How could Disney redeem itself from The Last Jedi?
- Thread starter Zontar
- Start date
You know if you're going to pretend you watched them, at least write something that doesn't make it clear you didn't.Rangaman said:
Yes we're all aware of how echo chambers work.
No. The movie, in a void, is great, even if it did have loose ends. It's why audiences loved it when it came out.
What, you're asking how a movie that is made worst by the fact it's part of a franchise that makes half the plot not make sense (and shows that Rian probably never even watched any previous Star Wars movie) and has show that even at its worst until now Star Wars has never reached this level of a complete absence of anything resembling quality? Because lets be frank, the only thing separating TLJ from the prequels is that the prequels at least had a good story underneath its bad execution.
The ironic thing is that both these trilogies are being made on the fly with no thought put into it. That isn't even speculation, Rian is open about the fact that Abrams gave him nothing to work with an no rules, no guidelines, no nothing, which is why there's such a tonal whiplash between the two movies if you watch them back to back and why literally none of the questions TFA went out of its way to make us want the answers to got answered (save one that was done in a way that can't be relied in). Hell it's actually hilarious that one of the most common defences for TFA's shortcomings was that the sequel would answer these questions and make up for it. Sure it means that for 2 whole years we had an incomplete story (now 4 whole years), and that other trilogies like the Lord of the Rings movies or Spider Man movies or the original trilogy or hell the MCU as a whole have shown that you can make movies that are good in a void, but now it's actually kind of hilarious at this point how much episode 9 has to do since it has to retroactively make not one but two movies make sense despite the fact it's being made on the fly and Abrams is the one responsible for it now.
Its incoherent because plot points don't logically lead into each other. Though to be fair with the exception of Holdo's plot most of them could have easily been fixed if someone had bothered to make minor changes to the script instead of them filming the first draft.
And the new cast could have had potential. Poe is the most popular character for good reason, and Finn is right behind him for similar reasons. The problem is that they don't do anything with them, they focus too much on Rey (who is a horribly handled character) and then we get ones like Holdo and Rose who are actively detrimental to the quality of the movie.
To be fair this site isn't exactly a representative sample of, well anything. Just one example is politics, where the two largest ideologies (liberalism and conservatism) that are each larger then the rest outside of their two combined are collectively a small minority here. Then there's race where American users tend to be over-representative of whites and international users over-represent Jews.Avnger said:
rogue One: D.Hawki said:But, but, you're missing Rogue One and Clone Wars. How can you be sure if it's the best ever?Souplex said:
Anyway, if we're playing the ranking game:
10) The Clone Wars
9) Attack of the Clones
8) Rogue One
7) The Phantom Menace
6) The Last Jedi
5) The Force Awakens
4) The Empire Strikes Back
3) Revenge of the Sith
2) Return of the Jedi
1) A New Hope
Clone Wars: (The Tartakovsky one, not the CG one) B.
In my Rambling, That I just think Star Wars lasted this long through the Autism and Over-attention of the kids that grew up watching the first movie.BeetleManiac said:
You may disagree with that if you want.
Can we say it Unleashed Sheldon Coopers? Because Sheldon Cooper is an unfunny and genuinely unpleasant stereotype of what popular culture THINKS autism is like. Seems apt.BeetleManiac said:
Also I can note here that I took a VERY unofficial poll of like... Nine of my friends who saw The Last Jedi, plus myself.
Of those, one person disliked it. Not for technical reasons, for very personal emotional reasons.
One person felt it was a good movie, but said "It's telling a story I'm not sure I'm keen on following up on".
And literally everyone else rated it from good to amazing.
Official? Fuck no. It's not even a good sample size. But it does echo a trend I've seen reported around.
People note that everyone they spoke to in person about the movie said something to the effect of "I liked it alright" and "It entertained me".
99% of the really angry comments I've seen online come from people in the dankest parts of the internet, where echo chambers are the norm, and the idea of someone disagreeing with you invokes primal rage and fury.
And I'll be honest, if I listened to critiques from people like that, I wouldn't have watched Mad Max: Fury Road.
Mostly I stopped worrying about being a 'True Fan' or whatever such ego-stroking fucksticks use to gate off communities to newcomers and give themselves artificial feelings of self-importance. I went in to watch The Last Jedi and all I asked was to be entertained by a Space Fantasy Movie about Good Guys and Bad Guys... And I got something I genuinely love.
