Movies: Star Wars: Episode VIII THE LAST JEDI (NO SPOILERS - Use the other thread for spoilers)

[ThePhoenixx]

No, I said it doesn't exist.. but even if it does exist, the comparison is poor.

How could the Sith not exist in this trilogy? Luke, Han, and everyone else is in this trilogy. Did the past somehow change? Do the first six movies not exist anymore?

The don't exist is a poor argument. Downright wrong actually.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

There's a difference between the Mary Sue argument, (which I've admitted has legs and is pretty undeniable as a whole) and willfully ignoring the context of how Rey beat Kylo. Being super good with tech, pulling off a force mind trick, evading capture in a heavily guarded military instillation. These are valid Mary Sue complaints. Managing to best a deeply wounded foe who wasn't trying to kill her after being on the defensive for 90% of the fight is not.

 

[BonMorrison]

I gave up posting in this thread 6 months after TFA came out and I can already see that it's gonna be a ride again this year.

 

[HanSolo]

I gave up posting in this thread 6 months after TFA came out and I can already see that it's gonna be a ride again this year.

I fully expect it to be worse this time around.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

How could the Sith not exist in this trilogy? Luke, Han, and everyone else is in this trilogy. Did the past somehow change? Do the first six movies not exist anymore?

The don't exist is a poor argument. Downright wrong actually.

Maybe you should spend less time trying to tell me what you think, and more time reading about this. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

 

[HanSolo]

How could the Sith not exist in this trilogy? Luke, Han, and everyone else is in this trilogy. Did the past somehow change? Do the first six movies not exist anymore?

The don't exist is a poor argument. Downright wrong actually.

Oh really? You think so? Downright wrong eh?

The death of Vader and Palpatine was the end of the sith order. Being sith isn't defined by having a red lightsaber and using the dark side. Well, it's part of it but not everyone who uses the dark side is a sith. Not everyone who uses the light side is a jedi. Sith and Jedi are organizations...orders. Not light side or dark affinity. Kylo isn't called Darth Ren for a reason.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Maybe you should spend less time trying to tell me what you think, and more time reading about this. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

So your answer is that you have no answer. If one has to quote a hundred articles and write a thousand page thesis just to back up a statement then it is a bunch of bull. They exist. End of story. That is unless I'm in the wrong thread and we are talking Star Trek instead of Star Wars.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Oh really? You think so? Downright wrong eh?

The death of Vader and Palpatine was the end of the sith order. Being sith isn't defined by having a red lightsaber and using the dark side. Well, it's part of it but not everyone who uses the dark side is a sith. Not everyone who uses the light side is a jedi. Sith and Jedi are organization...orders. Not light side affinity. Kylo isn't called Darth Ren for a reason.

Lol. Now you guys want to argue about the definitions of extinct vrs don't exist?

At least you've given up on the original argument.

 

[HanSolo]

Lol. Now you guys want to argue about the definitions of extinct vrs don't exist?

At least you've given up on the original argument.

I never made the original argument

And your response indicates that your understanding of what "Sith" is is still erroneous. Again: Sith is not "bad guy force user". The Sith is a dogmatic 2 party organization. One that was revived by and died with Emperor Palpatine. Whatever Snoke and Kylo are, they are not beholden by the same Sith customs and dogma. That's not to say they can't declare themselves as Sith again and restart the Sith order (which f*** Lucas and his idiot "rule of 2". It makes calling it an order sound goofy). But stamping your feet and plugging your ears and insisting the sith are still there when they aren't doesn't make you correct.

 

[Pilky01]

Moveibob loved it while a lot of other reviews seem kinda mixed.

I can only assume this means the movie is packed with ham fisted "progressive" moralizing at the expense of plot and character development.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

So your answer is that you have no answer. If one has to quote a hundred articles and write a thousand page thesis just to back up a statement then it is a bunch of bull. They exist. End of story. That is unless I'm in the wrong thread and we are talking Star Trek instead of Star Wars.

Yeah, God forbid I actually use sources to back up my arguments. But Han Solo already explained it, so there you go.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

Moveibob loved it while a lot of other reviews seem kinda mixed.

I can only assume this means the movie is packed with ham fisted "progressive" moralizing at the expense of plot and character development.

