Who got worse treatment Han or Luke - Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Discussion

Luke, I do not still understand yet why Disney destroyed such an iconic character in the SW universe..just sad

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I lean towards Han; Han was just as iconic and just as destroyed (IMO). but Han came first in TFA so for me it was more shocking and upsetting. By the time they got to Luke, from my perspective, it was par of the course now.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

That was well explained.

I hadn't seen any of it like that.

Luke got it much worse. You can't be a JEDI and end up like him. You would end up in Sith territory.

Han could possibly revert back to being a petty criminal. But in his story arc he becomes a noble guy and general, so that's his true character, not petty criminal.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

True you make a good point; Luke was the jedi, he should have been more noble. IMO Han was just as noble as Luke but came from a rougher background so his nobility had to develop and basically 'come out' of the smuggler exterior. That is another reason why I found regressing him back was 'extra' insulting.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

The way you described it was great.

The film is seriously evil after I read what you wrote.

It was a jewish/communist thing to destroy heroes. They believed that things like superhero and national heroes, like cowboys, is Nazi. One of my favorite comicbook artists John Byrne talked about how he realized comics are evil because they promote heroes. That is total nonsense.

Comics inspired many people, including myself, to live a great life helping people.

Anyway, there were all of these cowboy movies in the 70s made as propaganda and the cowboys were sleazy, weird, murderers, and whatnot. That or they were antiheroes, not virtuous good guys.

I now see this film attempted to take the favorite male characters and destroy them in favor of the totally boring female ones.

Han: Good point, but it's hard to say which got it worse because both characters were totally destroyed.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I am not sure what the "jewish/communist" thing is supposed to me. Communist hate Jews and religiously Jewish people do not support communism (ethnic jews might a bit more). The idea of 'destroying' history is not a communist idea either; rather a postmodernist and moral relativist ideology; which often allies with communist. But one is an moral ideology while the other is political.

You make some good points about the moral relativism and postmodern art form destroying a lot of iconic heroic characters of the past and that star wars ST was guilty of doing that.

Also true; both were utterly destroyed I think I just took Han as worst because it happened first.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Communism comes from judaism.

They have what are called kibbutz, which is a commune, and Marx got a lot of ideas from that. Also, secular jews were very involved in communism. Christianity is communist judaism.

You can look up what I've said regarding superheroes being seen as fascist. John Byrne is a famous comic artist and There's an interview where he talks about it.

I have heard it countless times and the result is easy to see in the media. Feminism comes directly from communism as well.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"They have what are called kibbutz, which is a commune, and Marx got a lot of ideas from that. Also, secular jews were very involved in communism. Christianity is communist judaism"

Something being inspired by something does not make them the same; a Kibbutz is a small community type of organization like a church. It is not the same to apply those tenants and principles to a state government and governmental policy. Communism may be take early inspiration from the ideas of a Kibbutz but that does not make them the same. Religious jews are almost no different than religious Christians in terms of morals and practice. Neither is calling for destruction of western history and values. Communism is not a Jewish idea (even if a jew was inspired by Judaism to conceive it). It is almost anti-semitic to 'blame' Judiasm for the existence of communism.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6781) 4 years ago

Luke more or less mirrored the Obi Wan / Yoda path, so I don't see your point.

Han felt true to form, too. He was a rogue and a smuggler all his life, so why do we expect him to have settled down into a quiet life of marriage and fatherhood? It makes sense that he and Leia would split up and he'd go back to smuggling, no?

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Obi Wan wasn't a broken person. He stated that he was going to secretly watch over Luke and he did.

Also, Han stopped being a rouge in Star Wars and joined a good cause then became a great leader.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Exactly, Obi wan and Yoda were not dedicated to the end of the jedi ("that boy is our last hope" - ObiWan and "Pass on what you have learned" - Yoda). So FilmBuff is just wrong, Luke quitting and wanting to end the jedi is not at all mirroring Obi-wan and Yoda in hiding.

Exactly. After a New Hope he is never a smuggler or rogue again. He never regresses. The only reason he wanted to leave in ESB was because he was being hunted and needed to square away his past. There was no indication he was going back to be a smuggler. You know this because after Jabba is dead there is nothing stopping him from fulling embracing the rebellion.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

My first job was making pizza and why would I go back to that after going to college a long time and having a long career?

Makes no sense.

Also, Han leaving Leila and all that sucks. It means all of their past behavior in movies wasn't love, just some nonsense.

Degrading!

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6781) 4 years ago

Delivering pizza sucks. If your first job was flying the fastest ship in the galaxy and gunning down villains while smuggling goods for large amounts of space gold, maybe you'd reconsider marriage after a few years and call up your old Wookiee pal and way "let's get the band back together." Leia was kind of bitchy, tbh, and being married to an *actual* princess must be draining. Throw in a bratty emo kid like Ben and shit, even delivering pizza is starting to look good to me.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

I'd think being a general and war hero would allow for a lot of adventure. If it didn't, then it would make sense that he goes back to doing enjoyable things.

I worked with a guy like that. He was big in the military, then big in the prison system, so he has two pensions. However, he likes buying weird shit and trying to sell it. He recently bought two school buses and sold them for the lolz.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I agree with the part about going back to a crap job after a heightened success, it doesn't fit well. A person can do that if there is reason. Han had no reason.

