5 hours ago, Sithborg said:

Disagree about Finn. Self sacrifice is a form of running.

"Don't fight what you hate, save what you love" I think is one of greatest ideas that should be applied to the main saga movies.

Following Captain Lackwit's advice, I refrained to keep on commenting here, but I need to ask about this message.
Nobody finds a problem with that being the message of the movie?

So basically it says that instead of fighting oppression you should just run with those you love, or what?
Do not fight, just flee? Save yourselves and your beloved ones, abandon your aspirations to defeat the evil in the world?

This is what Han was telling Luke in Episode IV before the attack to the Death Star.
"That is suicide. Come with me, instead. You are a good shot."
Han cared for Luke and didn't want him to die fighting an impossible battle.
Then we saw him as a coward or someone that was just there for the interest. Some people had ideals and were willing to sacrifice themselves for them. For hope of a better world.

I cannot believe that people are embracing this message as a great morale.
What Rose does in that scene where she "saves" Finn is incredibly selfish and stupid.
She prefers the destruction of all her allies and friends within the Resistance, and to take away Finn's personal choice of self sacrifice for the greater good. And all for saving her love interest (questionably, since she does it by crashing against him and ending surrounded by the First Order forces).

The message is then "Do not fight injustice. Just take care of you and your family and forget about the rest. Abandon all hope."
It's madness. It's just the opposite message from the OT.
So selfish. So shortsighted.
It's truly the kind of message a megacorporation would promote in a dystopical world, and people are totally fine with it.

Star Wars has always been quite political, despite many would think.
It depicted a bunch of revolutionary idealists against a tyrannical government. It always promoted self sacrifice, nobility, justice, based on the motivation of hope for achieving a better world. "If not for me, for others". And it suggested to get that world by fighting, not just with smiles and prayers.
Even in the darkest moments of the original trilogy, we could see the rebel fleet regrouping outside the galaxy, Luke getting a new hand, and plans set in motion for rescuing Han. Hope.

This movie is the opposite.
Han is dead, Luke is dead. The Jedi are dead. The Resistance is dead. The Republic is dead. Nobody came to aid them. There is no hope in the galaxy.
"Stop fighting, just save yourselves and those you love."
"Stop trying to change the world. Do as you are told. Conform or you will lose what matters to you."

2 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

Its more believable for a jaded veteran to grow a conscience over a truly horrible act then for some panzy to go unnoticed in the ranks for, I assume, years.

As far as I know he went through training the whole time and this was the first time that they actually went into combat. So you get the rookies coming in instead of the battle hardened guys, but still with years and years of special forces training, barely making it … alas I don't read the EU, so someone who read Finns novels might be explaining it better.

2 hours ago, BadMotivator said:

With the First Order brainwashing their soldiers from childhood, it is highly unbelievable that someone like Finn would have made it to be a stormtrooper. He really never would have made it out of whatever training the First Order does. Its more believable for a jaded veteran to grow a conscience over a truly horrible act then for some panzy to go unnoticed in the ranks for, I assume, years.

From Before The Awakening, Finn is a newbie, who has only just finished his training, with Jakku being his first serious combat action. So "Unnoticed for years" doesn't apply.

1 hour ago, OneKelvin said:

"No one waited 30 years to see a Luke Skywalker that just gave up."
- Kwampster 900

Fear not.

There's always another Galaxy.

Oh **** no there isn't. Not that scam game.

2 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Star Wars has always been quite political, despite many would think.

That’s amazing. Every word in that sentence was wrong.

I wont deny that Star Wars has never been political free, but it isn’t drowning in it either, despite what some philosophy professor thought was a good idea to try and keep his class “fresh“,”hip”, and “exciting”.

TBH empire has the similar idea, the thing is now we have the benefit of ROTJ so that we know the rebels only embraced the oldest and noblest of pirate traditions, which was to fight to run away until they could attack again. It’s the same ending for TLJ, Leia tells Rey as much, we have what we need to rebuild the resistance.

2 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Following Captain Lackwit's advice, I refrained to keep on commenting here, but I need to ask about this message.
Nobody finds a problem with that being the message of the movie?

So basically it says that instead of fighting oppression you should just run with those you love, or what?
Do not fight, just flee? Save yourselves and your beloved ones, abandon your aspirations to defeat the evil in the world?

