Mandalorian S2:E8 Chat (SPOILERS)

123457Next

Replies

  • Long story short to bring it back around to what this thread is about and how we got onto this tangent in the first place--Old Luke from Last Jedi is a character I really liked. I'm sorry whoever said "no one wanted it" (an objective statement about his subjective opinion) didn't like it. He shoukd ask himself why and what that means to him that he didn't like it.
    Ceterum censeo Patientia esse meliat.
  • TVF
    26682 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    Lol the fact that it employed some people and brought more people joy is irrelevant. It is poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly directed. That makes it a bad movie in my book. Shrug.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF
    26682 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    That's great. And yet irrelevant to the question of how well the movie was made.
    The CGDF is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.

    Good/bad is not really objective either in this context... how could any movie be objectively good?

    That’s the point. No movie is good or bad. You like it or you don’t.

    I responded to someone who said no one wanted to see an old, disillusioned Luke from Last Jedi by saying that I wanted to see it and that I love the movie. It’s everyone else that’s claiming it’s bad that’s wrong.

    You don’t have to like art. But the art still exists whether you like it or not, and the next person after you to look at it will have a different subjective reaction. But the art is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.
    NicWester wrote: »
    Ltswb1 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    Were you previously employed as a Bill Clinton speech writer? What a load of double talk hogwash.

    It's not my fault you aren't smart, don't be mad at me.

    EDIT: It was early in the morning and I was grumpy. Let me put it another way—
    How is what I’m saying doublespeak? I gave a clear definition of my terms and didn’t move the goal posts if challenged on it. I’ve talked about how good and bad are objective terms, so I’m not talking about relativism.

    So how’s that doublespeak? Or are you just using a $5 word you got off your 2021 word-a-day calendar that you don’t actually know the meaning of?
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    In the context of talking about a movie, good and bad are not moral judgements, objective or otherwise, they are simply value judgements. There is a big difference. When I watch a film, I don't care how many people it employed, I don't think anybody does, it's just not relevant to the viewer experience.

    That's the thing, though, good and bad *are* moral judgements. That's what the words mean. If you intend for a value judgement, then you use subjective words such as like or dislike, or you can go stronger and say you loved it or you hated it, or you can go worse and say you were ambivalent or kept looking at your watch to see if it was almost over. But when people say something is good or bad what they're saying is that it's good or bad for *everyone*, which is just objectively not true. (Minor edit: Let’s remove the moral part from the thing, even that still makes the case—if a movie is “bad” it’s an objective statement that it’s bad for everyone.)

    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    Folks should spend more time thinking about other people is all I'm saying. Either in terms of how they might like or dislike something different from you, or in terms of how the culture you consume is made by them. Just be more aware of others in general.


    The above is empirical evidence that your opinion and comprehension of the subject is bad and you should feel bad. I felt morally obligated to say this.
  • Nihion
    3091 posts Member
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.

    Good/bad is not really objective either in this context... how could any movie be objectively good?

    That’s the point. No movie is good or bad. You like it or you don’t.

    I responded to someone who said no one wanted to see an old, disillusioned Luke from Last Jedi by saying that I wanted to see it and that I love the movie. It’s everyone else that’s claiming it’s bad that’s wrong.

    You don’t have to like art. But the art still exists whether you like it or not, and the next person after you to look at it will have a different subjective reaction. But the art is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.
    NicWester wrote: »
    Ltswb1 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    Were you previously employed as a Bill Clinton speech writer? What a load of double talk hogwash.

    It's not my fault you aren't smart, don't be mad at me.

    EDIT: It was early in the morning and I was grumpy. Let me put it another way—
    How is what I’m saying doublespeak? I gave a clear definition of my terms and didn’t move the goal posts if challenged on it. I’ve talked about how good and bad are objective terms, so I’m not talking about relativism.

    So how’s that doublespeak? Or are you just using a $5 word you got off your 2021 word-a-day calendar that you don’t actually know the meaning of?
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    In the context of talking about a movie, good and bad are not moral judgements, objective or otherwise, they are simply value judgements. There is a big difference. When I watch a film, I don't care how many people it employed, I don't think anybody does, it's just not relevant to the viewer experience.

