All posts by English-Lady21
Isn't "making retellings of safe, acclaimed storylines with a pretty coating" basically what most directors do though? Very few seem to produce really new content. Even Filoni, after some initially great content in The Mandalorian or TBOBF started just making The Mandalorian Season 3 and lots of Luke and Ahsoka cameos.
I agree that Finn was promising but his story just got confusing and lost in a hot mess, but I don't think that was entirely the director's fault. I think it was partly because they had to make the Skywalkers the main focus of the stories.
The reason I don't object to the whole "ripoff of A New Hope" thing is because that happens so often in Hollywood and in all movie companies. With everything, not just SW.
How many Spiderman remakes have there been? How many Jane Austen adaptations do we really need? 90% of content is probably recycled, remakes or the same story over and over again.
OK, I just wanted to address one thing in your previous comment.
BTW I'm well aware of the differnt forms of abuse, I've learned them myself. "People have different experiences" should not be used as a way of invalidating one person's experience or suggesting what they experienced was not abuse. Good people can be abusers, well meaning people can be abusers.
Even Obi Wan can be an abuser.
@swatteam123
The problem with the argument that the Tuskens should have been held accountable by law is that there was no law on Tatooine and the planet was not subject to Republic law. Slavery was still a thing there. So who was going to put them on trial, the Hutts?
Also recall, the Tuskens did not just kill Shmi. Clegg recounted how they also killed all 28 of the neighbours he gathered together to go rescue her and left him crippled.
A'harad Shett had lived as a Tusken and as I recall from another comic, he (or his father, I don't recall) had actively taken part in such actions as the kidnap of settler's children and the killing of said settlers. He's hardly in a position to judge anyone really.
@sagaseeker
Well, that really depends on how you define, "hero". Traditionally "hero" simply means "protaganist" or the main character. It doesn't have to mean "the good guy". I don't think all heroes have to be perfect or beyond reproach.
Likeability, as I said before, is a subjective standard. I find some protaganists positively annoying.
@ctmeh Yeah, and my sister is a social worker. You know delusional and petulant aren't necessarily abusive actions, right? Actually, delusions are often associated with abuse victims or those with mental health conditions. Being petulant can be associated with age. ObI WAn is also a sulky and petulent in TPM. That makes him a villain by your standard.
Obi Wan never owned his actions. Not even with Luke. He didn't say "I lied". He said "I told you the truth from a certain point of view".
In other words, instead of admitting he lied, he tried to reframe the truth to suit him. Gaslighting, basically, which is a form of abuse in and of itself. Luke is not the only person he gaslit either. Not all forms of abuse are physical.
Obi Wan does bad deeds but tell himself "its for the greater good"- and the narrative supports him. Again, I'm applying the same standard you do here, just to another character.
@ctmeh WTF? So because I say other character commited war crimes and good intent does not make thier actions justifiable, I'm "defending evil"?
Good intent does not justify bad actions. Its as simple as that. Its not suddenly right because ObI Wan and the Jedi were doing X, Y or Z for "unselfish" reasons.
You can justify any deed, literally ANYTHING by saying its being done "in a good cause" or "for the greater good".
@ctmeh
Blaming another person for something is not a manipulative act unless you are actively telling them it is their fault and they made you do it. And I'm coming to this from the perspective of someone who was emotionally and pyschologically abused for years. ObI Wan's behaviour throughout canon more closely resembles my abuser's than Anakin's does.
Just think on that.
But on the subject of half-truths and maniplation, do you care to tell us how ObI Wan's "what I told you was true from a certain point of view/Vader killed your father" line was not a lie? Nor a manipulation.
Everything he told Luke from ANH to ROTJ was false or a twisted version of events, By that standard, he is an unreliable narrator. He also justifies his actions with a form of delusion. Everyone justifies thier behaviour. Its human nature.
I'd be interested to find out what you think the real reason Anakin killed hte sand people was and if you think Shmi deserved to be murdered? Do you?
Again, you are conflating law with morality. Morally dubious acts are not necesarily unlawful acts. In the case of Admiral Trench, Trench was actively electrocuting Anakin with his stick thing when he killed him. Electrocution would be counted as a form of torture, and a war crime.
So they were both commiting crimes against one another at the same time.
Ahsoka is a living and walking war crime in and of herself. The GC expressly forbids the involvment of under 15s in active combat. Since Yoda assinged her to Anakin, at 14, that's on him. The Senior Officer or commander is usually held more culpable than the junior one.
In at least one of the cases of torture involved Mace Windu and Obi Wan as well, it should be counted a war crime, but not Anakin as wholly culpable. Mace Windu was capable of making his own decisions. Anakin did not "make" him join in with interrogating a suspect.
