Obi-Wan Kenobi (Disney+ spoilers)

General Discussion
#21

If all you intended to say was “all kids act like this from time-to-time, and she’s royalty,” why didn’t you just say that in the first place?! I’d have said “Mm, okay. I still disagree.” with a little bit of elaboration, and then we’d have been done!

Writing is as technical an enterprise as it is subjective, and there are certain things that make something “good” or “bad” writing. The most obvious, although currently irrelevant, example is grammar.

I see it now. I thought it was the spine of a submerged Krayt, but now I can see the fish.

That said, if it’s a space fish, how did it survive reentry? The Purgils just kind of… teleported (and I already don’t particularly like them), but did the fish just happen to teleport into the atmosphere, only to be shot down? This raises far more questions than if it were a Krayt.

The agency of the characters in a story where you know the ending is one thing, because you know the story could go a different way if they’d chosen to act differently.

The agency of the characters in a story where a character knows and manipulates everything is quite another, because you know the story could never go a different way.

For example, if the Emperor knows about Luke and Leia (first, the question why didn’t he just get them and raise them from birth), then there’s no consequence to Obi-Wan’s actions here. He isn’t actually putting them in danger of being revealed. There’s also no consequence of his choice about where to hide them, because if the Emperor knows and isn’t going to do anything about it, what does it matter? It’s just an adoption, then.

If the character truly DOES know literally everything and isn’t just hyperbolically omniscient, then things cannot proceed differently because they are “future locked,” in that once the future is known it will proceed as forseen.

#22

I did. Kids are usually brats is what I said, and they are, but the assumption that this meant “permanent and chronic” was a conclusion by you.

Yeah, so, this notion of “objective standards” for “good” and “bad” writing is a rather amorphous claim that is more valid in some contexts than others. While grammar and syntax are serious contenders, they are not so much “standards” as “rules” for how to write meaningfully (insofar as the different between “standard” and “rule” is meaningful in this context). But beyond that, like quality of a story or script, or feature article, or scientific research paper, well, the notion of quality is at best an intersubjective matter, which also means it is a variable matter, and hardly beholden to any standards but field-specific taste - which is also, at least in part, a collectivist phenomenon, and by no means “objective”.

Well, that is if I’m correct that it is a space fish. If it is a Tibidee, they appear to live in atmosphere, so perhaps there’s a colony or flock of them somewhere on Tatooine? I do not know if they can enter and exit atmosphere without problem… perhaps it escaped some menagerie that visited Mos Eisley? It doesn’t really matter. Does it? It’s a cool creature that they are chopping apart, to show that Kenobi has a routine and a dead-end job.

1: Yes. But we also know they will not make another choice than the ones that would lead to where we know it goes, which means that stakes for legacy characters are … negligible.

2: True, but this is not what I was writing about. But sure. The Emperor foresaw stuff, how detailed his visions were, and how much they actually told him (and how much was his wishful thinking supported by the military industrial complex of the Empire) is unknown. But we do know that he had a long-term plan, he did know that he would have to deal with a rebellion (no need for force foresight there I think) at some point. He did manipulate, but he couldn’t manipulate everything and everyone directly. Also, assuming the future is constantly in motion, any foresight would be sufficiently limited or vague and I do believe Palps to be sceptical enough not to jump on every vision, as opposed to some other characters we’ve seen on screen. So, he’s record them, and probably not act on them, but plan and react to when or if they came to fruition.

Your example with the Emperor, sure, unless there was an intention of leaving them hidden from Vader - and it was convenient that the kids were adopted and hidden, and I do not believe that for a second.

But I do think that the Emperor is aware of senators scheming, which I think Palpsy also uses for his own ends. The paranoia, lining of pockets, and general suspicious environment that he appears to feed. He probably suspects Bail and Mon Mothma (Andor will give us more insights there it seems, I hope), but sees (or knows of) no reason to act - he’s got bigger things to care about than a bunch of pesky senators, he’s the infallible emperor for dark side’s sake :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes: his navy can squash them when it’s time.

If the Emperor knows about the kidnapping of Organa’s child, and this led directly to Kenobi coming out of hiding … then it’s difficult to see why he wouldn’t do something, unless, of course, “bigger picture” things. It’ll be interesting to see how this is resolved.

#23

“Usually” means “in the manner or way that is most usual,” and “brat” is a noun, a way of being. “Kids are usually brats” means that kids are usually in a state of brattiness. “Chronic” is embedded in that.

