|
kiimo posted:What the poo poo just happened. Deadmau5 temporarily banned every individual word on the forums. Jack Gladney posted:No, the ideology of Star Wars and its two sequels is one of late capitalism--that individual actors rise though virtuous action that also ensures material success and that a free market is inherently meritocratic and just as the net result of individual action. Outside the empire there's capitalism, and that's what Princess Leia the senator seems to want to reproduce everywhere in opposing the empire. It's an American fairy tale made by a bourgeois autistic car fanatic. I think you need to better support your reading. Han is blatantly criticized for choosing personal profit over loyalty to the princess. Star Wars is about a return to a pre-capitalist 'fetishism in relations between men' - an intersubjective relationship between the crown and the subjects that leads to the belief that 'kingship' is a natural quality that some possess. This is subtly different from a libertarian meritocracy where there is no such system of loyalty.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
The only thing I hate in continuity is when younger filmmakers come up and try to "fix" the past by adding their own fan bullshit to the mix. Like, I don't like the prequels, but I don't want them erased. Let them exist. They should be allowed too. I wouldn't want someone else coming in and slyly saying "Oh yeah, none of that poo poo happened because I didn't like it!" To me, that's lazy and petty as all hell. Also, every story about Ripley not dying has been horrible so she needs to stay loving dead forever. If you don't like it, that's your problem. But don't take other people's money to fix something you don't like. Do something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Deadmau5 temporarily banned every individual word on the forums. Naw, that's silly. Han is criticized for choosing money over the establishment of a liberal democracy that would make everyone a free rational actor. He's selfish in a way that works against the implicit fairness of the free market. There's no sovereign in Star Wars, and honor-based relationships between men have often been imagined in ways compatible with capitalism. You might even say that they've been actively mobilized in fiction to cover contradictions inherent in capitalism since the end of the Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:No, the ideology of Star Wars and its two sequels is one of late capitalism--that individual actors rise though virtuous action that also ensures material success and that a free market is inherently meritocratic and just as the net result of individual action. Outside the empire there's capitalism, and that's what Princess Leia the senator seems to want to reproduce everywhere in opposing the empire. It's an American fairy tale made by a bourgeois autistic car fanatic. I don't see how you can say the ideology of Star Wars OT is that "individual actors rise though virtuous action that also ensures material success" when the protagonists of the movies become more and more poor as the series continues. Luke loses his home and family (and toy spaceships) in the first film, and needs to sell his car to buy passage off planet. By the second film, the only material goods of any note that he owns are his X-Wing and his inherited light saber, and he loses both of those over the course of the film. (He does gain a robot hand, but that's hardly a net gain.) By the third film he's become self-sustaining, building his own light saber, but by the end he willingly gives it up. Han Solo fairs a bit better, as he does earn the money to pay off his debt in the first film. However, the second film shows us that the consequences of his "virtuous action" keep him from actually being able to make the transaction on time. By the the third film, his debtor tell him that he's been so late to pay that he'll no longer accept the money. Solo's "material success" is ultimately worthless. Leia loses her senatorship and her planet in the first film. Lando loses his baronage. Moral authorities Obi-wan Kenobi and Yoda both live in low income housing--having lost their palatial temple compound in the PT. "Virtuous action" is not a good way to get rich in the Star Wars universe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
y'all were awfully hard on Jivjov about enjoying a certain "canon" of things at the very, very, very least, it makes watching the movies or films or comics or games slightly more enjoyable to know that your understanding of the goings on are deepened by having consumed the other things in within the same orbit the newest issue of the "canon" star wars comic is a story about obi-wan on tattooine when luke is like maybe 9 or 10 or so and yeah, it doesn't loving matter in the least to the films and it doesn't affect the art or readings of the films in any way but it's just neat in a way to think, "ah cool, this is what the obi-wan of the films was doing during this period not depicted in the films" EU materials are cool because their existence doesn't affect anyone else's enjoyment of the films and they can be a fun way to just experience more of the universe that the franchise has built it's pretty harmless
