I think having people like Hux as second in command makes perfect sense for someone like Snoke. Sure a more competent underling would mean a stronger First Order, but also a threat to Snokes complete control. The power and efficiency of the FO is completely secondary to Snokes personal power and he will most likely be perfectly willing to sacrifice the former for the latter. It's totalitarianism 101. Hux is not respected, clever or ambitious enough to try to oust Snoke, and if something goes completely wrong and Snokes grip is slipping, he can regain it by sacrificing Hux as a scapegoat.

We see shades of this with Palpatine and Vader, particularly in the Vader comics where Palpatine constantly implies that Vader could replaced at any time, keeping him too busy looking over his shoulder for threats to himself to work against toppling Palpatine. This is also an established authoritarian/totalitarian leadership tactic, to have your underlings competing for your favor so that they won't band together and oust you. Stalin did it, Hitler did it, many mob bosses have operated like that and it's usually how the rule of two ends up working in practice. Just look how the Sidious/Dooku/Ventress/Opress betrayal conga line played out.

Of course, both Palpatine and Snoke ended up having their plans majorly backfire on them. Palpatine probably correctly assumed that Vader didn't have the loyal following to oppose him militarily, nor to retain power had Vader simply murdered him and couldn't fathom Vader turning on him for selfless reasons. Likewise, Snoke underestimated Kylo Rens ability to take control of the first order, and ironically, Kylo seems to do it partly by keeping Hux around. As Hux seems to be utterly despised by the older more experienced commanders, Kylo looks good in comparison and probably scores points by publicly berating him, much in the same way Snoke did.

On a personal note, I love Gleeson's pitch perfect portrayal of Hux. History is full of incompetent toadies like him and I almost wish that ep 9 is nothing but a two hour montage of the little slimy bastard getting repeatedly slapped in the face.

As for the opening phone gag, I think it does exactly what it's supposed to do, reinforcing the establishment of Poe as the smartass, cocky maverick hero archetype and then immediately start tearing it down. Sure, to some that might just mean mood whiplash that takes them out of the seriousness of the moment, but to me it enhances it.

For a more extreme example that managed to deliver some very serious moments amidst a barrage of cheap jokes, look no further than the Deadpool movies that basically live and breathe that set up. Of course, you can always argue that whatever they were going for in TLJ didn't work because of flawed execution, but then we're just talking personal opinion.

48 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

As for the opening phone gag, I think it does exactly what it's supposed to do, reinforcing the establishment of Poe as the smartass, cocky maverick hero archetype and then immediately start tearing it down. Sure, to some that might just mean mood whiplash that takes them out of the seriousness of the moment, but to me it enhances it.

Exactly. That's the point of Poe's arc in the movie - learning to become a leader, not a hero. It's explicitly called out in several lines of dialogue, too.

Leia: “Poe, get your head out of your cockpit. There are things you cannot solve by jumping in your X-wing and blowing something up. I need you to learn that.”
Poe: “There were heroes on that mission.”
Leia: “Dead heroes. No leaders.”

Leia: "[Holdo] was more interested in protecting the light than seeming like a hero."

The opening bit continues what we already know about Poe from TFA, and sets up his arc perfectly. The stark contrast of the smartass hotshot succeeding in his goal, while losing so many in that push to be a hero by taking down the dreadnought is exactly what's called for. But there are a lot of people who just see "a Verizon joke."

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

But there are a lot of people who just see "a Verizon joke."

Funnily enough, we have a gag about R2 not being able to turn down the volume on his space phone in Episode 3. Poe's thing is entirely in line with that.

10 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Exactly. That's the point of Poe's arc in the movie - learning to become a leader, not a hero. It's explicitly called out in several lines of dialogue, too.

Leia: “Poe, get your head out of your cockpit. There are things you cannot solve by jumping in your X-wing and blowing something up. I need you to learn that.”
Poe: “There were heroes on that mission.”
Leia: “Dead heroes. No leaders.”

