L3 ruins it
Could have been decent, without this annoying piece of cringy shit.
shareYep.
share
MovieChat Forums > Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Discussion > L3 ruins it
Yeah, throwing in a character who is clearly just a random SJW mouthpiece isn't only obvious, it brings the movie to a screeching halt.
share.. if you are triggered by the mere presence of that sort of thing. Sure. Your lack of a sense of humour and lack of proportion is sure to bring your experience of the movie to a screeching halt.
shareBy this do you mean that you liked L3?
sharelol they support l3 ... even the droids name is cringe-worthy.
shareWhats the wrong with the name? you were ok with R2 wernt you?
... do you understand what the droids name actually is?
shareWhat I posted doesn't "mean" that. But as it happens, I did. She was a great laugh.
If you are really bothered by the introduction of "droids rights" into Star Wars, then blame Lucas.
If an intentionally comedic "woke" robot arouses femephobia then you've got a serious problem.
What's Lucas got to do with "droid rights"?
In Return of the Jedi, Lucas shows droids being tortured as punishment in Jabba's palace.
He had already portrayed them as oppressed slaves with feelings that could be used against them.
There you go. That took me literally 3 seconds of thought.
Also...
The very first Star Wars film (A New Hope, 1977) contained a few depictions of robots that look especially jarring with the passage of time. Droids — or at least protocol droids like C3P0 — are programmed to address their owner as “Master.” They wear restraining bolts to keep them from running away in the middle of the night. C3P0 and R2D2 meet Luke Skywalker, an apprentice farmer, when he buys them at an auction. If this was all too subtle, the droids are later denied entry to a pub, where the bartender grumbles, “We don’t serve their kind here.”
So as you can see, modern whiners are simply blind to what has already been established in Star Wars.
"We don't serve their kind! Your droids will have to wait outside!"
Jeezo. Lucas had to totally ruin the movie by showing the white human bartender being intolerant of AI.
Not to mention the male heroes bristling at the female's independence and authority and her height remarks..
......blah blah blah fuckin blah.
Wow you're seriously butthurt that people criticise the l3 droid?
Not liking said character is equivalent to having a phobia? Might want to get a new dictionary :).
HAHAHA that is too precious :).
Try again. I'm challenging your chickenshit arguments. You can like or dislike anything you want. DGAF.
Post your whiny bullshit about why you think it sucks then you're fair game, dipshit.
And yes, posting shit about a character because of its quasi-gender and because you're upset that a fucking spaceship is now not just a spaceship but a spaceship with the brain of a droid whose quasi-gender related sense of rights are threatening to you - is chickenshit. And I'm calling it.
It's fucking pathetic to cry that you're not allowed to not like something because your chickenshit argument gets taken apart.
No, you're being precious - droids are utilities, they are built and sold. They are no more a slave than the MF itself. And the MF actually has more than 1 droid control unit installed anyway.
I never considered l3 to have any particular gender (even a quasi one) since it's a droid.
You have some kind of crazy issue accepting criticism of the droid since you believe it has a quasi-gender that you must protect? Awww now that IS precious (and hilarious).
So you must have had a huge problem with the emotional connection that Luke develops with R2. Him being distraught at his condition following Yavin, even though he's just a slave unit to be bought and sold and treated as a slave.
Then the mortal terror in his eyes and voice when Luke thinks R2 has bought it on Dagobah.
Their quasi-sentience is long established in Star Wars as well as the notion that not all droids are considered equal with each other let alone with organics.
If you only consider them slaves and should be treated as such, then it's weird that you are so uncomfortable about L3 being part of the Falcon.
"Technically she didn't, as is now the reason why the Falcon is so awesome .."
Clearly it's a problem for you that "she" is part of the Falcon, even though they are just both slaves in your eyes. Or is it just droids you have a general problem with, story wise? There's no need to have droids in any of the movies. Let everyone just have hand-held translator devices. No need for C-3PO. It wasn't even necessary to put the plans in R2. Just put the plans in the pod and hope they magically wind up in Obi Wan's possession the same way that the droids incredibly wind up in Obi Wan's possession through chance as much as anything else.
I suppose Lucas ruined Star Wars by making droids a popular and integral part of Star Wars and making them the first main characters to ever appear in it.
You don't have to like anything. But try coming up with an authentic argument, quit back-pedalling on your reasons, or just shut the fuck up. Ciao.
"But sir! Nobody worries about upsetting a droid" Grrrrrrrrr. Damn you, Lucas. Why did you have to foist all this 21st century idealistic crap on us, forty years ago?
Droids are not slaves, they are just utilities - manufactured sold by corporations. Anakin was an actual slave for example.
That being said Luke abandons R2 after ROTJ anyway.
Fact is l3 was a joke and I'm glad the droids body was disintegrated and it's mind forced to navigate for Han solo for the rest of time :).
But L3 is just a droid. A utility. I wish you'd make your mind up.
shareIts like people dont ask Pcs to have rights but put it into antropomorphic body and they will instantly want to give them rights. It makes no sense. Or rather, it probably does. Humans have a cognitive bias towards antropomorphism. This is why animal/alien characters are almost unanimously antropomorphic, we cant relate to different kinds.
shareYou know, I'd vaguely wondered about the legal status of droids in the SW universe for years, precisely because they could be bought and sold, yet were obviously capable of independent thought, and of developing relationships between beings. Did anyone program R2 and C3PO to stick together and bicker like an old married couple, or did they just develop a relationship over time?
No, the stuff about apparently sentient droids being treated as possessions has been simmering away in the background since the first film, and some of us actually noticed, even if not everyone did. I was always sort of hoping that some hero would actually set a Droid free instead of just treating it well, but that never happened. Instead, L3 brought it all up, but in a way that was played for laughs. Or was supposed to be played for laughs.
Edit: I put a post asking about "the legal status of droids" on the ANH board "10 months ago". I asked some of the questions being argued about here, back before "Solo" hit the theaters.
"posting shit about a character because of its quasi-gender and because you're upset that a fucking spaceship is now not just a spaceship but a spaceship with the brain of a droid whose quasi-gender related sense of rights are threatening to you"
But I thought you said L3 was no more and only survived long enough to save them in Kessel before merging with the MF to become a completely new entity? Which one is it? It died when merging with the MF or it is alive and the brain of the MF? Can't argue both ways.
Notice I wasn't arguing the point of L3 enduring as an individual. I was pointing out that someone taking such extreme offense at the possible implication that L3 does live on is ridiculously embarrassing for them.
shareI liked L3! Or rather, I liked her more than anything else in the movie, for what that's worth.
Probably because I always wondered about the legal status of sentient robots in the SW universe.
