Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
TOOT BOOT
May 25, 2010

Not really sure Star Wars is the franchise to go exploring ethical dilemmas.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

McSpanky
Jan 16, 2005






ten dollar bitcoin posted:

Not really sure Star Wars is the franchise to go exploring ethical dilemmas.

Star Wars is rather uniquely suited to exploring ethical and moral dilemmas. The Force, when properly interpreted, is like Moral Philosophy 101 Plus Bitchin' Rad Superpowers. (Hint: the very post before yours mentioned KOTOR and SWTOR.) And you really don't have to stray very far from the archetypal Hero's Journey and all the implicit action and adventure therein to do so.

Longbaugh01
Jul 13, 2001

"Surprise, muthafucka."

ten dollar bitcoin posted:

Not really sure Star Wars is the franchise to go exploring ethical dilemmas.

Are you kidding?

The OT itself is full of these: Solo being heroic purely for profit, Droids not being seen as equals and barred from establishments, various characters struggling with individual wants versus the common good, Lando being forced to betray his friend in order to prevent his constituents on Bespin from suffering the Empire's wrath, and many other examples I'm sure.

Like someone said earlier: Entertainment and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive.

Bongo Bill
Jan 17, 2012

We shouldn't confuse a lack of moral ambiguity with a lack of moral complexity. The reason we care about the characters (the reason they are entertaining) is because we see them struggling, in their various ways, to be good. This characterizes Han Solo's decision to return to Yavin, Lando's release of Chewbacca and Leia, Luke's decision to throw himself down the vent, and Vader's betrayal of the Emperor; it lends tension to Luke and Han arguing over whether to rescue the princess, Luke leaving Dagobah, Lando handing Han over to Vader, even Luke giving the droids to Jabba.

The moral theme pervading the original trilogy is about the difficulty of choosing good over evil. This is different from many other "intellectual" moral dilemmas in fiction, which are more about the difficulty of distinguishing between good and evil - a theme which is an awkward complement at best to heroic action, as the prequel trilogy arguably demonstrated (among its other sins).

We shouldn't think that for a story to question its own apparent moral foundation is the best or only intelligent way for it to address morally charged themes.

AlternateAccount
Apr 25, 2005
FYGM

GreenBuckanneer posted:

When I say intellectual I mean like KOTOR 2. Like, breaking down the boring loving lucas version of dichotomy and explanation of why the force works instead of keeping the nebulous concepts and evolving from there.


I don't like Star Trek '09 because it wasn't star trek. All the characters except McCoy (who was played by Karl Urban :swoon:) did a horrible, insulting job of portraying a modern version of their counterparts.

As for the rest, you're right. My favorite Star Wars is one where Lucas had the least involvement, Empire Strikes Back. Also no goddamn stupid superweapon.

You're not going to get far with this, but I've said the same before. Urban was so fantastic with the little screentime he got, and everyone else just seemed like high school kids doing a drama production. You can EASILY see him has a younger counterpart of Kelley's McCoy, not even close with the others.

Oh well :\

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

Longbaugh01 posted:

Are you kidding?

The OT itself is full of these: Solo being heroic purely for profit, Droids not being seen as equals and barred from establishments, various characters struggling with individual wants versus the common good, Lando being forced to betray his friend in order to prevent his constituents on Bespin from suffering the Empire's wrath, and many other examples I'm sure.

Like someone said earlier: Entertainment and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive.

All of these things you said are cinematic cliches, and were cliches before Star Wars. The criminal who begrudgingly does good while pretending it's all for the money? Yeah, that's a cerebral character. Droids that either beep and boop or talk and walk like a butler? Tell me about their anti-establishment subculture. Lando being forced to betray his friend? Seriously? The dashing rogue-gone-good's criminal friend who absolutely promises not to tell Vader on him? And you think the reason he told Vader was to prevent his constituents on Bespin from blah blah blah and not because if he didn't, the movie would have loving sucked?

