Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

Detective No. 27 posted:

I had this thought too, but I recognized them as sweet 70s staches.

In fact, I loved the gradual shift the prequels had to the 70s haircuts of ANH. A nice, understated touch.

Say what you will about his performance, but they did a great job with Hayden in Revenge of the Sith making him look like someone who could be Mark Hamill's father.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 15:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:17

MisterBibs: Jul 17, 2010; dolla dolla
bill y'all; Fun Shoe

Tellah posted:

What is death of the author

A mentality that forgets that authorial intent is what matters, usually in an attempt to justify some fanfiction said fan really wished matters as much as the original writer's.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 16:04

Tellah: Aug 8, 2014

Schwarzwald posted:

If you remove the intentions of the actor and the director you're left with a movie where the underappreciated and misjudged (by the other characters) Jar Jar none-the-less comes through to save the day.

I didn't mean to discount the thesis; just one of the methods being used to evidence it.

MisterBibs posted:

A mentality that forgets that authorial intent is what matters, usually in an attempt to justify some fanfiction said fan really wished matters as much as the original writer's.

Well this is just sad.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 16:38

Ravenfood: Nov 4, 2011

It's MisterBibs.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 17:17

K. Waste: Feb 27, 2014; MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

underage at the vape shop posted:

This is a whole lot of words thats mean absolutely nothing.

Those who already have a prejudice against Jar-Jar - because they don't like the design/writing/performance/existence of the character in an of itself, divorced from any political context - disingenuously use a superficial, anti-racist rhetoric to support this prejudice. SMG's point, however, is that once you begin the basic process of interrogating these claims of racism, you find that none of them actually have anything to do with a theory of ideology, but are, in fact, rooted in what Leftist academics refer to as "colorblind talk."

Ascribing racist caricature to Jar-Jar is predicated on the exact sort of racist fantasizing that leads people to believe that Will Smith says "Welcome to earf" in Independence Day. Jar-Jar has been perpetually compared to a stereotype of a Jamaican/Caribbean person, but the only evidence to support this is that he speaks in broken English and has big lips. Now, Jar-Jar is clearly racially coded, but if you pay attention to any element of Lucasfilm's design and Ahmed Best's performance, you'll quickly realize that a careful level of detail was put into making sure these racial qualities are coded as syncretic: Jar-Jar is not presented as a monkey or ape, but as a scrawny peasant frog-rabbit; he doesn't come from some shanty-town, but is a refugee from a sprawling, subterranean/undersea megalopolis; and both his physical appearance and pantomime behaviors are modeled equally after neutrally-coded, post-minstrel cartoon characters (Goofy) and silent film stars (Buster Keaton in particular). This is not a stereotype of a Caribbean person, or even an African/African-American person - but is, indeed, a syncretic representation of an alien, meta-personal figure who is both foreign, while possessing vaguely familiar, non-neutral, ethnically-coded characteristics.

To the "colorblind" liberal, it is this ethnic-coding specifically which is the problem. This is partially to due to a poor understanding of history and critical race theory. For instance, you notice how, in spite of a lack of ability to remember events of the film accurately, or to use direct evidence from the film to convey why Jar-Jar is supposedly a toxic figure (and not simply a cartoon character they don't like), we constantly cycle back to the point that Jar-Jar is a "fool." He steps in poop, he slurps up fruit with his frog-tongue, he walks in a gangly fashion, he swears a life-debt to some white guys even though he saved them. To the colorblind liberal, this connects with a superficial understanding of blackface minstrelsy and the history of racist narratives: Jar-Jar is bad because he talks and moves funny, is clearly set apart from the 'above-ground' world, is loyal to a fault and seemingly without concern for himself. Again, Jar-Jar is a "fool" with a humorous pantomime, and this is unacceptable because we are under the impression that, historically, servile foolishness and apartness from the status quo is a "stereotype."