This is what Han was telling Luke in Episode IV before the attack to the Death Star.
"That is suicide. Come with me, instead. You are a good shot."
Han cared for Luke and didn't want him to die fighting an impossible battle.
Then we saw him as a coward or someone that was just there for the interest. Some people had ideals and were willing to sacrifice themselves for them. For hope of a better world.

I cannot believe that people are embracing this message as a great morale.
What Rose does in that scene where she "saves" Finn is incredibly selfish and stupid.
She prefers the destruction of all her allies and friends within the Resistance, and to take away Finn's personal choice of self sacrifice for the greater good. And all for saving her love interest (questionably, since she does it by crashing against him and ending surrounded by the First Order forces).

The message is then "Do not fight injustice. Just take care of you and your family and forget about the rest. Abandon all hope."
It's madness. It's just the opposite message from the OT.
So selfish. So shortsighted.
It's truly the kind of message a megacorporation would promote in a dystopical world, and people are totally fine with it.

Star Wars has always been quite political, despite many would think.
It depicted a bunch of revolutionary idealists against a tyrannical government. It always promoted self sacrifice, nobility, justice, based on the motivation of hope for achieving a better world. "If not for me, for others". And it suggested to get that world by fighting, not just with smiles and prayers.
Even in the darkest moments of the original trilogy, we could see the rebel fleet regrouping outside the galaxy, Luke getting a new hand, and plans set in motion for rescuing Han. Hope.

This movie is the opposite.
Han is dead, Luke is dead. The Jedi are dead. The Resistance is dead. The Republic is dead. Nobody came to aid them. There is no hope in the galaxy.
"Stop fighting, just save yourselves and those you love."
"Stop trying to change the world. Do as you are told. Conform or you will lose what matters to you."

Well, all that above, or you can simply interpret the message as:

“Do not fight to kill what you hate. Fight to protect what you love.”

See? Much easier. Different point of views, interpretations, and all that.

It was a modern movie; it wasn't 'Star Wars'.

hated it.

1 minute ago, FlyingAnchors said:

That’s amazing. Every word in that sentence was wrong.

Jesus. Are you people going to stop spamming that sentence everywhere? It's lame when it doesn't fit the moment.

• Ep4 is based on the Vietnam and Korean war. Lucas and other creatives in the 70s sympathized with the natives and the Empire is a reflection of the US imperialistic ways at the time.
• The Rebellion is a revolutionary group to defeat the established government, you want it or not. Today's rhetoric would call them terrorists if they are against your government interests, or rebels if they are aligned. In any case, it is just politics.
• Lucas has always had a clear liberal, anti-authority, pro-democratic narrative in Star Wars. Episode 2 and 3 are his way to express his criticism of people willing to trade their freedom for promises of security. "This is how democracy dies, with a thunderous applause."
• Lucas is a convinced democrat. The main antagonist in Episode 1, the Trade Federation, are lead by Gunray (a play on Reagan name) and Lott Dod (Trent Lott).

Quote

Some observers of the politics of Star Wars sharply criticize parts of Lucas’s tale. Following the release of “Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” the Objectivist Center’s Ed Hudgins fired off an op-ed criticizing the film for showing Palpatine and the Sith forming an alliance of convenience with traders (the Trade Federation), bankers (the Banking Clan), unions (the Commerce Guilds), and corporations (the Corporate Alliance).

“That’s about as obvious a slap at business as you’ll get,” Hudgins bristled. “Lucas the liberal sees economic power as a danger, and fails to realize that it is political power, even in the hands of a republican government, that corrupts commerce and society.”

Or

Quote

George Lucas, the guy who invented the whole thing, actually had something quite different in mind.

How a republic, beset by complacency, naivete and quite a few wars, withers away into tyranny. Lucas was animated not by the Soviet Union, but something far closer to home. “It was really about the Vietnam War, and that was the period where President Richard Nixon was trying to run for a second term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships?” Lucas told the Chicago Tribune in 2005. “Because the democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away.”

Lucas wasn't just creating escapism movies. They had a strong political view, his own.

Quote

Lucas rolled out his much-maligned “prequel” Star Wars trilogy around the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. In one installment, he even had the future Darth Vader declare “if you are not with us, you are my enemy,” echoing the “with us or against us” rhetoric of then-President George W. Bush. It seemed Lucas was aligning the imperial impulse in American politics with the evil Sith, the anti-Jedi of his story.

