Mrebo

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

What motivated this thread?

I think people are born homosexual or heterosexual but can exhibit behavior of the either orientation for various psychological reasons. I wish there weren't all the campaigns and insistence upon a monolithic "community" (a feeling not limited to this topic btw). When it comes to sexuality I don't think it necessary (I'm sure there is a better word) to indulge every errant thought one may or may not have. People should respect others but they do have the right to avoid associations they find unhealthy. Though I agree with xhonzi that it is better to have tolerance of those with different views. I've always been naturally tolerant (Warbler would be laughing were he able [a joke, Mr. Warbler]) and I find it unfortunate when people shun others for not being sufficiently supportive of their worldview.

 When people are told that what they are is "wrong" it is natural for them to campaign, join communities, speak out, shun those who oppose them, etc.

My only objection is to the "community" part. Just because one has a certain skin color or sexual preference doesn't mean one needs to declare allegiance to that separate community.

 Are you a minority of some sort?  Why do you care if other minorities feel they need to form a community in order to advance the cause of...you know...being treated equally?

I'm a person and my name is Mrebo! My objection is not to fighting for equality, however you choose to define that. It's the whole kaboodle. The gay clubs and pride parades. The "black community" with an endless list of grievances that makes everything "racist."

People should simply be people, not in search of community grievances, many of which are imagined. Part of life in a free society is that not everyone is going to accept you. I got into a recent online political argument with conservatives about the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple as he felt it was a violation of his religious freedom. The couple sued and won. I expressed the view that the judge was right. I was then accused of being an effeminate communist. But I also think the couple should have simply found a different baker and gone on with their lives.

I'm sure it was offensive for someone to say they don't agree with their lifestyle and didn't want to make a cake for their celebration. But the idea that we have to force that baker to make the cake for gay couples is silly.

But this is not Politics 728737871.

TV's Frink said:

ray_afraid said:

OT members are very touchy lately.

 Homo is a gay slur. If I'm the only one who is willing to call HotRod out, so be it.

 Also, there is a thread for this.

I miss all my dogs. Most of all my family's golden retriever who died while I was in college. Her son was a great dog who is now also dead. After the loss of him and my grandmother, I remarked that there was no one left in the family that I cared about. Maybe an exaggeration, but they were my favorites. Sorry to hear about your dog but I'm glad he was important to you. And nice trio doubleofive.

TV's Frink said:

Mrebo said:

What motivated this thread?

I think people are born homosexual or heterosexual but can exhibit behavior of the either orientation for various psychological reasons. I wish there weren't all the campaigns and insistence upon a monolithic "community" (a feeling not limited to this topic btw). When it comes to sexuality I don't think it necessary (I'm sure there is a better word) to indulge every errant thought one may or may not have. People should respect others but they do have the right to avoid associations they find unhealthy. Though I agree with xhonzi that it is better to have tolerance of those with different views. I've always been naturally tolerant (Warbler would be laughing were he able [a joke, Mr. Warbler]) and I find it unfortunate when people shun others for not being sufficiently supportive of their worldview.

 When people are told that what they are is "wrong" it is natural for them to campaign, join communities, speak out, shun those who oppose them, etc.

My only objection is to the "community" part. Just because one has a certain skin color or sexual preference doesn't mean one needs to declare allegiance to that separate community.

I like cheese on toast but no one seems to care so there's no need to create a community for it.

The "communities" are more than mere preference. Unless you're seeking to live the open-faced toasted cheese sandwich lifestyle. That description is probably insufficiently respectful of your preference....I apologize. We don't all need two slices of bread.

I offer limited comments to this topic because like bkev I prefer to be discreet. 100% discreet.

What motivated this thread?

I think people are born homosexual or heterosexual but can exhibit behavior of the either orientation for various psychological reasons. I wish there weren't all the campaigns and insistence upon a monolithic "community" (a feeling not limited to this topic btw). When it comes to sexuality I don't think it necessary (I'm sure there is a better word) to indulge every errant thought one may or may not have. People should respect others but they do have the right to avoid associations they find unhealthy. Though I agree with xhonzi that it is better to have tolerance of those with different views. I've always been naturally tolerant (Warbler would be laughing were he able [a joke, Mr. Warbler]) and I find it unfortunate when people shun others for not being sufficiently supportive of their worldview.

I'm ignoring it.

Tack said:

Have at it! Likes, dislikes, favourites, least-favourites! All is welcome!

