Well since I can find no rule against it, I will bring back the old thread where TheBoost had some good thoughts.
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Inconsistent-use-of-the-force/id/9937/page/1
Some interesting things are being said about the nature of the Force. I found an old thread discussing the Force that echoes some of what’s being said. Is there a policy against reviving old threads? There’s also a contributor whose name I’ve not heard in a long time, a long time.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Of course it’s not. Didn’t say it was. Explained data-based reasons for choosing California. I removed Texas too. I wrote about Iowa. Now discussing 4 other states. All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
No perceived secret motivations. Doesn’t matter which state you choose, I think it’s a silly premise for an argument.
Firstly, good, sorry for reading more into your post. I think if we are comparing the current system with a NPV system and debating the relative importance of states, it is a good illustration.
Similarly, you might hold up Florida in the 2000 election as an illustration of the problem with the EC system. At least, I think that would be a valid premise. Even though Missouri was also very close and could have changed the election result notwithstanding Florida.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Of course it’s not. Didn’t say it was. Explained data-based reasons for choosing California. I removed Texas too. I wrote about Iowa. Now discussing 4 other states. All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
On the “Michigan-Wisconsin-Pennsylvania” ppoint, yes, that’s true, but even if Clinton had won Michigan and Wisconsin, she still would have ended up short in the Electoral College. And, to my memory, she did campaign pretty extensively in Pennsylvania, so, in order to win, she would have had to win either that or, say, Florida.
And there are solid critiques of her failings in Florida too. There are ample examples of how Clinton really tried to appeal to an ideological constituency but took all kinds of non-ideological demographics for granted.
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
Voting demographics are not divided along state lines. You don’t have one state full of liberals and another full of conservatives. You just have all states with slightly different mixes of all the national voting demographics. You simply cannot target California voters as a whole for no other reason than that Dana Rohrabacher and Maxine Waters are both Californians. You can only target one voting demographic or another, and pick up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country, possibly picking up states in the process.
Yes, there are state issues like ethanol which may gain you a few more percentage points in specific states, but that’s really only a few percentage points (offset in an NPV system by equivalent losses in other states–these offsets exist in the electoral system too, but they may be in states you have written off). Also, larger states with more diversified economies tend not to have one issue that appeals to the whole state, except in that it may appeal to whatever’s the dominant demographic in that state.
So sure, California can throw the election one way or another. Or Texas, or Florida. But the margin of the last election was 2.9 million votes. That’s Kansas–consider how many Kansas Democrats don’t vote because the current system ensures their votes will never count. If nothing else, the NPV should improve opposition turnout in “safe” states on both sides.
Clinton was faulted for not making the efforts she needed to in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The idea that a Republican - let alone Trump - would win those three states was far-fetched. If a candidate thought they could ignore those three states now, they certainly would under a NPV. I think that shows that one can’t count on simply picking up ideologically-aligned supporters across the country - there are people who can be swayed one way or another. It shows that, as you rightly point out, demographics cross state lines. But they’re not just ideological. The idea now is that a future Democratic candidate won’t take those voters and those states for granted. I think that’s a really good thing.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
I’m not so are about the Congress idea. 535 people is already quite a a lot to know, and increasing the size of Congress might introduce new inefficiencies and make it harder for Congesspeople to collaborate. I hear this is a problem in the EU legislature.
There are downsides. As you politely observe we have quite a lot of uncooperative nitwits already. The Capitol would end up looking like the Republic Senate too. But there could be some way to work out the logistics. I don’t know how the Chinese National People’s Congress works but I guess it does.
Cherry picking one state to remove, even as a thought experiment, makes zero sense to me.
The discussion concerns, in part, a perceived unfairness based on state size/population. I chose the most populated state. And then I chose the second most populated state. Also, by virtue of its size and partisan voting trend, California is - I believe - the only state that would have made a difference in 2016 under a popular vote system. I thought it helpful that the 2nd biggest state had an opposite partisan voting trend. So there are some analytical reasons for choosing these particular states given part of the discussion here.
Yes, but we are one United States of America. We can’t just remove one state’s votes Judy because we want to. One’s vote in California should count the same as one vote in Wyoming, since we are all equal citizens of the United States.
