Star Wars 9: The Sky of Ricewalker: A senseless, incoherent nightmare.

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Dear Escapist friends,

I've been meaning to post my impressions of the new Star Wars movie into the Last Movie You Watched thread but then I realized there wasn't a thread on the conclusion of the new Star Wars trilogy yet and I thought I'm gonna get more attention this way.

Anyway, I just saw Episode 9 and I want to make clear that I went into it with pretty low expectations. And I take no pleasure in saying that, unlike many people I've so far been relatively positive on the new Star Wars movies and felt that Episode 8, flawed and awkward as it surely was in a number of places, was a subtle indication of the series finally finding a new voice in something that's not simply a repetition of the old Star Wars movies. Rise of Skywalker served as a grim reminder that, despite the best efforts of individual creators like Rian Johnson, the series is now owned by people who have great interest in adding to Star Wars as a brand but are neither interested, nor for the most part capable, of adding to it as a story and any good movie that's gonna come out of it needs to be regarded as an accident.

While I need to think it over for a bit, Rise of Skywalker as of now has a decent chance of dethroning Attack of the Clones as my least favourite Star Wars movie. And that's no small feat, let me tell you.

When it was announced that Colin Trevorrow, originally considered to direct Episode 9, was let go over creative differences and JJ. Abrams, director of Episode 7, was brought back in to direct Episode 9 most of my excitement for it went away. Episode 7, coincidentally, sits comfortably as my second least favourite movie in the series. And it had Phantom Menace to compete with. Of all the directors who had been directing Star Wars movies so far I don't think any one deserved another chance less than Abrams and yes, that includes George Lucas. Still, I make it a point of approaching every movie I watch with all the good will in the world so while I didn't expect Rise of Skywalker to be very good I surely wanted it to be. The reviews, of course, did very little to raise my confidence but then, critics have been wrong before.

The movie was an absolute trainwreck, though. And I'm not putting this lightly. I hated almost every single thing about its story, starting with the opening crawl and this is not an exaggeration. I'm gonna spoil the movie here. If you don't want to be spoiled on it, feel free to stop reading but if you want my semi professional opinion as a semi professional film critic, life's too short to watch Rise of Skywalker.

One of the first thing establishes is the fact that Emperor Palpatine is still alive, which is one of numerous absurd asspulls the movie employs to justify its own existence. If you wonder how he survived, then rest assured that so do I because the movie never explains it. He's around because the movie needed a villain who's not Kylo Ren, though talking about him, one of the movies few redeeming qualities is Adam Drivers visible disgust at the material he's been given. Either way, Palpatine is still alive and had a fleet of dormant Star Destroyers equipped with planet destroying weapons... just lying around, I guess, which he offers to the First Order. Rey and her friends in the Resistance, meanwhile, go on a number of pointless fetchquests to destroy them.

The first half of the movie is an absolutely baffling affair in both structure and pacing. It's a rushed, hectic mess that feels like it's skipping entire scenes in a desperate attempt to get to the equally incoherent action sequences quicker. There is a chase scene in a desert relatively early on that, I think, was trying to remind me of Mad Max Fury Road yet serves as an example of doing wrong everything Fury Road did right in framing a vehicle based chase through a desert in a way that the viewer can actually tell what's going on. The plot settles into a steady rythm of disjointed filler, mostly defined by small nuggets of bad taste like the lifeless corpse of Carrie Fisher being puppeted around Weekend at Bernies style to serve as a supporting character.

Eventually the movie reveals to us, and I'm not making this up, that Rey is the grand daughter of Emperor Palpatine. The daughter of his son, that he had, apparently, and that some poor soul writing Expanded Universe novels has to come up with a backstory for. This was the point where I was all but ready leave the theater, if I weren't a professional, of course. Last Jedi establishing that Rey was, indeed, not related to anyone important served as an important step for the series away from its rigid focus on exceptional bloodlines to a more grounded and more humanist view of importance not as something inherited but as something acquired. Rey being a normal girl with no special background was Last Jedi's best idea and Abrams, bitter and hateful little man that he is, couldn't just leave it. You can almost feel his frustration about not being able to make a movie remotely as good as Johnson's, even on his second attempt.

Rise of Skywalker is a movie about tearing down everything that was accomplished since the ending of the original trilogy. Literally, in a sense. The Empire is back, the Emperor is back, the Original Trilogy and the triumph on which it ended might as well not have happened at all. But even narratively all Star Wars has done to evolve, even under Disney, has been discarded in favour of... well, what exactly? My first impulse was to call it fanservice but that's not exactly right.

Rise of Skywalker is a cynical attempt to pander to a deeply reactionary portion of the Star Wars fanbase, the very same portion that threw a fit over Last Jedi's more playful attitude towards the series narrative conventions. A portion of the fanbase who's ideal Science-Fiction movie is Starship Troopers, but unironically, and who, most likely, are gonna dismiss Rise of Sywalker anyway, simply for being directed by a Jew. You think that's a cynical view of the movie and its target audience? So did I, until a specific plotthread involving Finn.

Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores. The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel. Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie. And this was where the movie genuinely started to gross me out. Well, you know, that and the Carrie Fisher thing. This felt like a downright capitulation to complaints about big Hollywood studios promoting miscegenation or "racemixing" and an apology for ever pairing a black man up with a woman of a different ethnicity. So now Finn finally has a black love interest and me and my fellow Caucasians can sleep easy, knowing that white genocide has once again been averted. Great fucking job, Mickey.

And that's the movie in a nutshell. It's this weird, nonsensical, kinda gross thing that I hope I'll never have to see again. A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It gets somewhat better in its second half and there are aspects of the climax that I might have actually appreciated, had the pacing not been as rushed as it was. Some of the visuals around Palpatine were unusually dark and sinister for the series standards, which would have actually been cool, in a better movie but in this one it just stands as somewhat neat iconography that lacks any greater context. Kylo gets an entirely unearned redemption, Rey is being tempted by the Dark Side at a point where everyone knew that of course she wasn't gonna give into it, Hux gets... not quite a redemption, because even Abrams knew that making the fanatical space nazi sympathetic would be a step too far but a weird plotline that reveals he was feeding information to the Resistance, not because he had a change of heart but out of spite towards Kylo.

