New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10818
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Vendetta » 2020-06-26 05:35am

NecronLord wrote:
2020-06-26 04:47am
I think the hyperlimit can be disproven by Rogue One where they hyper out of orbit and even atmosphere directly without much difficulty, yeah. But some kind of plot point for why that couldn't happen all the time needed to be made.
Literally the first time we see a ship enter hyperspace in Star Wars it is clearly in relatively low orbit (The Falcon leaving Tattooine), and the stated limitation on when they can jump is when the navicomputer has calculated the route not being far enough out.

Limitations on where a ship can enter or leave hyperspace were never actually a thing in the Star Wars movies. They're confabulations from other sources that didn't refer to the original source material terribly consistently.
ray245 wrote:
2020-06-24 01:20pm
Considering the extent of his knowledge about the plan is "we're running away" when that has been shown to be an near impossible task due to hyperspace tracking ( in fact Poe's own plan is also about helping the resistance escape), that's understandable. He's desperate for a one-last hooray because all other options do not seem realistic to him.
Again though, when he finds out about the transports being fuelled, when he finds out the plan, not when he doesn't know there's a plan but when he finds a plan he doesn't like he throws a massive baby tantrum and accuses his CO of being a coward and a traitor without finding out any more details, he doesn't ask questions or raise concerns, he immediately rejects the plan and makes actually serious accusations.
He's asking for a plan, not necessary to be placed in charge. He even accept the fact that he has been demoted. Further name-calling is plain unnecessary.

As someone in leadership position, I simply do not think there is any situation in which you can justify name-calling. If my boss starts name-calling people that have fucked up, my opinion of my boss is not going to be good.
Criticism of real character flaws in specific terms != name calling. Holdo doesn't call Poe names, she doesn't insult him, she criticises him and he's incapable of accepting or processing that criticism, especially from her because he doesn't respect her as a CO. His immediate behaviour towards her is disrespectful and unbecoming of an officer towards their CO (getting right up in her personal space and leaning in, not respecting any difference in rank or authority between them at any point).

Also he doesn't actually accept that he's been demoted. His line is "Captain, commander, whatever you want to call me." That shows that he doesn't actually register that he has lost any status, he isn't trying to make amends for the thing that got him demoted, he isn't showing due concern for rank (related to the reason he was demoted, remember, not following the commands of a superior), he hasn't learned anything from having it happen to him.

Yes there is. Stop name-calling him.
Again, criticism of real and present character traits != name calling. 100% of the things Holdo says to Poe in that scene are true, relevant, and specific to the situation and why he is not involved in decisionmaking. Name calling is when you use an unrelated insult instead of doing what Holdo does. She doesn't call him a scruffy looking nerf-herder, she says he's trigger happy, impulsive and dangerous, and those specific qualities are central to every mistake he makes in the entire movie.

Why do you think this is "name calling"? Is all criticism name calling now? Or is it only when you don't like the person doing it and do like the person being criticised?
His backers for the mutiny are the people in more junior officer position. The fact that Poe still holds an officer rank even after his demotion means his authority as a junior leadership has not been revoked by him.
Very few of them, most of them are flight staff and ground crew (he approaches them in the fighter hangar), the people he would be personally familiar with and who follow him personally.
I would absolutely see it as an insult, because it's specifically used in a context to degenerate him. Flyboy is used in this case to imply all the negative sterotypes of the "flyboy" persona.
All negative stereotypes which Poe possesses in the movie and which are specific to how he gets almost everyone killed. It's specific and accurate criticism.

Rose was involved in the plan of Poe. Just because she is not near the mutiny does not mean she didn't join in on them. She's a grunt mechanic that is responsible for the cloaking device that made Holdo plan's work in the first place. Rose kept people from the escape pods because she was actively camping at the escape pods and aggressively stunning people trying to escape. If most of the escape pods are in a centralised location, one person is enough to hinder many people from escaping. Especially after the fact that the hangar bay of the ship was blown up by Kylo Ren.
Where in the movie is Rose responsible for the cloaking devices? Your case is not helped when you keep making shit up that wasn't in the movie. (Also, why the fuck would a kilometer long ship only have escape pods in a central location? That's fucking stupid, even for Star Wars and that's a universe where someone once thought a sensible missile payload was little robots with buzzsaws.)

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-26 05:43am

ray245 wrote:
2020-06-26 05:11am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 02:34am
Because subordinates are totally entitled to know any and all plans commanders have, even if said plans depend on secrecy and they are a demonstrated security risk.

Seriously, Vader chokes his officers to death for minor errors, and fans say how cool and bad ass he is. Ackbar panics on the bridge at Endor, waffles on whether to retreat or not, and wins the battle almost entirely through Lando's courage and cunning, and he's a fan favorite. Holdo... fails to sufficiently assuage the resentment and fear of one jackass while dealing with nearly impossible situation, and she's a terribly commander. I don't know how much of it is gender, and how much is fan favoritism, but its a ridiculous double standard and I can't believe that otherwise intelligent people argue it as though it makes sense.
It's double standards if people ignore the flaws of Vader as a commander. Vader choking his officers to death without much reason was pointed out by many people as a failure of leadership. Ackbar's panic has become a meme on the internet. He's remembered widely amongst fans because of his panic, and not because of his stellar leadership.
And yet he's a beloved character, not generally reviled or condemned as a bad commander, and the Legends EU wanked him as this great commander who won the Battle of Endor (while repeatedly downplaying Lando's role). We even had fans (and the HISHE videos) saying Ackbar should have been in command in TLJ, not Holdo.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 06:18am

Vendetta wrote:
2020-06-26 05:35am
Again though, when he finds out about the transports being fuelled, when he finds out the plan, not when he doesn't know there's a plan but when he finds a plan he doesn't like he throws a massive baby tantrum and accuses his CO of being a coward and a traitor without finding out any more details, he doesn't ask questions or raise concerns, he immediately rejects the plan and makes actually serious accusations.
Because the events that we saw on screen at that point in time showed us running away doesn't work. Without knowledge of the cloaking devices, Poe is right to assume any transport running away from the main fleet will just be tracked down and destroyed. Which was happened anyway when the empire found out about the cloaking of the transport ship.
Criticism of real character flaws in specific terms != name calling. Holdo doesn't call Poe names, she doesn't insult him, she criticises him and he's incapable of accepting or processing that criticism, especially from her because he doesn't respect her as a CO. His immediate behaviour towards her is disrespectful and unbecoming of an officer towards their CO (getting right up in her personal space and leaning in, not respecting any difference in rank or authority between them at any point).
I will always see that as name calling and insults. You might personally not find it as insulting, but plenty of people would. If you are in a confrontational situation with another person, listing their character flaws is not helpful in any real way. It's escalating the tension, which helps no one at all. It's pure ego-boosting to list someone's character flaws right in front of them.

If you're my boss and you list out my character flaws in front of me when we are having a disagreement, I will tell you to fuck off and stop listening. If you think you're doing the right thing, I will just think of you as a shit leader more interested in winning an ego contest than trying to have an actual useful dialogue with me.
Also he doesn't actually accept that he's been demoted. His line is "Captain, commander, whatever you want to call me." That shows that he doesn't actually register that he has lost any status, he isn't trying to make amends for the thing that got him demoted, he isn't showing due concern for rank (related to the reason he was demoted, remember, not following the commands of a superior), he hasn't learned anything from having it happen to him.
Saying whatever you want to call me IS an acceptance. Because he no longer cares about his actual rank in the conversation. He's doing the opposite of pulling his rank in that discussion.

Again, criticism of real and present character traits != name calling. 100% of the things Holdo says to Poe in that scene are true, relevant, and specific to the situation and why he is not involved in decisionmaking. Name calling is when you use an unrelated insult instead of doing what Holdo does. She doesn't call him a scruffy looking nerf-herder, she says he's trigger happy, impulsive and dangerous, and those specific qualities are central to every mistake he makes in the entire movie.

Why do you think this is "name calling"? Is all criticism name calling now? Or is it only when you don't like the person doing it and do like the person being criticised?
God, I hope you're never in a leadership position because you must be insufferable for your subordinates. There is a right time and place to discuss someone's character flaws and a wrong time to do it. Doing it at the wrong time is insulting that person. If I am having an argument with my subordinates, I will not list out what I perceive to be their flaws right in front of them at that time. You want to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it further.

