ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
edited November 2018
I think then, using your examples, we can infer that Leia grieved off screen.
If she never grieved over the deaths of millions and her homeworld, then she'd be a psychopath. We know Leia isn't a psychopath, therefore we can infer she grieved off screen.
edit: this is the dumbest debate topic I've ever seen in this thread.
I think then, using your examples, we can infer that Leia grieved off screen.
If she never grieved over the deaths of millions and her homeworld, then she'd be a psychopath. We know Leia isn't a psychopath, therefore we can infer she grieved off screen.
edit: this is the dumbest debate topic I've ever seen in this thread.
If you want to base the inference off of what you think of her character then sure ymmv, but you're still left with writing where she is emotional over Han while stoic over her whole planet.
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
I think then, using your examples, we can infer that Leia grieved off screen.
If she never grieved over the deaths of millions and her homeworld, then she'd be a psychopath. We know Leia isn't a psychopath, therefore we can infer she grieved off screen.
edit: this is the dumbest debate topic I've ever seen in this thread.
If you want to base the inference off of what you think of her character then sure ymmv, but you're still left with writing where she is emotional over Han while stoic over her whole planet.
stoic when she needs to lead
shows emotion when there is no hope and the bad guys have won
I think then, using your examples, we can infer that Leia grieved off screen.
If she never grieved over the deaths of millions and her homeworld, then she'd be a psychopath. We know Leia isn't a psychopath, therefore we can infer she grieved off screen.
edit: this is the dumbest debate topic I've ever seen in this thread.
If you want to base the inference off of what you think of her character then sure ymmv, but you're still left with writing where she is emotional over Han while stoic over her whole planet.
stoic when she needs to lead
shows emotion when there is no hope and the bad guys have won
tracks for me
Being tsken into imperial custody seems like a good time to keep your emotions in check but we're going in circles
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Assuming it happened off screen isn't inference. If we see Boba Fett show up covered in scratches and a phobia about calamari we can infer he escaped the Sarlacc.
"Leia grieved for Alderaan off camera" is head canon. Its based in nothing other than what would make sense to you.
The reason why Leia doesn't really display any grief is because the movie chooses not to focus on that and explore that part of her character. I am sure that she would be devastated, as anyone would be watching an entire planet of her family and friends get fucking obliterated, you'd have to be sociopathic or whatever not to, but the movie doesn't pick it up and run with it as a creative choice.
One which worked out, incidentally.
If a movie doesnt show it or say it it didnt happen. Theres nothing going on off camera.
This is sarcasm, right?
A lot of defenses of film, not just Star Wars, but it happens here a lot too, requires some kind of assumption that all movies are just documentaries. That what we're seeing is susceptible only to its own self-contained logic and things are happening even if we don't see them and have no hint they're occurring.
Even if he shows up not covered in scratches and eager to try out his new takoyaki pan, I'm going to say we can infer he escaped the Sarlacc and that there was a sale on at Hutt Palace Kitchen Emporium.
The real question would be though, was it an actual sale, or that thing where they double the base price and then say it's 40% off.
Why is it important to accurately portray Leia’s grief in Star Wars?
It’s not.
It started as a complaint about the new trilogy and instead of discussing that, it veered into “whataboutism” by pointing out something from the OT that mirrors the NT issue.
Basically: X is bad for Y.
Oh yeah? Well Z did Y too. So either X is good for doing Y or Z is bad too for doing Y!
Of course, this ignores all nuance, like if Y was part of a character arc or not or moved the plot forward or contradicted established characterization without justification.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+3
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
Man x wing sure is a fun game.
I need to buy some of those conversion packs
Leia doesn't get that broken down by Han getting frozen anyway. She's all, "I love you", he's all "I know", he gets frozen, Chewie gets far more upset, and Leia keeps it together like usual. She manages to inform Luke that it's a trap (TM), and is ready to play her part in overpowering the guards at a second's notice. She gets (justifiably) angry at Lando, then the gang gets the hell out of Dodge.
Then, between movies, she's instrumental in the setup for Han's rescue. She has a goal and goes for it as best she can, just like her previous goal of getting the Death Star destroyed.
It's all pretty consistent, I reckon. She's not emotionless, far from it, but she compartmentalizes and deals with it in due course.