Basically, it's some stupid ass shit. I don't know what the future of the Star Wars series is gonna be but god knows I hope it's not more of... this. There's been a back and forth about wether Rian Johnson will actually get to direct his own trilogy and I hope it's actually gonna work out for him because Rise of Skywalker makes Last Jedi look like a masterpiece. There have also been rumors about Marvel Studios Kevin Feige working on Star Wars and while I dread to see him force the Marvel Cinematic Universes weird conservative subtext into Star Wars Disney has proven that they don't need Feige to do so, so how much worse can it be?

I don't know. This whole rant was probably mighty tiresome and excessively neckbeardy but venting about it afterwards is the only catharsis I'm gonna get out of Rise of Skywalker. So, in summary: Fuck J.J. Abrams, fuck Disney and fuck capitalism. Good night.
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
I've long accepted that I will just watch the new main Disney Star Wars movies as high budget fanfic. I am just gonna watch ships, lasers, and sabers clash while the plot and characters can be inconsequential. Disney did not accomplish anything with this trilogy other than make a couple of billions on the name alone and they really don't seem to understand what to do now. Are they going to make a new trilogy where the cycle repeats itself where we get a new emipre, rebels, and force people to fight once again? I would rather much have a high budget tv show about knights of the old republic, considering that star wars would work so much better as an actual episodic television show about multiple factions, sacred lineages, and galactic politics.
 

Dansen

Master Lurker
Mar 24, 2010
894
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores. The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel. Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie. And this was where the movie genuinely started to gross me out. This felt like a downright capitulation to complaints about big Hollywood studios promoting miscegenation or "racemixing" and an apology for ever pairing a black man up with a woman of a different ethnicity. So now Finn finally has a black love interest and me and my fellow Caucasians can sleep easy, knowing that white genocide has once again been averted. Great fucking job, Mickey.
This is one of the aspects of the new trilogy that really pissed me off. Fringe right weirdos rail against the "SJWs" taking over Hollywood when shit like this proves the corporate Hollywood "agenda" is nothing more than social currency to them. They don't stand for shit and don't give a damn about your "culture wars". By that same token anyone treating Disney as a bastion of progressive ideals is deluded and need to stop putting trust in corporations to enact social change.

The majority of interracial romances in Hollywood involve white men hooking up with non-white women but heaven forbid Disney reverse the roles and put their money where their mouth is. Finn was obviously set up to be romantically involved with Ray but then TLJ throws in an asian lady to protect white purity, and now since that likely pissed of Asian racists Finn is now tossed a black woman to fall in love with. There is an added layer of grossness to it considering how willing they were to retcon the romance twice, its like the only reason these female characters exist is to be love interests. How very feminist of you Disney./s

Just to gross you out more apparently their is a lesbian couple smooching in one of the last scenes, placed obscurely enough for many people to miss it. I think part of the marketing push for this film was about how their would be a gay kiss in the film but its between two rando extras. So brave, so manipulative. Barf.

Maybe this might cheer you up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sFbLppuhhs&t
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
 
Sep 24, 2008
2,461
0
0
Here's the thing.

From what I've seen, Star Wars was the very franchise that made Movie Marketing a real thing. There's a reason why In the Plastic Star Wars figures can easily sell above 250,000 dollars [https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2019/10/23/star-wars-boba-fett-action-figure-potentially-record-breaking-auction/4076239002/] just this year.

Disney bought Star Wars in hopes of keeping that tradition going. The thing is that Star Wars never set out to be a toy multimedia empire. Just to tell its story well.

Disney is trying to keep it as a toy selling juggernaut, and every once and a while remember that there should be a story.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
Dansen said:
Just to gross you out more apparently their is a lesbian couple smooching in one of the last scenes, placed obscurely enough for many people to miss it. I think part of the marketing push for this film was about how their would be a gay kiss in the film but its between two rando extras. So brave, so manipulative. Barf.

Maybe this might cheer you up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sFbLppuhhs&t
Don't worry. The internet weirdos are already on it and calling this the downfall of western civilization and pandering of the highest degree.

Is it a masterpiece? Nah. Were a lot of plot points kinda just abandoned or left unexplained? Hell yeah. RIP fucking Knights of Ren, we literally didn't know ye. Did I enjoy the two and a half hours in the movie theater? Yeah, I really did. I have a low standard for most Star Wars media, because it will never get better. Any aspect that tried to explore new ground or interesting plot points now has been abandoned due to EU purge. It will be this most likely as long as Disney owns it.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
You know, if everybody stopped posting in the 'last movie you watched' thread and just made their own thread for each movie, then we'd ALL have more discussion for each movie.

Anyway, my expectations couldn't be lower going into it. Not because of the way Star Wars is being handled, but because of the insane fanbase and just knowing they would have to kowtow to all those stupid, rabid morons. I liked Rise about as much as I liked all the new trilogy. Glaring errors, characters that live in the moment and don't really ever change, but some mostly good dumb fun that you just forget about 30 mins after leaving the cinema. I don't think anything they retconned from Last Jedi made it any better.

Still way better than the godawful prequels and Rogue One though.
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
So Rey wasn't a clone of palpatine? There were theories of her or Snoke being a clone of the emperor in the event that he dies.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,633
1,280
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Marik2 said:
I wish zontar was here to talk about it.
I hate to ask but did he die or something? He kinda dropped off the map like a year ago. I don't remember him leaving, just that his obnoxious presence was suddenly gone.

I went ahead and read the spoilers, because I already know it's going to be impossible to avoid being spoiled since I don't plan on seeing it in the near future.

Yeah, I'm just disappointed, both by the apparent attempts to retcon pretty much everything interesting TLJ did and falling shamelessly back on old tropes(Palpatine back from the dead? Really?). I had really, really mixed feeling on TLJ but I admired the fact it was trying to do something new and interesting, even if the execution was frequently flawed and the film was messy as hell.

Also, apparently they did this really wierd inserting what footage they had left of Carrie Fisher and writing the other actors in around her because apparently that's less awkward then just her be dead. Then again, I'm shocked they didn't just have her die in the one scene in TLJ considering Carrie Fisher died for real. It would have been an easy way to write her out of the film and not look stupid as hell(somehow force pulling her way back into the ship while suffocating a vaccuum).

