Vladius

psyikk said:
So much “anti-woke” sentiment gets tossed around when talking about the ST, but not nearly as much when discussing Rogue One, The Mandalorian, Andor, etc. Why on earth is that?

If the mods and others here aren’t too squeamish about this topic -

Andor did catch some of it because it’s explicitly “political” and gets used for real life propaganda purposes, but most people appreciated that that wasn’t at the expense of quality. The female characters weren’t depicted as flawless badasses who just need to learn how good they are deep down. They have serious problems, strengths, and weaknesses and often need help from others. They go through arcs and development.

For Rogue One, there aren’t that many characters. Jyn Erso is one of the more criticized aspects of the movie as she isn’t a very interesting character, but even she goes through an arc of not caring about the cause, to being willing to die for it for her father’s sake. She can take out a dozen stormtroopers without breaking a sweat, but that capability is also given to everyone else in the party other than Cassian.

The Mandalorian doesn’t have anything worth discussing. It’s a straightforward action show. Cara Dune is a strong fighter who can physically wrestle bad guys up close, but it’s more believable because she’s muscular, and she isn’t an annoying character.

The sequels were watched more, more anticipated, and had more quality issues. The new trio that is supposed to be filling in the shoes of Han, Luke, and Leia is clearly weighted for more diversity, whether you think that’s a good thing or not. Once people actually watched The Force Awakens, they actually preferred Finn more than Rey because he’s a more interesting character with flaws, strengths, and weaknesses. However you feel about it, Rey got tagged with being a Mary Sue, which is not an “anti-woke” term, it’s a general storytelling term that originated in (largely female) fanfiction communities.

The woke label was more for The Last Jedi. I won’t talk about it here because people know all the reasons already and it will draw a lot of aggro if I explain it again.

Initial thoughts:
Since they would be “hunting” for Ben Solo he wouldn’t actually be in it as much as the other characters, so it might have looked like the Rey movie they’ve already worked on and cancelled (twice?)
People liked him as a villain, and people generally didn’t like the last minute romance, so it’s hard to say that the popularity of the character would be there.

Superweapon VII said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

And you don’t want to engage with the substance of McClellan’s argument, because the scholarship is at odds with your theological conservatism and God forbid you have that rug pulled out from under you.

You don’t even know what my theology is or how conservative it is. If “the substance of his argument” is that there is disagreement on how to interpret the bible, then yeah, duh, obviously. The full spectrum of opinions on the bible still has “biblical origins” by definition. “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” is just a straight up lie no matter how you slice it, and the fact you’re doubling down is even more embarrassing for you.

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

I think on some level he knows that he was maneuvered into the situation and just helped this insane monster tyrant get into power by killing a man. So he feels shock and guilt, and also worry about what he got himself into. But then he feels like it’s a sunk cost and it’s too late to go back, so he keeps going. He does still think Palpatine can figure out the cheating death thing. I don’t know what you mean by good faith, it seems like everyone here is just having a conversation.

SparkySywer said:

He’s saying that because he didn’t think he was capable of killing Mace Windu and is shocked at his actions, but because he believes he’s been tricked.

It’s both.

NFBisms said:

Sure, but we should also note that Palpatine never outright says he knows how to do what Plagueis did. Even when the mask initially drops, the verbiage is about “having a complete view of the Force” and “using his knowledge,” which is consistent to how he continues to discuss the topic post-Mace Murder, where he emphasizes discovery. It’s an academic seduction almost; forbidden research that Anakin won’t get from Jedi teachings.

The Force is still a great mystery, but maybe a practitioner as “powerful” as Anakin could unlock it if only he had access to all of that knowledge~. That is the function of his being gassed up, playing off of the allure of knowing more about the Force than the Jedi would tell you. It’s not meant to be a direct transaction, tit for tat heel turn.

I think Anakin still has more agency in that than just being duped.

While he’s getting reverse electrocuted by Mace he does actually say “I have the power to save the one you love.”

You’re right that Anakin does have more agency than people give him credit for.