What does this even mean? Or you just trying to voice your displeasure for movies in general right there?

 

[Blitzkrug]

Moviebob is a hack that will shill for anything he can cram into his SJW agenda. He's the worst. (No seriously, the guy once equated his youth during the console wars between Nintendo and Sega to the Vietnam war. He's awful) He also often takes **** way out of context, searching for progessive undertones and stuff when there is none. Like he'd be one of the ones to jump to the defense of Rey being under attack for being a female lead when people call out the poor writing.

That being said, i'm more intrigued by the fact sites with hardasses are all praising Johnson's story telling and melding it with the Star Wars mythos. That leads me to believe this isn't as awful as the hardcores think it will be.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

I never made the original argument

And your response indicates that your understanding of what "Sith" is is still erroneous. Again: Sith is not "bad guy force user". The Sith is a dogmatic 2 party organization. One that was revived by and died with Emperor Palpatine. Whatever Snoke and Kylo are, they are not beholden by the same Sith customs and dogma. That's not to say they can't declare themselves as Sith again and restart the Sith order (which **** Lucas and his idiot "rule of 2". It makes calling it an order sound goofy). But stamping your feet and plugging your ears and insisting the sith are still there when they aren't doesn't make you correct.

Nah, the Sith to him is big red lightsaber and death to all, so that's clearly what Star Wars means by it as well. How dare you actually try to use the intention of Star Wars to logically explain the Sith.

 

[Blitzkrug]

The sith is just a vehicle for storytelling. At its core it's still light side vs dark side.

The first order and sith are simply just extensions of that.

 

[Pilky01]

I generally like Moviebob's commentary, the Really That Good videos are genuinely great YouTube content.

He has a crazy inferiority complex though, which is why he projects the Simpsons comic-book nerd onto anybody with opposing viewpoints. He recognizes he is a stereotype and it eats him up inside. And like a lot of similar Gen-X'ers, he has this crazy white-guilt about himself because he grew up in a time when everything in media was white, so he relentlessly virtue signals to try and dull his shame about being an obese, white, cis, male.

That he gave Ghostbuster 2016 a favourable review should tell you all you need to know about his biases. He has a great eye for film, but he is incapable of questioning SJW talking points.

 

[PBandJ]

Seeing it tomorrow night.

I'm so beyond stoked, it's not even funny.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

I never made the original argument

And your response indicates that your understanding of what "Sith" is is still erroneous. Again: Sith is not "bad guy force user". The Sith is a dogmatic 2 party organization. One that was revived by and died with Emperor Palpatine. Whatever Snoke and Kylo are, they are not beholden by the same Sith customs and dogma. That's not to say they can't declare themselves as Sith again and restart the Sith order (which **** Lucas and his idiot "rule of 2". It makes calling it an order sound goofy). But stamping your feet and plugging your ears and insisting the sith are still there when they aren't doesn't make you correct.

So we are back to don't exist vrs extinct. again. Round and round it goes.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Yeah, God forbid I actually use sources to back up my arguments. But Han Solo already explained it, so there you go.

Rey is still a caricature. No matter what you say about exist vrs extinct or insulting me wont change that.

 

[HanSolo]

So we are back to don't exist vrs extinct. again. Round and round it goes.

If that's how you want to interpret my words, sure.

If you can find a post where I say the Sith is some non existent construct, I'd sure like to see that phantom post. What I've been debating isn't some matter of semantics. It's that Kylo and Snoke aren't sith. And if they are, there was nothing in TFA to establish them as such other than "muh dark side."

Where and why you keep pulling out this "exist" vs "extinct" shit, I am sure I don't know. Perhaps you can actually address the things I'm saying instead of parroting "exist vs extinct" like that means a damn thing to me.

EDIT: I've gone back to see what you're talking about and I can't believe you're getting this hung up on this semantics argument. Let me help you out.

Sith exists as a memory in present day Star Wars chronology. As a concept and a historical figure of dark side power.

The Sith order by all intents and purposes is extinct.

Why in the holy f*** does it matter what distinction he used? Kylo Ren and Snoke are not Sith until they say they are. The Sith order died with Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader. Unless there is some secret Sith Order lying in wait in some dark corner of that galaxy THERE ARE. NO. SITH. IN THIS TIMELINE. Full stop. That's what you need to know. Your fixation on these semantics is bizarre and irrelevant to your query. There is no Sith, and if Luke is right, the days of the jedi order are numbered.

