Editing Talk:2229: Rey and Kylo

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->

There should be discussion / analysis around the choice of "pandering" to cosmologists in this comic, as there has been a lot of outrage around the last few star wars movies that they are "pandering" to identities and diversity. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.112|172.68.174.112]] 22:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course the Star Wars environs tend to be seen with the hue of conflict and not of peace. Our information derived from that long ago and that far away is going to be greatly red-shifted! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.199|162.158.154.199]] 00:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Is ''The Force Awakens'' really the one that people accuse of pandering? If anything, I would think it's ''The Last Jedi.'' It not only had more progressive elements, it also heavy-handedly sold the "even you can be a Jedi" message to kids. --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.142.22|172.69.142.22]] 04:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
: Agreed, I have yet to see The Last Jedi (I tend to be very late, only catching movies when a TV channel airs them. I only just saw Rogue One), and I know I haven't seen the controversial one. The controversy I heard about centred around casting an Asian woman - who I think I've seen in some comedy videos so I expect to spot and recognize her - which casting lured all the racists out into the open (I still dunno why they thought she was a wrong choice, Star Wars has always had a huge variety of races both real and implied, I'm hoping that when I see the movie I'll find out). Then again, the Black Stormtrooper choice in Force Awakens seemed unquestionably pandering, they already established that all stormtroopers are clones of Jango Fett (and indirectly Boba Fett). Recruiting from a clearly non-sympathetic populace makes no sense, raising kidnapped babies (as I recall the explanation here) necessitates pure expense (housing, clothing, feeding, without any payback until they're old enough to fight) and training them themselves, and the problems with both is perfectly encapsulated in The Force Awakens, which is why they went with cloning an elite warrior in the first place, in the hopes of resulting in blindly loyal pre-trained soldiers. Feels like a blatant attempt to add a black character - which is extra stupid since as I recall the Fetts aren't even white anyway! LOL! (I have the exact same objection to making what's-her-face Brienne from Game Of Thrones the Silver Stormtrooper commander - despite that I loved her inclusion - but I haven't heard any complaints about her, probably because we never see her face in that movie) :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

:: For me the problem is not the pandering to progressives.  The problem is that it made "The Last Jedi" a bad movie, and a very, very bad Star Wars movie (like very out-of-character behavior of Luke, etc.). --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 10:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
:: Niceguy: while Star Wars did always have many ''alien'' races, and had Lando as significant (not comic, not first to die, not the usual kind of stereotype) character, there basically ''was'' only Lando as a notable (human) ethnic minority.
:: For my part (white anglo-scottish male, with all the boons and baggage that implies) I have absolutely no problem with the increase in screen-diversity (including the implication that all the Clone Troopers were all basically ethnicly Pacific/New Zealandesque, though by the time of the Original Trilogy it is canon that the Clone Troopers are phased out/supplemented by a regular mix of conscripts/volunteers. Thus, in the OT context, "white guys" as far as we can guess within their armour, as diverse as the rest of the background cast of humans in every aspect but for being very much all male.
:: Then in Force Awakens we find that the Empire's continuity organisation is now definitely more equal-opportunities employer/conscripter/shanghaier (revealed by Finn, and you've got Captain Phasma too though she may not have been through the ranks) though it seems more through necessity rather than a more 'woke' HR policy (in-universe!).
:: But I can take it all as it comes. The imminent one may mess with my headcan(n)on, or fancanon in general, but that remains to be seen. I can probably take it seriously (FCVO...), though I can't take seriously the typical people who use the term Social Justice Warriors - and especially its initialisation - in all seriousness (I don't think Jakub or anyone else here did that, in the way I mean) to define either Them or Us in the kind of arguments that some of the grungier corners of the internet tend to host.
:: Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter, with all due apologies. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.199|162.158.154.199]] 17:12, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to say I'm disappointed that Randall didn't mention the obvious problems. "A long time ago" - how long? "A galaxy far, far away" - how far? Which galaxy? Without these figures, any intergalactic attempt to pin down the variability of universal constants is doomed to failure. And let's be honest, if we DID have these figures, Kylo and Ren's efforts would likely be superfluous, as we can estimate things like the fine-structure constant through observations of lightsaber physics, Big G from the strength of the Force, and the curvature of spacetime by analyzing hyperspace travel. [[User:Cosmogoblin|Cosmogoblin]] ([[User talk:Cosmogoblin|talk]]) 08:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
:And something something something (darkside?) by knowing the optimal Mean Free Path in the Kessel Cluster has an upper limit of around 12pc [[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.200|162.158.155.200]] 15:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The article says, " ... some movies and TV shows have spurred scientific innovations due to their subject matter (see below)." Then, nothing at all is said about the topic below. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 19:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
:It looks like the bulk of [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183039 this edit ([[User:NotaBene]],  17/Nov/2019) was removed at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183770 this point] (an IP editor, 27/Nov/2019).
:Personally, I'd prefer that section there for interest (and I can think of some other things we could add), but if that ssection is truly not supposed to be there then the 'orphan intro-reference' the IP neglected to remove can probably be deleted as well.
:You do a lot of fine-editing (which I ''mostly'' agree with/don't argue about) so I'll let you consider the question. Unless someone else jumps in before you... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.183|172.70.162.183]] 20:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 The article says, " ... some movies and TV shows have spurred scientific innovations due to their subject matter (see below)." Then, nothing at all is said about the topic below. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 19:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
-:It looks like the bulk of [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183039 this edit] ([[User:NotaBene]],  17/Nov/2019) was removed at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183770 this point] (an IP editor, 27/Nov/2019).
+:It looks like the bulk of [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183039 this edit ([[User:NotaBene]],  17/Nov/2019) was removed at [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2229:_Rey_and_Kylo&diff=prev&oldid=183770 this point] (an IP editor, 27/Nov/2019).
-:Personally, I'd prefer that section there for interest (and I can think of some other things we could add), but if that section is truly not supposed to be there then the 'orphan intro-reference' the IP neglected to remove can probably be deleted as well.
+:Personally, I'd prefer that section there for interest (and I can think of some other things we could add), but if that ssection is truly not supposed to be there then the 'orphan intro-reference' the IP neglected to remove can probably be deleted as well.
 :You do a lot of fine-editing (which I ''mostly'' agree with/don't argue about) so I'll let you consider the question. Unless someone else jumps in before you... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.183|172.70.162.183]] 20:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
-::Yeah, my point was to ask other editors which was better, remove the reference or restore the material. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
-:::Sorry, I didn't see mention of how you'd tracked down the discrepancy. I thought you were actually looking for the reason. (My vote would be restore the purpose, BTW, as mentioned. But as I'm not an 'official' editor, I'm probably no more than cancelling out the whim of the no-username who originally decided it should be removed. It's probably necessary to have you/another opine to tip the balance over into actual action, fully resolving either way.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.73|172.70.86.73]] 03:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)