I can see them not staying together; people that love each other can be separated for all kinds of reasons. Once again though; the reason as given in TFA was a bad one.

reply

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 4 years ago

Yeah, it is weak.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (6781) 4 years ago

I'm not trying to draw an exact parallel between the three Jedi. I'm pointing out that after being defeated, both Obi Wan and Yoda more or less gave up. They each went somewhere remote and never tried to "save the galaxy" so to speak. Sure, they hoped Luke would grow up and be the one to do it, but that's a lot lazier, and iffier, than trying to help.

It always seemed to me that in the moment, before the Empire had total control, and a Death Star, would have been a better time to fight back than 18 or so years later.

Also-- what exactly made Luke so much more capable than them? We saw what a bad-ass Yoda was in his fight scene, and Obi Wan was CLEARLY superior to Anakin. Why couldn't they team up with the rebels, who would have been much more numerous and better funded and equipped back then? It made no sense that Yoda would retire to a shack in a swamp and say "well, maybe that baby will grow up and save the day." At least Obi Wan was babysitting from afar, but really-- were either of them an example of a virtuous, selfless Jedi? Or were they poorly conceived plot devices to help Lucas get from Point A to Point B?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

They gave up on saving the republic; not on their religion. That is a significant difference. They had no political power and no control over anything when they went into hiding. If they fought then, Vader would just come and kill them with an Army. There needed to be time for a rebellion to form and people to start standing up against the Empire. Yoda and Obi-wan alone could not fight the Clone army by themselves.

Luke was more noble then them because he saw and created hope in Vader; he did not fall to the darkside even when tempted and he did not give up on people to 'protect' the ideology. For example Yoda and Obi-wan were wrong that Luke not face vader the first time. It was wrong to let his friends be sacrificed to "honor what they fight for". Luke made the correct call and suffered for it; but because he resisted temptation Leia and Han survived and they played a key role in the end of the empire. That is just one example.

The rebel alliance did not form overnight.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I actually think you are totally wrong on both points. Obi-wan and Yoda both still embraced the jedi way; even when wrong and Luke had to correct that way. Luke was even more true to the way of the jedi then they were; he was noble where they were more focused on tradition. I don't agree with you on this 1 bit.

I don't agree with Han being true to form as a rogue and a smuggler. He was those things because of a lack of options, he embraced a criminal life and hid his nobility. The events of star wars did not 'change' him, it revealed his true self. Him regressing to smuggler again is not true to his character. I can see him not staying with Leia; but not regressing back to a smuggler and a dead beat (and an incompetent one at that). So I don't agree with this at all.

reply

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3596) 4 years ago

Both of them got assraped equally by Disney. Sad but true.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

True, but I think i was impacted more by the betrayal of Han's character because it came first. For me Star WArs was already ruined by the time Luke was.

reply

[–] triplea (3577) 4 years ago

Han said 'I know' to Leia once and even though Leia already said it back in Jedi, Kennedy wanted him dead. This was priority #2 after requiring 'the real chosen one' to be a bitch/slut.

Luke needed to be replaced by said slut so he needed to be humiliated, act cowardly and die from tiredness.

Then ray needed to take the name so they could put it in the title because marketing and Skywalker was one of the top items identified as being core to the SW brand by key demographics in disneys survey groups.

reply

[–] Joogle83 (4177) 4 years ago

Neither they were baton passers Besides why did everyone expect to be the same character 30 years later Luke was much better and Layered than his Bland EU Counterpart and Hamill gave his best performance to bad he was snubbed for an Oscar in a Supporting Role

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

"everyone expect to be the same character 30 years"

because they were the same character. They were not Hen Salo and Lars Skudpucker. If you are writing an established character to pass the baton to a new generation, they still have to be characters true to how they were established.

It is a non sequitar to suggest that they SHOULD be different characters after 'time' has passed.

Also to take iconic characters and reduce them to pathetic failures is not passing the baton; it is humiliating them for being failures and then pushing 'better' agenda satisfying characters in their stead.

Did Han have to be a dead beat dad return to smuggler or Luke have to be a pathetic failure to pass the torch to a new generation?

How was Luke better layered, was it the milking the sea cow? Or the fact that he completely betrays his establish character of one that does not give up on the light (even in Darth Vader himself) and trusts in hope. That is Luke's character, one that maybe naively trusts in hope. Considering murdering his nephew because of bad dreams and then immediately giving up on the force, yes family, and the galaxy is not him being layered. It is a betrayal of the character we knew from the original.

