SWC (Venting thread) Things that annoy you abt current star wars fandom/perception of the saga

Which is why I asked for clarification.

Some sort of belief that 'nerds' (in the school yard definition of the term) should hold a monopoly on stereotypically nerdy interests is one that I have seen held, in all seriousness, by multiple people online and IRL.

 

Sure, I mean, its a possessive quality that anybody can have about their passions. What I meant was to be taken in a light hearted sense, but nevertheless how I do feel sometimes.

 

I like the discussion about the relativity of what constitutes canon. I've seen two types of reasoning:

(A) A closed system of what's canon and what's not. A previous poster gave a pretty good list of options:
1. OOT only
2. OT only
3. Movies only
4. Movies plus official animated series
5. #4 plus EU (and within that universe, a whole list of possible articulations and combinations)

(B) A hierarchy of sources that trumps the next. As a result, the lower source holds up as long as it does not contradict a higher ranked source. The same list given in (A) applies. Another variation is that some sources are binding canon and the other supplemental persuasive sources.

While it is difficult, if not impossible, to agree on a consensus as to A or B, or (more importantly) on the actual list regardless of approach, that does not mean it can't be adequately debated.

I for one, am a movie centered follower. As such, I will admit I have little sympathy when, in a movie centered debate, someone quotes the EU as counterargument! .....This is a venting thread, no? There, I vented!

 

There is also the third option that each person makes their own Canon by choice.

Yeah, I usually ignore book counterarguments. With certain characters I only accept the films. People accept whatever they choose but acting like everyone else must do likewise is not going to get anywhere. Its much better to simply acknowledge where the other is coming from and agree to disagree. Each fan is right for themselves, not necessarily anyone else.

PT fans always playing the victim card rather than deciding to make a positive difference themselves. Stooping to exactly what they rail against, themselves. Acting like only PT is picked at.

 

What about things not answered in the films? The EU might have an answer. You don't have to accept it but others might. What's wrong with hearing possible interpretations?

 

Well, in that case, if this is indeed a belief or occasional feeling you hold as well, then I retain my original incredulous question: why?

 

Honestly, I really can't give an explanation that doesn't sound judgmental or where I say something that won't be cause for argument. It's not a big deal.

 

What about things not answered in the films? The EU might have an answer.
-------

the problem is when the film asks a question, then doesn't bother to answer it *cough* sifo Dyas *cough*

if the EU can provide an answer (which I believe it has to that particular conundrum) great! only the EU has so much drivel in it: Sith that can "implode solar systems" and Palpatine having a son called something like Cyclops that I have a hard time taking a lot of it seriously.

 

The EU cover 35,000+ years and has hundreds of books and comics. What's wrong with Sith Lord's who can destroy Solar systems? That's pretty awesome imo. Palpatine's son is Triclops. Not that big of a deal imo. The movies are how much? 36 years for 6 movies or 60 some odd years with the ST included? There is much more room for more stuff. Not everything is good but the highs imo outweigh the lows. The movies and cartoon series' have some pretty funky stuff as well.
Though I think the Syfo-Dyas stuff was answered in TCW for a canon answer.
It's SW material. It has a potential answer. Why limit yourself?

 

What's wrong with Sith Lord's who can destroy Solar systems? That's pretty awesome imo.
------------

I honestly don't know where to start with answering this question.

But I'll answer you with a question on one point,

if a Sith lord could do that, why did it take Palpatine (who needed a death star -thus couldn't possibly do it himself and is apparently the best sith evaaa) to create an empire? why couldn't this all powerful Saturday morning cartoon villain do it before him?

 

Sadow (owner of the Sith battleship and superweapon Corsair) was defeated and driven into hiding. It's not like Palpatine needed the Death Star to create his Empire, after all. Ownership of superweapons doesn't make one a great general, or a great manipulator.

Triclops may have been more "genetic experiment" than son:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Triclops

 

It's not like Palpatine needed the Death Star to create his Empire, after all.
-------------

not saying he did.

Anyway you miss my point, Sith that can destroy solar systems either through the force or with Sith superweapons is just lame to me, it might not be to you which is fine, but for me...no thank you.