Valid criticism is done in the right context, when you are being actually supportive and not trying to put down a person. AKA not in the middle of an argument.
Very few of them, most of them are flight staff and ground crew (he approaches them in the fighter hangar), the people he would be personally familiar with and who follow him personally.
Considering how the majority of the resistance are made up of small fighter squadrons, that's the people who matter the most in your entire resistance?
All negative stereotypes which Poe possesses in the movie and which are specific to how he gets almost everyone killed. It's specific and accurate criticism.
So? Just because you said something true about someone does not make it any less insulting. On this forum, we call people idiots all the time because it is often true of someone. But we don't pretend we are not insulting them just because they are really acting like idiots.

Your sophistry over what is not insulting is getting tiresome at this point.

Where in the movie is Rose responsible for the cloaking devices? Your case is not helped when you keep making shit up that wasn't in the movie. (Also, why the fuck would a kilometer long ship only have escape pods in a central location? That's fucking stupid, even for Star Wars and that's a universe where someone once thought a sensible missile payload was little robots with buzzsaws.)
Ultimate Star Wars New Edition: The Definitive Guide to the Star Wars Universe.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_1a ... ng&f=false
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7674
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by FaxModem1 » 2020-06-26 06:26am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 02:34am
FaxModem1 wrote:
2020-06-25 04:56pm
Gandalf wrote:
2020-06-24 05:21pm
Also, if mutinies are justified because of bad leadership with no plans, at what point were the US armed forces justified in staging a mutiny against Bush following the invasion of Iraq?
Depends, at what point in the Iraq War was the US engaged in a fighting retreat with all seeming lost due to leadership's incompetence and being unwilling to answer a subordinate's questions to an unreasonable degree?
Because subordinates are totally entitled to know any and all plans commanders have, even if said plans depend on secrecy and they are a demonstrated security risk.

Seriously, Vader chokes his officers to death for minor errors, and fans say how cool and bad ass he is. Ackbar panics on the bridge at Endor, waffles on whether to retreat or not, and wins the battle almost entirely through Lando's courage and cunning, and he's a fan favorite. Holdo... fails to sufficiently assuage the resentment and fear of one jackass while dealing with nearly impossible situation, and she's a terribly commander. I don't know how much of it is gender, and how much is fan favoritism, but its a ridiculous double standard and I can't believe that otherwise intelligent people argue it as though it makes sense.
You just pointed out Vader's appeal, that he's badass. Seeing him rip his way through an entire squad of Rebels. The appeal for those who like Vader is that they imagine themselves being him and waving around a lightsaber, using the force to crush people, or killing things with his TIE fighter. No one is saying that he's good leadership material, aside from some conservative businessmen who think he's a good example of management :wtf: . Most people would never want to have him as their leader, fearing that they'd end up like Admiral Ozzel. Again, I'M not arguing that he's a good leader. Why are you bringing him up?

Ackbar is meme-worthy, and that's about it. In the film, he mostly serves as, and I'll quote what I've said before, a wet blanket to make Lando look better because Lando isn't panicking about the situation.

Holdo....fails to be a leader, because she treats subordinates like crap, doesn't utilize her personnel and resources, and diminishes morale to the point of mutiny. Buck's on her. If people in The Office quit because David Brent was leading them to disaster while also being verbally abusive to said employee, we'd rightfully think that the employee is in the right. Doubly so in a military situation where death is on the line. It's not 'one jackass', it's enough people to storm the bridge, including at least one member of the bridge crew. That's what makes the subversion not work. Because enough people are joining in because they're being deterred by their leader scaring them about their lack of options.

The big plothole here, is Connix joining the mutiny. This means that either Connix knew, in which case she thought the plan was crap and mutinied anyway(and for some reason didn't tell Poe about the plan), or she didn't know the plan, and was thinking that they'd all die because Holdo didn't brief the bridge crew, inciting panic among the rank and file due to such actions.
Image

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 06:34am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 05:43am
And yet he's a beloved character, not generally reviled or condemned as a bad commander, and the Legends EU wanked him as this great commander who won the Battle of Endor (while repeatedly downplaying Lando's role). We even had fans (and the HISHE videos) saying Ackbar should have been in command in TLJ, not Holdo.
That's because the writers barely think about what is actually happening on screen. But amongst all the meme posters, he's funny because he stated the obvious and not because he's a great commander.

Ackbar is an iconic character, but not necessarily this great admiral that some people are making him out to be. Then again, most EU writers wanked the hell out of nearly every single Rebel seen on screen in the movies. So I'm not really surprised about how they treat Ackbar.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 06:36am

FaxModem1 wrote:
2020-06-26 06:26am
Holdo....fails to be a leader, because she treats subordinates like crap, doesn't utilize her personnel and resources, and diminishes morale to the point of mutiny. Buck's on her. If people in The Office quit because David Brent was leading them to disaster while also being verbally abusive to said employee, we'd rightfully think that the employee is in the right. Doubly so in a military situation where death is on the line. It's not 'one jackass', it's enough people to storm the bridge, including at least one member of the bridge crew. That's what makes the subversion not work. Because enough people are joining in because they're being deterred by their leader scaring them about their lack of options.
What surprised me is the sheer amount of excuse some people are willing to make for poor leaders who treats subordinates with insults just because they don't want the "other side" to be right. Yes, there is plenty of disturbing far-right post about Holdo. But to come up with excuses just because you don't want to lose to the other side is headache inducing. :banghead:

At this point it's not about making valid points anymore. It's just plain tribalism at work here.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27284
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by NecronLord » 2020-06-26 06:46am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 04:59am
Of course, this would have required Disney and Abrams to put a modicum of thought into the setting.
And that's why her kamikaze run doesn't inspire admiration of the character. She does it, but it's clear that it's being done without much thought about how it would be clever going into it.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10818
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Vendetta » 2020-06-26 08:07am

ray245 wrote:
2020-06-26 06:18am
Vendetta wrote:
2020-06-26 05:35am
Again though, when he finds out about the transports being fuelled, when he finds out the plan, not when he doesn't know there's a plan but when he finds a plan he doesn't like he throws a massive baby tantrum and accuses his CO of being a coward and a traitor without finding out any more details, he doesn't ask questions or raise concerns, he immediately rejects the plan and makes actually serious accusations.
Because the events that we saw on screen at that point in time showed us running away doesn't work. Without knowledge of the cloaking devices, Poe is right to assume any transport running away from the main fleet will just be tracked down and destroyed. Which was happened anyway when the empire found out about the cloaking of the transport ship.
And of course he raises that in a respectful manner that shows he understands the situation and waits for a response oh wait he has a tantrum and throws things around....
I will always see that as name calling and insults. You might personally not find it as insulting, but plenty of people would. If you are in a confrontational situation with another person, listing their character flaws is not helpful in any real way. It's escalating the tension, which helps no one at all. It's pure ego-boosting to list someone's character flaws right in front of them.

If you're my boss and you list out my character flaws in front of me when we are having a disagreement, I will tell you to fuck off and stop listening. If you think you're doing the right thing, I will just think of you as a shit leader more interested in winning an ego contest than trying to have an actual useful dialogue with me.
If those character flaws are specific and relevant to your poor performance (poor performance in this case meant "getting lots of people killed") why would you expect your leader to pussyfoot around them to spare your feelings? (Also, I am pretty sure if you are in a military environment you don't get to tell your CO to fuck off without adding to the large amount of shit that is getting dropped on your head)

Sometimes you have to have difficult conversations with people. Sometimes those people have barged into what you were doing and made you deal with them right now.
Saying whatever you want to call me IS an acceptance. Because he no longer cares about his actual rank in the conversation. He's doing the opposite of pulling his rank in that discussion.
No, it clearly isn't. It's a demonstration that he thinks rank itself is irrelevant and that he can disregard it, which is also demonstrated by all of the rest of his behaviour in that scene (barging in, not requesting permission to speak, crowding into his CO's personal space). It shows he hasn't learned a lesson from that time he got nearly everyone killed.

Poe thinks that he is important no matter what rank he holds.
God, I hope you're never in a leadership position because you must be insufferable for your subordinates. There is a right time and place to discuss someone's character flaws and a wrong time to do it. Doing it at the wrong time is insulting that person. If I am having an argument with my subordinates, I will not list out what I perceive to be their flaws right in front of them at that time. You want to de-escalate the situation, not escalate it further.

