Story franchise - was made and marketed primarily for kids.
With that in mind, I consider a same-gender couple (and kiss on the lips) to be more-mature content than a heterosexual couple/kiss, which are included sparingly in many/most PG films.
These inclusions made the film controversial for many around the world, especially for parents who would otherwise (likely) have had no issue enjoying the film with their children but don't want to be put in the position of being asked by their child why two women are married... which perhaps would overshadow the rest of the film's content and overall movie-going experience.
I never revealed my position on homosexuality. My point was merely that such controversial content should not be included in movies made/marketed for kids, such as fantasy/sci-fi/action/adventure Disney cartoons.
I am not a bigot because I am not being unreasonable. My comments were made from the perspective of a work's targeted audience, in this case, kids.
-
19 hours ago, Jay said:
Even being a bigot isn't against any forum rules really. It's just always unfortunate when you learn that about someone.
Jay, I would appreciate it if you would please stop calling me a bigot, even if you are convinced that's what I am.
I'll remind everyone here that my stated opinions were based solely on specific mature/controversial material contained within content made for young children.
-
The Star Wars Saga was designed to be one story told in twelve episodes, with Return of the Jedi (Episode VI) marking its halfway point, not 'The End'.
George Lucas made six films himself. Under Kathleen Kennedy's supervision, Lucasfilm will make six more.
Once the story is understood, the Star Wars audience will be able to accept what has happened, in and out of the films. But at this time, assumption, distraction, and disenchantment have overwhelmed them. Even the possibly that they've got it wrong is unfathomable. So they go on assuming, complaining, and being distracted.
They needn't worry... because they will be shown the error of their ways. And they will like it.
-
Without stats, facts, or evidence, any claims you make will be meaningless.
-
Excellent number crunching, @Edmilson. But I doubt this thread will receive over 900 posts in the next month, mainly due to the fact that I'll be taking a break soon.
If this thread totals 10k posts by the end of the year, I'll be surprised. By that time, there might be less of a reason to be disenchanted about Star Wars.
-
What I want to know: The total number of words written in this thread... and what percentage of them are mine.
Also, which member holds the record for total number of words written on this entire forum? How about average words per post? Can I get an award?
-
48 minutes ago, Demodex said:
Please tell me the secret before you leave!
I'm guessing the big reveal will be that Star Wars is an allegory for religion. Evil (Palpatine) will always exist.
Unless all the Jedi kill themselves.
Star Wars is, by definition, an allegory. Various religions can already be found in the Star Wars galaxy. For instance, Mando said that the Mandalorian religion is their creed.
The conclusion of the Star Wars Saga will be based around Rey forming her own
Jedi Ordersuicide cult to stop evil ol' grandpa Palps? That doesn't sound very nice. It's certainly not what I think will happen.19 minutes ago, Giftheck said:I'm just genuinely surprised I haven't seen him bring up the 'nine books the films were based on' thing (something I thought was a delusion from my sperm donor but it appears a few other people believe it too)
Nine books?
-
You've always been free to head out, @Manakin Skywalker. Don't worry, I'll be doing the same very soon.
Due to the scene in question, the film Lightyear was criticized, rated for more-mature audiences, and banned in many countries.
Disney did not have to include the scene, one they knew would cause controversy. They made a choice regarding the content of their work, and I support their freedom to do so. I estimate that the theatrical run of the film resulted in a net loss.
My absolute last word on this topic: Parents are responsible for what their young children are exposed to.
-
Did I break a Forum Rule?
-
Again, my position is that young kids should not be exposed to sexual - or same-sex relations - material in any form, especially not in cartoons.
Same-sex kissing is inappropriate content in a kids program.
-
I gave you my position on this topic. I didn't say a kiss is sexual. Why do you ask if I consider Han/Leia or Anakin/Padme kissing to be problematic?
-
13 hours ago, Brónach said:
well, "an episode X has been shot" is a falsifiable claim, so what's it going to be of the claim in some years?
I expect we'll find out if my claim was right within "some years". Though, I don't know why they would wait six years after IX to release X.
13 hours ago, Tallguy said:Well, right now I figure they have a market of one person then. I hope you're buying lots of tickets! Of course they don't care if they make money so it's fine. (Damn, Firefly cared about story and it didn't make any money. Why don't we have lots more of that?)
Star Wars is appealing on many levels, so many people/fans will naturally flock to see the latest installment. If nothing else, just so they can talk about it amongst themselves.
To the storytellers, the story itself and how it will be remembered are far more important than making maximum profit in the short term. Star Wars is so much bigger than money and escapism.