To view Luke as 'layered' in TLJ I have to assume you are one that is not really a fan of the OT to begin with.

reply

[–] ramcha (62) 4 years ago

he doesn't give up on his dad and that's why he is flawed. what would you think would happen if he rescued his dad alive? rebels would execute him immediately. leia herself would sentence vader. and what would luke do after that? saving vader would have led to him to the dark side. good thing he ended up dead while also killing emperor. otherwise luke would look like a fool who ruined everything.
also luke quickly gives up on his father and tries to protect leia once she is at stake. what if he saw ben bringing death to leia and han and rest of the galaxy? isn't he even allowed to have slightest of emotion? but then same people also complain he didn't cry hearing han's death news.
and why do you have problem with luke milking? is he supposed to buy it in space supermarket? it's a fun scene get over it.
luke is neither perfect nor invincible. he even gets captured by ewoks ffs. is he supposed to destroy first order by himself? if that's the case, why is first order is even a thing. and without first order being a thing why even the need of this trilogy? i want story to be told on different ways. luke could have turned into vader in sequels for all i care as long as storytellers can give a cool story and a good lesson.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Your first paragraph is just a bunch of random hypothetical nonsense. Not giving up on his father is what leads to his father's redemption. It doesn't matter in the slightest on what would happen to vader if he survived (you have no idea who would sentence him or if he would be he did kill the emperor Star wArs doesn't operate in real world legal principles) Why would saving vader led Luke to the dark side, that is the exact opposite of what happened in the film. by both refusing to kill vader but also standing up to him while not giving up up hope for the light is what MADE Luke a Jedi. That was the point of his defiant statement against the emperor.

Luke did not give up on his father to protect his sister, that is an incredibility simplistic interpretation of that scene. Vader was goading Luke and Luke snapped in 'righteous' anger. That just makes him human, and he quickly rejects that anger and stands against the emperor. Having emotions does not mean a character that was defined by his idealism and reliance on hope would completely and utterly reject all hope and want to die and see the death of that ideal and hope. It is a straight up betrayal of everything that the character stands for.

The milking scene was completely unnecessary, it does not provide any useful information. It was not fun, it was specifically there to humiliate the character. No one expected him to take on the first order by himself but we did expect that the character that was defined by never giving up to give up and to be so pathetic about it. He was a heroic character and they went out of their way to humiliate him. Even the actor was not shy about how wrong they got the character, do you think your interpretation is better than his?

reply

[–] ramcha (62) 4 years ago

why is it is nonsense? you think vader would be allowed to live after all the atrocities he committed? luke would be torn apart to where should his allegiance should lie and hence path to the dark side. after saving his father he will not let go of him easily. and his attachment to his father wouldn't let him become a jedi. obi wan and yoda did not want vader saved. are they not jedi?

i'm comparing two situations. in one he is allowed to have emotional response and hurt his father but in another he isn't even allowed to light the saber and be angry for a moment? you completely ignored that point. also this time he is somewhat responsible for deaths of many of his students. we don't even know how many were killed. that is big enough guilt for anyone, strong character or not. also how can he stay with han and leia after what happened?

again, why is milking humiliating? why are you so sensitive towards milking? it does provide information. he wants to live a simple life and it is his daily routine for past decade. it shows he isn't here to train or unlock secrets from jedi temple.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

because it has no bases in any reality. It is just a bunch of what if's. You have no idea what Luke would do in such a hypothetical for sure but everything in his character suggests he would not go to the dark side. Supporting his father in a hypothetical galactic tribunal would not by default lead to the dark side. This is just a bunch of nonsense.

I guess that is a fair comparison. But there is a pretty big difference. Kylo at that moment was asleep and posed no immediate threat and did not threaten out load to hurt people Luke cared about. That is a pretty big difference from considering murdering your nephew in his sleep because of bad vibes. So on a very superficial and visually based (only) interpretation the comparison works, but upon further analysis the situations are not comparable.

Do you think actual farmers milk a cow and drink right from the bucket? if so you don't know farming. It was a scene designed to make him Luke bad. Sucking milk right from a sea cow; I mean common how much more can a man be degraded than this. The fact that you don't see it is kind of concerning. They could have done a million other things to show he had a simple life routine; maybe something similar to Rey's routine in TFA. That didn't involve him milking a sea cows teat, then drinking whole great gulps of it straight from the source and then have the blue milk dripping down his beard. This was obviously purposefully designed to be a humiliating moment for the once great hero. You would have to be blind not to see it.

reply

[–] ramcha (62) 4 years ago

that was a real possibility before luke went to confront his father. obi wan's conversation shows that. luke didn't knew vader would turn, he just knew there was good in him. and if you consider prequels to be cannon, luke sure as hell had no idea what his father did.

farmers do drink raw milk. also you are confusing humiliation with care free attitude. if luke didn't like the milk and someone forced him to do that, it would be humiliating. maybe it is humiliating for mark hamil to shoot that scene, but it is not humiliating for luke. luke is humiliated in this movie but it is during the ben/academy scene not this one.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

There was infinite possibilities before Luke went to confront vader. There is just no way of knowing the answer to the "what if's" and it just seems pointless to discuss it. The point is, not giving up and having hope for the good in Vader was NOT one of Luke's weaknesses. It was one of his strength and one of the reasons why force ghost Obi, Yoda and then Anakin look upon luke with such pride at the end; because he was right and arguably a better jedi then any of them (not more powerful I mean but held the ideals and morals better).