Valid criticism is done in the right context, when you are being actually supportive and not trying to put down a person. AKA not in the middle of an argument.
A recently disgraced junior officer barging in and demanding to monopolise their CO's attention isn't "an argument", that's not a situation where an argument gets to happen, it's a situation where a bollocking happens. Poe had no business being where he was and doing what he was doing in that scene, he was reminded of that fact and the reasons for it, but the lesson didn't take because his ego wouldn't let him learn it until he'd gotten hundreds more people killed.

Again, the confrontation only happened in that scene because of the things Poe was being called out on. They're not just character flaws, they're the specific fuckup he is making at that very moment that his CO is telling him off for. It's not a conversation between equals, it's a junior officer being told off because he fucked up again.
Considering how the majority of the resistance are made up of small fighter squadrons, that's the people who matter the most in your entire resistance?
Then why doesn't Poe recognise that when he got most of them killed he did a bad thing?

Maybe you're just making up irrelevant shit?
So? Just because you said something true about someone does not make it any less insulting. On this forum, we call people idiots all the time because it is often true of someone. But we don't pretend we are not insulting them just because they are really acting like idiots.

Your sophistry over what is not insulting is getting tiresome at this point.
Basically you have no argument other than "Poe should have been coddled more". Again, this is the opposite of true. What happened is the soft touch version, the version where Poe wasn't immediately told, by his superior, that he was speaking out of line, being disrespectful to his command, and confined to quarters awaiting the much more significant telling off he clearly needed where the lessons he his clearly incapable of learning by being demoted are more thoroughly drummed into his head.
Ultimate Star Wars New Edition: The Definitive Guide to the Star Wars Universe.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_1a ... ng&f=false
So not in the movie at all[/] then, and actually irrelevant to it completely.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 08:36am

Vendetta wrote:
2020-06-26 08:07am
And of course he raises that in a respectful manner that shows he understands the situation and waits for a response oh wait he has a tantrum and throws things around....
I've not contested the fact that Poe was acting like a little kid. But that does not make his behaviour any less understandable, when he is worried about the resistance being wiped out without even putting any fight.

If those character flaws are specific and relevant to your poor performance (poor performance in this case meant "getting lots of people killed") why would you expect your leader to pussyfoot around them to spare your feelings? (Also, I am pretty sure if you are in a military environment you don't get to tell your CO to fuck off without adding to the large amount of shit that is getting dropped on your head)
I had been in a military environment before. Even if I didn't tell my CO to fuck off, I will not be inclined to respect his him as a leader. In the military you are dealing with hot-heads all the time. If you are unable to manage hot-heads, you should not be place in command.

It's one thing to tell a subordinate in a after-action review or a yearly performance report on their flaws and how they can improve. Holdo is not doing that at all.
Sometimes you have to have difficult conversations with people. Sometimes those people have barged into what you were doing and made you deal with them right now.
Having difficult conversation with people is not the same as insulting them in front of them. If you don't get it, you have shown yourself to be utterly incapable of knowing how to deal with subordinates in any leadership position.
No, it clearly isn't. It's a demonstration that he thinks rank itself is irrelevant and that he can disregard it, which is also demonstrated by all of the rest of his behaviour in that scene (barging in, not requesting permission to speak, crowding into his CO's personal space). It shows he hasn't learned a lesson from that time he got nearly everyone killed.

Poe thinks that he is important no matter what rank he holds.
No it's clearly not. It's about putting the question of his rank aside, and trying to find a common ground with Holdo in having a discussion. He's willing to ignore Holdo's petty reminder about his demotion.
A recently disgraced junior officer barging in and demanding to monopolise their CO's attention isn't "an argument", that's not a situation where an argument gets to happen, it's a situation where a bollocking happens. Poe had no business being where he was and doing what he was doing in that scene, he was reminded of that fact and the reasons for it, but the lesson didn't take because his ego wouldn't let him learn it until he'd gotten hundreds more people killed.
Whether someone is disgraced or not does not matter. They are in a life-or-death situation, when Poe's own life is in the hands of his commander. As someone who put their lives on the line for someone else, you have a basic right to be able to ask your commander whether they have a plan to keep everyone alive.

A military leader that does not understand that is a really horrible leader.

Again, the confrontation only happened in that scene because of the things Poe was being called out on. They're not just character flaws, they're the specific fuckup he is making at that very moment that his CO is telling him off for. It's not a conversation between equals, it's a junior officer being told off because he fucked up again.


It's not the fucking time and place to call him out on it! :banghead: It's pointlessly creating an enemy out of Poe, who decides to mutiny because the relationship between them had worsened. Holdo's leadership is inciting rebellion. As a leader, if you incite rebellion because you want to needlessly insult your subordinate, that is shitty leadership.
Then why doesn't Poe recognise that when he got most of them killed he did a bad thing?

Maybe you're just making up irrelevant shit?
That's changing the conversation. We are talking about whether Holdo alienating the fighter crews is a good thing. Even though Poe is a gung-ho leader, he still retains the loyalty of his pilots despite all of that. And he still retains a commander rank despite all of his fuck-ups, so you still have to deal with him as a junior leader.

Holdo has other options she can use to deal with Poe. Either engage with him and bring him onboard the plan, or just strip him entirely of his command rank and throw him into the brig. She did neither, and opting for a middle-ground that only further undermine other people's trust in her.

Basically you have no argument other than "Poe should have been coddled more". Again, this is the opposite of true. What happened is the soft touch version, the version where Poe wasn't immediately told, by his superior, that he was speaking out of line, being disrespectful to his command, and confined to quarters awaiting the much more significant telling off he clearly needed where the lessons he his clearly incapable of learning by being demoted are more thoroughly drummed into his head.
See above. I'm very much in the opinion she should be harsher on Poe if she cannot engage with him. You on the other hand, spent time quibbling over whether Holdo insulted Poe. If I am in Holdo position and had already started insulting Poe, I would strip him completely of any command rank by demoting him further, and throw him into the brig.
So not in the movie at all[/] then, and actually irrelevant to it completely.


Sadly Disney made everything equally canon.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27284
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by NecronLord » 2020-06-26 01:20pm

ray245 wrote:
2020-06-26 08:36am
Sadly Disney made everything equally canon.
This is a critical discussion of the movies as works of fiction, not an analysis of the works technical material. Canon rules have no power here.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 01:29pm

NecronLord wrote:
2020-06-26 01:20pm
This is a critical discussion of the movies as works of fiction, not an analysis of the works technical material. Canon rules have no power here.
Has the discussion ever been exclusively limited to what is depicted on screen? Disney basically told fans to treat everything as equally canonical, and not to view the movies as isolated piece of medium with their canon policy. So for fans that have read up all the EU materials, and the novels, how they perceive what happened on screen will be a different experience from people that have not followed up on the EU materials.

My view towards what is happening on screen is shaped by my knowledge of what happens in other EU materials, and I cannot objectively pretend that knowledge somehow disappear when I watch TLJ.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27284
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by NecronLord » 2020-06-26 01:50pm

Disney has no power to deem whether the audience considers their movies to have made creative mistakes or not, which is the overall topic at issue.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7703
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by ray245 » 2020-06-26 02:53pm

NecronLord wrote:
2020-06-26 01:50pm
Disney has no power to deem whether the audience considers their movies to have made creative mistakes or not, which is the overall topic at issue.
Except we're not just talking about the movies? The OP of the thread is about discussing whether the setting in itself has helped the franchise, which I have always intend it to be a thread that discuss the different medium of SW set in the ST era. I mean, TRR is talking about the reception and portrayal of Ackbar in the old EU novels, so this discussion in this thread has never been excluded to the movies alone.

Disney has powers to influence the way some audience receive what is depicted on screen, because my knowledge about Rose being the key engineer for the cloaking devices on the transport has a direct impact on how I perceive the events depicted on screen when I watch TLJ. Similarly my issue with the hyperspace raming scene is influenced by other Star Wars movies and EU materials.

Disney actively encourage the importance of the EU material in the movies, as many plot element requires you to gain some familiarity with EU materials.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-26 04:26pm

NecronLord wrote:
2020-06-26 06:46am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 04:59am
Of course, this would have required Disney and Abrams to put a modicum of thought into the setting.
And that's why her kamikaze run doesn't inspire admiration of the character. She does it, but it's clear that it's being done without much thought about how it would be clever going into it.
Well, its also because she dared to disagree with fan-preferred character Poe, and because of knee-jerk sequel bashing, and, yes, because of sexist biases.

