Community > Toonstrack

DaxNovalis posted...

If you call barely surviving okay, then yeah. Regardless, they weren't the only Jedi besides Obi-Wan and Yoda to make it through Order 66. Kanan and Quinlan Voss also made it, along with others. Obi-Wan runs into another random Jedi in his series but basically tells him to GTFO as he's hiding out.

Kanan, who was barely a fully fledged Padawan at this state. Thats only helping my case that jedi can handle these guys.

It wasn't a stupid plan, it was their only one. They lost and were being hunted, there was nothing else they could do at that point. Yoda didn't even know who or how many Jedi were still out there.
ROTS did address the remaining Jedi when Obi-Wan sent out the message for any that received it to stay away from Coruscant and to go into hiding. It was all they had time to do.

There was a bunch they could do. The non jedi started up a rebellion movement almost immediately, one that would ultimately be the thing that takes down the empire. Jedi like ahsoka and kanan would go on to be massive factors in this rebellion themselves. Yoda meanwhile sits alone. At least now we know kenobi actually did take action to help thanks to the kenobi show. Prior to that we were to believe he also say on his ass.

So no there was plenty they could do. They simply chose not to. Ad the thing is that's fine but at least when Luke does it he has a reason.

He barely made it because he rushed to face Vader before he was ready. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda told him this in ESB but he ignored it. But they also knew he would find out about Vader if he faced him, so were also notably concerned about how that would go.

Same with luke and rey.

That would only be true of him in episodes 4 and 5. Luke had already learned from those mistakes by ROTJ. It's why he's the more calm and confident Jedi throughout that movie. The only time he comes close to that again is in his fight with Vader but he quickly realizes what's happening and stops himsRey.

Not true. Luke almost got himself killed in rotj by a rancor because his strategy was to bust onto Jabbas stronghold unfamiliar with the territory and having no real bargaining chips. Then all of them get captured and nearly die again. Luke just isn't that great of a plans guy. He kinda just runs in, and figures his way out. Thats always been his way.

I saw Luke in TLJ as someone who had completely forgotten all the lessons he had learned and thought it made the character look bad.

I see him as someone with the same failings but more wisdom. Someone's whos empathy for the weight of his actions made him figure the best thing he could do was to not be there. Which again was an impulsive decision.

Humble_Novice posted...

Where do you stand when it comes to the prolific usage of generative AI? Have you ever been canceled by artists for daring to post generated images on social media?

I picked NO as an artist(not fully pro yet but im published) because its amoral but not even really that. It just sucks. It tends to look generic and same after a while, there's no soul, no human touch. It's boring even when it's pretty.

I think I might be getting one too, on someone I've known on and off for a very long time.

We basicslly only interact on IG and she occasionally likes my posts. Thats about it

The animals in Beastars are way more human like than zootopia so they probably advanced many years into this state

Carbon_Deoxxys posted...

While I'm sure you have some well thought out stuff.

I can't see myself forgiving them what they did to Luke.

Hollywood has been abusing the "your favorite hero/action hero is now washed old and miserable and now they need someone young, annoying and that no likes to replace them!!"

A hero turning old and passing on their legacy has been a foundational storytelling bit for literal thousands of years. Go read beowulf. Heck. Go read David's story in the Bible.

And Rey fails and makes mistakes plenty of times in the movies. People call every new star wars protagonist that is a female a Mary sue. They called ashoka a Mary sue when she came out. They called Rey one. They called jyn one. They called Sabine one. They're going to call the new game character one if she does literally anything competent.

DaxNovalis posted...

We see multiple Jedi taken out by assailants in ROTS. Even in the CW finale, Ahsoka held her own against a bunch of clones but it was clear that was only temporary as she got out as fast as she could.

Ahsoka and rex are the only two people to survive that. I'd say she did pretty ok.

Obi-Wan: I will take the child and watch over him. Master Yoda, do you think Anakin's twins will be able to defeat Darth Sidious?

Yoda: Strong the Force runs, in the Skywalker line. Hope, we can . . . Done, it is. Until the time is right, disappear we will.

