Comments

Features these Characters

Belongs to these Storylines

|

749

 

Feet! Is this the end of the Demons of Sorrow??

How bout that Solo: A Star Wars Story? Despite apparent disappointment at the box office, and a lot of C+ rating reviews, I actually thought it was a pretty good time! SPOILER talk below.

 

I just want to go through my positives checklist:

I loved the set up for Han’s game with Lando that won him the Falcon.
I really enjoyed any scene with Lando.
I liked how Han met Chewie.
I liked the Kessel Run sequence, but I think mostly because it referenced the rebel theme and asteroid field chase music from the original trilogy a bunch.
I liked the handling of Han’s origins in general, it didn’t feel as pandering as I’d expected.
I liked that it was mostly a goofy sort of movie, although I wonder if it would’ve been better if it had presented a darker sense of humor, and played up a bit more grittiness.
I thought the acting was good across the board.

Yeah, really, my big problem with the movie is that it feels like three or four movies combined. The plot is way too overstuffed, and about half an hour too long. There is an undeniable sense of peril fatigue, where the characters seem to be in constant extraordinary danger from beginning to end, so any sense of tension is completely lost. Granted, this is a major problem with pretty much all big budget action adventure movies nowadays. I also thought a lot of the character deaths fell pretty flat in the film, and there were a lot of them!

Also, ugh, the inclusion of Darth Maul makes me roll my eyes. YES, I’ve seen Clone Wars and Rebels, I know he canonically survived The Phantom Menace, but let’s just make this real clear. Most audience goers’ immediate question upon seeing him is going to be “HOW IS HE ALIVE?” And the answer to that is so convoluted and stupid that it’s unlikely any future Star Wars movie would ever address it. I don’t like when a movie’s plot point can’t be understood without supplemental material, and on top of that, Maul does eventually die on Tatooine having a half second long duel with Old Ben, so seeing him in this movie is just dumb to me, because following up on it in a sequel film would be redundant to the cartoons, and contradicting it would seem unlikely since Lucasfilm really wants to make everything one big canon. There’s also my personal bias against anything Prequel era, but obviously that’s not going away. So to quote Lando, “I don’t like it, I don’t agree with it, but I accept it.” (gotta give Joe credit on that gag)

Published on by

  • KungFuKlobber

    Fear not, Demons of Sorrow fans! Honou-ko never accepts da feet.

    • clogboy

      Close the internet, you’ve won! 😀

    • Kid Chaos

      “Bishamonten”? Is that some kind of obscure war god or something? I hope he doesn’t mind a slight case of foot-in-mouth disease. 😜

      And now, speaking of “Solo”…I liked it! It wasn’t going in half a dozen directions at once (I’m looking at you, “The Last Jedi”!), and it was a pretty decent origin story. Yes, cramming Darth Maul in there at the last minute creates a nasty continuity snarl, but that’s Disney’s problem. Overall, a solid B+. 😎

      • Major Tom

        Bishamonten is a Buddhist figure (named Vaisravana outside Japan), and in Japanese mythology is both yes a God of War/Warriors but also guardian of Buddhist shrines.

        In the Japanese video game series Touhou Project, the character Toramaru Shou is an avatar of Bishamonten and she (yes she) is affiliated with the Buddhist Myouren Temple group.

        • clogboy

          Also: chief of the four Heavenly Kings, protector of the north, ruler of rain, He Who Hears Everything.
          Busy guy.

  • Hfar

    Y’know, I’m starting to think using swords are just a hindrance for Masuhiro. He has so far done consistently better once he’s been disarmed.

    • leavescat

      Dude’s tricky with his feet.

      • Kid Chaos

        The agony of da feet! 😜

  • clogboy

    I see where this is going… Use a significant supporting character to weaken an OP opponent down to the level of the main character. I mean, Yori is good. But his raw skill and passion are not enough to take down this tank by himself. Can’t beat this boss in one fight, not without a couple power potions at least!

    • leavescat

      Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if he just subverts the trope and lets him die here.

      • clogboy

        Actually, me neither. Honou-Ko has nothing to teach him other than ‘Bishamonten wishes my sword blooded!’
        Thinking weapon wise though… Who has a sword that can literally slice through trees without any significant effort? I feel like Ken’s battle will be cut short (pun intended) in order to save Genchu. To Yori he’s a teacher and loyal friend. But to Ken… he’s a substitute father figure.

    • Arkone Axon

      “Griff… I lost my shotgun… what am I gonna do… without my shotgun? …Shotgun, dammit…! …Hey, Meta. Settle a bet for us. Does that look like a big cat to you?”

  • Turul

    Okay, Honou-ko must not be very sexy, since Masuhiro still has his ninja skills.

    • Xinef

      But this armor is soooo sexy! If I had such a magnificent piece of steel protection, I’d be nerdgasming all over it 😀

      • Turul

        > Bishie-monten wishes your light extinguished.

        I stand corrected.

  • endplanets

    You always see samurai running around with two swords but this is one of the few times the second blade actually gets used. Barring dual wielding obviously.

    • Xinef

      Well… wakizashi is also occasionally used for seppuku.

      • clogboy

        That of course, but also close combat fighting? Like a dagger? Or more often to block a katana strike?

        • Xinef

          Well… I can’t really imagine too many situations where a samurai would choose to use a wakizashi over a katana, since even in close combat a katana can be used effectively… well, maybe while grappled?

          AFAIK, while it is true that some schools of kenjutsu taught dual wielding, and many techniques involved using a wakizashi defensively while you’d strike with the katana… the fact is, those schools were a minority compared to those focused on wielding one weapon at a time. And for a good reason. On battlefields, dual wielding is impractical. The only situations where dual wielding was plausible were duels and other small engagements.

          • clogboy

            I would agree. Afro Samurai made a point that dual wielding is as effective as mastering one twohanded weapon, but I don’t think the Katana is put to optimal use like that. Unless you involve a whole lot of gymnastics in your routine, and that’s unnecessary movements, aka waste of time and energy. Not to mention, less focus on battle awareness aka u go get stab’d.
            I would make an exception for jian fighting for two reasons: those swords have a pommel, and it has two sharp edges. Typically, they’re also very light and flexible, but I really can’t see them winning against a heavier sabre pure by virtue of blocking becoming a onesided affair, although combat effectiveness is limited by its weight, but people who are strong enough to wield it can also boast a pretty good level of protection to protect against the quicker stabs and slices of a light jian.
            This sort of translates back to how it would match up against a katana which is somewhere between the two. The best way for a jian wielder to win might be to make a combat roll and stab the heavier wielding opponent (sabre, sword, lance) in an unprotected place.

            But I digress. I respect samurai for devoting their life to mastering their weapon, from the moment they draw it to where they sheath it, to every slice, block and parry inbetween. Perfect blend of a hard, sharp edge powered by the strength and grace of a disciplined warrior. Twohanded effectiveness of a long, curved weapon. I’m not saying Europe didn’t offer more successful combat units than the Samurai, just that it had a good blend between elegance and efficiency.

          • Arkone Axon

            Honestly, I think it depends. A katana might seem to be heavy in one hand – but as Musashi wrote, it gets lighter with practice (granted, Musashi was blatantly shilling for his own school that he was hoping to get paid to teach, but…). A saber was always meant to be wielded in one hand – and saber wielders often tended to have another weapon in the other hand (granted, that other weapon was often a pistol or a shield, but yeah).

            Basically… the advantage of wielding a weapon in two hands is due to leverage. When you hold a weapon in one hand, you’re operating it as a type 3 lever (resistance on one end, fulcrum on the other, applied force in the middle), the weakest of the three types. When you hold it in two hands, you’re achieving the leverage equivalent of a block and tackle – it becomes TWO levers at once, a type 3 AND a type 1.

            That being said, most Samurai didn’t bother to master their swords because there were other, more useful weapons. The daikyu bow, for instance – a Samurai’s traditional Way was “the Way of the Horse and Bow,” as a mounted archer. The spear was another – yari and naginatas were far more potent and deadly than katanas (and coincidentally, wielded in two hands). The REAL advantage of a sword was… it was there. It was physically present as part of the standard uniform. Even when you weren’t on your horse and with your big bulky bow and arrow box or your big long cumbersome polearm to fight with, you still had your sword on hand. Much like the European smallsword (literally, a smaller version of military weaponry, something a civilian could wear while going about their daily business without it getting in the way nearly as much), or pistols (often referred to by tactical firearms instructors as “the thing you fight with until you can get to your long gun.”)

          • clogboy

            On a battlefield this would definitely be true. Guard duty? Equally so. They would have to be more or less versatile units, and even if that wasn’t the case they would indeed carry an edged weapon as a sidearm.
            But I don’t think a bodyguard or ronin would have much beside their sidearm, maybe a polearm if mobility wasn’t a factor. Assassins would probably use ranged weapons, but on a suicide mission up close and personal is probably also the surest way. I think a lord would want to retain a specialized sword fighter quicker than a general would.

          • Arkone Axon

            There were a number of interesting weapons specifically for bodyguards, yes. In Korea female bodyguards (protecting female members of aristocratic families) would dual wield long swords… often held “reverse grip” for close quarters work. And each female bodyguard would have a female servant of their own… whose only task was to carry the swords around for them. Because those things are big and bulky.

            That being said… guards in the castle or whatnot are more likely to be carrying their polearms at all times. Think of a cartoon king howling “Guards!” and the guys who immediately step forward with their big bladed staff weapons. A professional guard isn’t worried about having to juxtapose their combat ability with mundane tasks. It’s why security guards aren’t supposed to carry bags for their clients – those hands are to be kept free at all times.

            The REALLY important thing for a personal bodyguard isn’t even the weapon. It’s the foresight and caution. There’s a really cool story about an Emperor who auditioned three fine warriors for the task by summoning them to his chambers… and balancing a bowl of water on top of the partially opened door. The first one charged in and ended up wet. The second one opened the door and nimbly dodged. The third one stopped, looked up, carefully removed the bowl, then entered… and was told he’d gotten the job.

          • clogboy

            Ha, this is also done pretty well in Samurai Seven (the original Kurosawa flick). :)

          • clogboy

            May I add that Saracen warriors were totally badass and on a different playing field? I’ve felt like that long before Kingdom of Heaven flopped.

          • Arkone Axon

            TOTALLY agree about the Saracens. :)

          • clogboy

            I see no sara-casm there :)

          • purplelibraryguy

            I have a suspicion that one major reason samurai ended up not using shields (it’s not like there never were any in Japan, earlier periods totally had them) was precisely that the (horse) bow was more important and it’s hard to use a bow and a shield at the same time.

          • Arkone Axon

            My personal hypothesis is that the Japanese styles favor raw offense at the cost of defense. “I will cut you down, no matter what. I don’t care if you cut me down in the process. If we both die it will be glorious and poems will be written about it.”

            It’s a military mentality that bit the Japanese in the ass more than once over the centuries.

          • Xinef

            Another thing is that shields are differently used on horseback than on foot. Arguably, they are less useful for horsemen in general. Footmen will often use shields offensively, or try to control their opponent’s weapon with the shield, to create an opening, while striking with their weapon. A horseman will just hold the shield close at all times, using it only for protection, because they can’t do much else with it. When armors became good enough to protect against projectiles, there was little reason for horsemen to keep using shields.
            In Europe, knights would often use a lance as their primary weapon, and because it was held in one hand, their left hand was free to hold a (usually small) shield. Not to mention, when enemy knights were charging with their own lances, having a shield as added protection was nice…
            In Japan, mounted soldiers would rather circle around enemy soldiers, firing their bows as they ride by… rather than charging INTO enemy forces. This difference of tactics might be why Japanese cavalry had no need for shields.

            Also, some say that the large pauldrons of Japanese armors (called “sode”) are basically serving as shields with the added advantage of having both hands free to do other things. I mean… if all you’d do with a shield is hold it close anyway, because you can’t do fancy offensive shield techniques from horseback… then do you even need to hold it with your hand? Just attach it directly to armor! :)

            … of course things change when the knight/samurai is dismounted, and considering horse armor is an expensive and rare luxury…

          • purplelibraryguy

            I take serious issue with only one tiny fragment of this: “(usually small)”. Since when were knights’ shields “usually small”? Smaller than a scutum, maybe, but bigger than a Dark Ages era infantry round shield. The classic “heater” shield was fairly big, and the “kite” shield bigger still–narrowish, certainly narrower than a scutum, but quite long, the kind of shield that could protect your shield-side leg while you were riding.
            Things might have been different in the sort of highest-medieval-getting-into-renaissance, but mostly in that armour got so good that knights largely gave up on shields in favour of various kinds of really big weapons. Far as I know, though, samurai armour never got as hard core as late medieval knightly armour. Except Honou-ko’s, I guess.

          • Xinef

            Touché.
            What I meant is that largest cavalry shields were typically smaller than largest infantry shields. No pavise for a mounted knight.

            Hmm… to be honest, I’m not sure how the best samurai armors would compare against best renaissance armors. It is likely that samurai armor would be inferior, but then we’re comparing the R&D capabilities of a continent versus a single islander country.

          • purplelibraryguy

            Japan had fairly poor iron ores; they came up with some snazzy workarounds for swords, but who’s going to put that much labour intensity into a whole suit of armour?
            But I’d say there’s an argument to be made that samurai horse archers were simply a lighter troop than a European knight–closer to Saladin’s boys than Richard Lionheart’s in role. They weren’t as big into shoulder-to-shoulder charges, maneuverability was probably more important than having that weight for the shock of contact. So European knight armour wouldn’t have been as functional for them even if they could have gotten some.

          • Xinef

            Yeah… armor protects quite well against swords. Swords were great outside of battlefields, but on battlefields you’d generally want something better than a sidearm.

            Anyway, it’s still weird when people say that Japanese had lighter armor because they focused on offense and were more aggressive, while European knights supposedly were more defense minded. Excuse me, but it’s the knights who would charge into melee combat… and I’m not sure how a charge of lance-wielding knights going back and forth right through the enemy formations is less aggressive than samurai archers keeping their distance 😉

            But it’s true defeated knights would often be captured alive for ransom, while Japanese were more keen to kill than take prisoners, as soldiers were rewarded for each head they brought after the battle – with high prices on more “noble” heads 😉 This might be one reason why armors differed – a knight needed to stay alive to be ransomed back after a lost battle. A samurai would be more likely to fight to the death, as there was no point in surrendering.

          • purplelibraryguy

            That might have worked in both directions–perhaps it was the heavy armour that made it practical to demand surrender. That is, late-medieval fighting manuals seem to suggest that what you would do is first get the opponent momentarily helpless, so you could set up a deathblow to a vulnerable spot or what have you. At that moment you have that opportunity to say “yield or die” without too much risk. Or, if it’s either formal jousting or you’re still in the early horseback part of the battle, you know who yields based on who’s still on their horse versus who just landed heavily on the ground with the wind knocked out of them.

