59 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

?

I don't care either way, though I don't know who Zaitoichi is. My issue, as I stated multiple times, is their inconsistency with how he was doing what he was doing. Either reason would be fine with me, but when they can't decide on it, it's bad character structure. Now granted, in the film, this isn't really an issue, since it's never really stated either way, it's in the supplemental material where the inconsistency pops up. But, since this is Star Wars, that lives on selling you more stuff based on the films, this creates a problem, a problem that gets endlessly debated by fans, on things like a gaming forum about a Star Wars roleplaying game. When there didn't need to be a debate at all, if they were consistent

Interesting, didn't know that, still doesn't change the fact that the other side of the Star Wars franchise, decided to NOT go with the "mystic blind guy" angle, and decided to go with "he's got a device that let's him kind of see things/people." Again, I don't care that they went the "mystic blind guy" route, I care that everywhere else they apparently went with "nah, he's totally not one with the Force, he's just got a device that let's him do stuff."

Anyway, not going to discuss this any further. This thread is about how to build Chirrut, not debate the flaws in his character concept.

just so you know the reference Zatoichi is the original Daredevil /Rahm Kota /Kanan Jarrus /Chirrut inspiration.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zatoichi

On ‎9‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 9:14 PM, Ghostofman said:

While researching this topic, I found a series of posts by Pablo Hidalgo explaining their perspective on Chirrut's force usage.

Short version: Chirrut is just so super awesome that even though he's not trained in the force, or even "force sensitive" in the traditional sense, he can still do force-like things. He then compared it to the RPG Force Point/Destiny Point usage, and to people like Bruce Lee.

Which get's back to my perspective. The real answer to "Is he force sensitive?" should have been: "That's a good question..."

But we live in a time when the fandom wants answers to questions that don't need answering, and the IP holders think they need to give a response. Questions that don't matter are accused of being "plot holes," and there's demand for backstory movies that sound cool off the cuff, but have trouble actually working out because it's not an actual movie we want. We really just want a series of 5-10 minute videos of cool scenes and ideas covering years and years of a character's life development, and not one specific story in which they are all encapsulated.

Kinda reminds me of that interview that they did of who played Hondo in Episode 8, where she claimed she was an adviser of Leia and a Force sensitive in training under her.

Needless to say, I rarely trust interviews around star wars at all these days. A lot of people are just naturally full of it.

30 minutes ago, LordBritish said:

Kinda reminds me of that interview that they did of who played Hondo in Episode 8,

Hondo

Holdo

One was in Episode 8. The other was not. ?

33 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Hondo

Holdo

One was in Episode 8. The other was not. ?

Thank you, I was really confused there. Though now I can't resist thinking how much better that movie would have been with Hondo. And I'm one of the ones that already thought the movie was pretty good.

But pretty much anything can be improved with more Hondo.... Movies, cartoons, game-shows...

1 hour ago, LordBritish said:

Kinda reminds me of that interview that they did of who played Hondo in Episode 8, where she claimed she was an adviser of Leia and a Force sensitive in training under her.

Needless to say, I rarely trust interviews around star wars at all these days. A lot of people are just naturally full of it.

Yeah, There's some funk there. Lucas supposedly said something along the lines of "anyone cans use the force, if they can use the force." And Johnson's definition of the Force Awakening being a galaxy-wide event.

In this case the Hidalgo, as Mr. Storygroup, is more credible than the actor's opinions, since Hidalgo's work is supposed to be long-term continuity across the whole IP.

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

Thank you, I was really confused there. Though now I can't resist thinking how much better that movie would have been with Hondo. And I'm one of the ones that already thought the movie was pretty good.

But pretty much anything can be improved with more Hondo.... Movies, cartoons, game-shows...

Interestingly, I don't really like Hondo, he's so cliche that he's boring for me. Despite the fact that his voice keeps reminding me of Don Carnage from Tailspin, whom I loved, Hondo himself is just...meh, for me. You can always predict what he's going to do in any situation, because he's one of the most one-note characters, in a franchise made up of very archetypical characters to begin with.