NFBisms said:

I don’t think I ever articulated it better than I did in this conversation with Channel72 (including the next few replies)

It doesn’t excuse any of the bad stuff but I do think people tend to project a lack of agency onto his arc. So many of us have been working backwards from the grandfathered critiques of the prequels’ stupid plot, and not really engaging with where it is at least trying to interplay with the themes of the OT. (I also think this understanding is entirely consistent to The Clone Wars Anakin!)

A lot of this stuff “works” better in conversation with the OT, exactly as movies made decades after. Of course they fail to complete the fabled saga where Star Wars (1977) is a fourth installment, but as idiosyncratic Lucas joints commenting on them, they are fascinating to dissect. Don’t let anyone try to squash that curiosity!

I agree with most of this, but I still think Palpatine did some manipulation. He led Anakin to believe that he was going to be a super special council member with the Jedi, knowing that would cause more friction. He used a lot of flattery to get Anakin on his side and gas him up. It’s possible that he had something to do with Anakin’s nightmares, but either way he exploited them by dropping the Plagueis story and telling Anakin he could save Padme, knowing that it was a bait and switch and that he didn’t actually know how to do what Plagueis did. Whoops, I know you just helped me kill Mace Windu, but no refunds.

JadedSkywalker said:

What I don’t get is Luke had character development in the OT and why was it so difficult for Lucas to do the same for Anakin and also connect it to the original, like the speech Obi-Wan gave about Luke’s father in Star Wars.

You had Anakin as kind and generous in Episode I. But once you see him in episode II he is already a sullen asshole. Completely unlikable, and he never obeys his masters. I suppose that is supposed to make him look like a maverick, like the fact he openly marries a woman in secret against his Jedi wows. so, Lucas can do the dumb forbidden romance thing.

I don’t like the Padme pushed Anakin to the dark side because of love. So, if he died a celibate monk like Rian’s version of Luke Skywalker he never would have been Darth Vader? Go to a monastery and meditate Anakin. Or play politics in the Jedi council, don’t love a flesh and blood woman.

I honestly hate the chosen one thing because it makes him fated to be Vader, he had no choice he started as a slave, he ended as a slave. He could have chosen to not be evil.

Giving him a leadership role in Clone Wars and making him a Jedi master without the rank does expand the character. But it does not fit the prequel, but nor does Darth Maul surviving. And Ahsoka does not even appear in the movies, as in she never existed.

I also don’t like how the Jedi get younglings separate them from their parent’s and allow no familiar bond. They allow no attachments, this is very unnatural and why Anakin is so messed up, he grew up without a mother and father. He was surrounded by a monastic order and giving mantras. And taught how to use a laser sword. But not how to master his fear, not how to relate to other human beings. His entire life is stunted he never grows. He merely has power levels like he is Goku or something. They are training him for what? Until the Sith were revealed, the Jedi didn’t have a standing army and no formal conflict with other force users. What did they need martial skills for. training him to be a deadly assassin and hoping he doesn’t turn his blade on them, or become a Ronin or a Sith.

Anakin probably should not have been trained if he lacked basic empathy, or he lacked emotional maturity. Never mind being a soldier of the Republic like Palpatine’s sword. Give a young man power, teach him to kill and fight in a war. Act surprised when he turns rogue. All the while you’ve been distrusting of him and afraid of his growing power. And you keep telling him he is the chosen one. You make sure the rules don’t apply to him, and he is too big to fail.

The star pupil of Kenobi. The hubris of Kenobi is absolutely legend. I thought I could instruct him just as well as Yoda, my pride had devastating consequences for the Galaxy. Obi-Wan in the Return of the Jedi novelization.

When Yoda tells Anakin not to mourn or miss Padme that was straight up BS. No wonder he was easy putty in Sidious hands. He should just have left the order behind and all their false platitudes. Why didn’t he leave with Padme to raise his children in peace. Let the Jedi rot. There is no need to save the Galaxy from the Sith if Anakin never shifted the balance in their favor. No need to be a chosen one. The Empire couldn’t have come into being without Vader helping it. Or the Jedi being insipid and wrong. With all their discussions and endless politics. They have a complete inability to act, and when they finally did they were maneuvered by Palpatine like pawns in a game of chess.