Leia: "[Holdo] was more interested in protecting the light than seeming like a hero."

The opening bit continues what we already know about Poe from TFA, and sets up his arc perfectly. The stark contrast of the smartass hotshot succeeding in his goal, while losing so many in that push to be a hero by taking down the dreadnought is exactly what's called for. But there are a lot of people who just see "a Verizon joke."

The biggest problem with that is that he did the exact opposite of being a leader and ended up being one of the biggest heroes of the First Order. And that is before the mutiny that should have ended up with his dam fool head getting blown off. By Leia at that. Someone is going to put together that Poe is directly responsible for the plan to sneak away not working, and that is what got most of the people there killed.

As a matter of fact, had he been in his fighter, and launched like a hothead maniac right when they came out of hyper, then there would have been even less losses and no flying Leia.

As a matter of fact, if Leia had just told the guy she trusted to go find her brother what was up in the first place, they would have succeeded in their plan to dissapear without most of the resistance dying.

And Hux is the incompetent one?

21 minutes ago, korjik said:

The biggest problem with that is that he did the exact opposite of being a leader

That's not a problem with his arc...that's the beginning of his arc, and exactly what Leia told him. Leia tried to recall him and he turned off his comms. She disciplined/demoted him, mere moments before they learned that the First Order had tracked them through hyperspace. Before he could get to his ship, the First Order destroyed their fighters, then destroyed the bridge, putting Leia in her coma. What, exactly, was she supposed to tell him and when?

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

That's not a problem with his arc...that's the beginning of his arc, and exactly what Leia told him. Leia tried to recall him and he turned off his comms. She disciplined/demoted him, mere moments before they learned that the First Order had tracked them through hyperspace. Before he could get to his ship, the First Order destroyed their fighters, then destroyed the bridge, putting Leia in her coma. What, exactly, was she supposed to tell him and when?

And after that he led a mutiny. A mutiny that got most of the resistance killed.

I don't recall saying otherwise.

But you said that, " if Leia had just told the guy she trusted to go find her brother what was up in the first place, they would have succeeded in their plan to dissapear without most of the resistance dying." What should she have told him and when, given the chain of events? After initially leaving D'qar, the Resistance fleet was in hyperspace, and believed that they had escaped the First Order. Leia had no time to formulate a plan to counter the First Order's tracking them through hyperspace, let alone advise Poe about it before being injured and comatose.

The mutiny was the next in Poe's string of failures as he tried to be (to switch franchises for a moment) the Big D@mn Hero, rather than a leader.

After quite a bit of discussion on this topic with some friends I like the idea that my friend came up with:

• Don't do anything that renders your character ridiculous.

That is perfection to me and it really kind of hits right where I want for main characters. Sidekicks and Comedy Relief characters (Artoo and Threepio) are able to dwell in that space, but main characters (Heroes or Villains) are affected by it in a way that diminishes their capacity for drama. Han has a goofy moment when he runs around the corner after those Stormtroopers, but it isn't the level of dumb or silly that makes it cling to him when later there is a serious gunnery sequence with tie fighters or the death star trench run rescue of Luke.

Edgar Allen Poe called it the Imp of the Perverse, this impulse to do things that are silly or ridiculous even when it's not a good idea or leads to ruin just for the **** of it. It seems to be something that a lot of players like especially if they really enjoy Deadpool. A character who literally never has to take any threat or situation seriously really seems to appeal to people, probably because they would like to be able to get away with any behavior and not have to fear the consequences.

Another thing that Deadpool does though is he renders all the other characters ridiculous because they are taking their lives seriously when he doesn't have to, which is why I imagine he breaks the fourth wall all the time: because he isn't really a character in the story so much as he is a narrative tool with no boundaries.

