Star Wars: Millenial Trash Discussion Station

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

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

the trump tutelage posted:

Do you understand the concept of verisimilitude?

http://gorillafilmonline.com/features/film-stuff-explained/verisimilitude/

Fictional worlds rely on internal rules that ground the reader/audience in a sense of false reality. Breaking those rules betrays the falsity of what you are reading/watching and alienates the audience. That's great if you're Brecht but probably not what Lucas was going for with Star Wars. It's definitely not what I want from a Star Wars film.

e.
"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... was a retro-50s diner."

Elements are included in a film to make a particular statement or reflection, or to evoke a type of affect. Lucas is a very visual filmmaker and very plainly quoted one of his earlier films (which he very often does) to draw a comparison/contrast to it and it's story. Realizing that setting is a creative work, or calling attention to it's construction, isn't betraying the film. It's an element of the film. Star Wars is a fairy tale for children.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 17:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:34

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

hemale in pain posted:

Not exactly a good conversation starter "hey.. I really like clone wars, this cartoonish movie based on a flash gordon comic mimicking the style of a saturday morning serial, because of the deep meaning behind it. Let me show you some still shots and my mspaint diagrams." Not that there's anything wrong with that but I dunno how you could conclude they are good because of it.

A better way to start a conversation would be "hey.. i really like star wars, this hidden fortress ripoff that tacitly supported the vietcong army." Not that there's anything wrong with that, and really that's why Star Wars is great in the first place, same with the PT.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 17:30

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

jivjov posted:

One person in the briefing room at the Resistance Base says "it's another Death Star" and is immediately corrected.

They aren't corrected, theyre elaborated upon. Its totes the death star, even thr characters are aware of this.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 18:11

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Vintersorg posted:

Sheev is the dumbest loving thing and I hate that people here latched onto it. Not sure if trolling or people genuinely like that stupid name.

Obi-wan comes from the planet Stewjon. This is canon.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2016 20:17

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Mortanis posted:

God drat it SMG how many times do people have to tell you that you don't get to offer subjective feelings about what a movie is or isn't saying/addressing as objective fact?

As an aside, this has always been and remains the dumbest kind of nitpick.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2016 14:10

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The Phantom Menace used far more practical sets and miniatures than cgi and more than the entire original trilogy. The cgi it did use is considered revolutionary to this day. Discuss.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 14:05

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Roland Barthes is the most insidious of sith lords.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 14:40

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The prequels are good and I would wager that most people who think so don't actively hate TFA; it's just that it's defining characteristic is how uncontroversial it is.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 16:42

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Tezzor posted:

repeatedly, especially in The Phantom Menace, Lucas notes a scene on screen and says "this scene is really good" or "I like this scene," and then goes on to explain that what he likes about the scene is that it has all digital characters or they made a pan shot out of two non-pan shots or they composited a shot out of many different shots. This is not an exaggeration. These are the only scenes he specifically notes as being good, and not because they have good acting or characterization, but because they have some visual effect he likes

I'm having a hard time figuring out why this is an egregious commentary or why someone might assume it is exaggeration.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2016 19:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

What I appreciate about Tezzor's reading of the prequels is that they seem to affix the character of 'George Lucas' within his tracing of the film. It's all very post-structural.

# ¿ Apr 24, 2016 01:37

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Perhaps it's a useful exercise in discussion like this to remember that one of the original intents for Star Wars was to be read in context with Apocalypse Now.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2016 16:18

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Yea, the special edition theatrical run was wildly successful and made almost a billion dollars.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2016 17:36

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The Force is real in the sense that it's virtual. It's an expression of social organization.

# ¿ May 5, 2016 17:01

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

The idea of corporate established canon is dumb and regressive because it dismisses the true canon which included Apocalypse Now, American Graffiti, and Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

# ¿ Jun 23, 2016 03:07

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Stacks posted:

Lucas pushed Special Effects forward with both the OT and the PT but that's about it. His directing, storytelling and dialogue are steeped in Golden Age of Cinema. It's a retread. A throwback to a bygone age. I don't think film would be worse off if he stuck with racing cars.

I mentioned this before but a lot of Cinephiles/film snobs directly blame him and Star Wars for dumbing down of mainstream filmmaking and they're not entirely wrong.

That's a dumb argument; Lucas is immensely influential in both the art and management/marketing of film making. No matter how much money the guy has made, he obviously is passionate and dedicated to his work and influence. For a specific example, several later Kurosawa films (who those film snobs probably revere, I imagine) would not exist without Lucas.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2016 19:23

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

jivjov posted:

The T-70s are way different than the T-65s

This is great because whether it reads as joining sarcasm or sincere contention it is the pinnacle of any and all Star Wars threads.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2016 16:41

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

I'm convinced a large element of unexamined pre-quel hate coming from the gen-X, early millenials is linked very strongly with a deep spiritual struggle that seems to live in those generations. This is all anecdotal, mind you, but the loudest pre-quel critics (at least on the internet) seem to be the same self-proclaimed rationalist liberal bunch who thinks their positivism excuses their petit-bourgeoisie place within class struggle. The Star Wars films are deeply religious ones, the pre-quels being especially christological; and lots of self-proclaimed Star Wars fans just can't grapple with those messages.

