1477: "Star Wars"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby da Doctah » Sun Jan 25, 2015 11:24 pm UTC

Hennerson wrote:No no no...

I keep telling people that the prequals never happened...

They are just a disturbingly persistent case of cinematic mass hallucination caused by cosmic emanations (I call them Baysian Rays)

After all what kind of rational mind would create something like JarJar Binks or turn one of the most iconic film villains ever created into a short, sulky emo teenager?


Dude, what happened to you? You used to be all "wanna buy some death sticks?" but now you're all "I wanna go home and rethink my life".

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Klear » Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:45 am UTC

Hennerson wrote:No no no...

I keep telling people that the prequals never happened...

They are just a disturbingly persistent case of cinematic mass hallucination caused by cosmic emanations (I call them Baysian Rays)

After all what kind of rational mind would create something like JarJar Binks or turn one of the most iconic film villains ever created into a short, sulky emo teenager?


For me the hallucination started in the second half of Return of the Jedi.

User avatar
Znirk
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 9:47 am UTC
Location: ZZ9 plural Z α

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Znirk » Mon Jan 26, 2015 11:13 am UTC

HES wrote:
Znirk wrote:I've seen the first three twice each, and left it at "meh".

Which first three?

The 70s/80s stuff (aka Spaceballs: The Trilogy). I've been told often and by many that the second batch was even worse, so I never bothered with them.

I'm beginning to think that this may be related to whether one has grown up with a story or not. The unconditional love of its fans in contrast with my lukewarm reaction feels a lot like the situation with the Alice in wonderland books, the whole steaming pile of Narnia material, Peter Pan, and similar classics of children's literature. I came to all of these, and to Star wars, somewhere in my early 20s: probably a few years too late to get the intended experience. I imagine that the works of Astrid Lindgren I love and occasionally reread would have a similar effect on someone who didn't grow up breathing them. (Then again, some books and some readers outside their main audience just "click". Winnie the Pooh was in the same general situation as Peter Pan for me, and I quite enjoyed the former.)

Hmmmm. Maybe that effect could even account for some of the prequel hate? You know, perhaps it's not that they're that much worse, it's that you see them for what they are whereas the original 3 get the rose-tinted glasses treatment? (Again: I've never watched the prequels, and as far as I know they may well be that much worse after all.) Might be worth watching what the generation born in the late 80s/early 90s end up thinking about the upcoming episodes as compared to I-III.

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby speising » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:17 pm UTC

Peter Pan is a horrible, psychopathic, murderous dick, if you go by the original book, not the Disney versions.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 835
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:51 pm UTC

Znirk wrote:
HES wrote:
Znirk wrote:I've seen the first three twice each, and left it at "meh".

Which first three?

The 70s/80s stuff (aka Spaceballs: The Trilogy). I've been told often and by many that the second batch was even worse, so I never bothered with them.

I'm beginning to think that this may be related to whether one has grown up with a story or not. The unconditional love of its fans in contrast with my lukewarm reaction feels a lot like the situation with the Alice in wonderland books, the whole steaming pile of Narnia material, Peter Pan, and similar classics of children's literature. I came to all of these, and to Star wars, somewhere in my early 20s: probably a few years too late to get the intended experience. I imagine that the works of Astrid Lindgren I love and occasionally reread would have a similar effect on someone who didn't grow up breathing them. (Then again, some books and some readers outside their main audience just "click". Winnie the Pooh was in the same general situation as Peter Pan for me, and I quite enjoyed the former.)

Hmmmm. Maybe that effect could even account for some of the prequel hate? You know, perhaps it's not that they're that much worse, it's that you see them for what they are whereas the original 3 get the rose-tinted glasses treatment? (Again: I've never watched the prequels, and as far as I know they may well be that much worse after all.) Might be worth watching what the generation born in the late 80s/early 90s end up thinking about the upcoming episodes as compared to I-III.

Episodes I-III are essentially an entirely different subgenre (within sci-fi/fantasy hybrids) compared to episodes IV-VI. They contain a lot of political intrige and peacetime spy-like action whereas the later episodes (earlier releases) were wartime action, many large battles, some infiltration and evasion of enemy forces, but little politics. It makes sense lore-wise, but it's not surprising they interest different people.

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby speising » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:41 pm UTC

for me, the trouble with the prequels was that i just couldn't connect with a character that i already knew would turn into
Spoiler:
Darth Vader
.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby mathmannix » Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:33 pm UTC

I was hoping that spoiler wasn't going to be the obvious choice... like
Spoiler:
"Alec Guinness" or "a 900-year-old muppet"
or something like that.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Coyoty » Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:29 pm UTC

Another possibility on time perception is we remember events at a certain resolution, X time frames per second or something like that, and as we get older we toss out frames for storage reasons. Every Nth frame gets tossed after N years, so that after 10 years, X/N tfps exist in memory.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:44 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
azule wrote:
da Doctah wrote:Things nobody noticed on July 11th, 2006: the United States set a new record for the longest period of time with an unchanged number of states.
I agree, we need to get rid of some states. Flame war would have me mention them by name.


