Drowsy Emperor

If you cut your finger, take the whole arm off. No arm, no problem. An easy, not terribly complicated solution that doesn't take any time. Perfect. The fallacy is treating this problem as: 1. your own (as if the native population is to blame for it) 2. something you're obligated to solve in any other way than what's the best for you

Of course. Just build a wall and every problem will be solved. That seems to be a popular sentiment around the world right now. No, that problem will be solved. When you want to drive a nail in you take a hammer. You can do it with your forehead, but the result will be painful and you won't get much done. As is evident from everything that has been going on this past year.

The real solution is mass deportation and a barrier to immigration from certain countries and economic segments in general. Requiring knowledge of the native tongue is a simple and very good barrier (for everyone except the english speaking countries). Everything else takes too long, is too expensive and uncertain.

Yes. Any mass of uneducated immigrants being uprooted and dropped in a foreign culture is going to be problematic. You brought up organized crime. Do we condemn all Italians for the spread of organized crime across the US? Keep in mind it took nearly a century to root out the bulk of their influence across the country. Problematic, yes. I said as much. But not problematic in the way it is currently in Europe. Its not just organized crime, riots and general disorder. There's also terrorism and the clash of civilizations element. And its getting worse instead of getting better.

I never said Islam was a rape-mindset or that Imams were inspiring rape, merely pointed out the obvious religious justification provided for these acts to those who need it. Uncovered European women are "indecent" and therefore these sort of acts are allowed towards them, or at least not disallowed (religious argument). No Imam is going to stand behind such a thing in public and many of them probably look at the whole issue with distaste but they're not going to tell the parents to teach their kids otherwise, nor are the parents going to do anything about it (unless they end up in jail and cause problems for the family). On top of that they're the new lumpenproletariat and Europeans are the hated burgoise. "They (the europeans) have the money and the means and we (the immigrants) are there to clean the trash and flip kebabs forever (economic argument)" And on top of that there is the whole Islam vs the West, or West vs Islam war aspect. "You support the Zionist state of Israel against our brothers in Gaza, bomb Iraq, Libya, Syria etc." (political argument). Beyond that you can go to simple criminality, and while there are surely typical criminals there that's not the sole aspect of the issue here and to treat it as such would be utter blindness. Its case of a separate identity of which Islam, economic circumstances and political baggage are a crucial part and that identity is refusing to assimilate into the host countries (or even to merely coexist in peace). And this is one way of doing it. The question is, what are European politicians going to do about it? As for the role of Islam in all this, ponder the possibility that these masses of people didn't have Islam. Do you think they'd have the cohesion to organize a mass molestation event, protests, violence against Jews, an entire segregated lifestyle? I challenge you to say yes. Because there are a lot of immigrants in Europe and while certain nations are tied to organized crime, types of business, certain political issues etc. please tell me if there is any group that is nearly as problematic as those who declare themselves muslims in Europe.

They're all muslims yet Islam is irrelevant. Now I've seen it all. Don't you have a degree in social science? Are you aware how stupid and illogical that sounds? Where do you think the attitude that uncovered women in general and western/white women in particular are whores and "free game" comes from?

Whenever I read something like this a quote from the village geezer in Asterix comes to mind: "I've got nothing against strangers (as in foreigners), only these particular strangers aren't from this village!" Also, why do people reflexively post things they'll regret on Facebook and Twitter? I'll never understand it.

https://www.facebook.com/615747148439901/videos/1204036916277585/

The world must be filled with angsty teenagers, because this movie is a monster hit in every way. Anything with Star Wars in it would have been a monster hit. Not denying that the film is palatable, the exact same way the Star Trek reboot was. But Kylo Ren wasn't the best thing in it. I feel the old Star Wars film was primarily a movie for children, but also a film for everyone. I don't think that's the case here - that the appeal among adults won't be as universal a few years down the line.

Exactly. What people seem to not understand about Kylo Ren even though the movie signals it very, very carefully is that he's basically an angsty teenager with little to no self-control and an unhealthy dose of hero worship towards Vader, who has somehow managed to skid along on sheer force talent alone, but never had the training to make real use of that talent, or a need to step up his game. I think he was the best part of the movie, honestly. Cool story bro, but what you describe is un-watchable if you're over 16. Angsty teenagers leading galactic empires is a show for angsty teenagers.

Because witnesses are gonna witness what? Tell who? I'm talking about the execution after the attack, not the attack itself. And its just there as a device for the screenwriters to make TFO, like, really bad, man and Kylo Ren "evil". Its pointless. It'd be like the Empire finding R2D2 and then nuking Tatooine because they can. The film is full of such things hoping that the quick pacing will keep you from thinking about what you're seeing.