    That's the thing, though, good and bad *are* moral judgements. That's what the words mean. If you intend for a value judgement, then you use subjective words such as like or dislike, or you can go stronger and say you loved it or you hated it, or you can go worse and say you were ambivalent or kept looking at your watch to see if it was almost over. But when people say something is good or bad what they're saying is that it's good or bad for *everyone*, which is just objectively not true. (Minor edit: Let’s remove the moral part from the thing, even that still makes the case—if a movie is “bad” it’s an objective statement that it’s bad for everyone.)

    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    Folks should spend more time thinking about other people is all I'm saying. Either in terms of how they might like or dislike something different from you, or in terms of how the culture you consume is made by them. Just be more aware of others in general.


    The above is empirical evidence that your opinion and comprehension of the subject is bad and you should feel bad. I felt morally obligated to say this.

    Morally obligated? If you felt in any way “morally obligated,” you would leave this person alone and let them have their opinion.

    And that my friends, is why Star Wars can be so controversial. It means so much to so many, and it’s hard to understand that other people can have valid opinions that are in direct opposition of your valid opinions. So we say whatever we can to make it seem like our opinion is correct, not because of any moral obligation, but because it’s too hard for us to accept each other’s opinions.

    I suggest we ignore arguments all together, and just accept that some people like what Rian Johnson did with Luke, and some people prefer the Luke from Legends that runs around being a bad***. There’s “canon” content for both now so you can enjoy whatever version you prefer without stomping on someone else’s heart.
  • NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    In the context of talking about a movie, good and bad are not moral judgements, objective or otherwise, they are simply value judgements. There is a big difference. When I watch a film, I don't care how many people it employed, I don't think anybody does, it's just not relevant to the viewer experience.

    That's the thing, though, good and bad *are* moral judgements. That's what the words mean. If you intend for a value judgement, then you use subjective words such as like or dislike, or you can go stronger and say you loved it or you hated it, or you can go worse and say you were ambivalent or kept looking at your watch to see if it was almost over. But when people say something is good or bad what they're saying is that it's good or bad for *everyone*, which is just objectively not true. (Minor edit: Let’s remove the moral part from the thing, even that still makes the case—if a movie is “bad” it’s an objective statement that it’s bad for everyone.)

    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    Folks should spend more time thinking about other people is all I'm saying. Either in terms of how they might like or dislike something different from you, or in terms of how the culture you consume is made by them. Just be more aware of others in general.

    I hope this doesn't come off as combative, I just like arguing about rhetoric, so please don't take offense at the fact that I'm responding to you directly. I respect your commitment to using proper language, but I disagree about the proper usage of the terms good and bad; it is accepted in the English language to use those terms in situations where no moral judgement is implied, such as a good/bad deal, a good/bad day, a good/bad idea, a good/bad time, etc. I'm trying to highlight the difference between what may be the technical denotation of a word and its accepted connotation in common parlance. It would be tedious if I always had to say "I did not like this day" instead of "I had a bad day."
    I also want to mention that not all moral judgements are objective, I do believe that the most important ones largely are, but in complicated situations there is often a subjective element to moral questions where a solution cannot be found that is absolutely fair to all parties.
    As to your last point, I agree that people should spend more time thinking about others. I do not agree that it's a relevant factor when assessing the quality of a movie. I am not going to enjoy a movie more if I find out that the director gave all the profits to charity, I may love that he/she did that, but it just doesn't affect what unfolds on-screen, which is ultimately what we are judging when we critique films.
  • AvatarofCynicism
    448 posts Member
    edited January 4
    Nihion wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.

    Good/bad is not really objective either in this context... how could any movie be objectively good?

    That’s the point. No movie is good or bad. You like it or you don’t.

    I responded to someone who said no one wanted to see an old, disillusioned Luke from Last Jedi by saying that I wanted to see it and that I love the movie. It’s everyone else that’s claiming it’s bad that’s wrong.