You guys need to pull your heads out of the sand and watch Star Wars. They are not moral plays designed to make you think about complex human issues, they're pulpy sci-fantasy blockbusters made as a labour of love and featuring the exact same pulpy cliched characters that Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon and their pals hung around with in the predecessors to Star Wars. I'm not saying Star Wars can't be intellectual, I'm saying that if you put intellectuality in front of entertainment with regards to Star Wars, you end up with exactly this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1YzX8mOhB0

The original three Star Wars movies are excellent. A movie does not have to be intellectual or cerebral or "deep" to be excellent. Stop spreading this terrible notion around and start appreciating movies for not all being vast exposés on the human condition. Stop reading wookiepedia.

scary ghost dog fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 30, 2013

porfiria
Dec 10, 2008

by Modern Video Games

scary ghost dog posted:

All of these things you said are cinematic cliches, and were cliches before Star Wars. The criminal who begrudgingly does good while pretending it's all for the money? Yeah, that's a cerebral character. Droids that either beep and boop or talk and walk like a butler? Tell me about their anti-establishment subculture. Lando being forced to betray his friend? Seriously? The dashing rogue-gone-good's criminal friend who absolutely promises not to tell Vader on him? And you think the reason he told Vader was to prevent his constituents on Bespin from blah blah blah and not because if he didn't, the movie would have loving sucked?

You guys need to pull your heads out of the sand and watch Star Wars. They are not moral plays designed to make you think about complex human issues, they're pulpy sci-fantasy blockbusters made as a labour of love and featuring the exact same pulpy cliched characters that Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon and their pals hung around with in the predecessors to Star Wars. I'm not saying Star Wars can't be intellectual, I'm saying that if you put intellectuality in front of entertainment with regards to Star Wars, you end up with exactly this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1YzX8mOhB0

The original three Star Wars movies are excellent. A movie does not have to be intellectual or cerebral or "deep" to be excellent. Stop spreading this terrible notion around and start appreciating movies for not all being vast exposés on the human condition. Stop reading wookiepedia.

Actually, what you're advocating is textbook wookiepedia.

Edit: Also, not to get all intentional fallacy up in here, but that video you linked--you do realize that George Lucas loves to talk about how interested he is in how republics degenerate into totalitarian regimes right? Like it's one of his favorite topics.

porfiria fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jan 30, 2013

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

porfiria posted:

Actually, what you're advocating is textbook wookiepedia.

Actually what I'm advocating is enjoyment of the arts! In fact I'm going to queue up Speed Racer and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and see which one I enjoy more!! GUESS WHAT!!! I WILL ENJOY BOTH OF THEM A WHOLE LOT

porfiria
Dec 10, 2008

by Modern Video Games

scary ghost dog posted:

Actually what I'm advocating is enjoyment of the arts! In fact I'm going to queue up Speed Racer and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and see which one I enjoy more!! GUESS WHAT!!! I WILL ENJOY BOTH OF THEM A WHOLE LOT

Yes but do you turn off your brain when you do?

GreenBuckanneer
Sep 15, 2007

scary ghost dog posted:

Actually what I'm advocating is enjoyment of the arts! In fact I'm going to queue up Speed Racer and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and see which one I enjoy more!! GUESS WHAT!!! I WILL ENJOY BOTH OF THEM A WHOLE LOT

You horrible sick monster.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

porfiria posted:

Yes but do you turn off your brain when you do?

Nah man! Is it wrong for me to appreciate the saccharine family love displayed in Speed Racer as well as appreciating the extremely elaborate artistic direction that led to such a beautiful, engrossing movie about racing cars?? Plus if I turned my brain off the only movies I could enjoy would be ones that could think for me

GreenBuckanneer
Sep 15, 2007

scary ghost dog posted:

Plus if I turned my brain off the only movies I could enjoy would be ones that could think for me

Ah so you mean episodes 1-3 and any other modern movie by people like JJ Abrams, Michael Bay, Joss Whedon, and James Cameron to name a few.

Bongo Bill
Jan 17, 2012

It doesn't take a dumb viewer to enjoy a dumb movie.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

GreenBuckanneer posted:

Ah so you mean episodes 1-3 and any other modern movie by people like JJ Abrams, Michael Bay, Joss Whedon, and James Cameron to name a few.

Nah I was talkin about horror movies.

Shirkelton
Apr 6, 2009

I'm not loyal to anything, General... except the dream.
Modern movie people like James Cameron

Rad Valtar
May 31, 2011

Someday coach Im going to throw for 6 TDs in the Super Bowl.

