So... The Clone Wars "movie"... — Page 2

TMBTM said:

I remember the episode with the betrayal of a Rodian leader, that was very reminiscent of Lando's character in ESB. There are tons of little lines, and situations, that ring a bell of the OT in that show (okay that does not make it as good as the OT, but it's fun enough to watch the show IMO). Even the droid army and their "Rodger Rodger" sounds silly but in a way that you feel that the writers know it's silly, and want to play with it (and even laugh AT it). I feel like it's really a try to reunite the "prequels kids" (don't forget it's a kids show) and their "OT parents.

 

That said I did not see the "movie" yet. I was aware that it was just a pilot for the TV series and so not really made for the big screen.

I didn't find the Rodian leader the slightest bit reminiscent of Lando. You can have an old friend leader who betrays you to your enemies in all sorts of stories. Just because it has a basic element of story in common with the OT doesn't mean it is genuinely reminsicent of the OT. And yeah they can throw in lines or story bits that echo the OT, but that doesn't mean the overall product is at all reminiscent of the OT. No offense meant, but your sort of attitude just looks to me like desperately scrambling for scraps so you can say "Here, I got a bit that's like the OT." All these things are superficial. They don't dictate the overall flavor or mentality or nature of the show.

The OT was a very heartfelt classic story with deep emotions, characters that make a strong connection with the audience, vivid strongly realized imagination and a 70s-80s feel. This show is a fairly amiable but shallow modern-feeling fairly bland piece of work without a strong imaginative vision and with only one regular character who makes any sort of real connection (Ashoka). The OT existed in an unpretentious universe. This show builds on the prequels' envisioning the Star Wars universe as a place full of pretentious bullshit, such as the Jedi being a bunch of posers. In the OT Kenobi was wise not pretentious. In the prequels Kenobi had an edge of affectation to him and the same is true in the show. In the OT Yoda came out with some silly crap but he wasn't the arrogant poser he became in the prequels. In this show we've had Fisto, Luminara and Aayla coming off very artificial. This show lives in the prequels' interpretation of the Star Wars universe. And it's basically a show of shallow cheerful fun, which is what much of the Phantom Menace was. The OT's fun was of a different tone. This show shares the unreal unconvincing feel of the prequels, rather than the convincing imagination-brought-to-life feel of the OT. This show is very far from being like the OT, and no amount of throwing in OT references and items and OT-echoing lines and story elements will change that. The foundation mentality of this show is deeply at odds with the OT.

I think maybe people want too much for this to be like the OT.

Also, the Roger Roger robots are an element that is very strongly at odds with the OT. In the OT the villains weren't a joke like they were in the PT and this show. The robots are bloody annoying.

DarkFather said:

I said it was not reminiscent of the OT. There's a difference.

No. There isn't. If something is reminiscent of something else, it has something in common with what it's reminiscent of.

Your picture did not prove it was reminsicent of the OT

Yes. It did.

The picture contains things specifically and distinctively in common with ESB especially.

rem·i·nis·cent (rm-nsnt)

adj.

1. Having the quality of or containing reminiscence.

2. Inclined to engage in reminiscence.

3. Tending to recall or suggest something in the past

reminiscent - serving to bring to mind

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion, because it only gives a very bare interpretation of the word. In the real world "reminiscent" is used a variety of ways. In the way I'm using it I'm not talking about "oh here's a star destroyer that reminds me of the OT", I'm talking about the overall nature of the show and whether THAT is reminiscent of the OT. Which is the only meaningful sort of being reminiscent to discuss here. Who cares about little details, it's the overall nature of the thing that matters. And the overall nature of the show is NOT reminiscent of the OT. So the show is not reminiscent of the OT in any way that counts.

As such you can have all the star destroyers in common with the OT that you like but the show is still not meaningfully reminiscent of the OT. And the picture of a star destroyer certainly did not prove it was meaningfully reminiscent.

Really, by the standard of being reminiscent that you're using, the prequels would be reminscent of the OT because they have lightsabers and jedi and Ian McDiarmaid and spaceships and troopers like the imperial ones in the OT and a character called Kenobi and a character called Anakin and Yoda and a guy in a suit like Boba Fett with the name Fett. But the prequels are for the most part not meaningfully reminiscent of the OT. There's no point in talking about a level of being reminiscent like that. What's worth talking about is whether the thing overall is like the OT. And the prequels weren't and this show isn't. And when you address the topic of whether the show is reminiscent of the OT, it's quite reasonable for people to assume you're talking about whether the overall show is seriously reminiscent of the overall OT, not whether there are some details in common.

And I shouldn't have had to explain all that to you.

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion

You mean it's of no help to your case.

No, I mean it's not any help to you in understanding what I'm saying.

They aren't "little details", they're heavily reoccuring visuals in the series.

