TFRazorsaw posted:

General Grievous is an animated character in the movie too.

ruddiger posted:

lol, your over-inflated ego has really made you a loving weirdo who projects your own warped reality on anything you comment on.

"Check my rap sheet." Jesus Christ how pathetic.

gfarrell80 posted:

When the gently caress did Yoda say "you must kill vader"?????

Shbobdb posted:

Edit: To be clear, it is not my fault that George Lucas hates gay people because they are anti-life. That is not reflective of my views. However, it is all over Star Wars so you can't really separate it from the mix.

Detective No. 27 posted:

Anakin's first son was a gay robot, who he fully accepted.

Shbobdb posted:

Edit: To be clear, it is not my fault that George Lucas hates gay people because they are anti-life. That is not reflective of my views. However, it is all over Star Wars so you can't really separate it from the mix.

Shbobdb posted:

"These minstrel show and shylock characters are so subversive, I love the deep meaning!"

Schwarzwald posted:

In your eagerness to spit bile at an old man who made a movie you didn't like, your saying genuinely hurtful things about real people.

Come on, don't do this.

ruddiger posted:

It's pretty gross that you people keep looking for the cheapest excuses to keep repeating disgusting phrases in the cheaply veiled attempt at exposing ideology.

And by you people I mean you, the sad lonely goon.

Shbobdb posted:

LOL.

Have you read the last three pages where defenders of the prequels have been talking about how these vile stereotypes aren't actually "vile" and aren't actually "stereotypes". I shine a light on it and all of a sudden I'm the loving bad guy?

LOL.

ruddiger posted:

Shotacon is a beautiful form of cultural expression and that you are a narrow minded bigot who can't understand that says more about you than it does about me.

Shbobdb posted:

"No, you're the real racist!"

Weak man. Weak.

temple posted:

You can't subvert a stereotype with a stereotype. That should be enough but since we have to drag this discussion longer, consider Uncle Tom's Cabin. Tom was presented as more moral than his masters but ultimately he is rejected by 19th century black authors because of his subservience. Instead of being a slave to the civilized white man, he is a slave to uncivilized ones. He is still a slave. This goes hand in hand with many black thinkers at the current rise of slave movies which do little to enlighten black history and culture and re-enforce white brutality and black subhuman presentations. The same can be said of tough girl characters which still rely on women's lack of agency and dependence on men to rebel against.

Using Dave Chappelle is rich and obvious concern trolling, which is why I have disregarded you so frequently.

Shbobdb posted:

"No, you're the real racist!"

Weak man. Weak.

Schwarzwald posted:

I don't think you are racist, I certainly hope that you aren't, but you are halfhandedly using some strongly bigoted language in your quest to portray George Lucas as some kind of evil goblin.

Take a moment and relax. What are you actually hoping to accomplish here?

ungulateman posted:

anakin really should have gotten a t-shirt that said "I LOVE MY DROID GAY SON"

Shbobdb posted:

Go ahead and start there, then read over the next couple of pages.

ruddiger posted:

Quoting and citing the 2nd biggest idiot in the thread is not helping your argument btw

Shbobdb posted:

People are talking about it because Lucas made this explicit in the movie. What is the ultimate perversion? What simply cannot be? Homosexual reproduction. Now, if you are a lunatic like Lucas trying to express sexual magic on screen, how can you best make sure your audience knows something is fundamentally wrong with your character?

Anakin is born without sex and creates without sex. He is an ananthema. However, because everything creates its own negation, also represents a tantric path. That's the synthesis we get at the end of Jedi. But he's also redeemed by the fruit of his loins, the product of real true sex as opposed to monsters like himself and the droids.

Shbobdb posted:

Read the whole discussion.



If this guy, complete with payot, saying "I am only influenced by money" and greedily rubbing his fingers together doesn't offend you but me saying, "Wow, that's a horrific stereotype" does offend you then maybe you should spend some time in front of the mirror because you are the problem.

ruddiger posted:

Shbobdb posted:

"He is subverting the stereotypes by exaggerating them to the point of parody"

Shbobdb posted:

"Ey, Ani! Give me money!"

Zoran posted:

Ahmed Best intentionally played Jar Jar with attributes common to old minstrel shows, as a way of reinforcing the overall point of the character (which is that the people we judge as lesser beings—"pathetic life forms," as Obi-Wan put it—actually do have intrinsic value and that our sense of superiority is false).