I wouldn't say she...(it?)...ruins it, but was completely ham-fisted into the storyline. Thankfully she wasn't along for the whole ride.
shareOh but now SHE is the only reason the falcon is so great! Yay!!!
shareThe Falcon is renowned for its speed, which has nothing to do with L3.
shareExcept we are led to believe that the MF is truly awesomely fast because of the custom modifications that Han made himself. Get that the Kessel Run is made difficult to explain by the fact that a parsec is a unit of distance as opposed to time so they have tried to shoehorn in 'advanced navigation' as the reason why the ship could do it - coupled with it's speed to avoid the black hole or whatever ... turns out the humble freighter was capable of all this from the start, unmodified ...
It was a clumsy effort, not unlike most elements in the film.
The Kessel Run was indeed done clumsily in this movie and they should have had a real geek outlining how to do it right... Or just go with already-established lore!!!
The idea of the run being distance-based is due to it being through the Maw, which is supposed to be a black hole cluster. Thus, shortening the distance down means getting closer to the holes instead of going around them the long way.
All they had in here was one gravity sink and a monster. It looked okay but it should have been much more.
They should have just ignored the kessel run altogether as its a farce that tries to explain why lucas was too dumb to not notice it was a measure of distance rather then time.
shareYou can still boast you have arrived in shorter distance because you took a shortcut (through the maelstrom as it turns out) and use units of distance for it.
MF was always renouned for its speed and its smuggling capabilities (much like Serenity ech), not for its advanced navigation. In fact its probably never going to come up again.
The freighter was NOT capable of this from the start, though. See that they totally wreck the freighter in the process.
For fuck's sake. The Falcon was always know for having a unique navigation system.
Are people now resentful that this peculiarity came from a droid with a mind of its own?
Were you emotionally invested in it simply being a piece of tech without any possible sentiment attached to it?
What a thing to be aggrieved at.
Lol you're the only one who is angry ... The Falcon is not renowned for its nav abilities but its sheer speed.
Ease up on the being triggered next time.
So you're just fucking simple and grasping around for ways to complain about L3/Solo. Everything travels through light speed at the same speed. Light Speed. The length of time of your journey is determined by the distance you travel. How short a course you can plot. It's been part of Star Wars lore since the first movie. Hyperspace is not just point the ship at your destination and hit the hyperdrive.
Maybe Star Wars isn't for you if you don't know that. (But strangely have some need to know it's not a droid's memory that gives the Falcon great hyperspace capabilities.)
Wow you are literally willing to alter reality instead of admitting a mistake. Han specifically refers to how fast the MF is multiple times in the OT - even stating that the ship will make .5 past Lightspeed at one point. Of course you need to plot a course whilst travelling at that speed, but that is only mentioned from a safety perspective to avoid collisions, to pretend that magically now everyone was referring to the MF's nav abilities when saying things like "she's fast enough for you old man" now is nothing but pure fantasy.
Keep getting triggered though moron. I'm amazed that there are sjw-like defenders of this movie, makes me laugh.
Yeah. If you can plot a shorter course than anyone else, you get there f-a-s-t-e-r.
What exactly does .5 past lightspeed mean? Do you know? Yep you're just assuming shit.
Literally dozens of Star Wars documentaries produced by Lucasfilm have explained the "speed" of the falcon and the use of "parsecs" to describe it even though it's a measure of distance. The Falcon can safely negotiate obstacles in space much better than other ships. Meaning it takes shorter routes, which are faster. Capisce? This is just the first time it's been spelled out in a movie.
At no point is it said that "sheer speed" is the defining characteristic of the Falcon. So it seems I'm magically making stuff up about navigation, even though George Lucas himself has described it as such in just about every doc where he's talked about the Falcon. But it's safe for you to assume that it's just "sheer speed", which has never been mentioned in a film or documentary.
The fact that the some of the Falcon's hardware came from a droid with a certain personality is causing you to cry about "SJWs" and complain about people "defending" them just because you imagined that "sheer speed" made the Falcon fast. That's the laughable thing amigo. Do you really think that Solo is trying to tell you that people with politics you don't like are necessary to make cool spaceships go fast? What a fucking joke.
The Falcon's special navigation system makes it the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy. Take it or leave it, son.
Your first statement is not actually correct for obvious reasons, the shortest course flown by a ship 1/10th the speed is not guaranteed to get you there quicker.
Lol yeah you show me where you were claiming that the MF was fast because of it's navigation system before this movie was released? NOW MAGICALLY you have this notion when the MF has always had MULTIPLE droid control units interfacing with it's main computer.
Now magically it is important because you think l3 represents something that it doesnt ... rofl that is actually, real life laughable. Your level of hypocrisy and butthurt is legendary.
"Now, magically, it's important to you... "
If not crying about it, like you are, meant it was important to me.
Since you aren't making any sense, I'll assume it is some issue with having the have the last word or something?
shareYou're the one coming on to cry about L3 and how she's part of the Falcon. So clearly it's important to you. I'm just pointing out how stupid your arguments are for being upset about it as you clearly are.
shareLiterally dozens of Star Wars documentaries produced by Lucasfilm have explained the "speed" of the falcon and the use of "parsecs" to describe it even though it's a measure of distance.
LOL more like retconning lucas' error. I feel no compulsion to eat this reconn nonsense. The falcon was a fast ship "fast" as in it outruns other ships. Even when they are about to jump into hyperdrive they have to wait while the computer prepares a route. The purpose of the route being not to bounce of a pulsar as han put it not about finding shortcuts. share
It's the ability to do those things AND outrun other ships traveling at light speed that requires a superior navigation computer. It is the same special navigation capability that enables the Falcon to come out of hyperspace inside the deflector shield on Starkiller Base.
share Sorry man I just can't drink that koolaid. The falcon is a speed deamon which is what a smuggler needs in order to outrun patrol ships. If L3 is supposed to have been an awsome contribution to the falcon via a navigational database thats pretty much lost on every other star wars movie cause its never mentioned.
I also think it was naive to depict the falcon as being a brand new ship that became junked out because of the kessel run. They really tried to shoehorn a lot of stuff in this movie. Solo's name, his gun, the dice, the ships rustic look, some how han wasn't even a real pilot when he first aquires the falcon. And now were supposed to believe L3 is the reason the falcon is so bad ass and its not really the falcon's speed that makes it bad ass no were supposed to believe its the ships navigation systems that are what we were gushing about.
Whatever. I hope life improves for you some day
shareTroll some one else.
shareI just told you the backstory to the "parsec" that's been Lucas's line ever since people pointed out it was a unit of distance forty years ago. And he happens to be the creator of the whole thing. If you want to pretend that the Falcon sprang out of your imagination and everything related to it has to adhere to your head canon, you go ahead. If you had been paying attention to the final scenes of Solo you would have noticed that the Falcon has been repaired. Not to its earlier condition. But it is not the wreck it was after the Kessel run either. So you've got a problem with being told stuff you didn't know and doesn't match your head canon. But you've also got a problem being shown stuff you don't need to know. No wonder you're so unhappy.
"the ships rustic look, some how han wasn't even a real pilot when he first aquires the falcon."
What the hell does that even mean? What makes you think he wasn't a real pilot? Because he'd been kicked out of the Imperial Navy? You'd have preferred him not to and to have been a good, subservient Imperial stooge in order for him to retain the official position as pilot? Or you'd rather he miraculously owned a ship somehow?
You can flagellate yourself with your assessment of L3 and the Falcon you want. Sane, reasonable people can continue to enjoy themselves without being paranoid about the "ghost" of a droid.
"no were supposed to believe its the ships navigation systems that are what we were gushing about."
"It'll take a few seconds to get the co-ordinates set from the navicomputer."
"Are you kidding? At the rate they're gaining?"
"Travelin' through hyperspace ain't like dustin' 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?"
The co-ordinates of Alderaan are not what's taking the time to calculate. It's the co-ordinates of the route they can take.
Martoto your playing some head canon games of your own clearly, which is why I find your argument against other peoples head canon to be moot. Your head canon is designed to protect the poor story arc that lucas and disney are using to alter past canon. Most of us on the other hand would have preffered that Hans idiotic (written by lucas) comment that she made the kessel un in X parsecs, and reject your damaged canon that the "fastness" of the falcon is based on shortining distance traveld via routing tricks rather then the actual velocity of the falcon in subspace (hyper space in star wars jargon).
The parsecs comment should have just been ignored the same way Star Trek fans ignore all the events of Star Trek V (Spock having a brother is never mentioned again). Instead were treated like idiots by having a robots nav database installed into the falcon which makes it faster by shortening the route between two points. I simply ignore those annoying inconsistencies in the plot, rather then warping all logic to correct(retcon) those past mistakes.
"The co-ordinates of Alderaan are not what's taking the time to calculate. It's the co-ordinates of the route they can take."
Yea I never assumed it was the location of Alderaan being computed. We all know a route was being charted we all know what computers are. No one in their right mind would declare that the speed of a vessel is based on its ability to compute a route around an island(real ship) or pulsar(star ship). speed is a measure of distance over time not distance alone.
George Lucas has been explaining the kessel run behind the scenes for forty years and now his explanation is in a movie. So it is most certainly not head canon. It's canon.
If you have more accurate charts than someone else you can sail more direct routes that someone with an evenly matched ship are not aware of, and can take without fear of running aground on rocks or being pushed off course by a current or whatnot. If you shorten the destance you shorten journey time. Which means you get there faster.
Trouble is no one believes lucas's inability to recognize his failures and habbit of making the claim thats what he intended. We can't help but notice he corrects and changes the audio on story plot points where he changes his mind. Guido shot first, obi one and lukes dialog in a new hope, but he tries to retconn an actual technical flub where distance now means speed.
Even the solo retconn seems silly as the ship can't even route around imperial ships with out also needing to route around monsters in hyperspace monsters and storms that would clearly need to be light years apart.
Further more it was always implied that Han Solo kept upgrading and modifying the falcon's engines to make it the fastest ship and that. By the new mangled cannon to make the ship faster you would need to... Upgrade the computers? Thats just dumb. Think about it the only reason a writer or lucas would come up with something so dumb is to retconn the "Opps I used distance instead of actual time to indicate speed". Even before SOLO came out lucas was trying to say that 12 parsecs was really a reference to hyperspace bending spacetime to make the path shorter (Computer routing wasn't even considered). This shortaning of hyperspace is the same idea as to how warp technology works in startrek but even start trek uses warp factors to describe the capability of their engines. But now we have this nonsense that computer's calculating routes makes the ship arrive sooner which makes even this retconn nonsensical as the falcons run would have been described in time again rather then distance. Describing the falcans abilities again would have been "She made the kessel run in 14 minutes" instead of saying something dumb like "She made the kessel run in 45,672,000,000,000,000 meters. When distance is used you coulden't know the amount of time it took the falcon to run the kessel run unless you know the actual velocity of the falcon. Which is awkward cause we'd already have the velocity.
Well, whether you accept it or not, why don't you complain to George Lucas for maintaining that's what he meant in every interview since he was first asked forty years ago?
Who the hell is Guido?
They aren't in hyperspace when they encounter a monster or any storms.
"Even before SOLO came out lucas was trying to say that 12 parsecs was really a reference to hyperspace bending spacetime to make the path shorter ..."
Uh-huh.
Well, whether you accept it or not, why don't you complain to George Lucas for maintaining that's what he meant in every interview since he was first asked forty years ago?
Fans have already done this.
Guido is that alien the tries to hold up han in the cantina. Initially han was the only one that shot. Then in the special edition lucas wanted guido to fire first miss and then han shot back at him.
>>"Even before SOLO came out lucas was trying to say that 12 parsecs
was eally a reference to hyperspace bending spacetime to make the pathhorter ..."
>Uh-huh.
On that note I can and am now dismissive of your arguments too. I've seen the way you treat others on this board so I don't feel compelled to engage you in dialog any further.
share
So, you accept that Lucas has been explaining his parsec line as a shorter route than believed possible for forty years and since it's now been depicted, as stated by Lucas for forty years, it's not my head canon (never has been, I didn't make it up. Lucas did), it is in fact actual canon. And that your attempts to denounce it are on the basis of it not confirming your head canon (which has been at odds with the author and the line that's episode IV all this time).
There is no Guido character. (Maybe there is in your head canon).So that's quite an own goal to score there.
No I've been ignoring lucas for the past 40 years considering my knowledge of science and physics tells me lucas flubbed. I can't imagine a future where speed is measured in distance alone. People would of course be interested in actual distance / time to make assertions about the falcons capabilities across many different distaces. Sure knowing a computers ability helps to compute shorter distances but every one is still interested in the completly independent variable which is time. How much time will it take the falcon to get from point A to point B? Lucas fucked up and we all were willing to ignore it but lucas kept trying to retcon a fix and JJ Abrams jokingly repeated the line in his film and now Solo broke it even worse by using the absurdity of speed being measured in a computers routing capability. I love star wars too much to allow it to be subjected to that level of brain damage. The answer to fixing a damaged continuity should never be by adding more damage to the continuety. We have a disagreement and that is all, I know you feel compelled to convince me that measuring speed with by supplying distance and I likewise feel compelled to defend reality by saying it would never make sense to talk about navigational charts when discussing raw speed of a ships engines.
Clearly this is a case of legend becomming fact via surgery. The original script actually has instructs Obi one to have a reaction to indicate he recognizes han solos line is bull shit. The original novelization of star wars a new hope uses the line "She made the kessel run in 12 timeparts". I think its cute that some star wars fans are trying to fix this error where as most of us just ignore it as its absurd.
I think its pretty obvious even to you that the character I'm refering to is Greedo (yes I can admit I mispelled it) vs you who's pretending I made the character up when you know danm well who I'm talking about.
Star Wars isn't science fiction.
Nobody's saying speed is measured by distance in the future. They are saying that the Kessel Run was shortened by the Falcon taking a shortcut only it and Han were capable of taking.
Yes I knew who you were referring to but to make such an obvious error kind of undermines your arguments about what's right and proper in the Star Wars universe.
ok you win. Its cringe wortyh but I guess the parsecs quote is acceptable. still feels sketchy to me but I'm ok with it.
martoto is the resident NPC on these boards - it only has a static set of responses when interacted with.
Any and all independent thinking and logical thought is impossible.
The Falcon is 'the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy!' - it is NEVER referred to as 'the best navigator everrr!'
the l3 droid is worth nothing.
Multiple people have raised the same points with toto and they refuse to relent. For some reason they think the droid represents something that it does not - it's just a dead utility droid.
In the end it's brains were pilfered like a cheap USB drive. The droid is nothing special in the saga at all.
And the best part is when she died.
shareTechnically she didn't, as is now the reason why the Falcon is so awesome ...
share Oh was that the implication they were trying to make. LOL. Thats as silly as the implication that we should be viewing and treating L3 as if she were actually a woman. The irony to me is that literally is objectifying women or womanizing an object if you prefer.
but yes her weak droid body was blown to pieces and now her brains are a SLAVE of the MF's ... how ironically hilarious :D.
shareWhy can't we view her as a woman? C3PO was always a gay male robot.
share ??? I never interpreted C3p0 as a gay male robot, maby a male robot with a british accent but not gay. But I'm more objecting to the notion that L3 is somehow a damsel in distress that needs to be defended from male chauvinist when the reality is L3 is just an obnoxious character without a gender label. The SJW folks around here seem to want to only view L3 in terms of being a woman which is a disservice to real women when you think about it.
Only enahanced the Navi computer in the falcon , Falcon is awesome for its speed
shareI get the feeling that one of the mods that Han would have done over the years would have been to dump the necessary data from this unit and discard it (no need to run multiple control systems and waste power) - since he never mentions the droid, nor does he highlight the nav capabilities of the MF in subsequent movies we can assume that the droid has been long forgotten (no impact on the characters in the SWU).
Falcon is known for raw speed only, I agree. (I was being sarcastic with my above post).
Yes but I recall C3PO saying your computer has the strangest dialect , so I wonder if they brought in L3 as a nod to that in Empire?
shareApparently they did, though there didn't seem to be anything odd about the way l3 communicated in the film ... nor did the MF's computer have any issues communicating with it either.
share I think L3 was speaking brainfuck at that point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck
she's lucky she was still turing complete.
I liked that she showed how droids develop stronger personalities the longer they interact with people... and everyone, even Lando, was a bit annoyed by her antics, but her thorough star charts were too valuable to reset her.
Plus it showed that the developing personality can introduce arguably unpredictable behavior and failure to obey commands.
If only they had a data backup ... the charts had to come from somewhere.
Watching all of the fake-sentient droids being deactivated and destroyed was satisfying - they are nothing more than utilities afterall.
If only they had a data backup ... the charts had to come from somewhere.
I got the impression they were compiled from multiple sources over a very long period of time. It's a big galaxy, data is spread everywhere.
And when it comes to Star Wars tech, they even cart data around on flash drives, basically. Like the Death Star plans... Once it was known that the Empire was trying to get it back, why not transmit the plans and/or make a ton of copies for safety? Why rely on one single copy of the data on a physical medium? share
I think Han eventually dumped the data from L3 and uploaded it natively to the MF's central computer - then he destroyed the last remaining pieces of L3 by jettisoning it into a star - very satisfying.
Regarding the DS plans it is mentioned that Tantive IV has the ability to make data transmissions but didn't in an attempt to cover their tracks - in security terms its called going old school (hand delivery, no digital signature).
I don't think that is ever mentioned.
Still doesn't explain why they would keep one single copy.
Hell, the opening of Star Wars is one of the biggest logic holes in movie history. The Star Destroyer gunners let the Death Star plans slip away because the Tantive's escape pod had no "life signs."
This statement... In a universe where there are literally sentient, non-living droids on every random street corner that have no "life signs."
It's the cheapest, most absurd way to let the droids escape, and it should kill the entire franchise for anyone who nitpicks as criticism.
It's also not alone. There are numerous holes. People who nitpicked Rey pointed out a major hole in the original trilogy: In A New Hope, no one uses telekinesis and it's not even shown as a Force power. Ben doesn't even train Luke on anything other than swatting at a floating taser ball for a minute and seeing it without his eyes. However, at the opening of Empire Strikes Back, Luke suddenly uses telekinesis.
Did he invent the Force Pull? No one taught it to him. He wouldn't even know it's possible. According to the Rey nitpickers, it means Luke could never use it until after Yoda teaches it to him.
Looking for consistency and logic in Star Wars is a fantasy, much like the genre itself. The movies are mindless fun and not meant to be thought about too deeply or taken too seriously.
LUCAS HIMSELF said Star Wars is MADE FOR TWELVE YEAR OLDS.
Telekinesis is shown to exist plus Luke witnesses Obi Wan perform force abilities like the mind trick for example. Then he physically trains Luke in how to use the force to interface with the physical world when he fights the ball droid blindfolded ... Then he even talks to Luke from beyond the grave.
What is odd is that you are happy to try and invent holes in the OT whilst claiming that there are none in the DT ... Lol
no one uses telekinesis and it's not even shown as a Force power.
You don't think vader's force choke is a form of telekinesis?
share
yeah , also when Ben makes that noise to distract the guards at the tractor thingy
shareIt's called 'mental gymnastics' - rey defenders like frog are known to suffer from this condition.
NOT ONCE did they raise any of these points prior to 2015 ... in the almost 40 years of the films existence. Now as if by magic these self-serving and laughably false points about the OT are their main argument - funny how there is no denying anything in the DT since it is undeniable.
People have been having fun nitpicking Star Wars for decades, but once it became a source of such huge criticism in 2015, things changed.
shareIt's strange how you think that improves your position - when in reality it actually makes it MORE ASTOUNDING that your points were never raised since, as you said, the films were HEAVILY nit-picked for decades ...
shareThe point is that there wasn't this kind of scrutiny before Rey and it highlights that people are selective about who needs to follow the "rules" they imagine have been set.