But I can't deny that the effectiveness of such scenes was undercut by the incompetence on display at Disney. There's a lot of stuff in TLJ that would work a lot better had the subsequent film followed up and built on it, but instead they caved to the trolls, undermined TLJ, and went in a completely different direction (and didn't even do that very coherently or compellingly), so TLJ feels left out and at odds with the rest of the franchise. I don't really blame Johnson for that. I blame his bosses. Because they ultimately had to green light everything Johnson did. Which means either they failed to communicate clearly to him what they wanted, or they did, and then subsequently did an about-face and threw him and his work under the bus to appease the trolls.

To use another example for comparison: I felt that Captain America: Civil War was a very weak film, one of the weakest in the MCU. I felt that it didn't take its rather dark underlying premise, a civil war between former allies, seriously enough, and that there was a lack of lasting consequences in the film (I argued when it came out that Rhodey should have stayed dead and Cap's team should have ended the film still in prison). I was also annoyed by what I felt was the film's failure to provide a good justification for Cap's actions, even though it could have done so and we were clearly meant to sympathize with him.

However, Infinity War, which was the next major Avengers team film, did a lot to retroactively fix those flaws. It made me like Cap again, by putting him in a situation where his uncompromising morality and rejection of authority made sense. It also showed that there actually were lasting consequences for the events of Civil War as well, as the division of the heroes due to civil war made them unable to stop Thanos. Little details, really, but they retroactively fixed a lot of of what bugged me about Civil War. I learned a valuable lesson from that, which is that a sequel can do a lot to retroactively strengthen its predecessor.

Rise of Skywalker could have done that for TLJ, and probably would have if they'd had the same writer/director (Civil War and Infinity War were both directed by the Russos). Unfortunately, the opportunity was wasted.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7674
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by FaxModem1 » 2020-06-26 05:45pm

That whole thing goes into the big issue of the ST, they had no overarching narrative, and instead were making it up as they went along, and only really wanted the big parts of the OT that they knew people liked. Humor, X-wings vs TIE fighters, lightsabers, hero confronting the villain, hero redeeming the villain, etc.

I think my biggest problem with this, and one I've discussed before, is that it makes the Star Wars galaxy a place that is stuck in a cyclical conflict that it can't seem to escape. And I get it, it's called Star Wars, not Star Peace, but the other half of that coin is that aside from the heroes, and the mysterious fleet that comes out of nowhere at the end of ROS, the galaxy just doesn't seem to care. Heroes die, villains die, and the galaxy keeps on turning, with not much changing for the average person. We instead see apathy from leaders right before they're blown up, we see apathy from the rich and powerful, as they gamble. We see apathy from the common citizens, as they enjoy a dance party. And this largely seems to be because, if you're not on the planet being blown up, your life will not change despite whoever is in charge, because that's just how life is. A scavenger working on Jakku will still be a scavenger, a slave on Canto Bight will still be a slave, a rich asshole gambling will still be a rich asshole gambling. Nothing changes.

Sure, the Final Order are defeated, but what does that mean for broom kid? What does that mean for Unkar Plutt? The revolution came, and their lives didn't change. What does that mean for DJ? That's the biggest sin of the sequel trilogy, that there's no sweeping change in how their civilization works, meaning that things will just go back to another war when Star Wars 10, 11, and 12 are released. And it proves DJ right.
Image

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-26 06:01pm

FaxModem1 wrote:
2020-06-26 05:45pm
That whole thing goes into the big issue of the ST, they had no overarching narrative, and instead were making it up as they went along, and only really wanted the big parts of the OT that they knew people liked. Humor, X-wings vs TIE fighters, lightsabers, hero confronting the villain, hero redeeming the villain, etc.

I think my biggest problem with this, and one I've discussed before, is that it makes the Star Wars galaxy a place that is stuck in a cyclical conflict that it can't seem to escape. And I get it, it's called Star Wars, not Star Peace, but the other half of that coin is that aside from the heroes, and the mysterious fleet that comes out of nowhere at the end of ROS, the galaxy just doesn't seem to care. Heroes die, villains die, and the galaxy keeps on turning, with not much changing for the average person. We instead see apathy from leaders right before they're blown up, we see apathy from the rich and powerful, as they gamble. We see apathy from the common citizens, as they enjoy a dance party. And this largely seems to be because, if you're not on the planet being blown up, your life will not change despite whoever is in charge, because that's just how life is. A scavenger working on Jakku will still be a scavenger, a slave on Canto Bight will still be a slave, a rich asshole gambling will still be a rich asshole gambling. Nothing changes.

Sure, the Final Order are defeated, but what does that mean for broom kid? What does that mean for Unkar Plutt? The revolution came, and their lives didn't change. What does that mean for DJ? That's the biggest sin of the sequel trilogy, that there's no sweeping change in how their civilization works, meaning that things will just go back to another war when Star Wars 10, 11, and 12 are released. And it proves DJ right.
Its definitely incoherent. I don't think that "proves DJ right", though, because DJ is a deconstruction of the "Both Sides" crowd in modern politics, and "Both Sides are just as bad" is no more true when one of those sides is space Nazis than when its applied to real Nazis. But there are systemic issues in the Star Wars galaxy that go unaddressed even when the heroes win, and there's no reason to believe that the old Sith vs Jedi cycle won't ultimately reset either.

For example, it bothers me how slavery is omnipresent in Star Wars, and yet largely accepted by the heroes. I'd have loved to see a movie where Rey, Finn, Rose, and Poe lead a socialist revolt against the galactic oligarchy, but we all know it wasn't going to happen. You could argue, cynically, that history tends to be cyclical, but in the real world things do change more over time than they do in Star Wars canon. The reason for this is simple: the OT fan bro crowd that has the franchise in a choke hold wants their familiar dose of comforting pablum, not anything new. And certainly not anything that raises uncomfortable questions about our own societies' failures towards the marginalized and oppressed, given said fan bros are mostly older white men. And companies are happy to cater to them because they are so vocal that they have created the impression that they represent the views of the entire fandom/public.

Still, I'd put this issue mostly on RoS. Because any sweeping change to how the galaxy works would have had to be realized at the end of the trilogy, and would have had to go against what appears to have been RoS's overriding mandate of "appease the trolls".

But yeah, my trilogy, the one I want, at this point, is about a group of heroes from the fringes of the galaxy, not nobles or anyone with a special heritage, leading a slave revolt against the galactic corporate oligarchy. That's what the Sequels should have been. That's what the inevitable next trilogy should be.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-26 06:24pm

Actually, I think I know exactly where I'd* like to go with the next trilogy, if they decided to make one right now (and if they were able to get the actors back- I know Oscar Isaac at least has flat-out said no more Star Wars):

The First Order is defeated. The Resistance is trying to cobble together a new galactic government. Poe Dameron, now commanding the Resistance, makes various compromises in order to create a working coalition and maintain order, and part of that is ensuring that the existing galactic order will remain unchallenged- slaves, mega-corps, monarchical government, etc. For Rose, who was once a slave and believed deeply in the Resistance's cause, and for Finn, a former child soldier who joined that cause because he came to identify with her viewpoint, this is a betrayal. They strike out on their own, forming their own rogue group which attempts to support slave revolts on corporate or crime lord-run or neo-Imperial planets across the galaxy. Chewie would end up siding with them. This pits Poe against his former friends, because Poe is now the authority figure trying to be "reasonable" and keep the peace. Rey, meanwhile, is on a journey of discovery- trying to figure out who she really is and what she wants to be (Rey Palpatine would never explicitly be mentioned, just that her family is dead and she chose the name Skywalker). All the while she would be haunted by visions/the ghost of Ben, who on the one hand saved her but on the other hand was a monster for most of the time she knew him (this would be an allegory for trying to deal with/recover from an abusive relationship). During this journey, she would encounter various victims of the First Order but also the corporations on which the New Republic relies. In the end, her own experiences as part of the oppressed/enslaved fringe would win out, and she would side with the New Resistance, Finn, and Rose, overthrowing the corrupt old order. I'm not sure whether Poe would ultimately redeem himself, or remain an agent of the system to the end. I'd probably end it on a bittersweet note, with the revolution victorious, but the implication that power may also corrupt them in the end as it did their predecessors.