“I know that’s the line that George Bush said, but many other people who have run countries have said it before him,” said Ian McDiarmid, the actor who played Chancellor Palpatine, the figure who morphs into the evil Emperor. “That really is a great Sith line.”

Lucas went even further with the New York Times: “George Bush is Darth Vader. Vice President **** Cheney is the Emperor,” he said.

You can find references to this all over the place. You just need to want to see it.

Clearly, Disney's ideoligy doesn't match that of a indie filmmaker from the 70s. And that is why we see this change of morals in the latest movies.

1 hour ago, Azrapse said:

Jesus. Are you people going to stop spamming that sentence everywhere? It's lame when it doesn't fit the moment.

At this point, it's the only comeback they've got.

We're getting dangerously political here, dudes.

21 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

We're getting dangerously political here, dudes.

What? Nobody have stated their political ideas or preferences.
I understand nobody wants to be told that Puff the Magic Dragon wasn't really a story about a boy's dragon. But I was just quoting Lucas directly.

There is a clear shift in ideology and message from the OT to the Prequels and to the Sequels.
The OT is clearly 70's Lucas' revolutionary ideology, while the Prequels are his ideology in the 90's/2000's, and the Sequels are Disney's corporative values of pro "Docile, submissive minds", anti"curious, anti-criticizing personalities" and favoring "Change and novelty over value and meaning".

You guys still discussing this movie?!?

Gents, less computer-time, and more table-time with our favorite game of X-wing!

26 minutes ago, RedHotDice said:

You guys still discussing this movie?!?

Gents, less computer-time, and more table-time with our favorite game of X-wing!

On ‎22‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:47 AM, Captain Lackwit said:

We're getting dangerously political here, dudes.

OK, let's get political.

With this film (and, to a lesser extent, The Force Awakens), Disney, Kathleen and Rian are effectively saying "There is no place for the elderly in our movies, or society".

Han's a victim of patricide. Poe ignores Leia. Rey refuses to accept Luke's reservations, then ignores everything he tried to teach her and eventually runs away sulking, straight into the arms of her cool bad boy boyfriend. You could almost hear her wail "I HATE YOU!" as she scampered off. For someone who was so invested into finding out about her parents, she was awfully quick to reject a potential father figure.

So, there it is kids - you don't need to listen to your parents (Kylo), years of experience counts for nothing (Poe), and there's no point listening to your teachers either, because you know best (Rey). Parents, mentors, wisdom, experience - all unnecessary in Disney-era Star Wars.

They might as well have done a remake of Logan's Run.

And Finn and Rose's story STILL remains pointless, because it doesn't fit into this narrative either.

2 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

We're getting dangerously political here, dudes.

So what? If we can talk (mostly) civil about star wars than we should keep it civil about politics in star wars as well. It's not like it can get any more heated anyway.

19 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

OK, let's get political.

With this film (and, to a lesser extent, The Force Awakens), Disney, Kathleen and Rian are effectively saying "There is no place for the elderly in our movies, or society".

Han's a victim of patricide. Poe ignores Leia. Rey refuses to accept Luke's reservations, then ignores everything he tried to teach her and eventually runs away sulking, straight into the arms of the cool bad boy. For someone who was so invested into finding out about her parents, she was awfully quick to reject a potential father figure.

So, there it is kids - you don't need to listen to your parents (Kylo), years of experience counts for nothing (Poe), and there's no point listening to your teachers either, because you know best (Rey). Parents, mentors, wisdom, experience - all unnecessary in Disney-era Star Wars.

They might as well have done a remake of Logan's Run.

And Finn and Rose's story STILL remains pointless, because it doesn't fit into this narrative either.

OK, outside that "there is no place for the elderly" seems like a cheap rhetorik out of spite from you … it has the problem that the patricide is portrait as a huge fail in Kylo Ren's character, ignoring Leia's advice proofs to be fatal and Poe's arc is basically learning from the older more experienced characters in the movie, a bitter lesson which costs almost all the of remaining resistance, but a lesson for him.

