CatBus

DominicCobb said:

I’d totally accept a Battle of Wigglypants

Now you’re just flirting 😉

As for clones vs. Alderaan, this is where I really don’t get it. In my mind there’s no indication whatsoever that cloning is a completely ancient and defunct practice. I don’t know where you’re getting that idea from.

Well, clones are presented as from the time of lightsabers, which is presented as a dead and gone age. Grand Moff Tarkin, who probably has access to more data on the state of the universe than anyone, is certain the Jedi are all extinct but one. That age is over, even if a few relics remain. Lightsabers, the Old Republic, Clones–these are dusty old history book subjects (all presented as part of the same historical whole), barely a trace left in the present. Then we go through three films spanning several planets, and see evidence of a very few more lightsabers, but not a single clone.

That’s fine. I explained where I could, but I never intended to change anyone’s mind.

Would counter-examples help? Someone in the ST lists the major battles of the Rebellion: the Battle of Yavin, the Battle of Hoth, the Battle of Wigglypants, and the Battle of Endor. That’s how the Sith line strikes me. Then they talk about how they plan to retire to Alderaan when this is all over. Seems odd too, like the clones line seems to me. Yeah, maybe there really was a Battle of Wigglypants (offscreen), and maybe there are more than one planet named Alderaan, but just out there, without any attempt at explanation… it’s just a WTF line.

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins (haven’t seen R1). By “too many”, I mean they were:

1. not in any way necessary to advance the story or characters, and
2. more likely to cause a “WTF” reaction from moviegoers who have not committed the PT to memory, which I’d say is a sizeable contingent

As I understand it, there were a few PT references in the film that were just fine–I understand there were flags referencing the PT in one scene, and while those didn’t advance the story or plot, they did not trigger any WTF moments or trip up the viewer–so those are fine by me. On the other hand, needlessly mentioning the Sith (what the hell’s a Sith?) and Clones (weren’t they ancient history at the beginning of Star Wars? Why are they even relevant by the time Episode VII rolls around?)–those just needed to go.

What? Are you serious? Both are throwaway lines. Mentions that should only serve to build a larger, unknown universe for anyone who hasn’t seen the other films. Was mentioning the clone wars a “WTF” moment in the original film?

And who says clones are ancient history? Just because we don’t see them used in the OT doesn’t mean they aren’t still a possibility in the ST timeframe.

I am serious. In the “Sith/Empire/First Order” line, you’ve got two things already established as the Big Bad, and a wacky made up lispy name. One of those things was not like the others, and it definitely made me slow down and say “Wait, what did he say? Sith?”

Same with clones. Had the been any indication at all of clones being a real contemporary thing, no problem. But the last mention was three movies and a whole generation back, and even then it was approaching the age of legends. So the reaction on hearing that was “Wait, are those still around?” And then the movie kept going and it seemed the answer was no, actually we were just jerking you around.

The problem is that they should have been throwaway lines, but they jerked me right out of the movie trying to sort out their relevance. YMMV.

I don’t know man, that’s really pretty silly. Honestly doubt many others had the same reaction you did.

Maybe not. Nevertheless, both essentially booted me out of any sort of immersion in the film, and neither was in any way necessary, so I think it would’ve been better without either. In that respect, they’re really not any better than that shaggy Alf impersonator singing in ROTJ:SE, had that been the original cut of ROTJ.

Just when I thought you couldn’t get any sillier…

The Alf guy had a fair amount of screetime and literally yelled into the camera. That’s basically as bad as it gets.

“Perhaps leader Snoke should consider using a clone army.” Are you honestly saying that’s comparable to a '97 quality CGI effect taking up the whole screen and singing the worst song ever recorded?

In the sense that it pulls you right out of the movie, it’s exactly the same. In other senses, I freely admit Alf is worse.

As for Maz’s line, it’s literally two words - “the Sith.” Were you pulled out of the film when Han mentioned King Prana? Or when Rey mentioned the Irving Boys or Ducain? Because I still have no idea what those things are but they never jerk me out of the film when I watch it.

Of course not–talk about silly. Neither of those things are presented in a string of Very Serious Known Quantities as the wacky odd man out (like Sith), nor are they things that are known to the universe but terribly anachronistic in the way they’re presented (like clones). They’re just details of the larger world we don’t know about, like the original mention of the Clone Wars, or Captain Antilles.

Look, it’s clear you disagree. And that’s fine. May I disagree as well?