That was the plan, it was the whole reason they went into hiding. Most likely, they would have gone to Yoda together except for Obi-Wan "dying" and all. They weren't going to risk their lives until they knew Luke and Leia were ready. We don't even know how aware Obi-Wan and Yoda were of the Rebellion, Obi-Wan only mentioned going to Alderaan.

Which i5s time to accept was a stupid plan, and a result of GL rushing all his characters into necessary plot points he already set up in the OT. The PT makes Yoda look straight up incompetent if not complicit in how this played put. We have zero reason to believe he should have been sitting on his ass for 20 years while some of his students were suffering and seeking refuge. Dagobah could have been a hidden haven for jedi.

As for Kenobi, it's fine enough that he wants to watch over Luke. But there's still a lot of jedi unaccounted for out there. None of this is addressed in ROTS, but expanded media has always confirmed this.

ROTJ shows us they were wrong.

Luke barely made it to ROTJ alive ensures they were right. Luke was putting it all on a gamble. Just because the gamble paid off doesn't retroactively make the gamble a good plan.

It wasn't luck, he knew he could turn Vader. He felt it, he says it to Obi-Wan and Leia. The throne room arc in ROTJ is mirrored in ROTS when Anakin fights Dooku. Both times they have their opponent beaten and defenseless, Anakin gives in to his anger as Palpatine wanted. Luke does not and thus completes his Jedi training. To have him just give up after a mistake (and I thought pulling the lightsaber on a sleeping person was a crap move for the character, too) made his whole original arc look pointless.

No it doesn't, because Luke has never been a character who just does the right thing the first time. Hes always been impulsive and foolhardy; he's always sought the fastest course for a solution. Hes impatient, this is the case in all of the OT movies. That was a trait he kept, and the failure was so spectacular he lost faith in himself. But his goodness, always wins out. As it does in TLJ

Ill.... pass.

People on CE have cool jobs?

Awesome TC. I'll probably see it.

I've been on the site maybe a total of 3 times in my life and in those brief moments exprienced pretty much every facet of humanity i generally want to avoid so I didnt stick around.

Most 50 years olds i encounter can't stand to be around 25 year olds, so idk how hes doing this unless this is basically a "we meet a couple times in the evening and do stuff and you go hang out with however else you want the rest of the time" kinda situation

Necronmon posted...

Its one thing to have a woman successor, its another for Luke to have failed utterly so that said woman successor did everything the " right way."

Bur she didn't. She fails numerous times and nearly gives up in the last move before Luke, her teacher encourages her to keep going.

Its not even that Luke died, its that he died without ever marrying or knowing real success and die as a total failure because" Ray is going to rebuild the Jedi the right way because Luke could not do anything right.

Lmfao who gives a rats ass if Luke got married or not? I sure don't. I never sat down and watched star wars and said "man I'd love to see a jedi get hitched"

GL wrote in that jedi dont do marriage either. He'd be violating his creed doing that. He was violating his creed by even taking ben on as a student actually.

We don't know whats going to happen to Rey. I'm sure she's going to ATTEMPT to rebuild the order. That doesnt mean she will succeed.

SAlYAN posted...

Oh please. A "student" that he trained for a collective 30 minutes.

Like Obi Wan did him? He still considers him his master.

Since when was "length of time training" the metric lmao

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Do you believe someone whos said or done bad things can fully put that behind them and redeem themselves as a better person in the future?

I was thinking about the kind of person I used to be when I was a younger, and I hate how I used to be. At 17 I was incredibly close to falling down the alt-right pipeline and reached a free speech warrior phase where I thought all speech was equal and should be treated as such. I thought Trump would be good for the country and liked that he made people mad.

The summer before I turned 18 I experienced someone calling one of my black friends a slur to his face, and the hatred behind those words shattered my entire political ideology. Ever since then Ive been trying to make up for the shitty things I said and believed, but sometimes it still haunts me.

So what do yall think? Can someone move past the way they used to be, or should they have it held against them forever?

Anyone can be redeemed. Anyone. But that doesn't mean there aren't consequences for their actions.