I’m not a prequel lover by any means but a lot of this isn’t quite accurate. In addition to a dumb forbidden love thing, the Padme issue is supposed to be about the dangers of fear and jealousy. It’s not really bad that Anakin fell in love or got married, it’s that he let his passion cloud his judgment, so he got carried away and manipulated. Like you said he really could have left at any time, but he was also ambitious and power hungry. His desire to save people from death overlapped with “I’m going to be the most powerful Jedi ever” and getting offended that he wasn’t a trusted master. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too.

The Jedi do train people to master their fear, that’s part of the point. They can relate to others and generally don’t turn out messed up. Obi Wan has friends and likes to drink. Anakin was just written/directed as a weirdo.

The Jedi obviously have martial training because they’re constantly going on dangerous missions. That’s the point of the lightsaber, you can use it to block blaster bolts. In a world of guns it’s a defensive weapon. Fighting other people with lightsabers is secondary if they aren’t around.

Going by what is actually portrayed on screen, the Jedi were pretty much right about everything and it was Anakin’s own fault for not following the rules. Their main flaw is that they were written as really stupid and missed obvious information in the Attack of the Clones conspiracy plot.

This is insanely beautiful and I appreciate SnooPac for sharing it.

Wicketthewarrick said:

Vladius said:

Wicketthewarrick, honest question, how old are you?

i wasn´t trolling i was serious

So was I

Wicketthewarrick, honest question, how old are you?

skywatson said:

Oh wow, I love how you laid this out—it’s such a sharp observation! You’re absolutely right, Leia’s dynamic with Vader in A New Hope is electric. She’s basically the only person in the galaxy who talks to him like he’s just some guy in a cape, and it makes her feel fearless and powerful in a way Luke doesn’t quite achieve until much later.

It’s kind of wild that after setting up that kind of energy, the OT basically drops it. Like you said, the torture scene alone should’ve had ripple effects later—imagine the dramatic weight if Leia had ever gotten to directly confront Vader about Alderaan or her personal suffering. That would’ve been brutal and amazing. Instead, her arc shifts to being Han’s counterpart and Luke’s emotional anchor, while Vader’s story becomes solely about Luke. Totally makes sense narratively, but it leaves that raw Leia/Vader thread dangling.

And YES—that carbonite chamber moment is so subtle but it’s there, that little non-verbal exchange where they seem to recognize each other’s strength. Almost feels like the last gasp of what could have been.

Honestly, I think you nailed it calling this one of the biggest “missed opportunities” of the trilogy. Leia vs. Vader had all the potential to be this emotionally explosive subplot. Instead… Ewoks. 😂

Would you have wanted her confrontation with Vader to happen in ROTJ alongside Luke’s, or would you picture it as its own thing, maybe in a different “Episode 7” if Lucas hadn’t compressed the story?

Stop writing posts with LLMs

Broom Kid said:

I think the Last Jedi communicated its main ideas pretty effectively, I also think at this point the whole conversation about the film and what it did/didn’t do, and the metatextual aspect of discussion the discussions, has so thoroughly overwhelmed it, to where anything about the film is destined to get sucked into a timelocked field of battle that starts around January 2018 and encompasses the rest of that year.

It’s literally like when The Doctor trapped Gallifrey in a 3D painting - that’s The Last Jedi at this point. It’s a very well made movie, easily the closest thing IN the sequel trilogy to a Lucasian story, (and people keep sidestepping/avoiding this aspect - Last Jedi the only story Lucas actually liked and spoke well of - not just in the prequel trilogy, but really across the whole of the output post-sale) and you basically cannot engage with it past a certain point or you get hauled into a timeloop where it never stopped being 2018 and everyone’s basically waiting to indulge the ritual exercise and call-and-response prompts they all know by heart now.

