NationStates

Ameriganastan wrote:It amuses me you people will defend a bit character with 2 lines of dialogue more than the main character.

This is why people make fun of Star Wars fans. Quit trying to be Roger Ebert and just enjoy a freaking movie.

You're surprised a character with more screen time has more chance to show their shortcomings?

Ameriganastan wrote:It amuses me you people will defend a bit character with 2 lines of dialogue more than the main character.

This is why people make fun of Star Wars fans. Quit trying to be Roger Ebert and just enjoy a freaking movie.

It amuses me that you hold a bit character with two lines of dialogue and the main character of an entire film trilogy to the same standard.

Ameriganastan wrote:It amuses me you people will defend a bit character with 2 lines of dialogue more than the main character.

This is why people make fun of Star Wars fans. Quit trying to be Roger Ebert and just enjoy a freaking movie.

The main character gets no special protection from critics, unlike their plot armor from the script. We hold the main character to a much, much higher degree of importance. If the main character is lacking, the film is lacking.
That is why we cannot enjoy these movies.

Y'know what.
The Arena/Temple March is the best song from the Prequels.

Impaled Nazarene wrote:Y'know what.
The Arena/Temple March is the best song from the Prequels.

>Not Duel of the Fates

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Impaled Nazarene wrote:Y'know what.
The Arena/Temple March is the best song from the Prequels.

>Not Duel of the Fates

Oh yeah I'm going there. It's better than Fates.

Why do we need to argue when we could just accept that the entirety of the PT's soundtrack is great?

Impaled Nazarene wrote:Y'know what.
The Arena/Temple March is the best song from the Prequels.

It is awesome.

Also has one of the best scenes in star wars imo:

I was going to explain to y'all what Rey's arc is and snidely dismiss the idea that any of you know jack shit about this stuff. But I've got a better idea:

Can any of you actually identify Rey's arc? Like, give a brief overview and identify some major beats?

Now, I know you're going to be tempted to say "Ha! Course I can't because the films are so awful!" Let's not do that, hmm?

Because TLJ, if not TFA, is very clear about its character arcs. Whether you like the film or not, it shouldn't be hard to identify Rey's (not least because I alluded to it on the previous page, so there's a clue if you're stuck). If all you can do is whine about Force abilities and training and talk about your personal feelings, then you have no business talking about good and bad characters.

Im pretty sure they can say whatever they want really.

Complaining about the sudden use of force powers by a character who expressed no real force capability only hours before hand is a fine and justified thing to criticise imo. I can personally disagree or really not give a damn but its valid

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Im pretty sure they can say whatever they want really.

Complaining about the sudden use of force powers by a character who expressed no real force capability only hours before hand is a fine and justified thing to criticise imo. I can personally disagree or really not give a damn but its valid

Of course they can talk about that. But it's superficial. If the only complaint you can make about a character is that you don't think their powers fit with established worldbuilding, then...you don't really have a criticism of the character. You're just moaning about worldbuilding.

It's "valid" in the sense that art is subjective, and you can judge it by any standard you want; you can decide Rey is a bad character because she doesn't wear lipstick if you like.

But it's certainly irrelevant to the conversation if you've used a term like "development", "growth", or "arc". If people are going to throw around those terms, they need to a) understand what they mean and b) be able to expand on their point with reference to the text.

Edit: Ameri said "quit trying to be Roger Ebert". He's not right, but he's not exactly wrong. People in this thread want to have their cake and eat it; they want the respectability that comes with using terms like "pacing", "development", "tone", "character consistency" etc. Because saying those things makes them sound like a Serious, Intellectual Grown-Up who understands what movies are Really About. But they don't want to actually demonstrate that they understand what those things mean or make any effort to ground what they say in the text.

If you want to try being "Roger Ebert", you have to actually act like it. Don't try to pretend to be "Roger Ebert" if you're really just a kid squeeing over ship designs and Force powers.

Gonna start spoilering my TCW reactions. Figure it doesn't hurt.
S3E1:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Im pretty sure they can say whatever they want really.

Complaining about the sudden use of force powers by a character who expressed no real force capability only hours before hand is a fine and justified thing to criticise imo. I can personally disagree or really not give a damn but its valid

Of course they can talk about that. But it's superficial. If the only complaint you can make about a character is that you don't think their powers fit with established worldbuilding, then...you don't really have a criticism of the character. You're just moaning about worldbuilding.