Right from the teat? I think not. The scene was framed in a way to make luke look pathetic. and it accomplished that. It was shocking to see the great heroic icon so reduced to drinking milk right from the teat. It was almost stomach churning. Luke was humiliated many times in the film. I would agree that almost killing Ben in his sleep was the worst of the humiliations but it was not the first one.

reply

[–] ProgsReturn (1833) 4 years ago

I can't think of Han without thinking of Chewie and the Falcon too. For Han to end up worse off than when we were first introduced to him in ANH is insane. Even Lando has abandoned the Falcon to the scrapyard.
I'd say Han and Luke were both screwed over equally.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Exactly; at least in ANH Han was charismatic and demonstrated competence and confidence. Han in TFA was a confused idiot. (BTW, why in the Hell did Han/Leia name their son "Ben"? both Han and Leia would have thought of him as Obi-Wan; only Luke referred to him as Ben. Han didn't even respect Obi-wan when he knew him, and Leia only knew him a General that served with her father. talk about pathetic pandering to nostalgia, it doesn't even make sense)

They might be pretty equal in the level of screwing they got; but I lean towards Han edging out on the impact it had because it came first. By the time Luke was screwed I was already expecting it.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4363) 4 years ago

Luke by a country mile, Han just went back to what he did best , smuggling, after the breakdown of his marriage and the loss of his son its understandable , even after the events of ANH he was still wanting to pay off his debts to Jabba.

Luke however was completely out of character, he was willing to die to save his father , and to save the galaxy , yet when he has a moment of weakness, he runs away into isolation , shocking how he was written in TLJ

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I disagree that it is that obvious. Han returning to being a smuggler was not him being what he is best at; it was him at his worse. Sending him back to being a smuggler completely undoes and undermines his entire arc from the OT; which in terms of character development he has a much deeper arc that Luke has. And it is even worse, because in TFA he is not even a good smuggler; he is a bumbling incompetent smuggler that seemed confused about the situation he was in. They portrayed him at least as pathetically and pitifully as Luke. And then they just have him get killed like an idiot by his punk emo son.

I agree with this, but IMO Luke being out of character is as damaging to the legacy of star wars as is Han's entire OT arc being thrown in the trash.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4363) 4 years ago

I think you are over reacting, hes not longer part of the rebellion , hes no longer with his wife, his son is pretty much dead, he was a gangster and smuggler longer than he was a general for the republic , he was born a scoundrel so why wouldn't he go back ?

Luke on the other hand , being a hermit after everything he did in the OT, you dont find that more damaging?

Han bumbling is nothing new , in a new hope he bumbled his way through rescuing the princess, also in ROTJ he bumbled his was out of Jabbas palace

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

That doesn't justify undoing his character arc from the OT. On top of that, they make him look pathetic and bumbling at it? No if anything I am underplaying. And no he was not a smuggler longer than he was a member of the republic. Because the whole point of his character arc was that deep down he was honorable, the scoundrel was a visade. That is the whole point of his arc. No wonder you weren't bothered by his arc being undone; you weren't aware of it in the first place.

I don't know for sure which is worse. Luke's is pretty bad; but Han's came first and was more shocking to me how badly they treated him. As I said elsewhere by the time they got to ruining Luke I was already desensitized to it.

Actual in both those situations it was Luke's bumbling plans not Han's. And we are not talking about him being bumbling is a fight, he was a bumbling confused smuggler. In A New hope he was not a bumbling Smuggler as proved by his conversation with Greedo.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Between Han and Luke, it's hard to say. Han had to be a deadbeat dad (out of character), while Luke had to be foolish and weak (sacrificed to boost up Rey), but I'll side with you and give the edge to Han.

The idea of a cynical, world-weary hero is an interesting one, so at least Hamill got to play some cool scenes in a neat idea for an arc, even if it was bungled. Han had to have his character reversed. At least both of them got to do some cool stuff (flying the Falcon through the shields at hyperspeed and astral projection-fighting) before kicking out.

Which brings me to Leia...poor Leia got the real shaft here. Is she involved in the assault in the first of the new films? Barely. She's there to hug people. They regressed Leia into some soft grandmother instead of the battle-hardened politician she once was. Sure, she had the soft side available, but she also throttled Jabba. This ain't no delicate flower. In the second film, they side-line her into a coma. In the third film, they elevate her to Jedi master (?) so she can finish Rey's training, and then she just kinda dies. No plea on the bridge or hyperspace trick-flying, no omnipotent Force gambit to save everybody, she just...dies.

That sucks.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yeah, I don't know how much of an edge I give to Han on this;It might be mostly just because it came first. Both are devastatingly bad.

that is true. At least Luke's character moved forward, in a bad and not true to his character previously; but it was at least new. I don't know though both those cool stuff moments were meh to me. the astral projection was worse though, because he was not even there it kind of undermines the significance of his 'presence'.

True, but I think that was more a result of the Actress being really coked out for so long she was unable to perform the scenes they had planned.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

They could have made Luke's arc work, but I think two problems cropped up:

1 - we didn't see Luke fail. If they had made Episode VII about Luke stumbling as a Jedi master, we would have bought it. But they did it with a hand-wave. It doesn't feel natural, it feels cheap and we feel cheated.

2 - Luke doesn't get to redeem himself. He does a bit in The Last Jedi, but not enough.

These two problems are one compound problem: Star Wars is Luke's story (in my opinion), and when it moves away from Luke, it falters. The prequels crashed and burned pretty badly. The new films flopped and died. Why? Luke's hero's journey formed the story of the original trilogy, conception to execution.

IV: Luke is a farm boy who wants to be a space hero. He becomes the hero, but touches the Force and realises there is a world bigger than mere heroism.
V: Luke wants to be a Jedi. He meets Yoda who reinforces, counter to Luke's instincts, that flyboy hero is a grand goal ("Wars not make one great") By the end of the film, he has learned much of a Jedi's skills, but not the true mastery.
VI: Luke is a Jedi knight who wants to become a Master. How? By transcending a black-and-white world where he must kill the bad guy and into a world where he must save his father's soul.