Sit your ass down Steve.
I guess I'm a horrible person for enjoying modern action movies for what they are.

GreenBuckanneer
Sep 15, 2007

Dan Didio posted:

Modern movie people like James Cameron

That's not quite what I said. JC isn't up to my snuff anymore. It's probably because he's too fuckin old.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

GreenBuckanneer posted:

That's not quite what I said. JC isn't up to my snuff anymore. It's probably because he's too fuckin old.

Why do you dislike JJ Abrams? Unacceptable answers are "lens flare," "Lost," and "Cloverfield."

Billy Idle
Sep 26, 2009

scary ghost dog posted:

Seriously? The dashing rogue-gone-good's criminal friend who absolutely promises not to tell Vader on him? And you think the reason he told Vader was to prevent his constituents on Bespin from blah blah blah and not because if he didn't, the movie would have loving sucked?

You're right, the role of Lando Calrissian wasn't designed as a character study, but the movie was explicit that those were the motivations behind his betrayal, and that's what allowed his character to contribute to the greatness of the movie rather than being simply the back-up plan if Harrison Ford decided not to come back.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

Billy Idle posted:

You're right, the role of Lando Calrissian wasn't designed as a character study, but the movie was explicit that those were the motivations behind his betrayal, and that's what allowed his character to contribute to the greatness of the movie rather than being simply the back-up plan if Harrison Ford decided not to come back.

Yeah if he just betrayed them for no reason it would have been stupid bullshit, but he didn't betray them for no reason, he betrayed them because of something vaguely altruistic but ultimately meaningless. The only reason his city was threatened instead of his well-being is because if he gave up his friends to save his own rear end the audience would hate him.

GreenBuckanneer
Sep 15, 2007

scary ghost dog posted:

Why do you dislike JJ Abrams? Unacceptable answers are "lens flare," "Lost," and "Cloverfield."

Those are easy answers. Mostly it's pacing, characterization, and cinematics.

1. The plot on most of his poo poo is both too fast when it needs to slow down and too slow when it should speed up and skip past stupid poo poo.
2. Before 09 I tolerated him, but him as the director going "yep this is good, go ahead" when screening the casting was unacceptable. Since I like hyperbole, this is like mickey mouse coming up to you and slapping you in the face with his dick, then going back and pissing on the original tapes while Disney goes :waycool:
3. I have no idea who thought that shaking cameras and battlestar galactica "oh poo poo lots of poo poo is going down, lets make it look like someone's filming this" was a good idea because it looks lovely most of the time, and frustrating/insufferable the rest. It doesn't look cool which is supposed to be the point of it, isn't it? There's that and the saturation/grainy look cloverfield and 09 had (iirc) that was also lovely.

stuff like that mostly.

Billy Idle
Sep 26, 2009

scary ghost dog posted:

Yeah if he just betrayed them for no reason it would have been stupid bullshit, but he didn't betray them for no reason, he betrayed them because of something vaguely altruistic but ultimately meaningless. The only reason his city was threatened instead of his well-being is because if he gave up his friends to save his own rear end the audience would hate him.

I'm not sure what we're really arguing about then, actually. It's my opinion that the original trilogy is less intellectual in pretty much every way compared to the prequel trilogy, the originals are simply better movies because of other factors like the acting and writing.

The problem with the prequels wasn't its inclusion of political intrigue and glancing discussion of interstellar trade routes. The story and themes of the prequels were actually quite good. It's the execution that was lacking.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

Billy Idle posted:

I'm not sure what we're really arguing about then, actually. It's my opinion that the original trilogy is less intellectual in pretty much every way compared to the prequel trilogy, the originals are simply better movies because of other factors like the acting and writing.

The problem with the prequels wasn't its inclusion of political intrigue and glancing discussion of interstellar trade routes. The story and themes of the prequels were actually quite good. It's the execution that was lacking.

I'm just saying that a movie doesn't have to be intellectually deep or even vaguely smart to be a good movie

GreenBuckanneer posted:

Those are easy answers. Mostly it's pacing, characterization, and cinematics. I agree with you!