To imply that visuals aren't truly important is truly ludicrous.

Here's another to stew on: the Republic clones mounting attacks on Separatist ships is very reminiscent of the Battle of Yavin, in ways that the prequel "dogfights" never could be.

 

 

Continuing to deny that the striking similarities are meaningful is a type of stubborness that will quickly rob your opinion of any credibility it once had.

By that standard the prequels must be significantly reminiscent of the OT. And they're not. Yes they are little details, no matter how often they recur, because despite them the show still manages to have a vastly different feel from the OT. Obviously those "striking similarities" of yours can't count for much if they fail to result in the show feeling anything like the OT. And they fail because the foundation mentality of the show is totally different from the OT. If those "striking similarities" were so meaningful the show wouldn't feel like prequel lite.

It's not loose details like you've listed that determine whether or not something is like the OT, it's the overall mentality. Which is not like the OT in the case of this show.

And don't talk to me about credibility. You're the one that tried to defeat an argument through narrow thinking and misunderstanding. Just because someone doesn't accept your view doesn't mean their view doesn't have "credibility".

Here's another to stew on: the Republic clones mounting attacks on Separatist ships is very reminiscent of the Battle of Yavin, in ways that the prequel "dogfights" never could be.

Sorry, it didn't remind me particularly strongly of the battle of Yavin. There was a totally different feel to the battle of Yavin. This is just a cheap imitation, not something of the same variety. There is a similarity, but it doesn't feel like the same thing at all. Which is why the show with all its similarities fails to feel remotely like the OT. It is prequel-lite, not a return to the OT tradition.

Plus, a scene having some limited similarity to something in the OT does not mean the overall show feels like the OT. You're still dealing in loose details rather than the overall mentality and feel.

And I shouldn't have had to explain all that to you.

Don't make me laugh. ;)

While you're busy laughing maybe you can note that you're still failing to understand what I'm saying. You're quite simply not getting my thinking. And not making any effort to, as far as I can tell. I think I'm done trying to explain it to you.

okay everyone, i'm posting something to help us out here...

No offense meant, but your sort of attitude just looks to me like desperately scrambling for scraps so you can say "Here, I got a bit that's like the OT."

Well, that's exactely what I intended to do. What I feel is that all those little things put together brings a kind of OT feel to some parts. And don't tell me that I am wrong, cause I don't say that I am right, I just say that's how I FEEL the show. Just my opinion.

And the Rodian not only betrays the Jedi, but Padme is taken as prisonner, just like Han, then the Rodian begins to feel that the Federation is going too far and finaly help the Jedi, if I remember well. Exactely like Lando in ESB.

Again I am not telling that the show success in being as good as the OT (rehashing a character development from the OT is not that smart after all). It's just that when I watch Clone Wars, I can feel that the writers try to please everyone, including the old fans.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

That dictionary definition is no help to the discussion, because it only gives a very bare interpretation of the word. In the real world "reminiscent" is used a variety of ways.

 

In general, this kind of thinking simply doesn't work. If this were a true statement, then communication would be nearly impossible. Words are not to be interpreted, words have a very specific meaning. Sometimes multiple meanings and uses, but still, very specific in those meanings and uses.

If I were free to interpret words how I felt fit, or at least as I thought they mean, rather than what they really mean, then my using of that word in conversation with other people would almost invariably cause a breakdown of communication (as exemplified in the discussion at hand). In the real world, the word "reminiscent" has a strictly defined meaning, and that meaning was summed up quite well in the dictionary definition by DF.

Not that I am taking sides on the issue at hand, as I think it is a rather absurd sort of debate. It is just whenever someone decides to take liberties with the English language and the definition of words I cringe a bit.

 

 

I was using reminiscent in the sense of "meaningfully reminiscent" or "the whole is reminiscent", as opposed to the sense of "some bit is reminiscent". It's a valid use of the word. There are different ways things can be reminiscent and all versions I have mentioned fit in with the dictionary definition. No matter how much you follow dictionary definition, interpretation is still important. The reality is that very many words are interpreted. That's how language works. It's not a simple clean cut thing. It's messy and complicated.

skyjedi2005 said:

Still it is not really trying to be on par with the oot, it is a seperate thing really An EU offshoot childrens show.

 I'm not so sure about that. I think Lucas intends it to be as much canon as the films. And he'd say the films are for kids too.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I was using reminiscent in the sense of "meaningfully reminiscent" or "the whole is reminiscent", as opposed to the sense of "some bit is reminiscent". It's a valid use of the word. There are different ways things can be reminiscent and all versions I have mentioned fit in with the dictionary definition. No matter how much you follow dictionary definition, interpretation is still important. The reality is that very many words are interpreted. That's how language works. It's not a simple clean cut thing. It's messy and complicated.

