Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 12, 2024, 11:43:16 PM

Quote from: Omega on June 12, 2024, 05:31:46 PMEh, there was hints in the books that Yoda might be another creation of the Force.

The books have a lot of crazy shit.

And thats not even getting to the Marvel comics. THOSE were crazy.

So reviews and commentary on ep 3 are out. Lesbian space witches make a force baby. This was the inevitable result of activist preaching thinly disguised as storytelling.
I think the show will spike at episode 3 while people gawk at the trainwreck, and then viewership will fade as the "story" trundles along until they run out of gas.

The only reason I started watching it was Carrie-Anne Moss.  When they killed her off, I noped out.  Yeah, that was like 5 minutes in.

Quote from: yosemitemike on June 16, 2024, 04:43:16 AMThe only reason I started watching it was Carrie-Anne Moss.  When they killed her off, I noped out.  Yeah, that was like 5 minutes in.

"We wanted to 'subvert expectations...'" Code word for "We cant write worth fuck all anything."

Reframing the jedi as oppressive villains with a patriarchal understanding of the force could've worked, albeit with a lot of retcons to how Lucas depicted them (and I don't think his writing is great, tbh), but these writers completely failed to pull it off.

The witch's explanation of the Weave was just ridiculous false equivocation. She just described the Force with word substitutions, not a genuinely different philosophy of using it. If I was being charitable, the writer was trying to make the jedi masculine and destructive while the witches are feminine and creative. But that's not remotely how the force has worked in previous stories.

The jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.

If you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.

The fundamental issue is that, under Lucas' conception, the Force doesn't operate on Moorcockian logic. The Light side is balanced and the Jedi are perfect and good and can do no wrong, full stop. The dark side is the imbalance, the source of all evil, and the sith are all evil and can never have redeeming qualities. (Just ignore the Nightsisters using the dark side without being consumed by it; as a later addition they break the logic of the universe.)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMReframing the jedi as oppressive villains with a patriarchal understanding of the force could've worked, albeit with a lot of retcons to how Lucas depicted them (and I don't think his writing is great, tbh), but these writers completely failed to pull it off.

I dont think it was patriarchal. But more just a complete stagnation and striation of the Jedi to the point they were so out of touch that a major threat was shaking hands with them and they never noticed.

Yoda is the big problem it feels like. Probably created by the Force and so detached from life that suffering and trauma are barely understood. Emotions are seen as evil and it comes across as stifling. And since he was so long lived thats a stranglehold of centuries.

Disney of course tosses everything out for "the agenda!" and we get yet more woke trash.

Disney is tripling down on Toxic Fandom.


If you can't make a good product, hide behind "minorities" and use them as a meat shield.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on June 18, 2024, 06:59:39 PMDisney is tripling down on Toxic Fandom.

If you can't make a good product, hide behind "minorities" and use them as a meat shield.

I'm a Star Wars fan, now 100% more toxic! For the same price!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMIf you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.

See I think the biggest mistake that was ever made with Star Wars was conceiving of the force in Moorcockian (or more accurately Manichean) terms, as an eternal conflict between cosmic powers. I doubt I can find the quote now, but if memory serves, Lucas originally conceived of the dark and light sides of the Force as a largely internal struggle. The light side is selflessness, self-discipline, humility, patience, and compassion. The dark side is self-aggrandizement, ambition, impatience, arrogance, callousness and so on. To bowdlerize a quote, you could say "the line between the light and dark side runs down the middle of the human heart". At any rate, you can certainly read the Original Trilogy that way. At an extreme stretch, you could maybe read the prequels that way as well, but it was definitely out the door in the Clone Wars, and AFAIK Disney Wars has never seriously engaged with it.