I hope you agree that grammar is objective. If I draw a conclusion based on a direct and proper interpretation of what you said, but you did not say what you wished to convey, that is on you.

#24

Oh my, you are also persistent.

I would disagree with your claims about the embeddedness “chronicity” when using a noun, because I do not think nouns are complete and chronic characteristics of an individual or group. A way of being is not the complete and only way of being for an individual, or group, so labelled. Saying kids are usually brats does not preclude kids from also being conscientious, kind, loving, polite, decent, honest, dishonest, sweet, horrible, or having any other traits. So the “embedded chronicity” is your interpretation is quite possibly reasonably grounded, but it is still your interpretation, where you did not (sufficiently) entertain the notion of other interpretations or hypotheses of meaning, in order to actually understand - or you did, but you assumed this was the most plausible meaning (which I guess is fair, but still incorrect). But I see that you are willing to go far to rationalise your interpretations as “objective” and “correct”. And certainly, they are correct by your reckoning, your tendency to throw in arguments to (some open to interpretation) authority is a recurring character trait. Your conviction is very engaging.

Of course I’m not. But you knew that. :wink: Grammar, like language, is the very definition of something socially constructed (grammar varies between languages and within languages, changing over time and space); and while Durkheim claimed language to be a social fact, but that doesn’t mean its objective, which then means that grammar cannot be objective either (the existence of dictionaries, thesaurus and the like doesn’t lend objectivity to the phenomenon as far as I’m concerned). However, this also depends on epistemological and ontological persuasion, and I have a strong feeling we consciously or unconsciously adhere to different perspectives there.

If objectivity is true or valid regardless of human observation, akin to a positivist or natural scientific perspective, then no, grammar is in no way “objective” because it depends on humans, it does not exist (meaningfully) without humans.

If by “objective” we think of something that changes and develops slowly and with latency, but remains (reasonably) recognisable over time and space, then sure, but then it is more appropriate to call it intersubjectivity (like language); this betrays some of my epistemological and ontological presuppositions which are of course not the only ones out there, nor are they the only correct ones.

Communicative action is a two-way street, so yes, I must try my best to convey what I intend to say, but for communication to work, the recipient must also endeavour to understand, using the imagination and social skills that nature and society (hopefully) endowed them with to include context, differences in perspective, and difference (perhaps even incompatibilities) in premises. Referring to “correct and proper interpretation” as if human language is something machine made, or “god given” :sweat_smile: is not conducive with communicative action, that is: to understanding (EDIT: this is not entirely correct, but good enough for now).

But yes, this has been fun. Thanks. :sweat_smile:

#25

Nor does it! But it does mean that they are usually brats.

You evidently have an aversion to standards, rules, or any other objective metric (or metric by which we enable objectivity), even those that could be considered “arbitrary” but that they are what we have agreed upon in order to communicate. Since you do not adhere to any of these principles, we cannot communicate.

It is unfortunate that our fundamental philosophies are so contradictory as to prevent intelligent conversation.

#26

I do not think so, but I agree that it probably appears that way. I have an aversion against doxa portrayed as “objectivity” - and I get too easily riled up by what can appear to me as terminological and conceptual idiosyncrasies.

Our challenge is that we never did agree upon any “standards” of communication, you imposed yours on me (and I imposed mine on you). We come from different cultural and national (and probably professional) contexts, which ultimately means any “standards of communication” are going to differ. This is usually not a problem, unless the people involved are too headstrong and stubborn, talking (that is writing on a forum) about something they’re more or less emotionally invested in, at least sufficiently to have strong opinions about. :sweat_smile:

I see it as a learning opportunity, whence understanding and intelligence is derived. :slightly_smiling_face:

#27

Well. That was an episode.

I foresee issue being had.

I liked it, but it was a bit short.

Kenobi is refreshingly depressed and lacking much hope, which made the Quinlan reference and “the Way” comment quite impactful for me, you could see some ember of hope not completely distinguished in his eyes.

Three things that were silly: the laser gate … why not walk around? And the firewall … why not go around? Or jump over? I guess it’s a limitation of the size of the Volume :sweat_smile: And Vader’s helmet, the way it was donned … didn’t seem real, but we could put that down to some kind of vision-like presentation, a mix between what happened and Kenobi seeing it in his mind’s eye…

Reva talked about hope … I wonder…

To see Vader walk around and do what he does best: kill innocents, was … well, satisfyingly unnecessary and evil. Their duel was … well, not much of a duel, which makes sense given Kenobi’s reduced condition from 10 years of misery on Tatooine, not maintaining and keeping up his skills and training using the Force, or his lightsaber.

