|
How about democratic communism (like its supposed to be) instead of autocracies masquerading as communism, like we've had in reality? Not saying that's easy, either, I just don't feel like we've really had a democratic communistic state. I haven't done the reading, though, so is there some reason why you just have to have a dictator in order to get communism up and running?
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I'd be fine with this interpretation if JarJar were portrayed as a character with an accent and a different culture and the Republic treated him as low-class for it, but the movie doesn't portray that, it portrays a stumbling buffoon caricature that no real person of any race is. The objective viewpoint of the camera says he's this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_swtbIi2F0 Edit: low-class, not primitive Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Sure, but even if the argument isn't "all Gungans are clowns," it's still problematic. It'd be like laughing at blackface and then saying, "No, I know not ALL black people are like that." Nobody is a clown without trying to be, at least not at all moments. If the message is all beings have worth, it might help to show that he has more than one dimension. edit: Hbomberguy posted:"Jar Jar is offensive because he reminds me that the retarded still exist and that makes me uncomfortable." But the problem is that mentally retarded people aren't defined solely by that one trait. What makes JarJar uncomfortable is that he isn't anything but a buffoon. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:And you could tell that if his performance had been more natural. Sure. Actually, the readings of the prequels in this thread have made me like the story a lot more than I used to. Now I just think that that story was presented poorly. If what the folks doing close readings pick up on is indeed intentional, then the fact that almost everybody missed it says that they could have done more to cue the audience in. Not that they should have been heavy-handed, but there is a middle ground, and talking over everyone's head isn't useful to getting a message across. Sure, a lot of people don't want to be bothered to think, but its not as big a percentage of people as didn't like the prequels, I don't believe. If pre-conceived expectations were the problem, then more could have been done to adjust those expectations. Ultimately, if the point of art is to express an idea or emotion, then if very few receive that idea or emotion, or even realize that they need to be more thoughtful to do so, then that piece has failed on some level. If the intent was for most people to miss it, then I suppose it succeeds, but is rendered pointless by preaching only to the choir, so to speak.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I'm still only about half a season into the Clone Wars series, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm positive a lot of the interpretations in this thread are intentional. Yeah, I buy it as well, and I'm at about the same place in TCW as you, it sounds like. I just used "If" because I don't like to speak in absolute terms on topics that are so subjective. If someone looked at all the same evidence and still disagreed, I'd understand why. edit: Just watched "Defenders of Peace" and "Trespass" for reference. I really like that while the Lurmen ultimately decided to defend themselves, it was careful to point out that non-violence to the point of allowing oneself to be eradicated isn't cowardly or wrong, just a different path. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Vermain posted:Well, the key thing is: does it matter if they're intentional or not? Your interpretation cannot be made with the hope of getting it "right," because there is no "right answer" for the interpretation of a piece of art. Even if we presume that George Lucas was a bumbling fool who managed to chaotically throw this whole thing together, does this diminish what it has to say with regards to our own modern society? Maybe. It doesn't for an individual reader, because, like you said, there's no "right answer" for art interpretation, and one's interpretation really says as much edit: Bongo Bill posted:Sometimes when a viewer is not persuaded of a film's thesis, it's because the film is not persuasive. This is one of those weird things about the subjectivity of rhetoric. I agree with this as well. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Mar 23, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:So what would be some ways to make the presentation better, while still keeping the themes and ideas discussed in this thread intact? Let's discuss that. Because usually the ideas we get for fixing the films are things like "remove Jar-Jar" or "make Anakin and the Jedi more likeable". Well, start with this: penismightier posted:Another thing is just because a film wants to be subversive doesn't mean it also has to be slow, joyless, balls-ugly, gracelessly designed/shot/edited, or otherwise a piece of hot garbage in rawly cinematic terms. With the understanding that "politics are boring" isn't the problem. Second, if Qui-Gon is supposed to be the Jedi Heretic who is really right, maybe show in what ways he disagrees with the