Again: thought experiment.
Of course we shouldn’t actually remove one state’s votes!
That we are equal citizens of the United States doesn’t dictate what voting system we should have. I presented one argument for keeping the present system.
(However, I do think we should expand the size of Congress which would greatly mitigate the problem of a disparity between the Electoral and Popular vote.)
The following is a thought experiment, so please do not take too much umbrage.
In the 2016 election, Trump [earned] 58,501,015 votes and Clinton [earned] 57,099,728 votes - if we exclude the votes in California for both candidates. Considering the matter on a state-by-state basis, it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
I want a candidate to be made to appeal to as broad a swath of America as possible. I abhor that pretty much every GOP candidate in the 2016 primary bowed to the ethanol lobby in states like Iowa. And yet, it is one example of how candidates are made to appeal to interests in individual states. If you think the ethanol subsidies are great, this should appeal to you.
I think the need to tell vs. show comes down to what matters to the story. Which matters more, what came before or what is happening now? The dialog satisfied me. Luke saw a darkness that scared him and instinctively drew and ignited his lightsaber. The fear passed, reason returned, but the damaged had been done it was the final straw that broke Ben Solo and turned him into Kylo Ren. Leia and Han sending Ben off to what amounts to boarding school with his uncle didn’t turn out well. The reasons for the past actions are not as important as how the characters react and develop in the current story. Luke is now a supporting role, not a starring role. How this relates to Rey and Kylo is the story at hand and we are given enough to justify the current state of affairs. Luke was always a bit petulant and his reaction to the events at his new Jedi temple are just an older version of the whiny farm boy who complained about not getting to go to Toche Station. Yes he has grown, but the trait remains, as it does with most people.
Rey has her own journey and that is what the story was focused on. She is trying to find her role and Luke did not help her at all, except for giving her access to the Jedi texts (which she stole… or scavanged?). Luke is now in the Ben Kenobi role.
I find it funny that we got so much more from Luke on how Kylo Ren fell than we got from Ben Kenobi back in 77. Have we asked the question of why Ben was in the Tatooine desert? He was a powerful Jedi Knight. What is he doing there? He tells us a great deal, but didn’t show us anything. And it turns out, as the story developed, that what he told Luke was a pack of lies. A carefully orchestrated story to get Luke involved and start his training. Why didn’t Ben fight to the death to try to defeat Vader and Palpatine. Luke is facing a much larger foe. Rather than 2 sith it is a whole band of dark knights and Snoke. The combination of scope of his failure plus the might of those massed against him and it makes sense. We don’t need more than what we were told.
The difference is that we grew to know and love the character of Luke in the OT before seeing him being this broken douchebag in TLJ. Add to this, that Obi-Wan is a far more sympathetic character in ANH than Luke is in TLJ.
The fact that so many people were turned off by Luke’s characterization to me is a good indication we needed more than we were told. I know, I did.
I think the question is why you were turned off. And from what you describe your image of Luke being, I think the movie had an answer for you. Luke is a man not a legend. He really answers the question of why he didn’t fight when Rey asks him to return. He’s not a Legend with a laser sword.
Part of the issue, for me at least, is I never envisioned Luke as a “Legend.” I don’t see Dre making that claim either. The few lines in that direction in the new films fell flat for me. The view I see being expressed, that I share, concerns Luke as the person in the OT.
Exactly! We witnessed Luke the person in the OT, and not some legend. Our expectations are based in how Luke grew as a character in the OT, and how that character reacted to setbacks, challenges, and disappointment.
The legend line in TLJ feels like a wesk excuse for explaining the lack of development of the transition in his character. It treats the viewer like idiots, as if we didn’t understand the character, but RJ does.
But clearly some of us are on the same page as RJ and got what he was doing and found it fit with the character. Even Mark Hamill did after seeing the completed film.