 

I don't want to go about debating linguistics, but in reality language is usually pretty clean cut (though obviously, there are exceptions, but most of these exceptions are nullified by context), it only becomes messy and complicated when people decide not to play by the rules. 

You have idiot thinkers like Bill Clinton ("depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is", "depends on how you define 'alone'") who seems to think words are open to individual interpretation, but they really are not. "Is" in the English language always means "is", you cannot interpret it any other way.

If we really had to go around pondering how exactly we are to interpret the word "is" every time someone uses it in a sentence, then we'd still be walking around in animals skins, being awed at the existence of fire, and inventing wheels (in other words, we'd have a hard time progressing). But, amazingly, I can pick up a novel written by a man who died over a hundred years before I was born, and despite some linguistic evolution that may have taken place between his time and mine, I will be able to read it come out with the same story everyone else who has read that book has come out with. Sounds pretty clean cut to me.

"I was using reminiscent in the sense of "meaningfully reminiscent" or "the whole is reminiscent", as opposed to the sense of "some bit is reminiscent". It's a valid use of the word."

 

"Meaningfully reminiscent", "wholly reminiscent", "somewhat reminiscent" now we are adding qualifiers to these words to indicate the degree of reminiscence. Yes, they are all valid uses of the word, nobody would argue otherwise. However, these qualifiers seemed to be heavily lacking from the conversation that was going on not long ago. I suppose we can take this to mean that the meaning or interpretation of the word "reminiscent" was never an issue, but the degree of reminiscence was were the problem lie.

Either way, reminiscence is a rather relative thing (not in its definition or interpretation, but in the feelings of the person using the word). While I may say Battlestar Galactica is reminicent of Star Wars someone else may disagree and say, "You're completely looney! They are absolutely nothing alike!" Regardless of how this fellow feels on the matter, a fact remains: Battlestar Galactica reminds me of Star Wars. Therefore to me, BSG is reminiscent of SW, while to the other guys, BSG is not at all reminicent of SW. In other words, a rather fruitless debate.

There can be different interpretations of language. Different words have different connotations to different people. 

 I don't want to go about debating linguistics, but in reality language is usually pretty clean cut

I don't agree.

Octorox said:

There can be different interpretations of language. Different words have different connotations to different people.

C3PX said:

Again, not if language is to mean anything.

Language means something, when we decide not to follow its rules we only make ourselves out to be idiots, and destroy our ability to communicate in the process.

 Again, I don't believe it's as simple and rigid as you believe.

But it's obvious we're not going to agree on this so I think it's best we just agree to disagree.

"Meaningfully reminiscent", "wholly reminiscent", "somewhat reminiscent" now we are adding qualifiers to these words to indicate the degree of reminiscence. Yes, they are all valid uses of the word, nobody would argue otherwise. However, these qualifiers seemed to be heavily lacking from the conversation that was going on not long ago. I suppose we can take this to mean that the meaning or interpretation of the word "reminiscent" was never an issue, but the degree of reminiscence was were the problem lie.

The qualifiers were missing because I would have thought they were unnecessary. When someone says the show is reminiscent of the OT I naturally assume that because they made a general statement what they mean is it is overall reminiscent in some significant way of the overall OT, not that some detail reminds them of some detail in the OT. And I assume they mean meaningfully reminiscent because why would they waste time bringing up an unmeaningful level of similarity? Pointing to a star destroyer interior and saying "Look, this is reminiscent of the OT!" seems so pointless to me. Of course a star destroyer interior will be a bit reminiscent of star destroyer interiors in the OT -it's obvious and doesn't need to be pointed out. But that similarity also has no bearing on the overall mentality of the show which determines what the show feels like. It doesn't make the overall flavor of the show reminiscent of the OT. The nature of the show is very different from the OT and next to that star destroyer interiors are small pointless details. Maybe when DarkFather brought up his star destroyer interior I should have gone "What the fuck? What are you bringing that up for? What's the relevance?" Because that's certainly what I felt. There's so much more to a show or film than the interiors of starships and if you're going to talk about the OT and a show being meaningfully similar you've got to have stuff that's much more all-encompassing than that. And what's the point in making a fuss about similarities between the show and the OT if you're not discussing a meaningful level of similarity?

Either way, reminiscence is a rather relative thing (not in its definition or interpretation, but in the feelings of the person using the word). While I may say Battlestar Galactica is reminicent of Star Wars someone else may disagree and say, "You're completely looney! They are absolutely nothing alike!" Regardless of how this fellow feels on the matter, a fact remains: Battlestar Galactica reminds me of Star Wars. Therefore to me, BSG is reminiscent of SW, while to the other guys, BSG is not at all reminicent of SW. In other words, a rather fruitless debate.

Well, at the root of it we weren't just talking about whether the show reminded us of the OT, we were talking about whether they were similar. Or at least that's what I was talking about. Level of reminiscence was being taken as evidence of similarity.