But here's the thing - classical blackface minstrelsy was not a narrative about how black folk were silly. It was a narrative about how black folk were sub-human. Blackface minstrelsy does not signify what blackness is, but, rather, what whiteness isn't. If you actually interrogate the entire spectrum of minstrel tropes, you actually find very little character consistency: Sure, Sambo is typically portrayed as "shiftless" and dishonest, but Uncle Tom and Mammy are industrious and loyal; the pickaninny isn't lazy at all, but is, indeed, dehumanized as a instinctually feral figure; and the urban dandy (a product of post-Great Migration minstrel shows) is mocked because he "puts on airs" that he can be like any white man. Blackface minstrelsy was a means of a white supremacist culture living through a spectacle which assured them that their privileged cultural position was a natural outcome of either divine mandate or social Darwinism. It had nothing to do with black folk being fools or stepping in poop or walking weird, or whatever - every single one of those traits is a banal feature which you can observe in any loving Goofy or Keaton short. The values of racism are not simply to displace surreal or funny qualities onto non-whites, but specifically to establish and maintain a hierarchy of race.

Within the rhetoric of colorblind talk (which emerged in earnest after the passing of the '64/'65 Civil Rights Acts, and as whites were already stirring themselves into a movement to merely not acknowledge race as a political factor), defining racism is obfuscated in order to superficially deride ethnic coding, period. There can be no deviation - comedic or otherwise - from the spectator's fragile perception of their own cultural neutrality, that essential differences in cultural experience are not rooted in political and economic forces, but are, in fact, an insidious lie perpetrated against spectators who, coincidentally, were already pre-disposed to not liking the work. But it's not a lie. Race exists, you don't have a choice.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 17:36

temple: Jul 29, 2006; I have actual skeletons in my closet

K. Waste posted:

Those who already have a prejudice against Jar-Jar - because they don't like the design/writing/performance/existence of the character in an of itself, divorced from any political context - disingenuously use a superficial, anti-racist rhetoric to support this prejudice. SMG's point, however, is that once you begin the basic process of interrogating these claims of racism, you find that none of them actually have anything to do with a theory of ideology, but are, in fact, rooted in what Leftist academics refer to as "colorblind talk."

Ascribing racist caricature to Jar-Jar is predicated on the exact sort of racist fantasizing that leads people to believe that Will Smith says "Welcome to earf" in Independence Day. Jar-Jar has been perpetually compared to a stereotype of a Jamaican/Caribbean person, but the only evidence to support this is that he speaks in broken English and has big lips. Now, Jar-Jar is clearly racially coded, but if you pay attention to any element of Lucasfilm's design and Ahmed Best's performance, you'll quickly realize that a careful level of detail was put into making sure these racial qualities are coded as syncretic: Jar-Jar is not presented as a monkey or ape, but as a scrawny peasant frog-rabbit; he doesn't come from some shanty-town, but is a refugee from a sprawling, subterranean/undersea megalopolis; and both his physical appearance and pantomime behaviors are modeled equally after neutrally-coded, post-minstrel cartoon characters (Goofy) and silent film stars (Buster Keaton in particular). This is not a stereotype of a Caribbean person, or even an African/African-American person - but is, indeed, a syncretic representation of an alien, meta-personal figure who is both foreign, while possessing vaguely familiar, non-neutral, ethnically-coded characteristics.

To the "colorblind" liberal, it is this ethnic-coding specifically which is the problem. This is partially to due to a poor understanding of history and critical race theory. For instance, you notice how, in spite of a lack of ability to remember events of the film accurately, or to use direct evidence from the film to convey why Jar-Jar is supposedly a toxic figure (and not simply a cartoon character they don't like), we constantly cycle back to the point that Jar-Jar is a "fool." He steps in poop, he slurps up fruit with his frog-tongue, he walks in a gangly fashion, he swears a life-debt to some white guys even though he saved them. To the colorblind liberal, this connects with a superficial understanding of blackface minstrelsy and the history of racist narratives: Jar-Jar is bad because he talks and moves funny, is clearly set apart from the 'above-ground' world, is loyal to a fault and seemingly without concern for himself. Again, Jar-Jar is a "fool" with a humorous pantomime, and this is unacceptable because we are under the impression that, historically, servile foolishness and apartness from the status quo is a "stereotype."