Yeah, well Hamill’s statements have been rather conflicting, with most of his statements questioning Luke’s characterization even after the release of the film. I view his apology the same way I viewed Lucas’ white slaver apology. I’m sure he didn’t mean to state he dislikes TLJ, and didn’t want his statements to be interpreted as such, but I’m also sure he still views Luke in TLJ as “Jake Skywalker”, a different character, one that doesn’t quite fit with George Lucas Star Wars. Hamill never took back his statements regarding Luke in any shape or form.
In his original comments, I thought Hammill was just being honest about his views. He wasn’t saying the character didn’t work in the film. He simply expressed his view that it was not what he would have done based on his understanding of the character. Some of us happen to agree with Hammill. I don’t think that is too terribly meaningful but I’m glad to be in good company.
The problem is that honesty, in politics or in commercial ventures like a film, comes back to bite a person. Then there is a certain amount of damage control required.
I think the need to tell vs. show comes down to what matters to the story. Which matters more, what came before or what is happening now? The dialog satisfied me. Luke saw a darkness that scared him and instinctively drew and ignited his lightsaber. The fear passed, reason returned, but the damaged had been done it was the final straw that broke Ben Solo and turned him into Kylo Ren. Leia and Han sending Ben off to what amounts to boarding school with his uncle didn’t turn out well. The reasons for the past actions are not as important as how the characters react and develop in the current story. Luke is now a supporting role, not a starring role. How this relates to Rey and Kylo is the story at hand and we are given enough to justify the current state of affairs. Luke was always a bit petulant and his reaction to the events at his new Jedi temple are just an older version of the whiny farm boy who complained about not getting to go to Toche Station. Yes he has grown, but the trait remains, as it does with most people.
Rey has her own journey and that is what the story was focused on. She is trying to find her role and Luke did not help her at all, except for giving her access to the Jedi texts (which she stole… or scavanged?). Luke is now in the Ben Kenobi role.
I find it funny that we got so much more from Luke on how Kylo Ren fell than we got from Ben Kenobi back in 77. Have we asked the question of why Ben was in the Tatooine desert? He was a powerful Jedi Knight. What is he doing there? He tells us a great deal, but didn’t show us anything. And it turns out, as the story developed, that what he told Luke was a pack of lies. A carefully orchestrated story to get Luke involved and start his training. Why didn’t Ben fight to the death to try to defeat Vader and Palpatine. Luke is facing a much larger foe. Rather than 2 sith it is a whole band of dark knights and Snoke. The combination of scope of his failure plus the might of those massed against him and it makes sense. We don’t need more than what we were told.
The difference is that we grew to know and love the character of Luke in the OT before seeing him being this broken douchebag in TLJ. Add to this, that Obi-Wan is a far more sympathetic character in ANH than Luke is in TLJ.
The fact that so many people were turned off by Luke’s characterization to me is a good indication we needed more than we were told. I know, I did.
I think the question is why you were turned off. And from what you describe your image of Luke being, I think the movie had an answer for you. Luke is a man not a legend. He really answers the question of why he didn’t fight when Rey asks him to return. He’s not a Legend with a laser sword.
Part of the issue, for me at least, is I never envisioned Luke as a “Legend.” I don’t see Dre making that claim either. The few lines in that direction in the new films fell flat for me. The view I see being expressed, that I share, concerns Luke as the person in the OT.
People often react bad to epic tragedies. That Luke reacted bad to what happened at the Jedi Temple he had founded is completely natural and the seeds of that reaction are in the OT. Just because he was acting all grown up and like a Jedi in ROTJ does not mean his petulant self was not still lurking underneath.
I grant you TLJ is something of an epic tragedy.
As for the idea that Luke was petulant, I didn’t see that. In his youth, Luke exhibited some youthful tendencies that maybe in some instance could have been described as petulant. But it’s certainly not a word that would make the top 20 I would use to describe Luke.
I think the need to tell vs. show comes down to what matters to the story. Which matters more, what came before or what is happening now? The dialog satisfied me. Luke saw a darkness that scared him and instinctively drew and ignited his lightsaber. The fear passed, reason returned, but the damaged had been done it was the final straw that broke Ben Solo and turned him into Kylo Ren. Leia and Han sending Ben off to what amounts to boarding school with his uncle didn’t turn out well. The reasons for the past actions are not as important as how the characters react and develop in the current story. Luke is now a supporting role, not a starring role. How this relates to Rey and Kylo is the story at hand and we are given enough to justify the current state of affairs. Luke was always a bit petulant and his reaction to the events at his new Jedi temple are just an older version of the whiny farm boy who complained about not getting to go to Toche Station. Yes he has grown, but the trait remains, as it does with most people.