            But in both Dark Ages, Viking era fighting and samurai fighting you don’t see that, because in both cases armour is such that a hard sword blow in the middle of stand-up fighting can kill and often does, so there usually isn’t that moment when one side knows they’re about to lose and can’t do anything about it. You know somebody just lost when they get hacked. Similarly, there’s not much “Do you yield?” in European fencing duels even though it’s basically the same people involved as in knightly battlefield combat–because, again, you don’t know who should be yielding until someone gets spitted. In the more formal duels they tried to substitute things like “First Blood”, which just shows they couldn’t make “yield” rules work.
            Note that I am spinning a Just So story here; I have no backup for this idea but it seems plausible to me.

          • Arkone Axon

            If you look at the actual fighting styles of both sides, you’ll see what I mean. Western swordplay was known as “the noble arte of defensing with the sword,” then “defensing,” and finally “fencing.” The techniques, the tactics, they all focus on defensive movements, the mindset being “don’t get hit.” Whereas Japanese styles tend to focus on offense. There’s even one particular style of kenjutsu that consists of delivering a barrage of overhand blows to overwhelm the enemy with the sheer blitzkrieg of the assault.

            Also, there’s the technologies developed in response to their tactical mindsets. The knights developed armor so good that even after firearms became more common, they STILL wore the stuff. They’d look for the bulletproofing; literally the little dent in the armor from when the armorer shot his creation to confirm that it would stop a bullet. Often they would wear that armor with shields for even more defense. They developed some incredibly effective techniques for fighting offensively with shields, because shields were so commonplace and it was assumed you’d have a shield. And it wasn’t heavy, bulky armor, either – those knights could move incredibly well in said armor. Even their horses often wore armor; barding protected against infantry who realized a dismounted knight was considerably less of a threat (especially if the dead horse landed on the knight and trapped him on the ground).

            Samurai, OTOH, rode fast horses while wielding Daikyus. Bows as long as a longbow, but gripped near the bottom so they could be wielded on horseback. And often while using muskets and cannons (Japan had a huge advantage when they invaded Korea during the Imjin War, because Korea lacked muskets at the start of the fighting). Their styles emphasized killing the enemy quickly and aggressively. The left hand either held onto the weapon for a powerful two handed attack, or it wielded a second weapon. Armor was made to be not too heavy to inhibit the ability to kill at will.

            Anyway, that’s my two cents (again). Also ,the knights didn’t go back and forth with their lances. The lances were often discarded after the initial charge in favor of one handed weapons such as swords (often surprisingly light blades for use against relatively unarmored infantry), or axes, maces, even military picks (just the thing for punching through plate). At that point the knight was functioning like a heavily armored infantryman with superior height and reach.

  • Xinef

    This was Masuhiro’s plan all along, wasn’t it?

    Btw. I love to see that move used with lightsabers. Grab your opponent’s lightsaber by the blade, snap it in half, and stab them with the detached tip of the blade. Always works!

    • Galeden

      You could grab the blade with the force, or a set of gloves/Gauntlets made of Mandalorian iron (even if only momentarily)

  • Sunwu

    I’m so glad you liked Solo. I wouldn’t mind a sequal to it would watch again

    • Nos Rin aka CTCO

      i heard lando might get his own spinoff film. would like to see them do the founding of cloud city.

  • Nos Rin aka CTCO

    First off. I was quite pleased with the solo movie and found it to be possibly the best disney star wars film to date.

    Lando was indeed great.

    SPOILERS
    .
    .
    .
    DATH MAUL WAS CUT IN HALF HE SHOULD NOT BE ALIVE HE IS ONLY ALIVE BECAUSE PEOPLE THOUGHT HE LOOKED COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I seriously thought Han’s love interest was going to die at some point, felt it through the whole movie. Holy shit. she actually lived.

    Also I see you didn’t mention how Han shot first, and how he did not only shoot first he didn’t even let the other guy finish talking.
    THAT WAS AWESOME.
    A big middle finger to George right there and I Loved it!

    and ya, that bid at the end where he won the falcon, that was great!

    • Arkone Axon

      What, no Darth Sion? They need to bring Darth Sion into one of these movies…

      • Nos Rin aka CTCO
        • Arkone Axon

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLh30eOZEYU

          This is a guy who was literally unkillable. LITERALLY unkillable. Darth Vader had his lungs seared by molten metal and needed life support to keep going after that. Darth Sion had every single bone in his body crushed repeatedly and learned to keep going, until his mastery over the Dark Side kept him “alive.” Darth Maul got cut in half and needed prosthetic replacements for his legs. Darth Sion could be sliced in half repeatedly and be “whole” by the time the enemy’s lightsaber was returned to a guard position.

          They want to bring in a REALLY scary Sith lord, they need to bring in the guy whose raw hate, rage, and strength of will kept his corpse animated.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            sounds like bad writing and an Over powered villain for a video game more then a properly written character.
            at least to me.
            >_>
            and I mean honestly, that fight scene was awful. I’ve seen older games with better fights. 😛

          • Arkone Axon

            No, the protagonist from “the Force Unleashed” was overpowered. The whole storyline of KOTOR 2 was a deconstruction of the Jedi philosophy, and of many video game mechanics. I’m trying not to give spoilers… but as far as Darth Sion goes, he’s a realistic example of the ultimate badass and minmaxed fighting specialist. He’s literally unkillable, unbeatable, unstoppable, it’s death to face him… he’s also in constant agony and keeps going because his rage and hate continue to animate what is essentially a broken corpse. No joy, no happiness, no friends, not even allies, just a few sycophants and a lot of things to be angry about. The whole point of him is that being that kind of character, that kind of person, is… not worth it.

            The game has a similar example in Darth Nihilus, as a deconstruction of the “dark magic wielding super emperor” type. At first he seems like an all-powerful dark god… by the time you finally confront him, he’s lost a lot of his mystique. Mandalore’s observation is priceless. :p

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            hmmmm. interesting.
            ya, force unleashed Was pretty bad.
            the only star wars game I really got into was the jedi knight series with Kyle Katarn.

          • Arkone Axon

            Oh, Katarn was AWESOME. I wish they’d do a Jedi Academy 2 someday, the opportunity to make your own character who was a student in Skywalker’s academy was lovely… of course, the new films have retconned all of that away… >.>

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            oh yes, but with more then FIVE races. Like at least 20 with endless customization.
            and a main hub, like an academy you can walk around in. and more customization options. some default handle styles and some interchangeable parts and more indepth fighting styles.
            like a character file and not just save files.

            ya, im honestly pretty disappointed in the new films. :S

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            I think with The Last Jedi, we’re heading into some new grounds for the canon. The idea that Rey is just some rando who got uber Force powers, along with the ending that shows the kid with the broom also had the Force, seems to imply a new era with all new characters not tied to the Skywalker storyline.

            Combine that with Luke’s talk about ditching Jedi dogma and what came before, and I’m really getting my hopes up that this trilogy concludes with a new Jedi Order being established, one that exists as a force for good and justice, and not some weird religious, child kidnapping, abstinence cult.

            I think we’re FINALLY going to get the Jedi we always dreamed of since we met Obiwan in the original film; good guys who go on adventures and lead by example, spreading light and justice throughout the galaxy. I’m honestly really excited for the future of the franchise, and I think it leaves a lot of opportunity to see more cherry picking from the old Expanded Universe. Like, we may still get a Jedi Academy on Yavin IV.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            I hope you’re right. I really do. cause ep8 was really bleeping depressing.
            x.x

            they definitely copied from the old canon. the guy in rogue one looked like kyle katarn, and Jan Ors, Jyn Erso? so obvious.
            Rey and Ben are basically the Solo twins. So i bet either Ben is going to come back to the light side or Rey is going to kill him.

            I still want to see a force ghost Luke helping out.

          • Arkone Axon

            Yes! I like the idea of being able to level up and put points into fighting styles… and then a player could cram points into Form 5 and be able to deflect a hundred blaster bolts in a second. Or Form 6 plus Force TK and develop specialized moves more about Force powers than swinging the weapon by hand.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            Ya, just expand on the old game. but it’d have to be utterly different.
            not just save files but actual solidity to your characters.
            co-op missions too.
            and replay old missions or heck, some smaller similiar missions.
            like you have your main storyline missions, and then similar optional ones for leveling and earning, something? hmmm.

            you know I played all of them but I’m sure I ever actually finished any but academy. lol. was one of my favorite series growing up.

    • purplelibraryguy

      My favourite of all time “shoot the other guy unprepared” moment was when Jon Shannow, known as the Jerusalem Man, killed this awesomely enhanced warrior sent to kill him. Enemy has enhanced reflexes, has trained with guns until he’s beyond amazing, and he comes riding up and says “The king of kings has spoken the words of your death. Do you have anything to say before you die?”
      Shannow says (blam!) “No.”

      Same book (The Last Guardian, David Gemmell) has a local gunslinger with amazing moves wanting to make his rep taking on the famous Jerusalem man. His boss says, “Don’t even think about it. That man would kill you.”
      “Boss, there’s no man alive can beat me with pistols!”
      “I didn’t say he could beat you. I said he would kill you.”

      Sorry, way off topic. That book just has some really crowning moments of awesome.

      • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

        That sounds like a recommendation!

        • purplelibraryguy

          Certainly is.

      • Nos Rin aka CTCO

        what books are these? I’m always happy to add to my collection.
        I’m kind of sad when an expert warrior dies though. :S even if they are bad. >_> such a waste of talent.

        • purplelibraryguy

          David Gemmell wrote a lot of fantasy, most of it good, some of it very good indeed. It tended to be about very badass heroes, often cynics who found themselves in the end with little choice but to be the good guys because cynicism just wasn’t able to deal with the bad shit going down. The books tended to be both very violent and quite thoughtful in between the violence. And the violence itself tended to be, in my opinion, really good violence–cunning tactics, indomitable grit, poignant self-sacrifice, winning against the odds, generally major badassery.

          There are three books about Jon Shannow specifically, a gunslinger originally seeking Jerusalem in a post-collapse world which collapsed due to some kind of magical weirdness triggering a nuclear war (although most people don’t know anything about that). In the first book he is young and naive, in the second he is older and has lost a step speed-wise but gained a lot in tactical sense and wisdom. The third–I should re-read it, can’t remember quite what happened. They’re called “Wolf in Shadow”, “The Last Guardian”, and “Bloodstone”.

          Gemmell had two main sets of books. One was set in a particular fantasy world and often returned to a few key characters although each book tended to be standalone. The first is called Legend, the second Waylander. The other revolved around these stones of power which could do almost anything but which gradually used up their power–except certain people found out you could recharge them with blood. Once you start down that road, though, you get lots of power but become more and more evil and need more and more blood. Again, they weren’t so much a series as a loosely connected set, united more by the Sipstrassi Stones and resistance to those who used them as Bloodstones. The Jerusalem Man books are part of this second sequence.

          He also did some other stuff, standalones like Knights of Dark Renown, Winter Warriors (about a group of famous heroes who are getting too old for this kind of thing) and near the end of his life a trilogy about the Trojan war.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            I’m a big big fan of Jim Butcher. If it wasnt for a concussion and certain video games I’d be finished long with his main series long ago.
            I also need to read his fantasy story. The Codex Alera
            I hear Brandon Sanderson is amazing, bought two of his books recently, Mistborn and Warbreaker and as Im looking at my books I just bloody realized I have two copies of Mistborn, one I bought at goodwill long before I bought the brand new one. wtf. XD

            I will definetly have to check out Gemmell’s books now.
            Im not too much of a fan of a lot of violence (especially when it happens to women.) but I will definetly give them a read because the Dresden Files are really dark but sooooo good I can’t help but read them all.

          • Purphoros

            Codex Alera can’t stand up to Dresden Files, but is a good enough series with interesting ideas and themes.
            Fair warning though, Butcher handled character deaths rather poorly in CA.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            well it’s still worth a read, maybe it will be my cup of tea, who knows.
            I wanted to read eragorn, got the book set when a friend owed me something, but someone told me the tactics are horrible in it and some other stuff.

          • Purphoros

            Well, there is such a thing as too much knowledge… Don’t we all miss the time when a simple shield wall with spearmen in the second row was new and interesting, or when we cheered for Wallace and his full moon tactics?

            Can’t say much about Eragon, since I haven’t read the book yet, and only seen the movie. All I know is that some not-as-smart-as-he-thinks youtuber has mocked the dragon riders for carrying swords, which are “too short to hit anthing from up there, duh”. If your someone was referring to that, well, just ignore it and enjoy the ride. That idiot didn’t even think about the possibility of having to fend off other riders trying to mount your dragon…

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            you’re not talking about shadversity are you? I actually enjoy a lot of his videos, and he does admit he’s not an expert, I believe. skallagrim too. I like those guys.

            no such thing as too much knowledge.
            I truly wish I was immortal with an excellent brain so I could read a million stories.

            no, it was more war tactics or something. and that the main characters dragon is a total vicious jerk or something.
            I’ll read them eventually regardless of what people think, same for LOTR, but that will wait until im older and more patient.

            also the Eragon movie was preeetttty bad. that sword was cool though.

          • Purphoros

            “also the Eragon movie was preeetttty bad. ”

            true, true… too bad you never really know until afterwards^^

            Skall actually knows what he’s talking about most of the time, I do enjoy watching his videos.
            Shad… I just find it annoying when someone posts videos with flaws so obvious that average watchers without historical background spot them right away. It’s a common occurrence for Shad to be pompously talking out of his “murderhole” half the time and being corrected in the comments, or cherry picking facts and avoiding the big picture. If you make a video criticizing LotR castles, at least read the books first? Saves you the embarrasment of not knowing that the Rohorrim are nomads, and that place is too small for a city because it is not a city.
            I mean, it’s okay to be no expert, but his ignorance often goes way beyond that.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            Ah, that’s interesting.
            I still find him to be a bit entertaining, even if he’s not the most accurate.
            I have learned that the makers of DnD are idiots who do zero research into the proper titles of things.
            aka the longsword, which is NOT a one handed sword. sigh.
            whereas a game like Torchlight II which is just a dungeon crawling hack and slash actually has properly named weapons, for the most part. it does have fantasy blades so. *shrugs*

          • Purphoros

            That would apply if D’n’D was based on real world history, which it isn’t. There is no obligation to use any of the many existing nomenclatures over their own. They can call any sword that’s long a long sword in their own fantasy world, and would be 100% correct. That is not idiotic, but their artistic prerogative.

            On the other hand, if you make a critical analysis of a specific subject, then you need to know the subject you are criticizing. That’s the burden of working with other people’s content instead of creating your own. Why am I thinking of the court scene in Idiocracy now…

            “That’s not a longsword!” This is the biggest problem these channels struggle with: A fixation on their personal brand of realism, and the strange idea that everything else has to mimic that flavor or play by their rules. Something similar happened in art, with realists condemning the expressionists for not depicting reality. Sadly they are spreading this misconception to their viewers too, and the result is a mob of wannabe smartasses laughing at a can opener because it doesn’t boil water. Idiocracy…

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “A fixation on their personal brand of realism, and the strange idea that everything else has to mimic that flavor or play by their rules.”