5 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Interestingly, I don't really like Hondo, he's so cliche that he's boring for me. Despite the fact that his voice keeps reminding me of Don Carnage from Tailspin, whom I loved, Hondo himself is just...meh, for me. You can always predict what he's going to do in any situation, because he's one of the most one-note characters, in a franchise made up of very archetypical characters to begin with.

I think that's partly why I want to see more of him. He's got a strong personality and all these odd little notes and actions. It seems like he's ripe for some serious character development. Probably not main-character broad arcing changes... more like occasional scenes and stories where there's opportunities to see who and why he really is.

25 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

I think that's partly why I want to see more of him. He's got a strong personality and all these odd little notes and actions. It seems like he's ripe for some serious character development. Probably not main-character broad arcing changes... more like occasional scenes and stories where there's opportunities to see who and why he really is.

Thing is, they had how many seasons of Rebels to do that very thing? And did they? No, they just kept playing his one note of "Heeeey! My friend!! Trust me!!" *betrays that person* "Sorry, you know how it is!!" *reverse-betrays other person and tries to play it off because he's trying to save himself* "Heeey! My friend! I'm back yah?! Oh don't worry about that thing I did 10 minutes ago, that's in the past! Trust me!!!" *wash, rinse, repeat*

9 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Thing is, they had how many seasons of Rebels to do that very thing? And did they? No, they just kept playing his one note of "Heeeey! My friend!! Trust me!!" *betrays that person* "Sorry, you know how it is!!" *reverse-betrays other person and tries to play it off because he's trying to save himself* "Heeey! My friend! I'm back yah?! Oh don't worry about that thing I did 10 minutes ago, that's in the past! Trust me!!!" *wash, rinse, repeat*

And yeah, that I agree with totally. His portrayal in Rebels, while understandable, was a pretty serious departure from the Clone Wars version of the character. Pirate Captain Hondo had a lot more to offer than street hustle Hondo ever could. To me Hondo's redesign was one of the more glaring indicators of a younger target audience.

That said, the discrepancy could also be seen as another unexplored facet of the character.

Half of me thinks the discarded "padawans" spin-off was supposed to provide a location for Hondo's character to be explored further.

I strongly prefer TCW Hondo to Rebels Hondo.

Rebels went full Jack Sparrow with Hondo. Which, for the stories being told, was fine to me. (I know that I have far more fun annoying entertaining my 16 year old by imitating Rebels Hondo than TCW Hondo.)

My take is that he had a borderline level of force sensitivity (kind of like how sharks are neither warm blooded or cold blooded... they're somewhere in between) and maybe could have been a matukai adept if those were canon, he was pretty darn close to one. In game terms he should have 1 force die and the kanan's farsight power as well as sense

6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

My take is that he had a borderline level of force sensitivity (kind of like how sharks are neither warm blooded or cold blooded... they're somewhere in between) and maybe could have been a matukai adept if those were canon, he was pretty darn close to one. In game terms he should have 1 force die and the kanan's farsight power as well as sense

I think it was in Legends, but there were folks that had a very minor degree of sensitivity to the Force, enough to be aware of it, but not enough talent to actually be capable of using it.

That said, I feel making Chirrit be any sort of Force-sensitive lessens just how much of a badass the man was. That he's just a well-trained muggle that's managed to overcome his disability in a manner similar to Zatochi makes him stand out all the more and highlights that you don't have to be a Force user in order to be awesome.

6 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

I think it was in Legends, but there were folks that had a very minor degree of sensitivity to the Force, enough to be aware of it, but not enough talent to actually be capable of using it.

That said, I feel making Chirrit be any sort of Force-sensitive lessens just how much of a badass the man was. That he's just a well-trained muggle that's managed to overcome his disability in a manner similar to Zatochi makes him stand out all the more and highlights that you don't have to be a Force user in order to be awesome.

It rubs me the wrong way to depict a disabled person as almost unaffected by their disability, to the level of giving him supernatural senses - and that in a setting with ACTUAL supernatural senses. I like the representation, but it would be more enjoyable if the only blind person in SW hadn't been Daredevil.