To continue that story...

VII: Luke is a Jedi Master who wants to become a teacher. He thinks he knows what he needs to know, but fails because he knows how to *be* a Jedi, not how to *train* Jedi. (They can keep Kylo Ren: see?)
VIII: Luke thinks himself a failure. Encountering a youthful mirror of himself (Rey) reinvigorates Luke's spirit.
IX: Luke (and the others) bring down the first order (no return of Palpatine, by the way; that was dumb).

I liked the astral projection because the level of power Luke displayed; he's a demigod and still boss, despite the bad writing in the sequels.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Did you watch The Critical Drinker's "the drinker fixes" on Luke (youtube channel)? I think he does a great job of making it work.

Yeah, Luke was kind of the center piece that held the series together. I think with well written dialogue they could have retroactively described Luke's failure but you can't have him fail and be pathetic defeated and humiliated at the same time. That is just way too much.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I haven't seen that yet, but I'll check it out.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The critical drinker I find to be not that good. He praised Joker after all a rather cliched film.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I dug Joker a lot. I don't find it to be cliche in most parts, but rather to break out from the superhero genre and mix it up in some refreshing ways.

(Yes, I know it borrows a lot from Scorsese and other sources, but there is nothing new under the sun; everything has sources).

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

To me it feels like a poor man's Taxi Driver and King of Comedy. Everything is influenced sure but when you constantly keep getting reminded of the other film consistently throughout the movie it becomes a bit jarring. Not a bad film at all but not as special as people make it out to be in my opinion. I think people pick and choose when something is cliched.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

So what happens when we've got what we've got here where I don't think it's a cliche and you do?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

We can agree to disagree. It is similar though to when people say tfa is not a clone of a new hope. When people deny that it is, I ask how is it not? That is to me how Joker feels when comparing it to King of Comedy and Taxi Driver.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I have not seen Joker yet, but is it really as similar to Kind of Comedy and Taxi Driver as TFA is to a new hope? if so that is borderline plagiarism.

Yeah the arguments that TFA is not a damn near clone of a new hope are utterly ridiculous. It is amazing how people seem to be able to perceive reality so opposite of each other nowadays. Similar to the way they take media; some think that New York Times are arbiters of truth and others think Fox News is the only authentic news source. Truth is both are bias as hell and both are agenda driven; but people don't seem to want to perceive it that way. 'Perception is reality', I guess.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I don't personally think it's beat-for-beat going along with Taxi Driver, but I'd want to rewatch it.

The reason I think that is because Joker has different angles it seems to be playing regarding its treatment of mental health, particularly with the mental health system, and what it's saying about politics. I think it has different goals. So, even though there are lots of tonal similarities and plot elements, the messaging is very different, and the character is different, so it feels like a different film to me.

Also note that, to some extent, plot points of a character study film (like Taxi Driver or Joker) are going to line up anyway, so some perceived overlap might be due to that.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Hmm, interesting. I will watch it eventually I am sure, so I will be able to judge for myself.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

It's a great film; I recommend it. One of Scorsese's finest.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

No I meant Joker I need to see; I know Scorsese's work very well. in fact one of the reasons I hesitated to watch Joker was because I thought it looked like a cheap knock of of The King of Comedy.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Ah. I got mixed up there. Yeah, I'd say Joker's pretty great. One of the better comic book movies. At least it dared to bring something new to the table as far as comic book movies goes, even if it did borrow heavily from Scorsese's work. I still say that it had lots to say about the current state of health care, mental health, how we treat the marginalised, and the rich/poor political divide.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I'll try to watch it soon so I have more of an opinion.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I'm with you on TFA cloning ANH; that's common ground for sure.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Cloned it but created a Palpatine abomination type of clone. lol

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Ahhh! Good one!

"The Disney side of Star Wars has many ideas which some believe to be...unnatural...!"

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

lol

There is just so much wrong with Disney star wars it is kind of unbelievable it actually got made.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

Once they paid literally billions of dollars for it, they had to do something - and probably fast.

The thing is, Disney made a boatload of money off of these pictures, so they're probably perfectly cool with it. At an executive level, they're thinking about bottom lines, not storytelling.

The CEO and the board and whoever (not super-sure who'd all be involved) come up with, "Let's buy Star Wars and make some MONEY," and they do that and at some point throw it at Kathleen Kennedy and say, "Get some story people" and she does that as best she can, I think.

I've never been comfortable seriously ripping on people like Kennedy, Abrams, or Johnson (or Lucas with the prequels) because they're probably trying their darndest to get stuff done well and it's a minefield and there are a MILLION details. I'm not saying they don't make avoidable missteps (for example, oh I don't know, hiring a team based on sex characteristics rather than talent or appropriateness to the project...) but just that I try to remember that they were handed an impossible task: make a Star Wars story that everybody will love.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Yes, they needed a return fast;

Actually if you break down the numbers Disney is still at least 2 billion in the red on their star wars deal. You can't look at box office alone, Disney only sees about 50% of the box office take, less when you consider taxes, payroll, and other expenses that are not related to production budget. At best they are 2 billion in the red, they are likely far worse off than that. The star wars movies as a whole have not been profitable enough for them to an RoE. Also toy and merchandise sales are in the toilet. Star Wars is a failing franchise and they have to know it.