            This is kind of brilliantly explains how fans of everything, from art, to sports, to movie/game franchises, approach their fandom. Everyone has their own personal tastes and preferences, and plenty of people treat those preferences as objectively correct. I certainly do that with Star Wars (well, I’m trying not to do it anymore).

          • Purphoros

            Well, Star Wars is a different can of worms altogether.
            In that case people are not so much inserting unrelated expectations, but expectations based on the very same franchise. Those are indeed valid.

            I hope nobody would falsely use my words to advocate for actual sequels disrespecting the work they build upon. Don’t crap on the shoulders of a giant when you’re standing on them.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            What if the giant craps on its own shoulders, and then sells its crap to another giant who makes the crap into something divisive but clearly not as big a crap as the original giant??

          • Purphoros

            Unless you’re saying that episode 4-6 are worse than the disney movies, and that declaring the whole EU non-canon instead of hiring a few nerds to advise your writers is just divisive and not disrespectful, your metaphor is not working.

            Lucas got the deserved backlash for his prequels, even over something as well-meant (yet still inexcusable) as midichlorians. Disney is just abusing the franchise, and the movies are worse than the prequels. Why should they be exempt from criticism?

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            My metaphor was that George Lucas (the giant), shat all over his own shoulders (admittedly not an easy thing to do), as in the prequel trilogy is a load of poop plopped on top of the OT. And the other giant, Disney, took those turd covered shoulders and soft rebooted them into a new set of films that are meant to resonate with a new, modern audience, while unintentionally upsetting a bunch of bitter fans, that’s all.

            I never claimed that the new Disney films were above criticism, heck, go back and read all of my extremely critical blog posts about them, I am clearly a bitter fan. But Lucas’ prequels were not well meaning. The Star Wars gravy train was starting to slow down circa the mid 90’s, the only people interested in the franchise were the hardcore fans still buying EU novels and comics. Star Wars toys weren’t bringing in the capital for Lucas to maintain his marketing empire. He needed to be able to sell more merchandise, and the best way to do that was to make new films crammed with stuff that could be turned into toys and other products.

            The prequel scripts are clearly rough drafts written by one guy with zero oversight or editing, filled with ancillary, unimportant characters that could be turned into action figures and coffee mugs. The plots of the movies are a mess, and they just reek of a vanity project created by a self aggrandized person.

            On top of that, it’s not like the Prequels gave a damn about the EU then any more than the current Disney films care about the now Legends EU. In fact, I’d argue the new Disney continuity cares MORE about the old Legends EU, as it keeps recanonizing stuff that Lucas probably couldn’t have cared less about (especially from the Thrawn books). Heck, Lucas couldn’t even have been bothered to rewatch the OT before writing the prequels, as literally every piece of information that is hinted at or that we learn in the OT is contradicted by the prequels.

            Anakin wanted Luke to have his lightsaber, instead Obiwan just casually walks away with it, leaving Anakin to burn alive???

            Anakin was a great pilot and spice freighter navigator when Obiwan met him, not some 9 year old kid who’d lost every podrace he’d been in.

            Leia has vague memories of her mother, implying that when the children were separated, their mother was still alive and raised Leia for a time, and didn’t die of ‘a broken heart’ upon child birth.

            The clone wars were a crusade of some sort, not the end all, be all of galactic civil war fought between a bunch of cartoon clones and cartoon robots. Such high stakes!

            The Jedi were protectors of peace and justice, not a morally gray, zealously religious, child kidnapping, abstinence cult.

            The Force is a mystical energy field that binds the galaxy together, not something you can measure with a blood test (it’s amost like Lucas just haphazardly wrote in some technobabble to explain how Jedi detect Force potential without considering the mystical side of it)

            But none of these seemingly contradictory or clumsy plot points necessarily make the prequels bad, and if you like them more than the Disney films, that’s fine. But Lucas made the prequels so they could make him more money. And Disney is making the new films to make more money. It’s just that Disney understands who to make movies that appeal to a broader audience. My mom, who knows nothing about Star Wars outside of general popculture knowledge, saw Phantom Menace in theaters and was completely confused. She saw The Force Awakens and followed it just fine, and really liked Rey and Finn. The Disney films are good, general movie going audience films, and The Last Jedi isn’t any more controversial a sequel than ESB was to the original Star Wars, we just have the internet to scream at each other now (and also ESB is a way better film than TLJ, but ESB is kind of my favorite film of all time so I’m a little biased).

            I’m also tired of hearing about how these new movies shat all over the OT characters. It’s not like the Prequels didn’t rub feces all over Darth Vader, Obiwan, and Yoda, they all come off as morons in those films. Yeah, the OT cast all ended up in pretty dark places, but in the Legends EU, their lives were also a mess. Jacen Solo literally started a new Empire, and had to be assassinated by his own sister. But, I mean, I guess the original cast is all still alive in the OT (except poor Chewie), even if they did have to live through the death of their own children and Luke’s wife. But I suppose Star Wars fans who only care about the movies are just bummed to see their old favorites living crummy lives, and you know, I get that, it’s not what I wanted for them either. But that’s okay too, canon is less important than stand alone storytelling. I’ve learned to separate the trilogies in my mind, they’re all different takes on the franchise. In a lot of ways, everything just comes down to personal preferences and knowledge of the particular subject matter you’re forming an opinion on.

            In conclusion, nothing is above criticism, but also maybe try not to get too bent out of shape over Star Wars. If it’s too upsetting, write your ideal fanfiction and share it with other fans, it can be a lot of fun! (I mean, essentially all of the old EU was officially licensed fan fiction).

          • Purphoros

            Fun fact: When I saw phantom menace in the cinema, and the credits rolled, I actually thought for a second that the movie is finally gettting started now. No joke. Even said it out loud. Quite embarrassing for me, but more so for Lucas.

            “Try not to get bent out of shape”

            I sense a projection… I mean, do I appear bent out of shape? Have I been rageful or emotional or used irrational, non-factual arguments? Have I used words as “bitter” to imply bias and devalue opinions? I mean, I hope I haven’t. That would be awful and embarrassing. You shouldn’t let other people get away with calling you bitter either. You deserve better than conversing with people who insult you until you believe it.

            We can argue all day if the prequels or the sequels are worse, about continuity errors, very poor characterization, inconsistencies even within the frame of only the same trilogy, or who shat the bigger heap on the original trilogy and its characters.

            But it’s moot. As soon as a movie competes with the prequels, it’s already lost. It’s like racing against a legless turtle in a wheelchair that are both turned up side down. Win or lose does not matter with that benchmark.

            Both have shat on the original work more than anyone should get away with, and the recent numbers for Solo show that the majority of fans have finally had enough of it.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            I kind of enjoyed Solo more than Rogue One, although I’ve enjoyed the new numbered films immensely more than the side stories, and I’m really excited for 9!

            Solo may not have raked in as much money as the other films, but that doesn’t mean Disney is going to stop making Star Wars movies. I just hope they start making films that aren’t so directly tied to the original trilogy and its characters. Hopefully Episode 9 will end with some sort of new Jedi Order being established, and the potential for many new Force sensitive characters to be introduced, and maybe a new galactic threat, or MULTIPLE threats, to team up and fight against. I would like them to go with a fractured galaxy, and not just have two sides. And I think Disney will continues to throw in newer ideas as it gets more comfortable handling the franchise. Star Wars has not been a consistent film series by any means, and I think its story telling potential has yet to truly be tapped. We’ve never really had an era in the universe represented where Jedi were plentiful and not a weird abstinence cult. If Disney can get us there (and I have a strong feeling that’s just the natural place to go if they want to capitalize on fans’ “I wanna be a Jedi” fantasies), I will actually be very pleased. Then we can have all the space adventures we want in the galaxy, free of the restraints of past canon.

          • Purphoros

            Disney may not stop, but Kennedy is off the franchise. Things do change as a result of severe consumer reactions. Even Disney needs customers to sell their movies to.

            I think the Jedi were very a good plot element as they were, one extreme of a duality. It is easy to mistake light and dark side as good vs. bad, but that’s not what they are. They are simply two opposing halves of a balanced soul, each side being troublesome or even dangerous without the other to balance it.

            Turning the Jedi into a clan of literal white knights (in the classic meaning) who are just plain good replaces a philosophically valuable concept with a naive self-insert fantasy. I don’t like that very much, feels like a storytelling downgrade. There is a point to be made for having a few true paragons in our increasingly grey storytelling culture, but they shouldn’t be the norm.

            There’s a very easy way to be free from the constraints of past canon: Don’t use an old franchise and make your own setting.

            It’s mind-boggling to see makers want to ride on the popularity of an existing franchise and use the previously created assets but not respect its canon. It’s what some would call a typical millenial attitude: Wanting all the benefits without any of the work or responsibility.

            One only gets the boost from a franchise because people expect content that upholds the spirit and quality of the original. Anyone who doesn’t plan on delivering that shouldn’t use it in the first place.

            If a director wants want a clean slate, just use a clean slate. But hey, that would be work, right?

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Disney may not stop, but Kennedy is off the franchise.”

            I doubt Kathleen Kennedy is off the franchise. If anything, the CEO’s like her because she makes sure the movies stay ‘on brand’. Disney has a very specific way they want to market Star Wars, and likely Kennedy is doing exactly what they want. Solo didn’t do financially poorly for a May movie. It’s got a Tomatoes meter of 71% and is still at the top of the box office, which isn’t really a failure, it’s just not a home run. I think Solo is to Star Wars as Ant Man is to the MCU, it’s not bad, it’s not great, it’s just good enough.

            “I think the Jedi were very a good plot element as they were, one extreme of a duality. It is easy to mistake light and dark side as good vs. bad, but that’s not what they are. They are simply two opposing halves of a balanced soul, each side being troublesome or even dangerous without the other to balance it.”

            I just want to say, I LOVE this, I LOVE that idea that the Force is not inherently moral. That’s kind of what Yoda is saying in Empire, when he says the dark side isn’t stronger than the light side, and believing you can and can’t do something is more important than whether it’s possible. It’s more like the Force amplifies your own beliefs. Which would mean Dark Side users aren’t irredeemable any more than Light Side users are likely to fall, it’s all about your own will and your own belief system.

            But the Force hasn’t been consistently represented in the Franchise, and we’re unlikely to start getting a more solid canon. It’s a lot like actual religion, that people interpret it however they want, including future Star Wars creators. I dig your head canon, it sounds really similar to mine, and I love KotOR 2’s representation of the Force. But it’s still a head canon, and KotOR 2 isn’t even officially canon anymore.

            I’m not holding my breath for any super deep moral philosophizing in future films. But I’m also willing to be pleasantly surprised. If Disney’s going to keep on making films, we’ll likely eventually get one that’s willing to be more heady and cerebral like Empire. I think some of Luke’s comments to Rey were getting there, he basically told her “it’s the person who does good, not the Force”, which could be leading to some very pragmatic Jedi in the future.

            “Turning the Jedi into a clan of literal white knights (in the classic meaning) who are just plain good replaces a philosophically valuable concept with a naive self-insert fantasy.”

            But this self insert fantasy is what made the original Star Wars film so popular. It was a very thrilling, very straight forward hero’s journey. Obiwan talks about the Force like it’s good and evil. He says Jedi were defenders of good and justice. Luke wants to become one. Vader is clearly and blatantly a ruthless, evil bad guy. And that’s what resonated with audiences, especially children, a simple tale of good vs evil on a grand scale. You can’t dismiss that success, and it’s hard to knock Disney for wanting to go back to the basics for a new young audience, especially when they sunk a lot of money into purchasing the franchise. We wouldn’t have Empire if we didn’t have Star Wars.

            “It’s mind-boggling to see makers want to ride on the popularity of an existing franchise and use the previously created assets but not respect its canon.”

            It’s not really mind boggling. Available entertainment media has gotten so diverse and so dense, that one of the easiest ways to get noticed in the vast media sea is with world recognized brand names. Almost everyone on the planet has heard of Star Wars, even if they don’t know anything about it. That’s why Disney wanted to own it. There’s plenty of fantastic new content out there that has nothing to do with Star Wars, but if you took a popular scifi book and made it into a movie, even if it was quite good, it’s highly unlikely to garner the notice of the general public on the same level as something with Star Wars in the title, that’s just marketing. And Star Wars canon, as I said early, is hardly concrete or even respectful of itself pre-Disney purchase. So expecting Disney to respect that canon, well, I’m not entirely sure what that would even look like, other than films even more convoluted and hard to follow than the prequels.

            “It’s what some would call a typical millenial attitude: Wanting all the benefits without any of the work or responsibility.”

            Some might call it that, but they’d be wrong. ‘millenial’ and generation labeling is something news media likes to do to stereotype and group people without touching on real social issues, but our dates of birth are one of the least affecting things about us that determines how we view society. I have way more in common with a middle class, 50 year old white male Star Wars fan with liberal political views than I do with a rich Hispanic American girl with strong religious beliefs who shares my birthday. Millenials aren’t any more or less likely to ‘want all the benefits without any of the work or responsibility’ than baby boomers or whatever other generation title one wants to use. Every study into ‘millenials’ is extremely inconclusive, outside of the fact that they are extraordinarily diverse in backgrounds and beliefs.

            “One only gets the boost from a franchise because people expect content that upholds the spirit and quality of the original. Anyone who doesn’t plan on delivering that shouldn’t use it in the first place.”

            Sure, but that is SUPER SUBJECTIVE. What one person wants and expects from new Star Wars can be completely different from what someone else wants and expects. There is no objectively correct way to make new Star Wars films, they’ll either fit your preferences or they won’t. Luckily, there’s so much scifi out there, that even if I’m disgusting with Star Wars, I can find something else that I love. And the original trilogy still exists (even if we STILL HAVEN’T GOTTEN AN ORIGINAL THEATRICAL CUT REMASTERED IN HD GRAAAAAA). It’s okay to not like the new Star Wars films, but that doesn’t make them objectively terrible.

            “If a screenwriter wants a clean slate, just use a clean slate. But hey, that would be work, right?”

            I’ll bet every screenwriter in Hollywood has pitched their original screenplays, but screenwriters don’t decide what movie gets made. When an original screenplay gets picked up, it’s usually because the screenwriter has good connections to movie company CEOs who are willing to greenlight a risky original project. It’s just safer and easier to market known brands that have a baseline success rate simply because they have a built in audience.

            Anyway, I’m not trying to super defend the Disney films, I’ve got reams of problems with them. But I’m still enjoying them by identifying the parts that match up with my preferences, and there’s still quite a bit of stuff I like. If they are completely missing the mark for you, that’s fine, too, I’d just prefer you not call them garbage, as I kind of like them. (I mean you can call them garbage on other sites, I’d just prefer you hold your punches here, my life is stressful enough as it is!)

