You guys are really convinced I’m some lowly, immature teenager, aren’t you? Keep trying.
Are you trying to tell us you’re not a teenager?
It’s hard to tell with you.
This can be true in person when I’m joking, which brings me great amusement.
I think good humor (if not good jokes) should be the rule, even when discussing serious topics. When people are quickly defensive or critical that gets in the way of understanding.
Key word: good
In a movie where Luke Skywalker of all people is presented as a jaded cynic - I don’t think Holdo is supposed to be perceived as in the right over Poe, fwiw.
Poe is a brash hotshot, sure, but don’t overthink it - Holdo as a leader definitely made huge mistakes. Everyone is at fault for what happens, but that’s partly why TLJ is so good to me. It’s been said to death, but the movie proposes this question specifically about what defines a hero, and Holdo isn’t exempt from that scrutiny imo.
Exactly. This is a film about failure. At no point are we supposed to believe that Holdo is a perfect, immaculate leader - in fact we purposefully spend most of the movie being lead to believe the opposite. What’s important when they flip the script is that Holdo’s heart was in the right place in regards to “saving” not “fighting.”
Also yotsuya makes a good point in bringing up Twelve O’Clock High. I watched that film shortly before TLJ, and it’s clear they’re definitely in a similar headspace in regards to friction within the chain of command.
From Holdo’s perspective, there’s no guarantee whatsoever that Poe will lie over like a lap dog and accept her plan. I don’t know why you think she should be able to assume this just because we as an audience see he does later, but that she shouldn’t have confidence that she can take back control. It makes a whole lot more sense to me that she’d trust her and her compatriots’ skills more than she’d trust Poe’s judgment, especially considering the whole reason she hasn’t told Poe in the first place is she doesn’t trust his judgment. She’s completely consistent here, staying steadfast to her plan and her judgment of Poe all the way (like I said, Poe attempting mutiny only serves to make her trust him less).
Not to mention, we can’t even really know for sure that Poe would’ve taken it well. There’s an argument to be made that having Leia tell the plan to him after his plan and mutiny was dead and buried and this was the only option left made him more open to Holdo’s plan. Who knows if in the moment, while Poe was trying to get everything to work, that he would’ve just given up and rolled over.
Sorry this doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s no guarantee Poe will accept her plan, but since it is a possibility, and it involves the least risk to everyone on board, she should consider this, even if she believes it’s unlikely, which we later find out it is not. There’s no downside to her telling Poe, and if he does reject her plan, she can still enact her take over plan, as she did in the film. If he does accept her plan, they can proceed with no additional risk to the lifes on board.
It’s one thing to say “it would potentially make sense for her to do this thing” and to say “it makes no sense whatsoever for her to do this other thing.” Just because I can see why she might tell him doesn’t mean that that’s the only thing she would reasonably do in that situation, especially when, as I’ve pointed out, it is completely consistent with her character and their dynamic to not. Of course there’s a downside. Holdo’s plan is on a need to know basis. Poe attempting a mutiny doesn’t suddenly reward him access to that information. Like I said, it probably makes her more resolute in her decision to not give it to him.
From Holdo’s perspective, there’s no guarantee whatsoever that Poe will lie over like a lap dog and accept her plan. I don’t know why you think she should be able to assume this just because we as an audience see he does later, but that she shouldn’t have confidence that she can take back control. It makes a whole lot more sense to me that she’d trust her and her compatriots’ skills more than she’d trust Poe’s judgment, especially considering the whole reason she hasn’t told Poe in the first place is she doesn’t trust his judgment. She’s completely consistent here, staying steadfast to her plan and her judgment of Poe all the way (like I said, Poe attempting mutiny only serves to make her trust him less).
Not to mention, we can’t even really know for sure that Poe would’ve taken it well. There’s an argument to be made that having Leia tell the plan to him after his plan and mutiny was dead and buried and this was the only option left made him more open to Holdo’s plan. Who knows if in the moment, while Poe was trying to get everything to work, that he would’ve just given up and rolled over.
No one hated Anakin taking about sand or turning to the dark side because of the logic of them.
Really? Padme saying she loved Anakin wasn’t believable, because it didn’t make much logical sense considering Anakin’s creepy behaviour and his other actions the story. The lack of logic obviously stems from the fact, that such a course of events would not make sense in a romance in the real world. This has been stated over, and over again in critical arguments about the romance in the PT, so your argument, that no one disliked the PT, because of lack of logic and consistency seems faulty to me. The same goes for Anakin, who almost instanteneously goes from conflicted Jedi to murdering psychopath. This also doesn’t make logical sense to many people, and has also been analyzed and discussed endlessly.
