Видео

Fr 😭

Out of everyone, I thought you would be the first place 😆

Hello, I am the English teacher from the podcast. I appreciate your opinion. However, as of now, you wrote: "Being a teacher does not lend any credit at all to your opinion." It should be: "Being a teacher does not lend any credibility at all to your opinion." Lending credit is for banks and financial institutions. Credibility is what makes someone's opinion trustworthy.

@@MisterSweeney13 Hook, line, sinker. Also grammar Nazi and no actual refute. And that is why this channel remains unpopular even with a deluge of content.

@@thomasjones4570 Hello, I am the English teacher from the podcast. I appreciate your opinion. However, as of now, you wrote: "Also grammar Nazi and no actual refute." This is an incomplete sentence, but its meaning is mostly clear. However, a larger issue is your use of the word "refute," which is a verb. It is better to use the noun "refutation" in this case.

@@MisterSweeney13 Are you sure that you are an English teacher and not a stand-up comic? If you aren't a stand-up comic, perhaps you should consider a new career in comedy. You definitely are not an expert on film or literature. You are better at making jokes than critiquing or analyzing films.

@@haljordan777 ​Mukha pong may pinagdadaanan si kuya, Ginoong Sweeney, pasensya na po. Kuya, kalma ka lang po. Alam ko pong mahal niyo ang Star Wars, pero marami pa pong mga isyu na pwede mong pagtuunan ng pansin, tulad ng paggawa ng Disney ng masyadong maraming show na Star Wars na hindi na tuloy nagiging dekalidad ang brand nito.

Hello, I am the English teacher from the podcast. I appreciate your opinion. However, as of now, you wrote: "There is a massive basis in this discussion." It should be: "There is massive bias in this discussion." Additionally, one should expect "bias" when listening to someone else's opinion. For example, news articles should be unbiased. Opinion pieces should present a perspective.

@MisterSweeney13 Thank you for taking the time to respond. Ironically originally wrote, "There is massive basis in this discussion," but Google flagged it as a grammatical error, (it did it again in this reply). The problem isn't that you have basis; rather that you are critiquing your students' opinions as bad, not just as repeat talking points, but as bad in their own right. I understand that you are mostly are encountering these arguments from your students, but it would be more worthwhile to cover arguments made by critics against TLJ. Covering the topic of repeat / inherited positions is a worthwhile, but it comes off here as defeating a Strawman.

An example of an argument that is not based in preference would be the theme of failure is botched. Characters do fail in TLJ, but not in any way that they can or should learn from. Rey fails to convince Luke to train her as a Jedi and fails to convince Kylo to join her on the light side. She did her best and didn't make any obvious errors in doing so, she just wasn't effective. Framing this as failure is toxic as it would teach her / the audience to be responsible for the actions of others. Poe failed to listen to Liea and lead a military operation that resulted in the death of several pilots and technicians. However, he was correct that they needed to take out the Dreadnought then and there or it would be deadly to the fleet later on. If he had listened to Liea, the whole fleet would have been destroyed when it followed them through hyperspace. Thus his lesson to "live to fight another day" compromises his ability to assess when and where to make sacrifices. Fin failed to sabotage the Supremacy. However, this only happened by chance / bad luck. There is no lesson for him to learn other than maybe "be luckier". There are many many criticisms of TLJ that don't relate to preference of storytelling developments, these are just a few surrounding the theme of failure.