As you are surely aware because it has been pointed out … the movie is about failing and learning from your failures, which literally turns your first assumption of "There is no place for the elderly" by 180° and makes it instead into a message of learning from the elderly, learning from past movies and past mistakes of society. Kylo, the guy who wants to destroy the past is the one in the wrong, while those who can learn from the past and move forward with those lessons are the protagonist and grow this way.

And Finn's and Rose's story fits perfectly into that narrative, because biggest mistake of the new republic was not to deal with those forces who supported the empire in the first place, which aligns the movie in many ways as well with Lucas political views AND fits the theme of learning from mistakes and learning from the past.

It's amazing, almost like you intentional made your statement, so that someone else could point out how awesome this movie is.

4 hours ago, Azrapse said:

You can find references to this all over the place. You just need to want to see it.

Thank you for sharing this. I always assumed that this was just an happy accident, it was one of the reasons why I really liked the prequels while still calling them terrible movies, but if Lucas is on record for making this intentionally … well awesome.

But .... But how the bombs fall ... in space ?

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

So what? If we can talk (mostly) civil about star wars than we should keep it civil about politics in star wars as well. It's not like it can get any more heated anyway.

So here is my remembrance on a few of the political inserts that stood out in the film. This is from a U.S.A. perspective which mean what is relevant in my society currently. These are really just observation not opinions so lets keep it civil.

-The push for diversity. This is straight from K. Kennedy's many speeches on the new star wars films. We can see this in the use of female leads, racial diversity of cast, and status of genders. I don't see this as an issue excerpt when the story is affected by the choices.

-Relativism. There is no universal right and wrong only gray or only what you perceive to be right and wrong.

-Woman power. Everything a man can do a woman can do better. Woman are the voice of reason and have to subdue the out of control males. Again, does this interfere with the story? You decide.

-PETA. Rose frees the camel/horse/dog of its saddle and says something to the effect that this was the real victory or this was worth it. Human life is equal to animal life.

-Casino scenes. Wealthy people are oblivious to the world around them and could care less about the woes of the down trodden. Wealthy people oppress those they view less than them. Wealthy people have no conscience past making money.

-Milking the sea thing. Breast feeding in public. I stated this one a while back on this tread. I take it this is mainly a North American thing. But it is a debate and a hot button topic in the states.

-The view that white males are the problem in society. Only white male with any authority are part of the first order (bad guys). While the hierarchy of the rebels (good guys) is female dominant and the other rebels are very ethnically diverse.

-Love wins. If you have enough love you will win despite the overwhelming odds against you.

Once again, some of these themes are obvious while others are subtle. All are agenda based and in my opinion detract from a films when they are venerated above the actual story being told. When done within the confines of the story they can add greatly to the narrative.

6 hours ago, Azrapse said:

Jesus. Are you people going to stop spamming that sentence everywhere? It's lame when it doesn't fit the moment.

• Ep4 is based on the Vietnam and Korean war. Lucas and other creatives in the 70s sympathized with the natives and the Empire is a reflection of the US imperialistic ways at the time.
• The Rebellion is a revolutionary group to defeat the established government, you want it or not. Today's rhetoric would call them terrorists if they are against your government interests, or rebels if they are aligned. In any case, it is just politics.
• Lucas has always had a clear liberal, anti-authority, pro-democratic narrative in Star Wars. Episode 2 and 3 are his way to express his criticism of people willing to trade their freedom for promises of security. "This is how democracy dies, with a thunderous applause."
• Lucas is a convinced democrat. The main antagonist in Episode 1, the Trade Federation, are lead by Gunray (a play on Reagan name) and Lott Dod (Trent Lott).

Oh yes, please continue to tell me how i'm supposed to view and think about star wars.

I personally love those who aren't self aware enough to criticize the portrayal of the Empire and First Order.

9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

From Before The Awaremtg, Finn is a newbie, who hon just finished his training, with Jakku being his first serious combat action. So "Unnoticed for years" doesn't apply.

Finn said he'd been taken as a young child and didnt remember his family. So yes, years...

It also makes no sense to send newbie trooperw on the mission to Jakku. It was important, send the veterans.

2 hours ago, DANE1026 said:

So here is my remembrance on a few of the political inserts that stood out in the film. This is from a U.S.A. perspective which mean what is relevant in my society currently. These are really just observation not opinions so lets keep it civil.