I don't know about you, but I don't think there's any difference here between TFA and the previous six movies. I don't remember thinking once that any of the villains in those movies "instilled true fear" or had a significant capability for "tyrannical power" that the First Order doesn't. If anything the FO has more capability of tyrannical power than the Empire (through Starkiller Base) which is quite a bit of a fail, since they are meant to be more of an upstart faction. That's the point. They have all that technology but still failed to convince me that they were a force to be reckonned with. **** characters in leadership positions and presentation, IMO. Yes, amateur screenwriters like the people who wrote the film seem to thing that "Evil" needs no reason or justification. In the beginning when they shoot up those civilians without even a pretense of an excuse is more suited to Mongols burning European villages (and even that has a reason behind it) than a fascist empire, an epitome of institutionalized cruel order. Merely because the film needs them to be "evil" and the main guy to be "badass" screenwriters throw in that sort of arbitrary nonsense.

Vader and the Emperor are simple archetypal characters (prior to the back-story in the prequels) that were very well executed. Its very hard to do something so simple so well, because its been done a million times before. The new villains are supposed to have more drama about them, at least Kylo Ren is, but everything from his appearance to his temper tantrums are on a Jar Jar Binks level of embarrassment. Most of all he lacks a credible reason for being what he is and doing what he does. The other three villains might as well not exist in the film. Waiting for a sequel to provide the necessary reasons is the epitome of corporate film-making. For all its flaws, A New Hope is a completely rounded film, and so are the next two. The characters are sufficient as they are and filled in over time. I'm playing the Warcraft 3 campaign and I'm struck by the fact that Arthas is better written than any TFA villain. And he has, maybe fifty lines of text in a video game.

Are you saying they don't blend into the crowd with those tailor made assassin hoodie outfits and makeup?

Was it Jeff Goldblum?

You don't have to feel roused, you just have to feel that the actor is doing the role properly. Which he isn't. He looks, as someone else put it, like a frat boy. He is not intimidating or convincing in the role. Its not (just) his youth, since Alexander the great was already a conqueror at his age - its the whole package. While the scene was going on, my friend and I both turned away at the same time at how embarrassing the whole thing was. It wasn't even a conscious decision, we just couldn't look at this somewhat comical looking guy trying to be gestapo. And the scene was not intentionally comical, just badly written.

Presumably to keep his ears warm. But its not a great costume choice for a film.

I thought Hux' speech was good since it seemed pretty representative of its real-world counterpart. I mean look at "silly haters" giving speeches such as this and this. Do you think they sound unrealistically screeching? I am willing to bet anything that JJ gave directions for Domhnall Gleeson to imitate them. (I agree that the speeches I linked to seem full of "silly hate". But that's pretty much the way things are in reality with certain ideologies...) I don't know, man. If the good guys had all been white males, and the bad guys a woman, a black dude and a latinoish pilot, would that have been racist? I don't think so... Writing and delivering speeches is hard work. I also found Hux's speech embarrassing, unsurprising since it was written by some amateur with no experience in propaganda. The links you pasted are not a good example, Hitler was a very talented orator and many of his speeches are very well constructed. Its easy to disregard them now after years of use as an example of political hysteria (usually without a translation, which leaves people intimidated by the tone only), but for the time there were few better. But Hollywood would never do that would they? Anyway the same applies either way. Political correctness is oozing and obvious from the casting choices . While that in of itself isn't important, it is interesting that all the bad guys are white (delivering speeches in full futuristic nazi garb - even the principal colors of the flag are there as if the viewer is stupid enough not to notice all the allusions). Neither aspect is notable on its own, but when you look at the whole thing the cheesy politicking behind it all is rather obvious? Perhaps even automatic to the point that it doesn't actually require politicking. I don't particularly care either way, but it just something I noticed while watching the film.

There's the whole aspect of all the principal bad guys being white males (Kylo Ren looks like the DOOM playing type that would shoot up a high school) (and a blonde, blue eyed girl that had no role whatsoever) while the main good guys are: a woman, a black guy and a latinoish pilot. The implicit racism is mildly distasteful.

While that is true, its also about creating a suspension of disbelief. Its something intangible, either you feel it or you don't. The original films did that well because they had a seemingly consistent universe, basic fairy tale structure and a lot of charming naivete (and innovative visual design/effects, for their time). It would be unfair (read: impossible) to expect that the seventh film in the series appear as something completely new and original in a universe that has been defined down to the latrines on space ships. Nevertheless I feel they missed a good opportunity for a role reversal, to continue the story where it left off - with the Republic now perhaps becoming the oppressive government and the FO being a terrorist organization - to expand on the Sith and Jedi, maybe create something less morally black and white. In other words - if SW can't return to its former "innocence" (not really feasible now) - it can at least grow up, like Batman (supposedly) grew up. The point is - it can still be more of the same (in a good way), but it doesn't have to be the exact same thing.