For the record (all IMO):

Best Overall: Scrooge (1951)

Best for sheer accuracy: A Christmas Carol (1972, Animated)

Worst : Christmas Carol: The Movie (2001, Animated)

 Agree on 1951 being the best. It has been the only performance where the actor seemed to really inhabit the character and make the transformation believable.

Reegar said:

You're equating name origins with visual consistency between actors who are supposed to be playing the same character? I guess, if you want.

And if you're planning to eventually paint this as something that it's not (we both know what I'm referring to; and I'm not accusing you, but only saying): You mentioned race first. My original post was conveniently vague.

Getting back to Star Wars, I'm not sure what kind of visual inconsistency you are concerned about in terms of casting. Or maybe you're not. You were conveniently vague.

Reegar said:

Mrebo said:

Reegar said:

Nonsensical casting. Khan in "Into Darkness" is an example.

More nonsensical than casting someone of Spanish descent?

How was casting someone of Spanish descent nonsensical?

Aside from the Asian name of Khan Noonien Singh, I don't see why Cumberbatch would be a nonsensical casting choice. And Spanish is different from Asian.

Reegar said:

Nonsensical casting. Khan in "Into Darkness" is an example.

More nonsensical than casting someone of Spanish descent?

ANH is such a wonderful and deceptively simple movie. For whatever reason I watched it with somewhat fresh eyes when I caught it on TV last night (SE, of course). It feels big, as a movie should, while feeling intimate despite being a space adventure. I fear that the new movie will feature something like the dreadful Yuuzhan Vong. If the PT did anything right, it was in not trying to be more serious, dramatic, or menacing (only phantomly) as many works of sci fi are (though it drifted listlessly that way in ROTS). So I hope the executives don't think Star Wars needs to be modernized, dramatic, menacing, or in the direction of the better-received ROTS.

Casting call event description.

darklordoftech said:

I aabhor the very concept of fictional canon. It's all fiction.

Good point.

In Misery, Annie Wilkes wouldn't accept Paul Sheldon's first attempt at making a sequel. [There is that Lucas/Misery parody, but not what I have in mind.] Maybe all fans should be comfortable with rejecting material without worrying about offending canon.

To some extent, I think we confuse canon with copyright (not just the legal right, but the general belief that a creator is the only legitimate person to decide what exists in his/her fictional world).

Among the Oz books, there are ridiculous inconsistencies - even in just the books written by Baum. That Baum had the only true right to craft the world of Oz was undisputed, but his books do not lend themselves to lasting and consistent rules of how that world works. When later authors try to reconcile inconsistencies, it feels unnatural, trying to make the work fit a canonical ideal.

Back to Star Wars, I think of IV-VI as the only real canon because there was a creative integrity to them, like three chapters of the same book. But in the end, I think you're right, dlotech. Canon in fiction is not an absolute. It's a responsibility of a creator to try to maintain the fiction of canon.

Tobar said:

Mrebo said:

I would however point out that Anakin was from Tatooine. That Yoda wears hermit clothes while living as a hermit doesn't inform very much. And what of Luke wearing all black in ROTJ while asserting his Jedi-hood? If it were so established, wouldn't they have stuck him in "Jedi robes"?

 

LUKE

But I need your help. I've come back to complete the training.

YODA

No more training do you require. Already know you that which you need.

Yoda sighs, and lies back on his bed.

LUKE

Then I am a Jedi?

YODA (shakes his head)

Ohhh. Not yet. One thing remains: Vader. You must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be. And confront him you will.

He's not a Jedi until the end of the film.

Even simpler: Luke asserted to be a Jedi in the planned rescue at Jabba's palace. In the dialogue we can argue whether Luke was only seeking confirmation, whether there is a bright line, whether he needed Yoda's stamp of approval, etc. But when Luke showed up at Jabba's palace claiming to be a Jedi, dressing like one would have been Step 1.

I agree with Bingo, particularly on the emotional flatness. The apparent schism now between what the Doctor knows and what the audience knows is weird. Good moments but never achieved greatness.

timdiggerm said:

Tobar said:

It would seem they'd made up their mind about the robes by Return of the Jedi:

Very glad you pointed this out.

I would however point out that Anakin was from Tatooine. That Yoda wears hermit clothes while living as a hermit doesn't inform very much. And what of Luke wearing all black in ROTJ while asserting his Jedi-hood? If it were so established, wouldn't they have stuck him in "Jedi robes"?

