I actually don't mind Christensen as Force ghost, Nostalgia Critic mentioned that he is actually fantastic actor in the prequels... when he doesn't have dialogue. While I personally don't like NC, that comment actually made me look some scenes from RotS when he is on Dark Side, and I must say that I found him very convincing in his acting, just from the look and body language alone. YMMV on this though. That awful CGI alien in the beginning of RotJ and "Nooo" from J. E. Jones is something I find really annoying, as well as Morrison redubbing Fett (I really like Morrison in Republic Commando, though). Yuck.

I see you have old school/Lucas opinion on the Dark Side. I don't share that one, but this is (a lot more) off-topic discussion for which Star Wars fans (and people who merely like some Star Wars stuff like me) should discuss elsewhere;)

I just saw the movie and enjoyed it. I would say it is definitely the best of the sequel trilogy. Plenty of terrestrial action, and the music was more prominent this time around (including some music from episodes 5 and 6, particularly including one tune you *will* recognize). (I really like what they did with the music this time around.)

In any case, my ranking of the sequel trilogy is 9 > 7 > 8.

I said LOGICAL definition. Which means consistent (amongst other things). If you consider "Postmodern-Marxists SJW-s." and "Movement focusing on female empowerment." to define the same thing, you clearly have a consistency problem. The former has nothing with "female empowerment", but is centered around "white straight male demonization".

And I told you there is no "logical" definition. Logic concerns with valid thinking, it doesn't concern itself with defining feminism. You asked for "logical", not "logically consistent" definition.

And you are pulling thing out of your ass: first, you have to prove that same term has the same meaning (or definition) regardless of context and user; second you have to prove that female empowerment has nothing to do with white straight male demonization; third, you have to say how the hell did you come that "Postmodern-Marxists SJW-s" has anything to do with "White straight male demonization", and not just because the whole first term is not considered logically consistent (and you want that) by most educated people - they would say you can't be postmodernist and Marxist at the same time.

I don't have to prove anything. It was YOU, who made a theorem:
And thus it's on YOU to prove that all statements in your theorem are valid. Which includes proving that:
a) Fury Road had "actively inserted feminism" of the same kind as The Last Jedi
b) That "actively inserted feminism" made Fury Road better movie
c) Star Wars is suited for "feminist ideas" as well as Mad Max

Note, that in all three cases you must have the same definition of "feminism", otherwise you fall into "equivocation fallacy". Which would mean that your "exercise in logic" is not logical.

Then neither will I, I don't submit to arrogant narcissists. Simple as that.

P. S.
A) Doesn't matter at all, because nobody mentioned multiple kinds of feminism. Besides, arguing for or against feminism becomes pointless if there are multiple kinds of it. Which is why I don't argue for or against it. Have a nice day.

What a weird turn this discussion has taken.

Who said being propaganda is somehow detrimental to the quality of a piece of media?
Who said reasoning and rational thought are mutually exclusive from propaganda?
Who said propaganda has to be a lie?

There seems to be the attachment of value judgements to media depending on whether it is propaganda or not, and that makes no sense. Just because something is a piece of propaganda, doesn't make it a good or bad thing.

Many of the masterpieces of cinema were unabashed pieces of propaganda- Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are 2 examples that also happen to be morally reprehensible, which again, is not a prerequisite for propaganda.

I said.

They are not mutually exclusive, in fact I said earlier that good and effective propaganda should be based on real facts and contain some sort of reasoning. However, propaganda can't consist of reasoning and rational thought entirely, otherwise it wouldn't be a prapaganda, but just a statement of fact.

Maybe so, I haven't seen those. However, I would argue that even if your examples are good piece of media, they are good despite being propaganda, and their authors surely had struggled with creating their masterpieces because they had to push the ideology.

There seems to be attachment of value judgments, period. As I see it, media (and everything else, really) has no value by itself. It's only individuals who apply their own value judgments to objects which give it any value. Which is why I have zero interest in "objective" value of the work of art, but am more than willing to listen to what value others give to it.

??????
I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding of what propaganda is.

Let me quote some definitions: Take note of the absolute lack of any indication of whether the stuff is true or false, or fact or fiction, or moral or immoral. Just that it is BIASED. And being biased doesn't mean it is a lie or wrong or not factual.

The repeated concept that a feminist message is inherently bad really betrays all your motivations.

I'm sorry, but the irony

????????????????????????????????????????????
I think there is some fundamental misunderstanding of what bias is:

1. inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair
2. a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject
3. a systematic distortion of a statistical result due to a factor not allowed for in its derivation

All three definitions mean that bias is totally a matter of personal perception of facts (are you inclined for or against those facts, interested in them or not, do you have conjecture about outer factors), not facts themselves.

Your words: "I reject your entire premise and ask that you stop throwing it at me."

Rejecting a premise is one thing (arguing perspectives... the point of message boards).... but I threw nothing at you. I expressed my thoughts about Star Wars on a public message board.

You are metaphorically characterizing my replies on a public message board about Star Wars as a physical form of harassment -- that I need to stop disagreeing ("... stop throwing it at me.") -- or at least posting -- with you and your thoughts on Star Wars. It would seem to have created a false victimhood. And when creating a false victimhood you then need to undermine those who disagree...

I am not easily offended. But I am offended when someone continually and willfully mischaracterizes both my reasoning and intentions -- calling me an advocate for "culture war" and claiming I'm "throwing" things at them.

But when I see your use of this...

I see by your words that you seem to have a level of self-righteous indignation that might explain why you are quick to claim a sort of victimhood ("... stop throwing it at me.") and "slap down" those you disagree with. Some might see this as arrogance.

I'm sorry if you were somehow victimized by the existence of thousands of "jock douchebags." The world is a big place with a lot of different types of people... each with their own thoughts, feelings, and perspectives.

If you feel others here are "broken records," then feel free to lead by example and bow out of the "noise."

Was this directed to me?

If it is, I'm bewildered how you would try and distill my argument down to a Poe rebuttal? Talk about low-hanging fruit and missing the forest for the trees.

But since you brought up Poe...

It's interesting the thematics this exchange creates... conformity and blindly following commands. Sure does sound like Star Wars, right?

Jesus dude, it just means "stop saying the same thing to me." All you guys who complain about others taking offense to things always end up being the biggest crybabies.