33 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

This thread is a perfect example of deliberately misinterpreting someone's position & sabotaging civil discourse in order to get off on hate and anger.

and now for something completely different

4 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

This thread is a perfect example of deliberately misinterpreting someone's position & sabotaging civil discourse in order to get off on hate and anger.

Don’t be such a troll.

22 minutes ago, Eoen said:

Don’t be such a troll.

bit early for your new year's resolution

17 hours ago, Eoen said:

That tweet is political tripe for two reasons; one the USA is always interfering in other peoples elections and we rarely run our own elections fairly as well. As we are the world leader in election fraud (like how we interfered in Brazil's recent elections through facebook no less) we should have nothing to say on the subject publicly.

Not sure what tweet you’re referring to (at least as far as my posts go). I never mentioned one. I’ve been talking about viewing the TLJ-specific study through the lens of an article about tactics for making adversarial “influencing” accounts appear realistic and/or benign that was discussed on the latest This Week in Tech podcast. I’m guessing that using the podcast’s (and its network’) self-branded abbreviation - TWiT, for This Week in Tech - might have led to some confusion as to the source.

17 hours ago, Eoen said:

I apologize if I took I took you posting of other peoples studies as an indicator of you position.

No worries. I just found it to be interesting that, on the day the TLJ study’s story dropped, I happened to have listened to a podcast that included a discussion of tactics used to subtly influence opinions online. So, it prompted the question: if the TLJ study has some validity to it, and the tactics used are in line with the discussion on TWiT, how many who went beyond “I didn’t like the movie” and into outrageous behavior might not have done so without being steered that direction. And, just like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

But, the question explicitly presupposes the findings of the other sources, which I stated outright may or may not have proverbial legs.

17 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

This thread is a perfect example of deliberately misinterpreting someone's position & sabotaging civil discourse in order to get off on hate and anger.

Eloquent and to the point as always.

Well, almost always.

The issue is, a lot of people think in a very binary sense. "You are either part of my group or their group, and their group is my enemy." kind of thinking that is cultivated in politics, the courtroom and news outlets to say the least. I find the first step in adjusting that issue is to imagine there is at least four groups of opinion; Fanatics of each side that have an overwhelming opinion, and people that either like it or don't, maybe even a 5th group that just don't care just to round it off. Once I do that I imagine most people have a bell curve of opinion, most people sit in the middle of that bell curve of like and dislike, rather then love and hate.

Personally there is the perception of a lot of entitled people and the aura of anomality offered by the internet allows for people to be abusive without reprieve, whether they truly mean what they mean or not. That and it's easier to be negative then it's positive, it's much easier to shape the world through a negative perception.

Personally I found 7 fun and relatively simplistic and blunt, it clearly didn't have a great deal of world building in it and more mystery boxes then EA's Lootboxes, and 8 interesting and in some cases very entertaining with it's flipping of convention, yet very clumsy in the application of a couple of it's story arcs made for a fairly boring middle section of the movie. I was very satisfied by Luke's characterisation and the force sensitive arcs that really was the backbone for this movie interesting, yet felt a lot of the conflict in the movie was arsine and fairly uninteresting. I consider myself generally to be a liker, but not a lover or a fanatic. Hence I find a lot of the hysteria by such people to be immensely amusing.

A lot of this could have been resolved if JJ had used VII to establish enough lore to care about, like what had happened during the last 30 years, who the First Order are, and what their motivation is, etc.

Too bad he just rehashed IV and called it a day.

6 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

A lot of this could have been resolved if JJ had used VII to establish enough lore to care about, like what had happened during the last 30 years, who the First Order are, and what their motivation is, etc.

Hm? We know a lot about the time between the movies. A new Republic reigned for 30 years. Luke started an academy but it was destroyed, and he left. Leia and Han had a kid and split up. Leia built a new resistance movement.

We also know who the First Order are and what they want - call them Nazi cosplayers or second-gen Imperial fanatics, it's a well-known type from the real world and fiction.

Not trying to tell you whether to like Force Awakens or not, but your specific issues here are actually addressed in the movie.

4 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Hm? We know a lot about the time between the movies. A new Republic reigned for 30 years. Luke started an academy but it was destroyed, and he left. Leia and Han had a kid and split up. Leia built a new resistance movement.