Sometimes those consequences will last the rest of their days.

Tyranthraxus posted...

I don't see any reason why mystique requesting female pronouns means she can't be enby/genderfluid

All of that is way outta my field of expertise.

Marvel does have a few trans characters(very few, the most recent being Escapade who is also a mutant) but I only know of one NB one(Deadpools current partner)

Necronmon posted...

In other words Luke was reduced to just being the one to prop up KK's " True savior" for the sake of her proving she was superior to Lucus...ugh.

Buddy... Lucas created the concept of Rey. The student was always going to be her. Early in filming she even still had the original naming of Lucas female lead: Kyra.

Lucas basicslly made Rey, KK didn't. How her story originally ended is unknown, how Luke's originally ended is also unknown but I dont think its a stretch to say Rey was always going to carry the torch after luke.

Luke played the same role Kenobi did before him.. a preserver of the way of the Jedi, but he also saved the resistance and preserved them alive to fight another day with his dying breath. What else do you want? Luke defeated Vader, crippled the rebellion, trained both his sister, his nephew and later his adoptive daughter. He was a defense against their threat to him, and he was a a bastion of the jedi way to the few who survived him.

DnDer posted...

@KitKats has a thread that talks a lot about identity. I'm not directly part of the queer community, so I'll just say that a genderfluid person could identify as female, because, you know, fluid.

I felt fairly certain a gf person can use the pronouns they want without concretely being or permenantly identifying as one or the other, and that's part of how that works.

But I'm hoping someone with a bigger dictionary on the subject can weigh in and educate us both.

Dude I'm just talking about mystique herself. I dont know if she's ever called herself genderfluid or not. Its obviously much more than jsut a psychological thing for her due to her powers.

What I am telling you is that in subsequent comics including current ones and official outlets she is explicitly referred to with female pronouns, unless there has been a very very recent update so recent that marvel themselves haven't updated their databank:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/7/77887434.jpg

DnDer posted...

How old is this panel, then? This feels like a pretty definitive statent about being nb/genderfluid.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/1/1d66e7cd.jpg

Not long ago. But no, later on in the exact same series she declares herself Kurt's mother, and still is referred to by female pronouns in all official outlets.

She's just saying that she has taken the guise of those genders and seen the similarities between them. Shes obviously naturally capable of beign gender fluid, but she identifies as a female.

Now THATS a *real* Freudian slip.

DnDer posted...

You know why this is a bullshit question.

Are you still pissy about certain X-titles having gay mutants come out years ago or something? Is Mystique being non-binary because she's a literal shapeshifter such a burr under your saddle?

"Cater to them," is, at least in the hobby circles I travel in (TTRPGs, natch), code for, "I don't want to be less toxic/racist/mysogynist/generally bigoted, so stop trying to change 'my culture' just because you want to play a game of pretend, too."

Gatekeeping is only for preserving the kind of cultures that shouldn't be preserved, and the people using those words know it.

You're probably thinking of morph. Mystique identifies as female still.

Prismsblade posted...

My biggest gripe with him is that Luke essentially accomplished nothing after RoTJ. He failed to bring balance to the force, revive the Jedi order, helped spawned a new plague to the galaxy in his nephew, or even just produce a single student from his academy after all his hard work.

He was never supposed to bring balance. That was his dads role.

He didn't fail to revive the jedi order. He was not the last jedi. He knew he wouldn't be. He preserved the galaxy for a future that jedi could exist in, and for new ones to come. The last Jedi lives, and she walks by his example.

He may have partially spawned a plague. But he also helped sire the one who would be the cure for that plague.

He has a student. A student he shared with his sister. One that she adopted as family.

Solid_Sonic posted...

Because sometimes it results in complaining about how things are. I didn't explain it to you so you could then tell me what a load of shit it was.

Sometimes those complaints are warranted.

Why do you want a religious level of adherence to tradition and unquestioning loyalty? If the tenets you hold dear are so good, then they should hold up to scrutiny should they not?

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

how about you create your own superhero instead of taking an existing character and shaping them to be more inclusive?