The Acolyte, however - I kinda tried to address/rectify this to some degree in my own edit: My belief is that show ended up getting compromised on the way from pitch to realized show mostly BECAUSE the idea that there was going to be a dark-side focused show that unambiguously shone a light on the Jedi as “not all that good, honestly” got kiboshed. So the show got watered down, and watered down, and the idea of a revenge story against Jedi who overstepped and deserved what they got in return… turned into a weird wishy-washy, mealy-mouth “mystery” whose POV got so muddied it basically became a mild sort of paean to “fence-straddling” as a valid lens to look through.

They HAD a show about intolerant cops covering up their own crime and the victims of that crime getting their payback. And instead they tried to make it weird apologia for the intolerant cops and their system of policing as a whole. Which was weird, because it’s not like this was a real-world institution. The Jedi don’t exist, and huge parts of the fictional universe literally DEPEND on that fake institution collapsing on itself due to corruption/hubris/disconnection from humanity. It made the show severely compromised as dramatic storytelling. Like the people making it were TOLD at some point that what’s important wasn’t even really the story, it was the sanctity of the not-real institution at its center. It wound up being a show without a country, for lack of a better term.

But then again - I think a lot of conversations about these shows/movies would be a lot less fraught in general if the underlying implication WASN’T that Star Wars is more good than bad (it isn’t) and that the stakes for each new entry WEREN’T sky high box-office/ratings/critical triumphs in the top 5% of anything else that’s ever been made, because I honestly think that’s beyond silly at this point. It’s just making it hard to actually enjoy and appreciate these stories for what they are when we’re constantly holding an artificial (and honestly incorrect) standard for minimm quality up as baseline.

It’s okay that about half of all Star Wars is frankly, not good. It’s fine. It’s not a massive insult, and it’s also not a new thing, either. It’s always been like this, and so many of the arguments that break out tend to break out because the people having them refuse to engage with it on anything other than All Or Nothing stakes.

Even if you hypothetically take TLJ out of 2018 and put it in a vacuum with no culture war politics and no preconceived notions about Disney, The Force Awakens, etc. it’s not good. It’s technically nice and has some neat cinematography and visuals, and Mark Hamill and Adam Driver put in some decent performances, but that’s about all. Certain segments like Canto Bight are downright ugly. Subplots go nowhere. Character actions don’t make sense or seem designed to be unsatisfying (I don’t just mean Luke.) Hypothetically if it wasn’t a Star Wars movie I don’t know how good it would be considered, but it also depends a lot on the Star Wars branding to give weight to what happens in it (Yoda showing up for example.) I don’t want to re-litigate all of this right now though. You’ve heard it all before.

I haven’t watched The Acolyte but based on everything I’ve heard about it, the message was picked up by the audience just fine and it wasn’t really messed with at all. The Jedi weren’t meant to be complete bad guys, just “bad guys to the bad guys” and antagonists, as well as authority figures, with the understanding that Star Wars is about fighting authority figures. The Media Literate people flexed their Media Literacy and figured it out pretty easily.

I think the issue people have with more than half of Star Wars not being good is that it could have been left alone and stayed good. Even if you don’t like Return of the Jedi like a lot of people, 2/3 great movies is an extremely good rate, and for most people it’s 2.5/3 or 3/3. Then if you weren’t interested in EU books or video games or comics, you just didn’t bother, and it was out of sight, out of mind. Now we get major movies and TV shows with budgets in the high millions pushed in our faces regularly as the biggest thing on the planet, overpriced theme parks, and constant churn that you’re expected to keep up with. Yes, that’s “okay”. It’s not illegal or anything. It’s not going to kill anyone. You can just walk away. But it makes sense to think fondly of a simpler time when it was 2/3, 2.5/3, 3/3, plus maybe bonus extras, vs. 1753/5000 or whatever.

BedeHistory731 said:

Vladius said:

To bring in a little more controversy (since apparently my posts rile people up for entertainment value and generate performative “who cares” posts from people who clearly care), Luke is the “Ghost of Kyiv” from early 2022.