We also know who the First Order are and what they want - call them Nazi cosplayers or second-gen Imperial fanatics, it's a well-known type from the real world and fiction.

Not trying to tell you whether to like Force Awakens or not, but your specific issues here are actually addressed in the movie.

So there's the who and the what, but what about the how (did it all happen) and why (should I care)?

The whole reason so many people wanted to know things like who Snoke was and what his motivation & backstory were is because these were all things JJ should have answered from the start.

2 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

So there's the who and the what, but what about the how (did it all happen) and why (should I care)?

The whole reason so many people wanted to know things like who Snoke was and what his motivation & backstory were is because these were all things JJ should have answered from the start.

People care about lots of characters with only an implied backstory and subtle or murky motivations. Boba Fett, anyone? Vader? Chewbacca? Tarkin?

We know from the real world how fascist movements rise; viewers can easily draw their own conclusions. Propaganda, exploiting and strengthening existing social issues, etc.

Again: not telling you to like it, but everything you say should be there is actually there.

31 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

People care about lots of characters with only an implied backstory and subtle or murky motivations. Boba Fett, anyone? Vader? Chewbacca? Tarkin?

Unable to check my geek-reflex... Sorry.
Vader's backstory is (arguably) the first major exposition drop after the opening crawl. We get a lot (relative for this franchise, anyhow) quickly on him, but otherwise you are correct.

11 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

Unable to check my geek-reflex... Sorry.
Vader's backstory is (arguably) the first major exposition drop after the opening crawl. We get a lot (relative for this franchise, anyhow) quickly on him, but otherwise you are correct.

True! But why the armor? What is his position in the Empire? There's a lot about him we don't know until much, much later. Did people in '77 go "what is this crap movie, it doesn't tell us why that one dude is wearing armor"?

****, we have only the vaguest idea about the Emperor even after we finally meet him in the flesh in Return of the Jedi.

7 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

True! But why the armor? What is his position in the Empire? There's a lot about him we don't know until much, much later. Did people in '77 go "what is this crap movie, it doesn't tell us why that one dude is wearing armor"?

I get it but... That feels like stretching to include Vader on your list.
Why does a warrior (established as a warrior in Kenobi's exposition bit) wear armor? What is the job of the guy stomping around enforcing will the Empire?

The exact details of either of those AS OF THE FIRST FILM are not important in context of the moment any more than "why does Lando wear a cape?" or "where did Solo get that specific gun?" (I think we are all glad to FINALLY have that last one answered. The true failure of "Solo", however, is the lack of explanation for the capes! ?)

10 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

We know from the real world how fascist movements rise; viewers can easily draw their own conclusions. Propaganda, exploiting and strengthening existing social issues, etc.

Except we aren't given even that. They're just Empire 2.0, but we aren't even told why they are, or how they came to be.

When it's a new franchise, I get it, but when continuing the story of an established property, the audience rightfully expects to be told how we've gotten here. What is the New Republic? How does the Resistance fit into it? Where did the First Order come from?

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree. And trying to compare side characters like Tarkin, Chewie, and Boba to the film's primary antagonistic force is just a stretch.

6 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

I get it but... That feels like stretching to include Vader on your list.
Why does a warrior (established as a warrior in Kenobi's exposition bit) wear armor? What is the job of the guy stomping around enforcing will the Empire?

The exact details of either of those AS OF THE FIRST FILM are not important in context of the moment any more than "why does Lando wear a cape?" or "where did Solo get that specific gun?" (I think we are all glad to FINALLY have that last one answered. The true failure of "Solo", however, is the lack of explanation for the capes! ?)

I think Vader and his armor are in an entirely different class. His appearance is meant to inspire questions, unlike Lando's wardrobe choices.

3 hours ago, StriderZessei said:

Except we aren't given even that. They're just Empire 2.0, but we aren't even told why they are, or how they came to be.

When it's a new franchise, I get it, but when continuing the story of an established property, the audience rightfully expects to be told how we've gotten here. What is the New Republic? How does the Resistance fit into it? Where did the First Order come from?