1. The plot on most of his poo poo is both too fast when it needs to slow down and too slow when it should speed up and skip past stupid poo poo.
2. Before 09 I tolerated him, but him as the director going "yep this is good, go ahead" when screening the casting was unacceptable. Since I like hyperbole, this is like mickey mouse coming up to you and slapping you in the face with his dick, then going back and pissing on the original tapes while Disney goes :waycool:
3. I have no idea who thought that shaking cameras and battlestar galactica "oh poo poo lots of poo poo is going down, lets make it look like someone's filming this" was a good idea because it looks lovely most of the time, and frustrating/insufferable the rest. It doesn't look cool which is supposed to be the point of it, isn't it? There's that and the saturation/grainy look cloverfield and 09 had (iirc) that was also lovely.

stuff like that mostly.

I do not agree with you. The casting in Star Trek is fine and there is nothing wrong with grain and saturation. Star Trek does look cool and Super 8 is a fantastically well-made movie with beautiful camera work and extremely well shot action scenes. Star Trek has done nothing to change the legacy of the franchise.

Longbaugh01
Jul 13, 2001

"Surprise, muthafucka."

scary ghost dog posted:

All of these things you said are cinematic cliches, and were cliches before Star Wars.
...
You guys need to pull your heads out of the sand and watch Star Wars. They are not moral plays designed to make you think about complex human issues, they're pulpy sci-fantasy blockbusters made as a labour of love and featuring the exact same pulpy cliched characters that Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon and their pals hung around with in the predecessors to Star Wars. I'm not saying Star Wars can't be intellectual, I'm saying that if you put intellectuality in front of entertainment with regards to Star Wars, you end up with exactly this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1YzX8mOhB0

The original three Star Wars movies are excellent. A movie does not have to be intellectual or cerebral or "deep" to be excellent. Stop spreading this terrible notion around and start appreciating movies for not all being vast exposés on the human condition. Stop reading wookiepedia.

Myself, and others, haven't said that a movie has to be intellectual to be excellent. We said, and I repeat, entertainment and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive. And it works both ways: An entertaining movie does not have to be intellectual to be entertaining, while an intellectual movie does not have to be entertaining to be intellectual. It also means that neither one has to take precedence over the other. Intellectualism does not have to be at the forefront for it to be intellectual, and the same goes for entertainment. They can co-exist in equal measure as long as the creatives behind it are capable.

Whether you agree with it or not, the original trilogy is pulpy space opera with unsubtle themes and elements of ideas beyond space opera. These themes and elements are not always just there to add complexity to the setting, but as commentary on aspects of reality. And no I'm not necessarily subscribing to an SMG level of analysis, because you don't even have to go that deep! Most of it is right there on the page (or screen), and obvious as hell.

Finally, just because something is a cliche does not mean it's banal. If a cliched element is expanded upon, it can become more than its origin. Just like a collection of cliched elements can become more than the sum of its parts, and that should remind you of something.

scary ghost dog
Aug 5, 2007

Longbaugh01 posted:

Myself, and others, haven't said that a movie has to be intellectual to be excellent. We said, and I repeat, entertainment and intellectualism are not mutually exclusive. And it works both ways: An entertaining movie does not have to be intellectual to be entertaining, while an intellectual movie does not have to be entertaining to be intellectual. It also means that neither one has to take precedence over the other. Intellectualism does not have to be at the forefront for it to be intellectual, and the same goes for entertainment. They can co-exist in equal measure as long as the creatives behind it are capable.

Whether you agree with it or not, the original trilogy is pulpy space opera with unsubtle themes and elements of ideas beyond space opera. These themes and elements are not always just there to add complexity to the setting, but as commentary on aspects of reality. And no I'm not necessarily subscribing to an SMG level of analysis, because you don't even have to go that deep! Most of it is right there on the page (or screen), and obvious as hell.

Finally, just because something is a cliche does not mean it's banal. If a cliched element is expanded upon, it can become more than its origin. Just like a collection of cliched elements can become more than the sum of its parts, and that should remind you of something.

Cool, we agree then.

Air Skwirl
May 13, 2007

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed shitposting.

AlternateAccount posted:

You're not going to get far with this, but I've said the same before. Urban was so fantastic with the little screentime he got, and everyone else just seemed like high school kids doing a drama production. You can EASILY see him has a younger counterpart of Kelley's McCoy, not even close with the others.