You’re attributing the logic to other issues. The problem with Anakin and Padme’s romance isn’t real world logic. The problem is a lot of other things. Cringey dialogue. Wooden acting. Inconsistent character motivations. Complete lack of chemistry. Anakin’s total lack of charm and altogether creepyness. Poorly structured sequences. Unearned emotional moments.
Anakin turning on a dime isn’t bad real world logic. It’s a problem of believability of the profession of his character arc. The film paints a poor and contradictory portrait of his head space throughout, and takes a narrative short cut in terms of his motivations (which is especially problematic as he is the main character). None of this has anything to do with real world logic, just pure storytelling mechanics.
Storytelling mechanics and real world logic are intimately connected, as we use our real world experience as the benchmark for what does, and doesn’t make sense in a story. Stories can take liberties for dramatic purposes, but in a general sense, a story should make sense internally and usually to a large extend externally as well. If a character witholds vital information from another character, and the audience, this should make sense in the story. The character should have the proper motivations throughout the story arc. In TLJ Holdo’s initial motivation appears to be teaching Poe a lesson, and putting him in his place. However, this lesson also results in a mutiny, and ends up putting the Resistance in even greater danger. Holdo keeps witholding information even when it is obviously no longer in her best interests, and those of the people she is responsible for. She keeps silent when Poe forces her out of her position, apparently for no other reason than to have a story twist later in the story involving Leia. In your words Holdo’s character motivations are inconsistent. As a leader she should protect the interests of the Resistance (and herself), but she doesn’t, because apparently RJ already told her how the mutiny would play out. From an in-story perspective Holdo shouldn’t know this, and Poe’s mutiny could result in the destruction of the entire Resistance. The fact that she passively accepts this without informing Poe of the reality of the situation just doesn’t make logical and story sense.
I see no inconsistency in her motivations and in the story logic. It all makes perfect, easily understood sense. If she wasn’t going to tell him her plan before, she’s definitely not going to when he has a gun pointed at her. Especially considering she seems pretty confident she can take back control (which she, of course, does).
No one hated Anakin taking about sand or turning to the dark side because of the logic of them.
Really? Padme saying she loved Anakin wasn’t believable, because it didn’t make much logical sense considering Anakin’s creepy behaviour and his other actions the story. The lack of logic obviously stems from the fact, that such a course of events would not make sense in a romance in the real world. This has been stated over, and over again in critical arguments about the romance in the PT, so your argument, that no one disliked the PT, because of lack of logic and consistency seems faulty to me. The same goes for Anakin, who almost instanteneously goes from conflicted Jedi to murdering psychopath. This also doesn’t make logical sense to many people, and has also been analyzed and discussed endlessly.
You’re attributing the logic to other issues. The problem with Anakin and Padme’s romance isn’t real world logic. The problem is a lot of other things. Cringey dialogue. Wooden acting. Inconsistent character motivations. Complete lack of chemistry. Anakin’s total lack of charm and altogether creepyness. Poorly structured sequences. Unearned emotional moments. They don’t act like real humans, sure, but that’s not a logic problem. That’s simply a baseline problem of them being human characters with human emotions that are capable of understanding on this most basic level. Not every film with a military needs to be logically sound with real world military. But if your film doesn’t feature people acting like people (unless it’s on purpose like in The Lobster or a Wes Anderson movie or something), you got some real problems.
Anakin turning on a dime isn’t bad real world logic. It’s a problem of believability of the progression of his character arc. The film paints a poor and contradictory portrait of his head space throughout, and takes a narrative short cut in terms of his motivations (which is especially problematic as he is the main character). None of this has anything to do with real world logic, just pure storytelling mechanics.
No one hated Anakin taking about sand or turning to the dark side because of the logic of them.
no. Sorry, I feel differently about traditions.
Are there any traditions you don’t like or is it just across the board you’re really into traditions.
I personally wouldn’t trust an “expert” opinion on anything in Star Wars.
Yeah, but you don’t believe logic is relevant either. 😉
You’re beginning to understand.
I personally wouldn’t trust an “expert” opinion on anything in Star Wars.
Mrebo said:
I have my indirect and non-explicit posts
Really?
I am a traditionalist
Really?
I believe everything I believe is true.
That sounds like a lot of work.
Changing my name? Yeah. That’s why I haven’t done it yet.
I always thought it’d be cool to take the last name of my future wife (if I ever have one, it’s not really a goal of mine or anything). Not because of issues with the patriarchal norm of taking the husband’s name (although I guess that is part of it), but mostly just because I don’t care much for my last name. Another option that entices me is both of us picking a new last name to share, which would be helpful if I don’t care for her last name either.
Or I could probably just change my last name without getting married.
at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
That’s a lie actually, I didn’t claim that or say that anyone else claimed that. I said that we literally know nothing about this person other than that he was mean to one guy at Starbucks. I said that for all we know he could be the most charitable guy on earth, or a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow,” or anything in between. I was basically just voicing a thought that I had about how easily people label others as bad without really knowing any of their contributions to society.
