Superweapon VII

Mine is that the original trilogy isn’t actually a trilogy, but rather a duology with a clusterfuck of consumerist, egomaniacal garbage tacked onto it.

In my view, there is no true & complete Star Wars experience, because George Luca$h, Jar Jar Abrams, Ruin Johnson, and Dave Fulloboloney are all fuckin’ hacks playing with action figures while masturbating to themselves in the mirror.

JadedSkywalker said:

I haven’t seen the movie in a while. I did a rewatch of ID4 and found the movie to be incredibly bad. What did I like about that movie when I saw in the 1990s. Or every time it was on cable tv I’d watch and not pay attention. its on in the background.

If I’m not wrong the fate of the remake trilogy of Stargate hinged on ID4 2 not being a flop and when that failed the trilogy was cancelled. The sequel was so bad, and didn’t have Will Smith in it. Resurgence. I’ve seen my fair share of bad sequels.

But they brought Brent Spiner back. LOL. Its Data from Star Trek the Next Generation.

Oh, I’m so happy the reboot trilogy didn’t happen. I like the original Independence Day for what it is, but the sequel was so goddamn horrendous, I couldn’t finish it. And two of the guys who worked on the script for it were hired to write the script for the Stargate remake. I don’t believe for a second it would’ve fixed any of the flaws with the original; it would’ve just been louder and stupider.

The original movie and the Bill McCay novels were the best the Stargate franchise had to offer, and even they only warrant a 6-7/10 altogether. So I for one would welcome a hard reboot, though I don’t have much faith Hollywood would be willing to go in the direction I believe it ought to go.

If Alien Exodus had been published, the humans of the SW Universe would’ve been established as the descendants of refugees from the world of THX 1138.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Alien_Exodus

Connor MacLeod said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

Inspired by this article. Relevant but far more radical video.

So here’s the situation: Lucasfilm has reached to you after being thoroughly impressed by the career film directing you definitely had. Their request? Remake all nine episodes of Star Wars.

Now of course that sounds insane. Blasphemy, surely! And yeah, to an extent, remakes would be redundant. The films have problems, but remaking them might be overkill…or would it be? You decide.

Anyway, you have to chance to take films made by three vastly different teams with different levels of technology where the only consistent part of the story is how much they’re making up as they go along. Thus, a version that’s all planned from the start could look very different.

I’m sure Palpatine wouldn’t appear to be killed in RotJ, and we’d probably only have one Death Star. The OT as a whole would obviously look much more modern. The aesthetic of the Galaxy would probably more consistent, with each trilogy seeming equally different as opposed to the ST being a spitshined OT while the PT does its own thing. Of course, I’d cut Leia being Luke’s sister, but I realize that’s a hot take. Cutting Rey being Palpatine, though, is not.

My reaction: this would be the worse creative decision in the history of filmmaking

No worse than having a gajillion Dracula and Frankenstein movies.

CloakedDragon97 said:

I like Batman Begins more than The Dark Knight.

I don’t like Batman Begins, but I certainly like it more than The Dark Knight.

broccoli_robinson said:

I wouldn’t have said this before getting married, it’s my wife’s opinion that I’ve stolen from her, but the world would be so much more physically attractive without billboards

Especially ones advertising Shen Yun.

Connor MacLeod said:

Ah Darth Maul, a.k.a. Darth NoPenis. I will never understand why so many people accept his absurd return after being cut in half.

It should be established that Maul’s species can reproduce asexually, and like starfish, a pair of Mauls grew from the severed halves. When they appear on-screen together for the first time, you can have a character snap their finger and point, saying “This is getting out of hand! Now there are two of them!” And they can each carry half of a double-bladed lightsaber, each half powered by a split kyber crystal which has been bled extra dry, and when they put the two halves together, they form a superlightsaber which can fire energy beams from both ends capable of blasting holes in the spacetime continuum, forming wormholes to other galaxies, time periods, and universes.

Only if he exists as a planet-sized head which shoots lasers from his mouth.

Pass. I have zero interest in further chapters of Villeneuve’s overhyped dog and pony show.

JadedSkywalker said:

Masters of the Universe 1987. I swear it gets worse the more times I go back and watch it. Why did I like it in any aspect in 1987.

