If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
They've shot blanks since the very first Star Wars (you can see the spent cartridges flying off in more than one scene). Makes for more "realistic" firing — not in line with physics, but in line with the viewers' expectations of how guns work.
I am not a Star Wars nerd, but I've seen more than one of that subspecies explain that the hand-held guns are "blasters" and that they shoot some form of superheated dust or something like that. Only the space ship weapons are actually lasers
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I am not a Star Wars nerd, but I've seen more than one of that subspecies explain that the hand-held guns are "blasters" and that they shoot some form of superheated dust or something like that. Only the space ship weapons are actually lasers
It really, really doesn't matter.
I just read some Wookieepedia explanation on how a thermal exhaust port is a great and necessary design — without mentioning that a vacuum doesn't dissipate heat.
The geeks get so caught up in trying to explain imaginary plot devices and production details that it crosses the line well into silly.
I just read some Wookieepedia explanation on how a thermal exhaust port is a great and necessary design — without mentioning that a vacuum doesn't dissipate heat.
A vacuum doesn’t dissipate heat, but it will quite effectively blow out heated gas.
Idiots. They’re too young and stupid to realise that it was George Lucas who almost killed Star Wars. These morons grew up thinking Star Wars was about Gungans and Jar Jar Binks.
Saw it last night also. Agreed that Glover was great, enjoyed robot L3 also. Meeting Chewie was good.
It was a little hard to get used to this Solo, I didn't quite buy it. The love interest Kira was hard to buy from the start, as I thought her only purpose was to betray Solo, or get killed tragically and harden his poor widdle heart. If Evil Vision didn't want anyone to know he sent the crew to steal the stuff, why send his right hand gal with them?
What was Darth Maul doing there at the end? Wasn't he dead? Does this movie go between 3 and 4, or 2 and 3?
Is there going to be a Solo 2?
(
Last edited by andi*pandi; Jun 4, 2018 at 12:01 PM.
)
I want to see it, but I can’t get anyone else to go.
I think it helps I was never a huge Han fan to begin with, so I’m not worried about the movie wrecking my emotional investment.
Likewise, I’m perfectly willing to think of the movie as about the shenanigans of a bunch of Star Wars archetypes, rather than the actual characters from the original trilogy.
Saw it last night also. Agreed that Glover was great, enjoyed robot L3 also. Meeting Chewie was good.
It was a little hard to get used to this Solo, I didn't quite buy it. The love interest Kira was hard to buy from the start, as I thought her only purpose was to betray Solo, or get killed tragically and harden his poor widdle heart. If Evil Vision didn't want anyone to know he sent the crew to steal the stuff, why send his right hand gal with them?
What was Darth Maul doing there at the end? Wasn't he dead? Does this movie go between 3 and 4, or 2 and 3?
Is there going to be a Solo 2?
In the original canon, Maul didn't die when he was cut in half. He was brought back in one of the cartoons for a quite a while.
Solo should be about ten years before Episode 4. Give or take. Thats twenty-odd years after Episode 1.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Oh, I enjoyed it, but didn't have that FINALLY feeling that TFA had. Maybe they should have started with an even younger han, to really start over. Tweenagers.
The story should really come first but I get the impression that JJ Abrams has a tendency to dream up action sequences first and then shoehorn them into the story. Star Trek is a better example, the parachute sequence in the first one, the car chase, the bike chase in the second one.
Star Wars arguably did this with the original trilogy but it was showing us stuff that most people had never imagined before, so it worked as a key element in Lucas' world building. Trek is much more character driven now so the locations while fun and pretty are somehow more throwaway. Also with Wars you know that things like that red dust stuff they churn up in Last Jedi has a whole back story behind it somewhere.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I didn't find her looks to be an issue, and anyone that does is a dolt.
What I did find to be an issue is that she (certainly-unnecessary spoiler tag)...
...stopped Finn from sacrificing himself when it actually made sense for someone to sacrifice themselves for the cause. I didn't want to lose Finn, but his story was absolute crap in The Last Jedi. The casino planet was the biggest eye roll moment in Star Wars history (for me, at least).
"I saved you, dummy."
The character added nothing valuable to the storyline other than a quota, which is the absolute worst way to go about accomplishing equal representation.
I think the largest issue for many fans is that almost no one except actual racists cares about different races finally being represented in Star Wars, and I'm of the opinion that those racists are far rarer than people think. The issue for fans wishing for an apolitical Star Wars is when these characters are inserted without added anything other than representation.
This recent notion that Star Wars fans are sexist is ridiculous, as Leia, Ahsoka Tano, Mara Jade, and others are some of the most beloved characters in the SW universe.
The scene you mention is what I was annoyed by. I could deal with the plotholes in the casino planet sidebar (silly but fun), but that double-sacrifice-negates-point just felt like a false buildup and waste of suspense. However, subego is suggesting that if only she were hotter, the MRA man-babies would have no issue with her character and that whole unnecessary scene. Romance just seemed like an overreach here for two people whose chemistry screamed, nay murmured, "buddies." Some exec somewhere said "BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROMANCE FOR WOMEN VIEWERS TO RELATE TO" and f*** that guy.
Romance just seemed like an overreach here for two people whose chemistry screamed, nay murmured, "buddies." Some exec somewhere said "BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A ROMANCE FOR WOMEN VIEWERS TO RELATE TO" and f*** that guy.
They had all the chemistry of Rachel and Joey in Friends season...8? 9?