You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person.
That was my point.
I almost see something of a contradiction here. You say that we shouldn’t call someone a dick unless we know their whole life story. Then you admit that being a dick (at least once) doesn’t define one’s entire life. What I don’t get, what exactly is the issue with calling someone a dick for an isolated incident?
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I think there’s maybe a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when someone trips someone else.
Is there? I’d say it also depends. Plus tripping someone is actually worse than typing their name as a stutter on a receipt.
I think that depends too. Maybe the more accurate (in some ways) analogy would be to say there’s a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when a disabled person falls.
Still not perfect, but more to the point of why this specific making fun of isn’t cool.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
I’m giving myself a pat on the back for discovering hyperbole beyond the known universe of hyperbole.
In case you actually need me to clarify (which I somehow doubt), I meant your specific hyperbolic statement.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
I easily understood mfm as finding something jerkish and funny. Is mfm a jerk for thinking it funny? Nope.
I don’t recall saying he was.
Yet that was repeatedly the suggestion and thus it escalated.
Was it?
It’s great when a scolding leads an opponent to overreact so one can pretend that overreaction was the initial problem even though it wasn’t.
Um, okay.
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
There was a very obvious implication that I was in the wrong for finding this a little bit amusing, even though we all find things funny sometimes that are hurtful to some other person. I used the example of someone falling, which can sometimes be really funny. It doesn’t mean you’re glad that the person got hurt or that they fell.
I think there’s maybe a difference between laughing when someone falls, and laughing when someone trips someone else.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This smells like semantics to me. Granted I enjoy the probably unintended irony of “a gap that goes beyond hyperbole” which attempts to chart the supposed outer limits of hyperbole. Answer: there are none.
I meant your specific hyperbole.
Sometimes the claim is that an opinion or phrase is racist or sexist, sometimes like here just jerkish. I was explicitly writing about a general pattern. What appears to be exaggeration (at least regarding the current discussion) isn’t the “heart” of my incisive commentary.
No, you’re right it’s a general pattern, and I think it’s exactly what I describe. Not just on this site but in general on the internet, when people say something is “racist,” “sexist,” or just “jerkish,” others take it to mean they’re condemning the transgressor to eternal damnation, or, at least as mfm said, claiming they’re a “giant pile of sub-human shit that no one would miss if he died tomorrow.”
People exaggerate the extent of the criticism and take it to a deeply personal place that is never ever intended. You can say something racist, sexist, or dickish and still be an okay person. I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that. And I don’t know why people are more taken aback and upset by someone calling someone else out on being a dick more than that person’s dickish actions. Seems insane to me, but it’s a rampant mentality.
This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.
Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.
If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.
I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this.
That’s an overstatement. The mode of discussion doesn’t qualify as the “heart of this.”
Um… okay.
Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
To be precise about this case, it was a series of snarky and dismissive jabs. But reading between the lines isn’t that difficult. Maybe you think I exaggerate with “irredeemably horrible,” but I think you can get the essence of my meaning.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
Maybe the discussion hasn’t gone on long enough, but I have faith you’ll get there.
I’m not wrong. Just calling someone a “dick” is pretty fucking far away from “irredeemably horrible.” It’s a gap that goes beyond hyperbole, and won’t be closed no matter how long the discussion goes on for.
This is a strange pattern of argument that occurs in the “culture” threads and Star Wars threads.
Person A gives an opinion. Person B calls that opinion irredeemably horrible. Person A explains why that isn’t the case. Person B repeats that it is irredeemably horrible. Person A tries again to get Person B to see some shade of grey. Person B asks why Person A cares so much and is making such a big deal out of it. And all the person did was express an opinion and defend it when challenged. It’s a relentless shaming of Person A that I don’t understand.
If it goes on long enough, someone will declare its all semantics.
I’m glad you’ve pointed this out, because you’ve exposed the real issue at the heart of this. Person B is rarely (if ever at all) saying something is “irredeemably horrible.” It’s almost always just Person A overreacting and assuming they are.
It’s not just semantics, it’s people imagining things that aren’t really being said.
dude, that’s not at all why mfm is so dedicated to the discussion. he’s simply stating that 99% of people have, at some point, laughed at something that could be considered “acting like a dick” to the “offender”. it’s as simple as that.
Just because (supposedly) everyone does it doesn’t make them not a dick when they do it.
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.
I care about the hypocrisy of people’s reaction to this ludicrous story. That doesn’t mean I care about the people in the story.
I’m not sure to what “hypocrisy” you refer.
In this instance, sure. But I don’t know if he’s a total dick. He probably is, but who cares? Everyone else is too.
It seems like you care quite a bit actually.