Hawki said:
Out of the two, Rey's is still more absurd.
Why? Because at the moment this merely sounds contrarian. It's childish.
But to illustrate the point...
Because Kylo wasn't even trying to kill her. That was made plain in scene. In fact he sees the opening ravine behind her, and you can actually see it in his face where he's thinking; "Okay, I can use that..." Beats her over the edge, and effectively bars her exit.
He's already thought he's won. He's cocky. He assumes Rey can't actually do anything about the predicament he's landed her in. You actually see a flicker of his better nature come through. Where before in the fight, he was trying to strike her down, but given the opportunity of the world tearing apart well maybe there's a chance for a peaceful solution in all this?
And Rey effectively uses that to gain the advantage.
They've never
really met before that moment. Not really. There's no reason to suspect Rey might actually be a hardened fighter willing to cause pain or be able to actually tap into the malice necessary to actually injure someone. All the times Rey has killed people so far is because she was placed in life or death situations ... but in this, he's offering a peaceful solution.
Which makes it a hell of a lot more believable.
Not sure what you're getting at here.
Because why exactly is there an assumption Kylo is actually good at laser death sticking?
Disagree. I think it looks like an individual would fight, in the knowledge that:
a) The Force allows them to do physical things others couldn't.
b) They exist in a world where the use of a lightsaber has to be justified as an alternative to blasters.
Why?
Officers still dress with cavalry sabres on parade, and in the army I was still taught to fight with a bayonet. Doesn't mean we'd use either. Well ... depending on how fucking desperate the situation got where we had to exchange an M203 with a
bayonet. Most of us still wouldn't actually use them even if we were told not to leave the armory without one.
There's stories of marines in the early Iraq conflict where they are outfitted a bayonet... they get to the dispatch, there is a soldier waiting there with a open lockbox, and the soldiers just tossed them into it before heading out. And a bayonet has more utility on an M4 than it does the F88 given the latter's bullpup design. After all, if you're pointing your gun at someone you might as well fire... and with a bullpup, if you're out of bullets you have to incline the rifle upwards to reload, and take your eyes off the field. The benefits of the bullpup is once you master the art of using one on the move to hit targets upwards of 200M range, they have exceptional mobility and utility indoors or other dense terrain.
So the extended projection of the bullpup with bayonet does not provide any tactile benefit, ultimately restricts movement where the bullpup otherwise shines, and it is simply pointlesd on the modern battlefield.
Yet we still train with them, despite the fact that
we will never use them, we occasionally would take them into battle. Some things are just traditional. You learn to use them not because of any real reason beyond they exist and it tradition for some soldiers to use them. Just like how Commandos are issued a very special type of knife, the Australian Army Stiletto. Trained to use them extensively, as a weapon designed to easily penetrate beneath and between the ribs and vertebrae, into the vitals from behind.
Some things just become traditional arms that are carried for very special events or reasons, but will never be used (again).
Ditto it seems a leap of logic that Kylo would regularly use his lightsaber.
Kylo seems a wiz with the force. Unlike Vader who could simply block blaster bolts with his hand (I assume so special armour or prosthetics powered by the force?), Kylo can with seeming grace and with little concentration freeze them in midair.
The funny thing is if he had a blaster pistol just prior that fight, he could have killed both Rey and Finn in about 2 seconds. Given Kylo can seemingly just freeze blaster bolts in midair with minimal concentration or effort ... he'd probably be a
hell of a lot more effective with a blaster as his go to weapon of choice.
Given that he doesn't need it as a defensive tool against blasters, and alleviating the use of his hands to do force stuff. Like insta-choke soldiers from afar.
Why he doesn't carry one alongside his laser deathstick is perhaps egotistical pride.
And yeah, I get the argument that; "it's a force user thing to use a lightsaber..." but that doesn't seem to discourage them using modern tech like ship blasters and missiles and the like. it doesn't seem to break their codex of rules to not utterly divorce themselves of modern instruments to fight.
And gives it eloquence that I'd expect an order of warrior monks to possess.
Even if the originals didn't have them?
Like none of them?
If the OT wanted to get a sword master for a weapon that has no weight, and make it look like a weapon with weight, that's its prerogative. Doesn't make it less silly.
Silly as compared to, what? A laser deathstick that apparently can repel other laser deathsticks but at the same time wouldn't register much weight of impact despite such assumed electromagnetic resistance? Physics wise, both are fucking silly. But if I'm going to buy the idea of laser deathsticks which can actually repel eachother, it looks better when they're actually repelling eachother.
For example, looking like they have a weightyness to them when they collide...
As I already said, him trying to flip over Obi-Wan is demonstrating character through action.
Rey was demonstrating character through action. Which is what all characters do.
Remember how Maul got overconfident as well, and paid the price for it?
Remember how Kylo decided not to kill Rey, assumed shewas just a hapless girl over a ledge, perhaps couldn't imagine the trials she had been through on Jakku or perhaps just what level of malevolence she might summon?
Funnily enough, that's what you're doing by not answering the original question (what you mean by "Then you'll have no poroblem formulating a sentence rather than saying; "no, u." - apart from ad hominem)
Which was?
Oh that's right ... whether Mad Max as a dystopian film actually measures as dystopian?
Right when Kylo decides to actually try to recruit her, as opposed to trying to kill her. It's almost as if they haven't been properly acquainted and might not expect the level of grit and determination she might display, or the level of her hatred after what he did to his own father.
Sorry, I've heard more than enough critique from the 'Rey is a MS crowd' than I care to recall. Frankly it's irritating AF.
Quote: "This was the formal weapon of a Jedi Knight. Not as clumsy or random as a blaster. More skill than simple sight was required for its use. An elegant weapon. It was a symbol as well. Anyone can use a blaster or a fusioncutter?but to use a lightsaber well was a mark of someone a cut above the ordinary."
Pretty sure Rey counts as a 'cut above ordinary'.
After all .. Luke gets his arse handed to him by a single Tusken raider. On a simple measure, I'm pretty sure Rey could beat up Luke in ANH.
Forgive me for seeing the lightsaber as something more than just a weapon, given that's how it's described when we first see it.
And forgive me for pointing out, Luke is already deflecting multiple droid bolts blindfolded in like 2 days. Despite after getting his arse handed to him by a Tusken raider.
Part of the fun is because it looks like, as you call it, "dancing."
Uh huh... and? Let's then chalk it up to personally tastes, then.
Junkyard brawls against fighting the enemies of the First Order, and before that, lightsaber training?
Yeah, but since when does Ren actually do the fighting? Phasma seemed to be his go-to field commander, and the only time we see Kylo fight with a lightsaber before Rey is Luke in TLJ flashback ... and even then Luke actually stopped himself, and Ren won through force powers.
A quarterstaff isn't a lightsaber. Being good at one doesn't arbitrarily make you good at the other.
You'd be surprised how often various body combat disciplines flow into eachother. Moreover you only ever see Rey use a quarterstaff, doesn't mean she hasn't fought with other improvised or melee weaponry ... the core basics of footwork and agility are also standard.
Other body combat disciplines also teach utilization of the environment.
Which is why I'm not too worried about it, even if I appreciate that it's silly within the context of its own lore.
Uh huh
I'd say it's down more to the limitations of the time, since they're really hitting each other with plastic sticks. Prequels did the effects much better in that it's easy to buy that these are energy weapons rather than poles being hit against one another.
How can you even make that argument?
Clearly lightsabers have some form of electromagnetic resistance otherwise you couldn't block with them. And that resistance, if to directly reflect another blade, means the strength of one's blows is still going to be felt. The only difference is you don't also have the weight of a conventional blade ontop of that resistance.
It's not the weight of the blade itself that creates force.
But I'm more willing to argue if lightsabers can repulse one another, and the blade cannot bend, then you are still going to insulate the force of the blow itself and the force the user exerts into it... if not slightly more, given the people who make lightsabers would overcompensate just to be safe.
It's far more accurate to show Luke dashing away his father's lightsaber with a powerful swing than to just say they magically bounce off eachother as if nothing.
It's the emotions of the OT that carry the duels, not the choreography. Going by a visual standpoint alone, they range from laughable (New Hope) to average (RotJ), to...pretty good (Empire). But if the PT and ST convey lightsabers in a manner more befitting their nature (TFA aside), I'm not complaining.
You're just needlessly making banter over why magical laser deathsticks shouldn't convey motion of being struck despite not making sense?
Star Wars syncing up with its own lore in the movies doesn't inherently hinder them.
Uh huh. Never argued that ... I also won't care if they do or not, because how would I know? ... But if you're spouting pointless lore that will bore everyone, you're already doing something wrong.
I can display something, that doesn't mean I'm informing the audience just by that act. Cinematography can be analyzed in lieu of worldbuilding and vice versa.
Not arguing that.
What example? I've cited novel after novel, film after film, I've even provided you the definitions of the words, and you're still saying "give me evidence."