Looking back, I feel like the fans were burdened by the stakes of the movie 100x more than the characters were, and that's probably my biggest issue. It was about shooting a middle finger to expectations instead of telling a compelling story. It was the anti-Force Awakens, which, as it turns out, wasn't so bad after all.
I dread to see what Rian Johnson comes up with in his trilogy.
However, subego is suggesting that if only she were hotter, the MRA man-babies would have no issue with her character and that whole unnecessary scene.
I’m trying to answer the question of why Rose is being identified as patient zero of social justice infecting Star Wars.
It’s because the writers intentionally made a social justice theme central to her character. To wit: the male gaze is all kinds of ****ed up. Rose is meant as a demonstration of why. Rose is more awesome than her impossibly hot sister.
Most people who fear the menace of social justice are pretty vigorous defenders of the male gaze. If a guy given over to the male gaze has it, umm... I think “frustrated” would be the right word, they get cranky. They don’t like Rose because of this from the outset.
I mean, that’s the point. They set it up for these people to dislike Rose, but her inherent awesomeness easily overcomes it and they learn a valuable lesson about themselves.
It didn’t go down that way. The dislike never budged, and intensified their dislike of everything else about her, so she ended up as the big monster.
In the movie, at least. Kennedy is their true boss monster.
I’m trying to answer the question of why Rose is being identified as patient zero of social justice infecting Star Wars.
It’s because the writers intentionally made a social justice theme central to her character. To wit: the male gaze is all kinds of ****ed up. Rose is meant as a demonstration of why. Rose is more awesome than her impossibly hot sister.
Most people who fear the menace of social justice are pretty vigorous defenders of the male gaze. If a guy given over to the male gaze has it, umm... I think “frustrated” would be the right word, they get cranky. They don’t like Rose because of this from the outset.
I mean, that’s the point. They set it up for these people to dislike Rose, but her inherent awesomeness easily overcomes it and they learn a valuable lesson about themselves.
It didn’t go down that way. The dislike never budged, and intensified their dislike of everything else about her, so she ended up as the big monster.
In the movie, at least. Kennedy is their true boss monster.
Rose is 'patient zero' because she is an easier target instead of the Laura Dern character. Dern has cred from Jurassic Park and for being good looking in her prime.
In that regard, Rose makes a better patient zero because her character isn’t dead.
I feel like mentioning that the actress that plays Rose is a good looking woman, so the criticisms from the fanboys is ridiculous..... Also these might be the same people that were pissed about a black stormtrooper
I’m trying to answer the question of why Rose is being identified as patient zero of social justice infecting Star Wars.
It’s because the writers intentionally made a social justice theme central to her character. To wit: the male gaze is all kinds of ****ed up. Rose is meant as a demonstration of why. Rose is more awesome than her impossibly hot sister. [...] They don’t like Rose because of this from the outset.
[...]
I mean, that’s the point. They set it up for these people to dislike Rose, but her inherent awesomeness easily overcomes it and they learn a valuable lesson about themselves.
I think that is a situation where you start with a conclusion and work backwards and exactly the wrong way to look at it: I think they writers and directors set it up for regular people and not some self-declared misogynistic super nerds who expect scantily clad women in their movies. I think they didn't spend much thought about the latter group. Instead, they did what a lot of good scifi always did: envision the world the writers want to live in. (Have a look at Enterprise TOS …)
You can see that in a lot of things, e. g. Rey's clothing, that is much less revealing that what some might have wished for. And you can see that in Rose: the way I read it is that she is the female counterpart for Finn, someone “ordinary” who becomes a hero in her own right.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Rose is 'patient zero' because she is an easier target instead of the Laura Dern character. Dern has cred from Jurassic Park and for being good looking in her prime.
There is also more of a disconnect between the actress and the part she plays. The crazy people are identifying Kelly Marie Tran with Rose because they haven't seen her in anything else. They can't quite do that with Laura Dern.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
I think that is a situation where you start with a conclusion and work backwards and exactly the wrong way to look at it: I think they writers and directors set it up for regular people and not some self-declared misogynistic super nerds who expect scantily clad women in their movies. I think they didn't spend much thought about the latter group. Instead, they did what a lot of good scifi always did: envision the world the writers want to live in. (Have a look at Enterprise TOS …)
You can see that in a lot of things, e. g. Rey's clothing, that is much less revealing that what some might have wished for. And you can see that in Rose: the way I read it is that she is the female counterpart for Finn, someone “ordinary” who becomes a hero in her own right.
The writers put in the theme as an indictment of the male gaze.
It was thus intended as a message both to those who suffer from it and those who inflict the damage, whether it be unconsciously or supernerd style.
Not familiar with the website...but the headline caught my eye.
"“These actors aren’t very beautiful, which may deter a lot of Chinese from seeing the recent films,” said Chen Tao, a Chinese Star Wars fan forum manager consulted for the report. “We fans often joke that if Finn were played by Will Smith, Chinese people might be more inclined to watch it — because he’s very handsome.”"
And the "male gaze" is apparently so skewed that someone only merely good looking is regarded as the broccoli on your plate when you were 2.
It has to be young(er) guys/virgins, right? The older I get the more I appreciate the feminine aesthetic in all its forms. You see a lot of this amongst young men on the internet who have latched on to the instagram model/famous person concept of 'hotness' which is heavily airbrushed photos taken at clever angles to exaggerate body proportions.