What "new fan" is reshaping existing heroes lmao?

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

True. The issue with hobbies becoming main stream is that you get all these kids/youtubers that try to cash into a hobby, end up not liking, and ruining the fun for everyone else.

People who don't like a thing are more likely to just move on to something else.

If they stick around its BECAUSE they like a thing.

Gladius_ posted...

A state that isn't conscious, isn't capable of feeling pain, isn't capable of emotion, not until the late stages of it's development. This matters.

It doesn't. Not really. That has zero bearing on anything, and you know how I know? Every single mother expecting who actually wants a child is going to value that non thinking non feeling thing probably more than their own life.

I already answered this.

Not suffienciently.

A spider is less complex than a human baby but that isn't relevant to my point in the slightest. You're actually feeding into it by pointing out situations where people can kill things without remorse but this isn't relevant as killing a human, a developed baby, etc has deep psychological impact on most human beings.

And many people have experienced those same things getting an abortion, even an early one. Even decades later. Its actually pretty common. If you're going to claim the psychological impact bears relevance to the morality of the thing then that goes both ways.

This is an example of word salad. There are behavioral sciences to explain the impact of emotion and emotion is very much a scientific process. Even if emotion isn't always inherently logical, there are many reasons why we feel the things we do. Your understanding of science is extremely rudimentary because you see it as a "force" but that isn't the case. Science is a tool that we use in order to understand ourselves, the world around us, and the processes therein. Likewise, we can use science to determine very logical outcomes. For example, we can use science to explain why poluting our planet is bad, about how it harms the environment, and even then can impact not just the planet but our very own species in a very negative way. So the idea of pollution can be determined to be "bad" from a moral point of you in the way that it actively harms our social development. You can apply the same conditions and logic around murder and most other things that we have laws for. This can go on and on and on.

No, science is A tool for understanding. Not THE tool. Thats what you're not getting. Humans have been musing on the self and complex thoughts long before the scientific advancements gave us concrete answers to anything. Someone with no scientific knowhow still thinks and feels in ways no scientific textbook could explain. Humans have used many things in its place to understand, to explore and to reason; and they will continue to. Some better than others, but some will remain all the same.

Science can explain why climate is bad for HUMANS, but thats with a human bias. Science doesn't care if humans wipe themselves out, or if the rest of the flora and fauna prosper in our absence.

Science cannot make a real case for infidelity being wrong despite people having defined their whole lives by expriences like that. "Cheating" isn't a thing in the natural world. It's a concept humans made up because humans tend to like exclusivity in intimate settings. Biologically, humans should just all go crazy and sleep with each other to ensure our species continues to grow. Screw husbands, wives, partners. Just make babies. But you add in morality; you add in the human touch, and things become muddied.

Before the 20 weeks mark.

Mmmkay, find a willing mother in that stage of pregnancy and ask her if she loves the fetus inside of her. If she values it, if shed give her life for it. You probably will be shocked by the answer.

I'd argue most laws in the civilized world make sense from the scientific point of view. Most of the rules that we follow can be backed in science and explained, scientifically, how not abiding by those laws only hurts our development as a society. Nearly every field can spring board into a scientific one. We have various forms of science. From data science, to psychology, to psychotherapy, to behavioral science, to mathematics, to forensics, to... you get the idea.

The law isn't morality and morality isn't the law. The law says "do not steal food". The science says "feed yourself to live". So when you catch a homeless person swiping some loose items from the convenience store, the law and science do not align, and thus ones morality must choose where to report the person or to empathize with their plight to live. Mine says to empathize with their plight to live.

The law once said slavery was allowed. Science once was purported to argue the natural superiority of one race of human over the other. That turned out to be hogwash too. The problem is science is not an exact science, and science is a mercurial, developing thing that hasn't reached its finality, much like a fetus. The answers we perished from it change and will continue to, and since it isn't thinking or feeling; how much we let that determine our moral standing is arbitrary and will change on person to person.

