On ‎10‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:26 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

On the subject of Star Wars "fatigue"...

Maybe a part of the "fatigue" is just from dealing with the fanbase as a whole. Whoever first said that nobody hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans wasn't very far off the mark.

Seeing what is happening on social media I fear that he was being generous

56 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

All of that is still 100% true. Everyone can still do that. Plenty of people do that. Soooo many more people don't engage in Internet discussions or read articles or interviews than those who do. Most of the returns for any big global franchise comes from people who don't engage anywhere outside of viewing the film itself, or the occasional one comment on a FB post somewhere. These discussions here, and other niche places, are in total vacuums and stuff like fan reviews are always displayed in vacuums and don't reflect the general attitude at all. The positive messages of inclusivity, acceptance, and no one being special just because of their blood that the ST is showing is HUGELY important, especially when they core cast emulating this is what they are, and it's playing an important role in the next generation of young SW fans growing up with the ST.

Also, when the fandom and pop culture explosion (which, arguably, Star Wars is one of the largest contributors to its origination) has necessitated creators always having to give something to the crowds because there's an incessant need to constantly engage with something, then yeah, writers/directors/producers/actors/whatever are going to talk about it. You bet if Lucas had access to the same level of stuff that occurs now and people were asking him about it, it would have been the same. No piece of art is produced agnostic to the creator's political views, so why is it a problem when they talk about it? Even something that appears to take no stance, is taking a stance. Just don't read or listen to something if you do't want to be 'influenced' - but just by watching or engaging with a media, you are already being influenced.

And it's not like anyone really thought Lucas wasn't trying to say something super political, if they knew his background. He's part of that group of USC/SoCal filmmakers who all held largely the same views and had - and continue to have - their films influenced by them, and it's not like THX 1138 or American Graffiti were any different before he made Star Wars.

You are arguing several points I did not make.

I didn't say it was a problem that artists talk about their art. I expect them to and often enjoy knowing what they intended. Many, but not all, artists have done so throughout time. The issue I have is what amounts to "poisoning the well." Historically, artists generally talked about message after unveiling their work. They let their audience take it in and start interpreting it for themselves before pontificating about it. Some would even, gasp, ask their audience what they thought or what it evoked in them before inserting their egos into the conversation.

What is more, fandoms like Star Wars have a life of their own. They often take on a bigger and bolder life than their creator's intended (or even imagined what was possible). The artists interpretation becomes interesting (and I like hearing it after experiencing the art), but not definitive - as Lucas himself maddeningly discovered. There were several brilliant, and essentially valid, interpretations by film and art critics that were made that had nothing to do with Lucas' anti-Vietnam talking points. People have written their dissertations on various interpretations of these films.

Which brings me to a key phrase in your comments: "It would have been the same." You just made my point for me. It was not the same. This entire medium of instant message delivery didn't exist. The Internet, let alone social media, has not been here forever. It was not a thing when the the original films came out. I'm not old, but I am somewhat older. When Star Wars came out rotary phones, eight tracks, and print newspapers ran the world. Answering machines with cassette tapes and brick sized radio phones became bleeding edge tech after the original trilogy came out. And that was before the lens of the Internet people now view history through. It was not the same. And that's just the medium and technology the message.

The political climate was different as well. The culture wars were a mere dumpster fire compared to the machinean napalm slinging contest it has become today. We didn't always define differences of political opinion in absolutist and moralist black and white terms. There was a greater sense of live and let live. There was also a greater desire to engage in genuine, interested, good-faith discourse. The insult slinging and dismissing of voices based on personal traits rather than the content was much less frequent. Liberals and conservatives even dated, had sex, and got married to one another once upon a time. Yes, close-minded and obnoxious ideologues and extremists have always been with us, but they did not define or dominate the conversation the way they do today.

The point being: Lucas was interjecting his views into a less volatile cultural ecosystem, he did so with a dissemination delay that allowed us all to sit with his work before integrated his views,, and he engaged his critics and those who dissented from his views with a lot more class than his inheritors have chosen to do. He also showed a lot of respect for divergent interpretations of his work. He was a better marketing man than the current crop. He pursued an ideologically inclusive rather than exclusive fandom because he realized that's where the money is. Why alienate an entire demographic of fans with in-your-face political posturing? That's straight-up stupid.

But, here is my main issue: since when did marketing gurus and Disney executives take on the stature of "the artist?"

1 hour ago, Vondy said:

If you want to myopically zero in on two words, and boil a post down to the identity of the person who made it as opposed reading the holistic whole of its content, feel free. Straw men and ad hominem attacks are Internet norms. I'm used to it.

Bit I thought I was clear that that was NOT what I did. I think your message was perfectly fine but that turn of phrase was like farting during a job interview...

43 minutes ago, Vondy said:

You are arguing several points I did not make.

I didn't say it was a problem that artists talk about their art. I expect them to and often enjoy knowing what they intended. Many, but not all, artists have done so throughout time. The issue I have is what amounts to "poisoning the well." Historically, artists generally talked about message after unveiling their work. They let their audience take it in and start interpreting it for themselves before pontificating about it. Some would even, gasp, ask their audience what they thought or what it evoked in them before inserting their egos into the conversation.

What is more, fandoms like Star Wars have a life of their own. They often take on a bigger and bolder life than their creator's intended (or even imagined what was possible). The artists interpretation becomes interesting (and I like hearing it after experiencing the art), but not definitive - as Lucas himself maddeningly discovered. There were several brilliant, and essentially valid, interpretations by film and art critics that were made that had nothing to do with Lucas' anti-Vietnam talking points. People have written their dissertations on various interpretations of these films.

Which brings me to a key phrase in your comments: "It would have been the same." You just made my point for me. It was not the same. This entire medium of instant message delivery didn't exist. The Internet, let alone social media, has not been here forever. It was not a thing when the the original films came out. I'm not old, but I am somewhat older. When Star Wars came out rotary phones, eight tracks, and print newspapers ran the world. Answering machines with cassette tapes and brick sized radio phones became bleeding edge tech after the original trilogy came out. And that was before the lens of the Internet people now view history through. It was not the same. And that's just the medium and technology the message.

The political climate was different as well. The culture wars were a mere dumpster fire compared to the machinean napalm slinging contest it has become today. We didn't always define differences of political opinion in absolutist and moralist black and white terms. There was a greater sense of live and let live. There was also a greater desire to engage in genuine, interested, good-faith discourse. The insult slinging and dismissing of voices based on personal traits rather than the content was much less frequent. Liberals and conservatives even dated, had sex, and got married to one another once upon a time. Yes, close-minded and obnoxious ideologues and extremists have always been with us, but they did not define or dominate the conversation the way they do today.

The point being: Lucas was interjecting his views into a less volatile cultural ecosystem, he did so with a dissemination delay that allowed us all to sit with his work before integrated his views,, and he engaged his critics and those who dissented from his views with a lot more class than his inheritors have chosen to do. He also showed a lot of respect for divergent interpretations of his work. He was a better marketing man than the current crop. He pursued an ideologically inclusive rather than exclusive fandom because he realized that's where the money is. Why alienate an entire demographic of fans with in-your-face political posturing? That's straight-up stupid.

But, here is my main issue: since when did marketing gurus and Disney executives take on the stature of "the artist?"

The only well it's poisoning is a very small one - if it is actually at all, is the well of a super niche area. Again, most people don't engage in the niche fandom discussions, or even have any idea of the names behind the people making films. I've talked with people both in real life and online who don't even remember the name of Kylo Ren, or Snoke, or Finn, or some other such thing, but have seen the films multiple times. For some people - I'd posit to say, quite a large number - the experience of engaging with the films ends the second the credits roll. They sometimes forget things, like character names or place names or whatever else. They don't know about some interview with a niche trade magazine where JJ or Kathleen Kennedy or Daisy or John said something, they don't know about some bonus feature or online featurette. And they don't care, because seeing the film is enough. That's it, that's where their engagement stops. Hardcore - and I mean, the ones who yell on message boards or over IMs - don't pull the big bucks in anything. It's too small a group. It's the genpop crowd that they get to come see things that pushes films into billion dollar money makers. It's the great success of Marvel, getting people to care about Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and all the other formerly B-list heroes.

My point was that if SW was released today, it would be different, of course, but it would still have to engage with a modern fandom. Lucas would talk just like JJ and Kathleen - we got glimpses of it when the PT was being released. The ST is just Star Wars navigating a modern fandom. I honest to god, don't think the ST is any more or less heavy-handed than the OT or the PT, and I've been around people who aren't into the hardcore niche areas of fandom and they've reflected on it as much. It's just a perception thing. It was a different world, but the message of SW is still the exact same as its always been. That's never changed. At all. Ever.

I'm not even going to get into the 'culture wars' argument, because it's pretty clear what side of that 'war' that Star Wars falls on. (Again, it slaps you in the face with it.)

SW hasn't alienated an entire demographic of fans, it's just people think it has. For as many people will point to people who claim it has been, you can point to an equal of amount of those same demographic of fans who AREN'T alienated, and enjoy the ST just as much as all the others. They just enjoy it, because it's Star Wars. That's all they need. There's no actual evidence it as alienated any complete demographic. It's just loud people yelling it has. It just hasn't. Individual people not liking something doesn't equate to an entire demographic of fans being alienated. I'd also question WHAT exactly is alienating them, because really, if the ST is just a retread of all the OT, then shouldn't the OT also be alienating people? (As an example.) There's never the same answer to that supposed 'fact' - because it isn't actually one.

It's okay to just grow out of enjoying something that you once did, or prefer a different thing from the same fandom (like The Mandalorian or Rogue One). It happens. It's fine. It's not alienating people if that's what happens. Obviously, the ST is resonating really well with a great number of people, from the characters to the themes to so many other things. It's okay if it doesn't with some people, but that doesn't mean its deliberating trying to alienate people. (And if someone, somewhere, thinks it's alienating them because there's not a white dude as one of the main heroes, that's a whole other problem, that has nothing to do with SW.)

Also, JJ and Kathleen and Rian, and the writers of the ST are all artists. Every single one. Just as Kevin Feige is - you can be both an executive somewhere and also an artist. And SW has been a profit-driven, toy-selling machine since like ESB/RotJ and the Kenner line. That's nothing new. It's always been about the toys, but ALSO about the films and their message. Things can be both.

I might just be rambling at this point but in all of this I'm trying to say - Star Wars fans claim a lot of things about the modern Star Wars era that isn't actually happening, and Disney isn't all that much different from Star Wars when it was under Lucas or 20th Century Fox. It had just as much marketing and merchandise driven things during the OT and PT, but the fact that Disney owns it colors a lot of the discussion, often in the negative.

15 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

It had just as much marketing and merchandise driven things during the OT and PT.

Nonsense!

1 hour ago, lowfyr01 said:

Seeing what is happening on social media I fear that he was being generous

I have yet to meet a non-Star Wars fan that describe Episode 8 as being the worst movie in history...

14 minutes ago, Red Castle said:

I have yet to meet a non-Star Wars fan that describe Episode 8 as being the worst movie in history...

You may well be on to something.

From the few folks I know personally that are very casual Star Wars fans, they've found Episode 8 to be the most interesting simply because it shook up a lot of assumptions. Not necessarily better (of the ones I know, none of them cite TLJ as their favorite of the films thus far released), just simply interesting.

It'll be interesting to hear their thoughts on TRoS once they've seen it.

21 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Never underestimate the power of the arts to bring change to the world.

Yeah but to me that suggests that a position is not persuasive enough to stand on its own and must be transported on a virus so that the host organism can't easily separate out the story from the political agenda. It is sleight of hand. This was one of the reasons that Tolkien abhorred allegory, because the subversion of story is never as true and honest as simply allowing history to tell the tale and to allow people to learn how to be better and not repeat mistakes. General values in story are unavoidable and part of why we tell stories to begin with, but crossing over into sophistry is devilishly easy when you are using the guise of a story.

Also stories are not real life and vice versa. In real life being moral is a very great goal, but in stories we are often entertained by the immoral. To say that all though must be sanitized into a universally acceptable format that is subjectively devised is a position of oppression in and of itself.

1 hour ago, Red Castle said:

I have yet to meet a non-Star Wars fan that describe Episode 8 as being the worst movie in history...

Yeah but they also don't have the context to see it that way. They aren't invested or knowledgeable about the setting and history of the franchise.

17 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but they also don't have the context to see it that way. They aren't invested or knowledgeable about the setting and history of the franchise.

Yeah, but this is also a hamstring at times. Having so much knowledge leads to self-imposed expectations that aren't actually rooted in anything other than "I know this world better than any, so this MUST be true" - remember all the outrage from certain fans that Snoke was just some dude and not Plagueis or some other character from the past of the franchise? Or that Rey - as of right now - is just a girl from a desert planet and not Luke's daugher or whatever? More than half of the complaints I've seen about TLJ had nothing to do with the actual film and more that someone's fan theory wasn't included, so that meant the film was trash, and the meaning behind a lot of scenes was just... lost because the view was clouded.

Being able to just go in and see something for what it is, rather than what something isn't, can actually increase your enjoyment. "Clear your mind", as it were.

3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Yeah, but this is also a hamstring. Having so much knowledge leads to self-imposed expectations that aren't actually rooted in anything other than "I know this world better than any, so this MUST be true" - remember all the outrage that Snoke was just some dude and not Plagueis or some other character from the past of the franchise? Or that Rey - as of right now - is just a girl from a desert planet and not Luke's daugher or whatever?

Being able to just go in and see something for what it is, rather than what something isn't, can actually increase your enjoyment.

I haven't really seen any outrage over them not being X, just that they currently have had nothing explained about them. For Rey, I'm fine waiting till IX, but they unceremoniously offed Snoke without giving us anything on him. If Rey's backstory is just "You're a nobody" I can accept that, it's just a little unusual for Star Wars there are things that, right or wrong, Star Wars fans (me included) have come to expect, and not getting them can be very disconcerting.

I am fine with Snoke and Rey being their own characters and not riding on being the descendants (or what have you) of other characters. In fact, I've been pushing that (both the theory and hope) since before TFA even came out. All I want is to have some history, particularly on Snoke. Like I said above, if Rey is a nobody (which I'm not sure I believe [though I do think she isn't linked to prior characters though family connections]) I don't particularly care, I just want some degree of closure, which I assume will be coming in the new movie. For a character who isn't strong in the force (at the very least not to that extent) it isn't as necessary to have that explanation, but in the case of Rey, there is a very big question of "how is she that powerful?" that has yet to be answered.

22 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but to me that suggests that a position is not persuasive enough to stand on its own and must be transported on a virus so that the host organism can't easily separate out the story from the political agenda

It doesn’t matter what it suggests to you.
Art is and has always been a vehicle for ideals. Artist have always shaped and voiced public ideas. From Picasso to Bob Dylan and from James Joyce to George Lucas.
Calling it political propaganda is verging on the obtuse.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

they unceremoniously offed Snoke without giving us anything on him

Like they did the Emperor? How much did we now about him really at the end of the OT?

29 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Also stories are not real life and vice versa. In real life being moral is a very great goal, but in stories we are often entertained by the immoral. To say that all though must be sanitized into a universally acceptable format that is subjectively devised is a position of oppression in and of itself.

That is one great strawman you built and then struck down! Good job!

14 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I haven't really seen any outrage over them not being X, just that they currently have had nothing explained about them. For Rey, I'm fine waiting till IX, but they unceremoniously offed Snoke without giving us anything on him. If Rey's backstory is just "You're a nobody" I can accept that, it's just a little unusual for Star Wars there are things that, right or wrong, Star Wars fans (me included) have come to expect, and not getting them can be very disconcerting.

This I think illustrates one of the points I made earlier. I saw a TON of outrage over the fact that neither of them were 'X', in a very small specific circle of SW fans, because none of this is actually universal and it's all niche, with niche arguments among a very specific group of SW fans.

12 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Like they did the Emperor? How much did we now about him really at the end of the OT?