I also find it really weird they put a gay kiss in the movie and it's two random extras, instead of just going with Finn and Poe which seems like what was hinted at in the earlier films.
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
Dalisclock said:
Marik2 said:
I wish zontar was here to talk about it.
I hate to ask but did he die or something? He kinda dropped off the map like a year ago. I don't remember him leaving, just that his obnoxious presence was suddenly gone.

I went ahead and read the spoilers, because I already know it's going to be impossible to avoid being spoiled since I don't plan on seeing it in the near future.

Yeah, I'm just disappointed, both by the apparent attempts to retcon pretty much everything interesting TLJ did and falling shamelessly back on old tropes(Palpatine back from the dead? Really?). I had really, really mixed feeling on TLJ but I admired the fact it was trying to do something new and interesting, even if the execution was frequently flawed and the film was messy as hell.

Also, apparently they did this really wierd inserting what footage they had left of Carrie Fisher and writing the other actors in around her because apparently that's less awkward then just her be dead. Then again, I'm shocked they didn't just have her die in the one scene in TLJ considering Carrie Fisher died for real. It would have been an easy way to write her out of the film and not look stupid as hell(somehow force pulling her way back into the ship while suffocating a vaccuum).

I also find it really weird they put a gay kiss in the movie and it's two random extras, instead of just going with Finn and Poe which seems like what was hinted at in the earlier films.
He just left like so many other people who have not logged in over a year. I would have liked TLJ if it didn't chicken out in the end with repeating the cycle of good vs evil. It undermined its own message of burning everything to the ground and just make your own path.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
I doubt that a Vietnamese actress was specifically meant to appeal to China. I assume if they wanted to do that, they would have simply cast a Chinese actress.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores.
Was Finn really set up to be a love interest for Rey? Outside of him asking her if she had a boyfriend, Finn's interactions with Rey could be read as a platonic friendship.
The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel.
Finn did not seem sexually attracted to Rose, and Finn has no control over who finds him sexually attractive.


Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie.
What, exactly, makes Jannah a love interest to Finn? The fact that they talked together? Is that the only requisite to being a love interest? Maybe it was the fact that they went into battle together? Finn seemed shocked that he found more people who had defected from the First Order like he did. He did not strike me as drooling over her or wanting to get in her pants. And there did not seem to be enough time for any romantic feelings to develop between Finn and Jannah. This movie had a short time-frame of only a few days if I'm not mistaken.

Finally, at the end Finn immediately sought out Poe and Rey, the first two people he befriended once he fled the First Order. He didn't search out Rose or Jannah or some random Resistance chick.

And this was where the movie genuinely started to gross me out. This felt like a downright capitulation to complaints about big Hollywood studios promoting miscegenation or "racemixing" and an apology for ever pairing a black man up with a woman of a different ethnicity. So now Finn finally has a black love interest and me and my fellow Caucasians can sleep easy, knowing that white genocide has once again been averted. Great fucking job, Mickey.
I feel like this is either some hardcore projecting or you reading insanely too deep into a simple movie. Nothing I saw in the sequel trilogy gave me the indication that Disney was pushing any kind of racial message or agenda, other than maybe skin color doesn't matter.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,593
1,213
118
I've read all the spoilers on the movie but won't be paying to watch it after getting burned over 8, but as someone who well and truly despised TLJ and all retconning and plot killing it did, literally killing and retconning it is probably the worst move 9 could have made.

There's something to be said for sticking to your guns for the sake of an artistic vision, it's the one big advantage the prequels have over the sequels, and it's definitely apparent now that the sequels being handled by different people who don't talk to each other at all has left the series in very poor shape. The plot is muddled and everything feels like it was put together at the last minute.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
I think Disney massively, massively overestimated how much people care about Star Wars when they bought the license, and the more these films come out the more I find myself wondering who they are actually made for.

They aren't made for the small group of awful man-children who for whatever reason are still genuinely passionate about Star Wars, because they consistently shit on the kinds of things those people like about Star Wars.

They aren't made for kids, because kids aren't interested in this visually drab 1970s aesthetic or sad boomer pseudo-mysticism (them toy sales).

Which leads me to the conclusion that these films are made for two groups of people.

1) People who are genuinely so out of the loop that they buy the Disney PR line that these films are giant cultural events and that if you don't see them you won't possibly keep up with the cultural zeitgeist of which Star Wars is such an integral part here in 2019.
2) People who have children, have nostalgic feelings about Star Wars, will take their children to see these films specifically to try and bond with them and will aggressively pretend to be interested because it's easier than pretending to be interested in Fortnite.

It's weird. I defended the previous films, mostly because a lot of the criticisms they have faced were in extremely bad faith and because they're still better than the awful drek Marvel puts out every few months to thunderous applause. But ultimately, they're not better enough.

Dansen said:
Just to gross you out more apparently their is a lesbian couple smooching in one of the last scenes, placed obscurely enough for many people to miss it. I think part of the marketing push for this film was about how their would be a gay kiss in the film but its between two rando extras. So brave, so manipulative. Barf.
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation. But now that Disney knows a lot of queer people like them, they've adopted this self-conscious attitude of actually trying to keep the faggots happy, which means we get to see what Disney actually thinks will make us happy.

Turns out, it's not very flattering.
 

Lykosia_v1legacy

New member
Feb 17, 2010
68
0
0
Palpatine surviving isn't surprising. Darth Maul survived and he was cut in half and fell into a pit. Palpatine is actually well established villain unlike Snoke who we knew nothing about until Johnson stupidly killed him. It was TLJ that completely ruined the trilogy. It only managed to piss of fans. Rise has currently audience score of 86% on RT, which shows that JJ and Disney made the right call to try to forget TLJ.

The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
 
Apr 17, 2009
1,752
0
0
The thing that most annoyed annoyed me is that if you wanted Palpatine back (which is something I feel you shouldn't have done but fine, whatevs) you already have a built in excuse for him to pop up: he's a force ghost too. What better way for the master manipulator who created the Clone Wars just to boost himself up into power to continue controlling things behind the scenes than to be a ghost who can be anywhere or influence anyone. Hell, it works thematically too, making the spectre of past evils hanging over the events of the sequel trilogy a literal evil spectre from the past. Why does he need a body, especially if you're going to play fast and loose with what exactly he needs that body to do?