establishment besides "Train this boy." Again, doesn't have to be a hammer, but perhaps a metaphor here or there as he's trying to make Obi-Wan understand. Something that, with it in mind, colors later scenes with the Jedi. I haven't seen the movies in a while, so I'll try to watch them again soon and come up with some ideas, or maybe the films already do these things and I'll see them now. I'm not a film student or critic, so I don't know that I'll have any particularly good suggestions, but there are films that manage it, so its not impossible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I personally don't see Qui-Gon as the right, good guy. There are no good guys in the prequels. Yeah, I mean in the sense that his criticisms of the Order are valid. I didn't say he was the 'good guy', but he can still be right about what's wrong with the Jedi in particular. That they're no longer (if they once were) the thing that Obi-Wan tells Luke they are. Maybe that's the problem. In order to see that Yoda is wrong we need to see that Luke's disobedience has merit. We might need to have someone who's at least more right than the order to compare to, which, if the scene between Yoda and Qui-Gon's force ghost that was mentioned earlier is true, Qui-Gon fits, at least after his death. Neo Rasa, Dooku's characterization is the one thing from the prequels that did tip me off that maybe there was more going on in my first viewing. Especially when its mentioned that he's Qui-Gon's master. But without much visible, complimentary, supporting evidence it was ultimately dismissible. I wonder if I would have felt the same if I saw it as an adult.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Okay, so the part I'm not getting about your argument, SMG, is what it has to do with liberal democracy, or liberalism in general. I've tried to read back but if its been explained, I couldn't find it. If you know what page it was on, I'm happy to look back. But in general, my understanding of liberalism or liberal democracy is that its supposed to be democratic, but with protections of individual rights against 'tyranny of the majority'. How does the concept of individual human rights lead to Anakin's difficulties? To me, it seems more like his problems come about as a result of a lack of compassion shown to the woes of marginalized people. People out on the rim, slaves, sandpeople 'lepers', clones, what-have-you. Is the critique of supposed liberals not living up to liberalism, which would care about the conditions of those peoples, as individuals with rights? Or is there something I'm missing indicating that liberalism itself is harmful to such peoples? Or some other point entirely?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Okay, so the critique then is really with the practice and practitioners of liberal democracy, not with the idea itself. Much like the typical U.S. political critique of communism is really with the historical practice of communism which is really the outcome of aborted and co-opted communist revolutions rather than actual communist policy. One of my problems with the prequels originally was that I thought the prequel's treatment of the Jedi wasn't in line with Obi-Wan's description of them in Episode IV. I felt that they were far too institutionalized and monolithic, and that they'd been depicted wrong. I now like the idea that this is the entire point of the prequels. The Jedi fail because they thought they were these great noble knight errant mystics but, while their intentions were good, they were blinded by the fact that they'd become (or always were) a monolithic institution in service to a government that probably also started off with good intentions but has become blind to the 'unpleasantness' of exploitation and corruption that takes place conveniently out-of-sight of the beneficiaries of the systematic violence. Is that about right? I'm trying to parse a discussion that has taken place using references and jargon that I'm interested in but not familiar with, having only taken an introductory sociology course. So apologies if I'm being redundant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
To be fair, they're trying to be good, they're just imperfect creatures like everyone else who codified their beliefs to make them easier to understand and teach and in doing so lost some of the meaning of those beliefs. They're the cops with good intentions who don't realize that the War on Drugs is more harmful than helpful. They're still just as deserving of compassion as anyone else. It's a tragedy, then, and joyless or not, it should go without saying tragedy can be done well. edit: double-beaten