13 hours ago, Tallguy said:I mean, I'm watching their shows and I went to all the movies, but I don't think that Star Wars 10 is already filmed. So I certainly don't understand Star Wars.
Watching all the movies and shows doesn't mean you understand Star Wars. Do you think you do? What do you know about it?
12 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:
That is a seriously scary place to be.
You wouldn't know because you don't know what I know... what I've seen.
11 hours ago, Demodex said:If nothing else at all was going on with the movies from 1983 to 1999, what the hell did we need to be distracted from?
Truly thinking about what Star Wars could be about, as well as what led to story as shown in Episodes IV, V, and VI... what really happened in that trilogy. (So many still do not have a clue.)
2 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:Is that your opinion, or you're thinking purely from a marketing standpoint?
It wasn't just "marketing". The same-sex kiss was in the film. My position is that young kids should not be exposed to sexual - or same-sex relations - material in any form, especially not in cartoons.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:On multiple levels, you are totally overthinking this. It's a science fiction space opera. There's nothing so profound about it like you think there is.
They are just fucking movies.
You'll be proven wrong. George Lucas never referred to Star Wars as sci-fi. He called it a "modern fairytale" derived from works of mythology, philosophy, and religion. Without preaching to his audience, Star Wars was created as an allegory: a teaching tool for young people and people who could benefit from deeper thought and consideration about humanity, life, and even the universe. The story is more profound than you can currently fathom.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:WTF are you talking about? Sure we do!
I just proved you wrong.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:Are you brain dead? There are several reasons it was made first. None of them have to do with a misdirect.
Whether you watch them in release order or numerical order, it doesn't matter. You've still seen the same exact movies.
You are infuriating.
Presenting the second trilogy first absolutely did matter. People walked away from the OT knowing that Star Wars was about Luke, the hero of the story. The PT showed so much happened that led to subsequent events... a great many things that were largely disregarded and/or underestimated because the audience had already concluded that they understood what Star Wars was about based on their experience of the (superior) original trilogy... that, of course, already showed 'The End' of the story. How wrong they were... and still are are.
Yes, we've "seen the same exact movies". But you haven't seen them from a certain point of view: the correct one.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:How many people have posted in this thread? How many have agreed with anything you've said? But we're the ignorant ones?
It was not my intent to convince this forum. I presented my case and made points based on facts, logic, and the literal content of the films and canon. But I cannot help that so many here are stubborn, prideful, and ignorant... who claim to understand matters of Star Wars but haven't read the film novelizations or thought about the work as being created as an allegory... who dismiss my conclusions and predictions even after my specific Palpatine/Rey theory success: that the Emperor would return, with his intent to use creation/relative Rey's body as a subsequent vessel for his spirit.
Over hundreds of posts, I put together a solid case that will be looked back on in amazement.
You will eventually learn that Star Wars was designed to challenge its audience... that would make a fool of those who didn't rise to the challenge.
Along with so many assuming people around the world, you don't even know what you don't know about Star Wars. It didn't occur to you that you should have been considering the story beyond the perceived experiences of the protagonists and other characters of the movies.
That is why you failed.
-
8 hours ago, Demodex said:
This is complete bullshit and you know it.
George Lucas didn't write the EU stories. But multiple ideas were pulled from those volumes in the continued canon. For instance, George Lucas approved of Dark Empire, and that was the basis for Emperor Palpatine's return. My explanation makes perfect sense.
8 hours ago, Demodex said:@Mattris, let me ask you this. If none of these "distractions" were taking place, would a lot more people have figured out this big secret only you know about? Do you think the "distractions" are actually keeping people from finding out what this big reveal is?
Are these "distractions and lies" absolutely necessary, when you're the only person who understands Star Wars?
Ah, great question. With absolutely no distractions, I think more people would have understood Star Wars far better. One of the major misdirects was making the second trilogy first. Not enough of audience considers the story chronologically. Doing so is a critical first step in 'getting it'.
Yes, I think the distractions are serving their purpose, so much so that people can't fathom that all these controversial/terrible/inconsistent/awkward things to complain about are a concerted troll by Lucasfilm. As Obi-Wan said to Yoda in ROTS, "It can't be..." and to Padme,"He was deceived by a lie. We all were."
I can't say if the distractions and lies are absolutely necessary, but they are working too well.
Like I said, there is not just one "big secret". Really, the biggest one is that the Saga was always telling a single story, one that is still very much alive.
5 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:Not a really good example because that is Pixar, and Disney was never as hands on with them as they are with Star Wars, and because it was a 3 second kiss (shortened to a 1.5 sec kiss after the stupid backlash) that was blown out of proportions by the internet. The movie itself is in the lower bar of Pixar's catalogue and it had a lot of factor against it besides the stupid backlash.
