Star Wars Griefing Thread (SPOILERS) - Safety off

I remember around 2014/15 or so hearing about Carrie Fisher going on a Disney-prescribed weight-loss program for TFA. It wouldn't surprise me if Disney did have a hand in rushing her to an early(ier) grave. The woman should have been left alone.

I've literally been thinking this very thing ever since she died, but haven't actually said it to anyone. 💔

Disney should have just adapted the Thrawn Trilogy and cast young, new actors as Luke, Leia, and Han. Or even just a trilogy with a large time jump from Return of the Jedi with an entirely new cast of characters. I would have had zero problems with that, personally. Definitely would have been better than what we all actually got.
 
The same guide also tries to explain why the stupidly named "Holdo Maneuver" was only a 1 in a million thing and why nobody uses it. Suffice it to say, it sounds more bullshitty than the explanations surrounding Starkiller or Rey herself.
How many reasons are there floating around for why that worked? They were going with the "experimental shields" thing for a while, wonder what the current handwave is now.

Also I'm pretty sure Abrams added a second "Holdo Maneuver" over Endor, thanks @Reverend for the heads-up on the better camrips.
 
Another important thing is that the prequels were, well, PREquels. They came before the original trilogy. They could ruin the theming and characters up until then, but everything that happens after the original trilogy retains its impact and we could imagine what happened afterwards.

Now we know that Vader's sacrifice did nothing, we know that the entire original surviving cast all failed in their quests and then died like bitches, Leia and Han divorced, their only son turned evil, the Jedi Order wasn't able to rebuild itself, and Luke gave up on everything then died.
Another thing is that despite the execution of the prequels being suspect up until "Sith" (Sith is in my top 3), the underlying story behind the prequel trilogy was sound. The Clone Wars was a good addition to the Canon. The excellent animated series proves this. The final Obi-Ani on Mustafar was cinematically breathtaking and fit the canon perfectly. It was just unfortunate that Hayden Christianson delivered some of the clunkiest dialog in the series during it.

In case it wasn't clear I'm a prequel apologist while being able to admit their many, many faults.
 
So i have been thinking as to why rey was written to be a mary sue. It seems like it would be rather hard to write a character that doesnt face any adversity. It doesnt seem like this is incompetent writing as someone pointed out many pages back that since she can't lose, you have to stall or distract her.

Then i heard Ya Boi Zack's explanation. There have been studies with toys as to how boys and girls play with them and percieve them. Basically, boys want to be He-man, girls want barbie to be her. Both toys are tabula rosas meant for the child to project onto.

Rey was likely made to be a tabula rosa for the female audience to project themselves onto (which explains the reylos) If rey was to suffer any sort of hardship or character flaws, these women would interpet that as a slight against them. Compare that to something like Bond, where men want to be this suave superspy and any flaws or hardships he overcomes only makes him more cool to these men.

This ties into something i heard called the 'Galbrush paradox'. Imagine some the worst character traits one could have. In this political climate, you likely could not apply these traits to a female protagonist as women will take it personally and assume you mean "all women are X" You can do this with a male one because men often dont take it personally.
 
Ladies and gents,
Behold the front page of Drudge
View attachment 1064597
leading to the Wall Street Journal
View attachment 1064598
And just for fun
View attachment 1064599

I'm amazed that between morbid curiosity, YouTube folks, and the Disney Shills that it didn't do better.


Let's see how bad it goes next week!

Ok. Let's crunch some numbers and see how bad this shit the bed.

TFA:
TBO: 296,447,793
Take: 247,966,675
% of TBO: 84%


TLJ:
TBO: 278,068,342
Take: 220,009,584
% of TBO: 79%

Plan 9:
TBO: 243,217,105
Take: 177,383,864
% of TBO: 73%

What you see here is that the box office for Plan 9's opening weekend wasn't just smaller than previous releases, but the percentage of the box office it took was smaller.
For TFA, 4 out of every 5 tickets that was sold was a Star Wars ticket.
For Plan 9, it was less than 3 out of every 4.

These numbers aren't bad, thanks to paypig cucks spending good money to go be disappointed for some reason, but they show a very bad trend of not just declining revenue but also giving up dollars to other studios.
 
So i have been thinking as to why rey was written to be a mary sue. It seems like it would be rather hard to write a character that doesnt face any adversity. It doesnt seem like this is incompetent writing as someone pointed out many pages back that since she can't lose, you have to stall or distract her.

Then i heard Ya Boi Zack's explanation. There have been studies with toys as to how boys and girls play with them and percieve them. Basically, boys want to be He-man, girls want barbie to be her. Both toys are tabula rosas meant for the child to project onto.