Heck, not only get rid of some, but add a few. Puerto Rico, The Philipines, and Saudi Arabia come to mind :twisted:


You mean, New Utah, West California, and Eastern Florida?

Morgan Wick
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:21 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Morgan Wick » Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:41 am UTC

My theory is that stuff that happened while you were alive feels more recent than stuff that happened before you were alive, which sounds obvious, but hear me out. You've lived through everything that's happened since you were born, and it all happened in a continuous line to you, so stuff that happened when you were alive can't have happened that long ago, can it? (Insert list of things that happened to you between then and now) can't have taken that much time, can it?

So not only does stuff that happened 20 years ago feel more recent than stuff that had happened 20 years ago felt at the time, that stuff that had happened 20 years ago doesn't feel like it happened 40 years ago either. The seventies felt an impossibly long time ago during the nineties, but now it seems impossible that it's already a good forty years ago. It's because stuff you weren't old enough to remember you only learn as factoids, dribs and drabs, and that, combined with your naturally slow perception of time early in life compared to later, skews your perception of how fast time "should" pass for the rest of your life.

This is probably more acute if you don't have kids, although people with kids aren't immune and might get it worse.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby azule » Tue Jan 27, 2015 8:18 am UTC

I think it might be the parents and being kids thing. The 70s happened while my parents were adults. But the 90s happened while I was basically an adult (don't judge me, you yungins!). That means that we measure periods by childhoods. Everything before, everything during, and everything after, with a fuzzy line between each.

So it only matters that something happened near one of those lines not that one was 40 years or another one 20 years.

BTW, decades are also poorly divided. 1994 is a whole different "decade" than 1999, or even 1998. I think the lines are more like halfway through, like year 5 or 6 of each 10 years.

Reminder: There was still disco in the 80s.
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Coyoty » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:49 pm UTC

azule wrote:Reminder: There was still disco in the 80s.


I was angered that you reminded me, then even more appalled that my quisling mind provided an image of someone still discoing in their 80s. Now I'm mollified by nostalgically remembering Mr. Six. Excuse me while I recover from emotional whiplash.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Keyman » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:31 pm UTC

Morgan Wick wrote:This is probably more acute if you don't have kids, although people with kids aren't immune and might get it worse.

Holy Crap! That xkcd was more than 5 years ago?!?!?
Nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. - A. Hamilton

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby freezeblade » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:
Morgan Wick wrote:This is probably more acute if you don't have kids, although people with kids aren't immune and might get it worse.

Holy Crap! That xkcd was more than 5 years ago?!?!?


Quiet, timeghost.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5474
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:49 pm UTC

for me the big time ghost moment will be when the majority of my life thus far ceases to be in the 20th century, and coincidentally when my childhood is officially a minority of my life thus far.

three years to go until most of my life has been "in the future"
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Coyoty » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:45 pm UTC

Is Conan O'Brien still doing "In the Year 2000"? I haven't watched him in a long time. Possibly not since the last century.

User avatar
azule
Saved
Posts: 2132
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 9:45 pm UTC
Location: The land of the Golden Puppies and Rainbows

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby azule » Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:57 am UTC

Coyoty wrote:Is Conan O'Brien still doing "In the Year 2000"? I haven't watched him in a long time. Possibly not since the last century.
I think he did it for one more year (2001) before retiring it. I loved that segment. Also, masturbating bear. Does he still do anything from his past shows? (I haven't watched for a few years, unfortunately.) (NBC probably own masturbating bear. I hope they treat him well.)

INAPPROPRIATE!!
Image

If you read this sig, post about one arbitrary thing you did today.

I celebrate up to six arbitrary things before breakfast.
Time does drag on and on and contain spoilers. Be aware of memes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby ucim » Sun Feb 01, 2015 5:27 am UTC

azule wrote:Also, masturbating bear.
I read that as "Also, masturbating beer." I'm not sure what that says about me, and I'm not sure I even want to. :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby brenok » Sun Feb 01, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

I think masturbating soda or champagne would be easier.

User avatar
Coyoty
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Coyoty » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:20 pm UTC

Masterbating beer would have quite a head on it.

User avatar
DennyMo
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:50 am UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby DennyMo » Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:00 pm UTC

Of course, I was reminded of this comic...
Attachments
Candorville-2011-08-20-neverdothemath.jpg

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1477: "Star Wars"

Postby Jackpot777 » Thu May 14, 2015 12:55 pm UTC

Well, that's it. We're past the tipping point I suppose.

May 25, 1983 to May 19, 1999 = 5,839 days.

May 19, 1999 to today = 5,840 days.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests