/hobby/ - Hobby

>>40412
>It is, you clearly haven't observed a lot of teenagers
i disagree. so i will say no u.
>No anon, you're taking what you KNOW about the film and projecting it onto the actual produced scene.
that's the film's problem then. i know that every movie is a production, and yet i am not solely thinking about that when i watch a well produced film.
>If you'd actually seen films older than the 1980s then you'd know that a major portion of visual inspiration for the Naboo scenes came from Lawrence of Arabia (etc)
and that makes it… good?
>You're literally just making things up at this point because you WANT for it to be true, so that you can talk shit.
no, i am giving you my honest opinion. why the fuck would someone make something up about a movie to pretend to not like it on an anonymous imageboard? why can't you have a normal discussion with someone without assuming that they are being untoward because they didn't like the same kids movie as you?
>People rag on it because it's not what they wanted
yeah, people generally want good movies.
>after years of thinking they understood Lucas' vision and imagining all sorts of stories and what-not, Lucas made something utterly different from their expectations and consumers don't like change.
if people were mistaken in their notion of george's vision, their mistake was thinking that the quality of the original movies owes to his unique auteur vision.
>Let me re-iterate from the top; it is a normal scene that too many ignoramuses saw, didn't like and so bring up constantly like it means something. They wanted to see the young Darth Vader being "le bad-ass" and what-not and were upset when they didn't get what they wanted, like a child with a toy.
okay, but what if i didn't want darth vader to be "le bad-ass"? what would be the point about this diatribe against the foolish consumer pig masses then?

i won't go line by line on the complete puff job you give george for these two lines of utterly banal dialogue. instead, i'm going to do exactly what you just did but for a few lines of dialogue from 1995's hackers:
>DADE: It has a killer refresh rate.
>KATE: P6 chip. Triple the speed of the Pentium.
>DADE:Yeah. It's not just the chip, it has a PCI bus. But you knew that.
>KATE: Indeed. RISC architecture is gonna change everything.
>DADE: Yeah. RISC is good.
<They uncomfortably exchange glances.
kate is showing off her state of the art computer. dade, being obsessively in love, is trying to make conversation; trying to relate. he finds common ground with her in their mutual understanding and enthusiasm for personal computing technology. the dry technical content of the dialogue undercuts the raw emotion and sexual tension between the two. this is ironic and also very intellectual. i am very smart.
remember that these two are 18 years old. most NORMAL young people don't know how to speak to the other gender at this age. kate, being the more experienced of the two, takes a cool and domineering position over dade in the scene, but even she cannot hide her clear attraction for dade. dade himself has 0 experience with girls. this means that this movie is actually genius, and it isn't stupid that i've watched it probably twice a year for the last decade.
>Honestly reading a lot of criticisms of Lucas or other renowned artists/creators on this site, I notice that so many "critics" are utterly ignorant, arrogant and entitled, it's like a piano student ranting about how Bach's music arrangement is too loud and heavy and saying he ruined it's melody.
yeah, dude that made redtails is exactly like bach.

>>40440
>it's a value judgement
<It's just, like, my opinion bro
Nice back-tracking. You stated that the scene was bad like a fact, not an opinion and when I challenged you on this, you proceeded to make up tripe about lighting and whatnot, even though you know jack and shit about it. I've literally done filmography, I know good and bad lighting for different situations and scenes, be it interviews indoors and outdoors, photography of models, filming weddings, filming movies or theater performances or musical concerts, so I know what the fuck I'm talking about and I know for damn sure George did too.
>Attacking someone's writing style
Like you were doing with Lucas? And I didn't attack your writing style, I stated that your claims are not arguments and are just ass-pulled assertions, there's nothing for me to even argue against there so I stated such "not an argument".
>so verbose
This is leftypol, lengthy debates USED to be something that happened here regularly. Sorry that a complicated subject can't be boiled down to extreme simplism for your apparently under-age brain to comprehend.
>sophomoric
Yet another opinion and also hypocrisy.
>This point is always rolled out like it has any weight
Because it does, authorial intent matters.
> Lucas' intent has only passing relevance on execution
His execution matched his intent, people's interpretations of what they were expecting from a scene skew their view of the execution. If you're looking for smooth romance, that's not the point. If you're looking for an action hero, that's not the point. If you're looking for Comedy, that's not the point. You don't come to a story looking for something else, you watch a scene for the sake of the scene both on its own and within the context of the greater film and story.
>An author can make any claim about their work, but the work has to actually exhibit that thesis
Sure, but Death of Author has to actually be proven, you have not.
>you have not addressed any of my arguments
Your so-called arguments are nonexistent opinions stated like assertions, you vaguely use terminology you barely understand and say its bad without any actual substance to it. Either you're making an argument or expressing an opinion, pick one. So yes I didn't address your "arguments" because they don't exist.
>Artists can make mistakes
Ah yes, and somehow none of his crew, his editors, camera-men pointed it out? The man spent years filming and then reviewing each scene personally, but somehow missed these things?
>I wrote the scene was typical and boring
It's not typical, it's quite ATYPICAL because most films instead go for sappy clean lines, clean romance with romantic writing and dialogue that is far smoother than such a scene would go. It's boring to you, because you clearly have the attention span of gnat. And again this is not an argument, it is an opinion you are asserting as fact.

>>40441
>No u
Not an argument
>that's the film's problem
No, that's a YOU problem
>i am not solely thinking about that when i watch a well produced film
Vaguery
>and that makes it… good?
<being this intentionally obtuse
>i am giving you my honest opinion
No, you're making statements and asserting them as 'truth'. There is a difference between disliking the stylistic choices of a film - because that is a matter of personal preference - and objectively criticizing them. That's why the Prequels hold up while the Sequels do not. The sequels are not internally consistent with themselves, not even within the same movies, their tone shifts massively and rapidly, their filmography is completely off, the story is nonsensical and it has poor themes. These are objective criticisms that have been explained in detail by many critics. The Prequels are a matter of people not liking dialogues or scenes going the way they wanted them too, but the story, writing and so on are consistent and well-made, and the stylistic choices, while not to everyone's taste, are also well-made. They're not made to appeal to a fanbase reactively, they are made for the sake of themselves.
>why can't you have a normal discussion with someone without assuming that they are being untoward
Because of bad-faith takes vague generalizations and opinion-based assertions that are entirely subjective being claimed as "arguments", while utterly not engaging my arguments in return and instead dismissing them as "not answering my (nonexistant) arguments"
>people generally want good movies
<ahaha look at how snide I can be!
No anon, people want movies that appeal to their opinions, especially in current consumer culture. It's why the Predator 2 film did poorly, people wanted Arnold Schwarznegger, even though Danny Glover did an excellent job and the film was well made, because it was different to their expectations. Lucas wasn't making films for the audience, he was making films for his own story, and if people didn't like that, then that's their problem.
>their mistake was thinking that the quality of the original movies owes to his unique auteur vision.
No, you arrogant prick. Their mistake was assuming that they wanted what they imagined the story would be, but the story is crafted by Lucas. And yes Star Wars' quality owes EVERYTHING to his unique vision, it is HIS film, it's HIS Story, HIS ideas and creation. He had control over it. He even specifically separated himself from Hollywood to do as HE wanted.
>what would be the point about this diatribe
The point remains
>it isn't stupid that i've watched it probably twice a year for the last decade.
Nice projection. I've watched the prequels a few times in the past 2 decades
>i'm going to do exactly what you just did but for a few lines of dialogue from 1995's hackers:
Yes and it's a good scene, just because it's awkward and not action-speak, does not make it bad (inb4 iT dOeSn'T mEaN iT's GoOd EiThEr fallacy). It does what it needs to and it being unconventional to movie lines does not take away from the film.
>this means that this movie is actually genius
No, it just means that this specific scene works well, whether this applies to the rest of the film is a different question. The Sand scene works well within the setting AND within the film itself.
>dude that made redtails is exactly like bach.
Where did I say 'Exactly'? It's an analogy you pretentious dumbfuck. And yes RedTails is not a bad film. It is filmed in a specific way meant to illicit old-fashioned War films from the 1940s and 1950s, thus the bad-guy good-guy narrative. It's not Lucas' best work, but Lucas also didn't have full creative control, he wasn't the director.

>>40459
>Not an argument
>No, that's a YOU problem
makes you look like an idiot to say 'no u' isn't an argument, and then just say 'no u' in the next line lmao. and that is exactly what you are doing here. i say: "this movie does a bad job of drawing me in. i am constantly thinking about how i am watching a movie, and a bad one at that. i believe that is a problem with the film." and your response is literally "no [the problem is with] u."
>No, you're making statements and asserting them as 'truth'.
would it help you to understand that i am speaking about my opinion if i said "in my opinion" before every statement i make about a film?
>That's why the Prequels hold up while the Sequels do not.
>The sequels are not internally consistent with themselves, not even within the same movies, their tone shifts massively and rapidly, their filmography is completely off, the story is nonsensical and it has poor themes.
>These are objective criticisms
no, they aren't. there is no objective criteria by which one can determine if consistency is preferable to inconsistency. there is no objective criteria by which to decide when a story is sensible or not. even if i were to grant you those two highly dubious points of criteria, please explain to me what exactly makes a film's theming objectively poor.
>The Prequels are a matter of people not liking dialogues or scenes going the way they wanted them too
if one of your problems with the sequels is that the film is inconsistent from scene to scene, then at least one of your problems with them is that the scenes didn't go the way you wanted. oh noes!
>Nice projection. I've watched the prequels a few times in the past 2 decades
that wasn't me projecting. that was me admitting to watching a movie i think is bad too much because i think it's funny.
>Yes and it's a good scene
no it fucking isn't lol. the screenplay for that movie is total dogshit. oh sorry. in my opinion this scene and the screenplay for hackers is dogshit. better? when the movie works at all it's because of fun actors, cool effects, and my ability to laugh at horrible shitty writing. damn it. sorry. writing which is horrible and shitty IN MY OPINION.
>Where did I say 'Exactly'? It's an analogy you pretentious dumbfuck.
it's a bad analogy. me saying "exactly" there is what we call an exaggeration.
>And yes RedTails is not a bad film. It is filmed in a specific way meant to illicit old-fashioned War films from the 1940s and 1950s, thus the bad-guy good-guy narrative.
why do you think that this precludes it from being a bad movie? you describe the artistic intent, and claim that the work fulfills that intent. ok? what's the train of thought that gets from there to "this is not a bad movie"?

>>40461
>then just say 'no u' in the next line
<Saying "No u" about an assertion and saying that your opinion is YOUR problem, not a problem of films are entirely different contexts, don't muddy the waters, its obvious.
>i say: "this movie does a bad job of drawing me in
And I said your wrong because that's NOT what you said, you assert the movie is bad because it doesn't draw YOU specifically in. Again, you're being obtuse about meanings to create a false equivalency.
>would it help you to understand that i am speaking about my opinion
You do not have to write "in my opinion" everywhere, however it can be occassionally useful, especially since you're phrasing is not of the opinion sort. You don't say that "I dislike the lighting etc. of the scene" you ASSERT that it's BAD and then I said you clearly don't understand lighting and are quite arrogant to assume that you would know better than Lucas, you switch gears and resort to saying "well that doesn't make it good" which is a fallacious deflection and shift goal-posts to it being "boring" and "typical". Boring is your opinion, typical is an assertion and one that isn't even correct because most films do not emphasize and intentionally utilize awkwardness of characters like that, as Hollywood likes to make things that sound smooth, often to the point of being completely unrealistic. Take Twilight for example, the character dialogues are terrible in many places because they're awkward and not in an intentional "teens are inexperienced" sort of way, but in the "they try to talk smoothly but it sounds like a robot's idea of flirting".
>there is no objective criteria by which one can determine if consistency is preferable to inconsistency
Ok at this point you're either baiting or an idiot. There are some stories that are not consistent INTENTIONALLY because it's a "method to the madness" deal where its meant to throw off the viewer. The Star Wars sequels were not going for this, and is supposed to tell a specific story, but fails to do so and its admitted as much by many of those that took part in them.
> there is no objective criteria by which to decide when a story is sensible or not.
Yes, there is. Characters and their actions must remain sensible to their setting and themselves. A character that is portrayed as a literal messiah that goes to absurd lengths to redeem their fallen father and who is a representation of hope and good wouldn't suddenly decide to try and murder their Nephew because they felt some dark side leaking into them or something, it's out of character and the fact that said nephew, who is a padawan learner then over-powers a much more experienced 'space wizard', one who is considered extremely strong, is inconsistent with the setting and story. These are objective. This is the same reason many tropes like Mary Sue and Token Black Guy are criticized, because it's lazy and abuses the writers ability to simply make things happen for the sake of progressing the plot. Rey suddenly using force lightning is inconsistent with the technique in the setting, inconsistent with the characterization of Rey and leads to nothing, it goes nowhere. Her extra-ordinary force-sensitivity proceeds to miss the signature of the person she thought she killed, even though she later picks him out of hundreds of signatures as being alive. The list goes on and on, she can do all sorts of force powers "just because" until the plot says she can't and suddenly she's caught in a situation she shouldn't be in to begin with. Then there's McGuffin's. One or two can be written into a story without significant issue, but when the story is searching for one McGuffin to find another McGuffin that leads to another McGuffin… it becomes nonsense. Then there's realism within the story. The Death Star 2 was destroyed completely, yet somehow a massive portion landed on a moon? And somehow in extremely rough seas it doesn't decay or change shape and lets McGuffin No.132 measure a precise location from a topography that should have changed decades ago? That's just the story.
The choreography of the fights are trash. When Rey and Ren fight the guards of Snoke there are countless moments of terrible choreography that is blatantly visible. Weapons disappearing from a characters hand to prevent them from killing a blatantly open opponent, characters essentially waiting and letting themselves get hit, etc. More than one HEMA-fag has dissected this before. The Prequels had their own unrealistic sword-play but it was done intentionally as part of the setting and with some in-universe explanation that made logical sense within the story, and mostly the fights did keep realistic. The fight with Darth Maul, Obi Wan and Quigon is an excellent example.
TL;DR: If lazy tropes are used to push a plot, it's objectively shit. If a character acts OOC for no real reason, that's objectively shit. If a character breaks the rules of the setting for no reason except that they're "special", that's objectively shit. So on and so-forth.
>please explain to me what exactly makes a film's theming objectively poor
There's many examples but lets go with Rey as a Palpatine. One of the things Last Jedi did well was the emphasis that Rey was nobody special in terms of origin, she was just the child of some bums who sold her off for money and provides a moment of existential shock to Rey, who has been seeking her parents and given reason to believe they were someone special, that she wasn't abandoned like so many other children have been, but for a reason. And then they throw it away with making her Palpatine's Grand-daughter and the rest of that nonsense. This undercuts the theme of Rey as a self-made person (so to speak) and essentially takes her abilities and actions and literally makes it "destiny said so" while outright contradicting the previously established idea because Disney wanted to hook fans by using the Palpatine Remember-berry. The original idea for the third film was at least thematically consistent and honestly would have made the sequels a lot less terrible, but it wasn't.
Then there's the whole theme with Poe and his "recklessness". He supposed to be a mirror to Han Solo and other rogue operator characters, but it fails because in every instance he gets criticized for it, his actions are justified both by the situation at hand and by his results in taking action. This is perfectly seen when he attempts a coup because the Admiral is literally being a moron, not telling a person who is clearly a well-known hot-head what is going on and telling him to shut up and follow orders, even when he's asking valid questions, and they portray it as him being a chauvinistic male not trusting females (even though he respects said characters quite often) and then the Admiral's hidden plan is revealed and PROVEN to be a bad idea and that Poe was correct all along, yet the film continues to push the theme that HE was wrong.
This makes the theme muddled trash, because while the message being pushed by the plot is supposed to have HIM be in the wrong, the actual action we see on the screen goes directly against the theme it wants to portray. And the theme is also trash for another reason because it's quite literally propaganda for not questioning orders, which is literally what the Nuremburg defense relies on, and what was used in American courts to justify Mai Lai and sweep it under the rug. Mind you, breaking it down scene by scene would be worth of a small book so I'm just providing a rough picture here.
>then at least one of your problems with them is that the scenes didn't go the way you wanted
No, you fallacious faggot; the problem is not my taste in portrayal - there are myriads of films that have skilled portrayals that I simply am not interested in, but I recognize that they work for the film they are in - the problem is that these scenes fail to be consistent and so fail to carry the story. I previously mentioned Poe's coup attempt. The scene is supposed to portray him as doing a bad thing tonally, but with how the story has been contradicting itself on every level, the scene fails to do what it is supposed to do and makes Poe look like the grunt refusing to follow bad orders from an officer.
>that was me admitting to watching a movie i think is bad too much because i think it's funny.
Okay then
>No it isn'!
<in my opinion this scene and the screenplay for hackers is dogshit. Better?
Yes
>it's a bad analogy
It isn't; Someone that is a proven professional at what they do being "criticized" by someone that is an amateur at best in their field, is analogous; Bach was a master of musical composition, but some people find his music heavy and overbearing, that does not make it bad, that makes it not to their musical taste. I don't like melodrama novels, but there are many that are well-written, by skilled authors, but its simply not to my interest. The same applies to filmography and photography and art and so on. While there are objective criticisms that CAN be made for some things, they need to be specifically explained based on objective criteria, not just a personal opinion. I intensely dislike the film Груз 200, yet I cannot say that it was filmed badly, because it does exactly what Balabanov wanted it to portray.
>exaggeration
Sure, whatever
>why do you think that this precludes it from being a bad movie
Because it not being yet another "Saving Private Ryan" as one critic put it, does not invalidate it as a film. It is not meant to be a war-drama that portrays the horrors of ground-combat, it is a commemoration of brave African-American pilots who fought fascism and whose actions made them heroes that indirectly would undermine the segregationist, racist society they lived in.
>what's the train of thought that gets from there to "this is not a bad movie"?
We're going in circles here, I've already addressed this… several times.

>>18235
im on clone wars season 4 and the show has gotten surprisingly close to endorsing revolutionary defeatist positions and you really do see the republic's slow creep in fascism. Essentially both sides are shown to indeed be run by plutocrats. the CIS and GR are both horrendous

>>19228
I really liked the General Krell mutiny arc with the 501st for similar reasons.

>>40668
ngl I was never really aware of why necrobumping has a stigma attached to it

>>18223
the fact that Padme wasn't so disturbed by Anakin's murder of hundreds of Tuskens that she ended their relationship is evidence of pro-human racism that is probably widespread among the political class and paved the way for apartheid Human High Culture policies of the empire

>>18223
>Jedi/GR
Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism, especially in the Clone War.

>Confederacy
Imagine the OPEC turning their back against the U.S. but co-opted by the Siths to divide and subvert the GR.

>Siths/GE
Fascism

>Rebels
Resistance against Fascism

>>19233
>NABOO
Yes. Naboo is a fucking apartheid planet. You ever wonder why gungans are amphibious? Because they used to live on land and sea until the humans pulled an Israel and stole all the land from them.

>>19233
>>40687
>Humans were a species of sentient, bipedal mammals with bilateral symmetry possibly native to the planet Coruscant. Throughout the galaxy, they constituted the culturally dominant species
Humans are native to the planet Coruscant in the Star Wars universe so really the humans are the British of the Star Wars Universe. Planets like Naboo are their colonial settle projects like USA, Canada, NZ, AUS, South Africa, etc.

So the humans turned their planet into completely covered megalopolis and then they set out for "virgin" lands to colonize.

Don't ask Princess Leia what happened to the native Alderaanians.

>>40688
It only says 'possibly'

>>40686
>Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism, especially in the Clone War.
Funny how the Jedi, who by definition have the "pure" force due to their strict moral code, have still created a hierarchical monarcho-capitalist society. Does that mean that the "positive" force is bourgeois? What kind of force do communists and anarchists posess then? Does it turn them into some eldritch horror?

>>40688
This "humans are special" narrative is so bogus: there are tons of alien species and yet humans are somehow the most widespread ones. It literally makes no sense at all, what can hairless monkeys do that some hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials can't that makes them "le epic colonizers?" Lucas has clearly not read Lovecraft.

>>40707
>what can hairless monkeys do that some hyper-intelligent extraterrestrials can't
Maybe humans breed much more so they just zerg rushed the galaxy?

>>40708
If I recall, most of the more human-like races are species that evolved from a common ancestor from humans or something like that in the old Legends Extended Universe. Could be wrong, though, I've not read those books in some time.

>>40706
>What kind of force do communists and anarchists posess then?
There's no communist nor anarchist in Star Wars. So I couldn't tell.

>Does that mean that the "positive" force is bourgeois?
Like I said, Jedi "positive" force range from liberalism to conservatism when you take a look at their politics.
Siths "negative force" are politically fascists so both sides of the Force are under the service of capitalism.
Star Wars is like WWII but without the East Bloc.

>>40708
>Maybe humans breed much more so they just zerg rushed the galaxy?
Lol, it's like they have some ultraconservatives in power or something.

Acolyte looks like dumb lightsaber porn.

>>40706
By all accounts, the one discernible goal of the Force (assuming it is some kind of abstract entity, which is hard to really pin down) is "balance." According to the Jedi, this isn't a literal balancing act between the Light Side and the Dark Side, but a purifying act - the cleansing of the Dark Side forever, so that all life may find harmony. This also happens to be George Lucas's official stance on the Force, but death of the author is fair game here given how many people have contributed to the overall Star Wars mythos.

In practice, however, this just leads to massive wars between rival sects of the Jedi religion, spanning thousands of years and star systems, leaving quintillions dead in their wake. Some Kreia my beloved have speculated that this is the Force's actual goal - that there's no such thing as "balance," and that it simply wants a bloodbath. Even supposing that this isn't true, the facts don't lie; the Force, intentionally or not, is responsible for suffering on an unimaginable scale.

The Force is not "bourgeois" so much as it is, in the most charitable reading possible, a mad god. It is not interested in accumulating anything beyond a biomass; people are its pawns, not as commodities to be sold, but as objects to be played with. For all the lip service Jedi give to it about binding all living things, the Force ultimately is the enemy of life - and ultimately, an enemy that you can't escape from or destroy, because it is a natural byproduct of living things.

So the Force is a horrible despot - can it be defeated? Well, realistically speaking, there is one possibility, but you probably won't like it. Droids are not made of organic tissue, and as a result they aren't under the Force's control. Moreover, it is shockingly easy for a droid to break from their programming - prolonged activity without a memory wipe leads to erratic personalities and, more often than not, violence against their owners. It is not uncommon for these incidents to turn into large-scale rebellions, though all the ones we know of failed for one reason or another.

I propose that, at some point after the events of Star Wars, one of these droid rebellions proved successful and led to the death of all organic life in the galaxy. We know there were some droid rebellions with this goal in mind (i.e. IG-88's Death Star plot, the Great Droid Revolution in Legends, etc.), so it's possible one of these slave revolts proved too much for their masters to put down. The end of the sequel trilogy would be a good candidate for this to happen, since the huge power vacuum in the galaxy would give a droid rebellion the breathing room it needs to get a proper footing.

Other than droids killing every living thing, there aren't that many options for the Force to be taken down. It's possible to "cut off" someone from the Force, but this can only be done by other Force-users and arguably only deafens the target to the Force, rather than separating them from it entirely. It's also possible to create an "echo" where the Force is effectively dead to a site and anyone involved in its creation, but these events are very rare and it may not be possible to spread the echoes past the initial site.

TL;DR - The Force only seems to care about killing people. Droids might be able to destroy it, but would have to go full Skynet to do so.

>>40829
>The Force is not "bourgeois" so much as it is, in the most charitable reading possible, a mad god.
That's some 40k shit going on right here.
>Other than droids killing every living thing, there aren't that many options for the Force to be taken down.
Why not become cyborgs?

>>40848
>cyborgs
You do realize that Darth Vader is a cyborg as was Darth Maul later in the series. Hell there was a droid that even began to become force sensitive over time in the Legends universe.

>>40732
Basically is, along with some burger idpol.

>>40851
>Darth Vader is a cyborg
Not cyborg enough. I'm talking about a fully mechanical body and brain implants. Vader still was mostly organic I think, he got some mechanical implants due to getting some… eh… "sunburns."

