Star Wars Disenchantment

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

[Brónach 1,302]

convince me to watch Twin Peaks.

[Jay 37,373]

It's really good, and quite different from anything else I've seen on TV.  Even shows inspired by it don't capture it's unique special sauce of various elements

 

I never saw it back in the day; Only first saw it in 2017 or so, and instantly loved it.  It was a joy to go through the box set one episode at a time

[mstrox 6,651]

Twin Peaks (the original series, at least) is as much a murder mystery as a riff on soap operas which is very intentionally camp in many instances - not in the broad traditional sense of campiness, but certainly elevated, big emotion stuff.  It’s probably best known now for its ventures into extremely weird dream-world territory, but even if you don’t like that stuff it only makes up an extremely small portion of the original run - and it can be read metaphorically, “the evil in the hearts of man,” etc etc.  

 

The series lulls you into a sense of comfort and when the more horrifying and more direct stuff hits, it hits hard - even by modern standards (not in a gore sense, just in a dread/terror sense).

 

It has a terrific dream-jazz synth score by Angelo Badalamenti.

 

Most of all, unlike Star Wars, nobody has ever been disenchanted by it.

[Datameister 2,044]

I gotta confess...I tried Twin Peaks a few years ago and couldn't get into it. I don't know if that makes me disenchanted. More like never enchanted to begin with.

[Mattris 416]

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.

[Jay 37,373]

yea, that didn't clarify anything for me, I already understood you perfectly.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Mattris said:

I never revealed my position on homosexuality.

 

Wrong.

 

5 minutes ago, Mattris said:

I consider a same-gender couple (and kiss on the lips) to be more-mature content than a heterosexual kiss

[Holko 9,531]

Aaaand there you go responding to him

[Naïve Old Fart 9,552]

4 hours ago, Brónach said:

convince me to watch Twin Peaks.

 

1/ It's TWIN PEAKS 

2 What Jay said 

3/ It's the most fantastical, dream-like thing ever made for TV 

4/ The music is something else

5/ It's David fucking Lynch!!!

[mstrox 6,651]

3 hours ago, Datameister said:

I gotta confess...I tried Twin Peaks a few years ago and couldn't get into it. I don't know if that makes me disenchanted. More like never enchanted to begin with.

We love you because you tried.

[Tallguy 3,401]

Yeah, I'm not really a David Lynch kind of fellow. I've seen Dune, Mullholand Drive, and the first episode of Twin Peaks.

 

I'm not sure what I would consider to be THE television masterpiece. Then or now. I mean, The Expanse is GREAT. The first season of Heroes makes one very sad they made any more. (It's PERFECT.) I've enjoyed all of Lost and Person of Interest more than once. I know how great the Netflix Lost in Space is even if the ending got COVID-ed up.

 

From the Earth to the Moon. Band of Brothers.

 

OH! The Prisoner.

 

I wonder what I'd think of Max Headroom now?

[Datameister 2,044]

Lol at "I'm not bigoted, I just think children should be shielded from LGBTQ people's offensive existence." Bummer. The trolling in this thread has really declined in quality. I miss the days when Mattris had original material.

 

Anyway, THE television masterpiece? Breaking Bad.

 

As far as current-ish stuff goes, I'm finally watching Barry and it's blowing my socks off. What is it with black comedies/tragedies about reprehensible wolves in sheep's clothing? I blame the stylish directing and cinematography. And writing. And acting. And editing. And

[Mattris 416]

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?

[Jay 37,373]

46 minutes ago, Mattris said:

If a parent doesn't want to (pay to) show their kids Lightyear, do you think that makes them a bigot?

 

Yes. 

[Datameister 2,044]

I think you're categorically wrong, @Jay.

 

Unless it's because two women kissed, in which case … yup, totally a bigot.

 

Source: Me, a former bigot

[Mattris 416]

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.)

[Jay 37,373]

17 minutes ago, Mattris said:

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.

 

No. They could choose not to see the movie for some other reason too

 

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. 

[greenturnedblue 372]

You have it reversed, the issue isnt about 'monetary support'. Someone not being supportive of a film simply because it features a lesbian kiss is what makes them a bigot.

 

It also doesn't have to be anything to do with same sex, a white person could be prejudiced against black people by refusing to see a film that has a black actor, simply because they are black. Or a monogamous person refusing to see a film featuring a polyamorous relationship simply because they do not accept or support polyamorous relationships

 

As a crim student, this reminds me of 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

[Mattris 416]

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.

[greenturnedblue 372]

You are missing the point again... Monetary support is irrelevant, the "ew gay" attitude is all that matters. 

 

If you didnt see Lightyear because Tim Allen is in it, and Tim Allen is white, and you refuse to see things with white people in them.. you are prejudiced against white people and therefore a bigot

[Mattris 416]

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?

[Chen G. 3,950]

And…just like that the thread became a lot less funny…

[greenturnedblue 372]

Just like your theories we are going in circles. If someone doesn't want to see a movie because a specific minority etc. is in it, then they are prejudiced against that group of people. 

 

"content the parent does not want to be presented to their child" why would a parent not want their child exposed to homosexuality? Is there something wrong with being gay? Why is it problematic? Do you think the child will turn gay because of that? If someone is gay does that affect you? If not then why does it matter to you what someone's sexual orientation is?