    You don’t have to like art. But the art still exists whether you like it or not, and the next person after you to look at it will have a different subjective reaction. But the art is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.
    NicWester wrote: »
    Ltswb1 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    Were you previously employed as a Bill Clinton speech writer? What a load of double talk hogwash.

    It's not my fault you aren't smart, don't be mad at me.

    EDIT: It was early in the morning and I was grumpy. Let me put it another way—
    How is what I’m saying doublespeak? I gave a clear definition of my terms and didn’t move the goal posts if challenged on it. I’ve talked about how good and bad are objective terms, so I’m not talking about relativism.

    So how’s that doublespeak? Or are you just using a $5 word you got off your 2021 word-a-day calendar that you don’t actually know the meaning of?
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    In the context of talking about a movie, good and bad are not moral judgements, objective or otherwise, they are simply value judgements. There is a big difference. When I watch a film, I don't care how many people it employed, I don't think anybody does, it's just not relevant to the viewer experience.

    That's the thing, though, good and bad *are* moral judgements. That's what the words mean. If you intend for a value judgement, then you use subjective words such as like or dislike, or you can go stronger and say you loved it or you hated it, or you can go worse and say you were ambivalent or kept looking at your watch to see if it was almost over. But when people say something is good or bad what they're saying is that it's good or bad for *everyone*, which is just objectively not true. (Minor edit: Let’s remove the moral part from the thing, even that still makes the case—if a movie is “bad” it’s an objective statement that it’s bad for everyone.)

    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    Folks should spend more time thinking about other people is all I'm saying. Either in terms of how they might like or dislike something different from you, or in terms of how the culture you consume is made by them. Just be more aware of others in general.


    The above is empirical evidence that your opinion and comprehension of the subject is bad and you should feel bad. I felt morally obligated to say this.

    Morally obligated? If you felt in any way “morally obligated,” you would leave this person alone and let them have their opinion.

    And that my friends, is why Star Wars can be so controversial. It means so much to so many, and it’s hard to understand that other people can have valid opinions that are in direct opposition of your valid opinions. So we say whatever we can to make it seem like our opinion is correct, not because of any moral obligation, but because it’s too hard for us to accept each other’s opinions.

    I suggest we ignore arguments all together, and just accept that some people like what Rian Johnson did with Luke, and some people prefer the Luke from Legends that runs around being a bad***. There’s “canon” content for both now so you can enjoy whatever version you prefer without stomping on someone else’s heart.

    *Edited for unarguable correctness*

    1. By telling me what I should and shouldn’t do, you’ve made your first statement null and void. Hypocrite.
    2. You completely missed the point of my post, which was he was arguing over asinine, arbitrary criteria he was making up on the spot.
    3. Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.
    4. I felt morally obligated to post this.
  • Nihion
    3091 posts Member
    Nihion wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    Konju wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    That was fun. Always nice to see Sasha Banks.

    I'm pretty sure Book of Boba means this is the end of Pedro Pascal's story. But that's okay. His arc is complete. I'm sure he'll show up in some episodes of season 3, but he's no longer going to be the main character. After all, where else do you go with him?

    That said, I'd be fine with Book of Boba being either a spin-off or season 3. I trust Filoni and Favreau to make either one work. But, to me, it feels like this is a good point to transition to telling a new story rather than having to keep adding extensions onto the original story.
    Could we replace sad old Luke (JML) with the kicka** Luke we saw yesterday? What fans really wanted Luke to be after Return of the Jedi?

    .......This takes place just a few years after Return of the Jedi. Jedi Master Luke is like 30 years after even this. You think he's going to be a spry young jedi his whole life? I've got news for both you and your knees and ankles if that's the case....

    Yes I realize that. But no one asked for the Luke we saw in TLJ. We wanted to see Luke be a powerful Jedi like we saw on this last episode. I just want this awesome Luke in the game. JKL doesn’t do him justice.

    I did. I love Last Jedi.

    Stop being such a hater. Your life will be much more enjoyable when you break free of the solipsism of "I did not like this therefore it is bad."

    This statement does not make The Last Jedi good either.

    "Like/dislike" is subjective.
    "Good/bad" is objective.

    Good/bad is not really objective either in this context... how could any movie be objectively good?

    That’s the point. No movie is good or bad. You like it or you don’t.

    I responded to someone who said no one wanted to see an old, disillusioned Luke from Last Jedi by saying that I wanted to see it and that I love the movie. It’s everyone else that’s claiming it’s bad that’s wrong.

    You don’t have to like art. But the art still exists whether you like it or not, and the next person after you to look at it will have a different subjective reaction. But the art is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.
    NicWester wrote: »
    Ltswb1 wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    Were you previously employed as a Bill Clinton speech writer? What a load of double talk hogwash.

    It's not my fault you aren't smart, don't be mad at me.

    EDIT: It was early in the morning and I was grumpy. Let me put it another way—
    How is what I’m saying doublespeak? I gave a clear definition of my terms and didn’t move the goal posts if challenged on it. I’ve talked about how good and bad are objective terms, so I’m not talking about relativism.

    So how’s that doublespeak? Or are you just using a $5 word you got off your 2021 word-a-day calendar that you don’t actually know the meaning of?
    NicWester wrote: »
    NicWester wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I've seen The Room. It is absolutely objectively a bad movie.

    And I like it btw.

    It employed several dozen people and was cast mostly by friends of the director, it led to ironic joy from millions of people and even launched a book and movie about how weird making it was.

    Good and bad are objective moral judgements. The art itself is an inert thing that just exists and cannot do good or do bad. It can incite people to do good or bad things, but that’s a whole different and unrelated matter.

    You didn’t like it. That’s fine. Or you did like it. That’s also fine. Liking or disliking something is a subjective truth. Subjective truths are what make each of us unique and different from one another. But liking or not liking a thing doesn’t make the thing good or bad.

    In the context of talking about a movie, good and bad are not moral judgements, objective or otherwise, they are simply value judgements. There is a big difference. When I watch a film, I don't care how many people it employed, I don't think anybody does, it's just not relevant to the viewer experience.

    That's the thing, though, good and bad *are* moral judgements. That's what the words mean. If you intend for a value judgement, then you use subjective words such as like or dislike, or you can go stronger and say you loved it or you hated it, or you can go worse and say you were ambivalent or kept looking at your watch to see if it was almost over. But when people say something is good or bad what they're saying is that it's good or bad for *everyone*, which is just objectively not true. (Minor edit: Let’s remove the moral part from the thing, even that still makes the case—if a movie is “bad” it’s an objective statement that it’s bad for everyone.)

    You should care how many people a movie employed. That was the only thing that got me through Inherent Vice... Aside from that, though, I have a friend that does a bunch of jobs in LA, but occasionally gets jobs on sets as a production assistant. Movies that flop pay the crew's mortgage just as well as the blockbusters do.

    Folks should spend more time thinking about other people is all I'm saying. Either in terms of how they might like or dislike something different from you, or in terms of how the culture you consume is made by them. Just be more aware of others in general.


    The above is empirical evidence that your opinion and comprehension of the subject is bad and you should feel bad. I felt morally obligated to say this.

    Morally obligated? If you felt in any way “morally obligated,” you would leave this person alone and let them have their opinion.

    And that my friends, is why Star Wars can be so controversial. It means so much to so many, and it’s hard to understand that other people can have valid opinions that are in direct opposition of your valid opinions. So we say whatever we can to make it seem like our opinion is correct, not because of any moral obligation, but because it’s too hard for us to accept each other’s opinions.

    I suggest we ignore arguments all together, and just accept that some people like what Rian Johnson did with Luke, and some people prefer the Luke from Legends that runs around being a bad***. There’s “canon” content for both now so you can enjoy whatever version you prefer without stomping on someone else’s heart.

    *Edited for unarguable correctness*

    1. By telling me what I should and shouldn’t do, you’ve made your first statement null and void. Hypocrite.
    2. You completely missed the point of my post, which was he was arguing over asinine, arbitrary criteria he was making up on the spot.
    3. Your opinion is bad and you should feel bad.
    4. I felt morally obligated to post this.

    Well, that’s your opinion.

    Anyone can make four statements and throw insults around. Try again when you feel like getting back on topic.

    And hypocrisy doesn’t make us wrong, it makes us human.
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    ok. we are going to stop this here. Please stay on topic.

    arnozzy0c20j.jpg
  • Kyno wrote: »
    ok. we are going to stop this here. Please stay on topic.

    arnozzy0c20j.jpg

    Love the pic :lol:
    My discord - BabyYoda#4470 My swgoh.gg - https://swgoh.gg/p/648565123/
  • To be honest, I thought that was what Boba was going to look in Mando XD
  • Kyno
    27450 posts Moderator
    To be honest, I thought that was what Boba was going to look in Mando XD

    They missed out on the Family Guy crossover episode:
    2wp2q5t4fhob.png
  • Sebek
    1209 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    To be honest, I thought that was what Boba was going to look in Mando XD

    They missed out on the Family Guy crossover episode:
    2wp2q5t4fhob.png

    You Look Beautiful in this Pic Kyno!
    Join the Dark Side, We Have Cookies.
    Join the Light Side, We Have Wookies.
  • Just making their arms Beskar would make no sense. That’s a design you only create if you think they’ll be in melee combat with a Jedi or darksaber owner. But they don’t even have the reflexes for that so again, useless.

    Or if they're going to be pounding those arms against blast doors that are just as hard as the arms themselves.

    Just saying.

    Reinforcing key lines of engineering stress to allow transfer of forces along the exo/skeleton's pure beskar elements makes sense if they're going to do exactly the kinds of things we saw them do before Luke even showed up.
    Plus, you act like the show is over. It may be that they are doing something more important with it.

    The show is over. Future shows may do something with beskar, but none of those things will save this episode from the terrible, out-of-character scenes of trained warriors sitting on their thumbs praying for someone else to save them.
    I’m not even sure what you mean by the “problem of the blast doors”.

    The blast doors are impacting the droids just exactly as hard as the droids are impacting on the blast doors. Why aren't the droids being as badly affected as the doors?

    The only way that can happen is if the droids' frames are made of stronger stuff. MUCH stronger stuff given how the blast doors are much, much thicker than the droids' frames.

    The only "much stronger than durasteel (or whatever)" stuff they've introduced to the audiences is beskar. Therefore, the droids should be reinforced with beskar, or (really "and/or") they should be bashing themselves to tatters in the process of beating on the blast doors.
    Our heroes did plenty. I’m fine if they need rescuing once in awhile.

    I agree that it's okay if they need rescuing once in a while, but why did they stop acting like warriors? They had the dark saber. They could have found oxygen masks & cut their way through the hull to try to make it back to the hangar. Or just brought up a schematic to see where they could cut through the deck or a bulkhead so that they could get around the droids on the way to an escape pod.

    But nope.

    Sure, they couldn't beat that number of droids. And sure they could have made a plan and had it fail. (Being intercepted on the way to the escape pod because the darksaber wasn't cutting through bulkheads fast enough, for instance.)

    Instead they acted like cowards paralyzed by fear. And they did that after Mando had even killed one of the things, so they knew that some victories were possible if they could narrow the access so that they were fighting fewer at a time.

    In short, they acted completely incompetently, when the first 15 episodes set us up to believe that all these people are quite competent.

    It's bad writing.

    I disagree about your beskar issue with the droids. They go out of their way to say that pure beskar can deflect a lightsaber.

    So the beskar on the dark troopers was beskar but not pure enough to block a lightsaber.

    Whether due to not having the mandolorian techniques or just being cheaper to use an alloy, it really doesn't matter.

    The beskar alloy was stronger than durasteel but not as strong as pure beskar. I have no issues ed with that.
  • After 2 seasons I noticed no one speaks mando'a, really?
Sign In or Register to comment.