Eh, I really don’t care and I find it amusing that you put so much effort into this.

What kind of insane freak would talk about Star Wars on a Star Wars forum? In a thread asking for thoughts about Star Wars no less. Wild stuff. Better make a snarky comment that adds nothing like a redditor

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Dagenspear said:

Vladius said:

I wasn’t talking about you.

But I’m questioning why it matters that other people think these things about it.

Because it shows how the prequels failed to communicate the story, and why their legacy continues to make the setting worse. This mainstream interpretation of events is directly responsible for The Last Jedi and The Acolyte and lots of other bad EU stories, and like I’ve been saying, retroactively damages the original trilogy. I think it has some real life consequences as well but I won’t get into that.

Actually, the core message of The Last Jedi is that all of Luke’s criticisms of the Jedi were wrong. Luke is supposed to go through a redemption arc in the film. He eventually realizes that hiding was a mistake, that not confronting Kylo was a mistake, and that everything he said about the Jedi was nonsense. By the end, he even says he won’t be the last Jedi, which implies that he has realized he was mistaken about the Jedi. The problem is that the movie is so poorly written, and Rian Johnson did such a bad job, that Luke’s entire redemption arc barely comes across.

As for the old EU, most of the stories set in the Prequel era portray the Jedi as heroic and noble. At worst, you might find the occasional criticism of the no-marriage rule, but overall the picture you get is of the Jedi being selfless and admirable, even during the Prequel era. In fact, the EU fandom is full of people who share that view of the Jedi, precisely because most of the stories from that period tend to present them as fundamentally good people. The only real exception would be the Republic Commando novels, but those books were never particularly popular outside of hardcore Mandalorian fans.

You’re right that it tries to have its cake and eat it too because the movie refuses to commit to anything, but most of the messaging is never actually refuted. Luke’s role is reinterpreted as being about how important the Jedi were as a symbol or a noble lie, which is why he helps through a projected image instead of actually fighting. Oh sure, they never were the real heroes… but people thought they were, and it’s really the thought that counts. Even if they suck, at the end of the day, they’re helpful for inspiring the proles to become Rebels and inspiring kids with brooms.

To bring in a little more controversy (since apparently my posts rile people up for entertainment value and generate performative “who cares” posts from people who clearly care), Luke is the “Ghost of Kyiv” from early 2022.

NFBisms said:

Vladius said:
I think it has some real life consequences as well but I won’t get into that.

Always amused by the chip on your shoulder about this topic, but I do think this would be interesting to hear!

That’s why I won’t talk about it. You can probably infer if you’ve already read all my other posts for your amusement.

KumoNin said:

Vladius said:

I’m sure you already know why it sucks but you feel the need to be a contrarian like Mike does. There are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about it.

I’ve not seen one convincing argument for “why it sucks” that cancels out all the ways in which it’s great. And we won’t get into it here. Mike’s reflection on what he found interesting about the show upon reevaluation does not sound the least bit contrarian to me. In fact, it’s entirely consistent with somebody who has both 1) made a career out of cynical criticism of late-stage franchise entries, while refusing to weaponise “woke”, and also 2) has an understanding of storytelling and theme and picks up on these things. I understand that not every show is for everyone and that’s okay, but this take that no one can possibly enjoy a critically acclaimed piece of media unless they’re either dumb or a shill or purposefully contrarian is just wacky.

He literally “weaponizes woke” within the same video not 10 minutes earlier, taking potshots at representation and DEI and lesbians, even when that isn’t a sufficient reason why any of the sequels are bad, and bizarrely pinning it specifically on Rian Johnson like there wasn’t anyone else involved and he was the one initiating it. You’ll remember he also did this with Samuel Jackson being Mace Windu back in the day.

