Jay, just shut the fuck up.

Jay has vindicated my Star Wars hatred. You can argue with me but you can't argue with Jay's lawyerin'.

A man can not only survive with J.J. Abrams.

See what I mean? This is the best anyone can come up with.

I supplement it with Chuck Lorre.

Crystal Skull was a similar litmus test, but it revealed to me that I love Indiana Jones. Because despite all the flaws, the core thing I loved is still there.

You know how some people are "I don't think the prequels were great, but under the circumstances they were decent and I still like the property as a whole." Those people are true fans of Star Wars. And that's how I am about Crystal Skull and Indiana Jones.

The prequels ferreted me out as a fake fan. That's what it means for Lucas to rape your childhood. To not only make you hate something you once loved, but to make you retroactively hate it and feel like you were a fool for ever liking it.

Ooops. Seems someone JUST DID.

REVENGE IS A SITH BEST SERVED COLD.

Absurd.

So you're saying that the Star Wars prequels and Crystal Skull are sort of an evolutionary necessity, for winnowing out the weak fans and leaving only the strong.

In other words, the Star Wars prequels and Crystal Skull are not evil, but instead they are neither good nor evil. And therefore neutral. And therefore good.

Behold, this Li'l Jay. He has reasoned order from chaos!

Of course you're 42 now, but were only what, 7 when Star Wars came out and 13 when Return hit the screens? I wonder how much the prequels sucked in your opinion just because you were far more sophisticated at 29 when they came out.

To be clear, do you think Luke used the force to help guide the torpedoes AFTER he fired them?

Suppose Bill spoke at length about a beautiful sunrise in the west. It really wouldn't affect the aspects of human nature or interpersonal relationships he wrote about, but I'd think correcting such a mistake to say it was a sunrise in the east would make it "better." So, for example, even if the majority didn't realize the sun doesn't rise in the west, it might be annoying in the moment for those who do realize this, and while they momentarily ponder how ignorant Bill was about this point, they pay less attention to the more meaningful dialogue about getting laid. Understand now?[/quote]

And then they would go back to admiring how eloquent some men can be when alone.

It's a meaningless point against any work, either in Star Wars or Shakespeare and everything in between.



The distinction is along the lines of "less impossible" and "more impossible" until you start applying some sort of justification.



http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ds/index.html



This is a different discussion, and we're now entering into the territory of criticizing the plot itself. The answer to that question most likely is that the Empire wanted neither an easier way nor to merely destroy the inhabitants of Alderaan. They wanted to show how powerful the Death Star was to spread fear into the Galaxy.

Search your heart.

You know it to be true.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it leads nowhere -- for in many other instances, I'm nostalgic for something I grew to love early and never can stop loving it. I look at Six Million Dollar Man now, and though I don't want to watch it a lot, I'm still fond of it.

Plus, there seems to be a general consensus that Phantom Menace was not as good as Star Wars. So something about it was not done with the same approach, and that tends to validate my perception of it.

I maintain this one, single thing. It was a HUGE, monumental error to tie the lifespan of Anakin to the actual downfall of the Republic (and rise of the Empire). That one choice stripped Star Wars of what made it so alluring at the time -- the sense of ancient-ness combined with advanced technology. In one stroke, that deeply layered history became "brief blur of events where Palpatine takes over the whole galaxy."

The whole saga seems like something on the back of a cracker box now. I don't even know what that means but it's the most damning indictment I can think of.

Wouldn't that be an erroneous perception about Alec Guinness' nostalgic retelling.

If Obi-Wan and Anakin were Jedi Knight of the Republic, and the Republic became the Empire, then the change must have happened within those two lifespans.

I agree with that. God help me, but I'm a true Star Wars fan.

Admittedly, is not as terrible as liking, say, Sovereign Seven, but it still isn't a pleasant thought regardless.

Since Moore and Gibbons will have nothing to do with Before Watchmen, it is not quite the same thing. The beef that Moore fans have mainly is that it is turning a self-contained work into a franchise and devaluing it. Star Wars and Indiana Jones were already franchises when Phantom and Crystal, respectively, despoiled them in the eyes of fans.

That is why it is utterly flawed at its heart -- it reveals that the whole thing was a big airball. It means Obi-wan was sitting there like a poof while the Empire utterly devoured the galaxy.

I had tacitly assumed a lifetime of resistance, many battles waged, and underground movement, eventual old age.

But the guy just hid out for 19 years like a school girl. Luke's friends should have basically known all that crap Ben told him. 19 years ago was 1993!

Granted, you don't find much meaning in it, but then, how much was I looking for when I said it could have been better? Now perhaps you're not the sort to ever be derailed, however momentarily, when a factual mistake is made in a story's dialogue or continuity or props, etc., but I am if I notice it. Sorry. I'd rather there be fewer mistakes and don't think ignoring them just because you otherwise liked the rest of the work excuses them. We may not be in a position to re-write it, but if we are in a position to judge it, the overall score is further lowered for each such mistake.


More like, more or less "improbable" than "impossible." And my justification is nothing more than an impression, perhaps worth something due to its Beachyness, if I may make any claim to such worth, and which I shared here in a thread about making Star Wars stuff better, though for some it seems any criticism of something they love is too much criticism.


Yes, it is a different discussion, so I won't pursue it here at this time.

That's a better analogy; I almost made it myself.

Latter-day Claremont has soiled classic Claremont for a lot of people, in the same way that latter-day Lucas has soiled classic Lucas. (It's actually kind of fitting that their names adorn the Willow sequels, which for all I know did the same thing for Willow fanatics.)

The phenomenon that Jay is describing for how Crystal Skull didn't ruin Jones for him, and Phantom didn't ruin Star Wars for you, happens to me with latter-day Claremont. I read the crappy stuff and still find that the core of what I like about the guy remains. Making me, yes, a true Chris Claremont fan.

But all that stuff you were saying about Before Watchmen is stupid shit, upon which I call triple-dog shenanigans.

Oh, I agree then. But I would have phrased it as tying the Empire's lifespan to Luke's.