SilverWook said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins (haven’t seen R1). By “too many”, I mean they were:

1. not in any way necessary to advance the story or characters, and
2. more likely to cause a “WTF” reaction from moviegoers who have not committed the PT to memory, which I’d say is a sizeable contingent

As I understand it, there were a few PT references in the film that were just fine–I understand there were flags referencing the PT in one scene, and while those didn’t advance the story or plot, they did not trigger any WTF moments or trip up the viewer–so those are fine by me. On the other hand, needlessly mentioning the Sith (what the hell’s a Sith?) and Clones (weren’t they ancient history at the beginning of Star Wars? Why are they even relevant by the time Episode VII rolls around?)–those just needed to go.

What? Are you serious? Both are throwaway lines. Mentions that should only serve to build a larger, unknown universe for anyone who hasn’t seen the other films. Was mentioning the clone wars a “WTF” moment in the original film?

And who says clones are ancient history? Just because we don’t see them used in the OT doesn’t mean they aren’t still a possibility in the ST timeframe.

I am serious. In the “Sith/Empire/First Order” line, you’ve got two things already established as the Big Bad, and a wacky made up lispy name. One of those things was not like the others, and it definitely made me slow down and say “Wait, what did he say? Sith?”

Same with clones. Had the been any indication at all of clones being a real contemporary thing, no problem. But the last mention was three movies and a whole generation back, and even then it was approaching the age of legends. So the reaction on seeing that was “Wait, are those still around?” And then the movie kept going and it seemed the answer was no, actually we were just jerking you around.

The problem is that they should have been throwaway lines, but they jerked me right out of the movie trying to sort out their relevance. YMMV.

You do know Vader was called a Lord Of The Sith back in the day? I know for sure the Marvel comic used it. As kids, we didn’t really question why it wasn’t spoken in the film, but it was definitely in our lexicon back then.

Oh, I know there’s a EU out there. But I think it’s safe to say I’m not the only one for whom Star Wars starts and stops at the films. Well, and the Holiday Special. So I could probably have dealt with an Itchy reference.

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins (haven’t seen R1). By “too many”, I mean they were:

1. not in any way necessary to advance the story or characters, and
2. more likely to cause a “WTF” reaction from moviegoers who have not committed the PT to memory, which I’d say is a sizeable contingent

As I understand it, there were a few PT references in the film that were just fine–I understand there were flags referencing the PT in one scene, and while those didn’t advance the story or plot, they did not trigger any WTF moments or trip up the viewer–so those are fine by me. On the other hand, needlessly mentioning the Sith (what the hell’s a Sith?) and Clones (weren’t they ancient history at the beginning of Star Wars? Why are they even relevant by the time Episode VII rolls around?)–those just needed to go.

What? Are you serious? Both are throwaway lines. Mentions that should only serve to build a larger, unknown universe for anyone who hasn’t seen the other films. Was mentioning the clone wars a “WTF” moment in the original film?

And who says clones are ancient history? Just because we don’t see them used in the OT doesn’t mean they aren’t still a possibility in the ST timeframe.

I am serious. In the “Sith/Empire/First Order” line, you’ve got two things already established as the Big Bad, and a wacky made up lispy name. One of those things was not like the others, and it definitely made me slow down and say “Wait, what did he say? Sith?”

Same with clones. Had the been any indication at all of clones being a real contemporary thing, no problem. But the last mention was three movies and a whole generation back, and even then it was approaching the age of legends. So the reaction on hearing that was “Wait, are those still around?” And then the movie kept going and it seemed the answer was no, actually we were just jerking you around.

The problem is that they should have been throwaway lines, but they jerked me right out of the movie trying to sort out their relevance. YMMV.

I don’t know man, that’s really pretty silly. Honestly doubt many others had the same reaction you did.

Maybe not. Nevertheless, both essentially booted me out of any sort of immersion in the film, and neither was in any way necessary, so I think it would’ve been better without either. In that respect, they’re really not any better than that shaggy Alf impersonator singing in ROTJ:SE, had that been the original cut of ROTJ.

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins (haven’t seen R1). By “too many”, I mean they were:

1. not in any way necessary to advance the story or characters, and
2. more likely to cause a “WTF” reaction from moviegoers who have not committed the PT to memory, which I’d say is a sizeable contingent

As I understand it, there were a few PT references in the film that were just fine–I understand there were flags referencing the PT in one scene, and while those didn’t advance the story or plot, they did not trigger any WTF moments or trip up the viewer–so those are fine by me. On the other hand, needlessly mentioning the Sith (what the hell’s a Sith?) and Clones (weren’t they ancient history at the beginning of Star Wars? Why are they even relevant by the time Episode VII rolls around?)–those just needed to go.

What? Are you serious? Both are throwaway lines. Mentions that should only serve to build a larger, unknown universe for anyone who hasn’t seen the other films. Was mentioning the clone wars a “WTF” moment in the original film?