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Speaking of Tartakovsky's Clone Wars, what do they have to say about all this? I haven't seen them. Watching TCW on Netflix lately. edit: That is to say, are they consistent with the predominant theory here? More so than TCW, less so? More blatant?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:No, the issue really is with the ideology (root word: idea) itself. You can't look at the Republic and say they're not liberal enough, like 'if only Barack Obama were the queen!' Why not? If liberalism means protecting individual edit: Or is the issue the platform of parliamentary government included in liberalism? Or that a guarantee of individual rights might interfere with pure democracy? quote:We can, however, say that they're not democratic enough. Obiwan claims to stand for democracy - "all opinions are equally valid" - to the point that he would die for it. But this refusal to have a point of view, his insistence on total neutrality, is an extremely ideological position. Obiwan does absolutely nothing to help the homeless, on Tatooine and elsewhere, because to do so would violate his neutrality! So, he ends up just enforcing for whichever group is currently in power. I agree with this statement in general if the eventual steady-state ideal is that everyone is counted among the proletariat. However, I'd still think some degree of liberalism would be required, or what's to prevent Dac majority Mon Calamari from deciding they don't like minority Quarrens and oppressing the latter? Or galactic majority/plurality humans voting themselves special privledge? I've seen it said that those sorts of divisions come about because of competition, so in a communist society, without that sort of competition, people wouldn't have a reason to oppress, but I think that's an oversimplification. It assumes sentient beings are always rational actors, which I don't buy. Irrational fear can be just as problematic as the rational fear of competition. I agree universal Christ/Buddha-like compassion would be great and is even potentially possible, but I don't think its going to spontaneously occur immediately if you succeed in removing all the rational reasons for hatred and fear. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:"Jacques Ranciere proposed a very elegant and precise solution of the antinomy between Human Rights (belonging to "man as such") and the politicization of citizens: while Human Rights cannot be posited as an unhistorical "essentialist" Beyond with regard to the contingent sphere of political struggles, as universal "natural rights of man" exempted from history, they also should not be dismissed as a reified fetish which is a product of concrete historical processes of the politicization of citizens. The gap between the universality of Human Rights and the political rights of citizens is thus not a gap between the universality of man and a specific political sphere; it, rather, "separates the whole of the community from itself," as Ranciere put it in a precise Hegelian way. Far from being pre-political, "universal Human Rights" designate the precise space of politicization proper: what they amount to is the right to universality as such, the right of a political agent to assert its radical non-coincidence with itself (in its particular identity), i.e., to posit itself - precisely insofar as it is the "surnumerary" one, the "part with no part," the one without a proper place in the social edifice - as an agent of universality of the Social as such. The paradox is thus a very precise one, and symmetrical to the paradox of universal human rights as the rights of those reduced to inhumanity: at the very moment when we try to conceive political rights of citizens without the reference to universal "meta-political" Human Rights, we lose politics itself, i.e., we reduce politics to a "post-political" play of negotiation of particular interests." I had to read the surrounding paragraphs to really get that, but I think I see the point. Bearing that I'm not versed in the overloaded meanings of otherwise commonplace words in their political context, in the way that a creationist doesn't understand the meaning of the word theory in a scientific context, I think I've got a handle on the idea. You're saying that in the case where human rights matter most, when all other political power has been stripped, a person has no ability to exercise or enforce their own human rights, which prompts humanitarian interference from without to 'uphold those human rights' but the people who are being interfered with, whether to their benefit or not, have no say in how, why, or if their human rights are enforced. So the problem then is that we're treating them as merely human. They have rights, but not a voice. Not a say in their own rights. So we can be as liberal as we like and stand up for others human rights, but we won't be being democratic. We won't be giving the voiceless their own voice, just their 'rights'. I can understand why that's problematic and I've thought about it before in relation to Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine. I can also see why universal citizenship in a true democracy would alleviate that better than 'human rights'. The bone that I might still pick is that the difference between not being democratic enough and not being liberal enough, especially since human rights are meta-political but not unhistorical and essentialist, is to simply enumerate a democratic voice as one of those 'human rights'. Then the difference becomes academic and theoretical. Not indistinct or unimportant, but practically moot. As mentioned, not being versed in theoretical political jargon, I am talking halfway out of my rear end, but only halfway. edit: Added some personal context. edit2: This is also why the "right of peoples to self-determination" has come up in the