          • Purphoros

            Nah, you got that wrong. I clearly said “what some would call” because I don’t generalize like that. I merely used the word to show which stereotype the actual deeds are confirming. It’s the actual attitude that is despicable, and that can’t be excused by false accusations of generalizing.
            Wanting a benefit without putting the work in is lazy, entitled and respectless, and there simply is no remedy to that fact. There is no excuse.

            “prequels were not good with the canon either”
            Really, you need to stop using the mistakes of the prequels as excuse for the mistakes of the sequels. Two wrongs don’t make a right. It’s like saying that hey, Trump is bad, but at least he isn’t Hitler. That is not convincing anyone except those who really want to believe. Seperate the original and the sequels, compare only to the originals. Comparing to the sequels is admission of low quality.

            “but that’s highly subjective”
            No, it isn’t. Maybe on a creative level, but the basics of being truthful to canon and theme are objectively measurable.
            You use a franchise because of fan expectations, these expectations are what drives people to buy and you use the franchise to exploit those expectations. If you use a franchise, you are making an implicit promise, and not delivering on it is breaking that promise. Any filmmaker knows exactly what they do when they choose to make a sequel.

            “the market has become too diverse and new concepts are risky”
            Sure. But why would someone deserve a privileged position in this hard-fought market without earning it? That is the important part. You get a boost in visibility and trust, and to pay for that (or even just to maintain it) you need to be truthful to the work you build on. That is very simple, no excuse can absolve you from upholding your end of the bargain.

            “Don’t call them garbage here”
            “I am very stressed”
            Did I actually call them garbage? Can’t remember that and am too lazy to check.
            I didn’t expect that response from you. You seemed like a critical thinker… Is my opinion really that dangerous to you? Either I’m wrong, and you can choose to disregard it, or I’m right, then your distress is based on your error and not my fault. I stand by my opinion that the sequels are not worth their name (as are the prequels), and will not hide that.
            If the fact that someone on the internet disagrees causes you distress, maybe you should consider the distress your critical blog posts could cause for those who just want to read the comic and some author stuff, but get their favorite franchises evaluated instead… I find complaints in both directions to lack substance though.

            I’d like to close on the note that you were the one who brought up star wars! Please don’t open a discussion that you are not willing to follow through only to end up asking for self-censorship. I don’t dig censorship.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            You said “It’s what some would call a typical millenial attitude” and I said “if they did they’d be wrong”. I don’t know who the ‘some/they’ are, but if it’s not you or me, I don’t know why you even brought up arbitrary millenial classification, other than to point out that some people have opinions we don’t have, which is, like, okay?

            “Did I actually call them garbage?”

            You called them crap? I guess that’s different.

            “I stand by my opinion that the sequels are not worth their name (as are the prequels), and will not hide that.”

            Once again, that’s TOTALLY FINE, but that’s, like, your opinion, man. There is no objective truth here. There is no objective Star Wars canon. If it exists, point me to it, point me to the objective canon that is totally removed from subjective interpretation. Feel free.

            “Please don’t open a discussion that you are not willing to follow through only to end up asking for self-censorship. I don’t dig censorship.”

            I’m not asking for censorship, I’m asking for civil discourse. Obviously I’m totally cool with talking about Star Wars with you, because look how long this thread is! If you just want me to agree with you, I’ve agreed with a lot of your opinions! All I’m saying is that they’re just opinions, and all movies are open to criticism, that doesn’t make a movie objectively bad for everyone.

            A lot of people have gotten aggressively angry at Disney’s Star Wars films, including myself, but upon self reflection, I think we need to be more calm, and not get bent out of shape when criticizing the parts we dislike. That’s all I’m saying.

          • Purphoros

            Again, I’m not the one getting bent out of shape. If you feel the need to calm down, feel free to do so. I am calm. It is a sad trend to conflate every criticism with anger, and I will simply assume that you just misread me and are not trying to devalue the criticism.
            I can absolutely calmy say that something is bad, even objectively bad, even in colorful language, without deserving to be called angry.

            If I can not state certain opinions, that is not civil but censorship. Plain and simple. If I can only talk when I state opinions you don’t disagree with, well that’s no fun.

            You don’t understand why I brought up millenials, let me explain. It’s a stereotype that everyone knows, and conveys a certain image with many interconnecting character flaws in a single word. Also, you can be 65 years old and still have a “millenial” attitude.

            I don’t buy the whole postmodern nonsense about no objective reality existing and absolutely everything being opinion. It is commonly used when people just can’t handle the fact that two contradicting statements can’t both be true and someone might be mistaken. But fact is that facts do exist.

            It is a fact that Old Lucas and his Old Team did not respect the canon of the story created by Young Lucas and his New Team, with things like a freighter pilot turning into an annoying 9-year-old that can take out trained combat pilots wihout training of his own.
            Just the same with disney, it is a fact that the disney movies do not respect the canon of neither the originals nor the prequels.

            You want true canon? Han shot first. Original Trilogy.
            Anything built on top of something else is either in accord to the underlying work’s canon or a seperate, not-original derivative work.

            Yes, there is a true canon. Reality does exist.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            If you want to use millenial stereotypes to describe 65 year olds, that’s still applying millenial stereotypes, and I still don’t know why you brought it up in the first place.

            And if you consider the unedited, original Star Wars as the pure canon, that’s okay, but that does not mean it is everyone’s canon. In reality, each film builds off the last, whether someone agrees with the additions or not is subjective.

            “Just the same with disney, it is a fact that the disney movies do not respect the canon of neither the originals nor the prequels.”

            Can you give me an example of Disney objectively disrespecting the canon of the original trilogy in eps 7 and 8? Disney even seems to play up the ‘Han shot first’ bit, considering how prominently he shoots first in the Solo movie. Outside of releasing an unedited original theatrical version of the OT (which, I mean, would play even more havok with ‘canon’), I’m not sure what you want them to do that’s more respectful to the original trilogy. It feels like Disney is doing a way better job of respecting the old films than old man Lucas did with the prequels.

          • Purphoros

            You: I don’t understand why you used this term
            Me: I used this term to describe a multitude of negative traits in a single word
            You: I don’t understand why you used this term
            We’re talking in circles.

            Me: If the addition is not in accord (factually coherent) with the work it’s based on…
            You: Wether someone agrees with the addition is subjective
            A factual contradiction is not something you agree on. If everything is opinion and nothing is fact, then nobody knows anything and nothing is true and this whole discussion is pointless.

            This has been happening a lot in this thread. I feel that you keep misrepresenting my arguments, as if you’re actually talking to someone else. Maybe you really are, you brought up “angry fans” and “bitter fans” multiple times, even though it had nothing to do with our conversation.

            The discussion is also far removed from the original point, which wasn’t even about star wars at all. We’re just arguing about you liking the sequels, and why I can’t disagree with that, or why it’s impossible that they are bad.

            Checking your twitter, I immediately spotted an agressive dismissal backed up only with “it’s as if they never saw star wars”, which you retweeted, and more rather emotional content as i scroll down. I don’t want to speculate about the dynamics at work here… What I do know is that it’s not my conflict. I really don’t need to get involved with the SW defense mob.

            You may be cool with talking about star wars, but I have no intention of being a replacement for whoever you were arguing with before, or who you are signaling allegiance to.

            You like the new star wars movies, that’s okay. It’s absolutely okay to enjoy a bad movie. You don’t have to justify yourself. You don’t need me to validate your feelings, whatever they may be.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            Ha, man, I am specifically talking to you. I am quoting your responses. I am pointing out that you’re calling your own opinions facts. That’s all I’m doing. I don’t know what my twitter feed has to do with this, other than help you form assumptions about me.

            But I get your millenials reference now. When you see or perceive lazy people who like to get benefits without working, you describe them as ‘millenials’. Got it. You could just call them lazy people, though, that would be more accurate.

            I’m also still waiting for you to point out in the new films what is not in accord with the ‘factually coherent’ original trilogy, and how that makes the new films objectively bad. Han Shot First is a confusing choice since it was edited out of the canon before Disney ever bought the property, and if anything, Disney’s gone to great lengths to add in scenes of Han shooting first in their own movies.

            My whole point here is that you insist all the Star Wars films that are not the original trilogy are objectively bad films. We’re not talking about our perception of physical reality, we’re talking about movies we like and don’t like. I just don’t understand how you can say there is objectively true Star Wars. Is there objectively true Star Trek? Is there objectively true Voltron? Star Wars has been soft rebooted, franchises reboot all the time. Comics toss out old timelines and universes and reboot all the time. Canon is totally fluid in fictional worlds, and using adherence to canon as a basis for determining if a movie is good or bad is a purely subjective exercise. On top of that, Disney has seemingly been more respectful to the canon than Lucas was.

            In conclusion, you can like whatever media you like, hate whatever media you hate, but that does not make anything objectively good or bad. I’m just looking for an agreement that the new films are not objectively bad, even if some people think they are subjectively bad, as you do. If not, and their badness is an objective truth, you should be able to point to the objective evidence that proves such a truth. But if we could quantifiably calculate a film’s badness, movie reviewers would be out of a job because we could just run it through the ‘good/bad movie’ algorithm and get an objective answer.

            Ha, I honestly don’t know how else to say that your declaration that a Star Wars film is good or bad is entirely your subjective opinion. That is literally the only reason I’m still having this conversation with you!

          • Purphoros

            Yes, I did give you a little taste of your own medicine. Instead of addressing your arguments, I made inane assumptions about your emotions and your motives based on your twitter feed. Instead of just pointing out that you distracted with tangents and misrepresent me as angry, I cooked up a nice little story about you being pressured into defending the new movies by aggressive friends and subtly alluded to it. How do you like it when I use those methods? I figure it doesn’t feel good. Even I hated doing it.

            You asked for facts…

            I refuse to believe that you have forgotten about the FACT that anakin’s lightsaber dropped into a gas giant in Ep. 5, only to magically reappear when a convenient plot mcguffin was needed. Hey, it probably flew out by itself, if it can call for people…

            I also refuse to believe that you see no incoherence in the FACT that the lowly sith apprentice Kylo Ren demonstrates high-level force powers by stopping a blaster bolt in mid-air, which puts him at a level approaching yoda’s, but is then injured by a lowly storm trooper that never held a light saber before instead of just snapping his neck with the force. The whole power scale that was built throughout the originals (and continued in the prequels) is gone bogus because they wanted to have new underdog characters, cool powers that top those in the other movies, and not let the protagonist lose a battle, and cram all of it in Ep 7.

            This is just off the top of my head, and only Ep 7. There’s more. Use google.

            Again you twist my words. I say “a multitude of negative traits”, and you take it to mean a single negative trait. It’s not just laziness, but also a disrespect for the effort others had to put in to achieve what they did, a sense of entitlement, self-importance and being special up to the point where one needs exceptions from rules, and more. It’s also used in discussion about a fixation on mobile social media, but that too ties into the mechanisms of vanity, instant gratification and self-centeredness.
            It serves well to express a commonly observed complex of negative traits.

            You also twist my words by conflating my negative evaluation with hate. I just pointed out how dishonest and underhanded it is to dismiss founded criticism as a subjective reaction based on preference and emotion, and the next second you do it again by using “hate what you hate”.

            You also twisted my words by saying that I need you to agree with me. I don’t. It’s nice if you do, but you don’t have to.

            On that matter, I really appreciate that you like my “headcanon” of the force as a duality with no good side. Which is not a headcanon, but a factual summary of what is shown in the movies. Like the Jedi being so afraid of hate that they don’t even love, and despite denouncing fear living a life ruled by fear of their emotions. It is a deeply dysfunctional philosophy, created by excluding a vital part of their nature.

            The reason I posted this reply is so you can’t say the new movies would respect the canon, or act as if I’m dodging your question when in reality I’m tired of your argumentational methods. I really am.

            I do enjoy your posts on other topics, I really do, but when it comes to Star Wars… I’ve had my fill, thanks.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            I am not twisting any of your words. I’m quoting you and answering your points. I’m just trying to make it clear that your opinions are not facts.

            How do you know Darth Vader didn’t use the Force to catch Luke’s hand and lightsaber and recover it himself? Maybe that happened off screen, nobody knows. Maybe it fell onto another floating platform obscured by clouds. In the old canon Luke’s hand was somehow recovered and used to create a clone named Luuke. Does having Luke’s/Vader’s old lightsaber reappear in the new films makes them objectively bad movies? Does having it reappear ‘disrespect the canon?’ Not really. You either like it or you don’t. It was an iconic object that Abrams wanted to bring back to bridge the movies.

            TFA makes it very clear when Kylo fights Finn and Rey that he’s fighting with a major injury inflicted from Chewie’s bowcaster, a weapon we saw do some serious damage earlier in the film. It’s seems very likely the wound prevented him from concentrating enough to do a Force choke. Earlier in the movie he was able to restrain Rey completely using the Force, but during the forest duel, he’s clearly struggling and in pain, and can’t even call Luke’s lightsaber to his hand. It puts him on equal ground with Finn (who he still beat, by the way) and Rey, who is untrained with a saber, but IS trained with a staff. It’s not an identical weapon, but she could share parallel uses. How is any of this incoherent?

            I do like your headcanon! but the movies are rather vague about how the Force works, especially in the prequels. It leaves a whole lot open to interpretation. All in all, though, I’m not sure what the new Disney films have done that’s been wildly contradictory of the original trilogy. Certainly Rey and Kylo are way stronger than Luke was when he started learning the Force, but the new movies have also established that there “has been an awakening” and that Kylo and Rey are some kind of new, special breed of Force user with excessive power.

            And I never said you NEEDED to agree with me that your opinions are not facts, I just WANT you to agree with me. It seems like an easy agreement to come to, your feelings on the new films are opinions. I am sorry that I suggested you hate the new movies. Maybe you just don’t like them. Those feelings are still opinions, though, and not an objective truth about the quality of the films.

          • Purphoros

            It’s getting old. All you do is dismiss facts and logical analysis as feelings or opinion, make excuses by quoting the mistakes of others (yes, luuke suffers from the same problem and deservingly suffered similar backlash) or cooking up offscreen explanations like invisible platforms catching the lightsaber. None of that really works. And yes, you’re quoting me, but not responding to what you quoted.

            Yes, how is it incoherent that the guy who just casually stops blaster bolts with the force gets hit by a… blaster bolt… hm. I have no idea what is wrong with that image.

            Don’t even start on Rei and her many “I’ll try rolling” moments. Been discussed to death, and fans had to come up with reincarnation theories just to explain all the things she is ridiculously good at without ever learning them. Theories I wouldn’t put past Disney to just take and sell as their idea even if it wasn’t planned. After all, they are already trying to repackage the Grey Jedi and sell it as their idea with the constellation of “baddie” Ren being pulled to the light side and “goodie” Rei showing dark side aggression levels.