And who says clones are ancient history? Just because we don’t see them used in the OT doesn’t mean they aren’t still a possibility in the ST timeframe.

I am serious. In the “Sith/Empire/First Order” line, you’ve got two things already established as the Big Bad, and a wacky made up lispy name. One of those things was not like the others, and it definitely made me slow down and say “Wait, what did he say? Sith?”

Same with clones. Had the been any indication at all of clones being a real contemporary thing, no problem. But the last mention was three movies and a whole generation back, and even then it was approaching the age of legends. So the reaction on hearing that was “Wait, are those still around?” And then the movie kept going and it seemed the answer was no, actually we were just jerking you around.

The problem is that they should have been throwaway lines, but they jerked me right out of the movie trying to sort out their relevance. YMMV.

Darth Id said:

CatBus said:

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins

Really, I only noticed one: Mamzy’s line about "The Sith."
Apparently, some people thought Rilo Kiley’s suggestion of using “clones” was a PT reference, but really that line could have been in any SciFi/Fantasy movie.
What else was there?

Listed in the part you didn’t quote. I feel Clones was a PT reference because it was from that universe, but anachronistic within that universe.

FWIW, I felt TFA had too many PT tie-ins (haven’t seen R1). By “too many”, I mean they were:

1. not in any way necessary to advance the story or characters, and
2. more likely to cause a “WTF” reaction from moviegoers who have not committed the PT to memory, which I’d say is a sizeable contingent

As I understand it, there were a few PT references in the film that were just fine–I understand there were flags referencing the PT in one scene, and while those didn’t advance the story or plot, they did not trigger any WTF moments or trip up the viewer–so those are fine by me. On the other hand, needlessly mentioning the Sith (what the hell’s a Sith?) and Clones (weren’t they ancient history at the beginning of Star Wars? Why are they even relevant by the time Episode VII rolls around?)–those just needed to go.

TV’s Frink said:

Hey cool, David Fahrenthold won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting. Well deserved.

OTOH, Peggy Noonan won one for commentary, which is pretty baffling.

chyron8472 said:

I mean, it’s not all about white racists, or else Obama would have lost.

It’s worth reading the article. First of all racism was the main reason, but not the only reason. The data bears this out. And secondly, neither John McCain nor Mitt Romney were making explicit appeals to racists. To white supremacists, there really isn’t any difference between a black president and a white president who doesn’t think he’s inherently better than black people. So racists decided Romney/Obama on non-racial terms (economics), or sat it out.

chyron8472 said:

I wish someone could explain to me the appeal of Trump. Why the heck do people (still) like him? It’s like with Sarah Palin… there are people who like her, but WHY?!? I just can’t even.

1. He’s (supposedly) rich. No doubt about it, Americans love rich people and over-the-top opulence. Why? Because 1) You have to be inherently good to be rich (Calvinism), and 2) I wanna be like that someday and I can live vicariously through their success.
2. He’s a honey badger. Literally no shits to give about anything or anybody who’s not him. And it’s so entertaining that it’s easy to forget that this includes you.
3. He’s unpolished. Which is how his serial lying actually makes him seem more honest to his supporters.
4. He’s racist. It’s no coincidence he kicked off his Presidential exploration by becoming the world’s loudest birther, just as that movement was starting to reach maximum idiocy. And the hits just kept coming. And yes, this causes people to like him.
5. He’s unqualified. Every public official leaves a trail of political decisions you can criticize. He leaves a trail of bankruptcies, fraud lawsuits, and unpaid bills, but see reason #1 for why none of that matters. He was, in the mind of far too many, a blank slate. People literally thought there was no way to predict what he’d do, which was appealing. These were the people waiting for the “pivot to the general” and then waiting for the “pivot to acting presidential” and now still “giving him a fair chance” in spite of the ongoing pileup of evidence that he’s just as bad as everyone else predicted.

DominicCobb said:

CatBus said:

This article’s making the rounds, and making Democrats nervous:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

To break with tradition around here, I’ll announce that I’m mostly in agreement with this article. You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost. Not that talking about why you lost is politically easy either, but that’s another issue.

I pretty much agree, and I think I said as much back in November. Of course, it’s a complicated issue. The racism and the economics are intertwined - people losing their jobs are blaming immigrants and people who don’t like paying taxes are blaming minorities on welfare. So I think it makes sense to talk economics and try to shift the blame to where it really lies.

The problem with facing the racism head on, as Clinton found out, is people don’t really like being called deplorable. If Dems don’t want to keep being labeled elitist, it won’t really help to criticize the populace. That’s why Warren and Sanders went at it the way they did - if the Dems have any hope in winning back the votes they lost, they can’t afford to be calling those people bigots.

