DominicCobb

Anchorhead said:

Valheru_84 said:
It was a dose of the medicine he’d just given Dre. If he can give it then he can take it as well.

DominicCobb said:
Next time you act like a dick to another poster, that’s exactly what I’ll do.

That’s not going to end well for either of you.

I’m not sure if I understand, are you saying if I report Val for attacking another member I’ll get in trouble?

Swap genders and you have a movie that is in no way out of the ordinary (in fact it would be much more ordinary in some ways!). There is nothing radical about TLJ.

I would like to declare that I have never read a James Patterson novel.

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:
It’s clear you’re overly emotional about this movie and taking out your anger on other posters. I should have just reported you to the mods instead of engaging. Next time you act like a dick to another poster, that’s exactly what I’ll do.

I AM emotional about this movie, it fucking ruined Star Wars for me as I knew it. I now have to maintain my own head canon that won’t gell with other family and friends I go to talk about it with that don’t see it as I do and now I have nothing new to look forward to that carries on what I love in the OT.

Respectfully, it might be a good idea in that case to take a break and calm down a little.

What I find funny is when people say that there’s a feminist agenda mandated by Kathleen Kennedy.

As if JJ and Rian couldn’t possibly be feminists.

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

DrDre said:
Yes, but it betrays RJ’s feelings and intentions going into this. So, he’s taken off some of the sharper edges, but he still turned the Jedi’s 1000 generation legacy of peace and justice, and the OT’s theme of hope and redemption into a legacy of failure for both the Jedi and Luke personally. It’s more revisionist than Lucas has ever done.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

Says the one that admits to being snarky whenever they reply.

This:

“I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak.”

is not “being snarky.”

It’s just straight up hostile and nasty.

No I was calling you a hypocrite.

And my response to Joe was not hostile nor nasty. It was a dose of the medicine he’d just given Dre. If he can give it then he can take it as well. I thought Dre made a valiant and fair point, Joe simply tried to shut him down and outright dismiss his opinion which I shared so Joe might as well have directed it at me as well.

Yeah, in hindsight I could have approached it differently. So could have you who replicated the behaviour you were taking issue with? Hmm…

Wasn’t hostile or nasty? Dose of the same medicine? What the hell are you talking about? Joe’s been nothing of a model of good behavior, which is far more than I can say for you or most people in this thread (including myself). I feel like the only crime he did in your eyes was liking the movie in the first place. It’s telling that you haven’t responded to him since he clarified his point.

It’s clear you’re overly emotional about this movie and taking out your anger on other posters. I should have just reported you to the mods instead of engaging. Next time you act like a dick to another poster, that’s exactly what I’ll do.

Valheru_84 said:

Also I see since you couldn’t incite a reaction from me in the other thread that your wife coincidentally had to have a go at me as well… (I understand ‘Frank your Majesty’ is your wife? If not I will edit my post accordingly)

Excuse me!

chyron8472 said:

Okay, yes, I now realize I mixed which post he was quoting, because I posted again before he quoted me and I thought he quoted the second one. But my point still stands. Telling people they need to stop name calling does not not-further-discussion if it encourages people to actually be civil.

But don’t you see that my post was basically saying the same thing? (i.e. calling someone’s reading comprehension skills weak is a rude and uncivil way to engage in discussion)

So please, let’s be civil and get back on topic.

Agreed

SilverWook said:

Nobody start anything. It would unfortunate if the thread had to be locked.

I’m not trying to, trust me. People are seeing things that aren’t there and putting words in my mouth.

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

DrDre said:
Yes, but it betrays RJ’s feelings and intentions going into this. So, he’s taken off some of the sharper edges, but he still turned the Jedi’s 1000 generation legacy of peace and justice, and the OT’s theme of hope and redemption into a legacy of failure for both the Jedi and Luke personally. It’s more revisionist than Lucas has ever done.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

Says the one that admits to being snarky whenever they reply.

This:

“I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak.”

is not “being snarky.”

It’s just straight up hostile and nasty.

Or we can try to stop being toxic altogether.

I don’t see anything wrong with calling someone out for lowering the level of discourse.

Like, attacking me for saying I need to rewatch the film by insinuating that my simply saying so makes me a hypocrite.

What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

I think that calling each other (or each other’s arguments) “weak” is not actually helping to further the discussion, but tantamount to name calling.

And what does this post do, exactly, that helps further the discussion?

It discusses my current state of mind about the film.

Does it?

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

DrDre said:
Yes, but it betrays RJ’s feelings and intentions going into this. So, he’s taken off some of the sharper edges, but he still turned the Jedi’s 1000 generation legacy of peace and justice, and the OT’s theme of hope and redemption into a legacy of failure for both the Jedi and Luke personally. It’s more revisionist than Lucas has ever done.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

Says the one that admits to being snarky whenever they reply.

This:

“I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak.”

is not “being snarky.”

It’s just straight up hostile and nasty.

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

I think that calling each other (or each other’s arguments) “weak” is not actually helping to further the discussion, but tantamount to name calling.

And what does this post do, exactly, that helps further the discussion?

yhwx said:

TPM was pretty light, even if it was not intentional.

You think it was lighter than the original?

TV’s Frink said:

VIII and R1 weren’t serious film?

Sure.

But there were Marvel jokes Frink! Duh!

Valheru_84 said:

joefavs said:

So even though he ultimately decided the scene didn’t work and changed the film accordingly, you’re still upset at him for having the idea in the first place? I’m sorry, but that’s pretty weak.

I think your powers of comprehension and deduction are pretty weak. It’s pretty obvious in both the initial post you replied to and the below one that he is not just talking about that one deleted scene.

DrDre said:
Yes, but it betrays RJ’s feelings and intentions going into this. So, he’s taken off some of the sharper edges, but he still turned the Jedi’s 1000 generation legacy of peace and justice, and the OT’s theme of hope and redemption into a legacy of failure for both the Jedi and Luke personally. It’s more revisionist than Lucas has ever done.

I think your powers of being able to engage in a civil discussion without acting rude and immature are pretty weak.

MalàStrana said:

DominicCobb said:
I believe it. Looks like the right direction too. This is Fun Star Wars.

Have you heard about LFL firing the previous directors for making a comedy out of it ?

I don’t really feel comfortable speculating why exactly they were fired at this point, but I think a comedic bent was always imagined for this film, they just probably took it too far.

(it’s not as if VII-VIII-R1 were that serious movies by the way. A SW which is “fun” is hardly something new)

No shit. But I imagine Solo will be the lightest SW film since the original (or maybe the lightest ever).

Whoever made it, it seems to be culled from official images at least.

Why would you want to cut the opening space battle anyway?

joefavs said:

Alleged first official image, from an upcoming magazine story:

I believe it. Looks like the right direction too. This is Fun Star Wars.

dahmage said:

I can accept that they are ‘part of the thinking’, but it is disingenuous to act as if they hold the same weight as something that wasn’t cut. What is onscreen is what is used to tell the story, what was cut held ideas of the story, but they might have been redundant, or too strong, or too weak, or too whatever, when the film was assembled.

Yeah, pretty much. Ultimately what’s in the film is what was decided tells the story best. That a scene was cut could mean anything from it wasn’t necessary, to it was necessary to cut.

Without having seen the scene (or having heard Rian’s take on it), it’s kind of a silly discussion to have.

Not entirely, no.

In some ways I think people just weren’t prepared for the ST to actually be a thing.

Because the thing with the ST in relation to the OT, is I think (personally) they had no choice but to look inward and challenge Luke and the Jedi in someway. Because otherwise, what’s the conflict? You can’t have a story without a conflict (it can’t be the adventures of happy go lucky Luke, Leia and Han like the old EU books were).

You can’t really do an extragalatical threat like the Vong, because that’s not really Star Wars. Star Wars is about our world, and to do that would be to make an alien invasion movie, which would move SW from mythic but grounded to straight up sci-fi.

So what’s grounded? What would cause a trilogy long conflict? Well, as in real life and in myth, you get this idea of history repeating itself. But it’s not just Empire vs. Rebels v2, at least I don’t see it that way. You can’t just continue the simple good vs. bad that the OT did. You have to look deeper. By reintroducing a similar conflict, we get to actually look at the fight and ask what are they really fighting for? If more problems are arising, we need to ask, what are the Jedi really? What is their place in this? Especially after the PT (where the Jedi are quite shit, honestly), we have to ask, are the Jedi really helping? Even if the answer is yes (and it is), I think those questions need to be asked. And I love that it’s Luke asking them. He’s so idealistic in the OT he never gets the chance to stop and think it through. And so of course, when the dark side comes back, he finds himself in crisis.

But that’s the thing, to have an ST, we needed the dark side to come back. I don’t think there was any other way. I get why some people wanted the OT’s fairy tale ending to be the end of it, but the truth is, the moment the ST was announced that fairy tale ending disappeared. And yeah, I guess there were other ways to tell an ST story that didn’t so ruin the fairy tale. But I don’t think those kinds of stories would really be all that worth telling. They’d be fun in a light and breezy way, like a superhero sequel, but I think a Star Wars saga film needs to be more than that. It needs to really be worth it. And to be worth it, it had to face some hard truths about fairy tale endings, namely that they don’t really exist. Things don’t stay good forever. I think the heart of this whole trilogy goes back to what Maz said in TFA. Through the ages, there’s only one ever really been one fight: against the dark side. It doesn’t just go away when one threat goes away. You always have to face it, fight it.

And so that’s really what the ST is about. The OT was super optimistic and idealistic, good vs. bad, good wins. So it’s a little depressing when the bad comes back, sure. Fighting evil isn’t that simple. But learning that just helps you to look inward and double down on your resolve, as Luke ultimately does.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

joefavs said:

But Luke changes his tune after his conversation with Yoda, returns to save his friends, WITHOUT killing Kylo, leaving the door open for his possible redemption, and goes out expressing hope that Rey will get the Jedi going again after all. He strayed for the seven or so years between Kylo’s fall and the start of the ST, but by the end of the movie his faith in the Jedi is restored. The beginning of the movie deconstructs the whole Jedi thing, sure, but I don’t understand how people aren’t seeing that the last act reconstructs it.

Exactly! People seem to take all of Luke’s harsh words on the Jedi early on as if they’re the gospel according to Rian Johnson. Same goes for Kylo Ren and his new motto (“let the past die, kill it if you have to.”).

Just because the characters say things doesn’t mean that that’s what the film itself is saying.

Yes, but that’s an interesting question. What is TLJ saying exactly? The burning of the Jedi tree seems perfectly in line with Kylo’s lines in the film. The movie spends a lot of time deconstructing previously held conceptions and expectations, but at least to some of us doesn’t really seem to fill the void it leaves behind.

Ironically enough I think it’s arguing against extreme opinions. On one side you have Kylo with “kill the past,” on the other you have Luke who’s trapped in a prison of the past. They are both obsessed with it, in their own way (as is Rey, with her parents).

I feel like I’ve said this before but when Luke goes to burn the tree, he’s not killing the past, he’s just furthering his obsession with the Jedi Order and how wrong he thinks they are. But of course he can’t actually go through with it, he can’t let go of the religion and the texts and the dogma and the history and all of it. When Yoda burns the tree, Luke takes that as confirmation: “So it is time for the Jedi to end.” Yoda responds “Time it is… for you to look past a pile of old books.” The message is clear, Yoda isn’t saying that it’s time for the Jedi to end and for the past to die, he’s just saying that it’s time to move on. The fact that Luke says he won’t be the last Jedi and that Rey saves the books just proves this further. Move on from the past, but don’t forget it. That’s the choice Rey makes when she doesn’t go with Kylo, that’s the choice she makes when she returns to the Resistance and her friends.

Good point, hadn’t looked at it that way. Perhaps you’re right, and I’m like Luke unable to look past a pile of old films. Maybe you’re my Yoda. You wouldn’t happen to have a screwy sense of humour, would you (and some pointy ears)? 😉

Pointy ears, no. Screwy sense of humor? Definitely.

I would honestly recommend seeing the film again if you get the chance, this time completely devoid of any preconceived notions.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

joefavs said:

But Luke changes his tune after his conversation with Yoda, returns to save his friends, WITHOUT killing Kylo, leaving the door open for his possible redemption, and goes out expressing hope that Rey will get the Jedi going again after all. He strayed for the seven or so years between Kylo’s fall and the start of the ST, but by the end of the movie his faith in the Jedi is restored. The beginning of the movie deconstructs the whole Jedi thing, sure, but I don’t understand how people aren’t seeing that the last act reconstructs it.

Exactly! People seem to take all of Luke’s harsh words on the Jedi early on as if they’re the gospel according to Rian Johnson. Same goes for Kylo Ren and his new motto (“let the past die, kill it if you have to.”).

Just because the characters say things doesn’t mean that that’s what the film itself is saying.

Yes, but that’s an interesting question. What is TLJ saying exactly? The burning of the Jedi tree seems perfectly in line with Kylo’s lines in the film. The movie spends a lot of time deconstructing previously held conceptions and expectations, but at least to some of us doesn’t really seem to fill the void it leaves behind.

Ironically enough I think it’s arguing against extreme opinions. On one side you have Kylo with “kill the past,” on the other you have Luke who’s trapped in a prison of the past. They are both obsessed with it, in their own way (as is Rey, with her parents).

I feel like I’ve said this before but when Luke goes to burn the tree, he’s not killing the past, he’s just furthering his obsession with the Jedi Order and how wrong he thinks they are. But of course he can’t actually go through with it, he can’t let go of the religion and the texts and the dogma and the history and all of it. When Yoda burns the tree, Luke takes that as confirmation: “So it is time for the Jedi to end.” Yoda responds “Time it is… for you to look past a pile of old books.” The message is clear, Yoda isn’t saying that it’s time for the Jedi to end and for the past to die, he’s just saying that it’s time to move on. The fact that Luke says he won’t be the last Jedi and that Rey saves the books just proves this further. Move on from the past, but don’t forget it. That’s the choice Rey makes when she doesn’t go with Kylo, that’s the choice she makes when she returns to the Resistance and her friends.