And why the hell is Rey a Palpatine? You could excise that from the story entirely and it wouldn't change much. Not to mention the maths does not check out on that at all unless Naboo humans have a significantly different lifespan to normal humans.

The 'Final Order' fleet was just dumb on a number of levels. A) Where the hell did they come from? Alright we can say the Sith cultists (assuming they were all actually real) can be a free workforce but where are you getting supplies to build that many Star Destroyers? What about crew and skilled technicians? B) Pryde sent one out to go destroy that one planet...why not all the rest of them as well? Why keep hanging around on this planet you know they're vulnerable on when you're supposed to be quite clever? C) Them having planet killing lasers cheapens the effect of the Death Star and even Starkiller base even more, and makes me wonder if its just Sith law that you have to build your superweapons with an incredibly obvious weak spot. D) The First Order had already been shown with an apparently unlimited number of resources, massive ships and superweapons, this new fleet doesn't really raise the stakes at all

Overall this film was just...a mess. Trying to simultaneously do its own thing, do old things and try and satisfy or 'apologise' to fans all at once. Just forget all that and tell me a decent story for gods' sake
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
I think nothing embodies Disney's complete unwillingness to compromise in any direction like the way they [didn't] handle the romantic and sexual elements in character relationships. Three movies of homoerotic tension between Finn and Poe, then nothing. Finn almost declares soomething (love?) for Rey, then nothing. Rose kisses and declares her love for Finn, then nothing. New character Zorii may have a thing with Poe. New character Jannah may have a thing with Finn. It's as if the Board Room was afraid of losing the such-and-such demographic if they ever went full steam ahead on any one relationship, so they kept things vague and meaningless so everyone can have their cake and eat it too.

Marik2 said:
So Rey wasn't a clone of palpatine? There were theories of her or Snoke being a clone of the emperor in the event that he dies.
She was his grandchild.
Not that I care but I don't know what the fuck Snoke was supposed to be.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
I doubt that a Vietnamese actress was specifically meant to appeal to China. I assume if they wanted to do that, they would have simply cast a Chinese actress.
On the contrary, I think Rose was a deliberate (and misguided) attempt to appeal to China. To Asia in general.
Here in Argentina we recognize the casting of Diego Luna and Oscar Isaac as obvious attempts to ingratiate the movies with the Latin American demographic. We don't care that the actors are Mexican and Guatemalan. We get what they're trying to do.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Johnny Novgorod said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
I doubt that a Vietnamese actress was specifically meant to appeal to China. I assume if they wanted to do that, they would have simply cast a Chinese actress.
On the contrary, I think Rose was a deliberate (and misguided) attempt to appeal to China. To Asia in general.
Here in Argentina we recognize the casting of Diego Luna and Oscar Isaac as obvious attempts to ingratiate the movies with the Latin American demographic. We don't care that the actors are Mexican and Guatemalan. We get what they're trying to do.
Well, I take your word for it. Maybe it's just a privilege of not being part of a target audience that's specifically being pandered to when you're part of the target audience that's generally being pandered to. When I, a German, watch The Mandalorian I don't ever think about wether Werner Herzog is in it to appeal to the German audience. I mean, I did spend some time wondering why Werner Herzog is in a Star Wars show, but for different reasons.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
twistedmic said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores.
Was Finn really set up to be a love interest for Rey? Outside of him asking her if she had a boyfriend, Finn's interactions with Rey could be read as a platonic friendship.
The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel.
Finn did not seem sexually attracted to Rose, and Finn has no control over who finds him sexually attractive.


Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie.
What, exactly, makes Jannah a love interest to Finn? The fact that they talked together? Is that the only requisite to being a love interest? Maybe it was the fact that they went into battle together? Finn seemed shocked that he found more people who had defected from the First Order like he did. He did not strike me as drooling over her or wanting to get in her pants. And there did not seem to be enough time for any romantic feelings to develop between Finn and Jannah. This movie had a short time-frame of only a few days if I'm not mistaken.

Finally, at the end Finn immediately sought out Poe and Rey, the first two people he befriended once he fled the First Order. He didn't search out Rose or Jannah or some random Resistance chick.

And this was where the movie genuinely started to gross me out. This felt like a downright capitulation to complaints about big Hollywood studios promoting miscegenation or "racemixing" and an apology for ever pairing a black man up with a woman of a different ethnicity. So now Finn finally has a black love interest and me and my fellow Caucasians can sleep easy, knowing that white genocide has once again been averted. Great fucking job, Mickey.
I feel like this is either some hardcore projecting or you reading insanely too deep into a simple movie. Nothing I saw in the sequel trilogy gave me the indication that Disney was pushing any kind of racial message or agenda, other than maybe skin color doesn't matter.
Agreed. I don't know where the topic creator coming from on that subject about love interests.

Marik2 said:
I've long accepted that I will just watch the new main Disney Star Wars movies as high budget fanfic.
How you feel about the sequel trilogy is how I feel about Legend of Korra and the original sequel comics to Avatar: Last Airbender.

Saw Rise of the Skywalker. Loved it. Is it better than Last Jedi? Yes, but I loved LJ. The only problem with LJ was that casino thing went on for way too long (and lead to almost nothing), and I hate Holdo with a passion. Otherwise, also a great movie, 8/10. RoS is a 9 and is a great end to the new trilogy.

My friends and fellow users, it's time I told you something important. This is my last ride for all things Star Wars. I'm more or less done with it. I might see Mandalorian, but I'm not exactly hyped for the show. I'll still discuss with you guys and gals if certain SW topics comes up.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
I doubt that a Vietnamese actress was specifically meant to appeal to China. I assume if they wanted to do that, they would have simply cast a Chinese actress.
On the contrary, I think Rose was a deliberate (and misguided) attempt to appeal to China. To Asia in general.
Here in Argentina we recognize the casting of Diego Luna and Oscar Isaac as obvious attempts to ingratiate the movies with the Latin American demographic. We don't care that the actors are Mexican and Guatemalan. We get what they're trying to do.
Well, I take your word for it. Maybe it's just a privilege of not being part of a target audience that's specifically being pandered to when you're part of the target audience that's generally being pandered to. When I, a German, watch The Mandalorian I don't ever think about wether Werner Herzog is in it to appeal to the German audience. I mean, I did spend some time wondering why Werner Herzog is in a Star Wars show, but for different reasons.
It's not about nationality, it's about ethnicity. Luna and Isaac are Latino first, meant to draw the Latino crowd (not this or that country specifically). For the Board Room it's easier to break demographics into 5 or 6 ethnic groups rather than 200+ countries.
Then again China accounts for 1/7th of the world so if you're going to pander to one country you wanna get them I guess.
I also think if there's any demographic being targeted via Herzog it's the cinephiles.
I love Aguirre, Stroszek and Fitzcarraldo but I'm not gonna get another streaming service just to watch Werner clock in a cameo.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,791
0
0
I felt Force Awakens did too much rethreading, but I can have fun watching it. I have many issues with The Last Jedi, but there are things about it I enjoyed. Rise of Skywalker tho...