I get what you're saying, but I don't agree. And trying to compare side characters like Tarkin, Chewie, and Boba to the film's primary antagonistic force is just a stretch.

And I'm saying we don't need to be told, because we already know from the real world how this stuff goes. If the movie dived into that topic, it would feel like holding my hand. I neither need nor want that, and I'm not going to presume others require more hand-holding than I do.

And Tarkin isn't a side character, he's the main villain of A New Hope. Vader is a more striking character, but Tarkin is the one with the Death Star and the one making all the decisions.

20 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

And Tarkin isn't a side character, he's the main villain of A New Hope. Vader is a more striking character, but Tarkin is the one with the Death Star and the one making all the decisions.

He is also the one being played by the big name experienced actor.

11 minutes ago, Darzil said:

He is also the one being played by the big name experienced actor.

ENGLISH big name experienced actor. That's very important for a proper villain!

50 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

ENGLISH big name experienced actor. That's very important for a proper villain!

are all Englishmen mustache twirling villains?

2 hours ago, Stormbourne said:

are all Englishmen mustache twirling villains?

Ever notice how many famous villains in American movies are played by English actors ?

13 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

The exact details of either of those AS OF THE FIRST FILM are not important in context of the moment any more than "why does Lando wear a cape?"

While I know it’s meant in jest, there’s actually an answer.

I remember an interview with Billy Dee Williams back around the time of Empire. He said that they approached him for the movie, and he replied, “Only if I can wear a cape.” ?

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

While I know it’s meant in jest, there’s actually an answer.

I remember an interview with Billy Dee Williams back around the time of Empire. He said that they approached him for the movie, and he replied, “Only if I can wear a cape.” ?

I actually kinda remember that now that you mention it! ?
In context of "Star Wars" that is a perfectly valid reason.

9 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

And I'm saying we don't need to be told, because we already know from the real world how this stuff goes. If the movie dived into that topic, it would feel like holding my hand. I neither need nor want that, and I'm not going to presume others require more hand-holding than I do.

And Tarkin isn't a side character, he's the main villain of A New Hope. Vader is a more striking character, but Tarkin is the one with the Death Star and the one making all the decisions.

1. Star Wars isn't real life.

2. It isn't hand holding to explain how the heroes went from winning at the end of RotJ back to being an underdog Resistance group after supposedly restoring peace to the galaxy.

I'm not saying the films were bad or anything, just that JJ's mystery box style of writing is lazy and unsatisfying.

14 minutes ago, StriderZessei said:

I'm not saying the films were bad or anything, just that JJ's mystery box style of writing is lazy and unsatisfying.

Which I frankly find to be hilarious as that exact same complaint could be leveled at the very first film.

Audiences were given minimal information on the backstory or how things came to be as they were. Vader had no backstory other than the guy that killed Luke's dad and was really little more than Tarkin's attack dog in terms of the plot. Jabba was simply a name, and in the context of the film a throwaway one at that.

The only difference (such as it is) being that we've had 30+ years of authors trying to fill in all the various little background details that simply weren't all that important to the "fairy tale in space" that Lucas was aiming to portray. And when Lucas did go back to fill in some of the backstory how the state of galactic affairs in ANH came to be, he got crapped on for the prequels having too much exposition and info-dumping ("Trade routes and taxations? What the blazes does that have to do with Star Wars?").

While it may not have been spoon fed to the masses, TFA did give audiences a basic framework in terms of history, much as ANH (the film it was very much seeking to emulate) and really only focusing on those elements that were vital to the plot.

35 minutes ago, StriderZessei said:

1. Star Wars isn't real life.

2. It isn't hand holding to explain how the heroes went from winning at the end of RotJ back to being an underdog Resistance group after supposedly restoring peace to the galaxy.

I'm not saying the films were bad or anything, just that JJ's mystery box style of writing is lazy and unsatisfying.

1. Star Wars is informed by real life. Much of its storytelling and world-building is inspired by history, both classical and modern. Anything from the Fall of Rome to the Vietnam War has worked its way into the older movies, and the new ones are including aspects of the contemporary zeitgeist, like the return of fascism after what seemed its grand defeat.

2. I think it is. The movies give us enough information to draw reasonable conclusions.

https://imgur.com/a/6smO9