The main characters in star wars are funny at times without rendering themselves ridiculous. Yoda demonstrates some humor as part of his disguise, Chewie has some humorous scenes but the non-verbal, non human, nature of the character makes this work. Chewie has a much lighter load to carry in the story, so he can handle the encumbrance of more humor.

Good grief, following the thread in this thread was freaking painful.

Hey, just want to throw my hat in the original subject of this. Along the same lines as The Pirate, I think that there's a significant difference between a film or a book (essentially passive media - Deadpool exceptions aside) and a game at the table with friends.

Yes, I'd agree with the core idea the TLJ's prank call was, to my mind, absolutely terrible. It made me laugh but it also served to reduce the stakes, humiliate the characters involved, neuter the villains and was a clumsy change of gears both in and out of it. It was like a SNL skit dumped in the middle of a real film. Sure, humour can be used with great effect but to my mind it needs to be done in a manner that is consistent with character, fiction, tone, narrative and context. I think the jokes in this sequel trilogy so far have been hit and miss. TFA had some absolutely stonking funnies, particularly the scene (for me) when rey is trying to fix the falcon and gets impatient with Finn. It also had some duds that I felt verged on breaking the 4th wall, though none to the degree of the phone prank.

I can recognise the point people made regarding it being a part of Poe's development from smart *** hotshot to realising that actions have wider reaching consequences beyond the momentary satisfaction. However, I feel it could have been far more artfully done and probably would have been a better tool for that itself if it had demonstrated some hubris as a counterpoint to his snark to Ren in the first film.

However! Saying all this, the situation at a table is very different. At the table, you're there first and foremost, hopefully, to have a good time with friends.

So I'd say that the level of humour is largely going to be dictated by your friend group and that a serious narrative or, heck, even a coherent narrative, should take second place to making sure you're all having a good time.

Star wars has a history of being fairly light hearted on the whole, despite some really serious themes. So it'd be fine for me if my table was rolling with 4th wall breaking in-jokes. If it's reducing the focus at the table too much, that is when it becomes an issue and you need to either reign it in (okay guys let's carry on), or take a break and come back to the game later.

I'd say the point at which focus devolves might be different for a different game. In our Call of Cthulhu games, for instance, the tone is significantly darker and so I'd say there's a much lower threshold for silliness before it needs reigning in.

Anyway, I guess my only real point is, inartful use of humour can ruin a good story but that the gaming table is a very different scenario than a film or a book, and that tonal dissonance isn't such a major issue as long as you're all having a good time. It's also worth recognising when to drop the game for the night, perhaps, and focus on having a great evening with your friends.

11 hours ago, SanguineAngel said:

Good grief, following the thread in this thread was freaking painful.

Hey, just want to throw my hat in the original subject of this. Along the same lines as The Pirate, I think that there's a significant difference between a film or a book (essentially passive media - Deadpool exceptions aside) and a game at the table with friends.

Yes, I'd agree with the core idea the TLJ's prank call was, to my mind, absolutely terrible. It made me laugh but it also served to reduce the stakes, humiliate the characters involved, neuter the villains and was a clumsy change of gears both in and out of it. It was like a SNL skit dumped in the middle of a real film. Sure, humour can be used with great effect but to my mind it needs to be done in a manner that is consistent with character, fiction, tone, narrative and context. I think the jokes in this sequel trilogy so far have been hit and miss. TFA had some absolutely stonking funnies, particularly the scene (for me) when rey is trying to fix the falcon and gets impatient with Finn. It also had some duds that I felt verged on breaking the 4th wall, though none to the degree of the phone prank.

I can recognise the point people made regarding it being a part of Poe's development from smart *** hotshot to realising that actions have wider reaching consequences beyond the momentary satisfaction. However, I feel it could have been far more artfully done and probably would have been a better tool for that itself if it had demonstrated some hubris as a counterpoint to his snark to Ren in the first film.

However! Saying all this, the situation at a table is very different. At the table, you're there first and foremost, hopefully, to have a good time with friends.