The first half was just a messy jumble of lots of stuff happening that felt like it had just a touch of the Michael Bay to it, minus his signature 'splosions and screaming ... mostly. And after that, I just didn't care anymore. Unfortunately I was seeing it with friends, so the remainder of the runtime I had to wait for the movie to end. Not even Ian McDiarmid hamming it up could save it, and I friggin' love watching that man chew scenery, mostly because I think he wasn't over-the-top enough (whenever he wasn't just repeating old lines).

Didn't like the movie. At all.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Lykosia said:
The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
For me that just shows how there's no real artistic vision behind these movies. Each one is a coldly workshopped response to the backlash the previous movie received. None of them stand behind anything, none of them are "for" anything. If a character is poorly received, they scrap it. If a moment doesn't sell, they retcon it.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,802
407
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Johnny Novgorod said:
Lykosia said:
The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
For me that just shows how there's no real artistic vision behind these movies. Each one is a coldly workshopped reponse to the backlash the previous movie received. None of them stand behind anything, none of them are "for" anything. If a character is poorly received, they scrap it. If a moment doesn't sell, they retcon it.
I went ahead and spoiled myself on the film, and that feels pretty on-point. I believe I have described both TFA and TLJ as feeling like fanfics in several respects, and TRS seems to continue that trend in how it highlights the...shall we say conflicting directorial visions between films?
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,524
181
68
Anyone else laugh at the end, where everyone came "home" to the resistance, everyone was hugging and Maz Kanata randomly gave Chewie a medal?

Because, fans were always bitching about you not getting one during the "official" ceremony in Episode 4, so here, I'll sneak you one I found in the garbage, because the piece of metal is what you wanted, right? Not the recognition of being awarded the piece of metal along with your friends, right?

Did Chewie ever express dissatisfaction about not getting a medal?
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Lykosia said:
The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
For me that just shows how there's no real artistic vision behind these movies. Each one is a coldly workshopped response to the backlash the previous movie received. None of them stand behind anything, none of them are "for" anything. If a character is poorly received, they scrap it. If a moment doesn't sell, they retcon it.
Exactly. Fuck the lightsabers- Yoda didn't become the best, most beloved of all the Jedi in the original trilogy by using a lightsaber. You never even saw if he had one. I'd say that Luke tossing his own saber over his shoulder was one of the best parts of TLJ. As was Rey's parents being nobodies. I genuinely liked that because for the first time this meant we had a main character who really was new and fresh to Star Wars. Then Rise was all like "nah- actually you're a Palpatine. So hard work and diligent training doesn't actually get you anywhere in this universe after all. You're only special because of your bloodline" and Palpatine somehow boned someone at one point- which is too horrifying to even contemplate.

bluegate said:
Anyone else laugh at the end, where everyone came "home" to the resistance, everyone was hugging and Maz Kanata randomly gave Chewie a medal?

Because, fans were always bitching about you not getting one during the "official" ceremony in Episode 4, so here, I'll sneak you one I found in the garbage, because the piece of metal is what you wanted, right? Not the recognition of being awarded the piece of metal along with your friends, right?

Did Chewie ever express dissatisfaction about not getting a medal?
No, he never gave it a second thought. What really pisses me off is that everybody bitches about Chewy not getting a medal for co-piloting a ship that shows up at the last second of a hard fought battle. You know who else didn't get a medal? Wedge motherfuckin' Antilles. And he sure as shit did a lot more to bring down the Death Star than Han or Chewy ever did.


But fuck logic, right? He's not the one everybody moaned about. Nope, Han's co-pilot didn't get one, boo hoo. So of course that's the squeaky wheel Disney pours the oil on.
 

Burnouts3s3

New member
Jan 20, 2012
746
0
0
I watched it. I didn't hate it.

I mean I thought it was stupid, but I also thought Midichlorians, Jar Jar and podracing were pretty stupid as well so I just add to the pile.

I think Kevin Feige will be a welcome addition to the franchise and I hope he can do for the SW movies what he did for Marvel.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
I actually am surprised how they made the comically evil insane emo Vader-larping boy the most well-developed character in the trilogy. It takes a lot of work to make so many characters have this little character development where he comes up on top lol.


I think this movie is getting a lot of backlash from people who liked the other ones because it took a step towards the directions the fans want and didn't focus as much on some characters who were disliked by fans but liked by the critics. Also I have seen some crazy people interpret the deathly rivalry between the Jedi and Sith as "romanticized domestic violence" simply because you have romance spring forth from that condition which is all sorts of silly of a reason to dislike the movie lol.


As for how Palpatine is alive, my understanding of it is that he's apparently some form of essence that just reforms itself. Like an avatar of evil itself that reincarnates within the dark side.

Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores. The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel. Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie. And this was where the movie genuinely started to gross me out. Well, you know, that and the Carrie Fisher thing. This felt like a downright capitulation to complaints about big Hollywood studios promoting miscegenation or "racemixing" and an apology for ever pairing a black man up with a woman of a different ethnicity. So now Finn finally has a black love interest and me and my fellow Caucasians can sleep easy, knowing that white genocide has once again been averted. Great fucking job, Micke
If there's any fanbase that caused Finn to be sidetracked, it's not the one you're thinking of. In the Chinese posters, they actually made his depiction smaller than in the non-Chinese ones, because China hates black people apparently. If they were trying to not alienate anyone, it's those billion and a half of people, not the few thousand loud angry online neckbeards who will see the movie anyway because it's SW lol.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Dreiko said:
As for how Palpatine is alive, my understanding of it is that he's apparently some form of essence that just reforms itself. Like an avatar of evil itself that reincarnates within the dark side.
By that logic what even is the point of fighting Palpatine if he just keeps coming? Why is Episode 9 any more of a happy conclusion to a trilogy of good vs. evil than Episode 6?
 