 

And come on, don't lump being gay in with violence and pedophiles. Do you really think homosexuality is wrong to the same degree pedophilia is?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

And…just like that the thread became a lot less funny…

It's OK, I'm always happy to help the impaired 

[Mattris 416]

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?

[HunterTech 994]

Parents are just as capable of being wrong as any other human being. Sure, they could make the choice, but that doesn't mean I won't judge them for it. If the concept of romance is really only one sided morally, then there better be a much more compelling argument than deciding it's acceptable because such a decision can be made period.

[Sweeping Strings 2,363]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

And…just like that the thread became a lot less funny…

Yep, yet another one that's veered off into an *issues* debate   .

[Giftheck 917]

I can definitely think of two rules that Mattris is now violating by continuing on with this - baiting and non-productive posts. He's taken this thread waaaaaay off base.

 

Re. Ignoring users, if anybody wants to know how you can do it (this board's software doesn't appear to allow you to do it from somebody's profile)

 

[Chen G. 3,950]

42 minutes ago, Mattris said:

Should parents have the right to decide what to show their children?

 

Yes. Now lets get back to the funny Star Wars crazy-talk!

[Nick1Ø66 4,722]

35 minutes ago, Giftheck said:

 

I can definitely think of two rules that Mattris is now violating by continuing on with this - baiting and non-productive posts. He's taken this thread waaaaaay off base.

 

Disagree. How has he taken the thread off base? Thanks to Mattris I’m more disenchanted with Star Wars than ever.

[Giftheck 917]

5 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Disagree. How has he taken the thread off base? Thanks to Mattris I’m more disenchanted with Star Wars than ever.

 

As long as you're okay with Lightyear, then it all balances out.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

This is very vindicating after people tried to paint Mattris as the victim

[Mattris 416]

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.

[HunterTech 994]

So tell me: what was the message of The Rise of Skywalker?

[Jurassic Shark 12,087]

That Disney can make money without really trying.

[HunterTech 994]

Isn't that what the Disney remakes are for?

[Chen G. 3,950]

3 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

So tell me: what was the message of The Rise of Skywalker?

 

That "some things are stronger than blood."

 

Except if you're a Skywalker: in that case you get a get-out-of-jail-free-card for multiple war crimes.

[Tallguy 3,401]

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

you get a get-out-of-jail-free-card for multiple war crimes

 

Well, Kylo did die from it. I don't call that "free".

[GerateWohl 4,371]

27 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

So tell me: what was the message of The Rise of Skywalker?

3 messages:

Anakin could have healed his mother instantly in episode 2, if he wouldn't have been so lazy.

The reason why Yoda was dressed in rags in all the movies was, that he didn't have a family name.

If you think, it cannot get worse with a franchise, remember, it can always get worse.

[Mattris 416]

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.

[Chen G. 3,950]

20 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Well, Kylo did die from it. I don't call that "free".

 

Eh.

 

Totally a token-redemption. Felt morally bankrupt to me.

[mstrox 6,651]

The moral of The Rise of Skywalker is that you never pay JJ Abrams to finish things, only to start them.

[Demodex 557]

The message of TROS was that Lucasfilm had no idea what they were doing. 

[Mattris 416]

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.

[Demodex 557]

6 minutes ago, Mattris said:

Figure it out yet?

 

Yeah. There was no point in making the ST. 

[Mattris 416]

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?

[Datameister 2,044]

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Eh.

 

Totally a token-redemption. Felt morally bankrupt to me.

 

I know what you mean. It's not great. The kiss is beyond the pale, though.

[Chen G. 3,950]

I think Star Wars, for a morality play, has two moments of absolute moral bankruptcy. One is Kylo Ren's redemption, the other is Padme's "to be angry is to be human." Both are deplorable.

[SilverTrumpet 638]

Kylo Ren's thing is from Disney, so it's really anti Star Wars all together.

 

I think Padme's is interesting because at least she's coming from a place of compassion, trying to help Anakin and encourage him, but it's just one tiny part of the entire story of the prequels which was people making not evil, but the wrong choices that allowed evil to take over. 

 

I think Disney Wars has tried to borderline argue that the Jedi were the bad guys in the prequels. It's this dumb post-modern article like it's trying to be a Youtube clickbait title (dId u kNoW tHe jEdI wErE tHe TRUE vIlLiAnS oF tHe mOvIeS???). There was nothing bad guys about the Jedi. They just made the wrong choices. Similarly, nobody would consider Padme a villain at all, but she made wrong choices too. She didn't stand up enough to stop the political ambitions of Palpatine, and she ran off with Anakin even though earlier in Attack of the Clones she acknowledged that it would be wrong. Then, even after hearing that Jedi aren't supposed to have romantic relationships, she still married the guy. 

 

One can make wrong or bad choices and not be complete bad.

[Datameister 2,044]

11 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think Star Wars, for a morality play, has two moments of absolute moral bankruptcy. One is Kylo Ren's redemption, the other is Padme's "to be angry is to be human." Both are deplorable.

 

Yeah, it does seem pretty out of character for her to reassure him that slaughtering a whole village is "nobody's perfect" territory.

[mstrox 6,651]

I think Star Wars would be improved if they explain that what we see in Return of the Jedi is actually the sarlaac’s butt hole.