Oh well :\

Karl Urban was excellent, but he was the only one doing an impression of the previous actor instead of an interpretation. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were amazing, and if they hadn't made it their own it would have been terrible. Especially Chris Pine, I really don't want to see any 29 year old actor's impression of William Shatner. I want to see a fully realized character, and you can't do that with an impression, it would just come off as parody.

Longbaugh01
Jul 13, 2001

"Surprise, muthafucka."

Skwirl posted:

Karl Urban was excellent, but he was the only one doing an impression of the previous actor instead of an interpretation. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were amazing, and if they hadn't made it their own it would have been terrible. Especially Chris Pine, I really don't want to see any 29 year old actor's impression of William Shatner. I want to see a fully realized character, and you can't do that with an impression, it would just come off as parody.

Honestly, they mostly seemed like impressions except for Uhura, Sulu, and Scotty. Somehow, that didn't degrade its quality to me all that much.

For the most part, this should be a none-issue when it comes to Episode 7. Unless the less likely scenario occurs, and they end up having to recast principals from the OT, or go for some sort of straight reboot.

Air Skwirl
May 13, 2007

Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed shitposting.

Longbaugh01 posted:

Honestly, they mostly seemed like impressions except for Uhura, Sulu, and Scotty. Somehow, that didn't degrade its quality to me all that much.

For the most part, this should be a none-issue when it comes to Episode 7. Unless the less likely scenario occurs, and they end up having to recast principals from the OT, or go for some sort of straight reboot.

I bet if it's a straight up sequel, it will be set farther from the end of Return than we are from Return's release in theaters.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN
Here is what Star Wars needs in order to be 'Star Wars' (in the sense of the original film):

-Prominent perspective lines, often glowing, contrasted with clouds or fields of debris.

-Emphasis on different types of communication and their limitations, with implicit reference to McLuhan. (Specific emphasis on visual communication.)

-Sharp-but-understated changes in character behavior, often contrasting dialogue. (e.g. C3PO performing a gentle funeral for the slaughtered jawas, after callously referring to them as 'filthy creatures' in an earlier scene).

-Appropriation of race/gender stereotypes, deflated through an acknowledgement of broader social and political contexts. (e.g. Chewbacca acting as a blaxploitation character as a militant response to his species' oppression.)

-Unusual focus on the economy. (Luke remarks on how his car's value has dropped sharply in a very short period of time, implying a deflationary economy.)

-Cautious endorsement of revolutionary politics. (Fight the power, but Chewbacca doesn't get a medal....)

-Gentle self-mockery. (e.g Hamill's incredibly dorky, over-eager delivery of the line "I'm Luke Skywalker and I'm here to rescue you!!!")

-General thematic imagery of prosthetics, 'tribal cultures', garbage, masks, metaphorically uniform planets.

Note that space battles, 'the force', laser swords, and specific characters are not listed as necessary.

Longbaugh01
Jul 13, 2001

"Surprise, muthafucka."

Skwirl posted:

I bet if it's a straight up sequel, it will be set farther from the end of Return than we are from Return's release in theaters.

Which makes sense, but begs the question: How do you encapsulate 30+ years of in-universe history in a concise manner?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single flashback in any Star Wars film. It was never part of its aesthetic. So maybe leaving that period ambiguous is best even if counter-intuitive.

However, I do remember a certain 2009 sci-fi reboot, directed by some Abrams guy, which employed a flashback...

Edit: Just thought of how long the opening crawl could be if they went that route. Yikes.

EditThe2:

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

-Gentle self-mockery. (e.g Hamill's incredibly dorky, over-eager delivery of the line "I'm Luke Skywalker and I'm here to rescue you!!!")

You realize that line/delivery can be taken at face value. Luke was pretty eager about, well just about everything, after the magic of his surrogate parents dying.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Note that space battles, 'the force', laser swords, and specific characters are not listed as necessary.

Good luck to whoever tries to pull *that* off.

Longbaugh01 fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jan 30, 2013

david lunch
Oct 13, 2009

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Here is what Star Wars needs in order to be 'Star Wars' (in the sense of the original film):

-Prominent perspective lines, often glowing, contrasted with clouds or fields of debris.