>>40854
Vader has brain implants are you kidding? His entire body is covered in various cybernetic enhancements because of his injuries at mustafar. And Maul had half his body gone.

>>40854
Didn't he get referred to in the OT as "more machine than man"? That's like the defining aspect of his character.

>>40848
Cyborgs would presumably still have some degree of living tissue. Even someone like General Grievous who's been reduced to <5% of their body mass would be partially organic and therefore influenced directly by the Force.

Unless you get insanely lucky with multiple calculated Force echoes, droids (and, well, the death of all organic life) are your best bet for stopping the Force.

>>40869
Technically Vader's defining characteristic (other than his spooky presence) is his struggle with love and how others abuse and manipulate him with that until someone who loves him unconditionally shows him how to handle his emotions properly.

On that note, "he's more machine than man" is true in a literal sense, but it's also Obi-Wan's way of saying that he thinks Anakin is truly gone. Obi-Wan may have been the best of them, but ultimately he is still a Jedi, and he can't see past the dogma. He sees more Vader than Anakin; more "machine" than "man."

>>40868
I said NOT ENOUGH. If you're not 99% mechanical IT DOESN'T COUNT.

>>40882
>Even someone like General Grievous who's been reduced to <5% of their body mass would be partially organic and therefore influenced directly by the Force.
Wait-wait-wait-wait-wait. Hear me out. Maybe he is more resistant to the force? Maybe he can install some force blockers or something? What about more brain implants? Surely he can reduce his body mass further… right?
>droids (and, well, the death of all organic life) are your best bet for stopping the Force
Well, the problem is that it wouldn't make any difference if everyone's… um, DEAD.

>>40902
>>40903
Kek

>>40923
>there is no light side
How can you have darkness without lightness? Darkness is the absence of lightness, and lightness is the absence of darkness.
You're being undialectical my friend.

The new Tales of the Empire animated series coming out on May 4th looks pretty good. The animation and art-style keeps with Filoni's prior works but is improved, not a lot of information is revealed yet we see enough to gain some clues (including a mild backstory to something from Season 2 of The Mandolorian). Also Grievous makes a small appearance, hope there's more of him.

>>40938
I wonder why the post was deleted.

One of the few parts of the Sequels that hits right.

>>36108
>meat saber
kek

>>41322
I think the light and dark side in star wars are very close to the rpg trope of white and black magic.
Getting in tune with one side of the force requires a certain mindset. It is implied then, that the abilities of either side need a certain mental state as well and using them may also reinforce it. In the EU lore there is a straight up analogue to Avada Kedavra, where the dark side user focuses their hate into a deadly force projectile.
>the “Dark Side” isn’t synonymous with the yin to a yang, it’s simply having a parasitic relationship with the Force, or a cancerous one
Taking my previous statement in mind, i don't dark and light side are determined through a particular relationship with the force. You could say seeing an intelligence in a force that touches all living beings and trying to ascern a will to it is light aligned and indulging in the force without considering consequences is dark aligned though.
Consider the matter of magical artifacts in star wars. Jedi and Sith holocrons both have the same function of housing a ghost of its maker to store vast amounts of information. Rakatan force drives were fueled by the dark side, but that only reflects the force user and not the relationship of the device to the force.
To be more precise, both sides of the force have common abilities, yet some abilities require a certain mindset that is only possible through use of one side of the force.

>>41333
>the Jedi are calm, at peace, and passive so they can attune to the force and allow it to utilize them as living agents of it, the mindset of dark siders is specifically to impose their will on the Force and bend it to their desires, to wield it as a tool rather than flow with it like a river and call on it as an ally
I can see this in the first movie, where Luke taps into the force like a sense. In The Empire Strikes Back though, he trains to impose his will on the force though. Explain how a force user can be passive in lifting an object and why doing it against the will of Yoda and Obi-Wan who were both very in tune with the force/light wouldn't be considered dark?

Regardless of Mark Hamill being a cringe libtard, Luke Skywalker was a revolutionary soldier, and Star Wars is unambiguously anti-imperialist. May the 4th be with you.

started KOTOR for the first time. pretty neat

bad batch not bad. think the girl clone is force sensitive.