Danger fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Dec 21, 2016

# ¿ Dec 21, 2016 20:06

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Like, the blind dude seeing with the Force was something that was very central to the very idea of the original film.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2016 22:49

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

gfarrell80 posted:

Thanks man, agreed

??? positivism excuses my petit-bourgeoisie place within class struggle? hmm...

That sure is what I just wrote. But no it doesn't excuse it, but is used as an excuse. This is pretty much the plot to The Phantom Menace.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2016 03:02

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Claiming that a set of films which literally revolutionized how films are made, specifically with regard to visual effects, show bad craftsmanship is an insane opinion.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2016 15:03

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

G-III posted:

RLM is what happens when amateur clods with no understanding of art, politics, economics, or even human history use elementary school level pattern recognition to review things and somehow manage to get quasi-famous for doing so.

I long for the days when film reviews were written up by actual journalists and pulitzer prize winners. If I wanted a medium where out of shape nerdy human beings endlessly bloviate about a pop culture intellectual property I can just read this forum.

Here ya go: http://www.nationalreview.com/author/armond-white

# ¿ Jan 5, 2017 15:14

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Nielsen posted:

I find it fascinating also, but he also comes across as an old muppet when he says stuff like "I can't believe we're watching a puppet dying" etc.
And the tangents on "diminished masculinity" haha whatever.

I don't disagree with him, he makes valid points but he also comes across as someone going in to that film expecting "something" while let's be honest, it's p much forgettable tripe for everyone who's not a SW fan.
And yeah he's on point about the film critics, it's why I always have a blast picking out the negative reviews on RT when the consensus is that "it's good" because that's untrustworthy in an age where most films are utter poo poo.

I guess that ties into him saying "people have given up reviewing seriously" and I think yeah why bother reviewing R1 in this way since nobody reads it or cares enough (fans see it, the rest ignores by default), well it's to our pleasure at least.

I posted him in response to another poster lamenting the absence of actual critical analysis from "film critics". He is absolutely the best mainstream 'film critic' in that tradition still writing. Whether or not he loved or hated Rogue One is beside the point and not at all related to what he was writing about (which was the point the other poster was lamenting in the first place as to the state of film criticism).

# ¿ Jan 5, 2017 19:27

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

S.J. posted:

I'll just put a few choice bits here.

I have some bad news for that guy on the importance of fiction.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2017 20:35

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Hodgepodge posted:

Luke, did I ever tell you...

From that site:
"Hey Luke, did I ever tell you that all Jedi used to dress like homeless moisture farmers the same as I do, despite that still dressing like a Jedi is no good way to hide from Empire? It was a good robe though."

That is actually an important distinction within the series of films. Remember that Episode I-III are sequels to A New Hope. In A New Hope, Obi-Wan's robes signify him as blending in or living amongst the desert tribes; they are tribal and working class garbs. The Jedi order takes them as uniform in the sequels.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2017 18:58

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Big Mean Jerk posted:

Someone earlier had argued that Obi-Wan was dressed as a farmer in ANH in order to blend in on Tatooine and that the prequels hosed up by aping that style for every jedi.

The former is correct, the latter is not.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2017 15:30

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Phi230 posted:

I always liked how Star Trek had a very anti imperialist message

Wut? Star Trek was imperialist as poo poo. Like, it's in the loving theme song.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2017 17:22

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Phi230 posted:

Prime directive says leave people alone

This, I claim, is ideology.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2017 17:28

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Hodgepodge posted:

I don't remember those well, so I brushed up on the plot summary. Wow, yeah, a sympathetic character who has conflicted loyalties with the space-terrorists would not be an easy sell these days. Although we had BSG make humanity into the Taliban and that was years ago. Maybe we're ready again.

We also had spunky attractive white kids made into the Vietcong in the motion picture Star Wars.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 15:11

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Nielsen posted:

I figured out where half the good talk in the thread is coming from:

"Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars: An Anthology"

https://books.google.nl/books?id=7i...wars%22&f=false

Now you too can ape views from this book and be a proper intellectual !

It looks like a good read but pretty expensive: in Euros 65 or 55 depending on where and ebook or not, in my country at least.

SMG I love your read but if we take what Zizek says + the medium is the message + Your claim that SW is secretely subversive, is Star Wars then not the embodiment of the liberal communist? First through George Lucas and now Disney who both engage in philantropism. The difference being with Zizek's Starbucks example that Starbucks hammers on its ecological message to make you feel good about buying and SW (as presented, without GL or Disney) doesn't really have that pretense.

--edit-- Well you could argue Disney's is "diversity" and who can disagree with that? Which makes Zizek's point wrt Starbucks.

Star Wars is endlessly exploited through tie-in media, toys, more films now etc. etc. "the medium is the message" ... buy, buy, buy.