You can tell just watching the video that he’s put off by the other people criticizing it. He doesn’t want to be associated with anyone who complains about Ki Adi Mundi’s age for example, because that’s too petty for him. He’s embarrassed by the deep dive youtube complainer critic industry that he created. So he takes the common braindead take people have whenever something bad comes out, “at least it did something different.” It’s completely incoherent because he then explains how it’s not different at all and it’s very similar to the prequels, which he ostensibly hates. He even knows that the media are going to do the same rehab job on it they did on the prequels, again, and makes fun of it (“Gen Alpha are reevaluating the Acolyte”) He knows that it’s bad but he defends it purely on the grounds that the stereotypical fans don’t like it.

Dagenspear said:

Vladius said:

I wasn’t talking about you.

But I’m questioning why it matters that other people think these things about it.

Because it shows how the prequels failed to communicate the story, and why their legacy continues to make the setting worse. This mainstream interpretation of events is directly responsible for The Last Jedi and The Acolyte and lots of other bad EU stories, and like I’ve been saying, retroactively damages the original trilogy. I think it has some real life consequences as well but I won’t get into that.

KumoNin said:

Vladius said:

because it sucks

What a comprehensive refutation!

Mike’s take on the Acolyte is incredibly based (for a cynical old alcoholic /j)

I’m sure you already know why it sucks but you feel the need to be a contrarian like Mike does. There are plenty of posts here and elsewhere about it.

Huge miss for Mike.
*Starts out as performatively anti-woke about the sequels and then blames anti-woke for why people don’t like The Acolyte.
*Complains about the “complain about movies on YouTube” industry that he created, with no self awareness.
*Doesn’t grasp that all the “the prequels are underrated/secretly genius” people are in full agreement with him about the Jedi in the prequels, they just think it was intentional. Yes, they know the Jedi are (supposedly) a creepy cult conspiracy that kidnaps and brainwashes kids to have no emotions. They hate the Acolyte in spite of that because it sucks, not because “it was too different” or because it was too similar to the prequels. They’re super invested in Ki Adi Mundi BECAUSE he’s a scumbag with some kind of clone wars flamethrower war crime meme and he’s clueless about the Sith existing.
*Craps on people who were into the expanded universe again, like the actual fans who read books about the original trilogy heroes having adventures in the 90s were somehow beneath him and beneath all the modern “elite” Disney+ subscribers. You would think at this point he would understand that they were never the problem, but he just can’t resist the old stereotypes.

Dagenspear said:

Vladius said:

Just an example of how deeply this set in, here’s an average fan youtube channel with a poll - Did Anakin need to destroy the Jedi to restore balance to the Force?

57% yes, 43% no

https://imgur.com/a/ien7kbi

The most upvoted comments on it have some correct information but here’s a sampling of some other comments, all stuff that I’ve talked about before. This isn’t a handful of people, it’s the mainstream view, no matter how many times you explain it another way.

“The mere existence of Jedi and/or Sith throws the force out of balance, destroying either wont fix anything, you’d have to destroy both”

"Before the Jedi and Sith, the Je’daii Order existed, centered on the planet Tython. The Je’daii embraced both the light and dark sides of the Force, a balance that would later be split, forming the Jedi and Sith Orders.

The ideal state of true balance is where the Force flows naturally, and no one side, light or dark, dominates or seeks to control it."

“I think it’s an obvious yes. The sith were severely outnumbered and outgunned before Anakin did what he did. Idgaf what George says - balance cannot be achieved by destroying one side of the equation. Balance is the same amount of power being used for good and evil, seeing as evil is the only thing that gives good context at all.”

“Anakin destroying the Jedi was more likely a punishment by the force itself as a result of them becoming to political and moving away from the ways of what the force wanted them to be.”

“Kind of funny how restoring balance to the force involved killing everyone on the light and the dark.”

“How could there ever be balance when there were hundreds of jedi and only 2 sith?”

“The jedi order was in the Tens of thousand and there was legitimately only 1-2 sith at one time with less then 5 people waiting in the wings for someone to betray someone.”

“Both sides were too extreme and flawed.”

“The Jedi Order stagnated, the council thought nothing could touch them, and fell for their own dogma.”