Agree it’s hard to talk about head-on, but disagree about Sanders really understanding. Warren maybe. But Sanders has had this particular blind spot for the twenty-odd years I’ve been following him. It’s just the way he views the world, and it’s really not that unusual.

CatBus said:

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost.

Which is why I believe Hillary had no hope. She still doesn’t understand why she lost, but continues to blame it entirely on Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia. Surely Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia had some part to play, but that doesn’t explain her losing so many swing states that Obama won handidly.

Oh, she knows how racial politics work (see the 2008 primary fight). I think for her it’s a matter of knowing but not being able to say so in a way that’s politically helpful. Basket of deplorables and all that–she had her finger right on it, but it was used against her. She’s not about to do that again.

White Northern Democrats and socialists tend to have a built-in blind spot for race. They view everything through the lenses of class, and see racial issues only as class issues distributed disproportionately–you fix class issues, and all race problems magically disappear. I love Bernie’s policies, but he’s got this bad. I think this may be the only issue I think Hillary’s got a better handle on.

EDIT: er, didn’t mean to self-quote, thought I was editing, not sure what happened.

chyron8472 said:

CatBus said:

You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost.

Which is why I believe Hillary had no hope. She still doesn’t understand why she lost, but continues to blame it entirely on Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia. Surely Comey, Wikileaks, and Russia had some part to play, but that doesn’t explain her losing so many swing states that Obama won handidly.

Oh, she knows how racial politics work (see the 2008 primary fight). I think for her it’s a matter of knowing but not being able to say so in a way that’s politically helpful. Basket of deplorables and all that–she had her finger right on it, but it was used against her. She’s not about to do that again.

TV’s Frink said:

I cannot get enough of this.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/06/steve-bannon-calls-jared-kushner-a-cuck-and-globalist-behind-his-back.html

Great way to hide your white supremacist vocabulary there Steve. Then again, this wasn’t in public, where he usually tones that angle down. I guess in private he’s a real Mensch. Übermensch, that is.

This article’s making the rounds, and making Democrats nervous:

https://theintercept.com/2017/04/06/top-democrats-are-wrong-trump-supporters-were-more-motivated-by-racism-than-economic-issues/

To break with tradition around here, I’ll announce that I’m mostly in agreement with this article. You can’t hope to win if you don’t understand why you lost. Not that talking about why you lost is politically easy either, but that’s another issue.

Warbler said:

CatBus said:

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

All they have to do is change the rules back before the next election.

Won’t this encourage the Dems to do the same thing when they get control of the Senate?

Not when, but if.

So you don’t think the Dems will ever regain control of the Senate?

In the short term, 2016 was the best opportunity for the Dems to retake the Senate. Have you seen the 2018 Senate map? That’s what I’d call a “Dems lose 5 seats” map. 2020 looks good for the Dems, but not good enough to come back from a deficit that big, so the earliest they need to worry about that is 2022. In the meantime, Republicans almost have enough legislatures to start monkeying with the Constitution directly, and repealing the 17th Amendment has always been a dare-to-dream Conservative longshot wishlist item. Once that’s done, the Dems can win all the votes they want in 2022 (and beyond) and still can’t take the Senate. It will be just like the House today, where all the pundits just assume it doesn’t matter how well the Dems do with the voters, the Republicans will retain control.

I think it unlikely that the 17th Amendment will get repealed. Remember, in order to do so, you have pass another amendment. To do that, it needs to pass no only Congress(where 2/3rds is needed), but also 3/4ths of the state legislatures(which means 38 of the states would have to pass it). Even if it were to pass. It would mean that the state governments themselves would pick the US Senators. Each state could decide to allow the voters to elect them or the state legislature could pick them(is the Dems controlled the majority of said state legislature, they would no doubt pick Dems to be that state’s US Senators). The Dems could still gain control of the Senate.

I’d certainly like to believe that an opposition party could someday take one of the branches of government, or one of the houses of the legislative branch. That’s pretty much the definition of a functional democracy.

Warbler said:

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

All they have to do is change the rules back before the next election.

Won’t this encourage the Dems to do the same thing when they get control of the Senate?

Not when, but if.

In the short term, 2016 was the best opportunity for the Dems to retake the Senate. Have you seen the 2018 Senate map? That’s what I’d call a “Dems lose 5 seats” map. 2020 looks good for the Dems, but not good enough to come back from a deficit that big, so the earliest they need to worry about that is 2022. In the meantime, Republicans almost have enough legislatures to start monkeying with the Constitution directly, and repealing the 17th Amendment has always been a dare-to-dream Conservative longshot wishlist item. Once that’s done, the Dems can win all the votes they want in 2022 (and beyond) and still can’t take the Senate. It will be just like the House today, where all the pundits just assume it doesn’t matter how well the Dems do with the voters, the Republicans will retain control.

