It’s also worth remembering that Luke going to Ben was intentionally done Rashomon-style - we have no idea what “really” happened.

I loved the fact that Luke had gotten crotchety and sarcastic in his old age (and come by it honestly, too). The whole notion that he should act exactly the same way when he’s 60 as he did when he was 25 is ridiculous.

I’m at the point where I just stop when people launch off into hyperbole. I haven’t got the time for that bullshit anymore.

“I don’t understand the point of bringing back our favorite characters and showing us that they’re sad old failures. Who asked for this?”

No one had a problem with TLJ while it was being made.  Kennedy friggin’ loved it which is why Johnson was offered his own trilogy (the current status of which is now shrouded in mystery and uncertainty.)

Absolutely. Can you imagine if he was put in charge at the START of the ST instead of being forced to follow up on the dreadful narrative decisions of TFA?

Agreed.  They ended it on a high note for sure.  No need to take the risk of an unsatisfying follow-up.

Yeah, I’ve never liked the argument that Holdo could’ve just told Poe what was going on. He’s been an insubordinate asshole all throughout the film, and when he does learn what Holdo’s plan is, he stages a coup. Poe just wants to go blast things until Leia finally talks some sense into him. 

Said it before, but it’s still true: If Empire Strikes Back had come out after the invention of social media, it would be just as “hated” as Last Jedi. By which I mean, not hated at all, just whined about constantly by a small mob of manchildren who most media sources (including this article) insist on spotlighting at…

Whatever else the movie did wrong, the idea of ‘TLJ ruining Luke’ from ‘hardcore’ fans is the most hilarious misunderstanding of Star Wars characters, lore and philosophy they could muster.

If you laugh at the punching, you should be able to absorb being punched

I like the show, because I think it’s funny, but there are no lies here. I think they are very funny, but they have mixed politics (at best). 

I found that with a lot of comedy- The Daily Show with John Stewart didn’t quite hit as hard 15 years in, after a couple seasons of Real Time with Bill Maher I realized I have a modicum more political awareness than Maher (and a shitfuck more compassion for Muslim folk), and I really can’t stand the saccharine…

I think the Monty Python troupe had said something of the sort on why they can’t do satire forever- once you become reasonably successful, you become what was the brunt of the joke the whole time.

Remember when Parker was the better looking one?

Hell, that’s just the start of everything in that storyline. The problem, though, is that I don’t know how they could switch with any other nationality. There are just such specific aspects to that character.

It’s not complicated. Using grand and broad terms like “liberal orthodoxy” doesn’t mean anything. Specifics. Matt Damon? Punching up. Trans surgery so they don’t commit suicide? Punching down. Most non-sociopaths can feel it naturally.

There is no way in hell they keep the “IDF killed an innocent Jew protesting the destruction of Palestinian homes” storyline. 

As a sidenote, I just realized that there is absolutely no chance that they are going to do the Israeli Colonel storyline in the show, which is a pity as the final revelation of her motivation was a really neat twist.

This is a nice try but that isn’t actually the psychology at play in people who feel internally polarized over South Park. South Park can be brilliant and on point when it’s punching up, and uncomfortable and stupid when it punches down. This is the real dichotomy at play. Not “my beliefs vs other beliefs”.