Rey has her own journey and that is what the story was focused on. She is trying to find her role and Luke did not help her at all, except for giving her access to the Jedi texts (which she stole… or scavanged?). Luke is now in the Ben Kenobi role.
I find it funny that we got so much more from Luke on how Kylo Ren fell than we got from Ben Kenobi back in 77. Have we asked the question of why Ben was in the Tatooine desert? He was a powerful Jedi Knight. What is he doing there? He tells us a great deal, but didn’t show us anything. And it turns out, as the story developed, that what he told Luke was a pack of lies. A carefully orchestrated story to get Luke involved and start his training. Why didn’t Ben fight to the death to try to defeat Vader and Palpatine. Luke is facing a much larger foe. Rather than 2 sith it is a whole band of dark knights and Snoke. The combination of scope of his failure plus the might of those massed against him and it makes sense. We don’t need more than what we were told.
The difference is that we grew to know and love the character of Luke in the OT before seeing him being this broken douchebag in TLJ. Add to this, that Obi-Wan is a far more sympathetic character in ANH than Luke is in TLJ.
The fact that so many people were turned off by Luke’s characterization to me is a good indication we needed more than we were told. I know, I did.
I think the question is why you were turned off. And from what you describe your image of Luke being, I think the movie had an answer for you. Luke is a man not a legend. He really answers the question of why he didn’t fight when Rey asks him to return. He’s not a Legend with a laser sword.
Part of the issue, for me at least, is I never envisioned Luke as a “Legend.” I don’t see Dre making that claim either. The few lines in that direction in the new films fell flat for me. The view I see being expressed, that I share, concerns Luke as the person in the OT.
This is the first time in my 28 years that I’ve even seen it suggested that Luke could’ve been doing anything other than choking the guards. I had no idea there was any disagreement at all about that.
Yeah this is the fascinating aspect of interpretation. I never once questioned this as a kid, but I’m glad we can still be reevaluating ROTJ after all this time.
I’m sure the guard on the left actually reaches for his throat, so it seemed obvious to me back then.
But as I got older it seemed more likely it could just be the guards reaction to a force impulse to ‘back off’, or a perceived pressure to back up.
I don’t believe Luke would choke someone for no reason, not sure why I was so quick or happy to accept that he did in '83.
A google search reveals debate on the subject on this site in 2004, and on many other sites over the years. The predominant view appears to be that he was choking them, but a number of people haven’t found it so clear cut. The reaction of the guard on the left is very fleeting. The guard on the right doesn’t reach so high. Luke’s gesture doesn’t indicate very much. We can read a whole lot into that scene or not very much at all. I think you offer a very reasonable suggestion about a ‘back off’ reaction. Hard to read tone online but the seeming disdain for contrary views is unfortunate. And that is very relevant to the discussions regarding TLJ. You’re right that it is great we can still argue points all these years later!
No snow where I am but I thought my Tauntaun was going to freeze before I reached the first marker, if you know what I mean.
After 34 years why does Chewie look so good? I thought characters were supposed to change. I don’t want it merely told in some monologue nor have to go read about it in the novel. I want it shown on screen, his full hair care routine.
Is it even fun? I’ve only ever done driving ranges and mini-golf. Somehow I doubt I’d enjoy spending every weekend golfing.
its better than sitting in an office all day
This is probably a true statement.
Let’s break down Luke vs. Vader in RotJ:
- Luke ignites his saber and tries to kill the Emperor after he toyed with Luke’s emotions, which clearly are one of his great weakness and everyone knows it. “Bury your feelings deep down Luke…”
- Vader then defends the Emperor and Luke consumed by rage and hatred viciously attacks him, until he realizes it’s a mistake then he stops.