I guess one should point out again that "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." is the line the villain speaks. It is like the opposite of the thesis statement of the film.
I guess one should point out again that "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." is the line the villain speaks. It is like the opposite of the thesis statement of the film.
He gets into how Kylo only has it half right
But what Kylo’s turn of phrase doesn’t necessarily get quite right is the need to actively destroy your own past to move forward. The second part of that quote is the part that keeps him bound to his past rather than truly free of it, as he merrily goes about trying to murder off as many connections to his life as Ben Solo as he can, from his father to his mentor. Instead of just simply letting the past die, he becomes singularly defined by his quest to be rid of it. If Star Wars were to do the same, it would never really be able to escape its own legacy; it’d be caught in an endless chase to destroy it rather than building something upon it.
Desperately grappling with the past and how it informs the present is a pretty masterful stroke for something to build a new star wars villain around.
He goes from worshiping his past to actively trying to destroy every trace of it when it offers him no respite from his own sins and that's so good.
+1
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
It's almost like heroes can start a story at point A philosophically, and then the villain makes a compelling stand at point C, and then the heroes and the movie, sometimes but not always without stating it directly, decide that moving to point B, somewhere between the two, is the correct course of action.
But enough about Black Panther, let's talk about Last Jedi.
I guess one should point out again that "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." is the line the villain speaks. It is like the opposite of the thesis statement of the film.
I know, right?
Maybe we should turn or be destroyed!
Also, Thanos was right.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Why is it important to accurately portray Leia’s grief in Star Wars?
"Important" isn't the word I'd use but its a mistake in the writing that she basically shrugs off the destruction of her planet in one movie and tears up over the freezing of her Tinder hookup in the next.
Movies at the time, and to a degree now too, struggled to display or grapple with female emotions except in how they related to a man.
Fwiw I agree that almost certainly came into it. I think that it's very fantasy faerie choice and less a sign of leia's resilience and more just that they weren't interested in exploring that for various reasons, some good and some bad.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I guess one should point out again that "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." is the line the villain speaks. It is like the opposite of the thesis statement of the film.
That is literally the only way that line works in a Star Wars film
I guess one should point out again that "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to." is the line the villain speaks. It is like the opposite of the thesis statement of the film.
That is literally the only way that line works in a Star Wars film
Unless Yoda is the character saying the line. “The way of the Force, such as it is.”
Then, suddenly, a whole bunch of stuff from previous films makes a different sort of sense. I always want Yoda to be true neutral but the filmmakers seem to want to push him into chaotic good.
Chaotic Good is a good description of him. Very firm belief in the spirit of the Code and little interest in the letter. He basically plays the Cool Uncle to Kenobi a couple times. "Don't get into too much trouble out there dude".
This is the real inspiration for Yoda I shit you not:
During the drafting process for Star Wars, the character that would become Obi-Wan went through a few iterations, starting as a direct copy of General Makabe. At one point (the 3rd draft) George wanted the character to be quirky and buffoon-like before revealing himself to be a wise and capable Jedi master. That archetype ultimately went unused in A New Hope, but was revived during the story discussions for The Empire Strikes Back: a new mentor figure for Luke was required since Kenobi was dead. The actual form of Yoda was decided during early story meetings with Leigh Brackett and Laurence Kasden.
Lucas and the rest of his buddies from film college loved Akira Kurosawa and his films. During the writing of Star Wars, the director was in a bit of a slump, and even attempted suicide in 1971. Due largely in part to the credit he received from Lucas, he experienced a renaissance in the late 70s. Lucas and Coppola even strong armed Fox into financing Kagemusha which is considered among his best works.
I have very strong feelings about what makes a Studio Ghibli film, and I can't really see that associated with Star Wars. Like, look at the themes and presentations of Nausicaa (which is probably the closest in scope and genre) and tell me if there's any intersection with Star Wars: there isn't much outside of how there is an ongoing war. I think Miyazaki would be extremely critical of Star Wars in general:
"The concept of portraying evil and then destroying it - I know this is considered mainstream, but I think it is rotten. This idea that whenever something evil happens someone particular can be blamed and punished for it, in life and in politics is hopeless."