Kuat, as a major Imperial-friendly arms manufacturing corporation, would be the main villains (also because I really want to see the Kuat shipyards on screen in live action, and have a giant dreadnought battle there). To the extent that the Dark Side is represented, I would have two characters: one would be a former slave who embraced the power of the Dark Side while lashing out against their masters (maybe Broom Boy), and who would be portrayed as sympathetic, perhaps even a "necessary evil". The other would be some rich Kuati asshole who's a straight-up narcissistic sociopath and uses the Dark Side because they enjoy control. DJ would show up as a collaborator for the bad guys, reinforcing that the "Both Sides" crowd are really just using cynicism and calling out "the establishment" as an excuse for inaction or oppression.

Yeah, I don't expect that trilogy will EVER get made. But that's the story I want.


*Although ideally, the next trilogy will be written/directed primarily by women and people of colour, not yet another all white male team.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7674
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by FaxModem1 » 2020-06-26 07:04pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 06:01pm
FaxModem1 wrote:
2020-06-26 05:45pm
That whole thing goes into the big issue of the ST, they had no overarching narrative, and instead were making it up as they went along, and only really wanted the big parts of the OT that they knew people liked. Humor, X-wings vs TIE fighters, lightsabers, hero confronting the villain, hero redeeming the villain, etc.

I think my biggest problem with this, and one I've discussed before, is that it makes the Star Wars galaxy a place that is stuck in a cyclical conflict that it can't seem to escape. And I get it, it's called Star Wars, not Star Peace, but the other half of that coin is that aside from the heroes, and the mysterious fleet that comes out of nowhere at the end of ROS, the galaxy just doesn't seem to care. Heroes die, villains die, and the galaxy keeps on turning, with not much changing for the average person. We instead see apathy from leaders right before they're blown up, we see apathy from the rich and powerful, as they gamble. We see apathy from the common citizens, as they enjoy a dance party. And this largely seems to be because, if you're not on the planet being blown up, your life will not change despite whoever is in charge, because that's just how life is. A scavenger working on Jakku will still be a scavenger, a slave on Canto Bight will still be a slave, a rich asshole gambling will still be a rich asshole gambling. Nothing changes.

Sure, the Final Order are defeated, but what does that mean for broom kid? What does that mean for Unkar Plutt? The revolution came, and their lives didn't change. What does that mean for DJ? That's the biggest sin of the sequel trilogy, that there's no sweeping change in how their civilization works, meaning that things will just go back to another war when Star Wars 10, 11, and 12 are released. And it proves DJ right.
Its definitely incoherent. I don't think that "proves DJ right", though, because DJ is a deconstruction of the "Both Sides" crowd in modern politics, and "Both Sides are just as bad" is no more true when one of those sides is space Nazis than when its applied to real Nazis. But there are systemic issues in the Star Wars galaxy that go unaddressed even when the heroes win, and there's no reason to believe that the old Sith vs Jedi cycle won't ultimately reset either.

For example, it bothers me how slavery is omnipresent in Star Wars, and yet largely accepted by the heroes. I'd have loved to see a movie where Rey, Finn, Rose, and Poe lead a socialist revolt against the galactic oligarchy, but we all know it wasn't going to happen. You could argue, cynically, that history tends to be cyclical, but in the real world things do change more over time than they do in Star Wars canon. The reason for this is simple: the OT fan bro crowd that has the franchise in a choke hold wants their familiar dose of comforting pablum, not anything new. And certainly not anything that raises uncomfortable questions about our own societies' failures towards the marginalized and oppressed, given said fan bros are mostly older white men. And companies are happy to cater to them because they are so vocal that they have created the impression that they represent the views of the entire fandom/public.

Still, I'd put this issue mostly on RoS. Because any sweeping change to how the galaxy works would have had to be realized at the end of the trilogy, and would have had to go against what appears to have been RoS's overriding mandate of "appease the trolls".

But yeah, my trilogy, the one I want, at this point, is about a group of heroes from the fringes of the galaxy, not nobles or anyone with a special heritage, leading a slave revolt against the galactic corporate oligarchy. That's what the Sequels should have been. That's what the inevitable next trilogy should be.
I'm not sure if DJ is a "Both Sides are just as bad" representation. His argument doesn't seem to be that the Resistance/Rebels are just as bad as the Empire/First Order. The argument, or at least what I and others have taken from it, seems to be that it's big groups fighting each other, and in the end, you're just a cog in whichever side you're on. His stance is instead to opt out, and live for yourself, because no one else will.

I agree with you that the sequel trilogy should have instead have this moment as changing the face of the Resistance, and become more of a populist movement. The fact that Finn and Rose's plotline where they lead an uprising on Coruscant, and get a bunch of First Order grunts to stop being with the First Order, being cut from ROS was one of the biggest missteps in the film's production. It would have taken DJ's scene and shown that Finn took it to heart, and actually made it to where they are no longer just being part of the machine. That Finn was doing more because he saw what Rose and DJ pointed out to him, and took steps to correct it.

Say what you will about the Hunger Games books/movies, but they portrayed the necessity of changing the system and why revolutions are necessary, while also pointing out that you should be wary of those who are in charge and are only fighting so that they're now in charge. Stopping President Coin from becoming their new President Snow and doing the same crimes really showed that there was progress, and things got better due to the revolution, and having a true reformer lead.

That might be the big misstep in Star Wars, a sort of 'return to the good times' theme for the rebellion, instead of a 'This system needs to make changes' theme.
Image

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29522
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by MKSheppard » 2020-06-26 09:00pm

Vendetta wrote:
2020-06-26 05:35am
Literally the first time we see a ship enter hyperspace in Star Wars it is clearly in relatively low orbit (The Falcon leaving Tattooine), and the stated limitation on when they can jump is when the navicomputer has calculated the route not being far enough out.

Limitations on where a ship can enter or leave hyperspace were never actually a thing in the Star Wars movies. They're confabulations from other sources that didn't refer to the original source material terribly consistently.
I'll let Han and K2S0 speak for themselves:
LUKE:
Are you kidding? At the rate they're gaining...

HAN:
Traveling through hyperspace isn't like dusting crops, boy! Without precise calculations we could fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that'd end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?
CASSIAN ANDOR:
Get us out of here! Punch it!

K-2SO
I’m not very optimistic about our odds.

[K2SO continues fiddling]

CASSIAN ANDOR
Let’s not, K. Come on! Punch it.

K-2SO
I haven’t completed my calculations.

CASSIAN ANDOR:
I’ll make them for you.
How the fuck do we get from those (if you fuck up a hyperspace jump or your calculations, the consequences are dire etc etc) to the insane skipjumps of the Sequel Trilogy?

"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27284
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by NecronLord » 2020-06-26 11:37pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2020-06-26 04:26pm
NecronLord wrote:
2020-06-26 06:46am
And that's why her kamikaze run doesn't inspire admiration of the character. She does it, but it's clear that it's being done without much thought about how it would be clever going into it.
Well, its also because she dared to disagree with fan-preferred character Poe, and because of knee-jerk sequel bashing, and, yes, because of sexist biases.
I can't speak for everyone, but I far preferred her over Poe in Episode 8; Poe is such a manchild that he is telling 'yo mama' jokes. She should have had him locked up immediately.

But no one comes out looking very smart from the writing.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Zor
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5873
Joined: 2004-06-08 03:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Zor » 2020-06-27 12:40am

The Biggest Mistake of the Sequels is that they are, narrative speaking, very conservative. More than anything they want to recreate the general aesthetics, set up and story beats of the Original Trilogy even at the expense of everything else. Prime example, compare several OT ships (T-65 X Wing, TIE and the Falcon) to their Prequel Counterparts (N1 Starfighter, Droid Starfighter, Naboo Royal Starship) and their Sequel Trilogy counterparts (T-85 X Wing, First Order TIE and the Libertine). The biggest risk they took was having the New Jedi Order be killed off screen and Luke going into self imposed exile over that, and that is to get back to the Original Trilogy Point that the Jedi were functionally extinct. It's lazy worldbuilding and it does not take advantage of new story opportunities.