@@alclark01 I appreciate you sharing your perspective in more detail. I believe that you are largely correct about all of these instances of failure, but I think the movie is purposely saying something through these failures. I will focus on Rey (though I think what happens with Rey is a pattern that applies to the other characters). You are right: Rey does mostly fail to get what she wants. However, she does get Luke to agree to teach her some things (despite his initial refusal), and she is ultimately successful in calling him out of retirement to “walk out with a laser sword and stare down the whole First Order.” So, there is both failure and success. These failures and successes largely relate to (or stem from) how these characters deal with a past that haunts them. Kylo Ren and Luke each want to forget the past. Rey is desperate to know her past. Kylo Ren ends up being incapable of letting go of the past. Luke, on the other hand, agrees to embrace the past and also work towards a brighter future (he first says he wants the Jedi to end, but later, he proclaims “I will not be the last Jedi.”). Luke moving beyond his depressing view of the past (which was initially similar to Kylo Ren’s view) is largely due to Rey’s influence. Rey, on the other hand, must accept that the truth about her past does not offer her what she seeks (belonging); she fails to find it from Luke. However, in searching for that belonging through seeking out her past, she seems to find it nonetheless (in the Rebellion). These successes and failures purposefully co-exist. The movie is not offering easy answers, but it is also not saying to “forget” or “reject” the past as many critics of The Last Jedi suggest. Rather, it seeks to embrace the positives from the past in order to overcome the mistakes of the past (and to avoid the cycle of dangerous failures Luke feels they are all stuck in). The movie isn't just asking its characters to grow from past mistakes while also embracing good things from the past; it's asking the Star Wars series to do that too (to grow and change rather than to keep telling repetitive stories without embracing the possibilities of something new). I think fans agree that Star Wars, as a series, should do that. They just seem mad that Rian Johnson pointed it out the way he did. I think he pointed it out in a very elegant way. We can agree to disagree about that. Johnson made the Skywalker lightsaber snap in half during Rey/Ren's battle. I believe he did that in order to force the characters to grow beyond the burden of the old movies. In other words, we do not need a new Luke or a new Anakin; their stories are great as they are. Instead, Johnson seems to be saying that we need a new hero with their own story to tell---one who can be inspired by the past but still forge a new path. JJ Abrams then glued the lightsaber back together in the next movie, rejecting Johnson's ideas and having Rey name herself Rey Skywalker instead. Oh well. I am still hopeful they will give her a new storyline in the next movie. Nonetheless, I think these failures and successes provide insight into what the movie is really saying about these characters, about legacy/the past/growth, and about the legacy of Star Wars.

@@MisterSweeney13 I too appreciate your in depth response. However, your analysis has several flaws. You mixed in the theme of "moving on / incorporating your past" into the theme of "learning from your failures". That is fine to do as an additional analysis but it is not supported in the film. The failures of the characters in the current events (in reference to the movies timeline) do not relate to their past. Their actions and the state we find them in are informed by their past but their failures are not caused by a failure to move on from or incorporating their past. Rey fails to convince Luke to return, train her as a Jedi, and convince Kylo to join the light side. These three events are the are the main failures Rey has in this film and in no way stem from her regret of the past. You could say that she fails to find family or belonging with Luke and this in some way relates to her past but again, I think that framing this as failure isn't good. We all need connection and framing Rey as failing in that way sends a bad message to the audience. That people not accepting you or responding to your pleas for help is somehow a failure of yours. Also you mixed in success into the discussion without demonstrating why it is important to open up the framing I had. The film has a clear message, delivered by Yoda himself about failure. "Yes, failure most of all. The greatest teacher, failure is. Luke, we are what they grow beyond. That is the true burden of all masters." While Yoda is speaking about legacy, I do believe it applies to characters/people learning from their own failures as Luke is inspired by Yoda and Rey to not only take action, but change his mind on the Jedi. So the point about all of this is to say that the successes reflect a learning from failure. So Rey's successes in relation to Luke is not part of her "failure arc", they are apart of Luke's "failure arc." This can seen by the fact that the change happens when Luke talks to Yoda after Rey has left. I think the best way to frame the theme of "moving on / incorporating your past" is in isolation from the failure theme for the reasons I mentioned above. I think that most fans have a narrative preference that conflicts with Rian Johnson, but I would still say that he failed to tell a good story based on its own merits. Changing any character's characterization / traits significantly off screen is bad storytelling. Small changes are appropriate but radical changes should be explored. A story of Luke losing faith in the Jedi isn't a bad idea but Rian Johnson's version was poorly executed. I hope you find this at least entertaining to read and I would love to hear your response if you are so inclined. (I apologize for any grammar mistakes)

Idk I think it’s national Latin exam?

​@@Jasmineheartsfoodyeah but what is that.

@@spaghettilicious2250the national latin exam