Frankly, that's all I need. I could go on about how I thought the philosophical angles about the Force were genuinely engrossing for me, or how I actually completely bought Luke Skywalker's jaded and broken state (BTW, aces to Mark for fucking selling it), and how I found the space fights and the saber fights to be some of the best in the entire series (Admittedly I haven't seen a lot of Rebels or Clone Wars to compare it to)... But I've passed the point where I feel like I have to justify my enjoyment. Or I that I have to convert someone who disagrees with me over what is, ultimately, just a movie.
Fuck, if I were made of money I'd probably go see it three times or more.
Are you sure?Jamcie Kerbizz said:
I mean, that book constantly makes it onto white supremacist reading lists for some unfathomable reason.
Like, the question of whether Lord of the Rings is intentionally racist is controversial, but generally the political messages of Lord of the Rings are about as subtle as those in Atlas Shrugged, and I'm including the films here because the films are not only very thematically accurate but deliberately emphasize a lot of the political points Tolkien was making. The racial coding is incredibly obvious. Heck, Tolkien repeatedly acknowledged and drew attention to the fact that he'd racially coded the various groups of middle earth. It's not something people are "making up". The only question is merely whether it is a form of deliberate propaganda about the need for white people to fight and dominate other races (questionable, but again, the book appears on white supremacist reading lists all the time) or merely a reflection of Tolkien's low key racial biases which he used as a convenient shorthand in his storytelling.
But what you mean, of course, is that you don't read into LotR as "white people are the saviors and inheritors of the Earth vs the evil negro and asian hordes and their demonic master", presumably, because you think it's just a fun fantasy book about totally fictional races of people who just so happen to resemble real ethnic groups to such a degree that when the film was cast they specifically picked people to play them on ethnic grounds. Obviously, I can't speak for the whole world but I wouldn't assume they share your decades of learning to ignore the political meanings of LotR.
People constantly think thats the case because of the Easterlings and Haradrim, a race of humans who are not really that fully developed and in the end its mostly humans vs orcs.evilthecat said:
And the funny thing is Aragorn made peace with the Easterlings and the Haradrim peoples when he became King, he did not conquer and enslaved them.
They should scrap the current trilogy and do EU. I am not a fan of the current direction. I did enjoy the films though.
Off Topic:
Gonna miss you Zontar. Seems like it was yesterday when we were on the Religion and Politics forums bickering about nonsense.
Off Topic:
Gonna miss you Zontar. Seems like it was yesterday when we were on the Religion and Politics forums bickering about nonsense.
Well, if I, for one, was to take a stab as to just precisely what said reason might be, I'd probably ascribe it to ideologically-driven nitwits reading (read: "projecting") precisely what they want to onto a work of art - even in spite of the express intention of the single person on the face of the planet with direct access to the mind that actually created said work, because they, presumably, simply know better.evilthecat said:
While I was hoping this thread would be used for different ideas people had for things Disney could do with the IP, I'm not surprised many have taken this as an opportunity to shit on star Wars fans.
What I am surprised at is how we've somehow reached the point where we're discussing if Lord of the Rings is white supremacists.
What I am surprised at is how we've somehow reached the point where we're discussing if Lord of the Rings is white supremacists.
Take your pick of the original Lucasfilm canon or the modern Disney one. Sienar Fleet Systems was wholly owned by the Empire and were the only ones to make TIEs until they merged with the Jaemus Corporation and Sienar-Jaemus Fleet Systems was created, and whether you're going Disney or Lucasfilm, Incom were the only ones to make X-Wings, and the Incom Corporation was not only located within Rebel territory, but also run by people who were openly supporting the Alliance. Both the Resistance and First Order are so ideologically motivated by what they're doing that Sienar-Jaemus would drag out anyone who remotely supported the Rebels and cap them as an example, and anyone caught selling weapons or feeding information to the First Order within the Rebellion, Resistance or New Republic would be thrown into the nearest sun by their fellows. There are no third-party arms-dealers in Star Wars except for the ones who sell to private citizens. The Rebels either stole what they had or they got it from someone who supported the cause. NOTHING in Star Wars canon, be it from the Lucasfilm version or the Disney version even so much as hints at the idea that anyone but a used spaceship salesman would be dealing in both X-Wings and TIEs. Think about it, if I'm in the Rebellion or Resistance, do I trust someone who builds TIE fighters, the single WORST starfighter in the history of the galaxy and sells them to the Empire or First Order to not specifically build my X-Wings to be worse than the TIEs? The Empire and First Order have deep pockets, they can pay them off to build weaker starfighters for the Rebels and not worry about being betrayed because there's always the threat of a fleet of Star Destroyers rolling up on your doorstep and destroying everyone and everything they care about. Besides, looking at the information available, it's not like Incom was bought out by Sienar, they're still the ones making X-Wings according to the visual guides, and Slayn & Korpil are still making bombers for the Rebels/Resistance. The sides haven't changed at all since the last time around, The First Order is backed by Imperial-owned manufacturing and the Resistance is backed by members of the Alliance to Restore The Republic.altnameJag said:
Oh come on.. they're not fully developed but you know which ethnic groups they represent. Tolkien included enough information to make those links, and it isn't accidental. The only question is why exactly he did it, which I'll get to in a second.Samtemdo8 said:
As for orcs.. let's stop for a second. What are orcs?