That I think is a far more compelling dichotomy, not least because it reflects very real dilemmas which everyone faces. But it only works if the conflict between light and dark is kept an internal dilemma for the Force-sensitive characters (as it is in the OT). As soon as you make it the central external conflict of the narrative, it falls apart. On top of that, the morality of that dichotomy is antithetical to the people writing Star Wars these days. Self-discipline, self-denial and humility aren't virtues to Hollywood morality, and self-aggrandizement very much is.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 18, 2024, 10:16:50 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMIf you used Moorcockian logic then it would be very easy to reframe the light side as an oppressive dictatorial force that operates on cold callous utilitarian logic, but Lucas never intended it to be that way and later attempts to do so run into the problem that they contradict previous stories. The dark side has always been depicted as an oppressive dictatorial force whereas the light side is perfect mary sues. Lucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.

See I think the biggest mistake that was ever made with Star Wars was conceiving of the force in Moorcockian (or more accurately Manichean) terms, as an eternal conflict between cosmic powers. I doubt I can find the quote now, but if memory serves, Lucas originally conceived of the dark and light sides of the Force as a largely internal struggle. The light side is selflessness, self-discipline, humility, patience, and compassion. The dark side is self-aggrandizement, ambition, impatience, arrogance, callousness and so on. To bowdlerize a quote, you could say "the line between the light and dark side runs down the middle of the human heart". At any rate, you can certainly read the Original Trilogy that way. At an extreme stretch, you could maybe read the prequels that way as well, but it was definitely out the door in the Clone Wars, and AFAIK Disney Wars has never seriously engaged with it.

That I think is a far more compelling dichotomy, not least because it reflects very real dilemmas which everyone faces. But it only works if the conflict between light and dark is kept an internal dilemma for the Force-sensitive characters (as it is in the OT). As soon as you make it the central external conflict of the narrative, it falls apart. On top of that, the morality of that dichotomy is antithetical to the people writing Star Wars these days. Self-discipline, self-denial and humility aren't virtues to Hollywood morality, and self-aggrandizement very much is.

Lucas has explained that the Dark Side is being out of balance. When you lose control of your darker impulses and they overwhelm you.


Cruelty, callousness, self-aggrandizement, violence, impatience, ambition, etc, etc, are symptoms, or consequences of falling to the Dark Side.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMThe jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMLucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.

I haven't seen The Acolyte and have no opinion about it, but I thought this generality was interesting.

Contrary to BoxCrayonTales, I think Lucas intended the prequel Jedi to be flawed - and their hubris causes their tragic flaw. However, he saw minor flaws in basically good people and philosophy -- while many other people see as outright evil, like in the Screenrant link you give. I suspect there are plenty of writers who could do an interesting turn of the Jedi as evil, but if they're writing official Star Wars material, their hands are tied by the IP owners in terms of how they portray the Jedi.

I think it's possible to take Lucas' mild shades of gray, and play those up while still staying within the Star Wars framework. Given how wide-ranging Star Wars stories are - I think there's a lot of latitude.

I've always seen Old-Republic-era Jedi as bad guys. I had a game where there was a former Imperial inquisitor who used the Dark Side, but turned away from the Empire while continuing to hate the Jedi. He would say that both love and hate are important, and that one should feel both of them. One should hate injustice, and love one's family and friends. I think having ambiguity makes the setting more interesting.

Quote from: jhkim on June 19, 2024, 02:35:22 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMThe jedi are unambiguous heroes who can do no wrong. Even when, in the prequels, they're quashing rebellions as agents of a police state and assassinating democratically elected leaders. The jedi are ripe for reframing as villains since they did a ton of evil things for the "greater good" (anytime someone mentions the greater good, it's a red flag), but Lucas was too incompetent and too unwilling, and other writers are simply too incompetent.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 18, 2024, 12:30:45 PMLucas setup up for failure any attempt to depict the jedi as less than perfect. The logic behind the force doesn't allow for shades of gray, no matter what fandom says about gray jedi and balancing the light and dark. Even when the jedi are serving as the agents of a police state and crushing innocent confederates, the logic of the universe itself (as Lucas wrote it) puts them in the right.

I haven't seen The Acolyte and have no opinion about it, but I thought this generality was interesting.