Pseudonym

Regular Member
Legacy
Nov 4, 2020
803
8
13
Country
Nederland
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Last Jedi establishing that Rey was, indeed, not related to anyone important served as an important step for the series away from its rigid focus on exceptional bloodlines to a more grounded and more humanist view of importance not as something inherited but as something acquired. Rey being a normal girl with no special background was Last Jedi's best idea
Sounds like an uphill battle. If this is the same universe where Luke Skywalker got to be the hero, then anyone will only ever be the hero because the force/plot says so, and for no reason to do with their inherent skill or character or heroism or morality or anything. Yoda even tried to recruit his vastly more competent sister and the plot said: 'fuck you, Yoda, die.'
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Dreiko said:
As for how Palpatine is alive, my understanding of it is that he's apparently some form of essence that just reforms itself. Like an avatar of evil itself that reincarnates within the dark side.
By that logic what even is the point of fighting Palpatine if he just keeps coming? Why is Episode 9 any more of a happy conclusion to a trilogy of good vs. evil than Episode 6?
Well, you see, that way you can keep making movies ad-infinitum! And you may never know who he'll be reincarnated as next time! Maybe he'll take Ray over or something.

But yeah, the point I guess is to wrestle the control of the Empire away from him and isolate him, not much more you can do outside of being ever-vigilant.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,419
1,013
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Lykosia said:
Palpatine surviving isn't surprising. Darth Maul survived and he was cut in half and fell into a pit. Palpatine is actually well established villain unlike Snoke who we knew nothing about until Johnson stupidly killed him. It was TLJ that completely ruined the trilogy. It only managed to piss of fans. Rise has currently audience score of 86% on RT, which shows that JJ and Disney made the right call to try to forget TLJ.

The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
Rian's Luke would have caught it.The Luke at the end of Last Jedi isn't the same Luke at the start. It's the one plot point JJ did respect.

Also, Lucas made a film that tipped the chosen one trope on its head. JJ now makes it all about bloodlines and how they are the only chosen ones. Force Awakens is like 40 year old microwaved leftovers. Just a pale image of what it used to be. If any ruining happened, it started there
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
The two biggest failures of this new trilogy are:

1) It failed at creating something new, instead it traced over the original and wallowed in the Greatest Hits.
2) It failed at justifying its very existence by never properly explaining (let alone convincing) how the Empire is still around, whatever you wanna call it; how the Rebels let the 100% victory of RotJ slide; how Palpatine is still alive. Part of my complete disinterest in Star Wars is simply that I've spent the past 4 years unconvinced by the continued fight between good guys and bad guys. I'm not saying it's an impossible scenario but these movies just took for granted that everything staid more or less the same.
 

Lykosia_v1legacy

New member
Feb 17, 2010
68
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
Lykosia said:
The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
For me that just shows how there's no real artistic vision behind these movies. Each one is a coldly workshopped response to the backlash the previous movie received. None of them stand behind anything, none of them are "for" anything. If a character is poorly received, they scrap it. If a moment doesn't sell, they retcon it.
There was no roadmap behing the trilogy. That's why it's so messy. Abrams and Johnson both had their own vision, which were far apart. Abrams wanted to honor previous movies and make fan service, Johnson wanted to break the mold, which angered fans. In the end, it's the fans who made Star Wars what it is today.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Dreiko said:
If there's any fanbase that caused Finn to be sidetracked, it's not the one you're thinking of. In the Chinese posters, they actually made his depiction smaller than in the non-Chinese ones, because China hates black people apparently. If they were trying to not alienate anyone, it's those billion and a half of people, not the few thousand loud angry online neckbeards who will see the movie anyway because it's SW lol.
Right. It's China's fault that you can't have blacks and gay couples in Hollywood movies and it's Russia's fault that Trump is president. Because surely it can't be western people who are the problem.

Lykosia said:
In the end, it's the fans who made Star Wars what it is today.
For better and for worse, this I can agree with.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
Squilookle said:
No, he never gave it a second thought. What really pisses me off is that everybody bitches about Chewy not getting a medal for co-piloting a ship that shows up at the last second of a hard fought battle. You know who else didn't get a medal? Wedge motherfuckin' Antilles. And he sure as shit did a lot more to bring down the Death Star than Han or Chewy ever did.


But fuck logic, right? He's not the one everybody moaned about. Nope, Han's co-pilot didn't get one, boo hoo. So of course that's the squeaky wheel Disney pours the oil on.
Not to be too picky, but Han and Chewie did more to destroy the Death Star by being instrumental in rescuing Princess Leia and bringing the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance, which allowed them to find the weakness and destroy it.
And from a viewer's perspective (as opposed to an in-universe perspective) Wedge is little more than a glorified extra in the original movie. He was a side character with a few lines of dialogue, he wasn't a main character.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Dreiko said:
If there's any fanbase that caused Finn to be sidetracked, it's not the one you're thinking of. In the Chinese posters, they actually made his depiction smaller than in the non-Chinese ones, because China hates black people apparently. If they were trying to not alienate anyone, it's those billion and a half of people, not the few thousand loud angry online neckbeards who will see the movie anyway because it's SW lol.
Right. It's China's fault that you can't have blacks and gay couples in Hollywood movies and it's Russia's fault that Trump is president. Because surely it can't be western people who are the problem.
If China can make Blizzard put a diablo game only on mobile phones, they can affect the direction a supporting cast member's romance plot goes. This is not comparable to whatever minor things Russia tried to do during the elections that we don't even know measurable effects regarding. China is a billion and a half potential audience members. A lot of Hollywood stuff is trying to court them, it's a basic fact everyone knows at this point. They're definitely trying to court them way more than angry online neckbeards in any case lol.

This is not new either, you have Overwatch for example, where Soldier 76 and Tracer are not gay in the Chinese version of its lore.