 

The problem is the opinion or implication alone sounds judgmental and insipidly small-minded, explanation notwithstanding. It's a 'big deal' insomuch as it is akin to saying, "I don't like when atheists like Star Wars," "I don't like when women like Star Wars," or any other "I don't like when [group of human beings with varying degrees of arbitrariness in distinction] like Star Wars."

There's "venting about the fandom," and then there's (a particularly bizarre form of) simple bigotry.

 

There is also such a thing as self-projection and reading too much into things without proper consideration. It seems that's what you just did.

 

How so? That is not rhetorical, by the way; I am genuinely asking for your explanation.

I encountered a view that seemed to have underlying shades of bigotry, asked and received clarification that indicated it was both light-hearted yet also a genuine opinion of the poster's, and apparently the why cannot be answered without resorting to explanations of a sufficiently judgmental nature so as to inevitably cause strife. That is not misinterpretation, or reading too much into things in haste, but rather validation of exactly what I initially found disagreeable - or at the very least, worthy of explaining - and still do.

While I find your implication of self-projection amusing as it somehow assumes I must be a stereotypically cool guy, it is also incorrect, as I'd gently pry as to what somebody is talking about if they said, "Gona [sic] be honest, when quote unquote "geeky" people (in that school yard definition of the term)" - or hipsters, women, bankers, lawyers, Christians or any other varyingly distinct group of human beings - "like Star Wars," whether the intent is jocular or not.

 

Dude...relax, for you're own sake. We're a bunch of nerds on a Star Wars forum having some fun.

 

Saying that you do not like when a certain group of your fellow human beings like Star Wars is not fun, it's bigoted by the dictionary definition of the term, and I doubt I would be the sole person questioning you if you had substituted another group of fellow humans - geeks, women or Christians as examples - for 'stereotypically cool people.' I was curious while simultaneously a little incredulous about the opinion that you clearly believed to be worthy of taking the time to write out and post, and after being called out you are being flippant and evasive.

The "Relax, calm down" off-handed dismission is a common getaround of avoiding the awkwardness that results when more subtle, and thus rarely opposed, bigoted or ignorant views are questioned, but it is not a good one. Instead, it is graceful to retract such a viewpoint when it is questioned - or indeed not express it at all - if you are not prepared to defend it. In other words, yes, we're all Star Wars fans on a Star Wars forum having fun. If you are considering posting something - e.g. something about disliking certain of your fellow fans - that you would be unwilling to elaborate on because it would be "judgmental" and therefore (quite rightfully) cause argument, then do not post that thing in the first place.

 

Thanks for the lecture.

It was an off handed light hearted remark meant to be taken more as a joke then be some deep insult to another group of people, and I don't need to explain it any further.

 

You're welcome.

I'm not unaware that your initial statement was meant to be taken, in part, as a joke. You also said that it was how you genuinely felt, and I was curious as to why. According to you, such an explanation would have been too judgmental. Of course you don't need to satiate my curiosity - don't be silly - but you also don't need to be so defensive.

 

You inferred a lot more emotion from my comments than what was intended.

Also, I would hardly characterize your multiple analyses of my remark and persistent questioning of it as simple curiosity.

 

Emotion? No. You could be remarking entirely void of emotion and it wouldn't matter, because it's a simple question. Do you feel (whether "sometimes" or regularly does not matter) a dislike for when "when quote unquote 'cool' people (in that school yard definition of the term) like Star Wars," or don't you? And if you do, then why? If you don't want to answer, then you don't need to, and that's fine. But in which case, simply stop replying in general - inevitably prompting my own reply, which may give you the mistaken impression of overly curious persistence - rather than continuing arguing, particularly when doing so dismissively rather than pertinently.

 

Noted.

 

I hate it when the general media throws in a dig at Jar Jar like it'll earn them nerd street cred. (Ooo, they dissed Binks! We've got a badass here!) <rolls eyes> And then they say something like "that green dude Han totally shot first". That kinda stuff is just awkward for everyone.