I don't know, from what I have heard of the reports of the environment that Kennedy has created at Lucasfilm; and the fact that she clearly has scorn for the 'OT' fanbase and is agenda driven there is something very wrong there.

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9435) 4 years ago

I don't know...studio accounting is always super-fuzzy.

From what I've read, a movie is considered to break even at double the budget. Studios will fudge those numbers to prevent actors, writers, directors, etc., from getting their fair share of the back end (got no love for corporations here...) But generally it's the budget + itself to account for all the stuff you're talking about: salaried fees, partial returns, and marketing.

So, Force Awakens got its budget back and still gathered up 1.4 billion.
Last Jedi got about 700 mil
And Rise of Skywalker took in 500 mil.
Solo lost about 200mil
Rogue One got 400 mil

That's already 2.8 billion they cleared, leaving 1.2 billion remaining.

None of that is counting DVDs, Blu-ray, streaming deals, and general merchandising. I don't have numbers on the merchandising and what's been going on there. Do you have numbers from a good source? I can't find anything (not that I'm doing exhaustive research here...)

She's scorns the fanbase? I know that gets thrown around a lot, but why are people saying that?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I have not seen the joker; but I think the Drinker is spot on about 90% of the time. No one is perfect and to say he is not that good because you disagree with one of his recommendation is being sort of unfair. A person deserves praise if they are on and accurate 90% of the time. Besides with how many crappy films have come out and the fact that DC has been a complete shit show for years, Joker must have seemed like a breath of fresh air.

But yeah the Joker sounded like a mix between teh Kind of Comedy and Taxi driver, and nothing really new or unique hence why i didn't watch it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

No I would not agree about him being right 90% of the time either. A guy who blasted TFA for being a clone and cliched but turns around and praises Joker? Both films are nothing new. It also annoys me that someone with lame jokes, annoying voice and lame points gets all this credibility.

That is why the Joker is being praised to the high heavens by people. It is because of how awful DC has been therefore anything not terrible is going to deemed as a masterpiece, because of how low the bar has been set. You know similar to how Revenge of the Sith or TFA get praised.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

okay, what are some other examples of him being off then. Also Joker was not supposed to be a sequel to Taxi driver or King of Comedy, so it is a little different. his jokes are subjectively funny I suppose. I am a bit of a drinker myself so I find humor in it; but whateves. His points are lame; you will have to give some examples before I agree to that claim; "annoying voice" is just rude, that is the guys voice dude, what the hell do you want him to do?

That is true, I think in time if Joker is as derivative as you say that Drinker and most of the other youtubers will come around. MAny of them praised TFA at first and it took them a while to figure out what was going on. Or who knows, maybe Joker is a great film and you are just wrong. I don't know yet, I haven't seen it. I do know drinker is both funny and he makes some good material and criticisms; I don't agree with everything he says, but when someone has me agreeing with them over 3/4 of the time I usually will recommend their opinion or consider their opinion closely. I don't just write them off if they say one thing I disagree with; that would make me an incredibly close minded (and small) person.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Drunken behavior irritates me, I have never found it funny. I prefer people who actually analyze rather than put on an act. I just did TFA is lame because it copies a new Hope but Joker is great even though it rips off Taxi Driver, and King of Comedy. Double Standard?

I can see it already. It does not take that much time to see a movie for what it is. I knew TFA was not good as soon as I saw it. Then again I do not view Star Wars in a high light but the old is better than the Disney or prequel trash. Even though I can not stand Star Wars, nor it's fans.

There are far better youtube analysts out there.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Umm, he does actually analyze, he just does as a drunken character; It is at least as funny as Plinkett's reviews, and in my opinion the analysis is better then Red Letter media. That is one example out of hundreds of videos; fundamental attribute error much dude? You can't judge an entire person and their views based on one example. jesus.

I knew TFA was garbage right away too; some people came around. maybe the same thing will happen with Joker. but I don't know if it is as bad as you make it out to be; based on your opinion of Critical drinker you seem incredibly full of yourself and closed minded. so I will reserve judgement

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Like I said I prefer a regular analysis not analyze while putting on a stupid act that is painfully unfunny. His analysis is rather poor also if you can even call it that.

Never said Joker was bad. I said it got overpraised because it was average after a bunch of trash DC movies came.

I seem full of myself because I do not like a certain youtuber? Interesting perspective. Tell me does everyone who disagrees with you get this same treatment?

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

I disagree with his analysis being poor, you have to provide more than ONE example. I can understand not liking the gimmick of his channel, to each their own. Would you say the plinkett gimmick is equally 'stupid act that painfully unfunny'?

I think that is probably true. seems many films in franchises are so bad now, whenever a mediocre one comes out it is praised way too high.

it is not that you don't like the youtuber; it is that you provide poor reasoning, cling to one example of possible hypocrisy, and then double down on that one example as proof of your ability to call out bad analyses and poor judgement. As I said, you need more than one example to call the judgement and ability to analyze bad, even the best of us are wrong sometimes. No, I am usually very polite and reasonable; only people that provide poor reasoning or poor argument (or fallacies) get this treatment from me; I am one of the most reasonable people you will meet until you become an unreasonable person. Clinging to one example as proof of overall quality is poor reasoning and unreasonable; hence my suspicion that you are somewhat conceited.