A same-sex kiss shouldn't have been included in a Disney kids movie/show. Full stop. They were asking for controversy, and they paid for it.
5 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:I wasn't talking about most fans, I was talking about you, the "one who gets Star Wars".
The minor inconsistencies don't affect the bigger picture.
5 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:Not all because there's the whole situation of Kanan's order 66 is different.
I'll look into it.
5 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:Since we are on What Ifs...? She might have and George convinced her to stay, she might have thought she could do more good within, or she, like every other employed person, had to agree to disagree on a decision made by their boss. And I'm assuming on her favor.
A plausible theory. But I say one should be highly suspicious of all this. George Lucas has been known to contradict himself with Star Wars, like, a lot over the
yearsdecades. Don't be surprise if he moved squarely into the camp of lying to see his Star Wars surprise through to the end. (I won't be.)5 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:A smart man would not hold grudges, let alone something that wasn't in anyone else's control, an apology would be enough.
He appointed Kathy Kennedy to replace him and sold his company and story/sequel treatments to Bob Iger. If his intended story wasn't used as the basis for the continuation of the Saga, George Lucas has no one to blame but himself... for putting trust in the wrong people and for not including story stipulations in the sales contract.
3 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:What about the Solo sequels that the cast signed on for? Even Ron Howard was trying to get those off the ground for quite some time with obviously no luck. It was eventually partially continued in the form of a short-lived comic series. Let me guess... "that was all part of the plan"?
I doubt it. Lucasfilm have limited time and resources. At the moment, I would guess that they have far great priorities, with a Solo sequel film way down on their 'To-Do' list.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:No they weren't!! 🤦
Which announced-then-cancelled films weren't made or incorporated into the shows? Rouge Squadron comes to mind... a full-length theatrical movie about pilots? Really? People thought that was a serious project, amongst so much negativity and animosity in the fandom at this time? Had it been made, it would have bombed.
2 hours ago, Demodex said:That's the logical explanation? 😄😄😄😄
No, that's not it. Far from it.
That's absolutely the logical explanation. On multiple levels, Star Wars fans have no idea what Star Wars is about. They never talk about it in the same terms as George Lucas. Most prefer to complain about what didn't happen in the story, rather than truly think about what did happen and what it could mean as the lore and story unfolds. Many here are prime examples of this. What a mistake this will be proven to have been.
-
9 hours ago, Sweeping Strings said:
Solo's financial failure saw plans for future spin-off movies shelved. Still, doubtless all 'part of the plan'.
If those spin-off movies were planned as movies, they were eventually made as Disney+ shows with more content/length than single films.
9 hours ago, Tallguy said:I know I've been totally fooled by firing, what are we up to, three directors? Masterful misdirection.
How do you know there were firings? We only know what is announced by Lucasfilm.
8 hours ago, Demodex said:I think I know why!
Perhaps @GerateWohl didn't answer because I stumped him.
8 hours ago, Demodex said:Nope. That's not it.
The logical explanation that so many people are 'fatigued' with Star Wars is that they don't understand it. It's like playing/watching a game/sport of which you don't know the rules. Of course you're going to eventually lose interest. You're not 'tuned in' on what's happening or what's supposed to happen.
8 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:Controversial to who though? Having a gay character in a movie shouldn't be controversial. Nor a person of color, but even these decisions could've been made for money which would invalidate your point about not caring about money. I hope it isn't the sole reason... but it is a megacorporation.
On the contrary, my point was not 'invalidated'.
For many/most of the audience, it would seem inappropriate or forced that a gay character would act overtly gay in a movies made for kids. If a controversial character/relationship/scene/plot causes a project to make less money, then I would say that either [1] the makers of project did not care about making the most money because pushing their agenda was more important or [2] the makers were not aware of what decisions/specific inclusions of the project would result in making the most money.
Megacorporations can afford expensive missteps, like the Buzz Lightyear spin-off, which featured at least one gay character.
8 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:Well in your "legends was just a misdirection for the real canon" which is true to some extent, it wasn't really George's canon, but I imagine you say the same thing for the Kanan comics being different from Bad Batch S01E01, or the Ahsoka novel to the Siege of Mandalore and Tales of the Jedi S01E06, the minor stuff that ends up forgotten, retconned or just flat out replaced. Lack of consistency.
I'm aware of some relatively minor inconsistencies in the Star Wars canon. But most fans are either unaware of them or don't care. The ones who do care about so-called 'inconsistencies' haven't the slightest clue what they don't know, about say, how the Force works and how certain characters use the Force.