“Yes . They were weak , negligent , ineffective , clueless . List goes on . They needed a new start . Unfortunately change was painful”

“You have to remember that it’s widely believed that Anakin would’ve never fell to the dark side if Qui-Gon didn’t die. In the prophecy, all he needed to do was kill Palpatine to bring balance to the force but Qui-Gon’s death just triggered a different timeline for how that was going to happen. So no, the Jedi didn’t need to die.”

“They needed a reset but not pure destruction. But their ways were so unbelievably flawed and genuinely stupid.”

"I think a Jedi Order that let Anakin and Dooku fall to the Dark Side and drove Ahsoka away is an order in decline and irredeemably indoctrinated.

The whole point of the prequels was to show that the Jedi were too caught up in being Jedi and not serving the Force."

“With the way Jedi were during the prequels it was probably a good idea for a hard reset”

I don’t know why that should matter that much to me. It doesn’t change what I think happens in the movies. Why would it change how I see them? Seems like a ‘trying to outright blame others for the mistakes of characters we like or sympathize with’ type of thing to me.

I wasn’t talking about you.

I hope you know I was being sarcastic and making fun of the hordes of people saying that unironically right now

Mocata said:

JadedSkywalker said:
For some its the Saga of Darth Vader, they see Hayden Christensen as the icon.

Groan. I get that the actor himself has seen warmer reception recently, but any new Vader stuff is just key jangling, especially in recent streaming shows. Which I guess these fans are okay with despite the same Disney source.

Dude he’s the Chosen One and he mastered both sides of the Force and can switch between them whenever he wants, he replaced the Father

Just an example of how deeply this set in, here’s an average fan youtube channel with a poll - Did Anakin need to destroy the Jedi to restore balance to the Force?

57% yes, 43% no

https://imgur.com/a/ien7kbi

The most upvoted comments on it have some correct information but here’s a sampling of some other comments, all stuff that I’ve talked about before. This isn’t a handful of people, it’s the mainstream view, no matter how many times you explain it another way.

“The mere existence of Jedi and/or Sith throws the force out of balance, destroying either wont fix anything, you’d have to destroy both”

"Before the Jedi and Sith, the Je’daii Order existed, centered on the planet Tython. The Je’daii embraced both the light and dark sides of the Force, a balance that would later be split, forming the Jedi and Sith Orders.

The ideal state of true balance is where the Force flows naturally, and no one side, light or dark, dominates or seeks to control it."

“I think it’s an obvious yes. The sith were severely outnumbered and outgunned before Anakin did what he did. Idgaf what George says - balance cannot be achieved by destroying one side of the equation. Balance is the same amount of power being used for good and evil, seeing as evil is the only thing that gives good context at all.”

“Anakin destroying the Jedi was more likely a punishment by the force itself as a result of them becoming to political and moving away from the ways of what the force wanted them to be.”

“Kind of funny how restoring balance to the force involved killing everyone on the light and the dark.”

“How could there ever be balance when there were hundreds of jedi and only 2 sith?”

“The jedi order was in the Tens of thousand and there was legitimately only 1-2 sith at one time with less then 5 people waiting in the wings for someone to betray someone.”

“Both sides were too extreme and flawed.”

“The Jedi Order stagnated, the council thought nothing could touch them, and fell for their own dogma.”

“Yes . They were weak , negligent , ineffective , clueless . List goes on . They needed a new start . Unfortunately change was painful”

“You have to remember that it’s widely believed that Anakin would’ve never fell to the dark side if Qui-Gon didn’t die. In the prophecy, all he needed to do was kill Palpatine to bring balance to the force but Qui-Gon’s death just triggered a different timeline for how that was going to happen. So no, the Jedi didn’t need to die.”

“They needed a reset but not pure destruction. But their ways were so unbelievably flawed and genuinely stupid.”

"I think a Jedi Order that let Anakin and Dooku fall to the Dark Side and drove Ahsoka away is an order in decline and irredeemably indoctrinated.

The whole point of the prequels was to show that the Jedi were too caught up in being Jedi and not serving the Force."

“With the way Jedi were during the prequels it was probably a good idea for a hard reset”