            We’re not getting anywhere as long as you dismiss everything as opinion and emotion. Best to end it here.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Yes, how is it incoherent that the guy who just casually stops blaster bolts with the force gets hit by a… blaster bolt… hm. I have no idea what is wrong with that image.”

            Kylo saw Poe aiming at him, he didn’t see Chewie aiming at him. He had also just killed his father, which broke his concentration and sent him into emotional turmoil, he clearly seemed surprised when he got shot. (see, I’m responding to you directly and not making up arguments that aren’t happening!)

            “Don’t even start on Rei and her many “I’ll try rolling” moments. Been discussed to death, and fans had to come up with reincarnation theories just to explain all the things she is ridiculously good at without ever learning them.”

            Only fans who didn’t like that she could do all the stuff she did felt the need to come up with other reasons. I never got upset that she could do Force stuff. The movie establishes that she has heightened Force powers, they seem to just come naturally to her.

            “After all, they are already trying to repackage the Grey Jedi and sell it as their idea with the constellation of “baddie” Ren being pulled to the light side and “goodie” Rei showing dark side aggression levels.”

            Literally no one uses the term ‘gray Jedi’ in the new movies, who’s stealing it? How?? You keep throwing out all sorts of vague accusations! Luke cut himself off from the Force, is what what you mean?

            “We’re not getting anywhere as long as you dismiss everything as opinion and emotion. Best to end it here.”

            No, we’re making progress. I think you’re starting to realize that your opinions are not facts, and that Star Wars canon is not concrete or specific enough to be objectively interpreted. Let’s stick with it a little longer and we’ll have a breakthrough!

          • Purphoros

            Please don’t be an ass and try not to put words in my mouth. You even have to pretend that I would think your arguments are good when they are nothing but dismissal.

            I tell you to leave Rei out and you just have to bring her up and start a new tangent. And what’s your argument? Assuming and distorting their emotions and motives (they just don’t like rei doing stuff) instead of the argument itself.

            You have been the most uncivil, dishonest, underhanded and unreasonable person you could be in this discussion.

            I am really sick of how you act when star wars is involved. You become a fanatic crusader who doesn’t stop from any dishonest tactics, personal insults, or even straight out character assasination to defend your franchise.

            All you managed is to reinforce my opinion of disney star wars fans.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Please don’t be an ass and try not to put words in my mouth. You even have to pretend that I would think your arguments are good when they are nothing but dismissal.”

            I haven’t dismissed anything you’ve said. I’ve directly quoted you and responded to the quotes. The only thing I’ve made an assumption about was that you hated the Disney films. You pointed out you never said you hated them, and I apologized for assuming that. Other than that, I have not manipulated your words or assumed anything.

            “I tell you to leave Rei out and you just have to bring her up and start a new tangent. And what’s your argument? Assuming and distorting their emotions and motives (they just don’t like rei doing stuff) instead of the argument itself.”

            You brought Rey, then told me not to bring her up, and then explained to me what problems ‘star wars fans’ have with her. Me responding to that isn’t creating a new tangent, it’s following one that you just created. And this is also still in direction relation to what we’ve been talking about, opinions vs facts. You’re providing why you think the Disney films are objectively bad, and I’m trying to explain why that is your opinion and not an objective fact.

            “You have been the most uncivil, dishonest, underhanded and unreasonable person you could be in this discussion.”

            What have I done that’s been dishonest, underhanded, or unreasonable? All I’ve done is point out that the way people feel about movies is just opinions, and not facts. How much an individual enjoys a piece of entertainment media is all opinion. Movie critics are just people giving their opinions. It can be a fact that a large number of people share a similar opinion, but that doesn’t make it any less of an opinion. I’m just trying to get an agreement on this, not criticize you for disliking the Disney films. I’ve said multiple times it’s okay for you to dislike them, just to not state that they’re objectively bad. When you’ve continued to argue that there is some objective truth to this, I’ve provided counter points to direct quotes. How is that underhanded or unreasonable? How else am I supposed to provide counter points?

            “I am really sick of how you act when star wars is involved. You become a fanatic crusader who doesn’t stop from any dishonest tactics, personal insults, or even straight out character assasination to defend your franchise.”

            I’m really not putting up a huge defense here, and with each accusation of being dishonest and underhanded, I’ve tried harder to directly quote you, and directly respond to you.

            I’ve criticized all these movies plenty. I’m just saying that my criticisms, your criticisms, everyone’s criticisms, they’re all just opinions. When people talk about media they like or don’t like, they are sharing their opinions. Remember when you said “We’re not getting anywhere as long as you dismiss everything as opinion and emotion”? All of what we’ve discussed has been opinion. Although Star Wars DOES have an official canon, that canon has changed and rebooted over time, it’s completely fluid, just like any long running series. But not adhering to it does not make a piece of work in that fictional universe objectively bad. And aside from that, I can’t even think of any specific way in which the TFA and TLJ clearly breaks from the OT’s canon, even if they add to it in a number of ways I’m not fond of.

            “All you managed is to reinforce my opinion of disney star wars fans.”

            At least we can agree that how you feel about Star Wars fans is an opinion. I just don’t understand why you can’t see that your feelings about the films are opinions too.

          • Purphoros

            I can’t believe that you claim you didn’t twist my words and were dishonest when I pointed it out to you all the time. This is your lowest low.

            Reread what you wrote.
            Paraphrasing, “so you see lazy people and call them millenials”.
            Compare that to what I wrote:
            “It’s what some would call a typical millenial attitude: Wanting all the benefits without any of the work or responsibility.”
            Note that I was talking about behaviorisms, and you tried to make it look like discriminatory hate speech degrading a person based on age.

            You have tried multiple times to frame me as some kind of generalizing angry person who mislabels people when I simply used a well-known term to describe a complex matter.
            Don’t pretend that you don’t know what you did. If you miss the point once, fine. But you have surgically maneuvered around what I was actually saying over the course of three posts. That avoidance requires precise knowledge of what you are avoiding.

            And that is just the tip of the iceberg. You know what you did.

            I brought up Rey? No, I didn’t. I specifically avoided Rey because I expected you to paint me as misogynistic at some point, as you tried to paint me as ageist when I mentioned millenial attitude in passing, or as you tried to paint me as angry and bent out of shape for no reason at all.
            When I pointed out the messed up power levels, I mentioned Yoda, Kylo, and the lowly storm trooper who managed to land a hit on him. No mention of Rei at all. How is that related to you bringing up Rei? By the same logic you could say that everything in the movie revolves around Rei, and that talking about han solo is inviting a discussion about her romance with Chewbacca. Which is definitely not not there, since it definitely not being there would require an objective canon…

            Yes, Chewbacca, who had a strong reaction to Solo’s death, and a killing intent that Kylo should have felt due to being a force user. Survival instincts bypass the parts of our brain that get confused by emotions, so even the poor excuse Abrams set up is moot.

            Anyways, thanks for confirming that Abrams only killed Han Solo so that Rei could grandstand at the end of the movie, and so the skreeching audience never have to see their all-competent self-insert fanfiction character ever face real failure, or any challenge that can’t be overcome in a few seconds.

            I’m sure you loved seeing Han’s progress from the original trilogy being reset to zero, the dashing rogue with a heart of gold being reduced to a deadbeat dad who gets killed in a disgraceful manner, only to support a ludicrous chain of events that serve to justify the undeserved success of a poorly written character. I’m sure you think it’s respectful to the originals, and definitely not a blatant destruction of the original canon.

            I mentioned screeching fans… With those I meant the ones who need a projection character to represent them. I bet you know who I mean. It’s the same kind that would be outraged over Rei being anything else than near perfect. You know, the ones who believe that power coming from nowhere is not bad storytelling because it’s Rey, that growth is for others, and often suffer from pretty much everything I mentioned in my more verbose explanation of the typical millenial attitude.

            My opinion of these people is based on the behavior they exhibit regularly, factual evidence supplied by themselves. Have you heard about the shill account on social media, pretending to be alt-right and “confessing” to fictional acts of sabotage, harassment and bullying in a very see-through manner, then trying to associate with known critics of the new Star Wars movies? Weaponized social justice in the service of corporate money grabbing. It is disgusting.

            Anyways, this is my last reply. You can see it by the way I’ve given up on being civil and blatantly put opinions about loving han’s death and poor storytelling (yes, objectively poor storytelling) in your mouth instead of saying the same in a factual manner, play word games about double negation, or by the fact that I brought up some of the lowest scum on earth so you can see who’s horn you’re blowing.
            Deny more if you want, advocate more if you want, slander more if you want. Not going to read it. I’m done.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Note that I was talking about behaviorisms, and you tried to make it look like discriminatory hate speech degrading a person based on age.”

            No, you were the one who brought up the term ‘millenials’, and said that: “It’s not just laziness, but also a disrespect for the effort others had to put in to achieve what they did, a sense of entitlement, self-importance and being special up to the point where one needs exceptions from rules, and more. It’s also used in discussion about a fixation on mobile social media, but that too ties into the mechanisms of vanity, instant gratification and self-centeredness. It serves well to express a commonly observed complex of negative traits.” I’m pretty sure if you look up “millenial” in the dictionary, that is not the definition, and if you want to use it like it is, then you’re going to get people who will call you out. It’s promoting an egregiously untrue stereotype about young people, whether that’s your intention or not. That’s all I meant, sorry if it implied other things.

            “You have tried multiple times to frame me as some kind of generalizing angry person who mislabels people when I simply used a well-known term to describe a complex matter.”

            A well known term can still be incorrectly used, as I just described. I did say that I think people get bent out of shape about the Disney films. I agree that I implied you were angry about the Disney films, but I’ve retracted that, I don’t know if you are angry or not angry, and I don’t want to make that assumption anymore. You said you had never claimed to be angry about them and I apologized.

            “Don’t pretend that you don’t know what you did. If you miss the point once, fine. But you have surgically maneuvered around what I was actually saying over the course of three posts. That avoidance requires precise knowledge of what you are avoiding.”

            No, I have surgically address each of your proclamations that the Disney films are objectively bad by providing a counterpoint to show that your factual evidence is actually just your opinion. There is no such thing as an objectively bad film, but there can be a large consensus opinion that a film is bad. Large consensus opinion is still just an opinion, though.

            “I brought up Rey? No, I didn’t. I specifically avoided Rey because I expected you to paint me as misogynistic at some point, as you tried to paint me as ageist when I mentioned millenial attitude in passing, or as you tried to paint me as angry and bent out of shape for no reason at all.”

            I have not once suggested/implied your feelings toward women, or your views on age, outside of your misuse of the term ‘millenial’, . Quote me where I have, and I’ll apologize. I acknowledge

            “When I pointed out the messed up power levels, I mentioned Yoda, Kylo, and the lowly storm trooper who managed to land a hit on him. No mention of Rei at all. How is that related to you bringing up Rei? By the same logic you could say that everything in the movie revolves around Rei, and that talking about han solo is inviting a discussion about her romance with Chewbacca. Which is definitely not not there, since it definitely not being there would require an objective canon…”

            I did bring up Rey first, but only because you said: “The whole power scale that was built throughout the originals (and continued in the prequels) is gone bogus because they wanted to have new underdog characters, cool powers that top those in the other movies, and not let the protagonist lose a battle, and cram all of it in Ep 7.” And I agree, they did that! And they did it without breaking any canon. Whether or not you like it is your opinion. It does not make the film objectively bad.

            “Yes, Chewbacca, who had a strong reaction to Solo’s death, and a killing intent that Kylo should have felt due to being a force user. Survival instincts bypass the parts of our brain that get confused by emotions, so even the poor excuse Abrams set up is moot.”

            Survival instinct bypasses the parts of our brain that get confused by emotions? I mean, who knows, maybe you’re right, but that sounds like an absolutism, and we don’t even know if Jedi brains work any differently than non Force user brains. Either way, this is a narrative preference of yours, and not necessarily the film being at fault.

            “Anyways, thanks for confirming that Abrams only killed Han Solo so that Rei could grandstand at the end of the movie, and so the skreeching audience never have to see their all-competent self-insert fanfiction character ever face real failure, or any challenge that can’t be overcome in a few seconds.”

            Harrison Ford is on the record saying he only would come back for one more film if his character died. Also, whether or not you like that Rey defeated Kylo in the duel is, once again, totally your opinion, and does not objectively make the film bad.

            “I’m sure you loved seeing Han’s progress from the original trilogy being reset to zero, the dashing rogue with a heart of gold being reduced to a deadbeat dad who gets killed in a disgraceful manner, only to support a ludicrous chain of events that serve to justify the undeserved success of a poorly written character. I’m sure you think it’s respectful to the originals, and definitely not a blatant destruction of the original canon.”

            Your declaration that Rey is poorly written is an opinion, I don’t know why you think it’s fact, there is not objective list of “things that a character must do to be considered well written”. Your dislike that Han Solo died is an opinion. I don’t particularly like that the original trilogy cast ended up with crummy lives in the Disney movies either! But, once again, this is an opinion, one that we both agree on, but that does not make it an objective fact.

            “I mentioned screeching fans… With those I meant the ones who need a projection character to represent them. I bet you know who I mean. It’s the same kind that would be outraged over Rei being anything else than near perfect. You know, the ones who believe that power coming from nowhere is not bad storytelling because it’s Rey, that growth is for others, and often suffer from pretty much everything I mentioned in my more verbose explanation of the typical millenial attitude.”

            The fact that you have to specify ‘which’ screeching fans you’re referring to is a pretty clear indicator that you’re generalizing. You say “I bet you know who I mean”, and I really don’t, you’re going to have to be more specific. Also, you brought up millenial attitude again, a term that you have self defined even though there is no actual evidence that a majority of millenials match your definition any more than baby boomers or GenXers or whoever else. I mean, you can keep using ‘millenials’ as an insult, I’m just trying to let you know that it’s negative stereotyping for young people.

            “My opinion of these people is based on the behavior they exhibit regularly, factual evidence supplied by themselves. Have you heard about the shill account on social media, pretending to be alt-right and “confessing” to fictional acts of sabotage, harassment and bullying in a very see-through manner, then trying to associate with known critics of the new Star Wars movies? Weaponized social justice in the service of corporate money grabbing. It is disgusting.”

            Who’s going off topic now? I’m literally talking about how your opinion of the Disney Star Wars films are not objective fact. That has literally been my only goal for about 90% of this thread. I’m actually trying to stay on topic, and you’re bringing up twitter conspiracy theories. Can’t we just agree that your opinions are just opinions and wrap this up?

            “Anyways, this is my last reply. You can see it by the way I’ve given up on being civil and blatantly put opinions about loving han’s death and poor storytelling (yes, objectively poor storytelling) in your mouth instead of saying the same in a factual manner, play word games about double negation, or by the fact that I brought up some of the lowest scum on earth so you can see who’s horn you’re blowing.
            Deny more if you want, advocate more if you want, slander more if you want. Not going to read it. I’m done.”