(points reproduced below)

Once again, some of these themes are obvious while others are subtle. All are agenda based and in my opinion detract from a films when they are venerated above the actual story being told. When done within the confines of the story they can add greatly to the narrative.

Thanks for compiling a neat summary of the political controversies surrounding TLJ! I've been curious about these and I hadn't seen a concise list yet.

Here's a quick take from me on these:

-The push for diversity. This is straight from K. Kennedy's many speeches on the new star wars films. We can see this in the use of female leads, racial diversity of cast, and status of genders. I don't see this as an issue excerpt when the story is affected by the choices.

I encourage pushing for diversity in film generally. Star Wars is for everyone and I'm happy they try to reflect that in the movie. I also understand that there are very clear financial incentives to do so, so I don't give them a ton of credit for making a diverse movie in 2017. I do also understand that one criticism of TLJ is that the Finn/Rose casino storyline was unnecessary and shoehorned in to give something for those characters to do, because they are non-whites. I disagree that the casino storyline was a distraction from the theme of the movie. Ultimately I think that one of the main messages from the movie is that people over-rely on heroes, and people with conspicuous lineages (i.e. the Skywalkers) for the answers and the victories in a struggle, and that real power for change comes from what I call the 'nobodies'. This includes Rey (who started off as a nobody from nowhere, and who (probably) was born to inauspicious parents), Rose, and broom-kid. Inspiring people to rise up is the point of the Rebellion, not simply defeating the Empire's military forces with sheer pluck and self-sacrifice. Standing up to the Empire is important, and self-sacrifice is upheld as honorable (Adm. Holdo is a good example), but only when it's absolutely necessary or productive.

Let me ask: do you think Finn had a good chance of destroying the mini-super-laser by flying straight into the primed laser aperture? We saw his laser cannon melt - I think that was a signal to the audience that Finn would have been vaporized before he completed his suicide run (in addition to giving him a reason to make the suicide run in the first place instead of firing his guns). If he wasn't going to accomplish anything by flying into the firing laser, then Rose was justified in knocking him out of the way - if he was going to get himself killed for no reason. *edit*: Also; the casino storyline does a ton to flesh out Finn's character. Previously, his only motivations were to protect himself and Rey, who he cares about. He was never a true believer in the Resistance. the casino storyline helps him see things differently and gives him a reason to really fight on the side of the Resistance, other than to protect Rey.

-Relativism. There is no universal right and wrong only gray or only what you perceive to be right and wrong.

I think this is a notion that the movie brings up in order to discredit it. The person who we get this message from is the same person that sells out the Resistance at the first chance for extra money. In my experience people who express this point of view are usually doing so to soothe their own consciences (and I think this is the case with Benicio's character).

-Woman power. Everything a man can do a woman can do better. Woman are the voice of reason and have to subdue the out of control males. Again, does this interfere with the story? You decide.

I don't know, Luke Skywalker and Poe Dameron demonstrate extreme skill and power in this movie (in fact his unreasonable piloting abilities are one of my main problems with Poe). 'Woman power' has always been in evidence in Star Wars, too. Leia has always been a strong character, and the political leader of the Rebellion was Mon Mothma. In this movie, Rey is impulsive and overconfident and she almost gets herself killed when she goes to the Supremacy to confront Kylo and Snoke. The only reason she survives is that Kylo betrays Snoke.

-PETA. Rose frees the camel/horse/dog of its saddle and says something to the effect that this was the real victory or this was worth it. Human life is equal to animal life.

I'm not sure about equal... but yeah, Rose is saying that they did at least accomplish something before they got caught or died. I'm no fan of animal cruelty (pretty clearly the case for these horse-things), so... shrug.

-Casino scenes. Wealthy people are oblivious to the world around them and could care less about the woes of the down trodden. Wealthy people oppress those they view less than them. Wealthy people have no conscience past making money.

I think the movie does over-generalize here, but they do identify these people as being war profiteers; and I think that's a fair target of criticism.

-Milking the sea thing. Breast feeding in public. I stated this one a while back on this tread. I take it this is mainly a North American thing. But it is a debate and a hot button topic in the states.

I'm not sure this was intended to be a political message(?) We've seen things get milked in movies before. But usually that's a cow or something, and this was more like breast feeding(?) I just dunno on that one. Personally I find our cultural hangups very odd; we blanch at an exposed breast, but have no problem showing people getting sliced in half. (and even making it a bit of a joke).