I guess I like Bill Conti’s score and Frank Langella as Skeletor. Other than in looks Dolph is bad. Like a discount Arnold. I guess it’s fun seeing Courtney Cox and Robbie McNiell in the film.

The film being set on Earth instead of Eternia is a huge mistake.

Not having Prince Adam transform into He-man or Cringer into Battle Cat is bad too.

Good Journey.

Golan Globus/ Cannon films.

I’m sure the next time I watch Superman the Quest for Peace I won’t think much of it either.

It’s funny when I think of it because Cannon cheese, including their action films was a staple of my childhood. Chuck Norris and Charles Bronson. And the Ninja movies they made including American Ninja and Enter the Ninja. Firewalker, Missing in Action, dare I say it Death Wish sequels. My dad liked these movies. Even he admitted Over the Top was bad, the arm-wrestling movie where Stallone gets a superpower putting his hat on backwards.

Langella and Meg Foster are the only two aspects working in the film’s favour. Langella in particular put far more effort into his performance than the character or story warranted. I love that one moment where Skeletor shudders while He-Man’s being whipped; it’s a small but profound touch hinting at there being more to Skeletor than mwuhahaha bad guy.

“Being an Alpha.” LOL

Regardless, despite being a Post-Modern Neo-Marxist™, I’m inclined towards a more charitable reading of Han’s approach toward Leia. There’s a three-year gap between the first and second movie, three years of a budding romance we don’t get to see. This may be a kink of theirs.

My favourite scene is when Luke, after rejecting the call to adventure and resigning himself to a doldrum existence as a moisture farmer, returns to the Lars homestead to find it in flames with Owen and Beru brutally murdered. It’s the one moment in the film where I believed Luke loved his foster parents, and it was that love that finally motivated him to take a stand against the fascist Empire.

Bingowings said:

JackNapier said:

The film BraveHeart is a masterpiece, a testament to the ability of Mel Gibson! A must see! A rousing action, adventure and comedy film! This is what a biopic should be! This is the gold standard for historical movies!

No it isn’t. It’s a very silly film. So historically inaccurate it might as well be about King Arthur. The sad thing is Wallace’s story could make a genuinely interesting movie. Braveheart is worse than Attack of the Clones.

I’m not versed in the historical events, so I went into Braveheart as if it were just any other movie. I recall enjoying the first hour or so, but then it became overly bombastic in a way that just got under my skin. Toward the end, I was wondering how Gibson was able to cry “FREEDOM!” so clearly with all the set in his mouth.

Stephanie Cheape

Reminds me of when I toyed with reimagining SW as semi-hard science fiction. I had the idea of the lightsaber blade being composed of particles which cut through matter by severing covalent bonds rather than by generating heat. Though I dunno if such as blade would cauterize wounds.

I’ve thought a little bit about a Stranger Things rewrite.

Right up front, I haven’t seen the final season, and I have no plans to. My enthusiasm for the show waned during the gap between the third and fourth seasons, and my commitment took an absolute plummet once I watched the fourth season, which I found an overrated exercise in witless nostalgia bordering on self-parody. What I know about Season 5 I’ve only gleaned from the reviews I’ve watched. That out of the way, I’m gonna share my ideas which have been slowly percolating for a few years now.

I love Season 1. It’s a solid season of television, and I’ve no serious problems with it. Season 2 isn’t as good as the first – it’s a bit bloated and disjointed – but overall I feel it’s good enough to remain in continuity. So my rewrite would serve as a soft reboot, overhauling only Seasons 3-5. Admittedly, my ideas are sparse; beyond a whole lot of streamlining, I don’t have too many concrete ideas on how I’d handle it. But here’s what I have:

• Keep the tone and verisimilitude of the first two seasons intact. No overindulgence in '80s nostalgia, no MCU-style banter or action sequences. Keep things mysterious and horrific.
• Season 2 had El go goth. This development was undone in the actual third season, but in my version of events, she would’ve carried forward with it. Her friendship with Max would be based on them both being outsiders who don’t fit in with the other girls in school. Now while Max’s style/tastes are firmly established, El’s aren’t. When Starcourt Mall opens, Max isn’t enticed by its wares, but El, whose entire world until fairly recently has been captivity in a laboratory, is mesmerized by the shiny baubles and gaudy clothing and mouth-watering junk food. Thus a rift begins forming between the non-conformist Max and impressionable Eleven, who still craves friendship with other girls and begins altering her style to make herself more acceptable to the normies. Here we can critique the “greed is good” consumerist mentality of the '80s instead of celebrating it. And you better believe the Sisters of Mercy’s “Some Kind of Stranger” would play in an episode.
• The Soviets would be kept as tritagonists, but the cartoonish villainy and pro-capitalist rhetoric would be jettisoned. They’d still factor into the events of the refurbished Season 3 somehow, but they wouldn’t have a secret base under the mall.
• Hopper would die at the end of Season 3.
• Jonathan and Nancy would cease to be main characters. Jonathan would probably remain a recurring character if only due to his connection with Will, but Nancy would be written out and never come back, possibly early in Season 3.
• I’d keep Vecna, but rejigger a lot of his backstory. I’m of two minds of what direction to take with him. He could remain 001, but would not have known Eleven prior to his exile to the Upside Down nor had any previous connection to the Mind Flayer. Or perhaps he’d be an avatar of the Mind Flayer, a humanoid extension of its will created in the aftermath of Season 3 to better interact with humans.
• I’d make Will asexual instead of gay. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t like having the unfounded speculation of the bullies who picked on him proven correct. Will doesn’t have to feel same-sex attraction to feel alienated from his peers and uncomfortable in his own skin; a lack of sexual attraction altogether can be just as distressing, with all his friends finding partners while he remains alone, willing but incapable of establishing a similar relationship, and as a consequence feeling defective. Perhaps Season 4 could feature a faux Will/El/Mike love triangle. In Lenora Hills, El tries moving on from Mike and getting on with her life, so she and Will start dating, only to find no spark between them. Mike can eventually learn about their stillborn romance, putting serious strain on his friendship with Will and fueling Will’s anxiety. Overall, following this route we can show that human sexuality doesn’t fall into a neat heterosexual/homosexual binary, that you can’t judge by appearances, prejudices, and stereotypes.

I have no serious plans on tackling this project, so this is likely as detailed as this outline’s going to get.

JadedSkywalker said:

Thomas Jane is Leonard Bones McCoy on Star Trek Strange New Worlds. The Punisher. You can’t make this stuff up.

I jumped ship on SNW after the first season and I won’t ever be back. That said, Jane’s a solid actor. Though I have to admit I have a hard time picturing him as Bones. Gary Sinise might’ve been a good choice about twenty years ago, though he’s probably too old now.

Suzanne Vega

Peter Steele

JadedSkywalker said:

How could the Vong exist and not be a part of the force? When the force exists in all living things and binds the galaxy together.

At the time, I was captivated by the mystery of the Vong. Their seeming absence in the Force was absolutely intriguing to me, and I was dying to know what the explanation was. Then it was revealed that they’d just been cut off from the Force by their living home planet. After all that build up, I found it a completely underwhelming revelation. And it doesn’t really square with previously established lore. Ulic was also cut off from the Force; he didn’t become a living void as a consequence. In hindsight, it comes across as an Abramsesque mystery box.

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

If you want a brief summary of the video, it’s that there’re multiple different perspectives on the afterlife/divine punishment in both the Hebrew Bible and New Testament – the OG Sheol, which was a gloomy underworld where everyone went to after death, then later on annhilationism, universal salvation, and yes, even eternal conscious torment for sinners. Is the video title a bit clickbaity? Yeah. But eternal conscious torment is not the only view expressed in the Bible, and not a majority opinion until the post-biblical period centuries later.

Okay, so repeating everything I said. The title is just dishonest and when you said “Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins” that was wrong.

And you don’t want to engage with the substance of McClellan’s argument, because the scholarship is at odds with your theological conservatism and God forbid you have that rug pulled out from under you.

IIRC, there’s a WEG sourcebook that established Luke spent six months on Dagobah. Wish I could make a proper citation, but the Googles do nothing.

As with ROTJ in general, I’d love to discard it, but I begrudgingly accept it if only because so much of the post-ROTJ EU I love can’t exist without it.