I’m not saying that the Jedi are evil. Their teachings, however, seem to create as many problems as they solve which is why I’m hopeful that in Episode 9 Rey grows beyond their rules and begins a far better practice.
I agree, and I think the film suggests that will be the case.
I don’t agree with the reading that Obi-Wan and Yoda were just using Luke, but I don’t think TLJ ruins that which came before it. I know it’s kind of a paradox, but TLJ is both dependent on the the OT, while also trying to be its own thing. It takes the franchise in a different direction for sure, and you kind of have to separate it from the thematic heart of the originals.
It’s not an exact comparison, but think Logan relative to the original X-Men trilogy.
…
That being said, TLJ isn’t really as gray or cynical as people are making it out to be. I don’t think it was saying the Jedi are evil.
I think it’s still a very traditional good vs evil story, it just places less faith in ideals alone and gives less credit to principles making a hero. It embraces the human condition and makes that which is in all of us - our ability to fail and move on - good enough to be heroes. In some ways, that’s more optimistic than saying we have to work super hard just to be good people. It’s not saying that the Jedi were super bad just because they were flawed, just that they don’t have a patent on being able to save the galaxy.
Sometimes trying too hard to be the hero can backfire, like with Poe, Finn, and Rose - and in the case of Luke, who held himself to such high expectations of heroism that he exiled himself after failure (which, thinking the galaxy is better off without you is still kind of an extension of some bullshit hero complex).
You don’t have to try to be the hero - as long as you do good, there’s one in there - and your failures, flaws, and screw ups won’t take that away as long as you get back up.
EDIT: honestly I wish people wouldn’t ignore my posts
I definitely don’t think it’s cynical at all, in fact it’s openly critical of cynicism. I do think it’s grayer than any Star War before it, though mostly in the ways it shows that being good is complicated.
People say that this film make out the Jedi to be evil. I don’t think they make them out to even be bad. Just imperfect.
I guess I just don’t understand what any of you are trying to accomplish. Talk to the people you like and ignore the ones you don’t. Everyone has different ideas of what is proper and decent, and everyone is offended by different things. If they attack another poster, then it becomes a problem.
The r-word should not be allowed on this site. Period, end of story.
Jay needs to decide if he agrees with this or not.
I like discussing with people who think differently than I do about it, tbh.
Same, although sometimes it feels like you’re talking to a brick wall.
Well, I’m hopeful for a Frink more similar to the good ol’ days. We ought to be able to let one another know if we have a problem with something another party has said in gentle, civil manner, at least as a first response. Frink has a reputation for gunning it from 0 to 60 and stifles discussion. To be honest, I’ve often refrained from posting in threads, usually posted by the uninitiated, about topics outside of his liking, just to avoid having more BS to put up with.
He’s a fun, endearing gatekeeper, and I like having him around. But he shouldn’t have such free reign to crap all over differing opinions.If I had the mad scientist capabilities he himself possesses, I’d probably set the Frink-o-meter to about 33%.
Same, I love Frink as well but recently he just became a bit more aggressive towards others who disagreed with him on something as stupid as movies.
EDIT: Wrong wording there. Movies are one of my favorite things but it is stupid to get in heated name calling over them.
Frink didn’t get heated because he disagreed about the movie. It was because of the offensive word used.
TLJ across the board moves the saga from simple good vs evil to much grayer territories. I like that a lot, I guess some don’t. Maybe that’s one of the big things causing the divide here.
As I said, this one incident alone is probably not singularly why Frink was banned.
Still, all I’m asking for is more transparency. Had the mods made it clear he was on thin ice, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But if he did things that came close to breaking the rules yet the mods never said anything, they can’t just retroactively use them as a strike against him.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Jay decides to ban me after reading that thread for similar reasons.
Did the guy even get a warning for using the r-word?
No, but he did make a large public apology and agree to never use the word again.
He apologized only after Frink was banned, presumably to cover his ass. Frink was banned without being given a chance for an apology. Neither were given warnings, far as I can tell.
I see. The ads I’ve seen didn’t really specify beyond touting the score.
The truth is no one pays attention to the audience score. It has nothing to do with the certified fresh rating, which is the thing that they usually attach to trailers, DVD covers, etc.
Studios have been slowly using them more than critic’s blurbs in advertising for some time now.
Yes, but always the critic score, not the audience score.
Metacritic critic scores are more accurate, though most people don’t even know that site exists.
Well I don’t know about that, but I think that anyone who knows what review-bombing means will go to every outlet.
I said “critic scores,” not audience scores. I’d imagine the audience score on Metacritic is equally abysmal for the same pathetic reasons.
I don’t know where some people on both sides of this debate get the energy.
Neither do I, seems like a waste of time. I’m not even sure what the point is. I barely even knew that RT audience scores were a thing until this whole kerfuffle.
Metacritic critic scores are more accurate, though most people don’t even know that site exists.