-The view that white males are the problem in society. Only white male with any authority are part of the first order (bad guys). While the hierarchy of the rebels (good guys) is female dominant and the other rebels are very ethnically diverse.

Remember that Luke does the right thing here, too. Poe has some authority and we're rooting for him practically the whole movie (Oscar Isaac is hispanic, though). There's also a white male resistance general that makes a brief appearance on Crait. Ackbar dies fast, but is a male fish... On the other hand we also have a prominent female FO military commander in Captain Phasma (disappointing as she may be). But yeah, I don't think it's a coincidence that the FO is effectively led by white men and the Resistance is led by women in the movie, and has a diverse set of aliens to boot. I'm very comfortable with the FO being portrayed as xenophobic (they're evil, after all). I don't think that making the main villains all white men is really the right answer, though. I would have preferred a bit more diversity in the top villains.

-Love wins. If you have enough love you will win despite the overwhelming odds against you.

Typical movie sappiness. This is expected from pretty much any blockbuster movie. No points awarded or deducted.

1 hour ago, DANE1026 said:

So here is my remembrance on a few of the political inserts that stood out in the film. This is from a U.S.A. perspective which mean what is relevant in my society currently. These are really just observation not opinions so lets keep it civil.

1. The push for diversity. This is straight from K. Kennedy's many speeches on the new star wars films. We can see this in the use of female leads, racial diversity of cast, and status of genders. I don't see this as an issue excerpt when the story is affected by the choices.

2. Relativism. There is no universal right and wrong only gray or only what you perceive to be right and wrong.

3. Woman power. Everything a man can do a woman can do better. Woman are the voice of reason and have to subdue the out of control males. Again, does this interfere with the story? You decide.

4. PETA. Rose frees the camel/horse/dog of its saddle and says something to the effect that this was the real victory or this was worth it. Human life is equal to animal life.

5. Casino scenes. Wealthy people are oblivious to the world around them and could care less about the woes of the down trodden. Wealthy people oppress those they view less than them. Wealthy people have no conscience past making money.

6. Milking the sea thing. Breast feeding in public. I stated this one a while back on this tread. I take it this is mainly a North American thing. But it is a debate and a hot button topic in the states.

7. The view that white males are the problem in society. Only white male with any authority are part of the first order (bad guys). While the hierarchy of the rebels (good guys) is female dominant and the other rebels are very ethnically diverse.

8. Love wins. If you have enough love you will win despite the overwhelming odds against you.

Once again, some of these themes are obvious while others are subtle. All are agenda based and in my opinion detract from a films when they are venerated above the actual story being told. When done within the confines of the story they can add greatly to the narrative.

1. We need this? In Star Wars!? What about the aliens? I mean not a single Tweilek in the trilogy to date but we have room for purple hair? Bleh.



2. No. No, no, no. Some perceptions are better than others. If your perception says throwing gays off of buildings and pooing in the street is acceptable, you're wrong. If your perceptions says that blowing up planets for teh lulz and enslaving things in a future with FTL is right, you're wrong. There are objective standards. We can debate how best to achieve them, but right is right and wrong is wrong. Order and entropy.



3. My mom is one of the most important, kind, and influential people both in my life and in the lives of many others. She stayed cool with my dad after the divorce, worked 5AM - 7PM 5 days a week for years to support me and my bro, is so colorblind that when she got cut off by a guy and pointed him out to a nearby cop he said "You never said he was black." and let him off, and has changed the lives of dozens of others working as a teacher, coach, and friend. She has never killed anyone, doesn't know martial arts, and her preferred method of conflict resolution is talking it out.

My stepmom knows martial arts, and gunplay, and plays about a billion different instruments. She's a umpth-degree blackbelt with training in weapons, has swords, knives, rocks and sharp sticks, and spent her formative years as the lead singer in a rock band and her middle years raising 2 sons (my stepbrothers) and getting amazing at real estate. She is a complete pacifist. She doesn't spar anymore because the last time she did one of her friends got bruised and it made her cry. Also never killed anyone, but she can play Dream Theatre on the piano like a pro. Preferred method of conflict resolution is to crack a joke, do a kata, and transfer into air guitar.