People never really thought of Vader's choke as telekinesis at the time. And Obi Wan's trick is dismissed as "gas escaping" by the guards. Most people just put them down to tricks of the mind, seeing as how neither Vader nor Obi Wan seem interested in using force telekinesis at any other point of the movie when it would have been useful - e.g. there was no need for Obi Wan to even go out on to the Tractor beam control platform. He could have moved all the levers from the other side of the chamber. Then there's the duel. The only duel in the series to not feature use of force telekinesis. Vader could have opened the blast doors that Luke closed etc, etc.
The fact is that these things have been revealed to the audience as and when the story needs or wants them to. They are not an objective chronicle of how things must work.
The point is that there wasn't this kind of scrutiny before Rey and it highlights that people are selective about who needs to follow the "rules" they imagine have been set.
Luke wasn't anything like ray. He had flaws when he was introduced and knew nothing about the force. He followed the classic hero story arc where a person starts off with flaws and is weak then transitions and learns. Luke was also overconfident in his abilities and looses a lot of that as he grows. In the last film he still exhibits a little overconfidence which still shows us he has human flaws but he was still weak when he is introduced. For example Luke got his ass kicked by sand people and was effectivly saved by Obi(An old wise man that would share his wisdom with luke early on in his jedi career) when the two charatcers first meet. Rey on the other half is a woman who looks 90 pounds is first seen on screen kicking ass with a staff against what I think is at least 3 stronger men attacking her, and is shown to be saving finn when they first meet. Sure this is a good baddass heroine trope but it causes early suspension of disbelief. We aren't even complaining about her gender we just can't relate to a character who shows no fear or early weakness as most good stories do with a developing hero. We just can't relate to ray. Luke was defeated several times and showed that he was actually in danger vs rey who we know through script convience will never exhibit fear or be in any real danger despite the odds and danger the script is trying to convince us she's in. We like heros that actually overcome their flaws and become stronger we like to see them exhibit fear because we imagine what we'd be doing in that situation and we know where not strong. Of course a story can do what ever it wants but as an audience we can judge the plausibility and likability of a character that hasn't been shown to have earned that heroic status status.
We know vaders force choke is telekinesis as we know the persons throught was being crushed. We saw vaders hand make a gripping motion. I know thats how I took it. I never considered it to be a trick of the mind. I don't believe the majority of the audience in 1977 though this was a mind trick. I also believed telekinisis was used in hind sight as we first see vader lifting a person by the throught when he is throttling captain antilles. We thought he was extremly strong then concluded the force made him strong. share
The actual point is that these people (who are likely just frog and frog's sock account) can't actually accept even 1 criticism of the ray character BECAUSE of a certain physical aspect of the character itself.
There are hundreds of posts on these boards where frog flat out lies and invents things in the OT to try and twist SW in rays favour - this is obviously a sad joke and actually shows you the sheer level of MENTAL DYSFUNCTION that these people suffer from.
The mental gymnastics and even retconning their own memories so that they can live in a fantasy world where ray, the MARY SUE, is some kind of hero instead of a DISGRACE is disturbing.
There has never been a bigger MARY SUE than ray, and there never will be. (Just want to type MARY SUE one more time, for the triggers).
I'm sorry but this argument that audiences were concerned with and observant of Luke following the classic hero story arc is revisionist history. People have applied all these things in hindsight in order to justify the scrutiny of Rey, which still exhibits double standards anyway. You'll find that the most vocal remarks about Luke were always about him being a little bit vanilla and whiny. You are imagining that the men are stronger and you've given no logical reason why Rey should not be adept at defending herself. It only disturbs your suspension of belief because you are scrutinizing her with a template of what Luke was as character when we met him. She hasn't been relatively coddled by her farming foster parents. And this stuff about needing rescued. Han is not Obi Wan but he did make the jump to lightspeed in side the hangar saving them all. Something nobody else would have dared. Rey was afraid of leaving Jakku. Afraid of not being around when her ship comes in. Afraid of becoming part of Han's crew.
You're confusing character with personality. And you are too busy looking for Luke that you can't see Rey.
These concepts I disscussed are not isolated to just star wars. Any character that doesn't have flaw is not a relatable character. I've said nothing or revised anything in hindsite your greatly mistaken if you you think thats what I'm doing. Rey's character is due to lazy writeing and failure to bring her to an earthly level that we can all relate too. I agree luke was whiney that was one of his more annoying flaws. "you've given no logical reason why Rey should not be adept at defending herself." you don't know what logic is apparently. Look at the world around you women are getting battered and beaten all the time we have a cultural standard that men should never hit a women because they are recognized as week. And there is no logical reason to assume even a man can perform that well if jumped by 3 or more guys. We woulden't have minded rey developing her skills as time goes on and I'm not using luke as a template I'm looking at all great hero story arcs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey A hero starts off flawed to make them feel human and they grow into a capable hero.
I've accepted your nonsense about the falcons parsecs at the cost that star wars has now moved away from sci-fi space opera down a little towards space balls comedy but your not gonna convince me that the development of rey isn't bad story telling. Like I said your motivation to defend ray is because of your miss interpretation that we are sexists. I'm sorry but these SJW narratives have hijacked good story telling. No one denies that with proper training a woman of developed musclear stature can be trained to defeat a group of men but rey would be clobbered in real life if she got into a fight like that. Man or Woman we like heroes that get injured fail and eventually overcome the bad guys. Remember die hard? Its the struggle that we like about heroes not unstopable untouchable predictable victories of script invincible heros. Don't try to strawman me as a sexist.
The notion that the audience spontaneously approved of Luke Skywalker's story in adherence to the construct of "hero's journey" which is used to categorise and describe trends in storytelling is a fantasy.
Confirmation bias is being employed to protect people's affinity for one character and resist acceptance of another. An observer who doesn't feel they've something to lose would find "flaws" in Rey's character too. But someone quick to invoke "SJW" is clearly too protective of their preconceived notions of the order of things is unlikely to be impartial. Which is why you ignore all the paradoxes about Rey being effectively self imprisoned in her scavenger existence even though the harshness of her upbringing has toughened her up enough to handle herself. Luke for all his flaws never thought he was smarter than Ben or Yoda. He just often felt certain ways about things that Ben and Yoda's wisdom didn't seem to support. Rey on the other hand almost always thinks her mentor's wisdom is flawed.
You've clearly made up your mind about how Rey would inevitably be wrong and using specious reasoning to uphold this assumption. You've never actually pointed out anything insightful about her character. Just parroted all the complaints of people who have a hard time accepting female characters in roles they feel men are entitled to feel they fill better or more naturally.
It's nothing like Spaceballs whatsoever. That remark alone indicates how skewed your perception of the film and what you think it should be.