Proof that RT is not worth the faith studios have in it these days.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don’t think this counts for proof. Studios don’t care about the audience scores there (they have other methods for that), they pay attention to the critic scores (in part because audiences do too).
If people react to the r-word as much as the n-word.
Do they? I’m not saying Frink, I’m saying people. I guess I don’t interact with enough people to know whether it generally an unacceptable epithet to most people now. I know it’s unacceptable here, because people here said it was. But in general is it really on that level of just being a downright nasty epithet?
Like, just in a general, in real life, if something happened that one feels is unjustified and one shows one’s displeasure by saying “that’s retarded.” Is that an epithet?
Yes. To all your questions.
I’m not saying it’s not. And I’m not saying I use it. I’m saying it didn’t used to be a big deal, and last I remember someone complaining about it (where I heard them complain) that wasn’t here it maybe still wasn’t as big a deal as it again has become.
You have used it here before. Please don’t again.
Jay has said more bans are likely as he reviews the thread. And he hasn’t even seen the movie yet so he’s spoiling himself in the process.
He should watch it first then. This is his site, so he should have already watched it.
People are busy, y’know.
People can make time for things.
He shouldn’t have to see it right away to not be spoiled. That’s not fair.
He should just delegate cleaning up the mess to his mods that have seen the film.
Ok, if I am understanding things correctly, someone described a character in TLJ by using the r-word. It of course pissed off Frink and he responded using the f-word and other things and got temp banned for it. Did the person using the r-word get banned or disciplined at all?
Nope, despite being just as inflammatory.
I wonder how much of the schlocky stuff was Disney breathing down Johnson’s neck. The serious stuff feels more in line with his work, but the flat jokes, the children and the animals…that all screams Disney.
Read what he’s said about the film, this doesn’t seem accurate at all.
Disney/LFL’s portrayal of everything that has happened since late 2012 has been universally idyllic.
Rian Johnson isn’t LFL though. And we know about issues that have occurred on all the other sets (for various reasons). But Rian says that it was a smooth production and they let him do what he wanted to do (and he talks about wanting humor and animals and stuff like that specifically). Considering they had the film completely done three months before it was out (and then gave him free reign to a trilogy of his choosing), it’s hard to imagine there was much executive meddling.
I suppose where I’m at with it is this: People saying things need to be mature and sensitive of others; and people hearing things need to be mature and not overreact.
The arguments people make about offensive conversation seem to gravitate toward one side or the other, when I think both are exactly equally important. On the one side people accuse the offended as “snowflakes”, and on the other side people accuse the offensive as racist, whatever-negative-stereotype.
I think the important thing is to be mature about things, whether speaking or listening in equal measure. And that doesn’t mean people have to watch everything they say, but that they can also diffuse a tense moment quickly and easily when it happens by being civil and mature.
A: "[unknowningly offensive word]"
B: "Please don’t use that word. It’s offensive to me."
A: “Oh. Okay, I’m sorry.”I’m guilty of over-reacting here as well. And, for me at least, it’s because for a long time, it was nearly impossible to get the moderation to do anything unless a post was really over the top vile (like the guy who posted 100 anime dicks). So things naturally escalated, and we would all just basically act like bigger and bigger (anime) dicks toward each other. Walking away was probably the right thing to do. But with little moderation in place, walking away might have felt more like just handing over the thread to people who are in the wrong. Frink may have felt that way at times, and I certainly think people have thought it when they’ve stood up to Frink at times when he hijacked threads.
I quite agree. If you’re here, you’re probably of the argumentative type, which means that it might be hard to let your arguments go. I’ve felt that many times before. You hold on to your arguments like children.
I’m just tired of that. Just tired. It doesn’t matter who posts their opinion about anything, there’s always someone whining about it and needing to have the last word. It’s become so tiresome that it’s better to just keep your opinions to yourself if you don’t want the bully squad on your ass.
Wrong!
I wonder how much of the schlocky stuff was Disney breathing down Johnson’s neck. The serious stuff feels more in line with his work, but the flat jokes, the children and the animals…that all screams Disney.
Read what he’s said about the film, this doesn’t seem accurate at all.
I’m mostly lurking and don’t usually post much, but at the moment, I have no interest at all to even read the Star Wars part of the forum. I guess I’ll keep visiting Off-Topic, but don’t be surprised if you don’t see me for the rest of the year.
This is a good idea and I should probably do it to.
I don’t know why I bother so much, so of the things I respond to really don’t deserve it.
I would like to direct attention to rule number seven.
- Personal attacks and slurs based on race/ethnicity/religion/gender/sexual orientation/etc. aren’t tolerated under any circumstances.
While Frink’s posts may well have been an overreaction, couldn’t using the “r-word” be considered a slur based on mental ability? Or is it not considered so on this forum? Pretty much every dictionary agrees that it is an offensive and derogatory term, so why do we treat it differently as other slurs? Also notable is that this rule, according to the announcement, is punishable by an “immediate and permanent ban with no prior warning.”