On 9/27/2018 at 9:16 AM, KungFuFerret said:

Interestingly, I don't really like Hondo, he's so cliche that he's boring for me. Despite the fact that his voice keeps reminding me of Don Carnage from Tailspin, whom I loved, Hondo himself is just...meh, for me. You can always predict what he's going to do in any situation, because he's one of the most one-note characters, in a franchise made up of very archetypical characters to begin with.

I can’t help but hear Minsc from Baldurs Gate, myself. Wonder why...

3 hours ago, ghatt said:

I can’t help but hear Minsc from Baldurs Gate, myself. Wonder why...

Never played that gate so no clue, though I'm guessing it's possibly the same voice actor?

On 9/29/2018 at 11:53 AM, Stan Fresh said:

It rubs me the wrong way to depict a disabled person as almost unaffected by their disability, to the level of giving him supernatural senses - and that in a setting with ACTUAL supernatural senses. I like the representation, but it would be more enjoyable if the only blind person in SW hadn't been Daredevil.

An actual blind person I know likes the non-super-powered blind badass trope... Imwe included... because (in her words) "its fun to imagine being a badass just because you're a badass and why should sighted folks get all the fun" and went on to opine that she felt that if Imwe had leaned on the Force to compensate for his sight it would have undermined the story elements of faith in the Force, i.e. its not truly faith if it gives you cool powers.
I am sure that there are other blind SW fans who have different opinions and compelling reasons, this is just the one sourced closest to my heart.

Sure, I'm not trying to speak for disabled people. And my issue isn't with the Blind Badass trope, it's with the Blind Badass being the only blind person in all the movies.

At least Luke and Anakin represent the amputee contingent!

2 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Sure, I'm not trying to speak for disabled people.

Didn't think you were, just relaying a very on topic story

6 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

At least Luke and Anakin represent the amputee contingent!

It may be argued* that Imwe not having cybernetic eyes is a positive portrayal in the "nothing wrong with being blind" way of thinking. Also that the device occasionally mentioned that he carries to help him interact may simply be the GFFA's variant on a "white cane", that is to say an aid to the blind rather than an elimination of blindness.
There is probably a lot more about that to unpack, but on the face of it it seems very "anti-stigma" regarding the blind.

* I say "may be" as I am not the most knowledgeable person to dig deep on this, on my own, and may consult my previously mentioned friend

5 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Never played that gate so no clue, though I'm guessing it's possibly the same voice actor?

Yeah, and doing a very similar voice at that.

If you like D&D and crpgs, I’d highly recommend picking up the enhanced edition off of steam or gog, it’s great.

5 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

It may be argued* that Imwe not having cybernetic eyes is a positive portrayal in the "nothing wrong with being blind" way of thinking. Also that the device occasionally mentioned that he carries to help him interact may simply be the GFFA's variant on a "white cane", that is to say an aid to the blind rather than an elimination of blindness.
There is probably a lot more about that to unpack, but on the face of it it seems very "anti-stigma" regarding the blind.

* I say "may be" as I am not the most knowledgeable person to dig deep on this, on my own, and may consult my previously mentioned friend

I don't understand why it would be different to have prosthetic eyes to fix a problem (and yes it is a problem), but prosthetic limbs are perfectly fine. There is objective functionality differences for people with disabilities, and developing technology to offset/remove that issue isn't bad, and it's not stigmatizing them.

There is nothing wrong with being blind, but if there is tech to fix that problem, and someone just chooses not to use it because of "I'm just as capable as you!" pride, that's an issue with them, not the society that made the tech to fix the problem.

25 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I don't understand why it would be different to have prosthetic eyes to fix a problem (and yes it is a problem), but prosthetic limbs are perfectly fine. There is objective functionality differences for people with disabilities, and developing technology to offset/remove that issue isn't bad, and it's not stigmatizing them.

There is nothing wrong with being blind, but if there is tech to fix that problem, and someone just chooses not to use it because of "I'm just as capable as you!" pride, that's an issue with them, not the society that made the tech to fix the problem.