We've gone over this before in the thread (I recommend Bongo Bill's posts on the subject), but basically what happens in The Phantom Menace is that the heroes make a bunch of superficial judgments that end up biting them in the rear end later on.

So they look at Nute Gunray and assume he's some conniving mastermind, kind of like old Yellow Peril villains. In fact, he's just a toady who's in way over his head. But because of this misperception, when we get to the end of the movie, the good guys believe they've foiled the evil plot and have secured peace in their time.

On Tatooine, they encounter Watto, who kind of resembles a Shylock-style Jewish stereotype. The heroes assume that he's exactly that: a greedy usurer trying to bilk them out of their money. That's why Qui-Gon is so ready to mind-control the guy. But it turns out that Watto's not like that at all. He's just the owner of a grimy junk shop and a gambling addict, and he's a slave-owner mostly because that's how life works in a lovely place like Tatooine. Watto actually gets a kind of sympathetic portrayal, particularly in AOTC, because the point the movies are making is that the institutions are failing. The Republic and their Jedi enforcers don't care about a shithole like Tatooine because nobody wants to stir up trouble with the Hutts.

Literally everyone else in the main cast hates Jar Jar. They all think he's a useless pile of poo poo, and the only one who shows an ounce of faith in him is Qui-Gon. In the end, he's the guy who provides Amidala with her key insight: if she and her people can just give up their ridiculous snobbishness towards the Gungans, their two peoples would make natural allies against the Trade Federation's oppression. She didn't have to waste all her time running from her homeworld, because the reinforcements she needed would have come over from right next door if she had only thought to ask.

This theme extends to the rest of the cast, too. Little Anakin really is a wonderfully kind boy with a strong sense of justice, but the Jedi view him mainly as a weapon, rather than as a human being with real emotional needs and desires. Darth Maul is merely an avatar of raw vengefulness, but the Jedi Order reads too much into him, so they worry for the next decade that the Sith will destroy them from without.

And then, at the end of the movie literally called "The Unseen Threat," the real villain gets almost everything he ever wanted and he throws himself a parade.

ungulateman posted:

on the other hand, c3-po and r2-d2 are the real heroes of star wars, so your sexual magic is powerless against the might of actually watching movies

the real sign something's wrong about anakin/vader is his obsession with erotic asphyxiation and lack of consent

Shbobdb posted:

Nobody said this was a hateful post, I wonder why . . .

Schwarzwald posted:

Why would they? What do you find hateful about it?

ruddiger posted:

The vileness is the words you choose to use. The vileness is the attributes you decide are "shylock" and "minstrel" worthy. You're a disgusting narrow minded idiot who uses internet logic as an excuse to parrot tired cliches and thinks that's somehow shining a light on racism when in reality it's you who wants to perpetuate those stereotypes to specific people by keeping those notions that these attributes are specific to certain cultures when in reality these condemnations have been reappropriated over and over by bigots like you to further your own disgusting agenda.

Try harder, rapesheet goon.

Shbobdb posted:

Evidently, the vileness is in the words I choose. Yet those same words are presented the same way in the other quoted post that was accepted without comment. It's almost like the ideas behind the words are what matters . . .

Shbobdb posted:

Pointing out the darkness behind some of the concepts presented in Star Wars makes people upset. People don't want their childhood movies to be seen in a bad light.

Mameluke posted:

I was also struck by Chirrut's statement that "the Force swarms darkly around those about to kill." The films, especially this one, seem to characterize faith in the Force as a heroic quality, but almost all of them are set in a time where the most effective Force users are Sith. If the Force guided Chirrut's life and sustained him until he was able to help transmit the Death Star plans, did the Force not also ensure Tarkin was able to comfortably order the murder of his rival and thousands of loyal soldiers? It makes me curious about what free will exactly entails in Star Wars.

Mameluke posted:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. After making my post I sat on it for a bit and came to the conclusion that Chirrut had to be a formally untrained Force user. Between his death, cold-reading Jyn's necklace, and (I can't recall exactly what) his claim on Eadu that ends up coming true, it's much easier for me to reconcile that. Since we never see Chirrut kill (in film terms, disregarding the untreated concussions he gives everyone), I think it's possible to view him as an ideologically consistent Force user.

Mameluke posted:

This is something that other posters have touched on, but one of my favourite parts of the movie was the way it humanized the Empire.