Crimea discussion, because some recognize that humanitarian interference serves a Western agenda. Of course, talking about the right to self-determination in the context of Crimea ALSO serves a Western agenda, but some liberals are sincere about it and some are self-serving. So the distinction between the problem being the ideology and the practice may still be muddy. But motive is a poor discriminator due to plausible deniability, so I get why a problem with one is a problem with the other. However, that doesn't mean tyranny of the majority isn't still potentially problematic for democracy in general, just that the liberal 'solution' to it isn't unproblematic in itself. Anyway, this is now pretty off-topic, but thanks for the edification. I should have PMs if you feel like telling me how I'm wrong, which I welcome. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm neither. That scene is perfect at illustrating Padme's stupidity. Anakin's like "I killed a bunch of homeless people!" and her response is "well, you're human." Not even "only human"; Padme considers humanity a baseline good thing, and genocide a natural (if unfortunate) consequence. Of course, implicitly, the homeless sandpeople are not human at all. I approve of the idea that the Jedi fail because they are trying so hard to be super-humanly good that they fail to be even humanly good. Anakin's confusion is understandable and expressed by Ahsoka in TCW when she complains that the Jedi want her to feel compassion for all life, but prohibit her from feeling compassion for specific individual lives. Aayla Secura's response is the meaningless and patronizing, "You'll understand when you're older," the classic response of people who believe something without having a clue as to why. Its worse for Anakin, who does have compassion for others, but primarily because of his understanding of love for individuals. The Jedi tell him, "Love is bad, but love everyone," and the Sith tell him "Love is important, so kill everyone."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
Chex Warrior posted:Wow, I just got caught up on this thread. SMG, I am not persuaded by your argument re: racial stereotypes in the prequels. There is nothing particularly subversive or edgy about conniving, cowardly Chinese villains, or a comical minstrel show buffoon. Regurgitating Star Wars canon to justify their existence only proves that Star Wars is internally consistent. I agree. I think that's probably the weakest part of SMG's argument, or the least grokkable, in any case. Because the film doesn't effectively portray three-dimensional characters that the Republic treats as racial stereotypes, it depicts them as objectively one-dimensional. Maybe JarJar ought to also be bold and loyal and compassionate, but its too thin on the ground next to the minstrel show. The fact that he's not like other Gungans doesn't matter, because NO black people are blackface caricatures, not "only some". Its subversive if the camera is showing the Republic's POV, I suppose. The Republic is racist, so they see these aliens as racist stereotypes, rather than what they actually are. But I don't see any reason why the audience should think that the camera isn't an objective observer, other than that they need to in order for those elements to fit that vision of the film. Edit: Actually, no, gently caress, it fits with SMG's statement that JarJar is the protagonist. If it's through his eyes that we're seeing it makes sense because of double-consciousness. I think its the difference between reading the film and a critical analysis. They aren't the same thing. Critically, it fails to persuade the audience of its thesis. Maybe that's because its talking over people's heads, but that's just as bad a reason as any to fail, especially if your message is one of 'power to the people'. Maybe that's because of audience expectations, but knowing your audience and setting expectations is an important part of presenting an argument. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Chex Warrior posted:I'd argue that even this is giving it too much credit. Fans always rush to build justifications for off-putting, regressive elements of their franchise of choice, and "It's actually subversive!" is an old chestnut. You know what would be really subversive? Having actual, well-developed minority characters that aren't filtered through Conservative-Grandpa-Vision. Yeah, I agree still that it fails in conveying the message to the audience at large, but if the camera is the Republic, or even JarJar's POV, thanks to double-consciousness, the theory is still internally consistent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Just spent a while on Star Wars 7 News DOTCOM. Luke may have a black son, so everyone assumes he's adopted, or is whining about "PC bullshit!" Edit: nvm, I don't need to specifically bait racism. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Mar 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Yeah, rumors. Could be whatever.Star Wars Episode 7 News posted:And speaking about ethnicities here's a very interesting rumor I've just heard. However, according to many of the commentators there, interracial relationships aren't wrong, but it would be wrong for Luke, because the main character needs to be a normal, relate-able person. No racism, though.  