Rey was likely made to be a tabula rosa for the female audience to project themselves onto (which explains the reylos) If rey was to suffer any sort of hardship or character flaws, these women would interpet that as a slight against them. Compare that to something like Bond, where men want to be this suave superspy and any flaws or hardships he overcomes only makes him more cool to these men.

This ties into something i heard called the 'Galbrush paradox'. Imagine some the worst character traits one could have. In this political climate, you likely could not apply these traits to a female protagonist as women will take it personally and assume you mean "all women are X" You can do this with a male one because men often dont take it personally.
That’s what’s annoying about Rey though. Since she has had little to no struggle, the successes are diminished. I wish they kept her win against Kylo in the TFA, but have her struggle onwards to actually beat him later on. That way, she could have just been considered lucky and not have god status. She beats Kylo way too easily, and it also makes Kylo seem like a less intimidating villain. There’s a reason why people were happy for Luke when he was able to beat Vader. Darth Vader was an imposing villain and he beat Luke multiple times, before Luke was able to win. With Rey, the villains are so easy for her to conquer that people lose interest. That’s the reason why so many people are against Mary Sue characters. If a character is already invincible to most things, there’s no chance for growth or struggle. This is why Leia is a better written character too. Just because she’s a woman, didn’t mean that she was without fault. Han didn’t automatically like Leia, and they would fight each other often. Also, Leia would sometimes be too stubborn and headstrong, which at times would not work in her favor. She’s even captured in ROTJ and needs to be rescued again. Even so, Leia was a good fighter, and clever. If the execs wrote Rey more like Leia, I think Rey would have been an overall more interesting character because she would not be a blank slate, and instead be a character all her own.
 
What is that a reference to?

"The Aristocrats" is a taboo-defying off-color joke that has been told by numerous stand-up comedians since the vaudeville era. The joke was the subject of a 2005 documentary film of the same name. It received publicity when it was used by Gilbert Gottfried during the Friars' Club roast of Hugh Hefner in September 2001.

Gilbert Gottfried and Bob Sagat have by FAR the best Aristocrats delivery ever:


 
So i have been thinking as to why rey was written to be a mary sue. It seems like it would be rather hard to write a character that doesnt face any adversity. It doesnt seem like this is incompetent writing as someone pointed out many pages back that since she can't lose, you have to stall or distract her.

Then i heard Ya Boi Zack's explanation. There have been studies with toys as to how boys and girls play with them and percieve them. Basically, boys want to be He-man, girls want barbie to be her. Both toys are tabula rosas meant for the child to project onto.

Rey was likely made to be a tabula rosa for the female audience to project themselves onto (which explains the reylos) If rey was to suffer any sort of hardship or character flaws, these women would interpet that as a slight against them. Compare that to something like Bond, where men want to be this suave superspy and any flaws or hardships he overcomes only makes him more cool to these men.

This ties into something i heard called the 'Galbrush paradox'. Imagine some the worst character traits one could have. In this political climate, you likely could not apply these traits to a female protagonist as women will take it personally and assume you mean "all women are X" You can do this with a male one because men often dont take it personally.
It didn't used to be that bad with the mantra of "you can't hurt female characters!" until fairly recently.

Look at "The Long Kiss Goodnight", that character gets shot, stabbed, blown up, and at one points even screams for help. Does it depower her? Fuck no. Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson doesn't diminish the female protagonist at all. (Come on, that scene where he's half-frozen in the car, she's screaming for help, and he opens his eyes and looks up is completely badass and we both know it)

Leia was: tortured, shot at, hell, she got shot in RotJ, and that didn't diminish her character. Hell, the majority of women I knew at the time of that movie thought it was badass.

But something changed, both in story-telling and in audience attitudes.

To be honest, I blame Twilight.

Now wait, hear me out. Twilight Bella got everything she wanted, and because her blood tasted so delicious, it was a reason that she couldn't be injured in the series because even a paper cut put her life at risk from hordes of vampires. We all know the fact that it was a Mary Sue insert, that she could have been replaced by a Pecan Pie and the story would be the same.

The Hunger Games, the protagonist got hurt, physically, mentally, emotionally, but the movies really blunted it down to "Really cool chick with a bow" and ignored all the messy "hide in the closet under blankets because it's warm and safe and nobody can judge me or see me or hurt me" aspects of the series.

Then suddenly if a female protagonist got injured, critics and smooth brained Twitterati screamed "TORTURE PORN!" and mistook normal anxiety for disgust and trauma.

Weirdly, it follows a conversation I had a few months back with some friends.

Movies and literature have women in male roles, in traditionally male activities, but they (the audience, the character, the real person) strangely enough still carry forward the "you can't hit/hurt me, I'm a girl!!!" that you see in every fucking Worldstar video where some chick is beating on a guy and he gets sick of it and throws a single punch after she's punched him, spit on him, kicked him, clawed him, bitten him, and suddenly HE'S the bad guy.

