Don't feel too bad, maybe next time you'll come up with a more substantial contribution too. I myself found the views of many people about the relation between real world commentary and fiction stimulating for thought, if not necessarily something I agree with.altnameJag said:
#DumpStarWars The new hashtag boycott
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
Something else I'm finding interesting:
A lot of the time, I hear the argument that using fantasy races like elves and dwarves and quarians and such can be used as useful stand-ins for exploring themes of racism in fiction as the like.[footnote]Disturbingly often used to explain away the lack of non-white people in fantasy, but I digress[/footnote].
As such, I find it interesting that a single tweet saying that that's actually the case for the Rebellion-era Empire is drawing so much heat. Is it really objectionable to say that a human-centric Empire that exposes on the inferiority of non-human races (and their sympathizers) is an allegory for white supremist organizations in the west?
A lot of the time, I hear the argument that using fantasy races like elves and dwarves and quarians and such can be used as useful stand-ins for exploring themes of racism in fiction as the like.[footnote]Disturbingly often used to explain away the lack of non-white people in fantasy, but I digress[/footnote].
As such, I find it interesting that a single tweet saying that that's actually the case for the Rebellion-era Empire is drawing so much heat. Is it really objectionable to say that a human-centric Empire that exposes on the inferiority of non-human races (and their sympathizers) is an allegory for white supremist organizations in the west?
You do realize that Disney payed good money for the full rights and privileges of the Star Wars-franchise, right? They weren't so much "entrusted" with it, as much as they simply forked out obscene amounts of money to acquire it. It is theirs now and whatever they do with it is still likely to be less "prostituting" it then the covert merchandise ads that were Episodes 1-3 and the cynical cash grab that was the Expanded Universe.StatusNil said:
Just because it goes at odds with your beliefs that doesn't make it selling out, prostituting, defiling or anything else. Star Wars has always been a heavily monetized IP, which makes it telling when you think that "virtue signalling" and the potential inclusion of a dig at Trump in one movie is the "prostituting" that ruined Star Wars. You know, instead of the actual cash grabby, cynical approach that George Lucas took towards Star Wars for the last decade or so of his ownership of the IP. An approach that made Star Wars novels a laughing stock of the sci-fi crowd, made most Star Wars games (board or video) into mediocre rip-offs of better games and ensured that the only movie/series made in the Star Wars universe were animated children's series, most of which were shameless plugs for their respective merchandise and action figure lines.
But hey, if you think keeping up with the times in terms of gender and ethnic diversity on the silver screen is what constitutes "prostituting" the Star Wars franchise, instead of the above, don't let me stop you. I'll just be amused by your selective blindness.
Have they? Whereabouts? Not saying they haven't, necessarily, but I just haven't seen it happen.StatusNil said:
Now, this I do think you're making up. Where have the Star Wars writers and Disney execs been labelling Trump a "white supremacist"?StatusNil said:
It kind of does though. Numerous source materials and the like have basically said; "Yeah, the Imperium is a pretty harsh patriarchy." Which makes sense, because monotheistic religions tend to be patriarchal structures ... and so imagine a monotheistic religion for which is not merely analogous to patriarchal structures, but is quite literally a patriarchy for which it can *only* ever be as such?Thaluikhain said:
So in numerous sources, yeah ... but you also have to take into account the Imperium's *size* ... there's cultures like the Escher for instance ... but then again, there is a reason why there's only really one Escher-like faction that really stands out. Even the Sisters of Battle had at initial release something like a 40/50% male HQ army choice models? Which is odd given there were reasons why they needed the Adepta Sororitas ... mainly the clergy weren't supposed to wield weapons, but the Ministorum still wanted an organized militant force.
So, hey! Plenty of devout women, and they can never truly be clergy, so we'll just arm the women and that will circumvent everything! So the Adepta Sororitas were basically born (mostly) on a technicality from the Decree Passive ... which stipulated that the Ecclesiarchy cannot train, arm, and recruit professional armies of men under arms. Because churches raising professional armies turns out to be a horrible thing. Shock, horror. So they do the exact same thing, anyways, again with the technicality that was written up prior. The irony being that the Sororitas, compared with prior armies the Ecclesiarchy amassed, are actually the most successful of forces to fight back against the corruption at humanity's core and the perversions of Chaos.
... as opposed to tear the Imperium apart.
So there were even rather patriarchal strictures on why you had the Sororitas, or at least why they arised as a distinct fighting force, and even then they have a pretty heavy and short leash. Though this is probably a good thing given that they arebasically the lead soldiers in the largest order of the Inquisition and so by all rights are fucking everywhere. So masses and masses of soldiers mobilized across every sector, with highly advanced arms and armour, who need very little authorization in the way of landing entre companies on any patch of dirt they wish to, you kind of need to make sure you check all the boxes.