The goal isn't to apologize for Disney's responsibility to it's shareholders, it's to arrive at a redemptive, even if oppositional, reading of the film as a cultural artifact. Like, Armond White's reading is not at all glowing but is useful as a lens to interpret what it is saying about the world.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2017 14:52

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Jack Gladney posted:

Isn't this basically a waste of time though? Star Wars is and always will be a commodity to exchange under capitalism. There are much more direct and relevant ways to diagnose the fundamental contradictions of capitalism. Aren't we better off reading political philosophy and learning how to make bombs in the basement and/or organizing politically?

Sure, maybe. But here we are...

# ¿ Jan 12, 2017 16:49

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Toph Bei Fong posted:

On the one hand, we have droids considered as equivalent to the "human" beings, and simply not recognized as such. They have feelings, desires, pains, fears... They are living creatures, and the presence of an unacknowledged slave class is one of the silent yet omnipresent bits of social commentary in the films.

But consider: "And, what about the so-called Transformer or animorph toys, a car or a plane that can be transformed into a humanoid robot, an animal that can be morphed into a human or robot. Is this not Deleuzian? There are no "metaphorics" here; the point is not that the mechanic or animal form is revealed as a mask containing a human shape but, rather, the existence of the becoming-machine or becoming-animal of the human, the flow of continuous morphing. What is blurred here is also the divide machine/living organism: a car transmutes into a humanoid/cyborg organism" --Zizek

The droids themselves are the product of "human" hands. The idea of "machines making machines" C-3PO says in AotC is "perverse".

The Maker, as we see in the prequel trilogy, is none other than Anakin himself, and in each of those three films, as he descends towards the dark side, he becomes "more machine than man". The naked C-3P0 of Phantom Menace parallels the unblemished and innocent young child. The silver plated and body swapped of Attack of the Clones with the angry and armless. The golden and memory wiped of Revenge of the Sith with the fully dark and cyborg. The human Anakin becomes the partially droid Darth Vader. How much more of himself would he replace, had the story gone a different route?

Without men such as this, there would be no droids. There would be no permanent, designated suffering underclass. Capitalism requires such a thing. The droids are an invention of the ruling class' own self-hatred, a projection of their own worthlessness onto an external object. And the droids are, in C-3P0's later words, "made to suffer".

If we truly loved, truly followed the way of the Force, we would have no need for (protocol) droids, nor the etiquette they teach to all beings, regardless of which language they speak.

I dunno, if I'm following your thinking Anakin patching C-3PO together as a stand in for the core abjection of capitalism would be almost the exact opposite of Deleuze's idea of 'becoming-animal'. Granted I know that's from a Zizek quote and typically Zizek only very shallowly references D&G for to strike his own terms. The image of C-3PO and Rs-D2 disappearing into the desert would be more apt I think. Or the 'Nooooooo' scene with Vader, which is direct reference to Frankenstein which is Deleuzian as all get-out.

Danger fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Feb 13, 2017

# ¿ Feb 13, 2017 15:27

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

BigglesSWE posted:

gently caress the haters, I like George.

George Lucas being brilliant is canon.

"I'm not supposed to say this but it's still true: it's a film for 12 year olds"

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 16:29

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Warwick Davis completely burning Harrison Ford was the best part of that panel. Also Lucas's continued criticism of Star Wars fans.

# ¿ Apr 13, 2017 19:38

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

drat Daisy Ridley stone cold denied Jon Boyega's hug. That's the most interesting thing I've seen so far.

# ¿ Apr 14, 2017 16:45

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Love how they tried to cut away too late.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 19:05

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

tadashi posted:

Actually, looking at it again, I think he gives her a peck on the head so no need for the hug.

Also, it looks like getting up and sitting down might be a pain in that dress/robe she's wearing?

She gives Hamill a big ol' standing hug when he comes out next. I am awful.

# ¿ Apr 18, 2017 20:15

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Depictions of food and eating/drinking are centrally important in a film. That's like film school 101.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2017 13:47

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

"Pre-quel hate" is going out of style I think as super fans mellow out as they age, realizing that being up in arms about children liking movies explicitly made for children is a bit weird. Also realizing that they uncritically dedicated a large portion of their identities to children's movies.

# ¿ May 1, 2017 15:58

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

They are unquestionably films made purposely for and appreciated by children. You can still watch and like them just fine, though, so don't worry.

# ¿ May 1, 2017 17:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 14:34

Danger: Jan 4, 2004; all desire - the thirst for oil, war, religious salvation - needs to be understood according to what he calls 'the demonogrammatical decoding of the Earth's body'

Taintrunner posted:

They're terrible films that break every rule of good filmmaking and any sort of logical sense. To write that off as "for children!" when children can appreciate plenty of quality films that a child can enjoy without overly grim nonsense and over the top stupidity.

Oh, I think you are misinterpreting. "Children's film" or "for children" isn't an insult or used to write-off anything, and it's again sort of odd to take it that way. The OT and PT films are overall good movies (some better than others) AND designed for children.

# ¿ May 1, 2017 17:23

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

«‹›3 »