See, orcs don't actually exist. Elves, dwarves and hobbits don't exist. There is no actual race of savage, violent, dark skinned, physically overdeveloped but mentally stunted people who needed to be included in Lord of the Rings because they exist in reality. Unlike some of the other fictional races in Lord of the Rings, you can't even argue much in the way of mythological precedent for orcs.
So what are orcs? Well, orcs are the antagonists, they're like people in some ways but unlike people, they're inherently evil. They have no capacity to do good. They possess no humanity or good qualities, so when we die we don't have to worry about some poor orc kids whose daddy won't be making it home for Christmas this year. Their entire role is to be "people who are bad", "people who you aren't supposed to think about the moral dimensions of killing or whether they might have a point".
So how is this portrayed in the narrative. Well, for one, Orcs are ugly.
Wait, stop for a moment here. What makes orcs ugly.
1) They have dark skin.
2) They have flat noses.
3) They have slanted eyes.
4) They have ape-like features, such as long arms or broad bodies.
Do you see the issue?
Orcs are not a representation of a single race, although Tolkien did describe them as resembling "Mongol-types" (i.e. East Asians). They are a representation of evil, corruption and degeneracy. But of course, the European society of Tolkien's time already had an idea of inherently evil, degenerate people. They already had an idea of what those people looked like, through racial stereotyping and the image of the "savage races". People literally thought that black people were less evolved, like apes. People literally thought that asians were inherently evil and cunning.
And this is the fundamental problem. Middle Earth is a world where some people are literally, inherently better than others. What are the markers which Tolkien uses to show that they are superior? What are the markers which he uses to show that others are inferior?
He made peace with them by physically driving them back to their own lands and claiming large stretches of land in which they had previously lived, because he recognised (correctly, in the setting) that they are not peaceful or noble people. They are not equal races to the free people of middle earth, and certainly not to Aragon and the men of Gondor. They do not have the blood of the Numenorians. They were, in the case of the Haradrim, slaves of the numenorians, which is how they ended up serving Sauron, because they are literally natural slaves, and again, how is this shown narratively?[footnote]And yes, this is a part where I'm arguably taking a hostile reading of Tolkien. There are points in the Lord of the Rings were Sauron's human servants are portrayed quite.. well.. humanely. But it doesn't get rid of the obvious.[/footnote]Samtemdo8 said:
I'm sorry, but who are you claiming to speak for here?Ogoid said:
Tolkien's politics, and his views on race, are kind of a matter of public record. Like, the people who seek to downplay and erase his very real politics (which are very much present in his writing) because they simply don't like those aspects of his work seem to me like they're just as guilty of projection as those who try to read too greedily or too deep.
People (including close friends of Tolkien like C.S. Lewis) were discussing the racial implications of Lord of the Rings back when the first edition was published. From what we can tell, Tolkien's own views on race changed throughout his life, as he grew up in a time when casual racism was normal, lived through world war 2 and saw the horrors of racism taken to its logical extreme, and ultimately lived into a postwar and increasingly anti-racist world. The idea that we can't have this discussion now for fear of slandering the memory of saint Tolkien or letting big scary "politics" get in the way of our blissful pre-lapsarian fun is.. frankly it's absurd.
Don't shy away from or repress the parts of an author's work you don't like because it might make you less of a "twoo fan". It's not a good look, and it doesn't reflect well on geek culture in general.
Can anyone be so kind and point out to me the real races/ethnicities/cultures/whatever that the races/ethnicities/cultures/whatever in LOTR represent? I'm simple and dumb and I always just read/watch LOTR as medieval stuff with wizards, orcs and shit. This is more interesting than Star Wars. Sorry for derailing the thread Zontar.
Edit: ok, someone already answered it.
Edit: ok, someone already answered it.