            You’re getting very defensive and deflective while not really addressing my own points. You even end by talking about Objectively Poor storytelling. If storytelling can be defined objectively, where is the mathematical algorithm to measure a story’s quality? It doesn’t exist. It’s all just opinion. Everything you’ve laid out here has been your own personal opinion. I agree with some of it, but none of it is still opinion. I am just looking for agreement on that single point, that’s the only reason we’re still here.

          • Purphoros

            Okay, I lied. I read the first few sentences just to see how many of your lies I’d find. You did not disappoint, by falsely saying that I brought up millenials when I clearly said “millenial attitude”.

            Just stop. You cannot lie to me. You’re not smart enough.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            Ha, man, you’re arguing semantics. Calling someone out as having a ‘millenial attitude’ is still stereotyping, especially when your own definition of ‘millennial attitude’ is this long, rambling definition negative traits. Is there any reason ‘millenial attitude’ couldn’t mean equality driven, ingenuitive, hard working, diverse, and motivated? You can ascribe negative or positive traits to ‘millenial attitude’ but you’ve chosen negative ones and are treating that like some sort of objective truth. it is JUST. YOUR. OPINION. And it’s one that negatively stereotypes millennials.

            Not to mention that you still want to label majority consensus opinions about a movie as objective facts. You have provided no evidence that they are such. Your opinions are still JUST. OPINIONS. Even if I’m a moron, and maybe I am, it does not take a genius to recognize that you are stating your opinion on things up and down. Here’s an objective fact: the Earth orbits the Sun while the moon orbits the Earth. Here is an opinion: I don’t like that Luke dies in The Last Jedi. See the difference?

          • Purphoros

            It’s not semantics, it’s the structire of the concept. You know, I’m starting to think that you really don’t get it. Not malicious, just ignorant. The effect is the same though.

            I don’t identify people by their attributes. I don’t identify someone by their skin color, their job, or their disabilities. Disabilities being the matter in this case. The “millenial attitude” I described is a character flaw, but not a personal identity.

            The difference between “millenials” and “typical millenial attitude as described by some” is the difference between “madman” and “a person with a mental disorder” or “retard” and “a retarded person” or “cripple” and “a handicapped person”.

            By equating person and attrbute, you create a culture of generalisation, discrimination and tribalism. This is what you are pushing into my comments, and I don’t think you’re so oblivious that you do it by accident.

            You are not so insensitive that you would call a handicapped person a cripple, because you know the difference.

            Your opinion about my opinion is nothing but your opinion, don’t force your opinions on me. And don’t do it by slandering me.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Your opinion about my opinion is nothing but your opinion,”

            YES! We did it! We’ve acknowledge that we both have opinions! I knew we’d hit a breakthrough if we just kept on this. Our feelings on the quality of the Disney films is entirely opinion.

            “don’t force your opinions on me. And don’t do it by slandering me.”

            I have not once knowingly slandered you. If I have, please post the quote that did so, it will help me avoid accidental slander in the future. I have not once knowingly forced my opinion on you. I’ve SHARED my opinions, but that can hardly be considered forcing them on to you. I have not even said your opinions are wrong, I’ve only said that they are opinions. If any of this is not true, please directly quote my comment on it.

            “It’s not semantics, it’s the structire of the concept.”

            The structure of the concept? I’m not sure what you mean. Semantics means ‘the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text’ (at least when applied to vocabulary). Honestly, this whole conversation is basically about arguing semantics, such as “what is the meaning of millennial attitude, and what is or is not an opinion”. If that isn’t what you meant by the structure of the concept, you’re going to have to explain that more.

            “The difference between “millenials” and “typical millenial attitude as described by some” is the difference between “madman” and “a person with a mental disorder” or “retard” and “a retarded person” or “cripple” and “a handicapped person”.”

            I’ll admit, this one is really confusing. I’m not sure what comparison you’re trying to make here. Are you saying calling someone a “millennial” is okay, but calling out someone as having “a typical millennial attitude” is offensive? Or the other way around? I don’t even know. And the fact that I don’t know just goes to show that there’s no real consensus on what “a typical millenial attitude” means.

            For example, what if someone you’d never met before said “Those Parkland kids have a real millennial attitude”. Could you tell me what they mean? Are they attributing positive or negative traits to the Parkland kids? there is no way to know, there’s no consensus there. If you wanted to know, you’d have to get more information. This is because the term “millennial attitude” can mean whatever attitude you want it to mean, but the use of the word ‘millennial’ implies that the majority of young people share that attitude. And there are zero studies showing the majority of young people share some sort of distinct attitude. Point me to the peer reviewed research that says otherwise.

            “You are not so insensitive that you would call a handicapped person a cripple, because you know the difference.”

            Yes, there is a large consensus from handicapped people that they do not want to be referred to as ‘cripple’. But the only consensus meaning for the term “millennial” is that it means “young people”, and even then, there’s debate over how young. It is not a scientific term, there is no majority shared attitude of young people, they are just as diverse in attitude as any other group of people. Do you really disagree with me on this? Let’s just not label people as having ‘millennial attitudes’ and instead describe their attitudes with actual adjectives. At least there is overwhelming consensus on what adjectives mean, like ‘lazy’, ‘positive’, ‘motivated’, ‘angry’.

            “You know, I’m starting to think that you really don’t get it. Not malicious, just ignorant. The effect is the same though.”

            You’ve accused me of slandering you, which, to the best of my knowledge, I have not (please directly quote my insults if I have), and you’ve repeatedly called me out for being ignorant, deceiving, and lying, despite that I have actively tried to directly quote you and respond to your replies, often sentence by sentence. I’m not offended by your accusations, but I have to wonder how you have regular conversations with other people without just accusing them of lying when they share their opinion. Once again, feel free to quote my lies so I can recognize them, because right now all these vague accusations could benefit from some specificity.

            In the end, I feel good about this! We’ve made a lot of progress. I get the impression you’ve recognized that your opinions on the Disney films are opinions, just as mine are. As long as we’re no longer claiming movies are objectively bad or good, the goal of this conversation has been acheived. We can talk about semantics and stereotyping more if you like, though.

          • Purphoros

            Let me rephrase: Your opinion that my posts are only my opinion and not based in reality is your opinion, which is by your definition not a fact. You can accept that there is a objective reality, or you cannot objectively claim that anything is just an opinion. Now try misconstruing that as me agreeing with you.
            The “everything is opinion, that’s a fact” argument disproves itself.
            Just like a Jedi saying “Only the Sith deal in absolutes” is an absolute that disproves itself.

            The stereotype about millenials (which I don’t say is true for all or only applies to millenials, I’m even born into the same age range) is predominantly negative, often summarized as “lazy, entitled and narcissistic”. That is a fact, it’s all over the media, big and small outlets, on youtube, everywhere. Yes, it has been getting some pushback lately. You can’t push back against something that doesn’t exist, you know?
            To prove it I will link a few articles that reference the predominant stereotypes, regardless of their attempts to reinforce or disprove them.

            Self-explanatory title, but interesting read anyways:
            http://time.com/247/millennials-the-me-me-me-generation/
            “Are millennials as bad as we think?”:
            https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/jan/24/millennials-generation-gap
            “Mainstream media has drawn a picture of Millennials as lazy, narcissistic and entitled selfie-lovers. “:
            https://luckyattitude.co.uk/millennial-characteristics/

            Even those who don’t agree with the stereotype know that it’s negative. Using it to point out that certain neagtive behavior fits the negative stereotype is not a generalization, and definition wise valid, even if you don’t like it. It is most certainly not a reason to continuously distract from the actually criticized behavior: Wanting a benefit, a privileged position in the market, without earning it. Breaking a social contract by exploiting known expectations for money and then not delivering on those expectations. Demanding participation trophies from your customers.

            I have, over the course of this argument, pointed your slanderous actions out repeatedly. You have asked me to quote you even after I quoted you and explained things (which I think you already know), so that is obviously not working. I won’t do that anymore. I’m done playing your little game of explaining your own actions to you and having my words thoroughly ignored or misconstrued, and I would like to hear no more poor excuses for the slander you have thrown against me.

            Just in case you missed it: The point where you could achieve anything constructive by arguing with me has long passed. You destroyed that possibility when you hit below the belt multiple times, and first pretended that you didn’t, then that it was an accident.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Let me rephrase: Your opinion that my posts are only my opinion and not based in reality is your opinion, which is by your definition not a fact. You can accept that there is a objective reality, or you cannot objectively claim that anything is just an opinion. Now try misconstruing that as me agreeing with you.
            The “everything is opinion, that’s a fact” argument disproves itself.
            Just like a Jedi saying “Only the Sith deal in absolutes” is an absolute that disproves itself.”

            I don’t disagree that there is an objective reality. I just disagree that your opinion of a Star Wars movie, or any movie, is an objective truth. That’s all. I do like that you pointed out one of the silliest, most self contradicting lines in the prequels, though. I remember hearing that line in the theater and thinking “that doesn’t make any sense!”

            “The stereotype about millenials (which I don’t say is true for all or only applies to millenials, I’m even born into the same age range) is predominantly negative, often summarized as “lazy, entitled and narcissistic”. That is a fact, it’s all over the media, big and small outlets, on youtube, everywhere. Yes, it has been getting some pushback lately. You can’t push back against something that doesn’t exist, you know? ”

            Yes, it’s getting pushback because it is stereotyping. The stereotyping exists, which is why people are pushing back. All I’m saying is that because it is a stereotype, and because mainstream media is using it as a stereotype, we should try and NOT DO THAT, because stereotype are often false and rely on assumption. If there were consensus on what “millennial attitude” meant, then how can people manage to write so many positive articles about “millennials”? clearly there is a divide in this supposed consensus. Best to just avoid the stereotype altogether and use agreed upon adjectives to describe people.

            Positive Millennial articles (see, there is clearly a divide in consensus here)
            https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/242155
            https://www.theodysseyonline.com/positive-qualities-millennials
            https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2016/04/28/a-millennial-manifesto/
            https://www.bolde.com/12-reasons-millennials-best-generation/

            “Even those who don’t agree with the stereotype know that it’s negative. Using it to point out that certain neagtive behavior fits the negative stereotype is not a generalization, and definition wise valid, even if you don’t like it. It is most certainly not a reason to continuously distract from the actually criticized behavior: Wanting a benefit, a privileged position in the market, without earning it. Breaking a social contract by exploiting known expectations for money and then not delivering on those expectations. Demanding participation trophies from your customers.”

            Once again, if we acknowledge that labeling these traits as “a millennial attitude” is stereotyping, then why not just call people these traits instead of calling them a person with a millennial attitude? That way we eliminate the stereotyping.

            “I have, over the course of this argument, pointed your slanderous actions out repeatedly. You have asked me to quote you even after I quoted you and explained things (which I think you already know), so that is obviously not working. I won’t do that anymore. I’m done playing your little game of explaining your own actions to you and having my words thoroughly ignored or misconstrued, and I would like to hear no more poor excuses for the slander you have thrown against me.”

            I’ve gone through and looked at our conversation. The only time you’ve quoted me (or, really, paraphrased me) was when you were telling me I didn’t understand what you meant. You have not quoted me and said “I find this statement to be an insult/lie/slander.” If my not understanding something you said, or my response to something you said is an insult, a lie, or slander, then I don’t know how to avoid them, other than to not respond, but luckily we’re not to that point yet. If you quote a specific example or a lie/slander/insult, maybe that would help, and I can apologize and explain how it was not my intent.

            “Just in case you missed it: The point where you could achieve anything constructive by arguing with me has long passed. You destroyed that possibility when you hit below the belt multiple times, and first pretended that you didn’t, then that it was an accident.”

            Actually, we’ve achieved a lot just with this set of responses! We’re nailing down what the term “millennial attitude” means, and why it’s a stereotype, and why it’s bad to use it, because it enforces stereotypes. We’ve also really started to break down opinions vs facts and are working to a consensus. I’m actually heartened by this!

          • Purphoros

            Look at your last paragraph, trying to call your opinionated assertion something that “we nailed down” again. You don’t even realize you’re doing it, or are being obnoxious on purpose. Stop pretending that your assertion is our consensus.

            So I did not respond with the phrase you expect… too bad. I am speaking for myself, in my words, sorry for the inconvenience. I guess it would be really complicated to look for words like “accusation” or “you said that…” to find a reference, or these practical thingies: ” ”

            Thanks for linking pushback articles that support my argument, by the way.

            Stereotypes exist because trends exist, because humans copy behavior or evolve in similar ways when put in similar environments. Stereotypes are not by definition a bad thing, they are just tools of dissemination. Stereotypes exist for a reason, to describe things.

            Yes, why write a small novel when you can just use the stereotype to describe it in one word. I answered your question long ago, even pointed out how you ignored it, and now you ignore that you ignored it.

            Playing deaf or misconstruing. It’s starting to get funny just how caught up in these strategies you are. Just as funny as the demise of star wars becomes when you stop caring about it.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Look at your last paragraph, trying to call your opinionated assertion something that “we nailed down” again. You don’t even realize you’re doing it, or are being obnoxious on purpose. Stop pretending that your assertion is our consensus.”

            I totally am being snarky in the last paragraph. But this conversation has gone on a long time, and I’m kind of trying to push you into either trying to argue that your opinions on the Star Wars movies are objective reality again, so that I can continue to raise points against it, or to agree that your opinions on the Star Wars movies are just opinions. I feel like you acknowledged that you had opinions previously, I”m just kind of hoping to get you to acknowledge your feelings on Star Wars are opinions and not an objective reality.

            “Thanks for linking pushback articles that support my argument, by the way.”

            I thought your argument was that there was consensus that ‘millennial’ was a negative term and therefore it was okay to use it as a negative term? How is linking articles that use it as a positive term supporting your argument?

            “Stereotypes exist because trends exist, because humans copy behavior or evolve in similar ways when put in similar environments. Stereotypes are not by definition a bad thing, they are just tools of dissemination. Stereotypes exist for a reason, to describe things.”

            Well, yes, stereotypes can describe things when there’s a common consensus, but obviously negative stereotypes exist, like calling all disabled people cripples, or implying anyone with a “millennial attitude” is lazy and entitled. Calling someone a racial slur, even if that person is not of the race that the slur references doesn’t change that the slur itself is used as a shorthand way of inaccurately negatively describing a race of people. Using ‘millennial’ as a negative term is the same for young people.

            “Yes, why write a small novel when you can just use the stereotype to describe it in one word. I answered your question long ago, even pointed out how you ignored it, and now you ignore that you ignored it.”

