![Star Wars vs Star Trek: a guide [Tommy Siegel]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d045faea-f6cd-41c9-852e-1e17eea16968.png){kind=link}
Tommy Siegel | Bluesky
Transcript
A Helpful Guide To Star Wars vs Star Trek
Star Wars
[Image of Han Solo in Tommy’s style]
- Don’t start with the ‘first’ movie, let me tell you where to start
- Looks like ruined farm equipment in space
- In summary: the past was horrible
- JJ Abrams ruined it
Star Trek
[Image of Jean Luc Picard in Tommy’s style]
- Don’t start with the first season, let me tell you where to start
- Looks like a cruise ship in space
- In summary: the future is incredible
- JJ Abrams ruined it
Of course because it’s socially frowned upon. This isn’t Luke defying social norms, Luke is not a sentient being here. Luke does what the director makes him do and the director made him to something socially frowned upon. I don’t like it because the director took a character I’m fond of and turned him socially unacceptable. Let me get my point across a different way because it’s not drinking the milk that I have an issue, it’s the socially frowned undertone that the director made the character subject to.
Would you be as defensive if the director had decided Luke would do one of the following:
All of those things are “normal” in the sense that somewhere in the world there’s a person who does one or some or all of those things. Generally none of those things are considered socially acceptable to do in the front of others. Unless you’re a 100% social weirdo there’s at least one thing in that list that you think is socially frowned upon. Would you not be critical if Luke had done that thing?
Luke has always done socially controversial things. He’s always been a rebel. On the farm, he rejected his parents’ expectations that he’d be a farmer, because he wanted to see the galaxy. He rejected the empire’s propaganda and joined the rebel cause. He rejected anti-Force norms pushed by Han to learn from crazy old Ben. He rejected Yoda’s pressure to stay and learn. And he rejected every norm of how people act in war, by choosing to give Darth Vader mercy.
Luke has always rejected the easy and safe path. He’s always chosen adventure and independence over comfort. The titty milk is consistent characterisation. He’s Luke Skywalker, he does whatever the fuck he wants and he doesn’t care all that much what others think about it.
So let me get this straight. If instead of drinking titty milk Luke had dropped his pants and started furiously masturbating your reaction would be:
Depends if it served the story. Can you describe a scenario where masturbation fits the story as well as the milk does?
You didn’t say it has to serve the story. You said he can do whatever the fuck he wants.
And the milk drinking doesn’t serve the either but you’re hellbent on defending that.
Like I said before: Titty milk illustrates his connection to nature, and it’s the path of adventure and independence. That serves both the story being told, and consistent character traits. It’s the most Luke Skywalker thing he could have done.
I’m willing to entertain the idea of masturbation possibly highlighting his connection to nature, his sense of adventure and independence. But you gotta explain it, because I’m not getting it yet.
You want to cite the source where Johnson says that’s the intention behind the scene? Because without it you’re just presenting your own made up narrative as a fact. Because I can give you alternative take, it represents him turning from a dignified jedi knight into an undignified weird hermit.
I used My media analysis skills to come to that conclusion, and I’ve thoroughly shown My work.
Remember, Luke expected Yoda to be a dignified warrior, but he turned out to be a weird hermit instead. Star Wars has never been about knights in shining armour who do everything society expects of them. Star Wars is weird and gross and rebellious.
And a higher entity told me everything you say is wrong so I guess we’re going to be at a standstill.