 

[ThePhoenixx]

If that's how you want to interpret my words, sure.

If you can find a post where I say the Sith is some non existent construct, I'd sure like to see that phantom post. What I've been debating isn't some matter of semantics. It's that Kylo and Snoke aren't sith. And if they are, there was nothing in TFA to establish them as such other than "muh dark side."

Where and why you keep pulling out this "exist" vs "extinct" ****, I am sure I don't know. Perhaps you can actually address the things I'm saying instead of parroting "exist vs extinct" like that means a damn thing to me.

It wasn't your post I was replying to, but you decided to jump in without reading previous posts I guess. I said extinct. He said he didn't say that, that he said they don't exist. Then you decided to jump in and go on and on about really nothing.

The original point was about Rey being a caricature. He jumped on the Sith part because he was deflecting away from the original argument. Now you know the rest of the story.

 

[HanSolo]

It wasn't your post I was replying to, but you decided to jump in without reading previous posts I guess. I said extinct. He said he didn't say that, that he said they don't exist. Then you decided to jump in and go on and on about really nothing.

The original point was about Rey being a caricature. He jumped on the Sith part because he was deflecting away from the original argument. Now you know the rest of the story.

But does the distinction really matter that you have to get all indignant about it? Does it really matter if somewhere out there in the vast reaches of the galaxy far far away there are sith temples and records that can be discovered?

Is the idea that the Sith doesn't exist anymore really such an offensive and inflammatory statement that you have to get all riled up about it? I mean other than echoes of the past they don't exist anymore. Snoke and Ren standing as copycat Sith doesn't mean there are any sith lords in existence.

I mean sure it's more accurate to say the dinosaurs are extinct than it is to say they don't exist since their fossils and bones remain but does the distinction really matter THAT much? No one who hears someone say "dinosaurs don't exist anymore" is gonna sit there and think anything other than there are no more dinosaurs alive on this planet. It's just an odd thing to get riled up about. Deflective statement or otherwise.

 

[Tawnos]

It wasn't your post I was replying to, but you decided to jump in without reading previous posts I guess. I said extinct. He said he didn't say that, that he said they don't exist. Then you decided to jump in and go on and on about really nothing.

The original point was about Rey being a caricature. He jumped on the Sith part because he was deflecting away from the original argument. Now you know the rest of the story.

Dinosaurs don't exist today... because they're extinct. The words aren't mutually exclusive.

(well, technically they do since birds are classified as avian dinosaurs.... I'm really talking about what people think of as dinosaurs. Actually, hell that fits pretty well. Birds are to dinosaurs as Ren/Snoke are to the Sith... an evolution that left the previous mold behind)

 

[ThePhoenixx]

But does the distinction really matter that you have to get all indignant about it? Does it really matter if somewhere out there in the vast reaches of the galaxy far far away there are sith temples and records that can be discovered?

Is the idea that the Sith doesn't exist anymore really such an offensive and inflammatory statement that you have to get all riled up about it? I mean other than echoes of the past they don't exist anymore. Snoke and Ren standing as copycat Sith doesn't mean there are any sith lords in existence.

I mean sure it's more accurate to say the dinosaurs are extinct than it is to say they don't exist since their fossils and bones remain but does the distinction really matter THAT much? No one who hears someone say "dinosaurs don't exist anymore" is gonna sit there and think anything other than there are no more dinosaurs alive on this planet. It's just an odd thing to get riled up about. Deflective statement or otherwise.

lol. Whatever.

Edit: All your doing is making the poster you jumped in to defend look bad. It was he who said that extinct is not the same as exist. Maybe you should go argue with him?

 

[ThePhoenixx]

Dinosaurs don't exist today... because they're extinct. The words aren't mutually exclusive.

(well, technically they do since birds are classified as avian dinosaurs.... I'm really talking about what people think of as dinosaurs. Actually, hell that fits pretty well. Birds are to dinosaurs as Ren/Snoke are to the Sith... an evolution that left the previous mold behind)

He was the one who made the distinction, not me. But hey continue on...