            Because grouping all young people into a negative stereotype is bad? There’s push back on people applying negative context to the word “millennial” because it is inaccurate and destructive to think of all young people negatively. Let’s not use the word “millennial” as an adjective to describe something or someone poorly. Just like we shouldn’t call disabled people ‘crippled’ because that implies that all disabled people are incapable of living normal lives, which is not accurate and offends most disabled people.

            “Playing deaf or misconstruing. It’s starting to get funny just how caught up in these strategies you are. Just as funny as the demise of star wars becomes when you stop caring about it.”

            Wait, do you not care about Star Wars, or do I not care about Star Wars? I’m confused what that’s supposed to imply. And I’m not playing deaf or misconstruing, I’m literally copying each of your sentences and replying to them directly!

          • Purphoros

            http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-stereotyping-wrong

            Linking this because you are apparently working with a limited understanding of what stereotypes are, and because I am not going to hold a lecture on cognitive psychology unless you pay me a tuition. Also because I’m probably not licensed to hold that lecture and ask a tuition. It’s just a small sample though, the topic is deeper.

            I’ll say this much myself though:
            Stereotypes are an important factor in how humans experience and understand the world around them. Human intelligence is based on seeking patterns derived from regular observations and categorizing that information into stereotypes. “Dog” is a stereotype. “Wet” is a stereotype. “Talking” is a stereotype. “Narcism” is a stereotype. Imagine you could not group dogs conceptually just because weiners are not pitbulls, or had to find words to express wetness for every different fluid in existence. Stereotypes are a crucial tool of the human mind.
            Every word is a stereotype. Every general assertion you make about anything, including stereotypes, is a stereotype. Which also means that you can’t say that stereotypes are bad without using or propagating at least three stereotypes.

            I would encourage you to take a stroll through the internet, not just the stereotypical “all stereotypes are bad” propaganda pieces by stereotypical minority (or majority) activists, but to enjoy some actual science, to read up on cognitive psychology that will explain to you how and why stereotypes exist and why they are important for any rational thought. I feel that you could gain a lot from it.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “I would encourage you to take a stroll through the internet, not just the stereotypical “all stereotypes are bad” propaganda pieces by stereotypical minority (or majority) activists, but to enjoy some actual science, to read up on cognitive psychology that will explain to you how and why stereotypes exist and why they are important for any rational thought. I feel that you could gain a lot from it.”

            Man, I did not disagree with you that stereotypes exist. I didn’t claim all stereotypes are bad. Literally all I’m saying is that defining “millennial attitude” with negative attributes is a negative stereotype of young people who fall into the arbitrary “millennials” age range. Do you disagree with that? And is it not also possible to apply positive attributes to the term “millennial attitude” as well?

            Whether you use it negatively or positively, it is a stereotype, and that is not inherently bad. But the term “Millennials” was created as means of media to define a generation (because the media loves generation labeling, even though it’s completely arbitrary). And yet ‘the media’ is not a single consensus entity. There is no consistent consensus on what “millennials” mean from organization to organization or person to person, nor is there any reason to apply negative traits to it unless you want to stereotype “millennials” negatively. And maybe you do! But negative stereotypes are still bad for discourse and I think they should be avoided (I mean we avoid racial slurs for that reason).

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HFwok9SlQQ

            Also, we were talking about whether your opinion on Star Wars was objective fact or subjective opinion. Have we concluded it was opinion yet or are you still pushing that the Disney films are still objectively bad?

          • Purphoros

            When did I apply it to millenials? Hm? I pointed out that the behavior of disney matches the stereotype often associated with millenials, nothing more.

            Now, I think I know what really happened. You read the word millenial and just, well, got triggered? Context matters.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            HAHAHA!! My gods, you’re totally right! I went back and looked at your exact phrasing. You said:

            “It’s what some would call a typical millenial attitude: Wanting all the benefits without any of the work or responsibility.”

            And my response was like “Dude, don’t apply negative stereotypes to millennials just because others do.” And you didn’t! It’s just weird to have brought it up, and I totally did get ‘triggered’!

            Yeah, man you’re right. I was just going on that it’s not good to negatively stereotype millennials. I still don’t actually know if you agree with me or not on that? I mean, I’d hope you would think it’s not good to negatively stereotype people. But I’ve got to acknowledge that it wasn’t technically what you were doing. you were just acknowledging that others did. It was just a weird tangent you brought up when you were ascribing negative traits to Disney and I went off on it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

            I still hope we can at least acknowledge that movie criticism is subjective, that was kind of the whole reason I started down this road! The millennial stuff was just a confusing sidetrack.

          • Purphoros

            I really shouldn’t. There were several red flags that showed how it could end. For example, when you said “those who needed additional reasons just didn’t like rei doing those things”. Additional to “abilities just come naturally to her”, that is, which is basically just a handwave and not an actual reason. Paraphrased from memory, but I think I got the gist of it.

            It’s a baseless assumption of negative bias towards Rei’s person. The next logical step is to wonder why they don’t like Rei doing things, and from there it’s easy to say that it’s because she’s a woman. That never happened to critics before, right? I think that discussing Star Wars in that manner is a minefield, and that it’s not worth walking into.

            I understand that you are invested in the topic, but you have been exposed to too many bad arguments, some of which you have assimilated. Please be aware of them.

            I still maintain that there are objectively measurable elements that are more solid than just a preference, and that Disney did not respect the canon and the spirit of the originals.

            Consider some of the values transported in the originals. Self-control, self improvement, discipline, effort, patience, hard work and just rewards, big deeds achieved with the choice for big sacrifice. All these were a strong theme in the originals.

            Even the prequels did not blatantly go against those values. Well, except when anakin tried rolling, the stupid brat. That kid is really annoying.

            In the Disney movies, you get powers without earning them, don’t lose your hand and almost fall to your death when you are reckless, and others do the work and sacrifices, not choosing to die for your chance to run like a dog, but being unwittedly slaughtered for your glorious victory.

            At least if you’re the protagonist that the audience is supposed to identify with, you never fail and get everything without ever working for it.

            That is not the star wars spirit. It’s…sorry to say… the very worst parts of the “millenial” spirit.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “Even the prequels did not blatantly go against those values. Well, except when anakin tried rolling, the stupid brat. That kid is really annoying.”

            I mean, he totally is. But the themes of the prequels are kind of incoherent also. I dunno, what even are the themes of the prequel films?

            “In the Disney movies, you get powers without earning them, don’t lose your hand and almost fall to your death when you are reckless, and others do the work and sacrifices, not choosing to die for your chance to run like a dog, but being unwittedly slaughtered for your glorious victory.”

            I do agree that I didn’t really like that Rey just suddenly was good at the Force. The movie basically wanted a Force sensitive gateway character for the new movie and just had her be good enough at Force stuff to make it plausible she could have a duel and beat a wounded Kylo at the end. And, no, I’m not a huge fan of how that all fell into place so easily. But the reasons that is subjective is because there are plenty of people who saw the movie and loved it, and that didn’t bother them. My mom and my wife really like Rey, they weren’t bothered by her gaining abilities quickly, and they’re also not die hard original trilogy fans. We just have certain expectations, and the new films didn’t follow them. But that’s still all subjective opinion.

            “I understand that you are invested in the topic, but you have been exposed to too many bad arguments, some of which you have assimilated. Please be aware of them.”

            I mean, they’re only bad arguments if you disagree with them. We’re still basically arguing about movie themes and what we do and do not like, and what we consider disrespectful or not disrespectful. It’s still subjective opinion.

            “In the Disney movies, you get powers without earning them, don’t lose your hand and almost fall to your death when you are reckless, and others do the work and sacrifices, not choosing to die for your chance to run like a dog, but being unwittedly slaughtered for your glorious victory.

            At least if you’re the protagonist that the audience is supposed to identify with, you never fail and get everything without ever working for it.”

            Well, basically everyone failed in The Last Jedi. Rey failed to get Kylo to turn to the light. Kylo failed to wipe out the Resistance or get Rey to join him. The Resistance failed to escape without basically being reduced to 20 people from hundreds. Luke had previously failed, accepted it, and then managed to, at the very least, stall Kylo enough for the Resistance survivors to escape, but then died. So, not exactly a flawless victory. Poe, Finn, and Rose failed to stop the First Order from tracking the Resistance through hyperspace. It’s just failure on all levels! I’m not sure if the idea that everything is handed to the heroes, or even Rey specifically, really holds up.

            “Consider some of the values transported in the originals. Self-control, self improvement, discipline, effort, patience, hard work and just rewards, big deeds achieved with the choice for big sacrifice. All these were a strong theme in the originals.”

            Well, I mean, yes, but also they can be ascribed to a lot of what happens in the new movies too. It’s worth keeping in mind that most of the themes you listed are the things Luke fails at in ESB, and then succeeds at in ROTJ, but Luke is really the only character with a complete arc through all the films, and his transition from ESB to ROTJ is weirdly jarring (he basically feels like an entirely new character and we never get to see him deal with the fallout of his failure on Cloud City). Lucas has a tendency to skip the emotional fallout for the characters in his films.

            The Disney films also have a problem with this (where’s the scene after the big throne room scene in TLJ where Rey wakes up to find an unconscious kylo and Luke’s busted lightsaber?) But you could say that Rey was impatient and wanted to confront Kylo when Luke felt she was too vulnerable to turn to the Dark side. Kylo is very intentionally an entitled, self involved character with no self control.

            As for big sacrifice, there’s plenty in TLJ. Holdo gives the biggest sacrifice, to save the Resistance shuttles. Finn tries a suicide run to save the Resistance base. Luke gives his life to stall Kylo Ren.

            “In the Disney movies, you get powers without earning them, don’t lose your hand and almost fall to your death when you are reckless, and others do the work and sacrifices, not choosing to die for your chance to run like a dog, but being unwittedly slaughtered for your glorious victory.”

            Rey’s powers manifested quickly and she did not have to go through any training to use them (I absolutely would have loved a training scene and it bums me out), but she’s using those powers to stop an evil military power. If she succeeds, won’t she have earned her powers retroactively?

            I am a little confused by your line about running like a dog, is that in reference to Finn? He was running, but he eventually decided to stick it out. Not my favorite storyline, for sure, but does ultimately decide he’s willing to give his life for fighting the First Order.

            “That is not the star wars spirit. It’s…sorry to say… the very worst parts of the “millenial” spirit.”

            I do feel that I need to point out that you did use millennial as a negative stereotype here. And ‘the Star Wars spirit’ is absolutely subjective. Even if there is a large consensus opinion on what the Star Wars spirit is (and there is absolutely no consensus on that), that would still be an opinion. There’s just no objective, factual data to apply to how someone feels about a movie, only personal preferences. Personal preferences can be shared by a large number of people, but it’s still preference, it’s still opinion.

            That’s really all I’ve been saying this whole time. I don’t disagree with you that the Disney movies have problems, and that they don’t completely match the tone and style of the original trilogy, but the OT is pretty inconsistent in tone and style too, each film was by a different director, and ROTJ was made nearly four years after ESB, on a reduced budget, with cute teddy bear people that Lucas to market incessantly to children over the next five years. None of these films are perfect masterpieces (well, except Empire Strikes back, that is objectively the best movie ever made, yes I’m joking, but I do love that movie). If there was a way to objectively measure the quality of a movie, then we wouldn’t have movie critics. We could just put a movie through the “good/bad movie algorithm” and objectively know if a movie was bad. But such a thing doesn’t exist, and critical consensus is far from consistent across the board.

            Every piece of evidence you’ve brought to the table to express how the Disney films are objectively bad has been subjective opinion.

          • Purphoros

            Wrong. On so many levels.

            An argument’s quality does nptndepend on younagreeing ormdisagreeing,nthat’a ridiculous. The worst you can do for a cause is to defend it with bad arguments. Assuming the motives of a person and arguing against those instead of the given argument is always bad form and a bad argument, in any discussion.

            Remember how the discussion started: Expectations based on the work a nother work is built upon are not arbitrary, but valid as confirmed by their vital existence in the original work.

            You keep saying that the expectations people have are completely arbitrary and personal, but that is wrong. They are shaped by the originals, and therefore not just personal preference.

            That’s why I refuted your attempt to quote my argument of irrelevance in a situation where there clearly is relevance.

            The theme of a story, the mechanisms of how the world works, even for abstract concepts as balance or responsibility, are part of the movies, part of the canon, part of the spirit.

            They are what you implicitly promise when you choose to make a star wars story, because those are the expectations you knowingly use to get customers. Not delivering is exploitative and dishonest at best, and a blatant scam at worst.

            Also, Rey barely even knew about the force, and nothing about any sides. She was not trying to get Kylo on the light side, so you can’t say she tried and failed. I failed to cure cancer, is not valid because I haven’t tried. Rey got all she tried to get, and looked cool while using advanced techniques and winning a swordfight. Nowhere has she ever failed.

            Rey is horribly written. By any measure you want to apply, her writing doesn’t hold up. No, someone liking it is not an objective measure. That is especially sad for the character, she deserves better than being the flat projection cardboard that she without doubt is.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “I have shown you a logical chain that validates expectations based on the undeniable importance of elements in an original work, so unless you can come up with a true, non-circular, non-anecdotal, axiomatic proof that expectations based on definitive parts of an original are somehow arbitrary, you have no argument.”

            When you bring up logical chains and objective truths to determine the quality of a movie, what you’re doing is asserting a baseline set of goals of what you expect a movie (in this case a Star Wars movie) to achieve. Those goals are entirely your own personal preference, whether you acquired them from watching other Star Wars movies, or listening to movie critics, or going to film school. Those preferences can certainly be refined by studying other people’s preferences, and incorporating them into your own in some way, but it’s all still subjective.

            Think about it this way, In thirty years, there will be thousands, even millions of new Star Wars fans who will watch all the movies together. Many of them will view all the films as one continued franchise. They will like what they like, or dislike what they dislike, and apply those preferences to any new Star Wars movies moving forward.

            Would these future fans be objectively wrong for doing so? No, no one is objectively wrong for liking or disliking any Star Wars movie, or any movie in general. That’s why you can’t apply objective quality to subjective media. All movie criticism is just us comparing and contrasting our own personal preferences to the media we’re consuming. If a piece of media is more popular or well regarded to a general populace, it’s not necessarily better than a lesser loved movie, it just resonates with more commonly shared personal preferences.

            “Regarding your question about running like a dog, I was drawing the comparison between Obi-Wan’s heroic sacrifice for luke (and the others), who got the chance to run like a dog but live another day, inglorious but appropriate, a situation where Kenobi had the agency to make a choice to sacrifice and in turn is shown as heroic, and on the other hand Han Solo’s death being nothing but a disgraceful slaughter with no choice involved, and Rei inappropriately collecting all the undeserved glory when she eventually defeated Ren.”

            Han’s goals were not the same as Kenobi’s, so why should the results of their deaths be the same? Also, Luke’s sacrifice in TLJ is a pretty close mirror of Kenobi’s, which I like quite a bit.