Even if looking at the Japanese derived aspects of Star Wars, they largely come from Zen Buddhism, whereas Miyazaki and Ghibli more often than not feature Shinto concepts. You could maybe point to how the new trilogy features a strong female protagonist, I'll give you that.
I will defend Resistance to the ends for its animation. I think it looks great.
But I'm 5 minutes into the latest episode and I'm getting pretty fed up with Kaz. I'm tired of the useless "hero" with a good heart.
Although I think the show does a good job of showing distinct individuals of a given species that are very different that the stereotype. For example there was the chubby Rodian who clearly was not the bounty hunter/criminal type. I hated the "goat voice" of his Gotal friend though. That seemed unnecessary, even for a kids show.
Well, I was headed to the thread to talk about Resistance and how it mostly just makes me excited for The Mandalorian to see what a Star Wars series can be without all the kids' show over-exposition.
Well, I was headed to the thread to talk about Resistance and how it mostly just makes me excited for The Mandalorian to see what a Star Wars series can be without all the kids' show over-exposition.
Well, I was headed to the thread to talk about Resistance and how it mostly just makes me excited for The Mandalorian to see what a Star Wars series can be without all the kids' show over-exposition.
Well, I was headed to the thread to talk about Resistance and how it mostly just makes me excited for The Mandalorian to see what a Star Wars series can be without all the kids' show over-exposition.
The characters were definitely the weak link in Rogue One. Like, why not just so a rebel spy show with new characters . Maybe someone who has to take over Cassian's role after Scariff?
I swear I used to see a ton of Cassian action figures just sitting on shelves. Maybe the show will make him more interesting.
+1
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Well, I was headed to the thread to talk about Resistance and how it mostly just makes me excited for The Mandalorian to see what a Star Wars series can be without all the kids' show over-exposition.
The characters were definitely the weak link in Rogue One. Like, why not just so a rebel spy show with new characters . Maybe someone who has to take over Cassian's role after Scariff?
I swear I used to see a ton of Cassian action figures just sitting on shelves. Maybe the show will make him more interesting.
The characters weren't bad exactly... I think that Rogue One just in general is such a jumbled mess from the re-shoots and everything that it's tough to say what they might have been aiming for with some of the characters and exactly how things could have been made better. It was still enjoyable enough, but I'm not sure (for me at least) how much of that was because the final battle had all the old school ANH cockpit shots with good space and ground action. Make the last battle less interesting and the various flaws in the rest of it might have been fatal.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Cassian was the best in his first scene in the movie. The dirty rebel spy who was willing to shank his terrified informant to keep his secrets and make his escape. I'd be OK with more of that Cassian.
Dang, this Disney service is looking more and more attractive...
The characters were definitely the weak link in Rogue One. Like, why not just so a rebel spy show with new characters . Maybe someone who has to take over Cassian's role after Scariff?
I swear I used to see a ton of Cassian action figures just sitting on shelves. Maybe the show will make him more interesting.
It's a bigger hook to bring in people, who saw a billion dollar movie. Another benefit is that Rogue One was not a film about characters per se, while a tv series can flesh him out and they can go literally anywhere with him and this further distinguishes the show from The Mandalorian. He's a great arch-type for an espionage/military show to build around. And they need to bring back Alan Tudyk's K-2S0.
Posts
If she never grieved over the deaths of millions and her homeworld, then she'd be a psychopath. We know Leia isn't a psychopath, therefore we can infer she grieved off screen.
edit: this is the dumbest debate topic I've ever seen in this thread.
If you want to base the inference off of what you think of her character then sure ymmv, but you're still left with writing where she is emotional over Han while stoic over her whole planet.
stoic when she needs to lead
shows emotion when there is no hope and the bad guys have won
tracks for me
Being tsken into imperial custody seems like a good time to keep your emotions in check but we're going in circles
Even if he shows up not covered in scratches and eager to try out his new takoyaki pan, I'm going to say we can infer he escaped the Sarlacc and that there was a sale on at Hutt Palace Kitchen Emporium.
The real question would be though, was it an actual sale, or that thing where they double the base price and then say it's 40% off.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
It’s not.
It started as a complaint about the new trilogy and instead of discussing that, it veered into “whataboutism” by pointing out something from the OT that mirrors the NT issue.
Basically: X is bad for Y.