The Stormtroopers we met were pretty cool I think, shows how different they are from clones, and reminds me refreshingly of that old fan film from the 90s; Troops. Even Tala’s (short) story about her joining and change of heart.

All in all, a good episode I think, but clearly an episode to set things up for a showdown.

#28

That episode was much better, but it still has some issues.
Most of them involving Reva.
Other than her, I enjoyed it rather a lot.

The main one aside from her are the statement that the Empire ravaged the world and that’s why the lands aren’t filled with families and farms, since it’s a desert ecology. He’s standing beside a desert plant and says “The Empire turned this place into a wasteland!”
And apparently they transplanted the yucca trees?

The other issues are that stormtroopers have the worst police training I have ever seen, and are completely lacking in common sense. You expect me to believe it’s standard operating procedure to not check the suspected Jedi for weapons?

I think there was something else too, but it was more of a “that’s Hollywood for you” eyeroll and rather irrelevant. Maybe that every new town is populated almost entirely by either aliens or Asians? Hmm, seems like Hollywood thinks Asians are alien.

Reva, though, is a disaster. The show is far better whenever she isn’t directly involved, as she seems to be made to blunder into plotholes like a pizza truck doing sixty on a backroad in Ohio.

Leaving aside my complaints about her interactions with Vader, she just happens to go into the place where they hid, knows exactly where to find the button to open the door, finds the secret button by getting frustrated and screaming, then somehow beats Leia to her destination without passing her or knowing where she’s going?

This is another situation where it looks like it’s just lazy writing. They don’t show their work, so it looks like they just took a cheating shortcut.

Now, can some of that sequence be justified? Yes. But as written, Reva seems to have expended virtually no effort or skill beyond using the Force to move the rack of… aprons? Any kind of triumph feels utterly unearned, as we see her overcome nothing.

As for the fire/laser gate, they wanted conflict. I don’t mind the laser gate too much, they’d have had to climb partway up a slope to get around so I can see why he wanted to just turn it off and had no respect for the structural integrity of Imperial property. The fire is an interesting issue, but I think it comes down to be too broad to go around and too wide to leap, with stormtrooper armor too melty to go through. Fire is an area-denial tool, and it crossed the whole street.

Oh, yes, I remembered a key issue: Reva seems to indicate that the Grand Inquisitor is dead? That’s a very creative way to tell this story considering he is very much alive in Rebels. I wonder how they are going to square that particular pear-shape?

#29

Oh, also, I looked up the actress on IMDb, and she’s ten years old. She looks ten years old. They just dressed her in a way that makes her look a lot younger, as it scales down her appendages, making her look much younger since her body appears proportionally larger than it really is.

#30

She suggested it, but didn’t state it outright. This would appear to be a case similar to Orn Free Ta being shot on The Bad Batch - sure looked fatal, but next episode referred to an “assassination attempt,” not “assassination,” which left it in a way that anyone just watching the tv/movie entries can think he’s dead, but those also consuming the print media “know” he’s still alive. Same here - she’s blaming Obi-Wan for attacking the Grand Inquisitor, but his current status isn’t specified. For those just watching live action media (because cartoons are stoopid kid stuff :roll_eyes: ), she killed him and blamed Obi-Wan; for those who also saw Rebels, he’s only mostly dead and gets better. (All of which could change, of course, if the show gives a firm status one way or the other.)

1 Like
#31

But if he’s alive, blaming Obi-Wan lasts for… three seconds?
Urgh.

Either there’s something important we don’t know (like Reva THINKS he’s dead, but Vader knows better, and… why?), or this is really, really dumb.

Fennec Shand got gutshot and left for dead on Tatooine for hours, but survived. The Grand Inquisitor was stabbed in the gut with a lightsaber, but presumably would have access to Imperial medical facilities if he wasn’t dead before he got there (considering how long Fennec Shand survived, why not?). She was “healed” and up talking pretty quickly. Why isn’t he yet? The Imperials weren’t shy about cybernetics, especially when the alternative is oblivion.

#32

Blaming Obi-Wan works for as long as the story says it works. That’s not only no different than any other Star Wars example, but most storytelling. It’s not something I’ll lose sleep over.

#33

No, blaming Obi-Wan works for as long as it can reasonably work within the confines of the story. Just because the story says the laws of gravity suddenly suspend themselves doesn’t mean that it “works” unless there is some device within the story to enforce its will.