- Luke refuses to fight Vader, defending and evading only
- Vader teases Luke and triggers Luke by mentioning Leia
- Luke again is consumed by rage but ultimately overcomes the dark side and doesn’t kill his dad.
What did Luke learn?
- That the dark side is overcomeable, because both him and his father did so.
- He has to gain more control over his emotions.
What did we learn in TLJ?
- Luke’s nephew, whom he loves and has known his entire life, is being tempted by the dark side as a teenager.
- Luke then goes to him in the middle of the night and his instincts tell him to kill Ben.
wait what?? what about all of Luke’s failures and how he grew in the OT and all he learned about overcoming darkness? Why isn’t he passing that forward?
He didn’t act like his RotJ self would, but most importantly, like any regular human being that progresses naturally under given circumstances would.
Luke in RotJ only attacked to protect something or someone, but he did it the wrong way, using the dark side.
And how did the Luke that knew that defying all expectations and odds can pay off simply gave up on the galaxy and the ways of the force?
I don’t buy it 😕
Neither do I.
But I think the response is twofold:
Although people keeping repeating the first, I don’t find it persuasive because we have no reason to know why or how Luke changed for the worse in the first 30 of those years before Ben’s temptation was discovered. For some, not knowing is sufficient reason to accept any change in Luke whatsoever. I don’t find it sufficient cover for weakness in storytelling.
The second is more persuasive but doesn’t explain why Luke gave up. It suggests, I suppose, that in the first 30 years Luke really didn’t develop except for the worse.
Man dies after being shot by Wichita officer investigating possible homicide
Call of Duty gaming community points to ‘swatting’ in deadly Wichita police shooting
if this is true, that is just terrible. what the hell is wrong with people*
*rhetorical question
This is pretty sick. And consider how random for the victim given that “The person who was the target of the swatting gave the other gamer a false address, which sent police to a nearby home instead of his own.”
I’ve never played it but I guess it could be fun to do once in awhile - but so is mini golf, bowling, croquet, horseshoes, etc. I don’t have a desire to play them every weekend either.
I have mused about golf never existing and how we would propose a lawyer (because most lawyers seem to golf) to come and hit a ball with a club really far then go find it and keep hitting it until you get it in a little hole. And do it every free chance they get. I hope they would think I’m crazy.
Here’s George Carlin (obviously NSFW) on golf: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4w7H48tBS8
You do all realize he’s just trolling I hope. There’s gotta be a tweet reply out there along the lines of, “you never saw The Day After Tomorrow, did you?”
The President has a lot more important things to do than troll on twitter.
This should be true. Though DominicCobb makes a good observation. I really don’t understand the desire by presidents, lawyers, doctors, etc to play golf all the time.
I never knew so many people thought Luke was perfect by the final scene of ROTJ and he’d be the exact same person 30-some years later.
Maybe I missed something in a post, but who thought Luke was perfect by the final scene of ROTJ? Who thought he should be exactly the same?
You do all realize he’s just trolling I hope.
Can you point to anything he’s done or said that isn’t just trolling?
Sure. But if your point is that Trump trolls a lot, I don’t disagree.
This is the first time in my 28 years that I’ve even seen it suggested that Luke could’ve been doing anything other than choking the guards. I had no idea there was any disagreement at all about that.
This is the first time in the 34 years since the movie came out that I have heard he was force choking the guards. I must have watched ROTJ millions of times and never got that idea.
Warbler wins 😃
No it’s just the Rule of Two. :p
Honestly I can’t believe this is even a debate.
I prefer to think of it as 12 Angry Men.
Frink, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view 😉
Yeah but the point of view that they turned in for a nap is something I’ve never heard before and makes no sense.
So you don’t think they’re sleeping?
This is the first time in my 28 years that I’ve even seen it suggested that Luke could’ve been doing anything other than choking the guards. I had no idea there was any disagreement at all about that.
This is the first time in the 34 years since the movie came out that I have heard he was force choking the guards. I must have watched ROTJ millions of times and never got that idea.
Warbler wins 😃
No it’s just the Rule of Two. :p
Honestly I can’t believe this is even a debate.
I prefer to think of it as 12 Angry Men.
Frink, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view 😉