|
The Cameo posted:Also for whatever reason the idea of a black man kissing a white woman or there being any sort of consensual passion between the two is alarming to executives. White man and black woman? Perfectly fine. Black man and latina? Perfectly fine. Gay couples of any sort of intermixed race? A-okay! Asian man, white woman? "Well, no one finds Asian men attractive, but we'll let it go." Black man, white woman? Now hold your horses here, bucko, we're afraid that could be offensive to some folks. Is it strange? America is structured on exploiting race relations and "civilized" society has subjected women to a state of nearly permanent subjugation. It's only natural that the idea of a black man and a white women is the most trangressive of all to America's identity.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
The significance is that Star Wars is now eating and making GBS threads itself in an endless cycle until it's no longer profitable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2018 16:49
|
|
|
Wheat Loaf posted:It is already no longer profitable. Star Wars isn't a movie, it's a brand. And to clarify, profitability for shareholders and executives is not just a single instance of failure like Solo, but takes into consideration its future earning potential. Their current process allows them to churn out films at an absurd pace using interchangeable creative pieces. This process is more valuable than anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:Breaking Bad is suddenly terrible, I see. It's well executed trash and exploitative television, but it's still trashy and exploitative.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:-Cop Car: An Ewok Adventure Chappie: Rogue One?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Temporarily. They released them into a tiny area of an otherwise-featureless desert planet. The space mules would certainly be recaptured within a few days. Or starve. Of course, The "Great Space Horse Liberation" was a pretense in facilitating their own escape, applied after-the-fact when they were no longer useful to The Resistance.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Space horses are non-sentient. - Wookiepedia
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
How am I supposed to feel sympathy for a non-sentient creature without big rear end eyes looking directly at me?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
nemesis_hub posted:Edit: like Finn leading turncoat stormtroopers while wielding a lightsaber etc, is already a much cooler idea and image than Maz, Rathtars, broom kid etc I doubt The Resistance would like a bunch of uppity revolting former slaves on their side.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2019 08:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Without getting into the argument of whether they were “dumb animals” or whether that matters or whether we should have solidarity with all living things or whether the movie is challenging a western audiences conceptions about the status of “animals”- without getting into that- the movie makes it clear that rose identifies explicitly with the “horses” (I forget their dumb alien name) and to her at least they were worthy of emancipation and their emancipation Mirrors her own liberation from the oppression of the first order . So it works on that level for sure Let's not put the cart before the horse here: Rose and Finn loosened the animals from their chains out of necessity to escape their own self-inflicted predicament. It was only in retrospect that this narrative of universal emancipation was smugly celebrated by our duo.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
2house2fly posted:It always bugged me that all the characters have one syllable names. Rey, Finn, Poe, Rose, Snoke, even Kylo Ren's real name is Ben. It feels like a marketing directive to make the names all punchy and memorable or something Possibly to make names easier to say across different languages?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Glottis posted:The parsecs thing is so dumb. Just accept that the line is a tiny, tiny error that doesn't even really matter rather than insane mental gymnastics to make it make sense. There are much more glaring errors that would benefit from explanation. What's interesting is the necessary production of those mental gymnastics that reveals how a portion of people approach these films. They don't have qualms about an under-handed Han Solo who lies, he just can't be a foolish liar.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2020 07:26
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:the basic issue is that enemy combatants always gets treated weirdly in movies that aren't extremely serious, and star wars takes the easy out by making the enemy combatants 'inhuman'. his big initial premise is 'the protagonists are treated like people and the minor antagonists are not' - no poo poo! that also applies to characters who aren't droids, like the stormtroopers in the ot. I would not call it a quirk, but a motif that is properly seen with the full context of the other films. In a sense, the prequel trilogy took the easy way out when Episode 1 introduced droids as the 'enemy fodder', which allowed for the most devastating of the super sweet Jedi light saber moves to be fully displayed in a children's film. But then Episode 2 brings genetically modified human soldiers into the mix as commodities, born & bred to be bought & sold by the ostensible 'Good guys' of the films. And of course, Episode 3 shows how this decision ultimately dooms the Jedi Order & the Republic itself. But the original trilogy not only had, as you said, humans as the 'enemy fodder', but also, in the very first film, introduced droids as the personable & relatable protagonists (Despite one of them speaking in literal "Beeps" and "Boops") being bought as commodities by the ostensible 'Good guys' of the film. It's against this backdrop that the prequel trilogy operates, and the way Star Wars treats the filmic concept of 'enemy fodder' becomes commentary on the ideological depiction of war itself. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Nov 7, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
I'm no Oscar Isaac expert, but he was pretty drat good with his meaty roles in Drive & Sucker Punch.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