So I'd say that the level of humour is largely going to be dictated by your friend group and that a serious narrative or, heck, even a coherent narrative, should take second place to making sure you're all having a good time.

Star wars has a history of being fairly light hearted on the whole, despite some really serious themes. So it'd be fine for me if my table was rolling with 4th wall breaking in-jokes. If it's reducing the focus at the table too much, that is when it becomes an issue and you need to either reign it in (okay guys let's carry on), or take a break and come back to the game later.

I'd say the point at which focus devolves might be different for a different game. In our Call of Cthulhu games, for instance, the tone is significantly darker and so I'd say there's a much lower threshold for silliness before it needs reigning in.

Anyway, I guess my only real point is, inartful use of humour can ruin a good story but that the gaming table is a very different scenario than a film or a book, and that tonal dissonance isn't such a major issue as long as you're all having a good time. It's also worth recognising when to drop the game for the night, perhaps, and focus on having a great evening with your friends.

I know that most people have no problem with it so if you are one of the folks who is immune to the effects of humor on the characters then this whole thing doesn't apply. I am not like that though, and I cannot have too much humor on a serious character, especially if it is out of game humor that makes its way into the game world and character's lives without it eroding my enthusiasm for the character. If I'm a player I start to not care, if I am running I start to downplay that character into a more minor role.

There is a point where as you said you reach a threshold and your advice was to stop and then resume once it stops. I don't have time for that, so my solution is to skip the pause period and try to press through without the rest and reset period. Also I don't believe there is anything wrong with keeping funny jokes out of the actual continuity. Is it somehow not funny if it doesn't actually happen in the narrative? Seems to me like if it is funny it's funny, if it goes into the actual continuity or not.

My goal is to have a good time with the humor being gated where the continuity is concerned, so my goal isn't incompatible with yours from what I can tell Thanks for the response Sanguine

On 6/27/2018 at 9:18 PM, nameless ronin said:

Hux didn’t inherit his position, …

So his father having the exact same position, being responsible for actually even having this first order army and giving that army to his son does not count as "inherit"?

Personally, I think Rian wanted a darker tone for TLJ, but Disney forced him to put more humor in there since that seems to be their shtick for both Marvel and Star Wars movies.

Sometimes it works, but sometimes it just completely backfires (most likely because the director/writer doesn't know how to do comedy well or because it's forced into a script that doesn't do comedy well... especially if it's forced in on some "laughs per minute" basis, which it seems to have been here)

4 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

Personally, I think Rian wanted a darker tone for TLJ, but Disney forced him to put more humor in there since that seems to be their shtick for both Marvel and Star Wars movies.

That's a good point, and taking out some of the more slapstickesque elements does make TLJ an overall darker film. I remember one of the big complaints against TPM when it came out was the overuse of Jar-Jar as a source of slapstick comic relief.

Disney seems to be trying to apply the "Marvel formula" to the Star Wars franchise without really comprehending how the Marvel formula works or even what makes it truly work. Marvel can get away with more comedy in their films because they've got directors and screenwriters who generally grasp when, where, and most importantly how to apply comedy. James Gunn with the Guardians of the Galaxy films is a prime example, as those movies are indeed much more lighthearted than much of the MCU, but they're not trying to hammer you over the head with forced jokes or overtly slapstick elements, but instead provides the funny with just how quirky and mismatched of a group the main characters are.

I'm not familiar with anything else Rian Johnson has done, so I've no idea if he's done films that handle comedy well.

Now while humor is and always has been an aspect of Star Wars, I can see the OP's point that TLJ did get a heavy-handed with it at times, and probably could have used with a bit less forced humor (such as Hux being reduced to a bad Cobra Commander pastiche).

1 hour ago, OddballE8 said:

Personally, I think Rian wanted a darker tone for TLJ, but Disney forced him to put more humor in there since that seems to be their shtick for both Marvel and Star Wars movies.

