Beniboybling
Worst Member
Originally posted by Placidity
No, the onus is on you to prove that it wouldn't have worked.
Not at all, Thor made the argument that Finn's attempted sacrifice was a rational decision to make, that would only be the case if it had a reasonable chance of success, "well you can't prove it wouldn't!" is not evidence of that, a strategy that you can provide no guarantees will work is a reckless one by definition. 👆
We have no reason to assume that Finn would've sacrificed himself for nothing.
Nonetheless let's go over in full the reasons why is is wrong:
1. Finn's rust bucket of a speeder was burning up badly, and given that energy beam in question was capable of cracking open a fortress, we have every reason to believe most if not all of his craft would have been incinerated, with Finn essentially piloting his craft into the maw of a miniature Death Star.
2. It's logical to assume that the cannon was extremely durable, the size alone conveys this, as does the advancement of the technology involved. There is every reason to believe that whatever scraps of Finn and his craft remained would have impacted harmlessly.
3. Nobody at all made an attempt to stop him, or showed signs of distress. There was every opportunity to shoot on Finn's craft with their legion of 2.0 AT-ATs and if imminent death and destruction was on the table, you'd think somebody would have panicked, like they did in response to Admiral Holdo. Go figure.
4. All options had not been exhausted, or rather, there were potentially other avenues to survival that could have presented itself, making Finn's sacrificial gesture unnecessary. And in fact one does! Making Finn's sacrifice, had it succeeded, de facto: for nothing.
I don't believe when you were watching the scene for the first time - before you saw the aftermath - even thought for a second that Finn was about to lose his life for nothing.
You are right, I did not, I was totally absorbed by the scene as was convinced Finn was about to go out in a blaze of glory, because that's how the scene was dramatised. I was as absorbed in the act of "heroism" as he was, it was only after Rose pulled Finn (and the viewer) out of the fantasy, that the recklessness and foolhardy nature of it becomes apparent.
Even Rose, with her bad logic says protecting is better than *destroying*.She didn't say, "I stopped you because your plan was futile".
The whole theme here has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the plan.
No what she says exactly is that "
That's how we're gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love" - in which respect Rose is explictly stating that Finn's action is
not the path to victory, and he was being driven by the wrong emotions. Regardless, I not here to argue over whether Rose was acting with practical intentions or not, its quite clear that the central reason she stepped in to save Finn was because she cared about him, or in other words was acting out of love.
The original poster I was quoting was trying to read some sort of "moral" into her statement. It is about the principle itself - if it was only about stopping a futile plan, then there is no moral here. And to your point - so if the plan would've worked - then you agree Rose is a stupid ***** right?
The moral is that heroic sacrifice isn't always needed, right, or particularly heroic, that giving your life to a cause (in this case, recklessly, and in my view driven by anger and a desire to prove something) is not always a good or justifiable thing, in which respect he's right in pointing out how it resonated with the opening scene where Rose's sister dies in a "heroic" but ultimately reckless and unnecessary sacrifice. It's questioning what it means to be a hero.
In fact, what if we take it further? What if Finn's ship would've not only blown up the weapon, but due to the vast amounts of energy, caused a large explosion that destroyed everything nearby - that is, Kylo Ren, and Hux, basically the remaining leadership of the First Order was wiped out? Not an unreasonable outcome. Would it have been correct then?
Ignoring the fact that this is absolutely an unreasonable outcome all things considered, it would have been correct if you assess the rightness or wrongness of an act by the number of enemies you killed minus the number of your people who died. But that's the exact kind of thinking that TLJ is questioning. 😱
One other side point - if Finn's plan surely would have failed, this raises another interesting theme. That is, the men can't make sound judgements at all in this film. Always clouded by aggression, hate, plans of destruction, always trying to *play* the hero. Heck, even the plot makes this happen by having purple haired clown pretend that she had no final plan causing Poe to take action only to humiliate him after. I'm sure there are no feminist narratives here.
The theme of misguided heroism ('playing hero' being an essentially masculine trait) is present yes. The idea that having a penis means you cannot make sound decisions is not, and the fact that several people with penises fail to make sound decisions does not prove this. But keep projecting. 👆
Again, I digress from the *real* point here, which is about the "love/hate" principle. It is a complete pretentious play on words with a very SJW feel to it. Giving one's life to save friends is perhaps the height of heroism. Trying to twist it into some sort of "hateful" motivation reeks of postmodern rhetoric.
Is it corny? Yes. Does it make you mad? Yes. Is life sacred and not something that should be thrown away recklessly in an effort to be "heroic"? Also yes. How very post-modern of me.