-Emphasis on different types of communication and their limitations, with implicit reference to McLuhan. (Specific emphasis on visual communication.)

-Sharp-but-understated changes in character behavior, often contrasting dialogue. (e.g. C3PO performing a gentle funeral for the slaughtered jawas, after callously referring to them as 'filthy creatures' in an earlier scene).

-Appropriation of race/gender stereotypes, deflated through an acknowledgement of broader social and political contexts. (e.g. Chewbacca acting as a blaxploitation character as a militant response to his species' oppression.)

-Unusual focus on the economy. (Luke remarks on how his car's value has dropped sharply in a very short period of time, implying a deflationary economy.)

-Cautious endorsement of revolutionary politics. (Fight the power, but Chewbacca doesn't get a medal....)

-Gentle self-mockery. (e.g Hamill's incredibly dorky, over-eager delivery of the line "I'm Luke Skywalker and I'm here to rescue you!!!")

-General thematic imagery of prosthetics, 'tribal cultures', garbage, masks, metaphorically uniform planets.

Note that space battles, 'the force', laser swords, and specific characters are not listed as necessary.
Your list still asks that the film recycle junk from the past though. Only instead of worrying about stupid bullshit like which interpretation of the force is correct or what EU trash to keep canon you list thematic stuff.

The only thing Star Wars needs to be Star Wars is to be a fun action-adventure movie set in space that is entertaining to both kids and adults as well as nerds and normal people. Kinda like how so many people felt that Star Trek 09 felt like a Star Wars movie even though it had none of the things in either your list or in other people's posts.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

Longbaugh01 posted:

You realize that line/delivery can be taken at face value. Luke was pretty eager about, well just about everything, after the magic of his surrogate parents dying.

Yes, and it's played for comedy in a way that mildly subverts the Hero's Journey stuff. Luke runs in and the first thing he does is announce his full name, clearly high on self-esteem. Leia then goes into hilarious bitch-mode.

This moment is both self-aware and totally sincere - acknowledging that Luke is a dorky moron, while also celebrating his enthusiasm.

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN

david lunch posted:

Your list still asks that the film recycle junk from the past though. Only instead of worrying about stupid bullshit like which interpretation of the force is correct or what EU trash to keep canon you list thematic stuff.


Your direct equation of those two things is utterly bizarre to me.

Like, you're actually saying you could have a film that unambiguously endorsed fascism and call it 'Star Wars' if it did so in a fun, child-friendly way.

Shanty
Nov 7, 2005

I Love Dogs
Definitely needs a war and some stars. That's pretty high up there on my list. Stars are pretty easy though so I guess just a war.

david lunch
Oct 13, 2009

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Your direct equation of those two things is utterly bizarre to me.

Like, you're actually saying you could have a film that unambiguously endorsed fascism and call it 'Star Wars' if it did so in a fun, child-friendly way.
That's a hell of a leap but uh, yeah, I guess you could theoretically do that. It wouldn't be a particularly good Star Wars movie on account of the fact that it unambiguously endorses fascism though.

The point I was trying to make was that the new Star Wars film should be free to explore new themes and not rehash what was already explored in the old movies. Like, it can still be a Star Wars film even though it doesn't have an "appropriation of race/gender stereotypes in it", for example. Just like it can still be a Star Wars film even though it doesn't have Tatooine or space battles in it.

DirtyRobot
Dec 15, 2003

it was a normally happy sunny day... but Dirty Robot was dirty

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Here is what Star Wars needs in order to be 'Star Wars' (in the sense of the original film):

[...]

Note that space battles, 'the force', laser swords, and specific characters are not listed as necessary.

I think the truly dialectical reading of the film (in the Zizekian sense) would say that the space battles, the force, and laser swords, are all, in fact, not just the "stupid appearance," but integral to everything you list. I.e., you're offering the ingenious correction, but the dialectical move is to realize that the correction was always already there as part of the appearance. In short, it matters that the various themes you list are being negotiated or played with through the lens of a romance fantasy space battle coming-of-age story with quasi-mystical magic philosophy and laser swords etc etc etc. Just like it matters that in Alien the sex imagery is in the form of the radically "alien."