Did you see The Brothers Bloom? Brick? The guy makes very funny movies all by himself.

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Did you see The Brothers Bloom? Brick? The guy makes very funny movies all by himself.

I think you're misunderstanding my statements here.

I'm not saying he's not capable of making funny movies.

I'm saying that I think he meant for this movie to be darker, but Disney forced him to add comedy into the mix, and possibly on a laughs per minute basis. That'll screw up pacing and theme, which were the things that actually made me not like this film very much.

If his original vision was for a more serious and dark tone, having a bunch of Disney execs walking in and going "it's been 12 minutes without a joke, you need to insert one here" will create problems.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

That's a good point, and taking out some of the more slapstickesque elements does make TLJ an overall darker film. I remember one of the big complaints against TPM when it came out was the overuse of Jar-Jar as a source of slapstick comic relief.

Disney seems to be trying to apply the "Marvel formula" to the Star Wars franchise without really comprehending how the Marvel formula works or even what makes it truly work. Marvel can get away with more comedy in their films because they've got directors and screenwriters who generally grasp when, where, and most importantly how to apply comedy. James Gunn with the Guardians of the Galaxy films is a prime example, as those movies are indeed much more lighthearted than much of the MCU, but they're not trying to hammer you over the head with forced jokes or overtly slapstick elements, but instead provides the funny with just how quirky and mismatched of a group the main characters are.

I'm not familiar with anything else Rian Johnson has done, so I've no idea if he's done films that handle comedy well.

Now while humor is and always has been an aspect of Star Wars, I can see the OP's point that TLJ did get a heavy-handed with it at times, and probably could have used with a bit less forced humor (such as Hux being reduced to a bad Cobra Commander pastiche).

Yeah, I think Disney more or less told him he needed X number of jokes per Y number of minutes.

Some of the jokes just seem way out of place and in my opinion don't seem like they were part of the original draft, but rather added later as a requirement.

Speaking of James Gunn, he got fired by Disney just now for tweets he made in 2008... so we'll see how well GotG 3 handles their humor. Might be hammered in liks TLJ instead of naturally flowing like in the previous GotG movies.

13 minutes ago, OddballE8 said:

I think you're misunderstanding my statements here.

I'm not saying he's not capable of making funny movies.

I'm saying that I think he meant for this movie to be darker, but Disney forced him to add comedy into the mix, and possibly on a laughs per minute basis. That'll screw up pacing and theme, which were the things that actually made me not like this film very much.

If his original vision was for a more serious and dark tone, having a bunch of Disney execs walking in and going "it's been 12 minutes without a joke, you need to insert one here" will create problems.

Do you have anything to back that up besides your impression? Quotes from Johnson, behind the scenes footage, early script drafts?

I'm not saying he CAN make funny movies, I'm saying he has made funny movies. So why assume he didn't intend that here?

Yes... comedy has consequences. TBH a real world influenced comedy skit thrown into Star Wars was the beginning of my lack of interest in the film... a few minutes later no B-wings or Y-wings bit still using X-wings. I only stayed for the rest of the film hoping it 'would get better'... anyway each to their own. If the new films pull in new fans so be it and well done Disleen...

...and something completely linked/unlinked the new SJW stuff in films is making me apprehensive about Incredibles 2 - the man at home - 'I have to succeed so she can succeed' trailer and my alarm bells went off - the man who has trouble coping at home is an old cliche. I recently saw the photo of KathKenn's writing team - ALL women - if it had been a man with all men it would have been derided as a sexist, patriarchal, misogynistic, stuck in the 70s/Anchorman kind of mentality.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Do you have anything to back that up besides your impression? Quotes from Johnson, behind the scenes footage, early script drafts?

I'm not saying he CAN make funny movies, I'm saying he has made funny movies. So why assume he didn't intend that here?

Of course not.

Hence the numerous I think and it seems in my previous statements.

But then, there's no way in heck that he would make a statement like that even if it was true.