nemesis_hub posted:.. Jyn was definitely still an extremist child soldier in the theatrical cut (Saw called her one of his best soldiers), but as you've noted the reasoning given by Saw is spurious - that he abandoned her because people were beginning to suspect her real identity. Jewmanji posted:Rey is not good either, and certainly over the course of the trilogy it just gets worse and worse, but Daisy Ridley has a level of innate charm that helps each individual scene work, even if in context in makes no sense. Now that we've established that a 'good protagonist' can be measured directly by their charm levels, we should also ask: why is it bad that an abandoned former child soldier orphan isn't personable, and why is it a good thing that an abandoned orphan on the harsh world of Tatooine is so affable?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Not sure what your point is. The actor who played Jyn Erso is super boring to watch. The character also seems to have been ruined in editing. It makes it very dramatically inert. Anakin, on other hand, was cast very well and Hayden did an excellent job. My point is that people also derided Hayden's Anakin for being uncharismatic and boring, and deemed such an absolute failure that the performance couldn't possibly be artistic choices made by the director/actor in the context of the story. Once this is pointed out, then it moves on to, Oh so you're saying they made it bad on purpose?. And of course not. Jyn is played cold and detached through most of the film to contrast with her depicted childhood and, as she encounters the traumatic events throughout the film, intense displays of emotional vulnerability. This all builds up to her impassioned plea to the Rebel Alliance, which people chided for 'coming out of nowhere'.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 21:13
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:I thought it less the characters and more that there were too many of them. They went from getting scraps of screentime since their introductions to nothing once the space battle started and you had to pay attention to another equal sized group. Each member of the titular Rogue One squadron explains their predicament: Jyn wants to avenge the ideals of her parents, Cassian wants to make all of the sacrifices people like him have made worth it, the ex-pilot of the Empire wants to make things right, K-2SO wants to prove himself worthy of belief, and the monks want to reach a spiritual conclusion. And in the third act, they all make the ultimate sacrifice to propel their comrades further. Here you've extricated yourself from the process entirely of whether or not you should care about the characters, as they must further prove themselves likeable enough after death to be worth investing in and rooting for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
What's the alternative? Star Wars fans got what they've been frothing at the mouth towards Lucas for right? Desperate times call for desperate measures.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2021 03:17
|
|
|
The biggest clue that that 'leak' is fake is the idea that anyone cares at all what our boy Pablo thinks the direction the films should go. Also this is just gibberish: quote:Each sequel trilogy director prioritized their scripts differently. Johnson was intoxicated with the themes. Trevorrow had been infatuated with the spectacle. And Abrams favored the concepts. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Apr 12, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
If Lucas remotely cared about how the prequels would be received, it's pretty obvious how he would have gone about it - start with a teenage savant Anakin wrecking the alien 'Other' with his preternatural gifts, go into the dark-side via obfuscated magical means, then hunt down Jedis all badass style like bog-standard revenge film protagonists. Instead Lucas chose to have Anakin murder unarmed leaders of the Trade federation, literal children, and battle to the death his best friend/father figure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2021 00:27
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:In this frame, your interpretation (which again, I'm pretty much all aboard on) isn't talking about the narrative form of the movies; it's talking about their historical form, which I'll concede is their Actual form in the sense that it is the form they take in the Actual World, the world of historical time. But I think that if you want to take them narratively, at the level of narrative/discursive time, you need to take them in the ahistorical order in which they present themselves. The "actual form" of escalation that you describe is then a "narrative form" of waves cresting and crashing, which doesn't necessarily contradict your cyclical interpretation. Although the numerical order is presented to us, it's still only part of the overall presentation, so we're nevertheless responsible for interpreting that in the totality. It's certainly valid to take the path of "the ahistorical [numerical] order in which they present themselves", but in order to say that it's the most truthful narrative frame, one would have to take the next step and make the reading that explains why it's so essential (As opposed to a straightforward delineation of plot). KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Apr 24, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I'd say it's a preference for clear terminology. The explicit ordering of the movies isn't something I'd call arbitrary. You can see a clear thematic progression of decline, collapse, and redemption across the films in numerical order. An analysis that places the narrative order from OT to PT doesn't necessarily disregard the numerical ordering; it could simply note that it delineates plot progression. Take, for example, the video-game franchise Resident Evil's historical release order that begins 1, 2, 3, 0, 4: it's clear that the presentation of that numerical order indicates plot mapping, since the actual narrative is presented through the evolving art style/graphics & game mechanics that coincides with the historical release order. That's not to say that there is no coherent analysis of the SW films in numerical order, but that the value of doing so should reflect in the reading. The same goes for a hypothetical reading that uses an ordering that doesn't coincide with either the numerical or historical release order of the films: that would simply mean that it places that importance below other considerations, but ultimately the validity of doing so depends on the strength of the reading. If analysis was restricted to the official numerical order then there will be other parts of the presentation that are disregarded. SMG has already noted the progression of force powers, so I'll also throw in the PT's evolving production design which presents the republic's rapid fall into fascism with the imagery of the OT as referent. With the numerical ordering, the cinematic power of the scene in Ep. 2 of the Jedi-led clone army marching along with the theme song of the empire blaring is effectively lost. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Apr 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:That the design of 1-3 evolves into the design of 4-6 works with either ordering. You don't need 4-6 as an initial referent to see that evolution. And the power of that scene is not effectively lost without 4-6 as a referent either. The Imperial March has its ominous overtones either way. The whole scene with the dialog that frames it, its red skies, and its legions of troops boarding warships has loads of cinematic power regardless of whether or not you know that music is the bad guys' theme. The question isn't whether it works or not as a narrative, it's whether it works better. Yes, the scene does still create a foreboding atmosphere, but the threat remains an abstraction - what is effectively lost is the specific link to fascism spearheaded by the Jedis and their political machinations, which takes place narratively after the OT, the film trilogy that previously established through exposition that the Jedis have been the guardians of Peace and Justice for thousands of years. So if the order were PT then OT, how would the narrative improve? I'm not sure why you think this approach shuts down discussion, as I'm perfectly open to reading the hypothetical formally correct analysis of the films that dictates a 1 though 6 watch order. You've written much about how necessary it is for a formal analysis to have the numerical order dictate the narrative framing, but you haven't written much about why it's so important. Other than this point that the episodic frame is a reference to old serials - is that it? Are you not actually invoking The Narrative as a god term when saying all formal analyses must accept this framing? KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 25, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:The question of whether it works "better" is such a subjective one. Eps 1 and 2 establish that the Jedi guard peace and order on their own without needing Obiwan's line. Leading an army to war is what they're trying to avoid and inadvertently positioning themselves to do from the beginning. Like I think it's a wash. Again, you've left out the specific depiction of the descent to fascism. You've said that a reading can interpret the episode numbers as the delineation of plot, but that this isn't enough to be a properly formal reading. There's a certain amount of intentionality here ascribed to the episode numbers and have subsequently deemed essential to the narrative form of Star Wars that I think is unsubstantiated. Let's take for instance, SMG's infamous reading that Jakku = Tatooine: do you think it's not a properly formal reading because it goes against all 'official' documentation?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2021 21:39
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:There isn't truth beyond subjectivity. You prefer the problematized ending of 6. That's cool, and a perfectly good way to read the movies, but it isn't some truth; it's your preferred political reading. We get it, you're a postmodernist. PeterWeller posted:The specific depiction of the descent into fascism happens in 1-3 in whichever order you watch the movies. You don't need eps 4-6 to see that eps 1-3 show the Republic becoming a fascist state. You're talking about that scene in the context of the overall plot, as opposed to the particular narrative ordering, which doesn't indicate some abstract omen that things are going to get bad, but an explicit message that it's already too late: fascism is already here, just not recognized. So Palpatine's official ascension to the throne in episode 3 is nothing but the farce in Marx's famous dictum of epochal historical events: "First as tragedy, then as farce." Mace Windu : In the name of the Galactic Senate of the Republic, you're under arrest, Chancellor. Supreme Chancellor : Are you threatening me, Master Jedi? Mace Windu : The senate will decide your fate. Supreme Chancellor : I AM the senate! Mace Windu : Not yet. Supreme Chancellor : It's treason, then... PeterWeller posted:I'm dismissing intentionality with regard to the narrative here. I'm saying that the discourse frames itself in a particular generic way and we should respect that framing if we're making an argument about what the discourse says. Edit: Any sense of intentionality coming from what I'm saying comes from a trick of language. In the literal sense, the text, the movies, doesn't do anything; it's just sounds and images. But if we're going to talk about the text and what it does, we're going to talk about it like it's a thing with agency and intention. In Narratology, the narrator is the thing to which we ascribe that agency and intent. This is one of the reasons why we distinguish between the physical text and the imaginative discourse of that text (which is, again, different from the story presented by that imaginative discourse). So in that sense, what the discourse of Star Wars, the imagined narrative relayed to you by an imagined narrator (which doesn't have to be a specific person or thing, but here may be R2D2 or the Whills), does is tell you that it's a serial that runs 1-6. No, I don't think that our disagreement is a trick of language, as it's that very narrator 'to which we ascribe agency and intent' is what we disagree on. For example: although you've described yourself as a non-believer in objective truth, you've nonetheless asserted full-heartedly that the 1-6 order is the true form of Star Wars, and anything that deviates from this is formally false. But I believe that the narrative truth of the numerical order is the straightforward formal dictation of plot, and I've yet to hear a compelling reason to think otherwise. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Apr 26, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You seem to be acknowledging at this point that your reading is an unconventional one. Or in other words, it does not account for the generic conventions and narrative form in which the movies explicitly present themselves. Or in other words, it's not a formal reading. To that end, isn't 123456 not a formal reading since it isn't 123456789? Why disregard the generic conventions of IP law?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2021 17:36