On another note, I can understand where Frink is coming from, but having to respond, mentioning your children, to every post that contains that word is a bit excessive. The fairest punishment would have been to ban all involved.
I agree the word is a slur and ban worthy, though I think he got away with it because he wasn’t using it in reference to any posters here (which I think is absolutely ridiculous and irrelevant). Although of course recent history proves that you can use the word in reference to other posters here and still not get banned, so maybe Jay just doesn’t care.
The only petition that matters:
https://www.change.org/p/reshoot-the-last-jedi-to-replace-luke-skywalker-with-a-dog-that-solves-mysteries
One fear I have about the backlash against TLJ is that Lucasfilm might pull a WB/DC move and make overly reactionary decisions to “fix” things for IX and beyond instead of building on what worked. That was the major problem with both Suicide Squad and Justice League - instead of letting them both run their course and tweaking things from there on out, they made massive changes to both of them throughout production to respond to the criticisms of MoS, BvS, and SS (in the case of JL), resulting in the messy tonal whiplash of SS and the Frankenstein’s mosnter that was JL. I don’t want either of those things to happen with IX.
And before anyone claims that’s what happened with TLJ, it isn’t. TLJ was written and in (pre?) production before TFA even came out. If it was reactionary toward TFA, that was due to Johnson’s response to Abrams’ and Kasdan’s choices in VII, not the audience’s.
Considering the glowing critical reception and box office success, I doubt they’ll let a set of particularly loud fanboys change how they work.
Applying that logic, they are OT “fanboys” and you’re a TLJ “fanboy”?
Or maybe we could just leave the name calling out of it. As has been repeatedly stressed by mods in here - argue the point, don’t attack the person simply stating their opinion.
I don’t consider fanboy an insult. Just a descriptor. A small subset of diehards fans isn’t going to sway the direction of a series that caters to the widest audience of fans of anything out there, anywhere, these days.
DominicCobb said:
I don’t know what it is, maybe I’m tired of all the time I spent defending TFA, but I honestly don’t even think I can bother with trying to respond to a lot of these negative reviews. Maybe it’s the volume, maybe I’m just shocked that there’s even such an outcry to begin with. Our takes on the film are just so different that I honestly don’t know how to bridge that gap, besides just hoping these people see the movie again and get out of it what I, and many others, did. It’s really something.I’ve also been meaning to ask you for a bit about the above post earlier in this thread - why do you feel the need to defend TLJ by replying to every negative review? Is this not a “review and opinions” thread? I’m for civil discourse on varying opinions as much as the next reasonable person but your position seems to be that you feel obligated to actively fend off negative reviews of this movie, sometimes to the extent of really getting in people’s faces and almost aggressively singling them out when they’re just contributing their point of view to the thread.
I usually find your posts to be pretty good around here Dom but in this thread I’ve seen another side of you that isn’t very pretty.
.Val
Look at my posts and look at how many negative reviews there’ve been. It’s not even close. I respond here and there when I find a complaint particularly egregious or think I can actually reason with someone and show them why I disagree in hopes of possibly swaying their take. For the most part I just ignore, for the reasons I stated in the post you quoted - because for the most part some of the complaints are simply beyond my comprehension.
Also, I don’t know why you feel the need to signal me out. I’m far from the only one defending the film. I won’t lie that I’ve had little to do at work the last couple days which has left me looking for a way to past the time, but I hope I don’t seem aggressive in my rebuttals - unless, of course, someone is being misogynistic or disrespectful to people with mental handicaps. I don’t really know what you mean about seeing another side of me, honestly, unless it’s in regard to that.
Also, if the mods decide to ban me, just know that I don’t take back anything I said when I was calling people out for their backwards bullshit. I’m sorry if I won’t let that stand. If the admin team feels fine with keeping toxic shit in while banning people who speak out against it, I don’t see why I should be visiting this site anyway. If the mods don’t ban me, nice. Let’s try to clean this up.
You guys need to grow up. Frink isn’t the only who has a problem with that word.
I see the F-word floating around here quite often. In fact I think someone used it just now. I don’t like that one. Shall we compile a list of bad words and agree not to use them, or are we going to continue applying double standards?
I’ll rephrase: grow the fuck up. If you don’t understand the difference between the r-word and the f-word, that’s your problem. Educate yourself, I’m not going to explain it for you.
Yeah, I think someone is crossing some lines here. I won’t dignify this one with an answer…
Fine man. Sorry I can’t respect someone who doesn’t respect others.
I never attacked anyone personally. I disrespected a fictional character. Not the same thing, mate.
Yeah and if I used the n-word to describe a fictional character that’s no problem? You’re missing the point here.
JEDIT: didn’t see your post Wook, sorry. But I don’t take back anything I’ve said.