As for discussing that topic in greater detail, I dont have the time to do all of that right now. Maybe a separate thread would justify a better discussion. But circling back to the original point of the topic is that you're attempting to ground in logic, a morality issue that is inherently illogical.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

True. The issue with a hobby becoming mainstream is that the new audience wants to make all these changes to make it more accessible by getting rid of anything that gave the hobby any charm.

The thing that gave it charm isn't necessarily what makes it inaccessible tho, or else no one would've accessed it.

It just sounds like a bunch of people with the same biomer mentality we see everywhere else. "Back in my day _____ was great" yeah well things change. Change is a constant of the universe. Adapt or get left in the dust. You can't hold your little pocket of the world and expect no one else to touch it ever. I mean you csn but you'll get a dead franchise anyway. If you want a thing to survive you gave to let it survive WITH change. Reality as proven that.

90% of new fans are out to "change" any tenets if the thing they become fans of, theyre just being with them outside perspectives and opinions that are not a part of the collective. This is more often than not a good thing.

Sub_Tank posted...

Turning Luke into a jaded hermit is perfectly fine, except he was put into a terrible, awful movie with no clear direction, that later had to backtrack everything because it led nowhere.

Except the movie has a clear direction. You just didn't LIKE that direction. Thats not the same thing.

As it turns out, if you write a story that does everything the exact opposite of what people expect, then you just end up with the exact opposite of a good movie.

Uhhh no. Because ESB did the same thjng. Peopes expectationss don't define what a good movie is, lord knows that. People should have the media literacy to check their expectations at the door.

DaxNovalis posted...

As Order 66 showed us, Jedi aren't a match for long when there are multiple assailants.

Yes they are, thats why the separatists were getting their asses kicked until Palpatine turned on team damage. The empire is not some snake in the machine its a clear and identifiable enemy. The jedi have always been able to handle that.

And Obi-Wan was keeping an eye on Luke, someone he saw as a last ditch effort to stop Vader and Palpatine. In ANH, we see he's ready to leave once he gets the message from Leia, as he immediately asks Luke to go with him. He was waiting for the right time. He couldn't risk his life before Luke was ready.

Yes he could, and did. He was risking his life jsut being there. There were other jedi he knew about that could take a hold of things if he died. Like Yoda. Heck, obi wans plan was to just send him to yoda. He barely even trains luke in the end, Yoda does.

Yes, exactly as Obi-Wan and Yoda told him about Vader 30 years before. Vader was more machine than man, there is nothing of the good man he was left. These were told to him by people who had been close with Anakin. Especially Obi-Wan, who was like a brother.

The first time they told him this was in ESB and they were right.

I thought having this same person disregard someone else that is repeating the same belief they had made the character look really foolish.

Except luke knows he only walked out of there alive because he was lucky he was able to reach his dad. He not only nearly died but he nearly gave into the dark side. He knew what path Rey was taking and how dangerous it was. This is also exasperated by the fact that Luke watched Rey basicsllt embrace the dark side outright, and he also knew her lineage and how much power she had.

He had every reason to be trepidations.

PiOverlord posted...

Sanitization of art. Humans have common interests, but they aren't deep interests to an individual human. Still, to associate an IP with those common interests will allow many to enjoy. Deep down, though, our greatest loves are more than common interests. Our favorite pieces speak to us, and only those with a common soul will appreciate that piece. To the rest, they will ignore, or even hate it. When someone says "let's make this more popular," they are really saying, "how can I strip the quirks and leave only what is a common interest behind?"

They would go to a shop full of soda, each one with its dedicated fanbases and say "well, this makes money, but if I strip every all of these "weird, inaccessible" ingredients except for the water because hey, everyone likes water, it would sell a ton because now the entire population is our audience!" I like water, sometimes I really like water, but it's not my passion.

Ok but you aren't entitled to any of the flavors and neither are 'new' fans the people who make the soda decide what goes in it.

Gladius_ posted...

A fetus isn't a human baby and the fact they "become" human abilities is a concession that they aren't.

Lol no it isn't. A baby is a different state of being than an adult bur that doesn't mean both aren't human. A fetus is another state of being in the human biological procsss.

Participants because meat is part of our dietary requirements.