edit: Also, the Christ-like love SMG and others were talking about here doesn't apply to aliens because: Anonymous posted:Um, JC didn't come to die for aliens or animals or angels. Wouldn't you consider angels as alien like? JC came to die for humans. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Mar 27, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Size matters not, he said. He didn't say Piece of cake, it will be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Okay, utter fanboy post. With the current rumors of Lupita Nyong'o and John Boyega or Mike Merchant as Luke's adopted son. This was initially in response to posts on starwars7news.com claiming an adopted black son would ruin the Skywalker generational legacy tale and that Luke needed a white bio son:I posted:Think about kids who were adopted or parents of adopted kids, like, for instance, George Lucas. They might think that the entire point is to show that being adopted DOESN'T make the kid any less a Skywalker, and might really appreciate that message.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if a few things become canon-ized as with Coruscant, Quinlan Vos, etc., or modified to fit, but there's also the Lucasfilm Story Group that will be deciding what's out and what's in, abolishing the previous canon levels system, and so forth.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Sure, but she looks fine here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2570180/Carrie-Fisher-looks-noticeably-slimmer-dines-mystery-man-Beverly-Hills.html
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Darko posted:There's a kind of mixed thing going on in the prequels, and the point isn't so cut and dry. This seems to be the difference between living as a being while practicing a philosophy- which is hard and requires vigilance and dedication and practice and critical thinking and having to fix your inevitable failures- and living dogmatically according to a rigid code so that you can follow a philosophy without having to make tough calls. Making one's philosophy or religion black and white instead of functioning within a real world with shades is much easier. Brainwash the kids so they always know the'right' Jedi answer without having to contemplate. But living that way is problematic because the universe doesn't respond that way. Living the hard way results in some failure, but it also hones the practitioners ability to think and perceive and act. I'm guessing some Head of the Council some time ago decided that having a dogma rather than guidelines would help the order. Maybe back when Yoda was young, so he still has enough of a seed of doubt in dogma to realize something isn't quite right, but not enough to nail it down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
qxx posted:Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight was the best Star Wars game ever made. Truth. Needed some mods for decent multiplayer saber duels to avoid endless z-swinging though. Or maybe that was Mysteries of the Sith? Single player levels were very well designed. Crashing ship level was mega-fun, too.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
The more Clone Wars I watch, the more I am convinced by the theory of PT/Clone Wars as promoting Marxist ideology. The Mandalorian arc fits in nicely. The Republic insisting on sending an occupational force to safeguard the rights of the people in a sovereign nation, when doing will play into the hands of the insurgency in that nation, flying in the face of the self-determination of those people, is exactly the sort of thing discussed in the article posted earlier, "The Obscenity of Human Rights". (here, if you're interested: http://www.lacan.com/zizviol.htm) And its really well done. Its also pretty definitively not for kiddos. I mean there were lots of shooting deaths before in battle scenes, but that's only a short step away from other military-themed cartoons. On the other hand, suicide terrorists is pretty heavy material. edit: Simultaneously, it makes those promoting that theory seem less super-insightful (no offense intended). Half of the things that have been stated as suggested by the PT aren't suggested in the Clone Wars, they're explicitly spelled out. Obi-Wan: Rushing in like this, it's foolhardy. Satine: Ironic words from a man who spends his days running hither-and-yon, wielding his lightsaber with deadly force as if on a Crusade. Also, the whole rest of the conversation about being "hysterical," which even casts Obi-Wan as (perhaps blindly) misogynist. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 23:11 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
