Full Series The Clone Wars: Episode 306: The Academy Discussion Thread

Showing kids breaking into a secured/encrypted door is not good.

 

That's because heroes have to be Rated M for Manly. Unless they kick ass and take names, they're not worthy of remembrance or existence within the story. Every fictional universe must be a World of Badass.

 

I simply can't understand why you all want to have this discussion again.

From Ghez Hokan, to Dred Priest to even Kal Skirata, Karen showed a multitude of different character traits in her Mandalorian characters. Many of these characters are just absolutly horrible people that no one would look upon with admiration, even if they like themselves.

And Karen created the "only warrior culture"?????????? Try KotOR, Open Seasons and a few more sources I'm forgetting now. By the way Karen's "only warrior culture" portrayed Mandalorian miners, metal workers, doctors, starship builders, farmers, scientists and a lot more.

This "Karen forgot she was writing Star Wars" is just inviting a confrontation and based on your comments I really suspect you haven't read much of her work.

 

Star Wars: SERIOUS BUSINESS!

Yall need to cool down and chill with Fisto in the disco.

 

Ever since I played Fallout New Vegas, the name Fisto will never invoke the same feeling again.

 

Sorry- it's true i haven't read Traviss- so all this is based on what i've heard- i may have judged Traviss' wrong but what i've heard created that picture....

 

that's only one point of view- Star Wars has several BA:s but it's much more than "World of Badass"- it's not only like superherocomics- which are based only badassness(there is exceptions too -i know) star wars is combination of different kind of stories....

 

Actually your examples make it sound like Traviss really created very warrior centered culture- all those are supporting armybuilding..... were there any artists, musicians, politicians, teachers (i don't mean any combat teachers)?...

 

lol! That's never leaving! Is it?!

 

A Rated M for Manly story is pretty much at the core of storytelling. Look at the Iliad and the Odyssey. Look at the Aeneid, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, etc. These stories are bloody, brutal, and dark. Yet they codify a lot of the greatest epic literature, and Star Wars is an epic film. Also, notice how absolutely banal kid-oriented material is hardly looked upon favorably. If kid stuff is looked kindly upon, it often has a deeper, more meaningful, more mature message than scenes of a CGI anthromorphic amphibious rabbit doing slapstick in front of diplomats and generally acting like an unqualified idiot in what should be a serious setting.

 

I disagree. I think the core of a good story lies in its characters, not how mature or dark it is or where it lies on the Idealism vs Cynicism spectrum. It is also a matter of personal tastes depending on what the viewer or reader deems acceptable and tolerable.

Wuthering Heights is hailed as a classic of English literature. It is dark. It is brutal. It gets bloody at some points. It has 'mature' themes of slavery, racism, social structure, infidelity, abuse, revenge, and even incest. And it is also an absolutely terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE read from my experience. I would much rather watch Bugs Bunny or Daffy Duck engage in juvenile pranks against Elmer Fudd. I would rather watch Mickey Mouse elude Big Bad Pete. They may be simple. They may be made for kids. But dangit, I find them likable, funny, even sympathetic at times.

Whether what the show is doing constitutes 'good writing' is a matter of perspective. I certainly won't argue over your right to have an opinion or work too hard to defend some of the bad choices the crew has made. But I must respectfully voice my belief that the core of storytelling doesn't always lie in darkness, and it certainly doesn't hide from the light.

 

Putting aside what good storytelling is (which I disagree with, as I've already detailed), SW has never been characteristically "bloody, brutal, and dark", at least in its cinematic form, which is what TCW is spun-off from.

Let's be clear: TCW is a 20 minute animated adventure series spun-off from a six-film space opera saga--a series of films that, even at their darkest, featured robots being regurgitated by swamp creatures and a cyborg villain with a bad cough. When you get an animated TV series as a spin-off, what's a reasonable expectation?

TCW is not some Homeric epic and does not claim to be. At its deepest, it's an adventure serial with a subversive bent and some interesting points worth discussing. It's also a way for GL to play with various genres. It's not high art. You're expecting a Picasso in your Happy Meals.

 

In the interest of fairness, just because that's where it is NOW, doesn't mean it can't reach higher as well. Not to say that it should become a deep, dark, stunning piece of art, but that it retains its sense of high adventure while more artfully addressing or exploring some of its other issues lurking beneath the surface.

Also, before we are pulled back on-topic (provided we have not picked the topic to the bone already), I personally think TCW is more a ham and cheese sandwich...high art would be all the fancy epicurean dishes...low art would be the fast food...and TCW, like Star Wars, is a good sandwich. Nothing too fancy, highly enjoyable, occasionally surprising, and you can choose what you put into it. At least that's what it is to me. XD

 

Actually, your assessment is fairer than my own, and closer to my own POV. I endorse it 100%!

 

QFT

 

Yeah, yeah, but nothing wrong with wanting it to be better.

 

QFT

 

Well, if by "better" you mean "dark, bloody and brutal", that's an incredibly myopic view of quality storytelling.

Was The Wizard of Oz dark, bloody and brutal?

How about The Graduate?

Or maybe the 1933 version of King Kong?

But guess what? All three are on the AFI "Greatest American Movies" list, and there are plenty more to choose from there, too.

Do you guys really want TCW "to be better", or do you just want it to conform to your personal tastes, mistaking a subjective predilection for the gritty and morose for some objective standard of quality?

 

I want it to make more sense. It want it to be better written. That's all.

 

There, there, no need to get into a knee-jerk reaction with the word 'better'. Some people actually want it to be genuinely better instead of...the other way. After all, I expressed that sentiment a few posts up. I just chose to be a bit more specific about my definition, is all.

I guess, going back to the meal metaphor, it's a matter of what we want our current sandwich to turn into. Do we want it to turn into some sort of incredibly expensive, critically acclaimed delicacy with all manner of herbs, sauces, and spices with names we couldn't even pronounce? Or do we want it to become an even BETTER sandwich, one with better bread, better ingredients, and better arrangements so that it doesn't overflow, it doesn't drip, and it's got just the right amount of filling?

Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't post before lunch so much.

 

I vote for it to be "fun" to watch, thus good visual's either some well played action sequences or a plot that makes you smile, laugh, or think. If it was a 6 hour mini series then I would like it to flow from start to finish with very little lag and be of top notch quality production wise, sense it is a half hour cartoon I do not expect perfect graphics and a perfect story line from start to finish otherwise the cost of the whole thing would be prohibited to show on TV any way and I would get nothing at all.

 

I didn't find it to be that great. This, and the episode before it haven't been what I call "TCW worth material". I haven't seen Assassin yet, but I'm confident that TCW will still pull through for a solid 3rd season.

 

If the first seven episodes have been aired, and two (one for me) were good, it won't be a "solid" season.

 

Well yeah, the rest of the season needs to be pretty good to make up for five episodes I couldn't be bothered to watch a second time.

 

:/