Except it isnt.which is why vegetarians and vegans exist.

the main reason why people are going to balk at such a flagrant display of cruelty is because as emotionally capable beings ourselves we can identify with that suffering and cruelty. Again, something fetuses are incapable of feeling. The entire vegan argument compromises your stance against me as the anti-meat mindset comes from the cruelty which animals suffer in the meat industry. Cruelty to thinking, feeling, emotional beings. Reminder again.. fetuses aren't.

The concept of cruelty isn't limited to only thinking and feeling things. Humans can feel sentiment and even empathy for non thinking and feeling things. And likewise humans also are capable of killing thinking feeling emotional beings. Stepping on a spider is killing a thinking feeling being, but 99% of people will have no qualms with it. Its a wholly arbitrary metric to use because humans are arbitrary.

Sure but very few beings (if any) on this earth are as consciously aware as we are and here I was using killing other humans as an example. Focusing on us being a social, emotional, and communal species and pointing to psychological trauma such as ptsd that occurs when we target each other. You're trying really hard to shoot down entire scientific schools of thought (psychology, psychotherapy, behavioral science) in order to protect your argument.

Not shooting down anything, just understanding the scope of the discussion is bigger than simply that because we ourselves don't subscribe to that unilaterally. As I have already displayed with examples.

We are human are we not? See. I am of the school of thought that science can not only explain everything but is on the side of civility and humanity. That things we collectively view as bad, wrong, and immoral can be backed up by science and pointed to ways that performing those very same acts not only hurts our psyche but widespread use of those very same things can hurt us as a collective.

You're wrong tho. Science is not pro human. Its if anything anti human. And emotion is often used in spite of science and to the detrimental stats of our own kind, but we use emotional anyway because science doesn't have any real governance over human morality. Its also why the majority of life doesn't share these.

A fetus is not a thinking, feeling, and emotional being. Even the animal comparison is hardly apt because a fetus is closer to a Jelly Fish and your argument about how people as a whole may not care about the well being of an animal is a poor horse to back because even if you do prove that assertion it means we should care even less for the biological jellyfish that is a fetus.

No it doesn't. That only applies if you think that humans can only feel empathy for something that thinks and feels. Thats not true. Fetuses also absolutely begin thinking and feeling before birth and csn respond to stimuli well before hand. So this argument falls apart on every level.

SicSlayer posted...

An easier game mode can't co-exist in Dark Souls, I don't know why this is always brought up. People will just use it for smurfing and blowing through the game to get OP gear so they can fuck every one on invasions.

Separate gear set for easy mode. Easy.

WingsOfGood posted...

So literally you agree it was anti but you hate the prequels so you like anti?
Guess video guy was right.

I dont hate the prequels. But they are not good movies.

Yes, going in a different direction from a direction that most people agreed was bad is a good thing.

People could say Thor 3 was "anti" thor 2. That doesnt make it a bad thing, because thor 2 was flawed.

No, the video guy isn't right, because he's frame something turning away from a poorly recieved franchise direction as being a bad thing. Should they have doubled down on the prequels? Of course not.

Hes also wrong because he doesn't understand the characters he's analyzing.

TLJ isn't even anti TFA. TROS could be construed to he anti TLJ, but thats bad because TLJ is good.

SicSlayer posted...

Dark Souls in a nutshell.

"make it easier! I want to play to!"

how about just play the game and get better? I guess just fuck the OG fans.

"but I don't want to put in hundreds of hours to get better! Just make it easier."

then it sounds like Dark Souls is not for you and that's okay. There are thousands of games out there to still enjoy. I've accepted many games/genres are not for me, it's not the end of the world I promise.

Yea I agree except theres a difference when you're advocating against an easier mode of rhe game being included in addition to the regular. That just becomes spite at that point and wanting to feel more elite for playing.

DaxNovalis posted...

Yes, they were. They were vastly outnumbered and were specifically hunted for who they were, remnants of the old Jedi order. They would be shot on sight. There's a reason they went to such out of the way places to hide. Obi-Wan also had the duty of watching out for Luke.

Uhhh people got shot regardless. Jedi have the best defense against being shot.