Any notion that these companies have a moral conviction and aren't just pandering to whatever is popular in whatever locale and any attempt at trying to ascribe to them noble and virtuous motivations while defending their choices simply because you agree with them personally is at best misguided.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,791
0
0
Squilookle said:
No, he never gave it a second thought. What really pisses me off is that everybody bitches about Chewy not getting a medal for co-piloting a ship that shows up at the last second of a hard fought battle. You know who else didn't get a medal? Wedge motherfuckin' Antilles. And he sure as shit did a lot more to bring down the Death Star than Han or Chewy ever did.

But fuck logic, right? He's not the one everybody moaned about. Nope, Han's co-pilot didn't get one, boo hoo. So of course that's the squeaky wheel Disney pours the oil on.
Aye, I like Chewbacca, he's fun, but he is also an ancillary character. He doesn't make any instrumental decisions or do anything really important.
 

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,076
114
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
What I'm getting out of this thread, and reaction by people I know who are talking about it... is that this is a movie that will give you exactly what you want out of it. If you go in with low expectations and are expecting to hate it, you will find reasons enough to hate it... just like you wanted to. If you thought ep 8 was good and didn't want to see a return of JJ... its JJ enough for you to hate, promise. If you liked ep 7 and thought Rian Johnson had screwed it up terribly, you'll see retcons of the moments you hate (even though the retcons aren't actually there if you really look at them.) If you are a shipper you'll see your favorite "ship" destroyed and hate it. If you don't care about who "lurvs" whom you will correctly find that all "ships" are just hinted at all along to string along the shippers and that no romantic relationships in the entire series are ever any more than just hinted at.

If you were going in expecting to have a good time and see a fine (if fairly safe, a JJ staple) conclusion to a series you generally liked, you will. The only thing that bugged me was the pacing, they rushed through a lot of things I wanted drawn out a bit more. But when a movie leaves me wanting more of it, usually a good sign.

Oh and "whatta you mean the 'ships' aren't there, but whattabout xxxx?" Isn't there, never was, you can't convince me it was.
Oh and "whatta you mean that 'xxxx' wasn't a retcon, it directly retconned 'yyyy.' No, it doesn't. You didn't interpret it correctly, I did.

There that should about cover it.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Kyrian007 said:
What I'm getting out of this thread, and reaction by people I know who are talking about it... is that this is a movie that will give you exactly what you want out of it. If you go in with low expectations and are expecting to hate it, you will find reasons enough to hate it... just like you wanted to. If you thought ep 8 was good and didn't want to see a return of JJ... its JJ enough for you to hate, promise. If you liked ep 7 and thought Rian Johnson had screwed it up terribly, you'll see retcons of the moments you hate (even though the retcons aren't actually there if you really look at them.) If you are a shipper you'll see your favorite "ship" destroyed and hate it. If you don't care about who "lurvs" whom you will correctly find that all "ships" are just hinted at all along to string along the shippers and that no romantic relationships in the entire series are ever any more than just hinted at.

If you were going in expecting to have a good time and see a fine (if fairly safe, a JJ staple) conclusion to a series you generally liked, you will. The only thing that bugged me was the pacing, they rushed through a lot of things I wanted drawn out a bit more. But when a movie leaves me wanting more of it, usually a good sign.

Oh and "whatta you mean the 'ships' aren't there, but whattabout xxxx?" Isn't there, never was, you can't convince me it was.
Oh and "whatta you mean that 'xxxx' wasn't a retcon, it directly retconned 'yyyy.' No, it doesn't. You didn't interpret it correctly, I did.

There that should about cover it.
That's about the some of it.


Also, Disney ended doing what some the non-canon/Legends Star Wars comics and novels doing. Making them no different nor better. It really is hypocritical of Disney to do such a thing. I still love the film, but it makes all of their acts of purging anything done be Lucas Arts or other SW properties not made by them pointless.

<spoiler=TV Tropes Rise of Skywalker Page>


The general plotline of Emperor Palpatine being resurrected in a new body, turning a Skywalker to the Dark Side and proceeding to threaten the galaxy with a massive armada and ship-sized planet-killing weapons that he had stashed in a secret location was already done in the Legends comicbook Dark Empire... 28 years before, where it was ironically mentioned as one of many reasons that Legends allegedly had to be discontinued.
Star Destroyers equipped with planet-cracking lasers also appeared in the same aforementioned comic book series. With the Eclipse class Super Star Destroyer.

The idea was more recently used in Star Wars: The Old Republic, with the similarities even more blatant. There, an immortal Emperor is likewise slain, and later returns with an invincible fleet (from a planet in the Unknown Regions with a name which is slightly similar if you have a bit of imagination), stating his old Empire was but a first attempt, much like Palpatine with his First and Last Orders. He likewise has a family, with a parent that tries to flee from him with the children, who are later crucial in his final downfall. Plus, he constantly whispers into the protagonist's mind, offering power, but it naturally turns out the talk is nothing more than a cover to use them for rebirth. Plus the Sith Inquisitor storyline heavily features a Star Destroyer (The Silencer) equipped with a superlaser, not unlike Palpatine (which even showed up again in SWTOR no less than 2 months earlier as part of their Onslaught expansion).

Even the plot point of Palpatine having a grandchild is also something done before. An obscure book series in Legends dealt with Palpatine having descendants (Although those stories were largely retconned later)


Lykosia said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
Lykosia said:
The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
For me that just shows how there's no real artistic vision behind these movies. Each one is a coldly workshopped response to the backlash the previous movie received. None of them stand behind anything, none of them are "for" anything. If a character is poorly received, they scrap it. If a moment doesn't sell, they retcon it.
There was no roadmap behind the trilogy. That's why it's so messy. Abrams and Johnson both had their own vision, which were far apart. Abrams wanted to honor previous movies and make fan service, Johnson wanted to break the mold, which angered fans. In the end, it's the fans who made Star Wars what it is today.
Which is why I always been a casual fan of SW. The fandom has good people, but too many of them ***** & moan, or harass actors over decision they had no involvement. The harassment of Jar Jar & Roses' respective actors deemed to always keep a far distance. The same thing happened to Hayden Christian too with the unnecessary harassment.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
The daughter of his son, that he had, apparently, and that some poor soul writing Expanded Universe novels has to come up with a backstory for.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered how long it'll be until Palpatine's son gets an EU story. I mean, it's been done before in what's now Legends - anyone remember Triclops?