Contrary to BoxCrayonTales, I think Lucas intended the prequel Jedi to be flawed - and their hubris causes their tragic flaw. However, he saw minor flaws in basically good people and philosophy -- while many other people see as outright evil, like in the Screenrant link you give. I suspect there are plenty of writers who could do an interesting turn of the Jedi as evil, but if they're writing official Star Wars material, their hands are tied by the IP owners in terms of how they portray the Jedi.

I think it's possible to take Lucas' mild shades of gray, and play those up while still staying within the Star Wars framework. Given how wide-ranging Star Wars stories are - I think there's a lot of latitude.

I've always seen Old-Republic-era Jedi as bad guys. I had a game where there was a former Imperial inquisitor who used the Dark Side, but turned away from the Empire while continuing to hate the Jedi. He would say that both love and hate are important, and that one should feel both of them. One should hate injustice, and love one's family and friends. I think having ambiguity makes the setting more interesting.

I did some research and came to the conclusion that the Jedi are toxic and George Lucas has warped ideas of goodness.

https://youtu.be/tUPD1w78D5I

https://youtu.be/Ya-btfwfnfI

https://youtu.be/gRBJbc5VY4Y

https://indianathan.medium.com/why-the-jedi-were-wrong-why-its-okay-canon-9f6d1dd1e414

There's basically two views here:

Lucas' view is that the Jedi are perfectly good. So Anakin is completely at fault for falling and the Gray Jedi are nonsense. Attachment is bad, fear leads to the dark side, etc.

Then there's the death of the author view based on observing the text without letting Lucas dictate what you should think. If you see the Jedi philosophy as toxic and driving Anakin to the dark side, which makes total sense as the first video illustrates, then yeah the Jedi are de facto evil even if they think they're the good guys. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This goes way beyond being flawed. They're so afraid of falling to the dark side that they've completely discarded their own humanity and don't care about the humanity in others. They're a toxic cult. The Sith are worse for being completely out of control, sure, but the Jedi are still horrible here.

The Jedi could totally work as villains if you acknowledge that their philosophy is toxic and empowers the dark side by not dealing with their emotions in a healthy way. Anakin's fall could've been completely avoided by sending him to a therapist and listening to his concerns. Visions of his loved ones in danger? Investigate! Don't leave him at the mercy of forces he doesn't understand!

It might not be Lucas' intent for the Jedi to be a toxic cult, but his morals are so warped that it's impossible for him not to write them as a toxic cult. He didn't intentionally write a toxic cult, he genuinely thinks they're right.

Even the original trilogy shows Luke triumphing by rejecting Jedi teachings! His New Order allowed Jedi to marry and have attachments, in flagrant violation of the Old Order's teachings. That doesn't make sense if the Old Order is supposed to be correct, it only makes sense if they're supposed to be toxic. A lot of people seem to confuse Luke's personal views with those of the Old Order, but the two couldn't be further apart. The Old Order rejected love, rejected humanity. They doomed themselves and damned the galaxy. Luke surrendered to love, to humanity. It saved him and the galaxy.

Not that Disney is even remotely competent enough to recognize any of this, much less use it as plot hooks.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 19, 2024, 07:41:14 AMLucas' view is that the Jedi are perfectly good. So Anakin is completely at fault for falling and the Gray Jedi are nonsense.

The problem with trying to suss out Lucas' morals is that his messages often get muddled by the fact that he just isn't a very good screenwriter. The prequels make it abundantly clear that while the Jedi path might be correct in the abstract, the Jedi Order isn't perfectly walking it. If they were perfect they never would have fallen. How much of that is intentional, and how much is ineptitude? Difficult to say, but the sheer heavy-handedness with which the counsel is shown to be incompetent strikes me as evidence that even a bad screen-writer has to be doing it intentionally. One thing Lucas has always been consistent on is that the Jedi way is difficult, versus the dark side which is the "quick and easy path".