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Perhaps it's better phrased as an incomplete formal reading, but yes, a formal reading of the Star Wars movies (in their current, readily available form) should include eps 7-9. I apologize that if by focusing on the ordering of the first six, I gave the impression that we shouldn't also include the last three. The fabric of space/time is at stake - it's either formal or not, no incompletes.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2021 18:11
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:You're talking about the history of the movies' production and release. I am talking about how they present themselves. A formal reading needs to account for how they present themselves. What's been left unattended (In your frequent assertions that accounting for the historical removes us too far from the formal), is your particularly unusual concept of form. To say that what is truly formal is generated from what's presented 'in the here and now', irrevocably and paradoxically posits the ultimate historicist stance: that what is the most truthful form of Star Wars is whatever comprises it at this very historical moment. So as of now: readings that comprise the numerical order of episodes 1-9 produce the only truthful formal readings. But what's to stop me from shooting a short film titled "Star Wars: Episode 10", with the requisite opening crawl, and then contend that all formal readings are henceforth rendered false until they see and take my film into consideration? (Assuming here that placing it on YouTube renders it properly available to the general audience.) EDIT: To be clear, I am not a historicist, as I believe Terminator 3 & the theatrical cut of Justice League must be eradicated from existence. But, substantially formal readings of an artwork tend to cohere with release order because the period of conception inescapably forms the artwork. So if the creatives are the slightest bit competent, the extant work will substantially shape their addition to the 'series' to the point that their specific coordinate in history is unavoidable (Like say, Rogue One's sympathetic response to the abomination of the U.S.'s decades long intervention in the Middle East). KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Apr 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2021 23:31
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Honestly, KVeezy3, what is holding you back? Skill & cowardice.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Honey don't try to make some silly argument that I'm misconstruing who you think the bad guy is because you're trying to prove that Snoke--the mysterious force wielding charlatan who warps a young man into becoming a Fascist murder knight--is somehow not a parallel to Palpatine by positing different cults that are indeed not literally in the film. Why are you writing like this?
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 13:04
|
|
|
OneSizeFitsAll posted:
I have no doubt. Here's a tip: there is no light side (It's never mentioned even off handedly in the films)
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2021 13:34
|
|
|
In that case, as they might not be as clouded by anger and video game logic that is preventing them from basic engagement with the films, try asking your child for a thematic analysis.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2021 13:45
|
|
|
I think the idea that the prequel films don't do enough 'work' to establish that Obi-Wan and Anakin are close enough doesn't properly account for the particularly dramatic situations in which all three of these films take place. Despite all of the 'bad writing', the films concisely encapsulates their relationship by having the characters explicitly state that Anakin views it as father/son, whereas Obi-Wan sees it as brother/brother.
KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 23:49 on Nov 22, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
Sure, but we don't know how principal photography presented how distantly cold they 'actually' are to each other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Hakaider has some exceptional mattes. This looks so good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
I jumped off the train after the one-two punch of Force Awakens and Last Jedi, but I've been following this thread and get the general attitude towards everything since. I seem to have missed anything about the anime series though - was it that unremarkable? I don't know anything about anime except some dragon ball and a couple Miyazakis if it matters at all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
I was watching "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema", which has Zizek using the imagery of Darth Vader's emergency surgery intercut with his childrens' birth to exemplify the Freudian idea of the primordial father that refuses to die, and he nonchalantly refers to the droids as just "the doctors", lol. Dude doesn't miss.
KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Aug 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2023 12:47
|
|
|
No offense, but books are for nerds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Skrill.exe posted:If I want to engage with truly insightful and thought-provoking art, I will simply watch Rian Johnson's masterpiece The Last Jedi (2017). Once the Jedi texts are published, a new age of literature will be upon us that is beyond low/high art. The dawn of the mid.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2023 12:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 07:20 |
|
|
galagazombie posted:The fact that Yoda and Obi-Wan approve of Luke rejecting their orders at the end of RotJ at the Ewok party doesn’t jive with them being malicious actors. Wrong sure, but not actively trying to turn Luke into some sociopathic robot for their personal revenge. To a degree they were even right. When Luke learns Vader is his father “before he was ready” it drives him to attempt suicide. My feeling is that Yoda and Ben had a general idea that they would complete Luke’s training, then tell him the truth before he went off to face Vader, under the impression that by that point they’d have trained him well enough to be able to handle it. They could also just be smug & reactionary assholes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2023 01:29
|
|