I'm saying that considering his previous prowess in making funny movies, and the tendency for Disney to step in and mess with movies (Rogue One had numerous reshoots for example), I'd say it seems that a lot of the humor here was forced into a movie that was otherwise supposed to be dark (judging from the tone of the movie in general).

I dunno, we don't even know that there were substantial changes in the first place. It all seems a tad too speculative to me to then go and say Disney told him how many jokes per minute to put in the movie, etc. Many writers & directors make surprising choices that may *seem* out of tune with their previous material, but that's only because of our limited knowledge of what goes on during the making of these movies.

Everything I have read from both JJ and Johnson indicates that they have complete creative control over the sequel trilogy.

Additionally, if I compare them to the stories films Rogue One and Solo, where Disney have obviously had a much firmer hand on the tiller, I'd have to to say that there's much less emphasis on humour in those films, though it is still present. And that for the most part the humour feels like it is more tonally consistent with the films and the universe. (this is subjective, in fairness but I'd say there's at least a qualitative difference in the use of humour)

If you have an issue with the humour then I honestly think you have to look to the writer directors in this instance.

On ‎7‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:41 AM, Donovan Morningfire said:

That's a good point, and taking out some of the more slapstickesque elements does make TLJ an overall darker film. I remember one of the big complaints against TPM when it came out was the overuse of Jar-Jar as a source of slapstick comic relief.

Disney seems to be trying to apply the "Marvel formula" to the Star Wars franchise without really comprehending how the Marvel formula works or even what makes it truly work. Marvel can get away with more comedy in their films because they've got directors and screenwriters who generally grasp when, where, and most importantly how to apply comedy. James Gunn with the Guardians of the Galaxy films is a prime example, as those movies are indeed much more lighthearted than much of the MCU, but they're not trying to hammer you over the head with forced jokes or overtly slapstick elements, but instead provides the funny with just how quirky and mismatched of a group the main characters are.

I'm not familiar with anything else Rian Johnson has done, so I've no idea if he's done films that handle comedy well.

Now while humor is and always has been an aspect of Star Wars, I can see the OP's point that TLJ did get a heavy-handed with it at times, and probably could have used with a bit less forced humor (such as Hux being reduced to a bad Cobra Commander pastiche).

Donovan would you say that classic Star Wars also relies on a certain type or a few certain types of humor?

On 7/21/2018 at 12:10 PM, OddballE8 said:

Speaking of James Gunn, he got fired by Disney just now for tweets he made in 2008... so we'll see how well GotG 3 handles their humor.

And the worst part? For Tweets disney knew about since years, but some neo-nazi made a thing out of it again, stirred up some other folks who missed the issue last time or who wanted James Gunn's head last time already and thought it would be a good timing to jump on him again.

American sensitivities are really not to my taste.

On 6/28/2018 at 1:00 AM, oneeyedmatt87 said:

I know everyone's table is different, but I'd love more examples of how people successfully incorporated humor into their campaigns.

I have used humor to some success to balance out intense drama, so that there is some relief, and everyone is not emotionally exhausted by the game. To give you a concrete example, the PCs were investigating a medical company affiliated with the Black Sun, in an attempt to gain the required medical information to heal one of the PCs, who was paraplegic from an experimental weapon. The Force Sensitive PCs experienced waves of fear and dread from the corporate building. The PCs had passed themselves off as inspectors from a supplier and were moving through the offices when they encountered a bunch of silly B1 battle droids repurposed as research assistants. Finally, the players could chuckle for a bit. These B1 battle droids were actually "relatives" of one of the PCs, who'd been raised on a Separatist ship. So now she was embarrassed by her family members and apologetic, and everyone was amused. But from there, we continue to move on through the lab, and ultimately they found that Force Sensitives were being used as guinea pigs for weapons development, and they had to make a tough choice about a subject on life support. So once again, things had grown quite tense. When the Black Sun enforcers finally showed up, there was a serious shoot out in the lab, but at the same time, B1 battle droids were stumbling around, trying to be "helpful." It worked in this session for my players, and we even had a discussion after the game session on whether the campy B1 droids were "too much," but the players said they appreciated the opportunity to laugh some amid the tension.