Zor
HAIL ZOR! WE'LL BLOW UP THE OCEAN!
Heros of Cybertron-HAB-Keeper of the Vicious pit of Allosauruses-King Leighton-I, United Kingdom of Zoria: SD.net World/Tsar Mikhail-I of the Red Tsardom: SD.net Kingdoms
WHEN ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE ON EARTH, ALL EARTH BREAKS LOOSE ON HELL
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/ind
http://zortropolis.myminicity.com/tra
Terran Sphere
The Art of Zor

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-27 12:58am

Zor wrote:
2020-06-27 12:40am
The Biggest Mistake of the Sequels is that they are, narrative speaking, very conservative. More than anything they want to recreate the general aesthetics, set up and story beats of the Original Trilogy even at the expense of everything else. Prime example, compare several OT ships (T-65 X Wing, TIE and the Falcon) to their Prequel Counterparts (N1 Starfighter, Droid Starfighter, Naboo Royal Starship) and their Sequel Trilogy counterparts (T-85 X Wing, First Order TIE and the Libertine). The biggest risk they took was having the New Jedi Order be killed off screen and Luke going into self imposed exile over that, and that is to get back to the Original Trilogy Point that the Jedi were functionally extinct. It's lazy worldbuilding and it does not take advantage of new story opportunities.

Zor
Having an ex-stormtrooper protagonist was an interesting move. Pity they kind of dropped Finn's arc in the end. Luke being tempted to kill Ben was a risk too- and they were crucified for it. The Holdo vs Poe plot was also one that had no counterpart in the OT or any prior Star Wars film- and they were crucified for that too. Same with Rey Nobody. Reylo was also a plot with no precedence in the OT, even if I don't like it.

Also of course the more diverse casting, though that's not a narrative risk and they backpeddled on that a bit too (cutting Rose).

Note, though, that most of those big narratives risks or changes were from TLJ, except the Reylo plot (which isn't really a risk because "girl falls in love with "dangerous" but sympathetic bad boy" is a trope that is as popular as it is troubling). TLJ, which was crucified and then thrown under the bus for trying to be original.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3856
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by Formless » 2020-06-27 02:14am

Honestly, I actually don't like Poe either, and could tell from the instant he came back from the dead that it was a last minute revision to the original script for TFA. Which we kinda know is in fact the case, J.J. liked the actor's performance so much he quickly became a pet character of the movie. And he felt like it. So if anything, for The Last Jedi to bring him down a peg was admittedly satisfying... but the main problem was that the middle portion of the film was so damn boring. Its two assholes bickering about who can be more petty, and unfortunately Holdo wins that pissing contest. Which would be fine, if only the film and the filmmakers would stop lionizing Holdo! Somehow she overtook my annoyance with Poe's Mary Sue-ish characteristics by just being written terribly. Worse, I find the constant insistence by defenders of the film that she is some kind of "powerful female character" to be downright missing the point of feminism.

I asked the question of whether or not TRR would be defending the character if she were male for a reason, because to my eyes she embodies a negative stereotype that women make for terrible leaders. Somehow Hollywood got it in their head that female characters in a leadership position somehow have to do things differently from male leaders, as if to make certain we know they are a woman and not a man. But also that they have to make them seem like even stronger leaders without actually giving them leadership skills. Captain Janeway is good example of this problem. No other captain in Star Trek pulls rank as often as she does, but with her the writers do it again and again and again, as if pulling rank shows how strong she is compared to... honestly, I don't know who they think we are comparing her to, because she is still the only female captain to star in a Trek show. The truth is that we're comparing her to her male counterparts, and in comparison she doesn't feel like a terrible leader (unlike Holdo), but she doesn't come off as great precisely because she pulls rank on people so often. Its counterproductive to the writers intent. Picard can usually convince his colleges to do what he tells them to do through sheer persuasive skill, which is why so many people look at him as a great leader. I'm sure there are examples of him pulling rank, but none come to mind. Kirk has done it on occasion, but they were trying to portray him as a flawed man seeking to better himself whenever possible. And it helps that one occasion where he does it its to tell a lower officer to stop being a bigot to Spock.

Anyway, because of this problem, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen for writing competent female characters was to start by writing a male character instead, then go back and do a gender flip and see whether you can even tell they were written to be a male character in the first place. Turns out most of the time, their masculinity is as much an informed attribute as anything else, and about 90% of all admirable characteristics you want in a character are actually gender neutral. Its our own subconscious sexism and tendency to overthink it that causes us to forget that when its a female character. Once you do the gender flip, a few things about their background could change, but their skills can remain mostly unchanged.

So with Holdo, it honestly gets annoying that for most of the movie the audience is only shown Poe's point of view for a good long while, so that no matter how much you dislike him, it appears like he has a point. Every character he interacts with during this sequence of the movie seems to agree with him. Finn goes with his plan as a matter of course-- Poe is the guy who got him into the Resistance after all-- but Rose goes along with the plan if only because of her tendency towards hero worship. When the mutiny first gets pitched, even bridge officers go along with his plan. How is the audience, who only sees things from this perspective, supposed to know that ultimately Poe is the one who is wrong? In fact, isn't surprising the audience with the reveal that he is wrong the whole point of the sequence? I'm pretty sure it is, but there are two problems. First, there are no clues that a smart person could look at and see "oh, Poe is missing something here..." even in hindsight. It legitimately appears like she has no plan, so any plan he has is better than nothing. But second... well, it looks like he does have a point, even in hindsight, because her plan didn't work. Let me repeat that. Her plan... didn't work. And yes, its because of Poe's actions, but Poe's actions are totally predictable. Indeed, the subversion requires them to be predictable. But let me repeat: its totally predictable that a subordinate given nothing productive to do will find something counterproductive to do, and think its the right thing to do simply because no one will tell them what the fuck is going on. That doesn't feel subversive, that's exactly what it feels like to work at a company with a "mushroom management" problem. Its frustrating is what it is. No one wants to feel like they are being turned into a problem by a boss with a bad communication skills. Eventually people just stop giving a shit and quit, or in this case get frustrated at the filmmaker and start singing "I've No More Fucks to Give" internally.

So it doesn't feel like a teaching moment for the audience, instead people see the situation through Poe's eyes and realize, hey wait a moment, I've known a Holdo in my life! Fuck that person. They were the problem, not me. They couldn't communicate to save their life. Which is rather ironic given Holdo kills herself to save the fleet from her own fuckup. Oh, and the way she talks is the living embodiment of the Karen archetype. Subtly abusive, hides behind a paper thin smile that only belies they want to strangle you in your sleep but won't phrase it that way, wants to speak to your manager before you've even opened your mouth to help them, has that god awful haircut... yeah, her. Karen. Holdo is a Karen. Even Janeway would lose patience with her. Yes, I said it. Janeway is a better leader than Holdo. Demonstrably so, at that, because Janeway at least managed to get herself and more than a runabout's worth of crewmembers home to Earth alive! And, I mean, at least Janeway had seven seasons to prove she had basic competence as a captain. Holdo had only half a movie to prove herself as an admiral. And how do you get that position anyway in a fleet of only three ships and a fighter wing? Wouldn't the commander of the fighters outrank her? And not the one in the air, mind you, but the one coordinating the fighters from the ground. About the only way I can imagine Holdo got the rank of admiral is that she came from the New Republic and Liea decided to let her keep her rank for administrative purposes. It would certainly explain why she's dressed in a manner Star Wars had previously established to be the fashion of the aristocracy, oligarchy, and Bourgeois in Star Wars.

But I digress. The funny thing, you know, is that I think a lot of these problems could have maybe been avoided if instead of some nobody we had never met before, Holdo had been replaced with Lando. First it would discourage the writer from having him act abusive to Poe, as we know how Billy Dee Williams plays the character and that's just not it. Lando is a scoundrel like Han, but he's more a gambler turned shady businessman turned heroic rebel. Insulting people, stealthily or otherwise, just isn't his style. But keep the part where he seems to be keeping Poe out of the loop because of the circumstances of the demotion. Make it clear he isn't talking to the man who had all the fighters grounded when the bridge was attacked and many of his friends killed or injured. Shock the audience with how Lando can still act after all these years when it isn't someone he knows and trusts, but don't make it an in-your-face attitude problem. Have the same events happen more or less, even the mutiny; but use the bridge crew as a way of communicating with the audience that there is a plan, and they are joining Poe's team because it feels like Lando is gambling with their lives. Which Lando would totally do, but people are primed to think of that as an admirable trait. We're primed to see it as bravery or cunning: but from another perspective, it appears to be reckless. Its something The Legend of Korra did with AtLA's characters, take some part of that character that we assumed was good and add nuance there. Like showing Aang's strong connection to his now extinct culture blind him to the favoritism he showed to his youngest son simply because he was the only other airbender in the family.