If you had a movie where women charged the beach on D-Day instead of men, I will lay you dollars to donuts that every critic would freak out and you'd see article after article about how if you like this movie you secretly hate women.

Look at Black Widow's introduction scene in Avengers. She's tied to a chair supposedly exposed to enhanced interrogation (Slapping at the time) and yet her hair is perfectly in place. They couldn't even give her a black eye or a split lip because they knew that audiences would react badly.

Compare that to say, Stark's treatment by the hadji's in Iron Man.

(Don't get me wrong, I think Black Widow is one of the better female characters in film nowadays because she isn't perfect and she isn't the strongest/fastest/toughest/deadliest character in the Avenger films)

If you were to do a war film with a main female lead, it's doubtful they'd injure her at all. Do you think she'd take a beating ala Desmond Doss in Hacksaw Ridge? Hell, do you think she'd take a bullet to the gut like that movie in the 90's about the chopper pilot during Desert Storm?

Shit, do you think they'd beat on her like they did during GI Jane?

It's all about getting the cool powers, the cool abilities, the "respect", the privileges of a male role without all the responsibilities and hardship, even while the critics and Twitterati go on and on about "women's pain" or "women's burden" or whatever.

Female characters have to reflect these Twitterati and upper-execs and Hollywood weirdos who haven't really had any hardship and think that being told "No" is the worst thing in the universe.

Like the meme says:

Death Star Destroys Alderan, Women Most Affected.

Which REALLY REALLY sucks, because they've set back story-telling by decades. Even Grandpappy Tolkien's female characters underwent struggle and hardship.

"The Little Matchgirl" could never be accepted today.

The sexy, sexual, and badass Grace Jones characters from Octopussy and Conan couldn't be done today.

Vasquez from Aliens couldn't be done today.

Soy Wars is just the state of modern storytelling.

A perfect female character who gets no development, growth, training, has no reason for powers and abilities aside from "Yay! Woman!", who treats getting dusty like being gutshot while everyone carries her around talking about how strong and brave she is.

What pisses me off, is not only did Star Wars fans deserve better, but movie-goers, and yes, women, deserve better.

The tale of John Henry is diminished if he doesn't die.

Hacksaw Ridge is lessened if Desmond Doss just wanders around with his uniform perfect and uninjured.

Halloween is ruined if Lorie Strode is in no danger the entire time.

That's the crux of the Soy Wars debate and argument, when you get right down to it.

The audience deserves a real story, not a 3-movie commercial for merchandise.
 
So for those of who who believe that now that this movie is basically a failure, the healing can begin, I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.

Say what you will about the prequel trilogy's failures, but when they happened, the other Writers involved with Star Wars knew enough to either ignore or sideline them. That won't be happeneing with the sequel trilogy. They are going to remind you that it happened and that it's canon now, and they are going to do everything to throw it in the face of every Star Wars fan. This level of contempt for their audience is clearly what drove them, as it was the entire impetus behind Episode VIII and seems to be the underwritten theme of the entire sequel trilogy.

What this means is that unlike previous cases where George's big fuck-ups were largely ignored by the rest of the setting, Disney is going to force those fuck-ups right into your face. There's going to be attempts to gain control of Mandalorian and force ST bullshit directly into it. There's going to be cases of the very idiots who fucked up the ST demanding to be put on other projects, and because the movie wasn't a complete failure (technically), they may very well succeed because the most responsible parties are largely protected from consequences.

Expect to see the ST forced in everywhere, infinitely more obnoxiously before, and the corresponding fluffpieces about how it didn't do as well as it should have because you were too stupid to embrace the glorious superior future.

>tfw you want to neg-rate a post, but can't because it is true.

What is that a reference to?


edit: Beaten like a deaf irish wife on payday
 
Also, on Iger, I think he's getting out while the getting's good. He was responsible for Disney's rapid growth, with all the headaches that that has caused. Disney has made a number of insanely expensive purchases such as Marvel and Lucasfilm, and they're not seeing the ROI on Star Wars. That, and rumors of financial impropriety seems to be the reason why Disney is so eager to lie and inflate numbers in order to trick investors that everything's a-okay with the Rat. Disney is the bloated monstrosity that it is thanks to Iger. I'm guessing that he knows that reckoning is coming for the Rat, so he's retiring while he can. The disaster that was Eisner years will look like Disneyland compared to the fallout from the decisions made by Iger.
The successor will be known as the guy who was Dinsey's last CEO as a independent company before they were sold to a giant tech company.

But for real, Iger's successor is going to get a huge payout once the company is sold off.
 