Beyond that example, the party has developed what in improv one would call "bits." For example, they love their blue bantha-milkshakes. We return to that recurring joke often, and for one job they were even rewarded with a milkshake machine to install in their ship's galley. It is good to have little light-hearted touches like that, and it makes the PCs more three-dimensional, too. Like real people, the PCs can be serious when they need to be and can relax some when they have the opportunity.

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 3:42 AM, jendefer said:

I have used humor to some success to balance out intense drama, so that there is some relief, and everyone is not emotionally exhausted by the game. To give you a concrete example, the PCs were investigating a medical company affiliated with the Black Sun, in an attempt to gain the required medical information to heal one of the PCs, who was paraplegic from an experimental weapon. The Force Sensitive PCs experienced waves of fear and dread from the corporate building. The PCs had passed themselves off as inspectors from a supplier and were moving through the offices when they encountered a bunch of silly B1 battle droids repurposed as research assistants. Finally, the players could chuckle for a bit. These B1 battle droids were actually "relatives" of one of the PCs, who'd been raised on a Separatist ship. So now she was embarrassed by her family members and apologetic, and everyone was amused. But from there, we continue to move on through the lab, and ultimately they found that Force Sensitives were being used as guinea pigs for weapons development, and they had to make a tough choice about a subject on life support. So once again, things had grown quite tense. When the Black Sun enforcers finally showed up, there was a serious shoot out in the lab, but at the same time, B1 battle droids were stumbling around, trying to be "helpful." It worked in this session for my players, and we even had a discussion after the game session on whether the campy B1 droids were "too much," but the players said they appreciated the opportunity to laugh some amid the tension.

Beyond that example, the party has developed what in improv one would call "bits." For example, they love their blue bantha-milkshakes. We return to that recurring joke often, and for one job they were even rewarded with a milkshake machine to install in their ship's galley. It is good to have little light-hearted touches like that, and it makes the PCs more three-dimensional, too. Like real people, the PCs can be serious when they need to be and can relax some when they have the opportunity.

I agree that you have to be able to lighten the mood in order ot get a contrast. I think the assumption is always that unless something amusing happens in continuity the effect isn't there, but I don't think that is actually true. A great deal of humor at the table is often derivative of the actions and situations that are actually happening. I'm going to use your cited example just as an example, though I felt it wasn't anything that to me seemed like over the top humor. Again I'm only using this to illustrate the other way of seeing it.

But if the players make a joke about the lab robots being B1's like the other player, the humor in that is still there even if it doesn't end up in the actual continuity. The players enjoy it, they get the relief, but now you are not tied to that choice and its possible repercussions later.

I like to have light hearted moments for the characters conform to the rule of it mostly being moments that they themselves would find amusing, and not just something ridiculous that happens and is funny to the real people only because its absurd or plays on some Earth example. Also the slope can get pretty slippery when you allow something into continuity that may give you a twinge of discomfort initially may later enflame into a full on canker. I've seen that quite a few times, and what I notice is that the more a player tends to want stuff like that in the game the less invested they seem to be. Also ignoring bad content always gives me a headache, so I prefer to just excise it.

Conversely I will allow someone to have a comedy relief character, but in doing so I am not going to hand them any real spotlight moments of heroism. If you want to be silly, you cede the role of being cool to a certain degree. Han Solo does a lot of goofy stuff, but he never resorts to anything that seriously damages his ability to be seen as an impressive character. That would be the same for someone like Mal on Firefly, who is funny at times, but the line is carefully watched. When a ridiculous character/action saves the day it tends to diminish the effect of the scene unless done just right. Just ask Boba Fett's jetpack.