Plus there are additional changes you could make regardless of whether the character is Holdo or, as I said, Lando. Again, the bridge officers could offer hints to the plan, without necessarily giving away the entire plan. The filmmaker could also foreshadow the plan by using Finn and Rose's excursion: state that their little hyperspace capable pod has a cloaking device so that it can slip past everyone's sensors. Not only does that solve a minor plot hole in the film, but the audience will be kicking themselves in hindsight that they didn't think about how those cloaking devices could be used in this situation until Liea spells it out. And again, it would feel especially appropriate if it is Lando rather than Holdo, because its such an appropriate plan for a pirate like him. Escaping through wit, sneakiness, and a little bit of calculated risk rather than taking the heroic but dumb option of fighting and dying pointlessly. And of course, get rid of the damn hyperspace ram! If its Lando, he shouldn't have to die in the same movie as Luke, and the movies shouldn't have had an unintentional theme of killing off the cast of the OT anyway. But regardless, hyperspace ramming just causes too many SoD problems for too many people, clearly. Have them set the ship to self-destruct. Its, what, three kilometers long? I'm sure it can make a pretty big boom, and no one has to be onboard it when it does. Plus a debris cloud makes it pretty hard for turbolaser gunners to see their targets. But anything is better than hyperspace ramming.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-27 03:27am

Formless wrote:
2020-06-27 02:14am
Honestly, I actually don't like Poe either, and could tell from the instant he came back from the dead that it was a last minute revision to the original script for TFA. Which we kinda know is in fact the case, J.J. liked the actor's performance so much he quickly became a pet character of the movie. And he felt like it. So if anything, for The Last Jedi to bring him down a peg was admittedly satisfying... but the main problem was that the middle portion of the film was so damn boring. Its two assholes bickering about who can be more petty, and unfortunately Holdo wins that pissing contest. Which would be fine, if only the film and the filmmakers would stop lionizing Holdo! Somehow she overtook my annoyance with Poe's Mary Sue-ish characteristics by just being written terribly. Worse, I find the constant insistence by defenders of the film that she is some kind of "powerful female character" to be downright missing the point of feminism.
Right, Holdo not being perfectly polite and respectful to the guy who got demoted for getting a bunch of people killed and then introduced himself by misrepresenting his rank is clearly pettier behavior than him critiquing her from the start because he wasn't impressed by her speech, introducing himself by misrepresenting his rank, insubordination and conspiring behind her back because he didn't like her tone, launching a mutiny, and getting hundreds of people killed.

And I call that sexist, because part of sexist culture is that women are endlessly critiqued over the most trivial aspects of appearance or tone, and expected to always be deferential and un-threatening to men, and to go to great lengths to sooth their egos, while men are entitled to act out and demand what they want.
I asked the question of whether or not TRR would be defending the character if she were male for a reason, because to my eyes she embodies a negative stereotype that women make for terrible leaders.
If she was male, I expect there'd be much less need to defend her. There's a reason I brought up George Kirk.

Also, the film clearly meant for her to be perceived as a good leader, so they claim that she was portrayed as a stereotype of women being bad leaders is false. You are taking YOUR view, that she is a bad leader, saying its the film's portrayal, calling the film and its defenders sexist based on that, while denying that you are sexist for holding the very view that you then projected onto the film to justify calling it sexist. Its nuts.
Somehow Hollywood got it in their head that female characters in a leadership position somehow have to do things differently from male leaders, as if to make certain we know they are a woman and not a man. But also that they have to make them seem like even stronger leaders without actually giving them leadership skills. Captain Janeway is good example of this problem. No other captain in Star Trek pulls rank as often as she does, but with her the writers do it again and again and again, as if pulling rank shows how strong she is compared to... honestly, I don't know who they think we are comparing her to, because she is still the only female captain to star in a Trek show. The truth is that we're comparing her to her male counterparts, and in comparison she doesn't feel like a terrible leader (unlike Holdo),
Right, the "terrible leader" who inherited a complete disaster, a vastly-outnumbered fleet with virtually no fuel, mass desertions and a decapitated leadership, held it together and pulled off an effective escape plan despite an unprovoked mutiny, and ultimately gave her life to protect her people. And the only reason you can give for her being a "terrible leader" is essentially that she wasn't polite and deferential enough toward an entitled male subordinate who showed her zero respect himself. Oh, and that she didn't tell him the plan that only failed when he became aware of it.
but she doesn't come off as great precisely because she pulls rank on people so often. Its counterproductive to the writers intent. Picard can usually convince his colleges to do what he tells them to do through sheer persuasive skill, which is why so many people look at him as a great leader. I'm sure there are examples of him pulling rank, but none come to mind. Kirk has done it on occasion, but they were trying to portray him as a flawed man seeking to better himself whenever possible. And it helps that one occasion where he does it its to tell a lower officer to stop being a bigot to Spock.
Funny, I don't recall Holdo constantly pulling rank. I do recall her calling Poe out when he misstated his rank following his demotion.
Anyway, because of this problem, one of the best pieces of advice I've seen for writing competent female characters was to start by writing a male character instead, then go back and do a gender flip and see whether you can even tell they were written to be a male character in the first place. Turns out most of the time, their masculinity is as much an informed attribute as anything else, and about 90% of all admirable characteristics you want in a character are actually gender neutral. Its our own subconscious sexism and tendency to overthink it that causes us to forget that when its a female character. Once you do the gender flip, a few things about their background could change, but their skills can remain mostly unchanged.
While it is of course true that there are many admirable qualities in a character which are gender neutral, I'm also increasingly skeptical of the argument that one should just write women as men. Because the implication of that is that the only good way to write a woman is to essentially ignore a lot of the issues around sex and gender altogether, and pretend that those issues have no effect on a person's life, experiences, or how they interact with the world around them.
So with Holdo, it honestly gets annoying that for most of the movie the audience is only shown Poe's point of view for a good long while, so that no matter how much you dislike him, it appears like he has a point. Every character he interacts with during this sequence of the movie seems to agree with him. Finn goes with his plan as a matter of course-- Poe is the guy who got him into the Resistance after all-- but Rose goes along with the plan if only because of her tendency towards hero worship. When the mutiny first gets pitched, even bridge officers go along with his plan. How is the audience, who only sees things from this perspective, supposed to know that ultimately Poe is the one who is wrong? In fact, isn't surprising the audience with the reveal that he is wrong the whole point of the sequence?
It is intended, yes. The audience was clearly intended to be mislead, until the reveal.
I'm pretty sure it is, but there are two problems. First, there are no clues that a smart person could look at and see "oh, Poe is missing something here..." even in hindsight. It legitimately appears like she has no plan, so any plan he has is better than nothing.
Actually, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the film does give several hints which, in hindsight, show that Poe was in the wrong. The first is his action at the start of the film, getting many people killed in a reckless and unnecessary attack against orders. This demonstrates him impulsiveness, insubordination, and poor judgement. This is reinforced when Legendary OT Hero Leia calls him out and demotes him for it. Holdo, meanwhile, is introduced as a hero of a prior battle.

Also, of course, there's the fact that when she does try to tell Poe the plan, he doesn't listen, but instead starts ranting that she's a traitor.