Obi wan had no problem joining in the rebellion effort towards the end of ANH and dying for it. They could've used him immesley before that. Missions that would've been otherwise impossible could have been achieved with him.

It's the exact same situation he was in 3 decades prior., just on the other side. Everyone he spoke to in the OT about Vader were adamant that he could not be redeemed. And now when someone comes to him with the same claim, he ignores it. I thought that sucked. Funny thing is, RoS, garbage as it was, showed us he could be redeemed, so he really didn't know.

He didn't say he couldn't be redeemed. He knew it wasn't going to be rey to do it tho.

If anyone else had gone up to try and redeem Vader in ROTJ it wouldn't have worked. Vader could only have been saved by Luke.

Luke was simply telling Rey that she was inserting herself into a role that she wasn't prepared for; and it could've and nearly did cost her her life.

DaxNovalis posted...

For point 1, there is a bit of difference between Luke and Obi-Wan/Yoda's situations. Obi and Yoda were forced into hiding due to being hunted by pretty much everyone. Luke just gave up, basically and despite still being needed, I'll add.

There was an active rebellion brewing for years that both obi wan and Yoda were aware of, and that they could've supplied immense aid to.

They werent forced to hide. They chose to.

That also ties into points 2 and 3, as Luke seems completely oblivious to someone telling him the same thing about Ben that he was telling Obi, Yoda and Leia about Vader. Luke was the believer in the OT, nothing could convince him otherwise by ROTJ. He knew Vader could be turned, he felt it. And then he ignores the same from someone else when they repeat his own words back to him. I thought the idea was crap, whole thing left a bad taste for me.

Like didn't ignore it, he just knew Ben wasn't ready to make that choice and Rey was in no position to put Ben in a position to make that choice. He never said Ben couldn't be saved, he said "this isnt going to go the way you think"

Resident_Hill posted...

Doesn't matter, ST not canon and never happened (to me anyways).

Lmfao, its canon, it happened and its better than the PT. Just going to have to accept that.

BDSMKane posted...

Then what are you doing? Can you make a single post to explain your point and thought processes? There may be some confusion going on, and trying to interpret the words and intent of a dialogue between two others that stretched on for so long iswell, more than I care to do right now.

Post a twenty paragraph wall of text if it helps, but youre clearly being judged as a bigot and claiming youre misunderstood. Clarify your stance.

Sorry, but thats more than *I* care to do right now. I have to get ready for work IRL, I've not been vague in any way or form in what I've been saying and thetr are people who are going to accuse me of what they want to regardless of what I say, and they've displayed their willingness to twist words and ignore context in this thread already.

Im taking my leave from this conversation as I no longer see it as productive or reaching any sort of amicable measure of understanding.

I appreciate you approaching with good faith however.

Resident_Hill posted...

Nah, it's fine if you don't consider the sequel trilogy as canon.

The ST doesnt violate the prophecy

Gobstoppers12 posted...

The prophecy was a silly thing George Lucas threw in just to make the force seem even more mystical than it was before. One of the many things the prequels included which was not necessary or well thought-out in the longterm.

Yoda LITERALLY says in the last movie the prophecy might have been misread

Meaning all that humdrum about it was completely worthless.

Just great writing guys totally better than the ST

Ok, im done with this. This thread is just going in circles at this point. See yall.

KitKats posted...

That didnt take long at all.

For those who were confused before, it is crystal clear Megasoldier is promoting transphobia, and so is Too tracks, who thinks we are gate keeping sexuality.

No, that's not what I'm doing at all. I'm sorry you can't see that.

BDSMKane posted...

Ive had numerous unpleasant experiences with Toonstrack, and while Ive only read through everything once, I didnt actually notice them being anything but sincere in the conversation they were having with Brohammed. I quick checked on of their edited posts and didnt see that it was edited in a way to portray a different expressed view either.

Plus Brohammed could have simply checked the edits themself instead of made a veiled accusation. If the edits are damning, it would even be a simple screenshot and picture upload to show definitive proof of having a discussion in bad faith. Bowing out of the discussion because its worth more effort than youre willing to put in at the moment would be a better solution than throwing out accusations.