We could go full autist and point out the paint chipping on their armor shows it to be closer to whatever duraplast or durasteel armor that mando's old armor was.
Well, the mere fact that they have chipped paint doesn't really mean anything. I rather doubt that they have enough Beskar to start mixing it into their paint. If you're referring to scarring and pockmarking on the armor itself, that in and of itself is also not necessarily indicative of the armor's composition, as comments from Mando himself suggest that the metal is not invulnerable to damage.

But that doesnt throw the painting thing out the window because I doubt the armor mistress' gold helmet isnt beskar.
Gold-colored armor apparently signifies a devotion to vengeance, interestingly enough....

Mostly I think your interpretation is mostly spot on. He is indecisive now that you mention it, but I'd probably write it off as just the creators wanting a knight in shining armor rather then him not choosing to paint it to not stand out.
But the real question is why he doesnt have a jetpack (yet)?
They're saving it for the last episode. 😉

In movies? I doubt it, George hated her and by all accounts would heavily retcon the NJO era if his sequel trilogy came to fruition. Then again, the Vong were supposed to appear in The Clone Wars, so maybe he came around to the era.
Somebody mentioned that Lucas hated the idea of Luke getting married in general but Mark Hamill (who is/was apparently quite happy with Luke being the husband of Mara and father of Ben in the EU) was always working on him to change his mind.

Eh, Disney gets no blame on Carrie's death.
p4VJHkd.png


Before Anakin/Vader there were hundreds of Jedi "guiding" the Republic and two Sith. After Anakin/Vader there are two Jedi (Obi Wan and Yoda) and two Sith (Vader and Palpatine) - balance to the Force.
Per Lucas: Balance to the Force = no Sith.

I cannot see how you could possibly have Leia become a Sith. Yeah, she's hot-headed, but Luke was always closer to the dark side than she was. That's why they did it with her twins in the old EU, but even then Jacen turning to the dark side was widely mocked as contrived and against the point Vergere was trying to make. So they retconned her as a Sith too, of course.
I always figured that Jaina would have been the better candidate to fall to the Dark Side than her brother. Jacen Solo was just too passive a character, for the most part.

Not entirely though. George was willing to bring back the Vong but its clear the NJO would go through several changes. For one George no longer wanted the Vong to be "immune" to the Force or have their armor be lightsaber resistant, although they would still be very strong and have organic tech, but their overall influence on the galaxy would probably be altered. This would've changed quite a lot (battle wise at least) and would probably be followed by some kind of rewrite or soft reboot of NJO, kinda like what I, Jedi was to the Jedi Academy Trilogy. Some key shit would probably still happen, but the battles and certain events would probably be changed or slightly altered (or maybe it would be a full blow rewrite or retcon for all we know). Also I wouldn't be surprised if George would "save" Coruscant though considering how much he loves it, which is a shame since that's the one planet I was happy to see get fucked and restored to nature.
Being outside of/dead to the Force is kind of the whole larger point of the Vong, though. It's representative of how, despite their ostensible religiosity, they're a purely materialist society, with no consideration/understanding of existence or value beyond "crude matter."

You know what? Fuck RedLetterMedia and the Plinkett character.

They're dilettantes whose criticism of the prequels apply just as much, if not more so, to the Original Trilogy. All the while, they caked their "funny" reviews with a smug spicing of superficial film critiques and arbitrary criteria for what makes and doesn't make good stories. And the worst part is that every unoriginal critic parrots their reviews as if they're some sort of gospel.

But when the egg is on their face, they're quick to denounce or qualify their previous suggestions. "Oh," they say, "we never really thought Jar Jar was a perfect fit for Star Wars! Even though we said he was amazing for Star Trek!"

Thanks, RLM. You're part of the reason we're in the timeline where JJ ruined two classic Sci-fi films.
Agreed. Plus, Mike's "Plinkett" voice/vocal mannerisms just make me want to bounce a VCR off of his face.

But warfare increases entropy, things get destroyed and energy is expended, especially war in such a large and technological civilization as the one in Star Wars. A more fitting devil for this religion would be a personification of stagnation.
Yeah, I got a little mixed up there. The Mandalorian devil-analogue is called Arasuum and he is specifically the personification of sloth and stagnation. 😶

Nobody expected some bimbo exec to aggressively mandate the protagonist be a tedious mary sue "avatar of all the new fans we totally gonna get", hire a bunch of YA-clique hacks and woke cretins to smother the Nu-EU in the crib, and then give a smirking pretentious douchebag carte blanche to throw the entire fucking project down the toilet because "LOLSUBVERSION! OLD STAR WARS WAS SHIT ALL ALONG! FORGET ABOUT THE STORIES AND CHARACTERS YOU LIKE AND EMBRACE THE SUPERIOR FUTURE CHARACTERS AND STORY!" and then go on an angry jihad along with the aforementioned YA-clique hacks and cretins against everybody who dared voice criticism of this dumb move and repeatedly declaring vast segments of the star wars fandom nazi manbabies.
That was exactly what you should have expected.

I agree with Mauler that the ST is dogshit, but he takes its dogshittiness as something that can be proven, based on his alien notion of "subjective vs objective" critiques. To him, it's more or less a fact that the ST is bad and that it's rational to hate it.

Nah, man. That's the same logic that got the prequels flamed to no end. I'm just here saying that, as someone who respects Lucas's vision, or Legends, the ST is an abortion.
I dunno, man. It seems to me that establishing the objective badness of Nu-Wars is exactly what we've been doing in this thread for months now.

It can be a topic of it's own, but cgi action scenes in films is cancer. Like, "let's make every fight scene dark so people won't notice the quality" (Pacific Rim) or "let's give humans guns so they won't have to physically fight Orks" (Warcraft).
My half-forgotten memories of playing Warcraft 2 back in the day would seem to indicate that Azeroth humans should be just about as big as orks to start with.

It's not impossible, he just didn't have writing ability to pull it off. I also felt he lost what the Jedi are supposed to be(what Yoda was in ESB): space hippies...
That's kind of hard to reconcile with Obi-Wan's statement that the Jedi were the guardians of the Republic for over a thousand generations, or the explicit identification of the lightsaber as "the weapon of the Jedi." The glimpses at the vanished Jedi Order that the OT provided ran the gamut from obfuscating, reclusive mystics like Yoda to "cunning warriors" and (presumably combat) pilots like Anakin Skywalker, to puckish wizard-types like old Ben.

Hearing EVS spout about a rated R Boba Fett movie: dumbest shit I ever heard...
I would pay money to see that, NGL. 😁

As was mentiones before, you want adult Star Wars: go read Dune...
It's not the same thing. Dune isn't a universe that I want to travel to and have fun (if sometimes harrowing) adventures in, it's a universe that I want to burn to ashes. I mean, don't even get me started on the Bene Gesserit...

The problem with the prequels as movies was Episode I was a waste of time. Lucas decided to go for old style Disney movie appealing to children. So he made his 'lead' a child. Because of this. The love story couldn't progress, his training couldn't progress, his own character development couldn't progress. The ending of I is dumb in that Anakin blunders his way into destroying a key command ship. You had to develop a character like Qui-gon and Darth Maul, and dispose of him to fill the void. Then things that should of happened in I had to happen in II, the cornball romance was needed to speed up the relationship. Then III is now also doing double time. III would have been good if they didn't have to rush to reconcile PT to the Saga.
This is an excellent point, and I'll add, it's really difficult to reconcile Obi-Wan's comments about Anakin already being an incredible pilot when he first met him, with "let's try spinning! That's a good trick!" (no offense intended to Jake Lloyd).

And despite our disagreements over the Vong, I think we can both agree that it was still a better outcome for the characters and their successors than what Disney gave them.
Yes. We can quibble over whether the scale of destruction was too over-the-top or not, but the victory over the Vong felt earned in a very tangible way, and I think it really cemented Luke's eponymous New Jedi Order as the bonafide guardians of the Galaxy, so to speak. Like, they weren't assuming a position of authority and guardianship just because the old Jedi Order used to have one before the Clone Wars, but rather, because they had been instrumental to prosecuting and ultimately winning a war for the preservation of the entire galaxy, a victory sealed with the blood of the countless Jedi Knights who had fallen in battle along the way (unfortunately, Legacy of the Force then went and dumped all over that, but that's another story).

I still tear up a little bit reading those last lines from Luceno's The Unifying Force, with the heroes and their families all gathered together for a celebration amid the forests of Kashyyyk, echoing the final scenes of Return of the Jedi:

...Gradually their bittersweet laughter floated from the wooden table, up past the lanterns, the wind chimes, and the thick branches from which they dangled, meandering up through the crowns of the tallest wroshyr trees and gliding weightless into the twilight sky, up, ever up into stars too numerous to count, defying the stillness of vacuum and dispersing, vectoring out across space and time, as if destined to be heard in galaxies far, far away...

According to the new IX dictionary and guide for the film, Disney will no longer be using BBY/ABY (Before and After Battle of Yavin) for the Star Wars calendar's dating system. Instead they'll be using BSI/ASI (Before and After Starkiller Incident) for all years in SW from now on... So currently it is now Year 1 ASI in Plan IX. Therefore Rey and her gang have officially replaced Luke and his friends in every conceivable way.

The same guide also tries to explain why the stupidly named "Holdo Maneuver" was only a 1 in a million thing and why nobody uses it. Suffice it to say, it sounds more bullshitty than the explanations surrounding Starkiller or Rey herself.
The beatings will continue until morale improves...