Basically nothing, he didn't even have a name outside of the "Emperor". Indeed, with Snoke, he only served to give Ben an arc, nothing else. He's not important to the larger story, at all. He's an archetypal figure meant to give weight to Ben's journey, that's it. Just like how the Emperor was an archetypal figure meant to give weight to Luke and Vader's journey - he only became something else after the Prequels, and even then, he was there to give weight to Anakin's journey. Even the visual motifs of both of them reflect it - gaunt, robed individuals with scars and 'evil' voices who sit on thrones and have masked guards, and use evil magic to hurt people, both done in by their own arrogance.

Sure, Palpatine is the main antagonist of the Skywalker saga, but he's still largely an archetypal "Dark Lord" figure and on his own has no meaning (because he doesn't really have a 'journey', he's always been the BBEG), but instead gives weight to the protagonists that act around him.

That was done ceremoniously. It was also before Star Wars is as big as it is now (as far as the EU, be that canon or Legends). We didn't have every detail of anyone's backstory at that point.

Because of everything behind and around Star Wars now, Snoke was this new mysterious figure with mysterious origins. We knew where Kylo fit into the picture, we knew where the First Order fit into the picture, we knew where the Resistance fit into the picture, but Snoke was a wild card. Sure he leads the First Order, but he's not something we've ever seen before, and since we know how the First Order came into being, where did Snoke come from?

The Emperor was never much of a mysterious figure, and with the OT the Empire was simply "The Empire" there was reference to what came before, but nothing that would really make us wonder all to much about how their leader came to be. (Others' experiences may be different on this front though, I didn't come into the OT "untainted")

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Because of everything behind and around Star Wars now, Snoke was this new mysterious figure with mysterious origins. We knew where Kylo fit into the picture, we knew where the First Order fit into the picture, we knew where the Resistance fit into the picture, but Snoke was a wild card. Sure he leads the First Order, but he's not something we've ever seen before, and since we know how the First Order came into being, where did Snoke come from?

The point is that in the context of the narrative their telling, it doesn't matter. Even in the lore of SW, no one knows where he comes from, because it doesn't matter there either. He was just a dude powerful in the dark side who abused a vulnerable young boy and turned him to the dark side. He's there to act as a cog in Ben's journey, nothing more - Rian even said as much. What does stopping the flow of a film halfway through to give some exposition about a random guy do? Nothing really, it just makes things awkward and probably would just lead to more questions than answers.

Ben's journey is important to the narrative of the First Order, not Snoke's. It's fine to want more, or wish they did more with it, but the ST is the story of Ben and Rey when it comes to the Force, not Luke, Snoke, or even Palpatine.

18 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

That is one great strawman you built and then struck down! Good job!

Cool man, have a good one

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but they also don't have the context to see it that way. They aren't invested or knowledgeable about the setting and history of the franchise.

That's pretty much what I mean. Fans can fall into the trap of being too emotional to really judge. They are judging the movie not for what it is, but for what they wanted it to be. But a movie is more than just how it expend a universe. It is also the cinematography, the sound, the music, the story it has to tell, etc.

So while I understand that a lot of fans might have hated the movie and for good reasons (from their point of view at least), I think it is far from being the worst movie in history. But I'm also pretty sure that when a fan says that it is the worst movie, he really means it. He's just not being objective about it. Hence why: Nobody hates Star wars as much as Star Wars fans.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

Yeah but they also don't have the context to see it that way. They aren't invested or knowledgeable about the setting and history of the franchise.

Doesn't mean they can't enjoy the films all the same without needing all the extra context. Not every viewer needs to know all those extra details to understand and enjoy the films for what they are.

Perhaps those folks are the lucky ones, as they're ones not dragged down by all the extra baggage the more devoted members of the fan base are.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It was also before Star Wars is as big as it is now (as far as the EU, be that canon or Legends). We didn't have every detail of anyone's backstory at that point.

This right here is one of the reason why I think the Sequel trilogy gets so much hate.

I remember a time when we didn't knew who Palpatine really was. There was a time when we didn't knew who Boba Fett was, we didn't even knew if he was human or if he was a she. We didn't knew what the Clone Wars was, or how the Empire came to be. And quite frankly, it was a great time. Star Wars was what you wanted it to be.