I feel you have kind of missed the point completely. Did you even watch the movie or have you just read reviews? Of course you are meant to think firstly that Rey is powerful, you are meant to think that her past seems fishy and she might already have received training. It's established very early in the movie that she is a capable fighter, on the other hand we do not know if Kylo Ren has received any training at fighting with a lightsabre at all. In fact, him using never before seen force powers but still not being an unbeatable fighter would perhaps hint towards the nature of his master. Clearly this is extremely dangerous - Han Solo which is implied as being the best pilot around consider this approach almost suicidal. This is like saying "well, if the Nazis could drop paratroopers on Crete, why didn't they just drop paratroopers on London?". This is funny you know - I see that we disagree on the quality of TFA. I have often thought starting from several years ago that the more often a review mentions the word "plot hole", the more retarded the reviewer is, and the better the movie. I have yet to see any exceptions to this, and as I joke I have thought that I would try to intentionally find reviews mentioning "plot holes" in order to find movies to watch. I mean, think of the people who upon watching Blade Runner go "It's a plot hole that they don't say if Deckard is a replicant or not", nevermind a movie such as "Stalker" which will just go almost completely over their heads. 2001 and Prometheus are also movies which seem to short-circuit some people. I'm not defending Episode I here, but isn't it pretty clear that she can't go with them since Jedi can't have any wordly attachments? I mean, this is how real-world monastic orders operate so I would find the opposite to be silly TBH. I am 99% sure that Kylo Ren and Snoke will turn on each other in the next movie. But I think it is most likely that neither will kill the other (at least until the last movie). I think Snoke will attack Kylo Ren and not the other way around, though. I was mildly disappointed with the soundtrack, but this stood out for me. IMO there is a significant possibility that Williams does not get to score all the movies in the current trilogy. What do you mean? What did you expect? Since we have only seen Snoke as a hologram, he might be something different than what we've been shown thus far (like a Rakatan for example). You're looking for explanations and excuses that are not substantiated in the film and may or may not be be explained away in the sequel. However I seriously doubt it as this film didn't bother to explain a lot of otherwise basic things - most importantly why is the universe frozen in the state from 40 years later (Han Solo again a rogue, why is there still a resistance, why is there a new death star [how does an inferior force design a far superior weapon that's x times larger?] etc. etc.). Of course, the obvious answer is that its a remake and not a real sequel, and the immediate question is why? Its supposed to be a 9 part epic with a continuous storyline, something even the prequels had. Why is it the same thing from 40 years ago? Once we get the obvious reboot out of the way, on its own merits its a watered down version of A New Hope, less plausible and less well crafted for its time. There's nothing to short circuit with Prometheus, the film is brainless garbage. I still chuckle when I remember the scene in which the donut ship (that was oh so nice in the original Alien) rolls around while one of the characters runs in front of it, a veritable cherry on top after idiot geologists and alien cobras, zombies, spontanious c-sections after which the main actress runs around the ship covered in blood and no one bats an eye... Its a galaxy apart from Stalker or Blade Runner, or even Alien. Hell, it makes the Incredible Hulk look like Citizen Kane. There was no reason to leave Anakin's mother on Tatooine. They could have taken her anywhere else, at the very least got her out of slavery and to safety. There is no plausible explanation why Qui and Obi didn't do it since they have 0 qualms about breaking laws in general.

Yes its unclear who they're actually resisting. And why they're still a rag tag bunch after winning the war, same dingy bunker HQ, same handful of aircraft, same fish head general (how long do they live?), even the same froglike guy that was piloting with Lando :D . Even a fat x wing pilot. And why they're looking for Luke (perhaps the guy would come back on his own when he felt like it?). And umm yeah. Btw the FO must be the most unsuccessful organization ever. Seemingly limitless resources but they didn't have a single measurable success in the film. This solo effort is better than all the action scenes in the film: :D https://youtu.be/PN_CP4SuoTU

I also watched Sicario and found it shallow and boring. Next!

The question of PST was repeated many times: What can change the nature of a man? and the answer is within the player's motivations and choices. Admittedly its a bit of a fail since TNO changes all the time, and the PC is left to atone for the choices that someone else made forging his own, new identity in the process and not actually changing anything from the original who is for all intents and purposes dead and gone. Perhaps at the end when he's complete we can speak of change, but by that point there are no meaningful choices or radical shifts to be made from what I recall.