DarkFather said:

your view consists of "No, that's not like the OT just because I don't think it is.

You obviously missed this post in which I went into detail on the difference:

The OT was a very heartfelt classic story with deep emotions, characters that make a strong connection with the audience, vivid strongly realized imagination and a 70s-80s feel. This show is a fairly amiable but shallow modern-feeling fairly bland piece of work without a strong imaginative vision and with only one regular character who makes any sort of real connection (Ashoka). The OT existed in an unpretentious universe. This show builds on the prequels' envisioning the Star Wars universe as a place full of pretentious bullshit, such as the Jedi being a bunch of posers. In the OT Kenobi was wise not pretentious. In the prequels Kenobi had an edge of affectation to him and the same is true in the show. In the OT Yoda came out with some silly crap but he wasn't the arrogant poser he became in the prequels. In this show we've had Fisto, Luminara and Aayla coming off very artificial. This show lives in the prequels' interpretation of the Star Wars universe. And it's basically a show of shallow cheerful fun, which is what much of the Phantom Menace was. The OT's fun was of a different tone. This show shares the unreal unconvincing feel of the prequels, rather than the convincing imagination-brought-to-life feel of the OT. This show is very far from being like the OT, and no amount of throwing in OT references and items and OT-echoing lines and story elements will change that. The foundation mentality of this show is deeply at odds with the OT.

Perhaps you should read more carefully in the future.

your view consists of "No, that's not like the OT just because I don't think it is. And I'm not going to acknowledge any glaring, objective similarities that make the series what it is."

It gets soooo frustrating when somebody point blank refuses to understand something that's been explained to them. One more time, your "objective similarities" don't count for shit. Sure, they're there, so what. What's relevant to the question of whether the show is truly similar to the OT is the mentality of the show. And no, the mentality of the show is not similar. No amount of star destroyer interiors can change that. Battlestar Galactica has ships that look very like X-Wings but Battlestar Galactica sure isn't Star Wars. Battlestar Galactica has dogfights too but it's still not cut of the same cloth as the OT. These similarities are there but they don't make the two things on the overall similar, because they're not enough to do that.

DarkFather said:

Good to see that you've finally conceded, though.

I think you need to go back to your dictionary again. This time look up concede.

DarkFather said:

In the real world, the word "concede" has many definitions that go beyond the dictionary.

I think it was obvious to everyone that in this case, it meant: an attempt to end the discussion because you knew you were wrong, knew I was right, and had little confidence left in your argument to continue.

No, actually I tried to end the discussion because I saw it was likely to descend into us just chucking personal insults at each other and I wanted to avoid that. Plus I was sick of talking to you.

Clearly you interpreted it in a way that suited the needs of your ego. But as you can see from my posts above, my argument is doing quite well against yours. Yours is not helped by the fact that you seem dead set against understanding my point of view at all. So, as you see, I don't in fact lack confidence in my point of view. And to be honest, I see your point of view as a case of not seeing the big picture.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

It gets soooo frustrating when somebody point blank refuses to understand something that's been explained to them.

No kidding!

 

For anybody else following this discussion who is still uncertain as to whether they are allowed to interpret words for themselves or not, let me set the record strait from an academic perspective.

word noun (which means it is a person, a place, or a thing. In this case, it is a thing)

"a meaningful sound or combination of sounds that is a unit of language or its representation in a text"

Once words are open for personal interpretation, they cease to be meaningful units of language, and become rather useless.

Of course, another school of thought (seemingly) would say that the definition of "word" that I posted above is pointless, as that it is merely one interpretation of what a word is.

It's possible that people here don't mean anything as drastic as what you think they mean when they talk of interpreting words. As you saw above, what I meant by interpreting the word reminiscent did not in fact count by your definition as interpreting it -you counted it as merely an issue of degree of reminisence. So people here championing the interpretation of words may not be disagreeing wth you as much as you think.

Example re what I said above:

C3PX said:

"Meaningfully reminiscent", "wholly reminiscent", "somewhat reminiscent" now we are adding qualifiers to these words to indicate the degree of reminiscence. Yes, they are all valid uses of the word, nobody would argue otherwise. However, these qualifiers seemed to be heavily lacking from the conversation that was going on not long ago. I suppose we can take this to mean that the meaning or interpretation of the word "reminiscent" was never an issue, but the degree of reminiscence was were the problem lie.

But I would still maintain that language and its uses are not as simple and clear cut as you seem to be saying. I have come across too many instances of subtlety and complexity and interpretation to believe that. But it's worth stressing that even there I may not be disagreeing with you as much as it may look like. I think it's possible that the area where I'm seeing complexity is not precisely the same area in which you're seeing things as clear cut. After all, no matter how much people hold to the meaning of words, there is incredible capacity for misunderstanding between human beings, particularly on the internet.