New Rise of Skywalker trailer

[Zardnaar]

Part of me hopes that @Zardnaar is 100% right and that the new Star Wars movie crashes and burns. Then I can watch as Disney closes the shutters and lets the IP stay fallow for the next twenty years or so until the "fans" have aged out and then they can bring it back for the rest of us.

The viciousness of the Star Wars "fans" is just unbelievable. I mean, good grief, there's currently a twitterstorm because the teaser trailer doesn't have a reflection of a cape in the fight between Kylo Ren and Rei. SERIOUSLY?!?!? This is what it's come to? People losing their minds over trivial crap like this when the OT had storm troopers banging their heads on doorways?

I'm just so 100% fed up with people who pretend to be fans but just want to tear things down rather than be any part of anything positive.

I stay off Twitter personally. I thought the trailer was decent. Visually great.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ehhh. While Episodes 4, 5, and 6 imply this (but don't actually state it directly), the rest of the material is not so clear on that point. There's a lot of philosophy about the Force, and not all of it is so black and white. Traditional Jedi may say it was so, but is that The Truth, or merely the philosophy used to keep a large group of force users under control?

Meh. There are few SW takes that fill me with a greater apathy toward the entire franchise than this one.

 

[Umbran]

Meh. There are few SW takes that fill me with a greater apathy toward the entire franchise than this one.

I can understand the attraction of moral simplicity.

But when the main metaphysic of a fiction is built on a moral premise, if that premise is too simple, you quickly explore the entire premise. A longer-running franchise needs to have more space for exploration of its own themes, and absolutism doesn't have that space. It'll hold up for a movie or three, sure, but then you're done.

This is precisely why the larger SW universe had these alternate views of the Force - because the super-simple Jedi/Sith dichotomy has limits to its theme potential.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can understand the attraction of moral simplicity.

But when the main metaphysic of a fiction is built on a moral premise, if that premise is too simple, you quickly explore the entire premise. A longer-running franchise needs to have more space for exploration of its own themes, and absolutism doesn't have that space. It'll hold up for a movie or three, sure, but then you're done.

This is precisely why the larger SW universe had these alternate views of the Force - because the super-simple Jedi/Sith dichotomy has limits to its theme potential.

Firstly, the moral fabric of the setting’s magic isn’t the only facet of the setting that can be explored. Each new story doesn’t need to explore new facets of that magic, much less specifically new moral facets.

Further, the concept that the Force itself if Nature, and the Dark Side a corruption of Nature, doesn’t mean there aren’t moral facets to explore. The OT explored redemption, hope, and faith in others. The PT explored destiny vs free will, and how one falls, and the danger of letting yourself believe that “maybe Evil isn’t a real thing, but maybe is just something the Establishment made up to keep you in line.”
The ST seems to be exploring free will from a new angle (vs the weight of the past), the danger of viewing things like empathy and attachment as weakness (Kylo’s whole thing), and the separation of cosmic moral ideals from the realities of organizations in conflict, and the impact of protracted war, even when the cause is just.

Because the morality of Star Wars isn’t binary, it’s just the Force that is. But the Force doesn’t care about morality in the same way we do. We KNOW that with absolute certainty because Anakin is redeemed. The Force isn’t moral like a human is. It is a “Good” Force of creation, life and death, natural order, and cosmic harmony. It’s space Druidic magic, and The Dark Side is space necromancy.

Edit: also, forget the Jedi and the Sith. Even in new canon, there are more philosophies than these. And in canon, they either abstain from any use of the Dark Side, or eventually fall to the Dark Side and become corrupted monsters.

 

[trappedslider]

I think they have to stick to a few tropes. Doesn't matter what the franchise is the fans will turn in you if they expect ABC and serve you XYZ.

See 4E.

No change is bad, so is blowing up the world.

I think there's only so far you can go with the old canon. I believe it was Rich Evans (from Red Letter Media) who said that the Star Wars universe, regardless of all it's expanded universe stuff, is pretty small. And what he meant by that, is that if you're doing anything related to Star Wars, it always has to fall back on Stormtroopers, Darthvader, Lightsabers, X-wings, Tie Fighters, Walkers, Jedi, Galactic Super Weapon, Millenium Falcon. It really is a very small universe when they think about it, and there's not much creative freedom. Anything outside those bounderies won't feel like Star Wars.

You guys are both aware that the quote comes from the Ruined FOREVER essay on the wookieepedia right? Which needs to update to include recent movies...as to things that have ruined SW forever.

 

[Zardnaar]

You guys are both aware that the quote comes from the Ruined FOREVER essay on the wookieepedia right? Which needs to update to include recent movies...as to things that have ruined SW forever.

Nope.

Rewatched the trailer, the Palpatine star destroyer is a new model but it's very similar to the OT ones.

It might be slightly different down the side but the have a mini super laser I think and the bridge is slightly different.

 

[Umbran]

The Force isn’t moral like a human is. It is a “Good” Force of creation, life and death, natural order, and cosmic harmony.

How is that not moral like a human is? We don't have to think in terms of "good" and "evil". Harmful and helpful. Constructive and destructive. Pick your dichotomy.

It’s space Druidic magic, and The Dark Side is space necromancy.

I'm not really sure what you mean to say there.

If you are using the D&D analog - dude, Necromantic magic includes Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose, Revivify, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead and Resurrection. It ain't all bad stuff.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How is that not moral like a human is? We don't have to think in terms of "good" and "evil". Harmful and helpful. Constructive and destructive. Pick your dichotomy.

I'm not really sure what you mean to say there.

If you are using the D&D analog - dude, Necromantic magic includes Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose, Revivify, Speak with Dead, Raise Dead and Resurrection. It ain't all bad stuff.

Nature is helpful and harmful, constructive and destructive. But things die by the natural order. The necromancy analogy refers to necromancy colloquially. Creating undead and the like. In general, people who serve nature abhor it. A cleric who uses spare the dying and Raise Dead aren’t referred to as necromancers, and thus clerics aren’t the enemies of the guardians of Nature.

Using the Dark Side, spreading it’s corruption, is equivalent to raising undead.

Killing an enemy in combat is not. It’s no different from what happens in nature. The Dark Side is explicitly unnatural, even anti-natural.