In a worldbuilding-heavy universe like Star Wars, worldbuilding is kind of important. Thus, a character who goes against that worldbuilding without any sense is already off to a bad start.

Edit: Ameri said "quit trying to be Roger Ebert". He's not right, but he's not exactly wrong. People in this thread want to have their cake and eat it; they want the respectability that comes with using terms like "pacing", "development", "tone", "character consistency" etc. Because saying those things makes them sound like a Serious, Intellectual Grown-Up who understands what movies are Really About. But they don't want to actually demonstrate that they understand what those things mean or make any effort to ground what they say in the text.

If you want to try being "Roger Ebert", you have to actually act like it. Don't try to pretend to be "Roger Ebert" if you're really just a kid squeeing over ship designs and Force powers.

Okay but nobody's trying to be Roger Ebert.

Tfw Roger Ebert actually loved Phantom Menace when it came out.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:Of course they can talk about that. But it's superficial. If the only complaint you can make about a character is that you don't think their powers fit with established worldbuilding, then...you don't really have a criticism of the character. You're just moaning about worldbuilding.

In a worldbuilding-heavy universe like Star Wars, worldbuilding is kind of important. Thus, a character who goes against that worldbuilding without any sense is already off to a bad start.

Edit: Ameri said "quit trying to be Roger Ebert". He's not right, but he's not exactly wrong. People in this thread want to have their cake and eat it; they want the respectability that comes with using terms like "pacing", "development", "tone", "character consistency" etc. Because saying those things makes them sound like a Serious, Intellectual Grown-Up who understands what movies are Really About. But they don't want to actually demonstrate that they understand what those things mean or make any effort to ground what they say in the text.

If you want to try being "Roger Ebert", you have to actually act like it. Don't try to pretend to be "Roger Ebert" if you're really just a kid squeeing over ship designs and Force powers.

Okay but nobody's trying to be Roger Ebert.

But this has nothing to do with the character, their development, their arc etc. The ST could completely smash the worldbuilding of Star Wars into tiny little pieces and its protagonist could still be a stunningly brilliant character if her motivations, psychological weaknesses and growth all come together neatly. Anakin wasn't bad because the PT introduced midichlorians and prophecies and virgin births. Ahsoka's pretty decent so far, even though she's done some Force stuff that (were I a very different sort of viewer) I might scratch my head over. Because character isn't worldbuilding.

What might be the case is that you care so much about worldbuilding that if the films fail to meet your expectations in that regard, you won't even look at the other elements. That's fine. That's fair enough (although it's setting yourself up for disappointment, because very few successful writers treat their work as an exercise in worldbuilding). But you can't claim that those other elements are bad if you haven't looked at them. Nor can you bring in words like "development" to that conversation--as some others have tried to do-- because it's not what you're actually talking about. These words have meanings, and if you're not going to use them in the correct sense, then all you're doing is vomiting up uncritical negativity.

Several people in this thread like to throw around movie jargon willy-nilly while making no effort to demonstrate that they even know what that jargon means, let alone how it relates to the movie in question. Some of them, like Uinted, go so far as to express incredulity when others don't share their entirely unsubstantiated opinions. It's the attempt to talk about "good characters" and such that I believe Ameri meant by "trying to be Roger Ebert".

Edit: Also, God, no, the live-action SW films are not a worldbuilding-heavy universe. Not even close.

The first Galactic Republic wrote:Tfw Roger Ebert actually loved Phantom Menace when it came out.

Well I liked it when it came out, too. Course I wasn't even 10 years old yet, so I didn't know any better.

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:In a worldbuilding-heavy universe like Star Wars, worldbuilding is kind of important. Thus, a character who goes against that worldbuilding without any sense is already off to a bad start.


Okay but nobody's trying to be Roger Ebert.

But this has nothing to do with the character, their development, their arc etc. The ST could completely smash the worldbuilding of Star Wars into tiny little pieces and its protagonist could still be a stunningly brilliant character if her motivations, psychological weaknesses and growth all come together neatly.

Too bad the ST hasn't managed to do that.

Fedel wrote:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:But this has nothing to do with the character, their development, their arc etc. The ST could completely smash the worldbuilding of Star Wars into tiny little pieces and its protagonist could still be a stunningly brilliant character if her motivations, psychological weaknesses and growth all come together neatly.

Too bad the ST hasn't managed to do that.

See, this is the essence of what I'm talking about. Short, meaningless assertions that it's bad.