Where? See I seem to be the only one actual showing you examples.
I count three books you've cited. And one of them I haven't read.
Whereas I've actually shown scenes, footage, stills, background history...
I can't challenge you because you're not putting anything forward to challenge.
Just in Star Wars alone I've linked 5 different duels and outlined precisely why the prequels are problematic.
So far the best defence I've gotten is; "But no, they're energy based..."
I mean, okay, let's go back to 2001. The intro sequence of the novel describes a lot of stuff, such as the state of Earth, without showing any of it.
Dune...
Bam. Worldbuilding without wordpainting. Do you want me to do this for every sci-fi and fantasy novel ever written? Because that's a hell of a lot of novels to get through.
The Kubrick film is a masterpiece of cinematography, however. And it has spawned countless interpretations. Countless essays on it. It is intrinsically wonderful, evocative, mesmerizing, and everyone who watches it will come away with
mind-blowing hypotheticals of what it all means.
What was wrong with the Dune movie?
And there is a metric fuckton of books. Are we talking all of them, because I haven't read any but the first. In fact it's been 15 years since I read
Dune. But do you know what sticks out for me when it comes to Dune? Patrick Stewart and Sting. The fact that I didn't bother to read The Dune Messiah is probably telling, however.
Because novels aren't a visual medium. Because you can have exposition without visuals. Because you can have a character describe the world without showing it. Because you can do any number of things without showing them visually, or in the case of wordpainting (not worldpainting, wordpainting), describe a scene without using it to inform the reader of the world.
Which also means they lose out on visual symbolism, they have definitive issues in translation into other languages, and even the simplest statements require conjecture and self involvement of the reader?
Okay, I concede the argument, you can have worldbuilding or wordpainting, without the other. But it's utterly irrelevant to film.
Because it doesn't tell us anything bar inference. Is it down to a lack of resources? Improvements in technology? Is it useful for Max, or is he just a car enthusiast? If it's the last, why? How?
Clearly the movie tells you all these details. And if you're still asking the importance of the Pursuit Special is because Max is just really into cars, clearly you weren't paying attention to the movie.
Repeatedly it is told to you that the car is
unique.
Fucking repeatedly. Macaffee had to barter for it from Labartouche, Barry tells you it's now one of a kind. Max is a car enthusiast, Macaffee uses the vehicle to bribe Max's participation on the MFP ... but that 'specialness' is precisely because they're
now rare, and the MFP is now making do by scavenging parts or haggling with other police forces for vehicles and parts.
Worldbuilding does not need to be purely exposition. It's as if
bad worldbuilding is purely exposition. It can be given through hints, symbolism, poetics, or perhaps as a vague mystery
as in Mad Max.
That doesn't suggest bad worldbuilding, in fact, just like Mad Max, it can make it
incredibly effective in a
dystopian movie. As it helps sell the idea of confusion or
isolation.
Which shows that the film arguably hasn't aged well.
Or you're clueless...
We see the bikies do this once in a scene that lasts a minute or so at most, is not led up to, and is never brought up again.
Why would it need to be shown twice? And for your information ... the reason why one might pick a motorcycle to tour the country during a fuel shortage is because they're
fuel efficient.
My FZR1000 would get me 18km/L on open roads.
I also wonder if fuel is so scarce why a fuel tanker is going unguarded through what'll become "the Wasteland" in later movies.
Because the police are underfunded and the cities are going to hell as made clear in the intro to MM2?
Also there is a large time gap between the subsequent movies?
Also the fact that they're not set in the same place?
Gee ... it's almost as if you need to pay attention to details...
Like I said, if the film wants to see us on an oil shortage, it doesn't do a good job.
Or you have no idea what you're talking about?
I've been into the country myself, it isn't hard to find busted vehicles. Maybe not to the extent of the film, but rusted vehicles aren't hard to find.
Just lying in the middle of the road?
57 deaths...over what period of time? It isn't uncommon today to reach double digits on Australian roads just in the holiday period.
Over a small section of highway, and the sign clearly says "this year."
It also says in big letters; "High Fatality Road..." and the sign was erected after the establishment of the MFP given they're listed on it.
It's simple - take the book. Take the film. Use the information from both to compile databases in isolation of each other. The book will almost always have the greater volume of data.
Well I can tell that's a lie, because I've read some appalling novelizations of films. It's also a fucking stupid metric.
Also I haven't read this Transall Saga. 13 year old survival enthusiast? Pass.
As a counter example, however. Where movies create a better, richer narrative experience to their novel counterparts ... James Bond movies vs. novellas.