In a lot of cases depends on who is implementing the law and who wins in a certain conflict, as in your case of Hiroshima. However, by the same standards the Japanese committed a lot of war crimes, especially in thier treatment of POWs.
Similar situation in SW. The Republic and the Jedi commit a tonne of war crimes, but becasise its their government implementing the law, they aren't held accountable.
Nope. I am well aware people are going to judge characters by their own standards, all I am saying is be consistent. Don't use double standards, holding one character to a rule or law, but not another. The problem is that the commentators only mention CIS war crimes, not Republic ones.
If we follow the GC, Anakin doesn't commit most war crimes (no the most is not counted in terms of most deaths) and ObI Wan easily matches if not surpasses him. Pong Krell easily surpasses.
Two war crimes in one minute in the space of the 2008 CW movie. A false surrender and then using an enemy commandar as a human shield. Another fs further along the line, supporting and endorsing the use of under 15s in combat. Blowing up the Zygerrian slave facility might be put on Rex, but that is not stricly a military target, so its a grey area.
The Rako Hardeen arc amounts to forcing someone to watch a mock execution which the GC counts as torture.
Since the GC does not allow for moral concepts such as "necessary evils" that's not strictly relevant. The law is designed prevent subjective, personal interpretations to let ourselves or those we like off the hook.
So I would ask, again, if a character such as Obi Wan or Yoda or Rex commits an act in contravention of the GC why should we not be allowed to call or count that as a war crime?
And yes, I have read the Geneva Convention.
Oh so this is the basis of your "Anakin is delusional and not a reliable narrator" claims on the other posts? I mean one could argue he deludes himself at certain times, but he never actually said he didn't kill the Sand people.
ObI Wan also lies, that's a verifiable fact. Which makes him an unreliable narrator too. Anyone who needs to define criticism of his character as "hatred" is clearly not objective, and is arguing in bad faith since they are trying to undermine thier opponent with false allegations based on their subjective standard.
I'm curious to why his fans always do that. Anakin fans don't define legitimate criticicism as "hatred". You guys seem very sensitive. Just saying.
On the subject of an entire village, that is questionable. Remember that Zygerrian facitility? There were gaurds and Zygerrian women in that facility. Rex blew the whole place sky high. Obi Wan did not object to taking a 9 year old into a warzone. So was he OK with it?
Ahsoka was 14 when she was put in a warzone, and she's not the youngest, by any stretch. Killing kids by putting them in active combat is arguably just as bad as cutting them down with a lightsaber. That's what the Jedi did, you know what right? Is that justified in your opinion.
Anakin has flaws and does stuff wrong. Nobody questions that. At least he has flaws though... unlike someone else.
Oh, do you objecting to verifiable statements made about me personally as "creating drama"? I can provide you with a linl to the comment in which one of the mods said all of the things I related above. I have screenshots as well.
I directly quote @Ajjviolin96 words here
"
This post of yours is, more than the previous ones, an intriguingly concerning expression of your current state of mind and spirit ..... this text is a metaphor of your own character."
I ask AGAIN, that she provide evidence for her qualifications to make judgements about anyone's "mental state".
I understand Mods stick together, but I am politely asking the Mod who directly attacked my character and called into question my "mental state" to back up her statement's about me with verifiable evidence and provide proof of what qualifies her to make such statements.
I understand that such behaviour is probably acceptable in your sight, but its not in mine and many other people's. You don't just go around calling people crazy and "mentally ill" for questioning you. Except here.
Please do continue though. This page is publicly visible. Let's let everyone see how the mode deal with people people who DARE to question them, and object to thier frequent resort to personal attacks and censorship.
Reporting is a cop out, since the same Mods who make the comments will be dealing with the reports.
@SagaSeeker The main issue with "war crimes" in regards to Star Wars is by what law or standard are we measuring them, and are we willing to hold other characters as subject to the same?
People often say that there is no Geneva Convention in SW and that is a fair point, but then under what law is Anakin committing "war crimes"? Also, since other characters commit acts which are in direct contravention of the GC in canon, why do we not accuse them of war crimes too.
Case in point: I recall that yesterday someone said that Anakin destroying the Droid Control ship in TPM was "mass murder". However, by that same standard, Luke also commited mass murder. There were close to 1 million people aboard the Death Star, and not all were military personell.
Obi Wan commited war crimes when he pretended to surrender. False surrenders are illegal under the GC and so is putting under 15s in combat. Mace Windu and Obi Wan joined in with the Force Interrogation of Cad Bane, which legally amounts to torture. Should we also hold him and Yoda as having commited "war crimes" on this basis?
I just say we need to be consistent in our application of such concepts. Why should it be a war crime when Anakin does it, and not when anyone else does?