And even then, some - or all - of the minor inconsistencies you stated could be chalked up to a varying point of view of the characters who experienced those particular events. Star Wars is not presented as a fly on the wall. (It's omniscient third-person, from the perspective of the main characters.)
8 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:"'Things going south somewhere' is not assured" neither is "Star Wars could be 'going exactly the way it was supposed to go.'"
Because of this reality, the audience should be using the best evidence available in order to make an informed conclusion: the explanation that is most likely true. Opinions based on a surface-level assessment of the work are not reliable in the slightest, especially if one thinks they're experiencing an escapist work made primarily to make money and satisfy the most people episode to episode.
Short-sighted assessments, assumptions, and group-think are a recipe for disaster when interpreting a work like Star Wars. But this is exactly what I think has befallen its audience/fandom.
8 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:"George wouldn't show up in the Mandalorian set"... If I remember correctly Bob wasn't even there/president anymore, and George felt betrayed by him, there was no reason for him to have beef with Kathellen or Filoni.
If Iger made the executive decision to not use his stories/sequel treatments, KK should have quit on principal, based on her loyalty to George. She promised him on camera they would use his stories!
It simply doesn't make sense that a principled, smart man like George Lucas would associate with anyone who betrayed him or was complicit in the betrayal, such as "white slavers".
8 hours ago, Gabriel Bezerra said:BTTF II and III were shot together for 11 months... sounds about right. You think 2 Star Wars movies were shot together in 6 months? Ah, they are lying about the filming schedule, obviously.
No. I'm saying IX and X were shot over the course of about a year. This includes the supposed re-shoots that were reported to have happened throughout the summer and fall of 2019.
-
Apparently, you do. But I can confidently say that no one else in the world knows those fabricated things you just made up. (On the other hand, what I know is very real because I can point to these significant/intriguing things on the pages of the screenplays and other canon material.)
Have a go at my pertinent questions, @GerateWohl. I'm asking about Star Wars history, lore-based elements, perceived plot holes, and loose ends.
Star Wars Disenchantment
in General Discussion
Posted
It's this line of thinking that will keep you confused and disenchanted.
I disagree that the Jedi, as of late, are being made out to be the villains or bad guys of the story. They certainly "made the wrong choices" and paid the consequences, necessarily so in a story like this. The Jedi's good intentions did not yield them victory or wisdom. Their defeat at the hands of a truly evil enemy should not be a surprise to anyone. Nor should it be a surprise that Luke - taught by these very failed Jedi - also failed... and that Rey, taught by Luke, will also fail. (This concept really couldn't be more simple.)
Exactly. It's one of the main themes of the Saga.
Padme even says to Anakin in the next film, "So love has blinded you?"
You seem to have forgotten that Ben Solo sacrificed his life so Rey would live.
His change of heart began earlier in the film. At the end of the his scene with Luke on the forest moon of Endor, Vader is shown staring into the darkness, reflecting on his conversation with Luke.
And this was after he made an offer to Luke to "destroy the Emperor" in TESB. Set-up/pay-offs are everywhere in Star Wars. You just have to look and think carefully.
The film showed us that Ben Solo was tricked into being bad, assuming that he was being spoken to by his grandfather. He decided to drop the whole villainy thing and became his true self. He was really a great guy all along!
A case could easily be made that Darth Vader is more evil than Kylo Ren. Of the top of my head... Vader oversaw the torture of a young women, killed old man Kenobi who had given up the duel, repeatedly killed his own men, threatened to corrupt his own daughter just to goad his son into fighting him.
Exactly. The audience should 'start questioning the reasoning and the moral grounding' of such major things in Star Wars. I suggest you stop assuming that the story of the Saga is morally vapid... and that these so-called story/character arc resolutions are definitive. (I can assure you, they are not.)
Why do you think Leia manifested the vision of Han? Hadn't she already died?
What is redemption in Star Wars?
That's just what the medical droid supposed.
It doesn't matter if that's true or not. We will never know. As the audience, we can only assess what we are presented as canon. Perhaps you should focus on the films, screenplays, and novelizations instead of relying on the so-called 'drafts' for insight.
Did he, now? It wasn't shown in the films. Luke just assumed he "slaughtered" them. A lot assuming going around in Star Wars... and amongst its audience.
More assumptions. "It doesn't play that way" because the story is told from the point of view of the Jedi or good guys. This storytelling choice contributes to the challenge of understanding the grander narrative. It's up to the audience to put it all together, something so many have utterly failed to do.