And look who's exhibiting confirmation bias. Pot calling the kettle black.
I chose to discuss luke as an example of the heros journey story arc. No one complained about lukes development like they do with Rey but cause look was relatable. This isn't even about luke which seems to be what your making it about. I've been talking about the growth of heros in story telling and you grasping at straws by repeatedly trying to circle back around too look.
"You've clearly made up your mind about how Rey would inevitably be wrong and using specious reasoning to uphold this assumption. You've never actually pointed out anything insightful about her character. Just parroted all the complaints of people who have a hard time accepting female characters in roles they feel men are entitled to feel they fill better or more naturally. "
And that special reasoning which you lack is how we evalute and justify our opinions. You seem to prefer having an opinion based on assertion alone as reasoning isn't your strong suite. Your would prefer I avoid using logic and reasoning cause it apparently is hurting your case.
This is the real truth of the argument. Your a SJW that can't see past the bad story telling of rey and like everyone else on the left your gonna pull the sexist card despite the evidence being given too you that her character was poorly written and is unrelatable. We've had strong women in film before that earned their hero status: Ripley, Sarah conner, The new lara crofts in tomb raider etc. Had rey been a man we'd have had the same problem. Your own biases are showing up.
It's nothing like Spaceballs whatsoever. That remark alone indicates how skewed your perception of the film and what you think it should be.
Yea either I take the film seriously and ignore all the BS retconning or I just accept that its a silly film series. And your perception is pretty scewed too. We want to like rey but this portrayal just sucks. share
"No one complained about lukes development like they do with Rey but cause look was relatable."
Because he was an unremarkable farm boy, teenager. You wouldn't necessarily relate to Oliver Twist would you? Hardly a criticism of the character though, is it?
"And that special reasoning which you lack is how we evalute and justify our opinions. You seem to prefer having an opinion based on assertion alone as reasoning isn't your strong suite. Your would prefer I avoid using logic and reasoning cause it apparently is hurting your case."
No you haven't even tried getting under the skin of the Rey character. You just keepm pointing out that other people criticise her as if that is some sort of analysis.
"This is the real truth of the argument. Your a SJW that can't see past the bad story telling of rey and like everyone else on the left your gonna pull the sexist card despite the evidence being given too you that her character was poorly written and is unrelatable. "
Sorry but it's the haters that put the SJW card up front. Try and analyse the character first. Then compare her to Luke to understand why she's the same and also, obviously, different. Not the other way round.
Of course I' gonna pull the SJW card you flat out said that I don't like rey because he's a women capable of defeating men. And like a broken record you go back to Luke as if that was the only thing I was talking about. I think you understand my argument and your being intellectually dishonest by attempting to circle back on the error that my opinion of Rey is based on like. I was simply using the Journey of the hero with luke as an example but your pretending not to understand that. Your just to dence to reason with. And I'm not alone it looks like plenty on the board have given up trying to reason with you but your clearly a broken record that just loops over and over and over.
share"Of course I' gonna pull the SJW card you flat out said that I don't like rey because he's a women capable of defeating men"
I said no such thing to you. I implied, heavily, that double standards are applied. That's unsurprising. People are happy to backwards engineer rationales for the tacit acceptance of Luke. Rey is scrutinised purely on the basis of whether she's paid the same perceived dues in the same way and at the same time. That's entirely specious reasoning.
"I was simply using the Journey of the hero with luke as an example but your pretending not to understand that."
And my point is that if you are using Luke's hero journey candidacy as if his example excludes Rey from being appreciated likewise. But you are quite obviously restricting those standards and provided no meaningful or Rey at all. All we are getting is Luke was relateable and Rey isn't Luke, so Rey cannot be relateable and therefore doesn't adhere to "hero's journey". That's a highly reductive argument. I gave you an example of Oliver Twist, one of the most famous and loved characters that doesn't require you to relate to being an orphan and living rough in foggy old London. And we don't throw suspicion on the writing or the writer, or on leftists or invoke any other cockeyed paranaioa when he displays courage or intelligence when push comes to shove.
"Of course I' gonna pull the SJW card you flat out said that I don't like rey because he's a women capable of defeating men"
I said no such thing to you. I implied, heavily, that double standards are applied. That's unsurprising. People are happy to backwards engineer rationales for the tacit acceptance of Luke. Rey is scrutinised purely on the basis of whether she's paid the same perceived dues in the same way and at the same time. That's entirely specious reasoning.
Your words:
"You've clearly made up your mind about how Rey would inevitably be wrong and using specious reasoning to uphold this assumption. You've never actually pointed out anything insightful about her character. Just parroted all the complaints of people who have a hard time accepting female characters in roles they feel men are entitled to feel they fill better or more naturally."
I said nothing about Rey being a woman and you just throw that in their that I'm copying everyone's sexist opinions. You clearly believe that anyone who dislikes Reys character is doing so because they are sexist.
"And my point is that if you are using Luke's hero journey candidacy as if his example excludes Rey from being appreciated likewise."
Yea I've made it very clear I wasn't basing my argument on Lukes story arc. I was basing it on the Heros journey. Your just don't seem to get it. Sorry can't help you can't stop that broken record player in your mouth. And while you at it why don't you tell us whats so remarkable about Rey's character?
10 crc talks about Hero's journey using luke as an Example.
20 Toto: Acuses opponent of only accepting lukes story arc cause Rey is not luke.
30 crc reminds accuser he was talking about the general case of the hero's journey
20 Accuser jumps to line 20
Some one has control-C your cranial bug at some point. share
You forgot to bold the whole sentence. "Just parroted all the complaints of people who have a hard time accepting female characters in roles they feel men are entitled to feel they fill better or more naturally."
There's a crucial difference between what I said and what you're accusing me of saying.
"Yea I've made it very clear I wasn't basing my argument on Lukes story arc. I was basing it on the Heros journey. Your just don't seem to get it. Sorry can't help you can't stop that broken record player in your mouth. And while you at it why don't you tell us whats so remarkable about Rey's character?"
But you keep telling me people complain about Rey, unlike Luke who followed the hero's journey, therefore Rey doesn't follow heroes journey and people are right to criticise her.
Oh pleasae why did you even bring that up. Did you see any sexists around here talk about the Hero's journey or how we tend to like hero's that experience danger and start of flawed and become heroic? Unlike Mary Sue Trope characters that are unrelatable.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySue
This trope isn't isolated to females. See
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu
The original Mary sue trope is named after Mary Sue of star trek fan fiction that was so perfect she was the captain of a star ship at age 15. There are plenty of male mary sues we don't like either.
Of course your implying I'm a sexist. You basically said I'm using their(Sexists) arguments and even worse your implying I'm not creative enough to come up with an argument on my own. And your 3rd problem is your I don't accept rey because I/We(sexists) don't accept female[/b] characters in roles they feel [b]men are entitled[/b] to.
Your totally associating me with these [b]sexists that live in your brain.
That's because you're using the same arguments they are.
You seem to have no awareness that "mary sue" is not considered authentic criticism. Its underlying sexism has been acknowledged for a long time now.
And you haven't come up with an argument or analysis of your own. So I cannot be faulted for observing that.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MartyStu
There are male Mary Sues as well. The trope was named after Mary Sue who in star trek fan fiction was so perfect she was already the captain of a star ship at age 15. This is actually the first time the trope was codifed.
And once again your pulling the sexist card. Better luck next time.
And your no authority on criticism clearly.
I'm well aware of the provenance of mary sue.
So you choose to ignore its not isloted to females. Your clearly zeroes in on the male/female aspect of any of your arguments. I also don't get your nieve comments "Your not offering any analysis of the characters" When I clearly have. We don't like rey because we like real hero's that earned their status as a hero. All you seem capable of is straw manning, claiming your the authority on characters and star wars and fall repeatedly back on your claim that I'm not offering anything insightful. I'm telling you straight up why people don't like Reys character and Surprise Surprise idiot its not her sex organs.
shareYou haven't given any analyis of Rey. You just tell me she's a mary su because Luke was "x" while Rey isn't (while perversely protesting that you're not saying that).
Tell me what Rey is, without bias, first before telling me what she isn't. Just categorising her mary sue isn't analysis.
Rey is a boring character that no one cares about cause she's unrelatable to any of us. She's broken every ones willing suspension of disbelief because she never experiences danger she doesn't suffers sacrifices, or struggles for her cause. She just wins always. This concepts make her character boring and the box office is suffering because if it. We want a better Rey thats all. Her character deserves better writing then what were getting. I will probably still see the last movie but honestly I've seriously lowered my expectations of it so hopefully that will help.
Why don't you tell me whats so remarkable about her character?
That isn't analysis. That's just your attitude.
shareSo give us your well thought out analysis.
You don't know what analysis is apparently. Thats your pattern. "I dismiss your argument cause your not really saying anything". Just pull your head out of your ass already and just say what your analysis is. Why can't you do that? All you capable of doing is dismissing what every one says when your backed into a corner. Are you autistic or something? Are you capable or understanding abstract concepts? Its just a learning disability right?.
If I said the opposite. Rey is exciting, my disbelief is amply suspended , would you accept that as analysis?
Anyway I asked you to provide your actual analysis. now you're complaining that I've not answered your (non existent) requests.
[quote]
If I said the opposite. Rey is exciting, my disbelief is amply suspended , would you accept that as analysis? [quote]
Considering how you dissmissed mine do you really think it would be fair to expect me to not dismiss that?
"Anyway I asked you to provide your actual analysis. now you're complaining that I've not answered your (non existent) requests."
And what exactly are you asking me to analyze cause its certainly not about character development? I've already gone over that. You on the other hand implie you have some character analysis on Rey but you haven't offered any.
Okay let's put Vaders choke as telekinesis.... Luke still didn't see it or know it happened.
shareThats not a compelling argument. You don't think luke could have learned it off screen or by feel. Every thing humanity does had to have been discovered at some point. Some one with force powers had to have first discovered the telekinesis are you saying. Even then he barely has telekenisis. That low mass light saber looked pretty loose in the show and luke had to struggle pretty hard to exert a few newtons of fource to dislodge it. This was to contrast the much more powerful vader who could lift objects that looked to be at least 30 Kilograms. We see luke fail plenty of times during Empire stikes back as rocks fall and he can't life his X-wing. Luke fails that's what makes his depiction more realistic. Rey can do no wrong and that's why its hard to relate to her. People are supposed to make mistakes and learn from them. If the new trilogy showed Rey failing and learning we'd relate to her more that would have been awesome but no she starts off with massive strength and lightning reflexes and is undefeatable when we first see her. We never get to see how she grew into that character. Like I said a script can do what ever it wants in a story that doesn't mean we can't judge its plausibility or likeability of its characters. I think people are defending Rey's story arc because they miss interpret opposition to the decisions to make her this strong so early on is indicative of some kind of sexism of some form. This is not true we just don't look up to heroes that start off godlike and are undefeatable as theirs no conflict for them to really overcome in the story. Overcoming conflict is the basis of just about any story you can think of.
shareIt's yet another deflection tactic since their original statement was that telekinesis didn't exist in the film 'at all'. Now once again the goal posts have changed.
Luke actually first hand witnesses telepathic force abilities where Obi Wan informs him about the force being influential against the weak minded (when using mind tricks against storm troopers). He is then physically trained in using force abilities to 'see' without his eyes (proving that force interaction with the physical world beyond your senses is possible).
Then of course there is Obi Wan literally speaking to him from beyond the grave etc etc.
They have no argument - they actually have even less than no argument when it comes to ray, hence why they never try to justify anything that ray does, rather just 3 years worth of deflection tactics to raise/invent points in the OT that no-one had mentioned in the ~40 years since the OT began - DESPITE the OT being heavily scrutinised in this time.
Yea it seems like leftists can't comprehend why would find a story plot involving a perfect hero who has no flaws could be distasteful other then we are all sexists pigs that are against women. I actually liked the reboot of the lara croft video game as she starts out weak and afraid then becomes a badass towards the end of the game. We should have had Rey develop like that so we could actually have rooted for her during the underdog stage.
shareYep. It wasn't knowledge passed down or observed by Luke. So, if you use other people's arguments, Luke must be so perfect and poorly written to have even conceived it as something he might try.
The fact is that the one piece of universally applicable knowledge to all force use is "It controls your actions, but it also obeys your commands"
Note that Obi Wan didn't say it controls certain actions or that it only obeys certain commands.
If you throw in "let go of your conscious self and go on instinct", Obi Wan's teaching to Luke effectively justifies almost anything.
The excuse that Luke could have learned it off screen is pathetic. Particularly when it comes from people who protest that Rey's close quarter combat skills are already evident when we are introduced to her (i.e. she learnt them off screen before the events of this film) , is poor writing.
People who keep saying "Rey can do no wrong" are really saying that they refuse to see anything wrong because it's not the same as Luke Skywalker.
Rey struggles to accept just about everything at one point or another when it does not conform to how she expected her existence to be validated. Then, like Luke, she displays impatience when those that she expects will help her fulfill it.
Yep.... Rey is also very dishonestly claimed to be perfect/flawless, despite the fact that she spends most of Force Awakens making mistakes and demonstrating personality flaws:
-She sticks around on Jakku for years and years waiting for her "family" despite no results, which holds her back.
-She destroys Han's freighter by overestimating her abilities, which frees the Rathars. That almost destroys the Falcon and almost kills them, too.
-She stubbornly wanders away from the group at Maz's palace and got herself caught, which turned into an unnecessary distraction while trying to destroy Starkiller base.
-Despite her fighting abilities which were forged on Jakku, she spends most of her fight against Kylo attempting the same forward parry move repeatedly, which he brushes off. When she's not doing that, she's running away from him. Only due to the Force does she finally get the upper hand.
I only concentrate on Force Awakens, because Last Jedi was very sloppy IMO.
I've given a VERY thorough breakdown on why Luke himself is literally the definition of a "Mary Sue" (technically, the term for him would be a Canon Stu):
https://moviechat.org/tt2527336/Star-Wars-Episode-VIII-The-Last-Jedi/5b3e59bc9841d0001472d478/Luke-Skywalker-is-the-very-definition-of-a-Mary-Sue
I think you'll enjoy reading it.
ROFL!
So instead of refuting the claim ... just modify the definition, cherry pick & flat out invent events in the OT in order to suit your defense?
All of this INSTEAD of actually disagreeing that ray is a MARY SUE? (I know that term triggers you :)).
Sorry but you had 40 years to point this out but it never happened. Oops there goes your entire argument.
ray is a Mary Sue, THE Mary Sue - you need to deal with it.
Thanks.
This guy makes all the relevant points. (although I'm not crazy about the comedic style of the video. that's just youtube though, I suppose) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1VeOlIDD9o
I guess some people still don't get it that it doesn't necessarily make Luke a mary sue, unless they were actually serious about using the same cockeyed scrutiny on both characters. Which confirmed bigots like our friend here aren't interested in doing in the slightest.
Which confirmed bigots like our friend here aren't interested in doing in the slightest.
See this is why I can't take you seriously. Like a good little leftist you have to trow out the your a bigot card. Your failing even by leftist standards. share
Yeah there was no need for the droid to be in the film from a story perspective.
shareStar Wars films need some sort of Droid character, it's expected. And it's established as part of that society, people keep their insanely complicated machinery running by keeping specifically programmed droids.
And of course droids are also useful for pulling laughs, or for saying things humans would never say. So the Droid isn't just there to sell Droid toys, although obviously that's occurred to them.
Wow, how easily triggered must you be for *that* to ruin the entire movie for you...
Snowflake.
An SJW calling someone else a snowflake - so rich.
shareCry more, soy boy...
shareAre you alright in the head? You do realize that soy boys are of a liberal, leftist nature - people who want identity politics and feminism pushed into movies? You know, people like you? Maybe you just don't have a clue about anything, and are just shitting out phrases you are entirely ignorant of.
shareThat's not the definition of the word(s) soyboy.
That's just usual target of right wing critics who use the word to insult people whose masculinity they wish to question.
The fear and anguish displayed by those right wing critics could suggest that the safety of their masculinity is undermined by their distress. And that their masculinity cannot be very secure in that case.
Put as a simple equation.
Men that are tolerant of other people's lives and choices
Understanding, awareness and confidence regardless of other people's variant lifestyles could equate as positive masculine characteristics.
Men that want the rest of society to view them as victimised, marginalised or endangered by the mere existence, and the notion of equitable rights and consideration for people whose lifestyles etc contrast with theirs could be viewed as rather unimpressive characteristics in a masculine context.
He's too full of soy to understand that he's a soy boy, crying soy tears over a robot in a movie.
shareCheck.
shareDid you guys just pull a 'I know you are so what am I?' routine?
shareJust pointed out that Maul's post is full of shit. You should know all about that.
shareThey shared their opinion, bruno personally attacked them - got called out for it then you joined in to support.
How tolerant of you guys.
Pathetic that you would get so worked up because someone doesn't like 1 character in a movie.
Yeah. I'm responding because you don't like something.... and not your perverse, chickenshit arguments.
share"Soy Boy" is a pejorative which is often used in right-wing online communities to describe men lacking masculine characteristics, bearing many similarities to the slang term 'cuck'."
It's a right wing phrase, aimed at a left wing audience. That's all I said, dipshit, and it's a fucking fact.
So no reason not to turn it against right wing fuckos since they don't own it. Thanks for clearing it up.
shareI think you offended them.
shareExcept I've never drank soy in my life, you ignorant fucktard. The phrase is directed towards far leftists, and seeing how you are likely a far leftist, your use of the phrase is invalid and idiotic.
As a matter of fact, I think you are probably so clueless you don't even know where you stand, and like I said before, are likely just shitting out phrases for which you have no idea what their usage is. So pick one: either you're a dipshit, or you're a dipshit.
It doesn't matter if you've actually drank it or not of the intention is to insult someone. It wouldn't stop you from using it against someone if they explained that they don't drink soy, would it?
See ya around, soyboy.
I'm sorry, did I state the definition of the word soyboy in my post? No, I don't believe I did. I stated that they tend to be of a liberal, leftist nature, which is without a doubt true. The phrase is directed towards the far left - if you deny that, you truly are a fool. I did also point out that far leftists tend to support identity politics and modern feminism, which is also a blatant fact.
shareYou do realize that the more you resort to insulting people who disagree with you, the less intelligent you sound, don't you?
It's much more effective to simply explain why you disagree. No need for insults.
I didn't start this.
shareYou've called someone an ignorant fu$#&t*%&," you called someone a "dip$#!t" and you called someone a "fool." Whether you started it or not has nothing to do with whether or not you insulted another human being.
shareWhen someone presents themselves as a dipshit, an ignorant fucktard, and a fool, I have no problem pointing that out. Especially if they're trying to personally insult me. Interesting though, how you've targeted me out of all these posts.
FYI: This is an imdb clone, a known toxic discussion board, on the INTERNET - go unplug your ethernet cable, walk away from the device, or browse elsewhere if you're offended. You pathetic sack (oh no!).
Hmm. Interesting excuses.
shareOh so now it's restricted to people who actually drink soy? Right.
shareThe phrase is a descriptor, used by a particular group, towards of a particular type of person, yes. A person with far-left views who lacks masculinity, supports modern feminism (possibly a "white knight beta cuck" as well), and to whom consuming soy would be well within the realm of possibility. It's not some nebulous phrase, it's rather well-defined - feel free to visit any number of sites to educate yourself further.
shareSo consuming soy is NOT within the realms of possibility except for a person with right wing views? Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
shareYou are wasting your time with this lot - they are literally trying to call you precisely what you called them in an attempt to 'own' the phrase instead of thinking up an actual legitimate response...
It's about as in-depth as their arguments in support of a random no-name droid in the film...
I assure you there are soyboys on all sides of the barricades.
share