The press release regarding the EU says the new, canon novels start with the Rebels prequel. Then there's Tarkin, Lord of the Sith, and Heir to the Jedi. But Heir to the Jedi is the third part of Empire and Rebellion. So anyone know if the other two in that series will be Legends or not? If not, maybe I'll go pick em up. The Han Solo one just came out. I don't think they're dependent upon legacy EU, but neither were they developed with the LF Story Group.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Reinanigans posted:So what are your opinions on the various Star Wars games? I've played KotoR 1 like...four times, but always heard part 2 wasn't as good, so I stayed away. I really like Dark Forces and Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight. Mysteries of the Sith (expansion for Jedi Knight) is okay. Jedi Outcast wasn't very good, but I do like Jedi Academy, which if I remember right is an expansion for Outcast. These are all FPS, transitioning toward Force Unleashed third-person lightsaber style, which was originally going to be Jedi Knight III. edit: Looks like they're on Steam.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah, to elaborate, Outcast was clunky and while they added a lot to lightsaber combat, they tried to show it off by throwing a bunch of nameless robed Sith cultists with lightsabers at you, which ultimately just made the duels feel dull and repetitive, instead of the unique centerpieces they were in Jedi Knight, even if a few of those were also clunky. I liked Academy because it felt like you could handle the missions in whatever fashion you chose to specialize, which wasn't exactly ahead of its time anymore, but it was fun. Multiple methods of solving missions. I could be misremembering as well. Its been quite a while.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:One Dark Force level has you punching out a Krayt Dragon or something insane. The Dark Trooper levels at the end were really difficult too because for the whole game you just mow down storm troopers and then suddenly you face an enemy that is a thousand times more powerful, flies, and has all of the guns. It's a strange ramp up in difficulty. If you play on whatever the hard difficulty then it's not so extreme a jump. The hardest fights then are the prototypes and that krayt dragon. Especially the prototype you have to fight in tunnels. The final Dark Troopers are actually not so bad if you've got a decent arena since their shots are dodgeable. Edit: And Boba Fett is killer on hard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Jerk McJerkface posted:It came out in 95, and I think it was one of the few games we got as soon as it came out. That'd make me 11. I thought I'd have been better at games then, but maybe I was just terrible at it. Yeah, same here. I played again as an adult. I think the difference is the revelation of using mouselook so you can strafe and aim at the same time, which makes DOOM easier, too, but wasn't the default control method back then. I didn't learn WASD/mouse style until Quake II and Jedi Knight.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Boyega as Luke's adopted son also carries a nice message about adoption being just as real a legacy. He's just as much a Skywalker as Leia's kids or any possible bio-kid of Luke's. Nice nod to Lucas in there while fitting the narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
The Goon posted:I think the critics are kind of overlooking one thing though - yes, there's only one new female so far, but she has what's been rumored as the main protagonist role and is apparently the only actual direct relative of the Skywalkers/Solo's/Darth Vader. I feel like a few more female characters would be great, and probably advisable. I'd like my little sisters (8 & 6, I'm 29) to have more than one option of a cool female character to identify with if they so choose, but neither do I think it spells doom for the movie, just a little disappointing compared to what could be. I certainly agree that the casting is otherwise well done and if Daisy does indeed have as vital a role as you're suggesting and isn't a Damsel in Distress then great. Leia showed us a capable, no-nonsense princess type and that's great, but we can mix it up some this time and not fall into all the tropes against women. Hoping she's a boss start to finish. As you said, this could also easily be improved with more minor characters, and with possible Leia interactions, I doubt it would be too hard to pass a Bechtel test. (Yes, I know its a better indicator of the industry as a whole rather than any particular film)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
sassassin posted:What makes her a 'silly damsel' apart from the fact that she's a girl and doesn't 'kick rear end'? Yeah, I don't think there's anything wrong with Padme or Leia's characterizations. My concern is that we portray more than one thing that women can do in a given story. TCW does a great job of this. Women are students and masters and planetary leaders and assassins and bounty hunters and politicians and are the main characters of many stories, not all of which are about catching a man.