I fear cynicism has crept into my thinking as the years go by to the point I don't think "canon" means very much (since it means whatever they tell us it means). I know what I like and see as more authentic, but I don't know that it matters since I'm yet another person saying X is canon. All that blathering aside: ANH, ESB, and ROTJ constitute my canon. Other stuff is interesting, good, bad, and ugly.

Of note is the prologue to the ANH novel:

Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.

"Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.

Warbler said:

More fun :

is there a bigger version of this?  It is just too small. 

Should work.

But here is the creator's blog page showing it too.

Welcome back :)

I would like to hijack the thread for a moment. To complain about Man of Steel. In part because it suffered from the same flaws and a false pretense of being more realistic and gritty. All the people of Earth should hate Superman based on what happened in that movie. All they know is that a super powered alien lived among them for years and then refused to surrender to the other aliens, resulting in massive damage, much of which he caused himself. In the end, he is arrogant, making clear nobody is going to have any power over him. He ends up more of a minor god as existed in greek mythology, full of flaws and often hurting people, but the people have no choice but to put up with him. The vast majority of people would have no reason to like Superman based on what happened in that movie. Man of Steel 2 should have to focus on the widespread hatred of Superman and how he redeems himself. But instead we're just expected to love him.

Cobra Kai said:

Reegar said:

A whole new story? But aren't they contractually bound to follow Lucas' treatments?

The new story thing is probably just a rumor, but even then, I haven't read anything that indicated that there were stipulations in the contract about those treatments.  They completely own Star Wars now, and I assume they can do whatever they want. 

A very safe bet. Just consider the question: or what? The contract between Lucas and Disney was the sale of property - not a licensing agreement or a joint venture. Lucas has his $4.05billion (minus taxes) and that's that.

Humby said:

I've personally never had issues with the plot of ROTJ.  I always thought it tied things up nicely, which is exactly what it was meant to do.  Aside from its lighter moments and lack of death, ROTJ has a very heavy weight to it.

Removing some of the sillier elements like the dance number in Jabba's palace,

You must be thinking of the Special Edition...

I wouldn't have changed much. The biggest thing would be not making Luke and Leia siblings.

If we want to talk about some radical changes we should look at ANH. I would have had less dianoga.

Can/will they go back to the Force as a mysterious and often unseen ability? In the OT, it was an amazing thing which took great concentration for YODA to lift the X-Wing. Lifting and moving stuff or otherwise behaving magically was uncommon. When Han Solo doubted Obi Wan, George didn't make Obi Wan levitate things. When Luke brought the door down on the Rancor, it was not by Force powers. We can retcon/justify why these things were: Obi Wan didn't feel like he had to prove anything nor cheapen his powers that way; Luke was still learning and wasn't at the point the instinctively reach for the Force. But it seems to me, George's conception of the Force was simply radically different from the video game super heroes Jedi have become. The most overt displays were made by Vader (throwing stuff around in ESB) and the Emperor (finger-lightning). Otherwise, Luke was "most impressive" for jumping. I can only imagine how many contemporary Star Wars fans would be disappointed if lightsabers and super powers weren't being brandished so much.

SilverWook said:

imperialscum said:

greenpenguino said:

Oh, come on! I love Star Wars a huge amount but "broad" and "deep" it is not. It's very simple storytelling done in a very good way.

Well I won't discuss "deep" because that is entirely up to opinion. But as for "broad", it is certainly is. OT deals with human nature, war, mythology, romance, growing up, militarism, politics, crime, etc. There is pretty much everything from the modern and past world projected through a fairytale into a galaxy far far away.

Just about every incarnation of Trek has dealt with these subjects, especially The Original Series and The Next Generation. TOS got away with discussing things most shows in the 1960's couldn't touch, because it was a science fiction setting.

I really liked the Neelix/Tuvok transporter accident episode. There were similar themes of identity, autonomy, and the definition of life throughout Star Trek. I agree it seldom feels deep because everything is generally wrapped up in one episode and the moral repercussions are generally never felt again as one might expect in a more serious and dramatic show.

Hah, nice catch SilverWook.

Chewbacca should be the villain.

Leia as villain would be too much I think. In my view, she would never have become a Jedi. Maybe that disappointed Luke. She would be a great leader in the Republic. Sister of the greatest Jedi Luke. I hope the story is interesting and that all characters play a meaningful role even if not wielding sabers.

As for Carrie Fisher's other successes: "When Harry Met Sally" and "The Burbs" stand out.