@Twisted Sinister I wasn't going to respond to you again, since I thought
@Pranzo Oltranzista had done a great stating most of what I was going to say. But since you
still don't seem to get it....
You get mad at me for "acting as if I'm obviously right and you're obviously wrong" and "I am the God of opinions" yet your own posts contain these nuggets:
So perhaps check yourself before you lash out at others for responding to you in kind. Further still, every time you go out there and accuse the writers of being "hacks" or call the show "garbage," you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of. By the use of such an aggressive communication style, you are implicitly insulting the not only the opinion, but the taste, of all of those who disagree with you. You are valuing your opinion above others, and implicitly stating that if they disagree with you, they must like "garbage." This is reinforced by the fact that you will seemingly challenge people who are discussing specific elements with other posters, and berate them about the show as a whole when it has nothing to do with their specific conversation. You perceived that someone else *might* be defending the show, and lept into action to attack their opinion.
Am I particularly upset with you for that? Not really, it's par for the course regarding internet forums and comment sections. But if you're going to lob stones about it, you better be prepared for your glass house to be shattered.
Further still, people can fully "get" something and still not like it. Just because we see the flaws in Star Wars, doesn't mean that we don't "get" its narrative or its achievements. It doesn't mean we can't "see beyond the surface" or understand its popularity. I know it can be frustrating, I've been on both sides of debates like these before. I've argued that people who don't like Starship Troopers don't "get" the nature of its satire (not just narratively, but in terms of basically every aspect of its direction), as often that was the criticism of that movie (especially in its earlier days). But by the time the movie had been out for 20 years, turns out that
some of the people I disagreed with fully did understand Starship Troopers, but still didn't like it anyway. Similarly, I was accused of not "getting" the video game Firewatch and the 3rd season of the show True Detective (both of which have endings that settle in a relatively mundane fashion). I fully understood the themes both of those projects were going after, but that doesn't mean their endings weren't unsatisfying (even if done so by deliberate choice).
All of this is to say, pointing out the shortcomings of the narrative in the original trilogy doesn't make us some sort of uncivilized boob. The original trilogy succeeded not because its writing was flawless, it's writing was very much flawed and even the most die-hard of Star Wars fan are typically willing to accept that, but because of the many other aspects that lead to great cinema. Movies are more than just their plots. It's entirely possible for other people to fully appreciate Star Wars, and still not come to the same conclusion that its "perfect version[...] of the hero's journey." Not everything in Star Wars has to be an "A+" or a "F." There's a whole spectrum of options in between there, and a wide variety of different criteria and categories that go into making a movie that can be evaluated both in composite or in parallel. And those of us who've accepted that Star Wars isn't only A or F have come to realization that there's a lot more "C+" Star Wars content than there is "A+" Star Wars content, and that has been true even well before the Disney acquisition. Especially when you look at the writing and narrative elements, the grades are even lower, as the strengths of the Star Wars IP have almost always been in world-building, VFX, character design, and musical arrangement.
Nobody is asking you to "turn off your brain." I believe you're the only one to use that phrase in this conversation. What I and others have said is that you can appreciate what Star Wars does well without solely focusing on what it doesn't do well. And I've pointed to the original trilogy as an example of that. This doesn't mean you don't have to notice what parts are silly, inconsistent, or that you deem to be "plot canyons." But rather that those things don't become the sole aspect you focus on. Because, like I've said, if you approach the OT with that same mentality, you will end up stumbling over plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies. To get back to what started this whole conversation (a criticism of Reva's plan) - much of the original trilogy only happens because the Empire either underestimates the Rebellion or blunders comically when engaging them. This fits right in.