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:OK! I disagree with your parsing of PART 2, though I agree with your interpretation of PART 1. It seems to me that the IF and THEN statements were confused. I read: IF the film is ONLY pleasurable by thinking about it (ie. It has no other pleasurable components, such as witty dialogue or some-such) AND The filmmaker failed to communicate the MESSAGE THEN The message did not lead to pleasurable thinking AND THUS No pleasure can be derived from thinking That is to say, there are many ways to enjoy a film, and that thinking about them is one such way. However, the film fails to be enjoyable in other ways, leaving only thinking as an explorable route. The claim is not that other methods are illegitimate. However, the claim is that the movie cannot be thought about (thus inducing pleasure) if the MESSAGE is not conveyed, which, the claim continues, wasn't. reignofevil is claiming that the film did not provide a MESSAGE to think about and thus no pleasurable thinking can be done. Clearly, at least some people do a lot of thinking about this film, so it must have conveyed a MESSAGE to think about to many of them. I believe the claim then is that the film did not convey, to a large enough number of people, that there was anything to think about and so those people can't enjoy the movie by thinking about it. Now this is probably due to audience expectations. The audience did not expect that there should be anything for them to think deeply about, and so they did not, and therefore did not enjoy the film. I propose that it is a reasonable assertion that the movie, or perhaps its marketing, did not do enough to correct audience expectations, in order to indicate to the audience that it must think. Perhaps it would be better if the audience did not need encouragement or prompting in order to think, but this may be an poor expectation in itself, and impractical. edit: It is correct to say that MESSAGE was never properly explained. I am assuming that it means "stuff to think about" or perhaps "stuff the author wants you to think about". edit2: I'm discussing what I think reignofevil is trying to convey in the paragraph that follows the parsing statements, not my own thoughts, until the paragraph starting with the word I. Lunatic Pathos fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
A third option is that Obi-Was WAS attempting to keep himself and Luke hidden from Darth Vader AND that hiding on Tatooine is not actually stupid but only seems that way to us. We're assuming Obi-Wan must be either stupid or have ulterior motives in order to hide on Tatooine. However, Darth Vader does not indeed find Luke or Obi-Wan on Tatooine, nor is there any indication he knows that a person named Luke Skywalker was hiding there. Therefore, in retrospect at least, Tatooine was indeed a good hiding place. That seems like a plot hole or silly to us, but there are several reasons why this may not be the case. 1) Obi-Wan knows Anakin well enough to know he doesn't want to go there if there's no reason to. 2) Vader is under the impression Padme and any possible children are dead, and doesn't have a reason to go looking for people named Skywalker. 3) Tatooine appears to be a lawless, or at least unruly frontier, which likely isn't taking a census with which to flag the name Skywalker into any Imperial database, so it doesn't matter if there's a kid named Skywalker unless you go to Tosche Station, Tatooine, or that kid leaves Tatooine. 4) Owen Lars wasn't keen on letting that kid leave Tatooine. 5) Obi-Wan may trust the Force and Destiny enough to expect Luke to come receive training as a Jedi before leaving Tatooine. So Vader finding out about Luke is unlikely. So why didn't Vader look for Obi-Wan there if he was running around killing Jedis? 6) Perhaps Vader fears Obi-Wan and is content to let sleeping dogs lie. He did cut off his legs after all. 7) It has been suggested (not sure where) that Yoda can hide on Dagobah because the Dark Side Cave's proximity cancels out his Light Side presence so that he can't be sniffed out through the Force. 8) This implies that Jedi are hunted, perhaps primarily, through Vader trying to sense them in the Force. 9) Anakin slaughtered a village of sand people in the wastes of Tatooine, taking a few steps down a dark path. 10) Obi-Wan lives in the Jundland Wastes, and thus may be hidden in the Force. 11) If Vader is relying on the Force to hunt Jedi, he may assume Obi-Wan is dead or fled, when he cannot thusly locate him. Its a little convoluted, but I don't think its entirely ridiculous.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
I agree that by MESSAGE he may mean authorial intent, and I agree that that's unfathomable and actually unimportant. I wasn't saying witty dialogue transcends thought. I was saying that reignofevil is claiming that there is no other way to enjoy the PT than the MESSAGE, not because that's the only way to enjoy movies generally, but because he didn't see any other enjoyable things in the PT in particular, leaving only a possible MESSAGE to take pleasure in, that was not delivered. The MESSAGE may not be important if you succeed in being enjoyable in other ways. Witty dialogue is just one example of some other way. He didn't mention it specifically, true, but he did say "if ONLY a film can be pleasurable by thinking about it." I'm parsing this in the specific: [If a specific film can only be pleasurable by thinking about it,] "only" meaning that it has failed to be pleasurable in other ways. I posit witty dialogue as one aspect that might be one of those other ways, as an illustrative example. A general reading of the sentence DOES back up your reading, its true. [If films in general can only be pleasurable by thinking about them,] with "only" now meaning that no other methods exist. The use of "a film" in the actual quote is ambiguous in regards to "a specific film" or "a film, generally."