You started a good topic for discussion and education, and some important questions are being answered. But if there is a conflict between two people in a discussion, the person offering short and dismissive retorts is usually carrying the larger share of blame for any miscommunication.

I appreciate this. I wish we had more posters like you here.

BrohammedAli posted...

Feel free to edit that one and pronoun me correctly there, chief. You can have a gimmie. :)

Im happy to edit my post to have the correct pronouns but I dont know what yours are.

masterpug53 posted...

All of the sudden? For seven years running now, even the simple mention of 'TLJ' in the topic title will easily land you 100+ posts.

That's a sign of a great price of art.

How many other movies that came out nearly a decade ago are still beign analyzed critically and debated? This is like a famous painting, puzzling critics and causing disputes. If I was Riann Johnson I'd be proud. Its the smartest stat wars film made in 30 years, and has actual themes and depth to the point you can have folks debating on it for years and years.

No one debates the PT like this. Because they are surface level, simplistic films.

BDSMKane posted...

You could just read their previous versions and determine for yourself? To put in no effort and make an accusation when youre able to determine precisely what was changed seems like youre the one posting in bad faith.

Yeah, because she is. She just did a really bad job of it here.

When you call out people for this they have a choice to acknowledge it or double down. She chose the latter

Scotty_Rogers posted...

Best to just not bother with the sequel trilogy.

The prequels were worse made films but the sequel trilogy has literally no purpose other than $$$

Lmfso its amazing how people haven't figured out your gimmick yet.

BrohammedAli posted...

Weird how the person who thinks Im twisting anything keeps editing every one of their posts.

Im sure its all in good faith though.

Lmfao, im editing for typos and to add clarity. You twist things to remove clarity and concoct narratives.

Its very blatant and obvious, I laid out pretty clearly how you just tried to redefine what the entire conversation was about.

I'll accept this as your concession tho, and move on.

Luke is a knight, and his story reflects many Arthurian knight tales. His victories are usually against himself and his personal fillings rather than being some grand epic defeat of a tangible enemy.

I mean, this is the character who spends his last fighting moments in the OT... begging for his life on the ground dying because he chose the personal virtue of not fighting.

Hes a unique protagonist and the fact many star wars fans just wanted him to start beating on Kylo proves they never understood him.

BrohammedAli posted...

If he considers himself bisexual is that valid?

given that were actively in a conversation about the labeling of sexual preferences, it sure seems to me you did.

The conversation was about whether or not those preferences were "valid", not what those preferences were, in spite of your attempts to twist that. Just because you and a few others took it upon yourselves to tell others which ones are and are not valid(AND what determines that) does not mean everyone else is going to agree with you automatically.

And for the record, the super straight thing is complete nonsense obviously, I thought that died 4 years ago.

My issue is with you weirdly trying to gatekeep sexualities, probably one of the most intimate and personal things a person can identify themselves with.

WingsOfGood posted...

Good channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtArKawnWNI

Especially the part discussing Han Solo

No, the part discussing han solo is actually terrible and what turned me off the video and exposed his bias.

He says in TFA he dies for some girl he doesn't know separated from the people he does

Not even realizing that Han also didn't know Luke at all when he was willing to die for him in ANH. And that, by the time he dies in TFA, he DOES knew Rey, and has grown to be quite fond of her, much like he did with Luke.He doesn't even understand hans character, and so he lets his anti Rey bias influence his poor reading of it.

And the thing is... being anti "something" star wars is portrayed here as being a negative thing, but people flocked to TFA specifically because it wasn't the prequels because that was before people started gaslihhting themselves into thinking the prequels are good movies.

Its a weak foundation on which to build a criticism. Changing course from a disliked direction is not something that is a bad thing. It's only a bad thing if you're a fickle star wars fan with a nostalgia bias that changes up on a whim. The ST is better than the PT in every conceivable metric, but nostalgia bias makes people gloss over the PT much more glaring flaws and look at it as a "whole" (as in the memory they remember it being for them)