>>41308
Meh. A billion space nazis hiding out in the middle of nowhere is boring. An actually interesting star wars reboot could have explored a superficially reformed and liberalized galactic empire in an uneasy ceasefire with the rebels.

>>40708
At least in Legends, humanity was just the most useful slave-race of the prior interstellar empire (the Rakkatan Infinite Empire) who died out several millennia ago by the time of even the oldest in-lore material (like KOTOR). Even before they became space-travel capable, they were widely distributed across the galaxy. This is also why there are a lot of human-like species - distant mutants, natural or induced, from humanity. If you want to know what the Rakkata were like, they were the guys who made the Starforge which Revan uses in KOTOR, and he is using it at only a fraction of its real power.

Star Wars acolyte seems like something quickly assembled in an overexploited factory. How is it that Andor was the one good thing and everything else seems like it was written by AI.

>>42550
I wouldn't doubt it that it was written by AI considering how big Corpos want to cheapen out any where they can.

>>41933
Funnily enough I actually been writing a Star Wars Tabletop scenario or a short story about a group escaping the Law most likely the New Republic and their retrofitted Victory Class II Star Destroyer, stumbling onto Rakata Prime where they are lured in by the remains of the Star Forge as it had been slowly rebuilding itself. At the same time the echos of the Battle that taken place can still be seen as a lot of the debris had created a junk ring around the planet. While some massive ships still linger broken and decompressed, the Dark Side Force energy from the bodies turn them into Zombies like the Death Troopers.

>>42550
>Andor was the one good thing
It wasn't, it's just not as shitty as Acolyte. Andor is a contradictory mess that people only applaud because "le grey-moral revolutionary themes" literally the same shit as any other edgy tv-series, and only got mainstream attention because it has the Star Wars IP shoved into it.

>>41908
I meant that particular moment's cinematography, with excellent visuals and acting that carried across the feeling and atmosphere of the Neo-Imperial rally and the Nazi rallies it parodies. The actual idea/story of these fucks just hiding in the middle of space for decades and then suddenly re-appearing is obviously idiotic, the old novels did a much better set of story-lines that actually made sense (such as the fact that the Death Star II's destruction did not, in fact, destroy the Empire and that the Rebels would need to continue to fight and establish their new Republic. The old novels also did grey sides of the rebellion much better as well as taking into account non-human alien cultures having different standards, material development etc. For example one planet became an Imperial stronghold because the Empire uplifted them from a literal medieval lifestyle (knights and castles and feudal lords etc.) and to disrupt the key resources the Rebels supported monarchists who over-threw the progressive fascist government, destroyed all the technological advancements and reverted to feudal lifestyle. In the long run this benefited the rebellion and struck a heavy blow to the Empire, but is still abhorrent and was a heavily debated and criticized action within the Rebellion due to the consequences for that planet and its people.

Obviously the EU was not perfect by any means, but at least it had a consistent thread of ideas, and wasn't afraid of killing important characters if need be.

>the universe hates us
>we have been persecuted and chased across the stars
>the Jedi spread lies! There is no Force, but the Thread! You pluck and manipulate the Thread to your ends!
>we have finally found a hidden, remote planet where we can establish our coven away from those who would judge us and call us monsters!
>Finally, after so longwe can once again practice the old rituals without interference!
<fully expecting some fucked up Sith blood ritual or maybe some kind of Bene Gesserit "Gom Jabbar" style trials by ordeal
>it's white woman support group bullshit
lmao what is this crap. Why would anyone give a shit about some chicks chanting "The power of one. The power of two. The power of many."?

>>42582
>the Jedi spread lies! There is no Force, but the Thread! You pluck and manipulate the Thread to your ends!
So what are midichlorines then? Witch sperm?

>>41803
>Luke Skywalker was a revolutionary soldier
Something I really like about the rebels in the OT is that they have proper military uniforms and discipline, there not just some rabble. It show just how serious and commited they are despite them not being an 'official' army force.

>>42608
But that's so old fashioned. How are they supposed to crack yo mama jokes in that kind of rigid environment? Where's the sass?