Like, if you remove your Star Wars examples for each of the elements you list, you could probably find another film that has all those elements, especially some of the more general ones ("vaguely revolutionary but then also totally not"). And the answer is: no, that other film would not be Star Wars, even if this other film and Star Wars were both negotiating similar politics in similar ways.

I guess my point is that the content is part of the form. Like, I agree the meat of a given film like Star Wards is in the form. But the selection of so-called content is basically a formal decision, really, so whatever.

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Your direct equation of those two things is utterly bizarre to me.

Like, you're actually saying you could have a film that unambiguously endorsed fascism and call it 'Star Wars' if it did so in a fun, child-friendly way.

Absolutely, I think you could do this. I think it would be politically disgusting, but it could still be "Star Wars," insofar as any sequel isn't an extension of the original but a commentary or reading of the original.

DirtyRobot fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Jan 30, 2013

SuperMechagodzilla
Jun 9, 2007

NEWT REBORN
To clarify, I'm not against the upbeat tone or the genre trappings or any of that stuff. I'm not even against the space battles.

It's just a matter of recognizing that the laser sword was presented as something extremely meaningful, and should not be reduced to 'just a prop' (something the prequel films satirized with their stultifying ubiquity). Even if that meaning is subverted in some way, you still need knowledge of what it is that's been subverted.

But then, consider the amount of screen-time the laser sword gets in Star Wars - and compare that with how much time is spent on the nuanced interactions with (and between) ethnic aliens and homosexual robots. The latter must take up at least half the runtime.

david lunch posted:

The point I was trying to make was that the new Star Wars film should be free to explore new themes and not rehash what was already explored in the old movies. Like, it can still be a Star Wars film even though it doesn't have an "appropriation of race/gender stereotypes in it", for example. Just like it can still be a Star Wars film even though it doesn't have Tatooine or space battles in it.

There's a difference between 'recycling old themes' and building on previous themes, which is what I advocate.

If you replace all the important themes and imagery from Star Wars, you have a science fiction film under an arbitrary brand name. Not even the prequels did something so wrongheaded, although it's apparently not uncommon in the Wookiepediaverse.

SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Jan 30, 2013

AlternateAccount
Apr 25, 2005
FYGM

Skwirl posted:

Karl Urban was excellent, but he was the only one doing an impression of the previous actor instead of an interpretation. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were amazing, and if they hadn't made it their own it would have been terrible. Especially Chris Pine, I really don't want to see any 29 year old actor's impression of William Shatner. I want to see a fully realized character, and you can't do that with an impression, it would just come off as parody.

I don't understand your logic since it confesses that Urban nails it and yet it wouldn't have been a valid technique for any of the other actors. Really, there are very few points in the entire movie where Kirk has any kind of clear motivation at all. OK, sure, you don't want to just ape what's come before, but we ended up with a sucking vacuum of non-characterization instead of people who were actually doing things for any discernible reason.

computer parts
Nov 18, 2010

PLEASE CLAP

GreenBuckanneer posted:

3. I have no idea who thought that shaking cameras and battlestar galactica "oh poo poo lots of poo poo is going down, lets make it look like someone's filming this" was a good idea because it looks lovely most of the time, and frustrating/insufferable the rest.

This was clearly a reference to TOS/Trek in general, for what it's worth.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dolphin
Dec 5, 2008

by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

It's just a matter of recognizing that the laser sword was presented as something extremely meaningful, and should not be reduced to 'just a prop' (something the prequel films satirized with their stultifying ubiquity). Even if that meaning is subverted in some way, you still need knowledge of what it is that's been subverted.

But then, consider the amount of screen-time the laser sword gets in Star Wars - and compare that with how much time is spent on the nuanced interactions with (and between) ethnic aliens and homosexual robots. The latter must take up at least half the runtime.
Was it? What was the meaning? And why are you calling it a laser sword? It's more like a plasma baton.

quote:

There's a difference between 'recycling old themes' and building on previous themes, which is what I advocate.

If you replace all the important themes and imagery from Star Wars, you have a science fiction film under an arbitrary brand name. Not even the prequels did something so wrongheaded, although it's apparently not uncommon in the Wookiepediaverse.
What themes? What are you talking about? Could you elaborate?

Dolphin fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jan 30, 2013

  • Locked thread