This showed up in my feed while I was sleeping. I caught some funny stuff during one of my middle of the night bathroom breaks:
And this one was playing when I woke up this morning. More serious, lengthy, and spot on. It's long, and Part 3. This guy really gets into the weeds:
Yes. It doesn't get into the "who did this". At least not what I was hearing. It just got into the "what is happening and why it's bad".
Then please define "jazz" and it limits (what it is and what it isn't). Also define "rock and roll", "blues", etc. (ditto). Some concepts have grown/expanded beyond their inception. What was "science fiction" in the 1950's (when I started reading it) has expanded with our imaginations and we can no longer reject the inclusion of mysticism as a part of the whole. "Star Wars" may be pablum BUT the concepts of space travel, non-humans and advanced technology are foundational to "science fiction". They are just taken for granted and the producers feel that the story line (such as it is) is more important than speculative hard scientific explanations (e.g. "The Martian" by Andy Weir).
Science fiction says "science" right in the title. Here, "science" is used as a modifier-adjective of "fiction;" science fiction is scientific fiction. Where is the science? Point me to a single peer-reviewed paper that supports a single concept presented in Star Wars. Star Wars is Science Fiction as much as Guardians of the Galaxy is Science Fiction. There is nothing remotely scientific about the "concepts of space travel, non-humans and advanced technology" as they are presented in Star Wars. It is not Science Fiction, in any sense of the term because there is no concern with science. There is nothing scientific about mysticism. It's a fantasy, and it's comical that you defend it as otherwise for no other reason than the fact that it takes place in outer space. It seems that by your definition of science fiction, anything that takes place in a place other than Earth is automatically "science fiction." I'm guessing that you can't even imagine a scenario in which fiction set in an other-worldly setting is not science fiction. George Lucas agrees with me, but I'm sure you know more about Star Wars and science fiction than he does.
This is Simpsons' Comic Book Guy style pedantry run amok. Whether SW is sci fi or not, your dismissive and haughty case-making over something so not only tired but utterly trivial, is painful to read.
I was hoping myself to maybe get schooled on a tomato being a fruit and not a vegetable. And then argue about it for 5 pages.
Nothing is better than ad hominem to show you have no argument. Words do have meanings, as unfortunate as that is for you. I am not knocking Star Wars—I love Star Wars when it's good—I am simply pointing out the obvious. So go ahead and tell me how Guardians of the Galaxy is Science Fiction too. Go ahead and try to imagine George Lucas doing scientific background research in 1977 to produce Star Wars.
Pretty sure the last film that was closest to pure sci-fi was Interstellar, and most flicks about space have all been Star Trek-level sci-fi and leaning on that brick wall between sci-fi and fantasy since, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey or so.
Arrival Contact Blade Runner A.I. Close Encounters of the Third Kind The Martain... To name a few, all incredible, scientifically plausible science fiction films. Many, many others since 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Yeah, had to edit my post because I thought better of it also I apparently forgot when The Martian came out...
Arrival is after Interstellar too, and shouldn't be missed for fans of pure Science Fiction. You can easily tell that Arrival is not fantasy, because I'm not making out with Amy Adams in it. Gravity, just before Interstellar, is also great, pure Science Fiction. It's bewildering to me that some can't seem to discern between these types of films and Star Wars.
I'm not arguing anything to do with Star Wars with you. I'm commenting that the tone of your argument, right or wrong, is embarrassingly unnecessary, that is all. There are ways of discussing things and communicating one's viewpoint, but all I've seen you do is act dismissively and insultingly, in your all-critical attempt to be "right". About something wildly unimportant, no less. Felt like letting you know that phrases like "Words do have meanings, as unfortunate as that is for you" are peak cringe. Many others are kinder but as for me I'm happy to give you a taste of your own tone back to you.
Because they are all science fiction...you can't seem to understand science fiction vs hard science fixation. It's like the people who don't get heavy metal has a lot of sub-genres.
I loved all three of these recent series. Mando/Boba/Obi it's been good fun and better then expected. NOW !!!!
I and my two kids (aged 19 and 16) have really liked Obi-Wan so far. Better than Book of Boba Fett. I think maybe better than The Mandalorian, which we also liked a lot. My older son said today, "Dad, "Obi-Wan' is like "Rouge One" good." So that's what some of the younger generation thinks.
If this was really the pattern, then they really should have waited until Episode 5 to have Leia be told "I know." (I'm not convinced it is supposed to be a callback to Han's quote, but certainly the parallel immediately popped into my mind when Ben said it during her rescue.)
I was pretty excited for this show. What a let down the first 3 episodes. Ep4 was pretty good but it’s dragged out too much and loses my attention and I’m a big Star Wars fan and love The Mandalorian. I personally think this series needs a big boost of testosterone. That’s wishful thinking with KK in charge.