@Jedi Sarith LeKit Oh, I do apologize. If the spoiler rules had been the real issue with post, one has to wonder why @Ajjviolin96 did not mention that in her comment on my post until after a 5 paragraph invective calling into question my "mental state" and attacking my character.
Is that the normal policy for mods? That's why I asked for her formal qualifications, because she seems to have a habit of calling people "mentally ill" for disagreeing with her or daring to say something critical about her favourite fictional character on a site which is meant to be objective. Its in the About page. Its the second or third time she's done it with me, to my recollection. I think that's more of a reasonable basis for making assumptions of a person's intent then "they said something I don't like about ObI Wan Kenobi".
As does one of the other mods, writerbuddha who once directly called me "crazy" for disagreeing with him (her?)
I mean rather a lot of users have mentioned they've been bullied, harassed or subjected to insults and personal attacks by Mods on this forum.
I propose we use this as a test case. If the real issue is spoilers. then @Ajjviolin96 can unlock the post tommorow, allowing me to edit it to show my sources, and respond to the allegations she made about me in the comments. There's nothing "mythological" about calling a real person crazy.
Would you please share an official statement from Disney Lucasfilm proving that nobody is allowed to share content from the Kenobi series, because of "spoilers?". There are already various threads on this page discussing it, and there are memes featuring content from the final episode.
Don't these violate the rules on "spoilers" that you choose to so rigidly enforce against me? Or, did you make up that rule to justify locking my post.
Whilst we are on the subject, would you please show evidence of your qualifications in pyschology, because you have repeatedly, in comments, referred to my supposed "state of mind", and I would dearly love to know what qualifies you to make such statements..
Is is really appropriate for moderators to call users "crazy", or to attack thier character? You already have a reputation among users for bearing grudges and resorting to insults. This tendency is clearly displayed in your replies to me, but in future, if you care to remark on my "character" or "state of mind" I would prefer you do so from the perspective of a professional with the proper credentials.
Not some random stranger on the Internet who thinks they are entitled to suggest another person is "mentally ill" because of their views on a fictional character.
Regards, English-Lady21
My dear @Ajjviolin96
You have once again locked one of my posts following a long comment full of spewing invective and personal attacks. You have, once again, assumed my motives and opinions. Wrongly, I might add. On both counts.
You began ranting and raving and telling me to "never" feature one of my articles again because you fancied I had attacked ObI Wan Kenobi. You are, in short, behaving like a petty despot. To see a Mod acting in such a manner because she disagrees with someone, and not allowing that person to defend themselves is unnerving.
It is clear that you don't grasp the concepts being discussed in this article, and that is fine. However, attacking people and assuming bad motives because you do not understand the subject matter is another thing entirely.
https://starwars.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000003634578/r/4400000000014738199
The assertion that a character is a reliable or unreliable narrator is a legitimate observation for any story or work of literature. It is not an attack on a character, and only the paranoid would read it as such. It is not an insult, and should not be interpreted as such.
Just for example, a character in the works of one of my favourite writers, J.R.R Tolkien, has been dubbed an unreliable narrator because his version of events diverges from the facts (of the story) in several points. I don't attack people or call the "toxic" over this.
Indeed, there was more vitriol in your comment than anything to be found in my post. Which, incidentally was based on simple observation of litrary tropes and has been posted another platform without the Mods losing thier proverbial heads
I said nothing the comments which was nasty or unpleasant about anyone. On the contrary, I was engaged in a polite discussion with another Literature buff on the matter.
We both merely remarked on the theme of the piece. I can even give links to the writing/litarary websites I used in the composition of the original piece, if you like.
I do not think, however that this would do any good. You have accused me of basically being insane and toxic in an article over narrators of fictional stories. You clearly have a problem with me personally.
I really just want to ask you to stop abusing your power as a Mod to silence anyone who you think is attacking your favourite character. It is unseemly, its biased, and you come over as vicious and aggressive.
I have a literary background as well, and I do think you have a point but there is a degree of over-simplification as well. People often assume a villain is an "unreliable narrator" simply by virtue of being a villain, but that's not always the case.
Take Dooku for example. He's not actually lying when he says there's a Sith Lord in charge of the Republic. That's the truth, there is. Now his motives were questionable in that scene, but his words were not false.
So, is Dooku an unreliable narrator? I'm going to say overall, no. Does that mean he's in the right? Also, no.
@SJGBeauchamp In fandom, or in this article? I do share a certain annoyance at fandom frequently (mis)using certain terms. "Arguing in bad faith" would be another one.
On the whole, no it is not a bad movie. It has a plot, a clear progression. and could exist as a self-contained story in its own right. There is a clear protaganist and antagonist, and some good characterization.
Is it a ripoff of A New Hope? Probably. That does not make it a bad movie overall.