Oh yeah? Well Z did Y too. So either X is good for doing Y or Z is bad too for doing Y!
Of course, this ignores all nuance, like if Y was part of a character arc or not or moved the plot forward or contradicted established characterization without justification.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
I need to buy some of those conversion packs
Then, between movies, she's instrumental in the setup for Han's rescue. She has a goal and goes for it as best she can, just like her previous goal of getting the Death Star destroyed.
It's all pretty consistent, I reckon. She's not emotionless, far from it, but she compartmentalizes and deals with it in due course.
Steam | XBL
He gets into how Kylo only has it half right
He goes from worshiping his past to actively trying to destroy every trace of it when it offers him no respite from his own sins and that's so good.
But enough about Black Panther, let's talk about Last Jedi.
I know, right?
Maybe we should turn or be destroyed!
Also, Thanos was right.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Fwiw I agree that almost certainly came into it. I think that it's very fantasy faerie choice and less a sign of leia's resilience and more just that they weren't interested in exploring that for various reasons, some good and some bad.
That is literally the only way that line works in a Star Wars film
Unless Yoda is the character saying the line. “The way of the Force, such as it is.”
Then, suddenly, a whole bunch of stuff from previous films makes a different sort of sense. I always want Yoda to be true neutral but the filmmakers seem to want to push him into chaotic good.
And he just cackles the whole time.
Gets a kid in diapers to dunk on Kenobi
He's been doing that shit since he first appeared in ESB.
I been saying for ages now: the true path of the Jedi is the Way of the Troll.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
During the drafting process for Star Wars, the character that would become Obi-Wan went through a few iterations, starting as a direct copy of General Makabe. At one point (the 3rd draft) George wanted the character to be quirky and buffoon-like before revealing himself to be a wise and capable Jedi master. That archetype ultimately went unused in A New Hope, but was revived during the story discussions for The Empire Strikes Back: a new mentor figure for Luke was required since Kenobi was dead. The actual form of Yoda was decided during early story meetings with Leigh Brackett and Laurence Kasden.
Big anime fan I see.
In hindsight, this is very apparent:
edit: doesn't seem to have the timestamp I put on it. Tentacle monster molests Luke starting at 1:13.
Yeah I'd watch it.
haven't the Resistance crew gone on record they wanted a sort of Ghibli-esque feel to the visual presentation of Resistance?
Even if looking at the Japanese derived aspects of Star Wars, they largely come from Zen Buddhism, whereas Miyazaki and Ghibli more often than not feature Shinto concepts. You could maybe point to how the new trilogy features a strong female protagonist, I'll give you that.
But I'm 5 minutes into the latest episode and I'm getting pretty fed up with Kaz. I'm tired of the useless "hero" with a good heart.
Although I think the show does a good job of showing distinct individuals of a given species that are very different that the stereotype. For example there was the chubby Rodian who clearly was not the bounty hunter/criminal type. I hated the "goat voice" of his Gotal friend though. That seemed unnecessary, even for a kids show.
Go figure, they also just announced a new Cassian Andor series with Diego Luna.
God damn, inject this show into my veins. Rogue One spoilers
won't be on it, for obvious reasons.
Speaking of series with incompetent protagonists.
The characters were definitely the weak link in Rogue One. Like, why not just so a rebel spy show with new characters . Maybe someone who has to take over Cassian's role after Scariff?
I swear I used to see a ton of Cassian action figures just sitting on shelves. Maybe the show will make him more interesting.
The characters weren't bad exactly... I think that Rogue One just in general is such a jumbled mess from the re-shoots and everything that it's tough to say what they might have been aiming for with some of the characters and exactly how things could have been made better. It was still enjoyable enough, but I'm not sure (for me at least) how much of that was because the final battle had all the old school ANH cockpit shots with good space and ground action. Make the last battle less interesting and the various flaws in the rest of it might have been fatal.
Dang, this Disney service is looking more and more attractive...
It's a bigger hook to bring in people, who saw a billion dollar movie. Another benefit is that Rogue One was not a film about characters per se, while a tv series can flesh him out and they can go literally anywhere with him and this further distinguishes the show from The Mandalorian. He's a great arch-type for an espionage/military show to build around. And they need to bring back Alan Tudyk's K-2S0.