But here's the thing - classical blackface minstrelsy was not a narrative about how black folk were silly. It was a narrative about how black folk were sub-human. Blackface minstrelsy does not signify what blackness is, but, rather, what whiteness isn't. If you actually interrogate the entire spectrum of minstrel tropes, you actually find very little character consistency: Sure, Sambo is typically portrayed as "shiftless" and dishonest, but Uncle Tom and Mammy are industrious and loyal; the pickaninny isn't lazy at all, but is, indeed, dehumanized as a instinctually feral figure; and the urban dandy (a product of post-Great Migration minstrel shows) is mocked because he "puts on airs" that he can be like any white man. Blackface minstrelsy was a means of a white supremacist culture living through a spectacle which assured them that their privileged cultural position was a natural outcome of either divine mandate or social Darwinism. It had nothing to do with black folk being fools or stepping in poop or walking weird, or whatever - every single one of those traits is a banal feature which you can observe in any loving Goofy or Keaton short. The values of racism are not simply to displace surreal or funny qualities onto non-whites, but specifically to establish and maintain a hierarchy of race.

Within the rhetoric of colorblind talk (which emerged in earnest after the passing of the '64/'65 Civil Rights Acts, and as whites were already stirring themselves into a movement to merely not acknowledge race as a political factor), defining racism is obfuscated in order to superficially deride ethnic coding, period. There can be no deviation - comedic or otherwise - from the spectator's fragile perception of their own cultural neutrality, that essential differences in cultural experience are not rooted in political and economic forces, but are, in fact, an insidious lie perpetrated against spectators who, coincidentally, were already pre-disposed to not liking the work. But it's not a lie. Race exists, you don't have a choice.

Liberals are the real racists.

quote:

But here's the thing - classical blackface minstrelsy was not a narrative about how black folk were silly. It was a narrative about how black folk were sub-human. Blackface minstrelsy does not signify what blackness is, but, rather, what whiteness isn't.

Same difference. As the poet James Brown says "Talking loud and saying nothing".

temple fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Dec 26, 2016

# ? Dec 26, 2016 17:42

ruddiger: Jun 3, 2004

temple posted:

Liberals are the real racists.

Same difference. As the poet James Brown says "Talking loud and saying nothing".

- a grown up's response. :rolleyes:

# ? Dec 26, 2016 17:52

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

Holy smokes you have to be a deeply dumb person to read a post that interesting--regardless of your ideology--and response with what is essentially "lol no"

# ? Dec 26, 2016 17:59

Wild Horses: Oct 31, 2012; There's really no meaning in making beetles fight.

temple with the low effort shitpost, now no one will touch you buddy, just as planned lmao

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:02

temple: Jul 29, 2006; I have actual skeletons in my closet

Waffles Inc. posted:

Holy smokes you have to be a deeply dumb person to read a post that interesting--regardless of your ideology--and response with what is essentially "lol no"

You have to be dumb to consider stereotypes as progressive.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:02

Mechafunkzilla: Sep 11, 2006; If you want a vision of the future...

temple posted:

You have to be dumb to consider stereotypes as progressive.

Wow, you could not have missed the point of K. Waste's post any harder if you tried.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:04

K. Waste: Feb 27, 2014; MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

temple posted:

Liberals are the real racists.

This is a really obvious misdirection. Racism is an ideology and I'm talking about ideology, quibbling over "the real racists" is what you are doing.

temple posted:

You have to be dumb to consider stereotypes as progressive.

You continue to engage in misdirection rather than making any actual point. What is Jar-Jar a stereotype of? Furthermore, why does his merely reminding you of stereotypes make him inviable as a "progressive" character? What does "progress" look like? What are you actually talking about, besides you merely not liking Jar-Jar?

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:08

temple: Jul 29, 2006; I have actual skeletons in my closet

K. Waste posted:

This is a really obvious misdirection. Racism is an ideology and I'm talking about ideology, quibbling over "the real racists" is what you are doing.

You continue to engage in misdirection rather than making any actual point. What is Jar-Jar a stereotype of? Furthermore, why does his merely reminding you of stereotypes make him inviable as a "progressive" character? What does "progress" look like? What are you actually talking about, besides you merely not liking Jar-Jar?

Defending stereotypes is racism full stop. I get it, CineD and all, but I would like if you would have some decency on the topic.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:12

K. Waste: Feb 27, 2014; MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

temple posted:

Defending stereotypes is racism full stop. I get it, CineD and all, but I would like if you would have some decency on the topic.

