Rules within the SW universe.

Now you are just being a child.

 

If Yoda can lift that big pillar in AOTC, then what's wrong with Rey moving some rocks?

 

Yoda is a paragon character.

In other news: Water is wet.

 

It's art. Art doesn't have rules. It has form and it has function, but rules and art don't mix.

Rules aren't even that good for writing good database and object designs (my own profession). They can provide great guidelines, but a good coder knows when "rules" need to be broken and why.

You can't quantify or measure abstract, artistic concepts like "the Force". We need to let go of our pedantic nature as nerds and embrace the fact that just because something was true in a novel, or cartoon, you can't extrapolate that into a "rule" that you then apply to the franchise entirely.

These films are crafted by artists. They don't need or want a massive encyclopedia reference of things they "can't" do, simply because nerds have never seen or heard of the concept before. It's art. It's meant to push boundaries, to interpret, to expand and even challenge.

Art and rules are a big no-no. Form and function are the only two real guides of art.

 

So if can Anakin did something like that in the prequels, would it be a big deal?

 

Which rule says someone can't lift a big pile of rocks?
Where is explicitly stated that someone cannot do that or it requires X amount of training over Y amount of time to lift Z amount of weight?

 

This was answered. Whatever is needed to tell the story. Whatever the force deems necessary.

Your questions remind me of my son when he was smaller.
"Daddy, how much do you love me?"
"More than anything buddy".
"But HOW MUCH more than anything? More than the Sky? More than Infinity? More than Infinity times infinity?"
"Ahhh, Yup"

 

I'm still confused at how lifting a few salt rocks is 7 times more impressive than anything any other Jedi has done, but hey, the logic in this conversation doesn't appear to have any rules either.

 

Art doesn't have rules? I'm not sure I entirely agree. Art has styles, and those styles have characteristics. You couldn't for example, pass off abstract art as photorealistic art; there are rules that allow one to be classified as one or the other. A Hakiu can't be passed off as a limerick; there are rules that allow one to be classified as one or the other. Jazz can't be passed off as Rock; there are certain chords and progressions that establish it as one type or the other. There are rules for art. There just aren't any rules that prevent any particular work from being considered art.

In an established galaxy like Star Wars, if we want to operate outside of the established, it requires plausible and coherent explanation. The nature of the Force can change, new abilities can be discovered, but I think it's a reach to say there are no rules; especially 10 movies into the franchise. The rules just have to be expanded or modified otherwise all you have is chaos.

 

Well said, every decent story has rules, the idea that anything is valid because it's a fantasy setting doesn't hold any water. When you create a fantasy setting you establish fictional premises and everything else is supposed to be grounded in reality so the audience can relate.
You can slightly bend you own rules but if you break them the whole fantasy setting loses consistency and the audience loses immersion and it breaks their suspension of disbelief.

 

No, it's not even really "canon" to be honest, it's back story. And just because Atticus Finch had a specific personality in one chapter, doesn't mean he must always act that way in future installments. That's not art, it's an encyclopedia.

It is true that when contracted to produce art, the payer may constrain you in ways, giving you guidelines on what you can and cannot write or draw, because they are paying for the product and have a vision for that product.

But there are no "rules" about Thor's hammer, it's an artistic, abstract concept. It's fiction and if an artist can break the "rules" regarding the hammer in entertaining, artistic ways, the art will be admired and revered.

All good art, all really good art, smashed the "rules" to pieces. The original Star Wars in 1977 is one such clear example, obvious example.

The concept of "canon" in fantasy is a FAN concept, it's placated a little by brand managers to help sell secondary and tertiary product, but it's always temporary and any and all "canon" will eventually be rebooted in time, reworked and reinvented. That's how these brands operate and always have.

Nobody is going to stop a director's vision because it contradicts some obscure paragraph in a crummy Thrawn novel. Nor should it stop an artist's vision, because that would hurt the art and hurt the business.

Canon consistency has NEVER been that important, to any fantasy brand you can name. And anyone with an imagination and willing to use it can break any rule or restriction with great artistic flare if they so desire.

--- Double Post Merged, Jan 4, 2018, Original Post Date: Jan 4, 2018 ---

Art has form and function. "Abstract" is just an adjective. It can be applied to anything, as long as the adjective is apt.

And there is absolutely no rules to what is and is not abstract art, only some guides about what has come before, but none of them need to be followed.

 

Yes three wildly talented force users.............................................

Good post.
All forms of art broke the rules of the previous school of art to exist anyways.
Would abstract expressionism work if no one broke the "rules" of what art was....

 

No, it doesn't REQUIRE explanation. It requires trust. Trust that whatever is being presented is part of the story for a reason.
In this argument, nobody has blown up the rules where it's implausible. So any suspension of disbelief is simply because the viewer doesn't want to accept it because they have created their own rules.

 

But the rules of abstract expressionism don't apply to ART as a whole.
Rules as discussed in this thread would be like applying them to all forms of art and saying anything outside of those rules is a corruption and therefore not art.

 

So, how does the force work, then?

We've established that said 900 yr old force user has already diminished the role of size in this, yet you still argue its importance even in small cases like this.

Again, we can argue about how heavy things are, but without knowing the specifics of the (mystical) Force, this is all meaningless and we can only speculate.