For sack of argument though, who are some of the other examples that you think of as 'better' analyst?

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

The gimmick is stupid and unfunny in my opinion. Not a fan of that channel either. Yes also painfully unfunny. Although better than Critical Drinker which I despise. Creed is another one. He calls it flat lackluster recycled inferior trash to Rocky. Again then why is Joker deemed as good then?

Yep I agree.

I can provide several examples of him providing poor reasoning.

I can provide several examples but to be fair most people want to hear nothing to the contrary about their favorite youtuber. Creed is my second example. It showcases cliche only applies when he wants it to apply. Not surprising though lots of people are like that. Cliche is a label only thrown in when someone dislikes something. If they like it suddenly the word is forgotten about.

Ralphthemoviermaker and YMS I think are far better critics than he is. Even though I do not agree with them all the time they have more credibility than he does.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

You don't know how examples work do you? you can't keep bringing up his opinion on The Joker and compare it to other films he criticized for being recycled films. That is the same example of your claim of him being a hypocrite for liking Joker and not other films. Try again.

Well at least we agree on one thing

Okay, then provide an example that has nothing to do with the film Joker.

Again Creed is not a second example because you are still using his take on the Joker as your point of reference. Name another film that he called great but was actually equally recycled as Creed. Just FYI; in your examples Joker is the example not the other films you are calling him out on; it is the same example just with a single different variable. Your example of why he is not a good critic is because he like the Joker despite it being IYO a derivative film. Do you have any other examples of him being a poor critic other than one claim of hypocrisy about the joker?

I like Ralph as well; but he doesn't put out as much content and seems to cherry pick what he reviews a little too much. I actually haven't even seen a new video by Ralph in many months, I think all year; he is worse than MaUler. I don't know YMS. I have to look that up. I don't agree Ralph is that much of a better crtic than drinker; also despite the fact you don't like it Ralph isn't as entertaining; you might not like the gimmick but it actually gives him a character. You seem to be hung up on not liking him and think that is justification for attacking his credibility; the fact that all you can point to is him 'hypocritically' liking the Joker is a sign you don't have grounds for your attack.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I was not aware I had to hold your hand. Okay though I can humor you.

The Watchmen tv show. According to him Zack Snyder's film is better than the HBO produced series. He says Watchmen had the balls to be dark back in 2009 when everything began turning in the Marvel era of light and colorful. I am a fan of the Watchmen comic book and watched Hollywood fail with Snyder's soulless attempt. Veidt and Laurie were so captured so well in the tv series. His snarky cracks and digs were actually answered if you watch the series. Thing is he produced a video purely based on people's entertainment and trigger happy fingers at something being woke. He compared the show to Batwoman I could not help but laugh at how stupid he is.

Yeah he puts out quality content rather than just attempting to get views. No Ralph is way better than Drinker is. Ralph not as entertaining? Um yeah no he actually puts effort into his videos and has some solid editing and well shot skits that never linger too long. All Critical Drinker does is voice over clips edited together while doing that lame character. I gave you Watchmen as well.

https://www.youtube.com/user/YourMovieSucksDOTorg

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

providing examples is not holding my hand, you dick.

Okay fine that is a fair criticism; personally I liked the Watchmen film (have not seen the series yet) but there is a pretty unanimous critique that it is woke (or at least heavily suggests all white men are racist/sexist blah blah blah). Many people reported the same thing that drinker did. So I believe volume over you. You seem to just not agree with his opinion and you think that gives you a right to judge his quality. I think that is B.S. Same deal with Watchmen and Batwoman; manyof the critics who's opinions I share say they both have a 'woke' undertone.

I do not think Ralph is bad, so i don't disagree; his reviews have a more depth to them. But they are a bit monotone and lack a feeling of emotional investment; which I respect for the objective analysis but I am more entertained by some of the character aspects of Drinker; he is not my favorite out there though. I like David V Stewart, MauLer, Literature Devil, etc I think better; but David is doing less and less movie reviews and MauLer and LD take forever to put out more content. Drinker fills the void nicely for me at least.

You need to drop the 'holier than thou' attitude with this, you are entitled to you opinion if you don't share Drinker's opinion and don't like his gimmick; but stop being a condescending prick to me for liking his opinion and his gimmick.

I tried YMS just now; my god was that crappy content. You hold that quality to hire degree than Drinker? YMS voice was 10 times more annoying than drinkers. WTF dude; seriously. YOu just lost all credibility in my book. I lasted about 3 minutes before I had to shut it off or I thought my ears would bleed. The video content was garbage. He keeps overlaying it with that annoying face picture. WTF,WTF, WTF? How dare you criticize drinker but than recommend that hot garbage.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You called a name first. Careful these are grounds for being reported.

Something being woke does not by default make it bad. What matters is the execution of the film. The acting, writing, cinematography, set design, sound editing etc. You believe the volume over me? Lmao when did I ever tell you to believe what I said over the majority? I gave you my opinion nice appeal to popularity though. Batwoman is woke but that has nothing to do with the bad acting, bad cinematography etc.