          • Purphoros

            You really think that’s a mirror? Goodness… I’ve been wasting a lot of time here. I hope you shave with something better…

            Again, you have only asserted that the goals are subjective, not backed it up with any logic. Why are they subjective even when they are based on vital parts of the original work?

            Hypothetical group consensus or hypothetical hindsight viewpoints in a hypothetical future have no logical connection to the validity of expectations based on the originals. Nice tangent, nice try, try again.

            I don’t think you can really give any logical reasoning to back up the assertion of subjectiveness.
            Let’s play a game… I’ll reply when you can back up that claim.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            ” Why are they subjective even when they are based on vital parts of the original work?”

            What tools are you using to determine what parts are vital of the original work? Isn’t it just your own personal preferences deciding what is and is not vital?

          • Purphoros

            … you’re not serious, are you…
            Already forgotten…

            And no, it is not just my personal preference that they are vital. We have already gone through that part, the ball is in your field.

            Okay, unless you want to set a precedence for Avatar being a legitimate Star Wars movie, you better go with the assumption that certain elements of a work are of vital importance to its character even if you forgot the earlier exchange.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            “And no, it is not just my personal preference that they are vital.”

            It is. Disney could make a movie set on Earth about a boy going through middle school and call it Star Wars: School Days. It could in no way reference anything Star Wars related outside of its title, and it would still technically be a Star Wars movie because Disney paid to own the property and decided to make a movie that had nothing to do with the other films. There would be a majority consensus opinion that they did not make a Star Wars film, but that would still be an opinion. Objectively, the owner of the franchise would have made a new Star Wars film.

          • Purphoros

            Again, you assert without any backup. And you got the direction of causality backwards in your unrelated hypothetical anekdote. Not worth my time.

            Copyright only protects existing work. Trademark is what you want. Don’t use terms you don’t understand.

            Anyway, your hypothetical fan movie is not an appropriate precedent to talk about the validity of expectations regarding an official sequel even if you got the logic right.

            Are you capable of focusing on the actual claim you’re arguing against?

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            Okay, trademark then. And I’m arguing that there is no objectively good or bad Star Wars film, only subjective. You’ve said that you’ve analyzed the original films and come up with specific themes that should be in a Star Wars film, like that’s some objective truth, but it’s not, it’s your own subjective preferences as to what you want in a Star Wars film, or what is and isn’t respecting the old films.

          • Purphoros

            No, you keep steering the aelrgument towards the quality for some reason. Maybe cognitive dissonance? Subconcious rebelling against the rationalization?

            Go back to the very start and see what you are arguing against.

          • jwkovell

            In the interest of fun and challenging conversation, I try to avoid moderating comments as much as possible. But ad hominem attacks (intentional, unintentional, or even humorously incorrect) and other incivilities also don’t help that goal.

            That line has been approached and crossed a few times in this thread. Please avoid it, or step away from the conversation. If things are that bad, the likely outcome probably isn’t worth your time. Thanks!


            In the interest of full disclosure, I also don’t want to bother moderating comments because it’s a chore. I don’t like doing chores. They’re dumb.

          • Purphoros

            Defending against ad hominem is not an ad hominem. I have tried to step away, but everytime I did I had to see another attempt to twist my words and make me look bad. I will defend myself from personal attacks when they happen.

            If you want to ban me for standing my ground and not just taking the slander lying down, that is your preogative. Just be aware of the signal you are sending with this:
            Accept the chief’s opinion, don’t disagree, if you do you deserve to be slandered, and if you fight back to protect your reputation you will be banned.

            At this point, it doesn’t really matter. I don’t feel comfortable in this comment section anyway. I just want the slander, the straw men, and the personal attacks to finally have an end.

          • Purphoros

            Yet another of my replies has been falsely detected as spam. I’m starting to think that someone is maliciously flagging my comments. Whoever is doing this, is scum of the lowest grade.

          • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

            I just checked all the ‘pending’ comments and didn’t see any from you, which I assume means nothing was flagged. What/who were you responding to? Usually a comment if flagged if it contains a link or is from an obvious bot account.

          • jwkovell

            I approved a lot of incorrectly flagged spam messages. Are the comments you sent in now showing up?

          • Purphoros

            Argh, I didn’t see your reply until now… Have my belated thanks for fixing it. It’s appreciated.

          • Purphoros

            In both cases, it was the previous reply to the same parent comment. They were labeled “detected as spam”.

            I guess it could be the disqus spam filter reacting to lengthy comments, but I’ve written long comments before that weren’t detected as spam. The number of flags on a comment or account also goes into the algorythm, so flagging can be a deciding factor.
            Not saying that the algorythms are never incoherent, but if it happens twice in short succession on the same site (same people seeing the post) in similar situations (critical media analysis), that is a bit suspicious.

            It’s still entirely possible that I just barely hit the critical word count or used too many paragraphs.

            In any case, now I know that it’s reviewed by disqus, that moderators don’t get notified (now that’s interesting), and that disqus’ response time is about three to four days. Or one day after voicing suspicions of foul play. Hm…

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            I don’t know, DnD has some realism to it,and it’s not just DnD, it’s a lot of pop culture.
            I mean, it’s not like bread and chairs and pianos are all called different things.
            if you put a specific weapon from history into your game, common sense dictates you use the actual name, otherwise it confuses people with knowledge and misleads those who don’t already know.

            you’re not wrong about the critic part though, i totally agree, but if you’re going to use weapons from history, maybe give them the proper name?
            don’t call a revolver a bazooka, you know?

          • Purphoros

            Well, which is the proper name? Because even history often disagrees on that matter. What exactly is a bastard sword, and which of the meanings the word had in different times and places is correct? And who should have precedence, the people crafting and wielding the weapons in their time, or modern sword enthusiasts that never were truly involved with the matter?

            The revolver vs bazooka example is quite poor, as a revolver includes revolving in the name, and Bazooka has been used for a range of weapons from grenade throwers to rocket launchers, anything big that goes boom. One of your cases has a direct conflict between the name and the object that is not present in a long sword being called longsword, and the other is ambiguous to start with. Really, really bad examples.

            Weapons from history… meh. It’s obviously not from history. After all, in history, a longsword was apparently not what is depicted as longsword in DnD. ;P

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            I mean, I can’t really argue those points, but I feel there is a certain level of accuracy that Could be attained, and isn’t. out of laziness. *shrugs*

          • Purphoros

            Laziness? Or efficiency? Priorities?

            I’d rather have them slave for months over a campaign book than over the correct historical definitions of every weapon. But that’s just me, I guess.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            labeling something wrong is not efficient. :S
            it would take a few hours, a week at the longest, to give proper names to things.
            I’ve seen hack and slash video games with more historical accuracy, it can Not be hard.

            and I doubt they “slave” away at those campaigns. some of them aren’t that good to be honest. I’ve read a lot of different supplemental books. people pull a lot of weird shit out of their ass.
            I mean if they’re getting paid for months of work for those ideas then damn, I could get rich writing for those companies.

          • Purphoros

            “labeling things wrong is not efficiency”
            Nope, that’s the point. It simply is not wrong. We’ve had that argument already. We have seen that there is a) no reference to make history relevant and b) no universally correct naming convention in real life.
            I also find the strawman of equating the saved effort of research to an additional effort of naming things wrong quite appaling. A non-action and an alternative action are different, ergo false equivalency.

            Your opinion regarding the quality of the campaigns is duly noted, but irrelevant for your false claim of incorrect naming or idiocy.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            I still feel there had to be some correct name for things. A lot of swords throughout history had specific names. There must have been a universally acceptable name for different weapons back then.
            And whether it’s a currently accepted term today or the name used back then, Isn’t it better for everyone to use the same terms?
            If I’m talking about a 2 handed sword and referring it to by the term longsword, but the other person only knows dnd references and thinks I mean a 1 handed sword, don’t you think that would cause undue confusion?
            isn’t it better for everything to universally agree on the same title?
            it seems ridiculous for the same sword to have 50 different names amongst all the different forms of media.
            A little bit of… whats the word, being on the same page? would be a good thing.
            Almost everything in this world has an agreed upon name for things. like breeds of animals to furniture you sit on.
            Why should swords be any different?

          • Purphoros

            Must have been… nope. Should have been… yes. The problem is that the world simply isn’t perfect just because that would be convenient.

            You would be surprised how many different kinds of bread with varying names exist. When you buy a loaf of bread here, especially with mixed flour, chances are every bakery has it’s own name for it even if they happen to be the same. And the types wih the same name have wildly different recipes and tastes between bakers. Bread is not just simply bread.

            Just say Zweihänder or two-handed sword if you talk about a two-handed sword. Even if you want a universal naming convention, “longsword” is far too ambiguous to be a good name anyways. Blade length and grip are different attributes, one shouldn’t refer to one by the other.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            ya, I do agree, longsword is pretty ambiguous.
            actually that reminds me of this scene from this really bad kids movie, quest for camelot. Where one of the knights in the background has this ridiculously over long sword. It was funny.

    • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

      I still enjoy the numbered films more so far, I really like TFA and TLJ, but I certainly enjoyed Solo significantly more than expected, and gives me hope for other films even more standalone and unconnected to the OT. Man, do I dislike that Maul cameo, though!

      • Nos Rin aka CTCO

        I felt TLJ had some good moments amongst an overly bad film.
        I hate with 7 and 8 that making all the men cowards is kind of shitty. both Luke and Han ran away? that’s lame. finn was always trying to run too.
        man, poor finn…. he was GREAT in 7 and then, just sad in 8. I missed his funny antics. what a waste.

        I will forever be cemented that I wanted the New Republic to be a thing, to be strong. I wanted Luke having an academy and bringing the Jedi back right.
        I didn’t want to see the aftermath of all that going to shit.
        That’s what 4-6 was. I feel they’re just retelling 4-6 and it’s sooo disappointing. I am just really not happy with the new storyline. I’m tired of the all powerful badguys in charge and the desperate scrape to win. I wanted to see a new threat rise up, cause damage, make a mess, but be squashed. I don’t know. 8 is a terrible film in my mind. too depressing, too preachy, too, shitting on things. the whole, let go of the past, kill it if you have to, is just a big middle finger to lucas and fans alike. and it’s not okay.

        that long chase scene was just plain awful in so many ways.

        Snoke’s death was a beautiful metaphor for the fall of the jedi.

        and once again Phasma was under used.

        also rip the cute A-wing pilot. I was SO MAD.

        and ya that maul cameo was like, wtf, no. that’s not right.

        • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

          Yeah, I don’t disagree with you, I’ve pretty much said all the same stuff on the site. I’ve just kind of accepted the new films as the soft reboot they obviously are. I would actually posit that Luke is the perfect allegory for bitter Star Wars fans like us. He was once idealistic and loved everything Jedi, then he got into the prequels and EU stuff, and got disgusted with all the hypocrisy and inconsistency, and now just feels numb to it all and is overly sarcastic. But then Rey, the young idealist Star Wars fan shows up and goes “you’re overthinking it, don’t you just want to have a good time!” And Luke shuts it all out with a pretty badass finale if you don’t hyper analyze it.

          Yeah, the movies have all sorts of problems and plot holes, but they’re all well produced, they look great, they’ve got incredible soundtracks, and say what you will about the characters themselves, the acting is solid all around, with great cast chemistry. I’ve just been so bitter about Star Wars for so long, and I absolutely hated TLJ upon first viewing, but I’ve let go of my hate. Star Wars films are like the Bible, you can read into them and interpret them an infinite number of ways, they mean whatever you want them to mean, and even if they upset you, they might hold very positive emotional meaning to someone else. There’s no clear objectivity here, and fans are too easily bent out of shape by official canon, when the only canon that really matters is what’s in our head. TLJ Luke isn’t even the OT Luke in my mind, and I’m totally fine with that.

          I may one day write my own fanfiction webcomic version of Return of the Jedi that negates Luke and Leia being siblings (since it’s such a dumb plot point), and replaces Ewoks with Wookies, and includes Coruscant instead of Endor. But it that doesn’t mean I hate RotJ either, I’ve just got my own headcanon that builds off of other parts of the franchise that I like/prefer. Plenty of Star Wars fans even love the prequels, who am I to judge anymore, we’re all blind due to our own preferences.

          • Nos Rin aka CTCO

            that is a pretty good example of what luke is in that movie.
            and I actually liked his force projection at the end, like when he brushed off his shoulder. :3
            I still want a force ghost luke in 9. he deserves at least that much.

            I will never like ep8 though. not with that boring ass slow ass chase scene where the rebellion goes from a measly 400 people to so few that they all fit on the millenium falcon, IN ONE ROOM.

            the luke/leia thing was fine with me, maybe they shouldnt have been twins though, since they were different ages in 4. but ya, that was a last minute toss in. so weird.
            ewoks werent thaaaat bad, and if it was wookies (which i heard it was originally supposed to be) then the empire would have been utterly crushed. too easy.
            I liked endor though. it was a good idea for the most part. 😛
            I almost say I liked 6 the most, but it’s hard to tell.
            5 is great but I’m old fashioned. I like the heroes to win always.

            I always wanted to do a star wars RP that picks up right after 6 where they deal with empire remnants and maybe help out with the new republic.

      • Kid Chaos

        Best part: once again, Han shot first! :)

  • foducool

    I laughed at all the fans who bitched that the millenium falcon from the movie didn’t look anything like the one from the original trilogy

  • foducool

    uh, btw, aren’t the top 4 panels supposed to go at the bottom of the page?

    • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

      Genchu has a long and short sword. Honouko is knocking the long sword away in the first panel, and in the second panel Genchu is drawing the short sword from its sheath.

      • foducool

        and I only noticed Honouko is getting kicked airborne in the 3rd panel, I thought he was gonna end it with both his swords at that point, that why it didn’t make sense
        now it does, thanks ^^’

  • Ocean Burning.

    So, Honou-ko is a Buddhist? That’s interesting.

    • purplelibraryguy

      Well, he’s Japanese. He’s probably a bit Buddhist, somewhat Shinto, in that era maybe gives a nod to the Celestial Bureaucracy. Not Christian though, not yet. In the modern era I’m always expecting the Japanese to add in a bit of Jewish, Hindu and maybe Baha’i or Zoroastrian, just for completeness’ sake.

      • Kid Chaos

        A little bit country, a little bit rock n’ roll? :)

  • LordBolanderFace

    Today I met someone with the last name Kadosh, and I immediately started laughing because all I could think of was “KADOOSH!” Everyone looked at me weird. I explained nothing. I figured this would make you happy.

    • http://www.nn4b.com suburban_samurai

      I am unreasonably pleased.

  • Arkone Axon

    Oooo… the armpit! That’s a common weak spot in armor. It’s one of the acceptable targets in kendo for that reason!

  • Ladon

    Hah! What a fool Hunou-Ko is! He may have disarmed Masuhiro but he didn’t disleg him! Also, ouch. Armpit stabs are not a good thing to be on the receiving end of.

comic748 comic749