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:I don't see how you can say the ideology of Star Wars OT is that "individual actors rise though virtuous action that also ensures material success" when the protagonists of the movies become more and more poor as the series continues. He succeeds because he works hard. The universe rewards the Protestant work ethic. The universe is just.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Moral authorities Obi-wan Kenobi and Yoda both live in low income housing--having lost their palatial temple compound in the PT. Mudhole?! Slimy?! My HOME, this is!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:He succeeds because he works hard. The universe rewards the Protestant work ethic. The universe is just.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
Martman posted:But Chewie and R2 work hard too! I didn't say it was a coherent fantasy. In fact, stories about hard work and earning success almost never are. Ever since the Robinson Crusoe days, somebody's always property or a pet dog man with a mysteriously never-used bandolier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I didn't say it was a coherent fantasy. In fact, stories about hard work and earning success almost never are. Ever since the Robinson Crusoe days, somebody's always property or a pet dog man with a mysteriously never-used bandolier. Well what you're talking about here is something akin to Tolkien's notion of 'applicability' - where the text is a 'neutral' historical document that can be broken down into generalized concepts (like "celebrating hard work", and whatever) so that the reader can ostensibly pick-and-choose what aspects apply to their individual experience. That's a sort of corrupted, postmodern version of redemptive interpretation, where we search for the inevitable traces of authenticity in a text - the 'impurities' in the ideology that point to Truth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:The only thing I hate in continuity is when younger filmmakers come up and try to "fix" the past by adding their own fan bullshit to the mix. Like, I don't like the prequels, but I don't want them erased. Let them exist. They should be allowed too. I wouldn't want someone else coming in and slyly saying "Oh yeah, none of that poo poo happened because I didn't like it!" To me, that's lazy and petty as all hell. this has been happening since before written language, and it's not going to stop, so better get used to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Woah, people actually agree with me! I remember last time I said canon was meaningless I got piled on. This is great. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Thrawn was cool, right?   Force worms were kinda dumb and him knowing how to kill anyone by studying their art was a little far fetched but it made for a good story. One thing tho that Timothy Zahn did so well in the EU was really capture how characters "sounded" if that makes sense. When ever he wrote a line for Han or Luke, it read right. Compared to some writers like Kevin J. Anderson who didnt really capture the characters properly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:Thrawn was cool, right? "Hey, if I look at a painting from a culture, I can beat them in battle!" Imagining that every planet consists of a single environment is a simplification. Imagining that every species shares a brain except for *~our heroes~* is pretty dumb. I am sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Plo Koon is a cool Jedi and I'm sad he got blown up in RotS
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
homullus posted:"Hey, if I look at a painting from a culture, I can beat them in battle!" I haven't read this Thrawn book, but are we sure this wasn't meant ironically in some way? Like this kind of practice was part of those terrible Orientalism studies from like a century ago. People straight up thought you could predict every behavior of a Muslim just by studying the Quran.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Thrawn was a good character in my opinion. All anyone ever talks about is the art thing. Okay it was a pretty big aspect of the character. Also from what I remember he was studying art to identify nuances in a species beyond the traditional study of battle tactics which he had already thoroughly investigated. I don't know it's been a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I haven't read this Thrawn book, but are we sure this wasn't meant ironically in some way? Well, it's "serious" in the sense that Zahn isn't trying to make people laugh about it, but I think it's an intentionally pulpy element that's meant to be something of a gimmick. Thrawn's basically a blue Imperial version of Sherlock Holmes. And, at least in the original Thrawn trilogy, Thrawn's intended to be a bit of a self-promoter who wins a lot of victories by making people overestimate his abilities. Unfortunately, by Zahn's later books, he'd somehow come to believe his own hype and Thrawn became an omniscient antihero who could plan decades beyond his own death. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
In 6th grade, I read a bunch of Star Wars books (1996?). I remember liking the first 3 Zahn books but not liking the last 2. Also I remember enjoying the Jedi Academy trilogy. Everything else I read, which might have been like 3 other books, I did not enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:desert robes are just for people in the desert Hey, why don't we just ask John Mollo, the guy literally in charge of designing the costumes for Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back? The Making of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back posted:“Ben Kenobi’s outfit now seems to have turned into this costume of the Jedi Knights, really,” says Mollo. “Yoda wears a variant of the same thing.” Guess we'll just have to throw TESB into the trash bin along with the prequels now. Or let's take it even further. Let's look at Ben Kenobi's outfit in Episode IV and compare it to Uncle Owen's:   The only thing they have in common is that they're both wearing robes, and that they're both wearing double-breasted garments. Everything else is completely different. Owen is wearing a dirty little shirt that only goes down to his waist; Ben is wearing a long kimono-like garment which reaches all the way down to his toes. Owen's sleeves are narrow and functional; Ben's sleeves are wide and billowy. These differences were all intentional, and were meant to differentiate Ben from the Tatooine farmers by giving him a look like more akin to a Japanese samurai warrior wearing traditional hakama garb:  Unlike Owen, Ben also wears a sash around his middle called an obi, which was probably a partial inspiration for his name (ken is a Japanese word meaning "sword"; thus, a literal translation of Obi-Wan Kenobi would be something like "Sash-Wan Swordsash".) A look at the evolution of costume concepts for General Kenobi, by Ralph McQuarrie:  The standard Jedi costume for the prequels was clearly designed as a blend between the kinds of outfits seen being worn by Ben Kenobi and Yoda in the originals and the outfit seen being worn by Luke in Return of the Jedi:    So hell, let's just throw it all out. It's obvious no thought was put into any of it. gently caress the prequels. gently caress the originals. gently caress Star Wars in general.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
rear end Catchcum posted:Wait human beings actually liked Prometheus? I thought it was just SMG. Sorry for enjoying a well made and beautiful sci-fi prequel, I know that isn't allowed
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Hey, why don't we just ask John Mollo, the guy literally in charge of designing the costumes for Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back? That's a very thoughtful post. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well what you're talking about here is something akin to Tolkien's notion of 'applicability' - where the text is a 'neutral' historical document that can be broken down into generalized concepts (like "celebrating hard work", and whatever) so that the reader can ostensibly pick-and-choose what aspects apply to their individual experience. That's silly. Texts produced by capitalism reproduce capitalism. Sorry about your optimism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
I don't dispute any of this. I'm no expert on the development of Romantic literature. I studied Early Medieval England and Anthropology in College so that's a bit outside of my wheelhouse. However, it does not address this point that you made: SuperMechagodzilla posted:For example, many fans misread the original films as being, effectively, a celebration of feudalism/libertarianism. The prequels then counter this misreading and clarify the true meaning of Star Wars by saying - rather explicitly - that feudalism and libertarianism are dumb. The Separatist baddies are unambiguously idiots. I agree that anyone who thinks that Star Wars is a celebration of libertarianism is clearly wrong. However, I don't understand the confluence of Libertarian ideals and Feudalism that you mention. The former is a system of thought built upon the idea that private property (specifically land) is held as ideal above all else. Whereas feudalism does not really have a concept of land ownership because it's all part of the Crown which is embodied in the monarch. I don't see anything in Star Wars that could be considered feudal or a celebration of it. Cnut the Great posted:
This is a good post. I don't always agree with your interpretations of the films but I appreciate the work that you put in. And this one is spot on. I'm not the biggest prequels fan but it's obvious that a lot of thought went into the construction of those films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Why is it virtuous to define yourself as a consumer and be immersed in a slurry of Star Wars brand plot content? Why would you let a multinational entertainment megacorporation literally dictate to you what Star Wars is after the fact of your consumption? That is a weird super power to have. Is it the Force? Canonicity in shared fictional universes is like this horrific endless hunger and I don't know how fandoms never realize how weird it all sounds. "Immersion" and "satisfaction" and other such rich mouthfeely sexual terms are used to describe the desire for the next Star War on the horizon as soon as one is released. Sarkozymandias fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:That's silly. Texts produced by capitalism reproduce capitalism. Sorry about your optimism. I guess 1984 and Animal Farm are chilling dystopian tales of...capitalism???
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
quote:A look at the evolution of costume concepts for General Kenobi, by Ralph McQuarrie: That blue design looks like a dude from Space Mutiny. quote:I agree that anyone who thinks that Star Wars is a celebration of libertarianism is clearly wrong. I didn't know anyone did. quote:Why would you let a multinational entertainment megacorporation literally dictate to you what Star Wars is after the fact of your consumption? It was bold of them to make The Force Awakens a sequel to Jack and Jill, but drat if it wasn't a success. Kind of weird you're aroused by it though. quote:I guess 1984 and Animal Farm are chilling dystopian tales of...capitalism??? Could The Party have risen without capitalism? Would there be an animal farm without it? 
RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Jan 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Sarkozymandias posted:Why is it virtuous to define yourself as a consumer and be immersed in a slurry of Star Wars brand plot content? Yeah! How dare people look forward to new entries into a franchise they like! That's so gross and bad, let's just abolish sequels forever!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Sarkozymandias posted:Why is it virtuous to define yourself as a consumer and be immersed in a slurry of Star Wars brand plot content? It's not but you can still enjoy things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Yeah! How dare people look forward to new entries into a franchise they like! That's so gross and bad, let's just abolish sequels forever! That's not what he was saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
ungulateman posted:I guess 1984 and Animal Farm are chilling dystopian tales of...capitalism??? The films are celebrations of capitalism as a moral and stable alternative to the Soviet Union, yes. One of them was bankrolled by the CIA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Me: I love Star Wars. Disney: Luke Skywalker has two heads now and Han Solo is a polygamist. Me: This changed everything. I no longer love Star Wars. Disney reached into my memory hole and ruined my whole scene. Its the most avoidable and enabled form of violation I could imagine and this weird contract between things you like and copyrights changing hands is implied to be normal. Is it like a sub fetish thing where you want to be immersed passively into a universe and the safe word is "canon"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
Sarkozymandias posted:Canonicity in shared fictional universes is like this horrific endless hunger and I don't know how fandoms never realize how weird it all sounds. "Immersion" and "satisfaction" and other such rich mouthfeely sexual terms are used to describe the desire for the next Star War on the horizon as soon as one is released. Agreed. Continuity is a tumor. The flip side would be intertext, I suppose, which is good and cool, but requires effort.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
If you don't like continuity, never see sequels.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:That's a very thoughtful post. Thank you. Sorry for my harsh tone. But like many things, I find it hard to understand why this has emerged as a perennial criticism of the prequels, because, I mean, did you actually watch the movies or didn't you? Like, people actually complain about prequel Yoda being dressed exactly the same as Obi-Wan and all the other Jedi or some such bullshit. Well, no, in all three prequels he's actually wearing more or less the exact same outfit he wears in Empire, only not as ragged. It follow basic Jedi convention, of course (just as it did in Empire), but it's not the same as everyone else's:   This makes sense, because it's not as if Yoda would have taken the time to give himself a complete fashion overhaul before heading off into exile. And you can see that it's also not true that all the Jedi dress completely identically:        There's a baseline Jedi style, and there are slight variations as well as major deviations on that style on display within the ranks of the Jedi Order. Just like you'd see in any culture, really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:To trace the background of its genre briefly, the plot of STAR WARS is a chivalric romance plot. Chivalric romance as a specific form in western Europe was first developed in twelfth-century France by authors such as Chrêtien de Troyes, and remained widely popular throughout the sixteenth century. The form was revived in the nineteenth century by poets such as Tennyson (whose Idyls of the King is a reworking of the fifteenth-century Morte d'Arthur of Malory), and writers like the socialist William Morris (in his Well at the World's End). These works and others like them filtered medieval romances though a gauze of nineteenth-century concerns. In turn, they became the sources of the sword-and-sorcery fantasies of the twentieth century, among them Tolkien's Ring series, begun in the 1930s, and contemporary works like Michael Moorcock's Sword Rulers series. So, even leaving aside the relation between chivalric romance and romantic (as opposed to realistic) novels, romance has been one of the most successful and long-lived of the fictional structures of Western culture. This is exceedingly interesting. The famous Star Wars movie poster really fits this frame. Especially true in the case of Tolkien when Aragorn wins and just becomes a new (dark?) lord and also a reestablishment of an old line. I love Tolkien tho since his royalty are like literally better than other people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you don't like continuity, never see sequels. Sequels are good because they can comment in interesting ways on the source material. They aren't good because they tell us "what happened next", because nothing happened and there isn't a next for it to happen in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
jivjov posted:If you don't like continuity, never see sequels. Jiv, I'm not sure you're really getting what people are saying about this. No one here is against sequels; what they're against is the fetishization of continuity being more important than telling a meaningful story. Please realize the difference between this and just outright not wanting sequels or whatever to exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Cnut you are doing gods work and your user name is very Tolkienesque which I like. Would Anakin be the God of the force? Or god. It's strange to not have a humanize D aspect of devotion in a religion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:45 |
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Sorry for my harsh tone. But like many things, I find it hard to understand why this has emerged as a perennial criticism of the prequels, because, I mean, did you actually watch the movies or didn't you? Yoda's clothes in Empire do look really different from Obi-Wan's to me--like rough silk or something. Never tweaked to Owen's robe being different, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2016 01:32
|
|