This is also the reason why I far more enjoy the RPGs (inclding the old Rogue Trader) ... Adepta Sororitas are far more interesting in a Dark Heresy campaign. Though they can lead to all sorts of cheese. Not as bad as the Assassin-Vindicare ascension path ... but then again, they're damn near invulnerable depending on the faiths they take. Daemon Prince bashes a 24' sword into you ... dig yourself out of the rubble without damage. Because OP. Irony being they become more badass than any Deathwatch build.
They're also the only characters I know that can go an entire campaign without a single point of corruption. So invulnerable in more ways than one.
That doesn't surprise me. I only know one Trump supporter (I live in Canada, they aren't nearly as common here) and he already didn't want to see the movie because the lead was a women which automatically means feminist propaganda. It's disappointing because he's my friend and I'm constantly trying to get him to see his viewpoint from another person's perspective. It might finally be working a bit since he's starting to realize that he has some pretty irrational thoughts. He has too much free time, so he scours the internet for things he knows will piss him off.
Not saying Trump supporters are anti-women in general, it just seems to be more common from what I've seen.
Not saying Trump supporters are anti-women in general, it just seems to be more common from what I've seen.
Racists are sometimes referred to as "attention whores". In that they will say or do anything they can to promote their particular views. Never mind that the Empire has always been racist. Thus far, no proof has been presented to support the claim that there was an anti-Trump message filmed.
Wasn't the hashtag originally used by literal white supremacists? They should consider renaming it, if that's the case.
Funny you should post that, cause that's been my major gripe with Rogue 1's trailers, and most likly the movie itself. WHERE ARE ALL THE FREAKING ALIENS!? Disney's cramming in every race of human under the sun for this, but is SEVERELY lacking in one of the best parts of Star Wars, the aliens!Saelune said:Multicolored band of diversity? Not in my Star Wars!burnout02urza said:
To heck with more humies, give me more Xenos! Those are more interesting!
I just saw the movie, and it has nothing to say on current US political whatever. Let's cut out the rumor right now, please.
Had to double check that it really did come out. Wow so it did and apparently ratings are at a solid 8/10 so far according to the IMDB page tidbit that gets fronted on you when you google rogue 1. Coolio.Johnny Novgorod said:
Anyways so in conclusion this was nothing more then an exercise in bs but quite a few people were happy to go along with it as it allowed them to have a good whinge at non existent strawmen, reinforce their preconceptions and stereotypes, trade not particularly witty wittycisms with their likeminded bretheren and overall keep up the climate of partisan hostility that is rather trendy atm.
If I had to guess, it's because of the impracticality of making extremely alien looking aliens to look realistic for long periods of time on screen, when using practical effects, over CGI. In a high action movie, with lots of running around and things blowing up, you have to acknowledge the limitations of someone running around with a full face mask, severely limiting their field of view. Not to mention possibly having appendages that look cool, but look like utter shit when you try and run in them. So, you get, like you did in the original trilogy, that most of the shots with lots of aliens, were static shots, on a stationary scene, where there was limited movement needed by the people in the costumes. They didn't have to try and run around a combat field, avoiding pyrotechnics exploding near them, while being unable to fully see/hear.Metalix Knightmare said:
And not to mention that a lot of their prosthetics would probably look really stupid, flopping about in an obviously unrealistic way, while the actor trucks across a set with the other people. So you have the "pantheon of aliens" scenes at the headquarters, so the actors can easily, and safely just stand in place in the background, and say their lines. But when it's time for actual action to go down, you use the humans because they have no limitations on mobility due to their costumes. Which is a limited concern.
I would say Chewbacca had the most "actiony" parts in any of the movies, and even then, all of his shots were short before they cut to another angle, or another location entirely. You never see him parkouring over stuff, or dodging debris, and he's always at the back of the line, because the actor has to deal with moving around in that huge outfit. When serious action was required, even in the prequels and original series, for any extended period of time, they went with humans.
It this a legitimate complain? Or is it like when the libertarian right complained about the communist message of The LEGO Movie because the bad guy was a CEO?
I am going to see it regardless. I just want to know if it should be a cringe-worthy matter or a laughable one.
I am going to see it regardless. I just want to know if it should be a cringe-worthy matter or a laughable one.
Dont defend it. Humans are boring. Plus its Star Wars. Sure, I get it in Star Trek which is primarily TV shows with much smaller budgets, but Star Wars, especially now should be more than capable of dealing with this well.Happyninja42 said:
Part of the fun of Sci-Fi is aliens. I have been watching Star Trek TNG lately, and when an alien looking alien shows up, its usually better for it. Same for Star Wars.
I watched about 2mins 30secs of that. Is it supposed to be parody, satire, or either of those things in the name of trolling?Smithnikov said:
Ditto'd. If this is some kind of grand culture war, and winning it means seeing a Star Wars film twice at the cinema? I'm in.McMarbles said:
