Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

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

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

greatn posted:

He also imitated the mannerisms of James Earl Jones fairly well, you don't really notice unless you look for it.

He's good in Life as a House which predated his appearing in Star Wars, and some other movie where he's a clone to be harvested for organs in a romantic relationship with another clone, can't remember the name of that one.

Parts: the Clonus Horror?

Wasn't Ewan McGregor in the Michael Bay remake?

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 17:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 13:06

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

Here's a theory: I think Supreme Leader Snoke is bad news! Up to no good, that one. I'll bet my dentures on it!

Anyone else have any interesting theories?

I think Han Solo escaped at the last minute. You never see the body. Think about it.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2016 18:46

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Basebf555 posted:

Its what happens in the movie. She's young royalty and we only ever see her with Anakin throughout the three films. When she does fall in love with Anakin some of the scenes are awkward. Rather than interpreting all that as a failure to convey whatever scenario I may have conjured up in my mind, I choose to interpret it as two young kids inexperienced in love awkwardly falling for each other.

If I'm to assume the opposite what would be the reasoning based on whats actually in the movie?

Wasn't she elected queen? I guess that means she's good at politics because she's a kid who was elected leader of a planet. Implicit in this is that she didn't grow up as royalty?

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 01:50

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

RLM approach movies as craftsmen, judging them as a carpenter would judge a cabinet or bookshelf. This kind of practical criticism addresses something scholarship doesn't really touch. That makes their perspective fun imo.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 04:10

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

They get pretty excessive yeah. I get what they were aiming for (use their horror b-movie experience to provide the framework of an old serial killer freaking out at movies, and also Mike's ability to talk like a slob) but they probably could have turned it down a bit (and they did; to the best of my knowledge nothing in BotW, HitB, or the post-star wars Plinkett reviews dwell on killing/torturing women for jokes).

Their knowledge of cultural politics is still pretty poor: check out their review of Red Tails and how Marvin Van Peebles' career proves that Hollywood is a color-blind meritocracy, or how savagely Mike goes after their only female guest critic on Half in the Bag for defending romantic comedies as the only kind of film available for women to really make or enjoy. He mocks her because he thinks romantic comedies are bad and that she's wrong for enjoying light films about romance over Taxi Driver. They're right on the edge of complaining about "SJWs" ruining their fun because racism is over.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 05:11

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

I don't think they're malicious or reactionary, just well-meaning white guys who have never really been outside of their comfort zone and don't think things through sometimes. And I don't think Mike is playing a depressed misanthrope so much as he really has depression that he self-medicates with beer.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 05:49

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

korusan posted:

I think it's a matter of them not really caring what people think. That's part of what makes it funny; they often subvert it by pointing out, subtly or not, that someone somewhere will bitch about it. They do this on purpose because it's generally funny when people get riled up about things, especially social justice on the internet.

It's usually tongue-in-cheek as well I might add, which by the way tends to force people to go "wait what" and actually reflect on what's being said in ways that people who are vehemently all about social justice on the internet can't (because they usually they flip their poo poo, talk about how offended they are, and condescend anyone who dares question even the most minuet things being said: all things that usually shut down the 'listening intently to the other side' part of the brain). I think it might actually be a bit patronize to just write them off as "silly white guys that don't know what they're talking about", because talk like that (not specifically you doing it, mind) is the fastest way to get that particular demographic to stop caring about particular grievances and actively begin to undermine you.

Basically, it's more of a schtick played up for laughs than you might realize.

I'm talking about their review of Red Tails where they say that a movie self-consciously calculated to feature black characters isn't necessary because exploitation films prove that Hollywood is no longer racist, not their self-conscious prodding about Harrison Ford being old. In that review they seem to have a fairly superficial understanding of Hollywood being very racist, though George Lucas seems to understand that point very well.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 06:25

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Movies are historical documents. The original cuts are of cultural significance to the United States and film history. The special editions are too, like the two versions of Wordsworth's Prelude, but they document a very different period of film history.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 18:57

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Guy A. Person posted:

Lucas withholding the non-special editions is one of the last handful of things I legitimately think is kinda lovely. But at the same time it's not like they don't exist in other formats; Lucas didn't destroy the original prints or whatever. The only thing he did is withhold the option to buy them on modern formats.

He is preventing others who could restore the films properly from getting access to the negative.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 19:22

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Star Wars Anthology: The Secret Protocols of the Most Learned Elders of Watto

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 03:14

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Ersatz posted:

And it's even more interesting to not assume that they do, and to consider the ethical/philosophical ramifications of that uncertainty, and the additional meaning gained by it.

Someone earlier made the point, for example, that you can learn a lot about a character through their treatment of droids.

Luke treats R2 like a loyal dog, but later abandons him. Leia generally treats C-3PO with more respect than Han does, but switches 3PO off out of annoyance in ESB. Was it wrong for Luke to abandon R2, or for Leia to turn off C-3PO? Why do these characters treat the droids with respect in some instances, and like objects in others?

The uncertainty makes these questions more fun to consider.

Luke abandons his human friends too.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 08:00

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Jake Lloyd has schizophrenia and every news article about it makes star wars jokes.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 18:26

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

The one person in the world who can accurately claim that George Lucas ruined his childhood.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 18:53

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Guy A. Person posted:

"How dare George Lucas not make this movie good enough so that creepy obsessive adults weren't saying I sucked for my entire life."

In all seriousness, child actor is a job notorious for ruined childhoods and mental problems/drug abuse later in life. Even if you are in good movies. The fact that his mother is an agent just makes me think that his family was trying to break into the Hollywood lifestyle and that he was never going to be a normal, well adjusted kid.

He's schizophrenic. He would have been behind the eight ball no matter what, except maybe have been able to enjoy the first 15-20 years prior to the onset of symptoms.

# ¿ Jan 13, 2016 19:34

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

How did I never notice on all those episodes of Girls that Adam Driver's face has Jim Varney proportions?

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 00:52

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Do I want to ask what happened to the clones after the war, or will I get more space otter fistfights and three-eyed clone marriages to emancipated robots?

# ¿ Jan 14, 2016 01:00

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Timeless Appeal posted:

The thing about the whole Finding Luke motivation is that Leia is wrong. While Leia is wise enough to know that the First Order is an actual problem, she isn't wise enough to know how to actually deal with it. She just goes back to doing things like she's in the Rebel Alliance. She's not getting Luke because there is a clear reason to get Luke. She's getting Luke because he stopped Vader and the Emperor in the last movie. She's getting Luke because that's how Star Wars works. Any justification for Luke reigniting the Jedi or whatever is not really in the text of the film and it's ultimately irrelevant because it's clear that Luke himself is not what actually matters.

While Luke is found in the end of the film. The film is no longer about finding Luke. It's about Rey finding Luke. Rey's going to be the one who saves the day, not Luke. The dramatic question is if Rey is just going to repeat the journey that Luke went on, or can the universe actually change. That's what I think a lot of people are not getting about Starkiller Base. Its threat is not a physical one but an existential one.

Doesn't it have something to do with getting her kid back or fighting Snoke with jedi powers?

# ¿ Jan 18, 2016 22:34

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

So in Episode I why does the fake queen send Natalie Portman to clean R2D2? Is that like the only way they have left to amuse themselves because they're so debauched and isolated? Like the fake queen sends the real one on pretend errands for sick thrills like Marie Antoinette?

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 21:51

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Neurolimal posted:

She has a fetish for mechanical engineering. That's why she doesn't tell anyone about the sandpeople genocide after Anakin gets a robot hand. Truly sick in the head.

The interaction between them was one of the incredibly few things I liked about Padme in episode one. The pause after padme tells the fake that R2-D2 deserves recognition tells so much, it's like you can almost hear her think "loving really. A trash can. Ffffffffffokay".

I wonder if they have a deal where they switch off if one brings somebody back from the bar or space tinder.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2016 22:11

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

In Jedi Leia says that she remembers her mom from when she was small, that she was sad all the time and died when Leia was young. I like that story better. Maybe we should ignore the prequels because they are bad?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 04:52

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Bongo Bill posted:

Even if you don't like the prequels, which you should, they make the originals better, unless you have a powerful allergy to trivial inconsistencies.

Isn't a sad Leia's mom raising her alone and being sad all the time a more interesting story than Leia's mom just dropping dead after naming her? There could even be acting involved.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 04:56

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Carrie Fisher seemed so normal in Star Wars and Blues Brothers. What happened to her after?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 04:58

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Why wasn't that bug-eyed alien with the lightsaber in the basement Bea Arthur's character from the Christmas Special?

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 05:21

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

You ever get the feeling that Liam Neeson took on young Darth Vader because maybe Obi Wan was getting a little old? Like maybe it just wasn't exciting with him any more and he needed to groom a new kid? That kid dodged a bullet imo.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 05:26

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

What's all this stuff about emotional detachment? Don't they just say that fear leads to hate? Everybody seems pretty laconic in those movies.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2016 05:46

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Hey, does everyone know that there's another video where voice actors read the Star Wars radio play? It starts where the other one ended and has Phil Lamarr and Grey Delise:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffZ3f1m0Tg

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 05:42

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Darth Insaneus

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 06:36

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Rand Brittain posted:

Let's talk about something else.

It occurs to me that The Force Awakens has a lot more mysteries in it than any of the other films in the series did. They sometimes had twists, but TFA is the first one that raises questions and even presents possible answers but doesn't actually tell you what's going on yet. Things like "where did Rey come from," "who the heck is Snoke?" and "why did Ben Solo fall to the dark side?".

We can come up with plenty of possible answers but it's interesting that we're being presented with the questions this way. I wonder what it says about the way the trilogy is going to be structured, and how many of these questions will still be unanswered after Episode VIII.

It's because movies now have sequel hooks built into them and function as much as first acts for a three-movie franchise as stories in and of themselves. They know they have more movies, so they waste our time by dropping those hooks. Along with the habit of making every action or effects picture an overstuffed billion-dollar tentpole, it's the thing I hate the most about modern movies. Oscar Isaacs doesn't really belong in the story, but he's here and if his story is a little rushed then you'll get to enjoy his solo spinoff movie in 2018. gently caress movies.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 06:52

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Darth Vader didn't have a story at the start beyond being seduced by the dark side and corrupted. Rylo Ken seems like an insecure overcompensating immature little poo poo who enjoys evil because he wants people to respect him and to be good at something yet knows deep down that nobody respects him and that he's not that great at anything. He comes off like a neo-nazi or a school shooter. The character work in both the script and the acting was probably my favorite part of the movie, as it can say a lot by showing a little.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 07:09

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

Yes, but the primary emotional emphasis in the originals was on how Luke reacts to and handles the revelation that his father is a villain. Kylo would have worked fine in TFA if the primary emotional emphasis was consistently on how Rey related to Kylo Ren, but it wasn't. The emotional emphasis suddenly and jarringly shifts to Han Solo during his death scene, even though we have next to no meaningful context for his and Kylo's past relationship.

The reason this happens is because Han Solo, not Rey, is the audience identification character for all the Gen X'ers who this movie is in large part marketed toward. As a result, Han Solo's death feels exploitative and cheap, because the scene is written not to serve the emotional needs of the story, but to serve the emotional needs of an audience of Han Solo fans. The scene would lose 90% of its emotional impact if it had played out exactly the same way, but with someone other than Han Solo as Kylo's father.

And this isn't something that can be fixed retroactively after we have the whole story. It's just inherently clumsy writing, resulting from a storytelling process which by its very nature had to serve two very different masters.

Not in Star Wars because Darth Vader doesn't become Luke's dad until the sequel.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 07:42

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

I am very pointedly not ignoring it. I am saying it's a bad element to base a scene around. If I was ignoring it, I wouldn't have mentioned it in my post, and thus we would not currently be talking about it.

I'm obviously not talking about the plot. Who cares about the plot?

In terms of characterization, it is true that Han is there because he's trying to save his son. But we don't know anything about the situation beyond that. There's nothing connecting the Han Solo character we knew from the OT to the character who appears in TFA, because all the pertinent character development relevant to the current story happened entirely off-screen. This isn't the sort of stuff you can just gloss over and still expect it to have the same impact. There is no characterization. "Loves his son" isn't characterization. I mean, it is, but it's not particularly strong characterization. Of course Han Solo loves his son. That's not a particularly compelling new insight into his character.

In terms of theme, his death doesn't accomplish what you think it accomplishes, because, again, we don't actually know why Han died. We don't know what he died for. As with many things in the film, it's unclear. What mantle is he passing on to the next generation? What does Han Solo stand for in TFA? What does Rey believe Han Solo stands for? What does Han Solo mean to Rey, and how is his death connected to the new path she chooses to embark upon by the end of the film? I don't think the film gives us a strong sense--or really, any sense--of these things.

We don't actually know if Han was really negligent. We have no idea what actually happened. That's the problem. We have no idea whether he's really facing karmic justice, or if he's dying heroically trying to save a son whose descent into evil he bears no ultimate responsibility for. It's a bad capstone for Han's character because the movie makes no effort to flesh out either Han's or Kylo's characters in anything more than a superficial, perfunctory way. What we're left with is Han Solo being murdered by his son in the first and last scene they ever share together, for reasons that remain totally unclear. That's not a hard scene to write. I could write that scene.

He has a more secondary role in ROTJ, but the arc he does have is exactly what I've described. And it's actually a pretty important thing, because otherwise not a single one of the films would contain an example of a stable, healthy romantic relationship.

That all got cut out to make room for Oscar Isaacs and three more action scenes. You can see a tiny bit of an earlier draft left when Kylo tells Rey that she's going to be disappointed in Han in choosing him as a father figure.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 16:18

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

It's a lazy way to solve a love triangle born out of laziness and a refusal to listen to Harrison Ford's good advice.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 17:14

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Hat Thoughts posted:

What was his advice?

That he should have died in Empire instead of being frozen.

# ¿ Jan 24, 2016 17:35

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Cnut the Great posted:

No, I mean that the plot generally isn't what's most interesting about a movie.

Rey seems way more interested in Han Solo as a famous smuggler than Han Solo as a famous Rebel war hero. I don't recall Rey at any point ever committing to the cause of good against evil as a result of the things Han Solo says to her. Rey grows attached to Han Solo, like you said, as a father figure, because he's nice to her and asks her to stay on and work with him on his spaceship. That's all well and good, but I don't see how it connects with Rey's decision to set out on the heroic path at the end of the movie.

Others have suggested that Rey has decided to train to become a Jedi simply so that she can seek revenge on Kylo Ren for killing Han Solo, and that it has nothing to do with any sincere belief in the ideals of the Resistance. Though that's not the direction I would have taken the story, that interpretation actually makes sense with what we are shown. Are those people wrong?

There's a little thing called character development that happens in the originals. Han Solo grows as a person and becomes more heroic, less selfish, and more capable of loving people unconditionally. The implication, by the end of the film, is that Han has successfully conquered his demons, just as all the main characters have. It's strongly implied that Han Solo and Leia are now going to get married and start a family, and the idea is that this is a happy ending--not a prelude to deadbeat fatherhood and extreme marital discord.

I'm sorry, but I would have preferred to have seen TFA take up where the originals left off and show Han having to struggle with some different issues. I understand that by their very nature these sequels will have to undermine ROTJ's happy ending to some extent, but the new trials faced by the original characters should still reflect their past character growth. The issues they struggle with should be a bit more adult in nature, a bit more intellectually involved.

One way to do this would be to show Han struggling with the fact that, no matter how good a father he is, he can't ensure that his children will follow his example--he can't ensure that they won't choose to go down a path he can't follow. That's the perennial inter-generational conflict, after all. But TFA didn't show this. As it stands, it's unclear whether or not Han was actually just a lovely father or not. You seem to be advocating the view that he was. I don't think that's a very interesting final direction to take the character in, or one that makes sense given Han's character development in the OT.

I haven't arrived at the conclusion that Han was a poor father. That's why it's poor writing. I don't know if he was or not.

Obi-Wan wasn't a good, well-rounded person in the prequels. He was arrogant, selfish, and hypocritical. He wasn't ready to raise someone like Anakin. Thus he was a poor father. Obi-Wan's character arc in the prequels is about realizing all this and growing as a person, ultimately becoming the person we know him as in Episode IV. If Old Ben Kenobi was as much of a prick in Episode IV as he was in Episode II, then we would have a problem. Thankfully, that's not the case (unless you subscribe to the point of view that Obi-Wan remained an rear end in a top hat even through to the afterlife; I don't).

Han Solo went through a boatload of character development in the originals in order to become a good, well-rounded person. If that's not actually what happened, then the originals were a complete waste of time. It makes no sense for Han Solo to be a bad father, because the previous three movies had him go through a full-fledged character arc whose explicit outcome was that he became a good, responsible, loving person. Whether you agree with it or not, that means Han Solo's character in TFA is a regression from his character at the end of the OT. This is simply a storytelling fact. The Han Solo character already came to terms with his issues pertaining to love and responsibility. TFA regresses him so that he can learn to come to terms with them all over again, because the writers apparently couldn't come up with anything new for the character.

Rey goes to see Luke because she discovers that the stories she heard as a child were true and because she learns to let go of her attachment to her desert planet. Also because she forms human attachments to her new friends John Boyega, Han Solo, and sphere robot, as well as an obligation to carry out the function her mystical vision assigns her, even though she rejects this hero's calling initially.

Han Solo is all hosed up because he turned out to be a bad dad and probably more importantly because he lived through the space version of We Need to Talk About Kevin. Lots of people find fatherhood challenging and deal with it badly.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2016 03:06

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

The real Star Wars movies are a completely different narrative as compared to the prequels. Nobody knew Darth Vader was Luke's dad when they made Star Wars and the two sequels set up their own story that ends in Jedi. The prequels have their own story that doesn't match the real trilogy (Leia knew her mom, Anakin was a great pilot, Chewbacca is a space pirate, desert robes are just for people in the desert) because they're serving that story.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 03:44

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

computer parts posted:

Speaking of which, Aunt Beru has this nice denim jacket that I don't think ever shows up in a film again.

That outfit's nice enough to wear outside of Star Wars (if it's still 1977)

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 05:03

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

MonsieurChoc posted:

Canon is a meaningless concept that nerds should discard in favor of actually enjoying and engaging with stuff.

The single criterion for canonicity in the present age is whether poo poo is any good. That Alien franchise box set should be two discs.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 05:07

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

Beeez posted:

Guys, observe how long the Wookiepedia article for the Death Star plans is: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Death_Star_plans/Legends

It went from the Rebellion winning their first battle against the Empire to acquire the plans, to several different battles that all involved stealing a fragment of the overall plans, and if you look at the individual battles they themselves involve a bunch of different, contradictory sources. The creators of new stories were supposed to adhere to all of this. If you are an EU fan, you think of Han Solo sitting in that cantina on Tatooine fresh off helping the Rebels steal a fragment of the Death Star plans, while his girlfriend who he was so in love with he considered marrying her, died in a separate battle to also get the Death Star plans.

What is it about that movie that makes people so crazy? I don't even think the Bible has caused so much crazy speculation about its characters. It's just a movie.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 20:15

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

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 Chr�tien 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.

Romance developed originally in a period when the rigid class structure of the first stages of medieval feudalism began to relax enough for the formation of a commercial middle class and a lower order of nobility within the aristocracy itself. This lower order of nobility was formed primarily by the gradual granting of aristocratic status to the military class, the knights. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, this class came to share the legal status, but not the power and wealth, of the great lords. And it filled an increasingly bureaucratic and administrative role in the growing governmental apparatus dominated by the lords.

Within this social framework, Arthurian romances like those of Chr�tien (stories about the British King Arthur and his knights) articulated the desires of these lesser nobles for upward social mobility within the rigidly hierarchical feudal system. The fantasy structure of romance in this period depends on a combination of Germanic feudal military codes and the newly rediscovered Roman idea of the state and the Roman conception of imperial power as based on "popular sovereignty." It modifies earlier forms of Christianity, in which God forbade the taking of Christian lives, into a newer style of imperial Christianity, in which the state became the supreme moral force on earth and could order men to kill soldiers from rival Christian states in its name. Within this fantasy structure, military action for God and country (increasingly symbolized by an aristocratic woman) provides the path to recognition, fame and acceptance (that is, social mobility). Combat becomes a symbolic rite of passage that has social as well as individual implications.

Romance fantasy was potentially revolutionary in the sense that it expressed desires for the overthrow of existing social hierarchies (often expressed through the reversal of male/female roles inherent in courtly love). But it finally served to support the existing hierarchy because the lesser nobility wanted to rise within the system and enjoy the fruits of being at the top rather than overthrow the system entirely, as the social conservatism of romance indicates. So as a genre, romance recognizes and expresses revolutionary impulses, but finally it defuses them and renders them harmless to the social structure as it exists.

_{-Dan Rubey, "Star Wars: Not So Long Ago, Not So Far Away". August 1978.}

That doesn't mean that the film reflects the medieval worldview any more than an animated Disney fairytale. I think you will find that American studio films of the late 20th century reflect the capitalist worldview. Isn't this film about liberal democracy defeating fascism?

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 20:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 13:06

I AM GRANDO: Aug 20, 2006

SuperMechagodzilla posted:

Disney fairy tales are also likely to be examples of feudalist ideology. One obvious example is the Lion King, which centers around the king's suppression of a revolt by the loathsome, trash-eating hyenas. Of course you have the cynical observation 'these movies were only made to make money', but that's a distraction. The question is how they are making the money - what fantasy do they sell to the audience?

And that depends on what film you are referring to. There is little or no sign of democracy in the original trilogy. It's just one of those assumptions, like "oh yeah the badguys are totalitarians, so obviously the heroes believe in liberal democracy" - but is effectively no evidence of that being the case. Then, of course, the satirical prequels reveal that they actually are fighting for a liberal democracy - to the chagrin of fans who wanted less 'politics' and more valiant knights on a holy quest.

Also, it bears noting that only two out of the six Star Wars films feature fascist enemies. In Empire Strikes back, the villain is Darth Vader - who is not a fascist (and is, in fact, plotting against the fascists). In Episode 3, Anakin is a fascist antihero fighting against everything he sees as corrupt, and ultimately killing himself in the process.

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.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2016 21:08

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

«‹›4 »