When you hear Lucas give his explanation of Yoda's "fear -> anger -> hate -> suffering" maxim in the quote Ratman posted, its obviously true. Of course fear leads to aggression. You can see that in animals. And of course aggression easily turns into hate and produces suffering. But the way it's dropped into the scene in Phantom Menace, it sounds like gibberish. The distinction between selfless and possessive love is a valid and important one, and a great writer could make an exceptional story out of it. Lucas clearly thinks that's what he's doing with Anakin and Padme, but a viewer who doesn't know that could be forgiven for missing it entirely. Not making these things clear is arguably a pretty serious flaw in what Lucas himself claims are children's movies.

Could you write a story where the prequel-era Jedi are the villains? Yeah of course, but you'd either be retconning the force into a much less interesting version, or writing a story about how they fail to understand it. Arguably that's something the prequels already did.

As a side note, that Pop Culture Detective video is truly moronic, and also an excellent example of what I said above about trendy current morality running counter to the ideas that underline the Force. I knew the guy was an idiot when he accused Lucas of "misappropriating" eastern ideas. Asia doesn't own a copyright on mindfulness, and the idea that learning from other cultures is theft is a cataclysmically stupid one. He then goes on to complain at length about emotional suppression without bothering to try and understand what the point of stoicism and self-control is. The whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.

The OT understands this a lot better than Pop Culture Detective does. Neither Obi-Wan nor Yoda are emotionless automatons (nor is Qui-Gon it has to be said). They laugh; they smile; Obi-Wan in particular shows a great deal of affection, both to Luke and in his memories of Anakin. Obi-Wan is basically the stereotype of the "wise mentor" figure: wise, caring, calm, etc. But they don't let their emotions get out of control or in the way of what they think needs to be done.  Yoda and Obi-Wan aren't entirely wrong either. When Yoda advises Luke not to face Darth Vader in Empire, he's right. Luke gets his ass kicked, and could easily have died or been turned. Both Obi-Wan and Yoda are right to think that Luke is ready to face Vader in Jedi, but they're aware of the risks. When Obi-Wan tells Luke to "bury" his emotions, first of all the video ignores the next sentence where he says "they do you credit", but more importantly it's practical advice. He says it in the context of Luke going up against the Emperor. Those emotions are a vulnerability against Palpy, which is very clearly shown in the following scenes. Obviously that's true to life. Manipulating someone's fear of loss is effective, especially if they haven't properly reckoned with and overcome that fear. Luke's victory is in overcoming his fear and associated aggression, and placing his faith in his friends and family.

The prequels muddle this a bit more. Young Obi-Wan preaches a lot more about detachment, which makes him look like a hypocrite when compared with his own outgoing and emotional personality. Yoda is colder in the prequels as well, and Mace Windu is the closest we get to the emotionless Jedi Master in the whole series. But again, how much of that is intentional? Mace Windu seems to be a character we're supposed to mistrust by the end of ROTS, and all the Jedi Masters are implicitly contrasted against the much warmer and more emotionally intelligent Qui-Gon.

*edit* Redundant reply.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 19, 2024, 12:14:15 PMAs a side note, that Pop Culture Detective video is truly moronic, and also an excellent example of what I said above about trendy current morality running counter to the ideas that underline the Force. I knew the guy was an idiot when he accused Lucas of "misappropriating" eastern ideas. Asia doesn't own a copyright on mindfulness, and the idea that learning from other cultures is theft is a cataclysmically stupid one. He then goes on to complain at length about emotional suppression without bothering to try and understand what the point of stoicism and self-control is. The whole point is to recognize your negative emotions, understand them, and then overcome them so that you can do good. Emotions, even positive ones, are usually destructive when not tempered by self-control. Love becomes jealousy, conviction becomes hubris, motivation becomes impatience, compassion becomes self-martyrdom, etc. etc. This should be pretty basic stuff.

Johnathan McIntosh was Anita Sarkeesian's (of Feminist Frequency "fame") idea man until she kicked him to the curb. The guy is an insufferable ideologue who doesn't understand feminism, men or women, or pop culture.