But now, for a lot of people, there is the idea that you can know everything about Star Wars. There is encyclopedias and wookiepedia telling the backstory of every characters that we get to see in the movies, series, comics, books, etc. And sometimes it seems more important to some fans to know the backstory than to just sit down and appreciate the story the media has to tell. Or get to hung up by what they already know that they have trouble to accept things that might alter it (like new force powers or hyperspace ramming).

That's Star Wars we are talking about here. We will get to know everything we have to know about each characters in due time. We just have to be patient. I'm pretty sure that we will get a book or series on the backstory of Snoke (That's if we don't get it in Episode 9). But fot the story the Sequel trilogy had to tell, his backstory was not that important. All we had to know is that he's at head of the First Order and he seduced Ben to the dark side. Just like all we had to know about the Emperor in the Original trilogy was that he was at the head of the Empire and the master of Darth Vader. That's it. The 30 years gap between the OT and ST will get fleshed out eventually, but is not that important for the story the Sequel trilogy has to tell. Unless you're the kind of person that absolutely needs to know everything now to enjoy a story... in that case I don't see how you would have been able to enjoy the Original Trilogy because when it came out we didn't knew that much, only what was important to the story it had to tell. And it was great that way.

1 hour ago, StarkJunior said:

The point is that in the context of the narrative their telling, it doesn't matter. Even in the lore of SW, no one knows where he comes from, because it doesn't matter there either.

As far as I experienced the story so far, it is a pretty big part of the new character arcs where they come from.

- Kylo and the whole family story behind him with his parents, uncle and grandfather - huge part of his character and his story.

- Rey seems to be driven by the question who she is and where she belongs, and the big ? around her parents is also a major point to the story - kylo mentioning that she is just nobody was a crazy line for her character arc (even if he was wrong/lied).

- Finn is a former Trooper, brainwashed as a child - sadly this wasn't really explored in the movies so far.

- Poe is probably just the new Hotshot and "that guy" at every table who's background reads something like: xyz killed my parents - i became awesome - done (what is a shame when you look at his development so far).

- By now we got more clues about Hux and why someone so able happened to be so high in command (although i would prefer some badass Antagonists to keep me at the edge of the seat instead of laughing).

- And the biggest mystery so far (even bigger than Rey's origin) was Snoke with just plain nothing.

- Even Rose got more Background with just her sister killed than Snoke.

Until now it felt way more important than in OT or PT where the characters came from, especially for the non Skywalkers.

I don’t know why people are this upset about not learning more about Snoke. He was never a big deal (storywise) to begin with...

25 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I don’t know why people are this upset about not learning more about Snoke. He was never a big deal (storywise) to begin with...

Agreed. I love the ST but I found him to be boring. I was glad that his death was so unceremonious.

1 hour ago, Red Castle said:

But now, for a lot of people, there is the idea that you can know everything about Star Wars. There is encyclopedias and wookiepedia telling the backstory of every characters that we get to see in the movies, series, comics, books, etc. And sometimes it seems more important to some fans to know the backstory than to just sit down and appreciate the story the media has to tell. Or get to hung up by what they already know that they have trouble to accept things that might alter it (like new force powers or hyperspace ramming).

Star Wars Grand Unification, both a cause and effect of Star Wars Determinism. Everything must have a name. Everything must have an elaborate backstory. Everything must have cosmic significance. Everything that looks similar is probably related. Internet-fueled superfandom is the driver of this.

One example is the power droid. The first twenty years of my life, it was just a common utility droid, one of which in particular found its way into a sandcrawler and said some funny words of an obscure dialect likely translated to "Energy; energy from this unit." Sometime in the late-90s bulletin board years, it was named through onomatopoeia. The name caught on and stuck, and eventually was entered into canon. But that turned this interesting class and specimen alike into a character that was and always has to be the same wherever it is. LOOK IT'S A GONK. GONK GONK GONK. Disney, of course, has little choice but to participate; but, still, something that made the universe bigger now makes it smaller.

Don't even get me started on RA-7s or the Tonnika Sisters (OR ARE THEY!?!?!?!)