For starters, I did note that there was a bit more to it than what I covered
That said...
I don't think there IS anything wrong, as an outsider. It is up to each individual blind person to decide for themselves should such tech become available. I certainly wasn't saying there was anything negative about a prosthetic.
HOWEVER, in fiction I can imagine there is a value to not just waving the tech wand to make a disability go away (cyborg hands serve as a narrative symbol but exploration of disability isn't one of them) since we don't currently have such tech and want the blind, for example, to feel included and feel that their struggles have some representation*.

Note that even in "Star Trek" they don't magically cure LaForge of blindness. While it became increasingly rare, the distinction was made that LaForge didn't just get normal sight back... "I don't see better, I just see more" was the line (I think) as he lamented that there were many aspects of visual experience that were denied to him even as he could see exotic energies.

* Not that Imwe really struggles in ways the audience can tell, but again this is a superficial musing.

2 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

HOWEVER, in fiction I can imagine there is a value to not just waving the tech wand to make a disability go away (cyborg hands serve as a narrative symbol but exploration of disability isn't one of them) since we don't currently have such tech and want the blind, for example, to feel included and feel that their struggles have some representation*.

In fiction, the problem is that it's very common to do just that, handwave away the disability, in a way that might as well not have the character have the disability. Whether it's technology, or magic (Force Users still fighting like Kannan), or science (like Daredevil), it annoys me in most cases. Because it's basically just an excuse to not actually have to address the problems someone with that disability would have to actually deal with, in the script. The only blind character I can think of, from random pop culture films and such, that was actually presented accurately, was an elderly character in the film Krull. Who was blind, and had to be lead around by his young charge. I mean there probably are some others, but I'm sitting here, actively trying to think of an example from popular film/tv, that was just straight up blind, that didn't also act in a way that was almost "super-human" in it's nature. And I can't think of one. Maybe Pacino's character in Scent of a Woman, but he still did a lot of things that just aren't realistic.

Geordi from Next Generation gets a bit of a pass for me, because I think Roddenberry likely had him as an example of the potential the future could offer, in a way that would be more tangible to present day viewers. You can talk all day about food replicators, and teleporation, but for a lot of people, that's not going to touch them directly. Giving the blind sight, that's way more immediately understandable, and potentially personal for a lot of people. Plus, they did address it multiple times, that he still had to deal with problems. It wasn't a perfect fix. He would get headaches from the device. He couldn't see certain spectrum ranges, and if the device ever failed (which it did a few times in the story), he had to readjust to dealing without it.

While I don't have a problem, in theory, with the "Blind Badass" trope, I do think it's overused, to the point of being the standard in pretty much any genre. It's so ubiquitous, that it's almost the "normal blind person" representation at this point. Having a film where the blind person actually just, acted like a regular blind person, would probably throw off most audiences, and confuse them.

18 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

While I don't have a problem, in theory, with the "Blind Badass" trope, I do think it's overused, to the point of being the standard in pretty much any genre. It's so ubiquitous, that it's almost the "normal blind person" representation at this point. Having a film where the blind person actually just, acted like a regular blind person, would probably throw off most audiences, and confuse them.

The current trend along similar lines, it seems, is the "genius autistic" (or whatever unofficial stand in) trope.

But we digress.

Tropes are in and of themselves are generally cyclical, coming into and going out of fashion as tastes change. Now the cycle for some might be pretty short and others fairly lengthy, but there's still a cycle.

The "Blind Badass" is something of a perennial fave as it shows someone with what us sighted folk would deem a crippling disability being able to not only function in the world on their own but to also thrive and exceed the expectations that society generally has for those with a disability. And for actors, it's easier to play someone that's blind and has generally overcome it than any other physical disability since at most it requires a set of contacts or constant use of shades to hide the actor's eyes.

Is it currently being overused? Perhaps, but it's far less egregious a trope to overuse than something like "Mighty Whitey" (something Iron Fist got blasted for even though said trope is part of the comic book character's very DNA) or the villainous femme fatale sexpot whose really only there for the male audience's viewing pleasure and either gets killed off while regretting her life of sin or has a heel-face turn after getting bouncy with the handsome male lead.