This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Literally reversing the roles of Johnson and Abrams in what actually happened. TFA wasn't that good, but it wasn't bad either, they could have gone anywhere with it. The idea that TLJ was "as good as could have been expected, given what he was working with" is pure cope. If they handed it off to any decent manga / anime writer, Disney would probably have their cash cow that they could milk for another generation
It was The Rise Of Skywalker that was an attempt to cook given the ingredients. Yes, it sucked and no one sane will defend it, but it's a direct result of Johnson spending the entire second act wrecking what was set up in the first, and handing it back saying "ok, you can finish the story now".
TFA wasn't cooked, it was reheated moldy original trilogy. TLJ was cooked, but it felt like a joke meal, like a kid put toothpaste and jellybeans in a steak dinner. And yeah, TRS was essentially doomed, the only thing that could have saved it was starting with Rey waking up in her bed "Whew, what a weird nightmare that was! Thankfully, it was all a dream!"
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I feel like that reading could only make sense if The Force Awakens by itself was a tolerably good film, and it just isn't. TFA already sucked. Maybe you think TLJ made it worse, but I really don't think TFA is defensible on its own merits.
TFA didn't feel offensive on release, because it smelled enough like Star Wars at first glance. It took hindsight to see it has no substance, no nutrients in it. I literally don't remember what happens in it at all.
Yeah I walked out of the theater having enjoyed TFA. It was only after that it occurred to me that it was a beat-for-beat copy of episode 4, which killed my ability to enjoy it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
TFA is a mediocre Star Wars film. TLJ essentially derailed the whole trajectory though
More options
Context Copy link
TFA wasn't good, by any stretch of the imagination, but it mostly avoided being an active dumpster fire. It was a lazy, uninspired mess, and if it had any brand name other than Star Wars it would have been quickly forgotten, but not particularly hated. TLJ was an active dumpster fire, and I've always been a bit curious about the thinking of the people who look at the actively burning dumpster fire, smell the trash fire, taste the toxic ash on the wind, and go "Mmmm, yes. Art."
It always seems like counter-signaling.
More options
Context Copy link
Why?
You have two whole acts of the story to play with, characters that can fit into standard archetypes that you can develop as you please, a mysterious villain that you can take in any direction you want... Even if we accept that TFA is horrible beyond human comprehension, there is nothing in it that prevents the next episode from being good. This is in stark contrast to TLJ which does fuck everything up for anyone writing the final act.
I mean, I do find TFA near-unwatchably bad, but I'll grant that maybe I have an unusual hatred for it. But I think that if your contention is that TLJ is to blame because it didn't radically swerve course and reinvent the whole ST, then that still seems like a position where a lot of blame would unavoidably fall on TFA for contributing so little to the trilogy that the second film had to reinvent it from scratch.
Considering that TFA was an Abrams contribution, and the universally-despised RoS is also an Abrams contribution - could even a hypothetically perfect TLJ have rescued the trilogy beyond even Abrams' ability to screw up in the third act? I doubt it.
What are you talking about, there was hardly any ST to reinvent. Just tell a normal story and do it well, stop trying to be original and "subversive".
I brought up manga and anime because the Japanese got so good at getting people emotionally invested into characters and showing their development through a series of flashy fights, it's like they got it down to a science. Yeah, yeah, pseudointellectuals will complain about how derivative it all is and has nothing that deep to say, and I will remind them that we're talking about Star Wars. We're aiming for a not-that-deep but fun adventure that everyone can enjoy watching.
The whole problem with TLJ is that it did try to swerve course... onto wall. With what it did there was no way for part 3 to be anything other than a disaster, which was not the case after TFA.
There was nothing to rescue from post TFA. All the pieces are still on the board minus Han Solo, you can literally do whatever you want. After TLJ not only are Luke and Leia gone, so are the majoroty of the Republic forces, and so is Snoke. Ren was not main villain material and you don't have the time to develop him into one. What the hell were they supposed to do? I low-key hate Abrams, but it's ridiculous to put the blame on him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link