Ryan McAvoy said:

CatBus said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

There are plenty of reasons to loathe Trumpy without making crap up.

If he backs up his words, and takes some positive decisive action to rid the world of a fiend who uses chemical weapons on innocent people, I will applaud him for it.

So said the people who thought W. was justified for going into Iraq. And how long did we have people over there? Oh wait, we still do.

I didn’t mean invade Syria.

But that is what it means. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So we just let Assad do what he likes?

As sad as it is to say, yeah, pretty much. However bad Assad is, he’s a lot better than Isis. The best we can hope for is when/if Assad and Russia have defeated Isis, he can be pressured into stepping down. Stalin was a monster too but when faced with something even worse, the west has to go with the “Enemy of my enemy, is my friend” rational. It’s all very depressing.

Actually Assad’s hold on power pretty much exists entirely at the pleasure of Putin. So there’s an alternate path, where you replace Assad with another Putin-friendly monster who simply hasn’t had the time or opportunity to get as much blood on his hands. The west can walk away calling it a win, because Assad is gone, Putin can walk away calling it a win, because it’s still their puppet. It could be another ten years before the new leader proves as bad or worse than Assad.

Yes, that’s what I was referring to when I said “he can be pressured into stepping down”. I think we agree… agree that it’s a horrible situation.

And I think it goes without saying, that helping refugees fleeing this long-running cluster will be the lowest possible priority for all parties involved.

Ryan McAvoy said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

chyron8472 said:

SilverWook said:

There are plenty of reasons to loathe Trumpy without making crap up.

If he backs up his words, and takes some positive decisive action to rid the world of a fiend who uses chemical weapons on innocent people, I will applaud him for it.

So said the people who thought W. was justified for going into Iraq. And how long did we have people over there? Oh wait, we still do.

I didn’t mean invade Syria.

But that is what it means. Nature abhors a vacuum.

So we just let Assad do what he likes?

As sad as it is to say, yeah, pretty much. However bad Assad is, he’s a lot better than Isis. The best we can hope for is when/if Assad and Russia have defeated Isis, he can be pressured into stepping down. Stalin was a monster too but when faced with something even worse, the west has to go with the “Enemy of my enemy, is my friend” rational. It’s all very depressing.

Actually Assad’s hold on power pretty much exists entirely at the pleasure of Putin. So there’s an alternate path, where you replace Assad with another Putin-friendly monster who simply hasn’t had the time or opportunity to get as much blood on his hands. The west can walk away calling it a win, because Assad is gone, Putin can walk away calling it a win, because it’s still their puppet. It could be another ten years before the new leader proves as bad or worse than Assad.

The question is: what purpose does keeping Assad in power serve for Putin, and can that purpose be met via alternate means? My opinion for a long time is that Assad is a walking advertisement for the benefits of a cozy relationship with Russia, if you’re an unpopular leader. Even if he’s forced out, it will have to be a protected safe-retirement out that won’t spook potential Russian clients.

TV’s Frink said:

Republicans killed the Supreme Court filibuster. But maybe they shouldn’t have?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nuking-the-filibuster-may-hurt-republicans-in-the-long-run/

I doubt it. The idea of protecting minorities of elected representatives is a little anachronistic, when the more modern idea of designing the election process to ensure the correct minority of voters chooses the majority of the elected representatives allows you to more than just block the majority, but impose outright minority rule.

Well, we are a bit of an echo chamber. We have a statistically improbable number of Bernie supporters here. As such, it’s simply logical that we should agree on most matters.

TV’s Frink said:

I’ve literally not heard a single person try to blame Trump for that and I can’t imagine anyone would do so.

Conspiracy theories often include conspiracy theories about what other people believe. It’s part of the template.

I live in ground zero ganjaland USA. When it was legalized recreationally, everyone was joking that there’d be a new permanent blue haze in town, or at least near the college. I sure believed it. But there’s been no change at all. Maybe because usage was already so high, who knows, but really absolutely no change since legalization. So basically the same people are still getting high and playing hackey sack, the same people are still eyeing them nervously, state drug rehab programs are now a little better funded, and international cartels are now a little less well funded.

Looks like Senator Merkley is doing an honest-to-God filibuster, a talking one. I can’t remember the last time that’s actually happened, although I recall Senator Paul once talked a lot and called it a filibuster, even though it really was just talking a lot.