The film plays on audiences biases and gives limited perspective to keep the misdirection up, but in hindsight there are plenty of signs that Poe is in the wrong, and to say that the film gives no clues is flatly false. And I've demonstrated this point repeatedly. The truth is that the reveal "failed" not because there was no foreshadowing of it, or because Poe was really right, but because the audience (or, rather, a vocal portion of it) did not like the message. Which is also predictable in hindsight. Few people enjoy having their biases pointed out to them, and denial is generally easier and more comforting than self-reflection.
But second... well, it looks like he does have a point, even in hindsight, because her plan didn't work. Let me repeat that. Her plan... didn't work. And yes, its because of Poe's actions, but Poe's actions are totally predictable. Indeed, the subversion requires them to be predictable. But let me repeat: its totally predictable that a subordinate given nothing productive to do will find something counterproductive to do, and think its the right thing to do simply because no one will tell them what the fuck is going on. That doesn't feel subversive, that's exactly what it feels like to work at a company with a "mushroom management" problem. Its frustrating is what it is. No one wants to feel like they are being turned into a problem by a boss with a bad communication skills. Eventually people just stop giving a shit and quit, or in this case get frustrated at the filmmaker and start singing "I've No More Fucks to Give" internally.
Oh, you've just got to love this. You admit that "her" plan (which was really at least partly Leia's plan, but I guess we're just ignoring that) only failed because of Poe's mutiny, but blame Holdo for the mutiny, then use that as proof that she's a bad leader- justifying the mutiny which supposedly proves she's a bad leader! What a perfect little circular argument.
So it doesn't feel like a teaching moment for the audience, instead people see the situation through Poe's eyes and realize, hey wait a moment, I've known a Holdo in my life! Fuck that person. They were the problem, not me. They couldn't communicate to save their life. Which is rather ironic given Holdo kills herself to save the fleet from her own fuckup. Oh, and the way she talks is the living embodiment of the Karen archetype. Subtly abusive, hides behind a paper thin smile that only belies they want to strangle you in your sleep but won't phrase it that way, wants to speak to your manager before you've even opened your mouth to help them, has that god awful haircut... yeah, her. Karen. Holdo is a Karen. Even Janeway would lose patience with her. Yes, I said it. Janeway is a better leader than Holdo. Demonstrably so, at that, because Janeway at least managed to get herself and more than a runabout's worth of crewmembers home to Earth alive! And, I mean, at least Janeway had seven seasons to prove she had basic competence as a captain. Holdo had only half a movie to prove herself as an admiral. And how do you get that position anyway in a fleet of only three ships and a fighter wing? Wouldn't the commander of the fighters outrank her? And not the one in the air, mind you, but the one coordinating the fighters from the ground. About the only way I can imagine Holdo got the rank of admiral is that she came from the New Republic and Liea decided to let her keep her rank for administrative purposes. It would certainly explain why she's dressed in a manner Star Wars had previously established to be the fashion of the aristocracy, oligarchy, and Bourgeois in Star Wars.
Wow, you can just feel the seething resentment being projected onto the character of Holdo here. Complete with hysterical, paranoid rantings about the female authority figure wanting to strangle you in your sleep.

I read this and my immediate thought is that you, like most Holdo bashers, are projecting onto her resentment you've felt toward women in your own life. Hell, you effectively admit it. I can't prove it, but I'd guess that's probably true for a lot of Holdo bashers. It would certainly explain why so many of you seem so deeply and personally invested in proving that she's a terrible character, a terrible person, a terrible leader, and its a terrible movie, even to the point of ignoring or outright falsifying evidence.

I'm not even going to get into the completely baseless assertions that Poe must actually outrank Holdo for... god knows why, we all know the real reason is that he has a penis, and the semi-coherent rambling about how she only had half a movie to prove herself out of universe as if that's a reason why she's unfit in universe.

And, of course, you couldn't get through this lengthy tract of misogynist ranting without multiple sneering jab dismissing a woman's fitness to lead on account of her feminine appearance and dress.
But I digress. The funny thing, you know, is that I think a lot of these problems could have maybe been avoided if instead of some nobody we had never met before, Holdo had been replaced with Lando. First it would discourage the writer from having him act abusive to Poe, as we know how Billy Dee Williams plays the character and that's just not it. Lando is a scoundrel like Han, but he's more a gambler turned shady businessman turned heroic rebel. Insulting people, stealthily or otherwise, just isn't his style. But keep the part where he seems to be keeping Poe out of the loop because of the circumstances of the demotion. Make it clear he isn't talking to the man who had all the fighters grounded when the bridge was attacked and many of his friends killed or injured. Shock the audience with how Lando can still act after all these years when it isn't someone he knows and trusts, but don't make it an in-your-face attitude problem. Have the same events happen more or less, even the mutiny; but use the bridge crew as a way of communicating with the audience that there is a plan, and they are joining Poe's team because it feels like Lando is gambling with their lives. Which Lando would totally do, but people are primed to think of that as an admirable trait. We're primed to see it as bravery or cunning: but from another perspective, it appears to be reckless. Its something The Legend of Korra did with AtLA's characters, take some part of that character that we assumed was good and add nuance there. Like showing Aang's strong connection to his now extinct culture blind him to the favoritism he showed to his youngest son simply because he was the only other airbender in the family.
Oh yes, of course the solution is to replace the original character with an old OT character. :roll:

And yeah, the audience would probably be more accepting of this. But it would negate the entire aspect of the Holdo-Poe conflict which is deconstructing entitled toxic masculinity- which is no doubt a big part of the reason why you prefer it.
Plus there are additional changes you could make regardless of whether the character is Holdo or, as I said, Lando. Again, the bridge officers could offer hints to the plan, without necessarily giving away the entire plan.
She did. She told him the plan, and his response was to throw a tantrum, accuse her of treason, continue his plotting, and reveal the plan over an unsecured com, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of people.
The filmmaker could also foreshadow the plan by using Finn and Rose's excursion: state that their little hyperspace capable pod has a cloaking device so that it can slip past everyone's sensors. Not only does that solve a minor plot hole in the film, but the audience will be kicking themselves in hindsight that they didn't think about how those cloaking devices could be used in this situation until Liea spells it out.
This is, at least, not an awful idea. Credit where credit is due.
And again, it would feel especially appropriate if it is Lando rather than Holdo, because its such an appropriate plan for a pirate like him. Escaping through wit, sneakiness, and a little bit of calculated risk rather than taking the heroic but dumb option of fighting and dying pointlessly. And of course, get rid of the damn hyperspace ram! If its Lando, he shouldn't have to die in the same movie as Luke, and the movies shouldn't have had an unintentional theme of killing off the cast of the OT anyway. But regardless, hyperspace ramming just causes too many SoD problems for too many people, clearly. Have them set the ship to self-destruct. Its, what, three kilometers long? I'm sure it can make a pretty big boom, and no one has to be onboard it when it does. Plus a debris cloud makes it pretty hard for turbolaser gunners to see their targets. But anything is better than hyperspace ramming.
Yes, God forbid that the franchise ever do anything new.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21349
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New Empire vs New rebellion in the sequels: Biggest mistake?

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2020-06-27 03:35am

And before people inevitably say it:

I am not calling everyone who disagrees with me misogynist.

I am not calling everyone who dislikes Holdo misogynist.

I am not calling everyone who dislikes TLJ misogynist.

I AM calling Formless misogynist, mostly because of this borderline-hysterical tract, its obvious stereotyping of and projection of resentment toward real-life female authority figures, and its ridiculing and dismissing a woman's fitness to lead based on her feminine appearance:
So it doesn't feel like a teaching moment for the audience, instead people see the situation through Poe's eyes and realize, hey wait a moment, I've known a Holdo in my life! Fuck that person. They were the problem, not me. They couldn't communicate to save their life. Which is rather ironic given Holdo kills herself to save the fleet from her own fuckup. Oh, and the way she talks is the living embodiment of the Karen archetype. Subtly abusive, hides behind a paper thin smile that only belies they want to strangle you in your sleep but won't phrase it that way, wants to speak to your manager before you've even opened your mouth to help them, has that god awful haircut... yeah, her. Karen. Holdo is a Karen. Even Janeway would lose patience with her. Yes, I said it. Janeway is a better leader than Holdo. Demonstrably so, at that, because Janeway at least managed to get herself and more than a runabout's worth of crewmembers home to Earth alive! And, I mean, at least Janeway had seven seasons to prove she had basic competence as a captain. Holdo had only half a movie to prove herself as an admiral. And how do you get that position anyway in a fleet of only three ships and a fighter wing? Wouldn't the commander of the fighters outrank her? And not the one in the air, mind you, but the one coordinating the fighters from the ground. About the only way I can imagine Holdo got the rank of admiral is that she came from the New Republic and Liea decided to let her keep her rank for administrative purposes. It would certainly explain why she's dressed in a manner Star Wars had previously established to be the fashion of the aristocracy, oligarchy, and Bourgeois in Star Wars.
And I stand by it.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

Post Reply