None of you want to actually expand on these "points" (except, of course, to talk about worldbuilding and Force powers) and on the rare occasions you do, you talk a bunch of nonsense that showcases the extent of your ignorance and, very often, hypocrisy.

It's like a thread populated entirely by Vassenor clones.

If I try to talk to any of you about Rey's arc--even if I straight up quote the movie--you'll just claim it doesn't exist then pivot away to moan about how she lifted too many rocks or some nonsense. You want to circlejerk about how bad the films are without doing any of the work required to demonstrate that your opinions are informed opinions.

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

The Huskar Social Union wrote:Im pretty sure they can say whatever they want really.

Complaining about the sudden use of force powers by a character who expressed no real force capability only hours before hand is a fine and justified thing to criticise imo. I can personally disagree or really not give a damn but its valid

Of course they can talk about that. But it's superficial. If the only complaint you can make about a character is that you don't think their powers fit with established worldbuilding, then...you don't really have a criticism of the character. You're just moaning about worldbuilding.

It's "valid" in the sense that art is subjective, and you can judge it by any standard you want; you can decide Rey is a bad character because she doesn't wear lipstick if you like.

But it's certainly irrelevant to the conversation if you've used a term like "development", "growth", or "arc". If people are going to throw around those terms, they need to a) understand what they mean and b) be able to expand on their point with reference to the text.

Edit: Ameri said "quit trying to be Roger Ebert". He's not right, but he's not exactly wrong. People in this thread want to have their cake and eat it; they want the respectability that comes with using terms like "pacing", "development", "tone", "character consistency" etc. Because saying those things makes them sound like a Serious, Intellectual Grown-Up who understands what movies are Really About. But they don't want to actually demonstrate that they understand what those things mean or make any effort to ground what they say in the text.

If you want to try being "Roger Ebert", you have to actually act like it. Don't try to pretend to be "Roger Ebert" if you're really just a kid squeeing over ship designs and Force powers.

i mean you could just have better character development for her but whatever.

Yusseria wrote:

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:Of course they can talk about that. But it's superficial. If the only complaint you can make about a character is that you don't think their powers fit with established worldbuilding, then...you don't really have a criticism of the character. You're just moaning about worldbuilding.

It's "valid" in the sense that art is subjective, and you can judge it by any standard you want; you can decide Rey is a bad character because she doesn't wear lipstick if you like.

But it's certainly irrelevant to the conversation if you've used a term like "development", "growth", or "arc". If people are going to throw around those terms, they need to a) understand what they mean and b) be able to expand on their point with reference to the text.

Edit: Ameri said "quit trying to be Roger Ebert". He's not right, but he's not exactly wrong. People in this thread want to have their cake and eat it; they want the respectability that comes with using terms like "pacing", "development", "tone", "character consistency" etc. Because saying those things makes them sound like a Serious, Intellectual Grown-Up who understands what movies are Really About. But they don't want to actually demonstrate that they understand what those things mean or make any effort to ground what they say in the text.

If you want to try being "Roger Ebert", you have to actually act like it. Don't try to pretend to be "Roger Ebert" if you're really just a kid squeeing over ship designs and Force powers.

i mean you could just have better character development for her but whatever.

Oh, hey, newbie! Congratulations on your seamless integration to the culture of this thread. You'll thrive around here.

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:

Yusseria wrote:i mean you could just have better character development for her but whatever.

Oh, hey, newbie! Congratulations on your seamless integration to the culture of this thread. You'll thrive around here.

yes, i can tell by just a glance around that you're the angry sequel defender who's rude to everybody but then wonders why everyone is so mean to her.

get over yourself and stop clinging to your movies as if they're all you have in life and start developing some self-awareness. you'll be far happier if you do.

I got ESPN on mute in the background. Glace over and see this guy.

Full on Stromtrooper costume with a Michigan theme. At a sparsely attended college gymnastics match.

The attitude displayed on here with some of the arguments over the last few months in regards to the Sequels is actually pathetic imo

Ameriganastan wrote:I got ESPN on mute in the background. Glace over and see this guy.

(Image)

Full on Stromtrooper costume with a Michigan theme. At a sparsely attended college gymnastics match.

I see the Empire is stepping up its representation and recruitment campaigns at sports matches.

This fucking thread lmao.

The first Galactic Republic wrote:This fucking thread lmao.

Its a one track wonder.