Sister, cousin, aunt, best friend's wife. Motorcyclist, architect, wine taster, Star Wars fan. I know one woman who was a marine, and she's now happily married. Not sure if she's killed anyone.

This idea that in order to be heroic a woman has to be able to physically best a man is nonsense at best, and if they're going to go with this "Girls are just as strong as guys, look at this one punch a thing!" at shoehorning, then I want the guys to get some compensation too. More male characters with musical literacy, more male characters with charisma, empathy, etc.

Oi.



4. NO. HECK TO THE FRAG NO.

KILL RANCORS. EVISCERATE TAUNTAUNS. ROCK AND ROLL.

BUNNY-HORSE THINGS MAKE EXCELLENT STEAK. EAT THEM.

DON'T LET ROASTED PORG GO TO WASTE. THEN IT WILL HAVE DIED FOR NOTHING.



5. Meh. That's an inaccurate stereotype no-one's in a rush to fix. All the rich people I've known are cool to hang out with. Maybe I just don't know the right rich people.



6. Breast feeding is a healthy function of the mother that nourishes the child and imparts antibodies. (If the mother has been eating right.) Using it as en excuse to force others to accept you exposing yourself is ... weirdly immoral.

It's one of those things we never defined limits for as a society because for hundreds of years it was just unthinkable that anyone in their right mind would abuse it for publicity or attention, and until recently people not in their right minds would be detained and given treatment until they were of sound mind. Not anymore.

That's not what Luke is doing. Luke is drawing forth the green corruption from the very bizarrely human teat of Cthulu himself and I DON'T KNOW WHY.


7. I think this just a bizarre justification for the enforced meritless diversity thing. Personally, I'm still looking for the Tweileks.



8. I just came up with a fantastic idea for a plot device ala Dune.

Love conquers all right? But love is just chemicals in your brain driving you toward reproduction. Sooooo - a psycho-spiritual race discovers the connection between love and win, and devises a drug that induces love in the user!

When two people take the love potion, their brains are overwhelmed with such chemically powerful love that the fabric of reality warps around them and renders them invulnerable to all forms of attack! The downside is that from that moment the two are basically doomed to consummate that love at some point, and as soon as they do - *BOOM* - love accomplished, psychic field goes down, no longer invulnerable.

In order to make use of the effect the couple has to be able to resist the love long enough to complete their mission, otherwise they'll suffer quick, painful, embarrassing death.

When the galaxy needs them most, two completely incompatible people possessed of strong will with no attraction to each other are chosen to take the potion and save the planet; is it enough? Will they be able to save the planet in time? Or will they fall victim to the power of love!

(Edit. I'm sorry. That's silly. I'm going away now. )

10 hours ago, Azrapse said:

I cannot believe that people are embracing this message as a great morale.
What Rose does in that scene where she "saves" Finn is incredibly selfish and stupid.
She prefers the destruction of all her allies and friends within the Resistance, and to take away Finn's personal choice of self sacrifice for the greater good. And all for saving her love interest (questionably, since she does it by crashing against him and ending surrounded by the First Order forces).

The message is then "Do not fight injustice. Just take care of you and your family and forget about the rest. Abandon all hope."
It's madness. It's just the opposite message from the OT.
So selfish. So shortsighted.
It's truly the kind of message a megacorporation would promote in a dystopical world, and people are totally fine with it.

This. That whole Finn scene was set up to be a really powerful moment of the movie (in a movie that really needed more of those), about how the formerly coward came to terms and was willing to lay down his life for the cause. Big character development there. Then Rose had to come in and ruin it.

Except Rose coming in was actually awesome.

I think the main Crux of the resistance story line was less "never sacrifice" and more "live to fight another day"

Sacrifice has real personal impact for the loved ones brave soldiers leave behind and shouldn't be the go to solution for short term gain

Taking out the dreadnaught and the battering ram gun would be big short term victories but they also wouldn't contribute much to the flight of the resistance. The dreadnaught is seemingly a space--> surface bombardment ship that wouldn't have been too useful in the first order's pursuit and I'm sure the FO had another way inside the base

What Leia was pushing for was a tactical retreat because trading lives with a force that dwarves yours in manpower and resources is not a smart thing to do. Bravado in the face of the enemy only gets one so far

That's what I got out of it, at least. Rose's speech to Fimn mightve thrown off the message because it was tacky as ****