You are free to like him I never said otherwise I just think he is a joke and his views and critiquing is trash. Called me another name interesting did I strike a nerve?

YMS is higher quality than Drinker is with far more film knowledge. Your opinion I find drinker far more annoying. See and there we go. I actually watched Drinkers videos even though I hated them and gave you exactly why I could not stand his views. You last 3 minutes and because you do not like it turn it off. I get called rude for not liking someone's voice but you are allowed to do the same? You are hilarious.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

Your condescending attidute about this whole argument was an attempt to insult my opinion; saying things like "i'll humour you" or "I have to hold your hand" are insults, they are just pathetic passive aggressive ones. Why not be up front about it, threatening to report me is also ground to be reported. It is a threat.

Yes it does, woke is more about having a theme or a message; it is letting the message take over and remove all subtlety and slap you in the face with it virtue signaling. There is a difference between something having a liberal or even left leaning supportive message and full out woke message. Volume of reporters that I have confidence in, I mean; not just popular opinion. I wasn't making an argument, I was just saying because you of condescending attitude I don't believe you, I believe them. To make an argument I would have had to actually seen the thing being discussed. Flaming is grounds for being reported to. Which I think you are flaming now.

You are being totally condescending; I can read it in your word choice. I like drinker and you think you are better than me for it. you can deny it but it is plan to see. If you don't want to be a called condescending drop the freaking attitude.

You are out of you mind. I just watched a few minutes of about 8 videos; YMS is a joke. THE quality is garbage and he is 10 times more annoying than drinker. But I noticed he doesn't point out or isn't bothered by the woke messaging of films like Captain Marvel, so maybe you have an agenda; you only like the critics that don't call out politics bleeding into entertainment. Why, does it strike a nerve? Also it was not the content that made me turn it off, the quality of the video, the annoying face that kept popping up and the incredibly annoying voice; I couldn't listen. It was production quality though not the content. I'd have to suffer through more before I could fully judge the quality but I am not willing to do it, too annoying.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

You might want to learn how to spell and have good grammar before insulting someone. Just a little tip to help you out. When you insult someone directly that is what is grounds for being reported.

No it does not. This is where I can not get behind this way of thinking. Star Wars has religious undertones. So someone who is atheist can say I hate Star Wars just off of those undertones. It is a lazy way of criticizing. Oh I do not like the undertones, therefore that is grounds for me to hate it just off that alone. Here is the definition of woke.

aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke

Schindler's List fits this description and is considered one of the best films of all time. I guess by your logic it is bad just because of the undertones. Since that is the undertone it dismisses the acting, cinematography, set design, editing, music , sound etc. When did I tell you to put more stock in my opinion than the people you follow? I never did you asked for my opinion and I gave it. As I said nice appeal to them though. Who am I flaming? You responded to me first fyi. Nice try though.

Nope I do not care if people like him, I just personally find his views stupid.

Your opinion nothing more. Nope I do not care if they call out politics, I do care when that is the only thing they rely on as to why something is bad. They pivot to that as their only means to criticize it. While in the mean time dismissing anything else. All drinker refers to in Watchmen is the woke undertones. That is the foundation of his argument which is weak. So if you are not willing to watch fully to judge the quality your opinion means nothing. I watched Drinkers videos in full which gives me more grounds to stand on to pick YMS over him. Word of advice quit now and save yourself some embarrassment.

reply

[–] arflexit (2376) 4 years ago

More passive aggressive insults from you I see, now resorting to the pathetic "learn to spell insult". you are flamming. I am reporting you after I complete this reply, reporting you to the moderator and adding you to my ignore list. I don't want to have discussions with pathetic passive aggressive weasels.

You and I (and most people that can't stand woke messaging) do not agree on this defenition. This is a very forgiving definition of Woke and does not meet the expected meaning. The meaning I go off of is more similar to "The act of being very pretentious about how much you care about a social issue." For example in my use of the word, Schindler's list is not woke but TFA is. Funny thing about words, there are sometimes many definitions and interpretations. Thanks for being even more condescending and passive aggressive with you insults.

Okay whatever; I don't like YMS, I find his views stupid. This is my Opinion not fact, no judgement of his content quality, only the video quality. See that is how you express an opinion with condescension. Hope you learned a lesson.

You opinion and interpretation is just riddled with condescension and agenda. You seem to dislike anything that points out wokeness and you purposefully ignore the way others use the word in context. This just tells me that you are either supportive of or lukewarm to the political messaging taking precedence over story telling, and you will attack the critics that point it out and try to passive aggressively belittle those that like those critics. Funny thing is you probably think you are the victim here, when the attacks came from you first, you just didn't passively aggressively where is I at least have to courage to actually say what i think and am willing to face the consequences.

Don't bother responding to this, you are hereby ignored and I won't see it.

reply

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Nope I am pointing out how ignorant you are. Another insult wow.

The definition is in the dictionary, how is that a forgiving definition when that is what the definition is in the dictionary? The definition is not what you or I say it is what it is defined as in the dictionary. Wow man you are a character. Learn to spell man. By the dictionary definition Schindler's List is also woke. Notice you can not fight that.

I did the same with Drinker.

Nope not at all. I have no issue with someone pointing out they do not like an undertone but when that is where they pivot and offer nothing else I will not respect their opinion. Something is not bad simply because of an undertone.

reply