When did I defend a stereotype?

Stop misdirecting. It should be very easy for you to point out where I defended stereotypes and what stereotypes those were.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:15

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

temple posted:

Defending stereotypes is racism full stop. I get it, CineD and all, but I would like if you would have some decency on the topic.

That's not only explicitly not what K. Waste was doing, but also not what Ahmed Best was doing. In your eyes is Ahmed Best a self hating black man?

For someone who thinks that Ahmed Best and K Waste are full of poo poo you're doing an awful job at pointing out what exactly is bullshit

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:22

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

So Bodhi Rook is my personal favorite character in Rogue One and is creeping pretty high into my general favorite Star Wars character list.

Not quite clear on how this topic deals with spoilers, so

He is literally the second most irreplaceable hero of the rebellion and no one who survives the events of the film will ever know his name. Everyone outside of the Rogue-One team only ever referred to him as the pilot.

He had no reason to turn on the empire except that it's the right thing to do. He is the only one in a position to deliver Galen's message. He's tortured by the people he's trying to help and sticks with the cause. He sees the cause through. And ultimately he had the most tragic death.

Chirrut died in the arms of his friend/SO.

Baze went out in a hail of gunfire.

Jyn and Cassian died together and knowing the mission was a success.

Bodhi died alone, before the mission was complete and with enough time to know he was dead.

Bodhi is a rare stand in for every nameless man or woman who did more than their fair share for their country or their beliefs and was forgotten by history.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:36

temple: Jul 29, 2006; I have actual skeletons in my closet

Waffles Inc. posted:

That's not only explicitly not what K. Waste was doing, but also not what Ahmed Best was doing. In your eyes is Ahmed Best a self hating black man?

For someone who thinks that Ahmed Best and K Waste are full of poo poo you're doing an awful job at pointing out what exactly is bullshit

I'm not interested in playing the game "well gee golly how can a fictional alien be a stereotype? what is racism? people who call out racism are the real racists" that you guys have created.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:39

K. Waste: Feb 27, 2014; MORAL:
To the vector belong the spoils.

temple posted:

I'm not interested in playing the game "well gee golly how can a fictional alien be a stereotype? what is racism? people who call out racism are the real racists" that you guys have created.

You can't misdirect from your clear interest in the topic by saying you aren't actually interested. What's occurring is that you merely refuse to elaborate, and then insist that the reason you choose not to is that you're so obviously correct, that elaborating your position would denigrate it. Which it probably would.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:48

Wild Horses: Oct 31, 2012; There's really no meaning in making beetles fight.

temple posted:

full stop

im filling up my "joyless anti-racist on the internet" bingo card pretty fast here

# ? Dec 26, 2016 18:55

Lord Hydronium: Sep 25, 2007; Non, je ne regrette rien

Adder Moray posted:

So Bodhi Rook is my personal favorite character in Rogue One and is creeping pretty high into my general favorite Star Wars character list.

I agree with your spoiler text here. While Bodhi is the most understated of the main characters, he's the best symbol of the moral core of the Rebellion. The actor gives his portrayal a certain innocence that really sells that. Interestingly, of all the main cast, Bodhi's death was the only one to get an audible reaction in my theater.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:14

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Adder Moray posted:

So Bodhi Rook is my personal favorite character in Rogue One and is creeping pretty high into my general favorite Star Wars character list.

Not quite clear on how this topic deals with spoilers, so

Same, absolutely love this guy. I was expecting the character to just be dumb comedy relief after the part where he gets his mind messed up by Saw's pal but they played that in a much more real feeling way than I expected.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:26

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

temple posted:

I'm not interested in playing the game "well gee golly how can a fictional alien be a stereotype? what is racism? people who call out racism are the real racists" that you guys have created.

Dude I'll be real: that's just not what's happening here. The only hurdle you have to clear is to demonstrate how you think Jar Jar is racist--but instead you're just saying that he unambiguously is so and then saying that anyone who disagrees is some conservative strawman, which is absurd

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:27

Zeris: Apr 15, 2003; Quality posting direct from my brain to your face holes.