#34

I mean, the original Fantastic Four vs the X-Men got an entire four issue mini-series of conflict and drama between the FF because it took Reed that long to say, “Turn the page of my journal Doom revealed to you all and read the next sentence,” so…yeah…blaming Obi-Wan works for exactly as long as the story says it works.

(Context: In issue 1, Doom dramatically reveals Reed’s journal to Sue, Ben, & Johnny, which made it look like Reed planned to expose them to the cosmic rays on their rocket flight and give them powers. Reed spends the entire mini-series on the receiving end of mistrust from his family, and the threat of them abandoning him. He never denies or corrects their interpretation. Until near the end of the final issue, when he tells Sue to keep reading. She turns the page to see the next sentence says something like, “But that’s all just theory. I’m sure the shielding will be fine, and the flight will go on without a problem.”)

#35

It works for as long as the story can make it work. In the example you give, if it works then it works. If it didn’t work, its existence inside the story would not magically remedy that.

#36

Whether or not it lands for a singular member of the audience is a separate and distinct matter from whether or not it works in the story itself.

Personally, the FF/X-Men subplot didn’t land for me, because my reaction was, “The world’s smartest man took several days’ worth of flak before telling his wife, ‘Turn the page?’” But, it happened. And many still recall the mini-series as a whole fondly, some 36 years later. I’ve had nits to pick with some of my favorite properties across media plenty of times over my lifetime. This isn’t one of them for me.

As always, mileage varies.

#37

It sounds like we don’t disagree, except on one key issue: What does it mean for a story to work, or for something to work in a story?

It does not mean that everyone enjoys a certain thing; even the most well-written of stories will not be enjoyed by everyone. What it means is that: 1, the “thing” is internally consistent within the story world and, within that story world, makes reasonable sense; 2, it achieves the desired result within the story (this is tricky, and is why #3 is so important); and 3, it furthers the story’s ultimate end.

What is the purpose of a story? What is its “end”? This is where it varies. This is not subjectivity, but relativity. Different writing can be good or bad for different stories, but within the confines of a given story there is writing which can be judged as bad or good.

The juvenile verbiage of a “Spot” book would be considered horrible writing if found as prose in an adult sci-fi novel (unless, of course, the use is justified within the story), and flowing prose laced with post-college-level vocabulary would be horrible writing if found in a “Spot” book, for the same reason. Neither furthers the end of the story.

In this case, the main issue in question here is the first point. Does the situation make reasonable sense within the story world? On the face of it, I don’t think so. But I’m withholding judgement until the whole story has been revealed.

#38

Meanwhile, I don’t see anything that doesn’t make “reasonable sense” in a story world where a man can be cut in half at the waist and survive, while others cut down in a similar manner disappear into thin air. Or pan-galactic travel moves at the speed of plot. Or the smartest way to hide someone’s kid from him is to take him to the father’s home planet, place him with his father’s step-brother, keep his last name, and watch over him while changing only your own first name (and put his twin sister with a planetary ruler and her husband, a senator who’s outspoken against the galactic government you hope to overthrow).

#39

Then you posit that it is impossible for Star Wars writers to make mistakes or leave plotholes?
Or is it that any mistakes or plotholes are justified by their very existence in Star Wars?

At least it is now clear where we stand.

#40

Nope. Said no such thing. But, if we use as our yardstick something making “reasonable sense in the story world,” we have to look at that world as a whole. So far, nothing that we’ve discussed here (ex: Leia encountering “Ben” for a few dire days when she was 10; Reva blaming the Grand Inquisitor’s injuries on Obi-Wan) reach that point of mistake or “plot hole” (that latter term becoming not only far too overused in recent years, but also misused as a synonym for “something I didn’t like” by many, and that’s not exclusive to Star Wars discussions). They’re not elements that break this or any other story, nor are they glaring inconsistencies or errors. (Using a big - and funny - example of a “Star Wars writer” making a mistake, back in the original Marvel comics run, there was a story that inexplicably gave Wedge Biggs’ backstory and a thick southern drawl.)

Looking at the Leia matter, for example, nothing about them sharing this story is contradicted or precluded by the original movie…but it does add more weight and reason behind her eventually naming her son “Ben” by providing her with a connection to that alias. And that’s without any further context of the remaining episodes.

Seems there’s a portion of the Star Wars audience (well, most big franchises’ audiences, really) whose means of enjoyment of the franchise(s) is based more on finding things they don’t like about each entry than about reveling in what they do like, and when they inevitably find those “problems,” they toss up their hands and say, “I knew it. The whole thing’s trash.”