The biggest problem with the prequels was that they started too early. Episode 1 doesn't need to exist. Make Anakin a serf or slave on Naboo who happens to be a great pilot. Or maybe he was a slave pilot for the trade federation, and because of his skill with the force, broke his conditioning. You can use this as a hook about his mother. He's key to winning the victory in the sky for the first film, and saves the princess at some point, and has earned his freedom.
Gotta tie him to Tatooine in some way, though.

And whenever someone talks shit about white people they're joking too right?
Only when they get called on it, apparently...

Solo: A Star Wars Story
A fucking botch. An absolutely pointless waste of time and effort that tells a story that didn't need to be told and was already covered in the Radio Drama series. Would be much more entertaining save for its decision to spray Identity Politics everywhere with shit like Feminist Droid and Pansexual Lando done for no other reason than to give the creators one more chance to soapbox like the tasteless dipshits they are. To show how much they stand by their convictions, they then remove these for the Chinese release, showing it to be further hollow virtual signaling.
One of the things that infuriates me about Solo is that it feels like about three or four different, potentially-interesting movies all jammed together into the space of 135 minutes. First you've got the vaguely cyberpunk-ish "underworld/life under the Empire" bit on Corellia (which looks nothing like EU Corellia and has somehow inherited Kuat's ISD shipyards, but give it a different name and it'd be fine), then the embryonic "Imperials are people too" segment with the war on Mimban, and then the whole thing with the smugglers. Each of those could have served as the basis for an extended story in its own right, similar to what The Mandalorian has been doing wit bounty hunters, but they're packed into the same movie like so many sardines, with the plot swerving from one theme/setting to the next at such a pace the audience is in danger of getting whiplash from trying to keep up with all of the abrupt shifts in tone and setting. It's especially irritating for me, because the film "canonized" (lol for whatever that's worth) one of my favourite bits of obscure EU lore, the Imperial Army infantry from the old West-End Games RPG books (whom I really think should be used more widely to avoid nerfing the allegedly-elite Stormtroopers), but that entire section of the film, which could have been a springboard for introducing a little more ambiguity into the image of the Empire, showing that, rather than being composed entirely of faceless blasterfodder, the Imperial war-machine contains plenty of people like Han, only lasted about as long as a bathroom break and probably suffered more from the film's all-over issues with cinematography than any other part of it.

I mean, c'mon, don't these look like scenes from a much more interesting story than what we ended up with?

DtVEJZtVsAIxcU7.jpg


015.jpg


TobiasMimban.jpeg


So, I think Kennedy is a fuckwit, but people keep on throwing that picture around, without context...

Those shirts have nothing to do with Star Wars. It's not sponsered, created, or promoted by Lucasfilm...
Doesn't matter. It's the acting head of Lucasfilm parading around with a dumb grin on her face wearing a T-shirt that suggests the disembodied, genderless cosmic maybe-entity that governs the Star Wars universe has a vagina. It's very indicative of her mindset, especially in the context of how overpowered Rey is (and how much more overpowered Kennedy allegedly wanted to make her).
 
Last edited:
It didn't used to be that bad with the mantra of "you can't hurt female characters!" until fairly recently.

Look at "The Long Kiss Goodnight", that character gets shot, stabbed, blown up, and at one points even screams for help. Does it depower her? Fuck no. Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson doesn't diminish the female protagonist at all. (Come on, that scene where he's half-frozen in the car, she's screaming for help, and he opens his eyes and looks up is completely badass and we both know it)

Leia was: tortured, shot at, hell, she got shot in RotJ, and that didn't diminish her character. Hell, the majority of women I knew at the time of that movie thought it was badass.

But something changed, both in story-telling and in audience attitudes.

To be honest, I blame Twilight.

Now wait, hear me out. Twilight Bella got everything she wanted, and because her blood tasted so delicious, it was a reason that she couldn't be injured in the series because even a paper cut put her life at risk from hordes of vampires. We all know the fact that it was a Mary Sue insert, that she could have been replaced by a Pecan Pie and the story would be the same.

The Hunger Games, the protagonist got hurt, physically, mentally, emotionally, but the movies really blunted it down to "Really cool chick with a bow" and ignored all the messy "hide in the closet under blankets because it's warm and safe and nobody can judge me or see me or hurt me" aspects of the series.

Then suddenly if a female protagonist got injured, critics and smooth brained Twitterati screamed "TORTURE PORN!" and mistook normal anxiety for disgust and trauma.

Weirdly, it follows a conversation I had a few months back with some friends.

Movies and literature have women in male roles, in traditionally male activities, but they (the audience, the character, the real person) strangely enough still carry forward the "you can't hit/hurt me, I'm a girl!!!" that you see in every fucking Worldstar video where some chick is beating on a guy and he gets sick of it and throws a single punch after she's punched him, spit on him, kicked him, clawed him, bitten him, and suddenly HE'S the bad guy.

If you had a movie where women charged the beach on D-Day instead of men, I will lay you dollars to donuts that every critic would freak out and you'd see article after article about how if you like this movie you secretly hate women.

Look at Black Widow's introduction scene in Avengers. She's tied to a chair supposedly exposed to enhanced interrogation (Slapping at the time) and yet her hair is perfectly in place. They couldn't even give her a black eye or a split lip because they knew that audiences would react badly.

Compare that to say, Stark's treatment by the hadji's in Iron Man.

(Don't get me wrong, I think Black Widow is one of the better female characters in film nowadays because she isn't perfect and she isn't the strongest/fastest/toughest/deadliest character in the Avenger films)

If you were to do a war film with a main female lead, it's doubtful they'd injure her at all. Do you think she'd take a beating ala Desmond Doss in Hacksaw Ridge? Hell, do you think she'd take a bullet to the gut like that movie in the 90's about the chopper pilot during Desert Storm?

Shit, do you think they'd beat on her like they did during GI Jane?

It's all about getting the cool powers, the cool abilities, the "respect", the privileges of a male role without all the responsibilities and hardship, even while the critics and Twitterati go on and on about "women's pain" or "women's burden" or whatever.

Female characters have to reflect these Twitterati and upper-execs and Hollywood weirdos who haven't really had any hardship and think that being told "No" is the worst thing in the universe.

Like the meme says:

Death Star Destroys Alderan, Women Most Affected.

Which REALLY REALLY sucks, because they've set back story-telling by decades. Even Grandpappy Tolkien's female characters underwent struggle and hardship.

"The Little Matchgirl" could never be accepted today.

The sexy, sexual, and badass Grace Jones characters from Octopussy and Conan couldn't be done today.

Vasquez from Aliens couldn't be done today.

Soy Wars is just the state of modern storytelling.

A perfect female character who gets no development, growth, training, has no reason for powers and abilities aside from "Yay! Woman!", who treats getting dusty like being gutshot while everyone carries her around talking about how strong and brave she is.

What pisses me off, is not only did Star Wars fans deserve better, but movie-goers, and yes, women, deserve better.

The tale of John Henry is diminished if he doesn't die.

Hacksaw Ridge is lessened if Desmond Doss just wanders around with his uniform perfect and uninjured.

Halloween is ruined if Lorie Strode is in no danger the entire time.

That's the crux of the Soy Wars debate and argument, when you get right down to it.

The audience deserves a real story, not a 3-movie commercial for merchandise.

What's funny is Nightsister Morrin from Fallen Order is far more developed a character than fucking Rey.
 
Well, the mere fact that they have chipped paint doesn't really mean anything. I rather doubt that they have enough Beskar to start mixing it into their paint. If you're referring to scarring and pockmarking on the armor itself, that in and of itself is also not necessarily indicative of the armor's composition, as comments from Mando himself suggest that the metal is not invulnerable to damage.
No the color of the metal under the chipped paint isn't the color of beskar.
 
Well, the mere fact that they have chipped paint doesn't really mean anything. I rather doubt that they have enough Beskar to start mixing it into their paint. If you're referring to scarring and pockmarking on the armor itself, that in and of itself is also not necessarily indicative of the armor's composition, as comments from Mando himself suggest that the metal is not invulnerable to damage.

Gold-colored armor apparently signifies a devotion to vengeance, interestingly enough....

They're saving it for the last episode. 😉

Somebody mentioned that Lucas hated the idea of Luke getting married in general but Mark Hamill (who is/was apparently quite happy with Luke being the husband of Mara and father of Ben in the EU) was always working on him to change his mind.

p4VJHkd.png


Per Lucas: Balance to the Force = no Sith.

I always figured that Jaina would have been the better candidate to fall to the Dark Side than her brother. Jacen Solo was just too passive a character, for the most part.

Being outside of/dead to the Force is kind of the whole larger point of the Vong, though. It's representative of how, despite their ostensible religiosity, they're a purely materialist society, with no consideration/understanding of existence or value beyond "crude matter."

Agreed. Plus, Mike's "Plinkett" voice/vocal mannerisms just make me want to bounce a VCR off of his face.

Yeah, I got a little mixed up there. The Mandalorian devil-analogue is called Arasuum and he is specifically the personification of sloth and stagnation. 😶

That was exactly what you should have expected.

I dunno, man. It seems to me that establishing the objective badness of Nu-Wars is exactly what we've been doing in this thread for months now.

My half-forgotten memories of playing Warcraft 2 back in the day would seem to indicate that Azeroth humans should be just about as big as orks to start with.

That's kind of hard to reconcile with Obi-Wan's statement that the Jedi were the guardians of the Republic for over a thousand generations, or the explicit identification of the lightsaber as "the weapon of the Jedi." The glimpses at the vanished Jedi Order that the OT provided ran the gamut from obfuscating, reclusive mystics like Yoda to "cunning warriors" and (presumably combat) pilots like Anakin Skywalker, to puckish wizard-types like old Ben.

I would pay money to see that, NGL. 😁

It's not the same thing. Dune isn't a universe that I want to travel to and have fun (if sometimes harrowing) adventures in, it's a universe that I want to burn to ashes. I mean, don't even get me started on the Bene Gesserit...

This is an excellent point, and I'll add, it's really difficult to reconcile Obi-Wan's comments about Anakin already being an incredible pilot when he first met him, with "let's try spinning! That's a good trick!" (no offense intended to Jake Lloyd).

Yes. We can quibble over whether the scale of destruction was too over-the-top or not, but the victory over the Vong felt earned in a very tangible way, and I think it really cemented Luke's eponymous New Jedi Order as the bonafide guardians of the Galaxy, so to speak. Like, they weren't assuming a position of authority and guardianship just because the old Jedi Order used to have one before the Clone Wars, but rather, because they had been instrumental to prosecuting and ultimately winning a war for the preservation of the entire galaxy, a victory sealed with the blood of the countless Jedi Knights who had fallen in battle along the way (unfortunately, Legacy of the Force then went and dumped all over that, but that's another story).

I still tear up a little bit reading those last lines from Luceno's The Unifying Force, with the heroes and their families all gathered together for a celebration amid the forests of Kashyyyk, echoing the final scenes of Return of the Jedi:

...Gradually their bittersweet laughter floated from the wooden table, up past the lanterns, the wind chimes, and the thick branches from which they dangled, meandering up through the crowns of the tallest wroshyr trees and gliding weightless into the twilight sky, up, ever up into stars too numerous to count, defying the stillness of vacuum and dispersing, vectoring out across space and time, as if destined to be heard in galaxies far, far away...

The beatings will continue until morale improves...

Gotta tie him to Tatooine in some way, though.

Only when they get called on it, apparently...

One of the things that infuriates me about Solo is that it feels like about three or four different, potentially-interesting movies all jammed together into the space of 135 minutes. First you've got the vaguely cyberpunk-ish "underworld/life under the Empire" bit on Corellia (which looks nothing like EU Corellia and has somehow inherited ISD shipyards, but give it a different name and it'd be fine), then the embryonic "Imperials are people too" segment with the war on Mimban, and then the whole thing with the smugglers. Each of those could have served as the basis for an extended story in its own right, similar to what The Mandalorian has been doing wit bounty hunters, but they're packed into the same movie like so many sardines, with the plot swerving from one theme/setting to the next at such a pace the audience is in danger of getting whiplash from trying to keep up with all of the abrupt shifts in tone and setting. It's especially irritating for me, because the film "canonized" (lol for whatever that's worth) one of my favourite bits of obscure EU lore, the Imperial Army infantry from the old West-End Games RPG books (whom I really think should be used more widely to avoid nerfing the allegedly-elite Stormtroopers), but that entire section of the film, which could have been a springboard for introducing a little more ambiguity into the image of the Empire, showing that, rather than being composed entirely of faceless blasterfodder, the Imperial war-machine contains plenty of people like Han, only lasted about as long as a bathroom break and probably suffered more from the film's all-over issues with cinematography than any other part of it.

I mean, c'mon, don't these look like scenes from a much more interesting story than what we ended up with?

DtVEJZtVsAIxcU7.jpg


015.jpg


TobiasMimban.jpeg


Doesn't matter. It's the acting head of Lucasfilm parading around with a dumb grin on her face wearing a T-shirt that suggests the disembodied, genderless cosmic maybe-entity that governs the Star Wars universe has a vagina. It's very indicative of her mindset, especially in the context of how overpowered Rey is (and how much more overpowered Kennedy allegedly wanted to make her).

In regards to recociling the martial aspect of Jedi(Ben)to the mystical Yoda: it's stupid easy.

Obi-wan talks about Jedi KNIGHTS, Yoda talks about Jedi.

Jedi is the religion, Jedi Knights are an order within it. The Jedi like Yoda are healers, scholars, mystics, missionaries(don't carry lightsabers).

The Jedi Knights are an order, like Knights of the Round table, who were created(at one time) to fight the Sith....

This can create all sorts of interesting internal conflicts...

This was, at one time, one of the ideas Lucas was playing with. Instead, he went with a monastic shoalin monk thing...
 
Last edited:
who are these characters?
Judging by their awful picture, I almost don't want to find out...
They're 3 characters from Filoni's Clone Wars who still play a huge part in Disney shit and are credited as the creators of the time anus from Disney's Aladdin's Rebels cartoon which was used to bring Ahsoka back to life via time travel.
A_World_Between_Worlds_concept_4.jpg
 
Back