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
SMG, correct me if I'm wrong, but you've stated repeatedly that speaking is communicating, but that doesn't mean that there is only one message that may be communicated through a given act of speech. Communication involves translation of speech into meaning. Therefore, reignofevil's speech may mean many things, one of which was intended. We don't know what he intended, and we each come to our own conclusion, both of which are supported by the specific speech that was used, due to the ambiguity of the meaning of language. TO be germane to the topic, rather than the semantics of deconstructing reignofevil's post, communication is hammered home by teachers in that field, in my experience, as being a sort of feedback loop. That is, speech is important, but the meaning received may not be the meaning intended. Communications instructors, again in my experience, emphasize that knowing one's audience and setting expectations so that miscommunication does not occur is important, and is a good measure of a speaker. So a speaker is not judged on the meaning the speaker intends to convey, the speaker is judged on the meaning that is received. Nothing else can happen. To speak is to communicate. One must take care in doing so. By that very standard, admittedly one of communication rather than art, the films may be poor in that they fail to communicate, for a plurality of moviegoers, any meaning. If they did not think to find meaning, its because the expectation to think was not managed, or the speaker did not anticipate his audience in order to properly convey meaning or that thinking about meaning was important. Again, this is judging a film by the standards of communication, rather than art, and may not be entirely appropriate. Nevertheless, I felt it was at least somewhat thought-provoking, in light of your own admonition that speaking is communicating. Back to reignofevil, the meaning conveyed by communication, whether authorial intent or not, including the setting of expectations required to encourage necessary thought toward discovering meaning, remains a more forgiving interpretation of the MESSAGE.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
True. One can only define success if one defines goals. If the goal is to get as many people as possible to think about a given issue, or any issue at all, then they've failed. If the goal is to put something out there and let people take it or leave it as they may, think or not think, success. If the goal is that Lucas just likes to make films that he personally likes, then also success. But since there's no universal win condition, there's no universal bad or good film, which I personally am just fine with, but a lot of folks seem to feel that its very important that other people agree that the films are good/bad. For my part, I just like discussing and debating them, in the direction that my thoughts go at the moment. So I guess I like the movies as a thought experiment, but so far I haven't enjoyed the actual act of watching them, thought or no thought. I probably will again, soon, though.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:08 |
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Rumor has John Boyega portraying Luke's adoptive son. I don't know the origin of this rumor, and it may be wishful thinking. echronorian posted:I think it'd be interesting to see a daughter pick up the namesake. It opens the door for some new twists on the general theme of star wars. I think I'd like a combination of these two. Maybe Luke's adoptive son and Organa-Solo daughter as buddies and Jedi partners or something. You've got the direct Skywalker bio descendant and the themes of what legacy means. I was also thinking about the trilogy of trilogies as perhaps reflecting evolving sentiment. OT as young bright-eyed optimistic idealism. Good vs. Evil, classic Hero Journey thing. For the Jedi (Luke), emotional reactions are good and have good effects. PT as encroaching cynicism in the face of corruption, dogmatism, and the general inability of sentient beings to get their poo poo together and fix society, while opening the eyes a bit to real problems with shades of grey and difficulty determining the difference between positive motives with negative effects. For the Jedi (Old Order), emotions are a thing to pretend you got rid of, which again, has a negative effect. ST, then, with an older Luke who's idealism ultimately paid off, as some form of balance. Becoming more at peace with the world and the fact that it has good and evil, suffering and joy. You can try to do good where you can but you understand that you can't fix everything by yourself and you can reconcile that. There's maybe no utopia but everything isn't Hell all the time either. For the Jedi (children?), balance is again necessary. You can't shut off your emotions like a faucet, positive or negative, but you have to master yourself anyway, not be a slave to your dark side. Each trilogy then re-casts the mood of that which went before. The PT provides evidence to suspect the motives that previously seemed benevolent. Each provides new ways of thinking about the past. Anyway, pure rambling speculation and what-ifs...
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2014 02:25
|
|