Prequels again!

https://twitter.com/rianjohnson/status/813232264859381760

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:41

MisterBibs: Jul 17, 2010; dolla dolla
bill y'all; Fun Shoe

Zeris posted:

Prequels again!

https://twitter.com/rianjohnson/status/813232264859381760

Didn't Rian basically say that he liked the prequels and you drat well better have too if you want to like the SW movie he's doing? Like, I have this half-formed memory of him saying that the lightsaber fights are going back to prequel-style exciting fights?

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:45

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

MisterBibs posted:

Didn't Rian basically say that he liked the prequels and you drat well better have too if you want to like the SW movie he's doing? Like, I have this half-formed memory of him saying that the lightsaber fights are going back to prequel-style exciting fights?

That sucks because while the editing in Force Awakens was breakneck I could still feel the "voice" of the Raid people's choreography in its hand to hand combat, like they were OT style lightsaber fights but with an extra bite and momentum to them that I appreciated. I found each of them exciting in their own way.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:55

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

While I'm at it, let me talk about Vader for a minute.

I hate the complaints about Vader's one liner while he was force choking what's his face. That line was Vader as hell. People tend to forget that Vader was a quippy bastard in the original trilogy. Never punny, but that line wasn't far from some of Vader's best smartass asides. It fit Vader. What it didn't fit was the film. Because Vader didn't fit the film, and he wasn't supposed to.

Someone else mentioned how William's score only ever pops up for Trilogy characters. Like they're dragging the main films with them as they pass through this one. And this is true. It extends to the way they speak as well. Vader operates on a mythic level that the rest of Rogue One doesn't. The main cast are heroes, Vader is a legend. You can also see it in the difference between the way the force influences Chirrut vs the way it's wielded by Vader. That's what makes the hallway scene so good. He's in a worse situation than our main characters ever faced retrieving the plans and it's absolutely nothing to him.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 19:56

SuperMechagodzilla: Jun 9, 2007; NEWT REBORN

temple posted:

Defending stereotypes is racism full stop. I get it, CineD and all, but I would like if you would have some decency on the topic.
...
I'm not interested in playing the game "well gee golly how can a fictional alien be a stereotype? what is racism? people who call out racism are the real racists" that you guys have created.

You are doing a very good job of embodying everything I criticized in my previous post.

Again: your "antiracism" involves identifying 'stereotypic' tropes and then ceaselessly complaining about them - until films with 'stereotypic' tropes are no longer produced and older films are declared obsolete due to their objective evil. This is completely distinct from ideological critique (i.e. what K.W. and I are doing), and doesn't even do a good job of describing the ideology being critiqued (e.g. Cnut's posts).

The actual method of defeating stereotypes is to perceive people (and characters) as merely human, with their own motivations and so on. Dismissing Jar Jar as a subhuman object who acts funny because he's black is actually just buying into the exact stereotypic thinking that the orthodox racists are fantasized to be indulging in.

It's a clear example of the Ripley problem, where Ripley (in Aliens) is held up as the only nonstereotypical female character in film history, and characters who are not like Ripley are declared stereotypical - dismissed as weak, subhuman, etc. Megan Fox wears makeup, so she's dismissed as a bimbo drone-slut under the total control of men by liberal feminists.

The same point is being made with Jar Jar: in order for him to be an 'acceptable' protagonist, he would need to be a Black Ripley - a serious, competent fighter demonstrating 'deep'/'complex' psychology, etc.

(That Ripley in Aliens happens to be a hardcore liberal is certainly a total coincidence. It's not ideology, honest.)

SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Dec 26, 2016

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:21

I said come in!: Jun 22, 2004

Lol at all of the irony posting on racism on the previous page. Stay beautiful, goons.

Hoping to make tomorrow the second time I see Rogue One. Can't stop thinking about this movie.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:23

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

MisterBibs posted:

Didn't Rian basically say that he liked the prequels and you drat well better have too if you want to like the SW movie he's doing? Like, I have this half-formed memory of him saying that the lightsaber fights are going back to prequel-style exciting fights?

That's too bad because the Prequel's "action" scenes, especially the lightsaber fights are pretty much the worst thing about them. After R1, my wife wanted to watch Sith because she had never seen it. I argued against it but throughout the entire entire first act her comment was, "I never thought space fights and lightsaber duels could be so boring."

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:28

MacheteZombie: Feb 4, 2007

I said come in! posted:

Lol at all of the irony posting on racism on the previous page. Stay beautiful, goons.

Hoping to make tomorrow the second time I see Rogue One. Can't stop thinking about this movie.

Ironic posting about movies is only allowed in BbV friend. This is the serious zone.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:32

Neo Rasa: Mar 8, 2007; Everyone should play DUKE games.

Sith also had all those awkward parts where a characters are running around with a lightsaber and droids just run into them blindly. They're shot like it's supposed to be comedic but it just makes it look like there was a miscommunication between whoever choreographed/storyboarded it and the people who did the droid CG.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:34

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

I'll say this regarding the topic at hand:

If you're looking two layers deep to get to "this is subversive commentary on racially stereotypical coding" then you're going two layers deeper than most viewers will ever look. At that point, what's the meaning in even having that message. The people who would benefit would either miss it entirely or stop one level down at "that's racist"/"it's so true". At that point you're just masturbating at your own cleverness and creating something for the people as 'clever' as you to laugh at the filthy rabble for not understanding.

Adder Moray fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 26, 2016

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:34

Waffles Inc.: Jan 20, 2005

Adder Moray posted:

I'll say this regarding the topic at hand:

If you're looking two layers deep to get to "this is subversive commentary on racially stereotypical coding" then you're going two layers deeper than most viewers will ever look. At that point, what's the meaning in even having that message. The people who would benefit would either miss it entirely or stop one level down at "that's racist"/"it's so true". At that point you're just masturbating at your own cleverness and creating something for the people as 'clever' as you to laugh at the filthy rabble for not understanding.

You don't have to go two layers deep. It's on the surface.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:37

SuperMechagodzilla: Jun 9, 2007; NEWT REBORN

Adder Moray posted:

I'll say this regarding the topic at hand:

If you're looking two layers deep to get to "this is subversive commentary on racially stereotypical coding" then you're going two layers deeper than anyone than most viewers will ever look. At that point, what's the meaning in even having that message. The people who would benefit would either miss it entirely or stop one level down at "that's racist"/"it's so true". At that point you're just masturbating at your own cleverness and creating something for the people as 'clever' as you to laugh at the filthy rabble for not understanding.

"Jar Jar is human" is not a secret message comprehensible only by elites.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:38

gfarrell80: Aug 31, 2006

Adder Moray posted:

So Bodhi Rook is my personal favorite character in Rogue One and is creeping pretty high into my general favorite Star Wars character list.

So Bodhi Rook is the name of the Imperial pilot defector? Was his name ever even said on screen at any point?

The Imperial defector to me was illustrative of how poor the movie was in character exposition and development. His primary character identifier was that he wore weird goggles high on his forehead. You know nothing about his motivation, history, why he defected, any character traits... pretty much nothing. Then there was that weird squid monster scene that was built up as a huge traumatic experience and should have had some kind of development on his character. But it really amounted to absolutely nothing.

I've got to go back a little bit here, some folks made some good responses after I claimed there was less sexuality in the PT as compared to the OT:

UmOk posted:

The best is when Anakin's Horny Bull

rams into Padme's Big White Pussy Cat

and then she ejaculates off the top of a giant penis.

And this is just scratching the surface of AOTC's sexual imagery. I think that might be why some fans are uncomfortable with the movie.

This is all well and good. I have to say, I've seen the prequel movies maybe a total of three times each and this symbolism, while definitely in there and working on your brain on a subliminal level, to me is not as strong as the sexuality in ANH. What we have here is on the level of subliminal sexual imagery in The Lion King and the Little Mermaid. I think you guys are right, this is definitely intentional sexual shenanigans, but it does not to me really pump up the movie as a 'sexual' movie. I have a hard time really believing George Lucas was talking to his graphic artists and saying: "alright guys, I want a vagina-mouthed pussy creature, an engorged dick bull animal, and a praying mantiss. Bear with me, this is all to represent the underlying sexual issues of the characters that each creature is attacking." How does a vagina-mouthed pussy creature really represent Padme's sexuality anyways? How does Padme becoming a splooge and landing on the engorged dick creature symbolize anything? It is definitely sexual but the symbolism for me doesn't really hold together or add anything, and is barely even perceptible.

So I can give that there is something definitely going on there, but some of the post-rationalization and intellectualization is difficult for me to swallow. It may very well have been just renegade graphic designers having a bit of fun.

Now, take the sexuality of A New Hope. All the double entendres are verbal and very out there. The elementary school and junior high kids wouldn't pick up on them, but the High schoolers and adults definitely would. There are subliminal symbolic visuals as well (Luke shooting his cum into the Death Star at the literal climax of the movie). However, the principal character development and conflict comes from the sexual competition between our two lead males for the female. The competition and the little scenes and exchanges involved are very relatable for a young adolescent ("She's beautiful!" "I think I'm beginning to like her!" 'You think a princess, and a guy like me..."). Luke even tries to use Leia as a sexual bargaining chip in order to tempt Han to join in to the rescue effort. The fact that he is receptive to money rather than the sex offer says something about him (although he maintains sexual interest as well!).

And the sexual tension between our primary three characters continues through the entire OT. Even to the very end Han sees Luke as competition.

In the PT, there is no real sexual tension or competition. The Anakin/Padme relationship feels plot inevitable rather than driven by character chemistry. Any normal human female would likely be turned off by Anakin's murdering and raving. Not a very relatable sexual relationship development for most people.

The blue hottie Jedi was pretty hot though. And one of the twi'lek ladies going in to the weird opera was pretty hot. Plus one of the gals at the night club on Coruscant that Boba Fet's pawn fled into. So there is also that kind of superficial sexuality of flesh on display very briefly inserted in the PT. The OT was a bit cleaner in that regard, with only Leia in her bikini (although every kid and teenager loved that).

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:38

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

Waffles Inc. posted:

You don't have to go two layers deep. It's on the surface.

Given the level of push back, it clearly isn't.

gfarrell80 posted:

So Bodhi Rook is the name of the Imperial pilot defector? Was his name ever even said on screen at any point?

The Imperial defector to me was illustrative of how poor the movie was in character exposition and development. His primary character identifier was that he wore weird goggles high on his forehead. You know nothing about his motivation, history, why he defected, any character traits... pretty much nothing. Then there was that weird squid monster scene that was built up as a huge traumatic experience and should have had some kind of development on his character. But it really amounted to absolutely nothing.

1. Yes, by himself and the team, never by anyone else.

2. I'd argue that that's the point. He was a faceless nobody that nobody will remember. Except he was the second most important person in the rebellion.

3. It does have an impact. Following that scene his speech pattern and tone are entirely different from when he was introduced.

Adder Moray fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Dec 26, 2016

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:39

Mecha Gojira: Jun 23, 2006; Jack Nissan

Adder Moray posted:

Given the level of push back, it clearly isn't.

A bunch of nerds got upset that a series of family movies created "intolerable" cartoon characters for children to enjoy and haven't stopped crying for 17 years.

Episode I tears are now old enough to have driver licenses.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:48

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

Mecha Gojira posted:

A bunch of nerds got upset that a series of family movies created "intolerable" cartoon characters for children to enjoy and haven't stopped crying for 17 years.

Episode I tears are now old enough to have driver licenses.

I don't know if you just forgot 1999-2000, but it wasn't just nerds. It was a common criticism of the film. From Star Wars geeks to my mom to my ex-stepdad (who, fyi, is Jamaican)

# ? Dec 26, 2016 20:52

Bongo Bill: Jan 17, 2012

Nobody is obligated to think about art, but I believe it's preferable to refusing to think about it.

# ? Dec 26, 2016 21:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 28, 2024 13:17

Adder Moray: Nov 18, 2010

Bongo Bill posted:

Nobody is obligated to think about art, but I believe it's preferable to refusing to think about it.

Sure. But most people don't. If you want to send a message, send a message your target will perceive. If you want to jerk off on the page, don't be surprised when your message is misconstrued by the masses.

I'd also argue that it's easy to say "not every female character must be Ripley" post-Ripley becoming her own archetype.

Adder Moray fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Dec 26, 2016

# ? Dec 26, 2016 21:06

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Cinema Discusso > Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

«‹›1055 »