Last Jedi establishing that Rey was, indeed, not related to anyone important served as an important step for the series away from its rigid focus on exceptional bloodlines to a more grounded and more humanist view of importance not as something inherited but as something acquired.
I might not go that far, but, this. I loved the twist in Last Jedi, how it demonstrated through Rey that one didn't need to have some special linneage to be a hero; a trait that's reflected in the closing scene with the kid. But, nup. We had to make her Palpatine's granddaughter, because God forbid we do something interesting.

In fairness, it isn't the worst twist in the world, in that it allows some parallels, but TFA gave us the mystery of Rey's parents, Last Jedi answered it. There was no need for this film to convolute it even further, because what we're left with are massive questions concerning her parents, and a plot that could have still worked without the connection.

Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores. The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel. Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie.
Da fuq?

Okay, there were complaints about Rose, viscious enough to drive her actress off social media, but I've never seen anyone resent the pairing on racial grounds. And it's tenuous to call Jannah a love interest. Also, interracial couples aren't new. They haven't been new for the better half of a century. I don't doubt there's some fuckwits out there that would have been put off from ReyxFinn on racial grounds, but I've never seen anyone seriously complain about that.

and while I dread to see him force the Marvel Cinematic Universes weird conservative subtext
...such as?

Finn was obviously set up to be romantically involved with Ray but then TLJ throws in an asian lady to protect white purity, and now since that likely pissed of Asian racists Finn is now tossed a black woman to fall in love with. There is an added layer of grossness to it considering how willing they were to retcon the romance twice, its like the only reason these female characters exist is to be love interests. How very feminist of you Disney./s
Oh God, not you too.

How the hell does one come to the assumption that Rose exists to "protect white purity," whatever the fuck that means? Also, FinnxRey was never explicit in TFA. The hints were there, sure, but if Disney was capitulating to anyone in shipping, it was the Reylo shippers.

And no, neither Rose nor Jannah exist to be love interests. Rose exists to provide Finn a window into the galaxy's seedy underbelly, and helps convey TLJ's themes of the need for heroes, even if those heroes don't always live up to the expectations of them. Jannah exists to show the fallout of Finn's actions, that they counted for something in the First Order. There's certainly grounds for JannahxFinn shipping, but it's reductive to assign these characters to the status of love interests.

Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
Rose's actress is Vietnamese. Also, Rose was created for...well, just read https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Rose_Tico#Behind_the_scenes.

For God's sake, what the hell is this obsession with race even doing here? People didn't like Rose. I didn't like Rose much. That's the reason why she isn't in Rise much. Frankly, I'd have liked her to be there more to spite the actual racists who tormented Tran, same way that Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd were tormented for the crime of acting in a story about space wizards, but guys, seriously...

Elfgore said:
Am I the only one who thought they looked like cosplayers?

Seriously, none of them even get actual lightsabers. :(

Squilookle said:
You know, if everybody stopped posting in the 'last movie you watched' thread and just made their own thread for each movie, then we'd ALL have more discussion for each movie.
Except not every movie can generate discussion. Lots of people were going to see Star Wars. If I make a thread about an obscure film that no-one else has seen, then no-one is going to comment on it. Least in the movies thread I'm using less space.

Still way better than the godawful prequels and Rogue One though.
No to the first, yes to the second.

This movie had a short time-frame of only a few days if I'm not mistaken.
16 hours plus however much time passes between Palpatine's death and the ending.

Nothing I saw in the sequel trilogy gave me the indication that Disney was pushing any kind of racial message or agenda, other than maybe skin color doesn't matter.
Not even that.

I think Disney massively, massively overestimated how much people care about Star Wars when they bought the license,
People care. Just look at the box office numbers. Even Rise might cross the $1 billion mark.

A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?

They aren't made for the small group of awful man-children who for whatever reason are still genuinely passionate about Star Wars, because they consistently shit on the kinds of things those people like about Star Wars.
So, in spite of everything, I still like Star Wars. Does that make me a man child?

They aren't made for kids, because kids aren't interested in this visually drab 1970s aesthetic or sad boomer pseudo-mysticism (them toy sales).
Um, I think kids care. Box office sales indicate that. And in the kid's section of the library, there's no shortage of Star Wars stuff.

Lykosia said:
Palpatine surviving isn't surprising. Darth Maul survived and he was cut in half and fell into a pit. Palpatine is actually well established villain unlike Snoke who we knew nothing about until Johnson stupidly killed him. It was TLJ that completely ruined the trilogy. It only managed to piss of fans. Rise has currently audience score of 86% on RT, which shows that JJ and Disney made the right call to try to forget TLJ.
Palpatine exploded, and the Death Star exploded. That's a bit different.

Also, when Maul was brought back, the cartoons did something interesting with him. Palpatine? Not so much.

Also, I'll agree to disagree with you on TLJ, but:

The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
That bit works with TLJ. It's not a FU, it syncs up with it given Luke's character arc.

Johnny Novgorod said:
On the contrary, I think Rose was a deliberate (and misguided) attempt to appeal to China. To Asia in general.
Here in Argentina we recognize the casting of Diego Luna and Oscar Isaac as obvious attempts to ingratiate the movies with the Latin American demographic. We don't care that the actors are Mexican and Guatemalan. We get what they're trying to do.
If Rose was, then Rian Johnson is outright lying about the casting process.

Also, seriously? How does one get to the point where people go "non-white actor, pandering!"

bluegate said:
Anyone else laugh at the end, where everyone came "home" to the resistance, everyone was hugging and Maz Kanata randomly gave Chewie a medal?
I didn't laugh, but I did smile.

It's fan service, but it's fan service I actually liked.

Also I have seen some crazy people interpret the deathly rivalry between the Jedi and Sith as "romanticized domestic violence" simply because you have romance spring forth from that condition which is all sorts of silly of a reason to dislike the movie lol.
Da fuq?

Actually, wait, never mind. Some people are insane. I shouldn't be surprised.

That said, if someone says that Reylo is a morally problematic ship, that Rey falls for a murderer while ignoring the affections of two decent men, then, yeah.

I've never understood the Reylo shippers. I probably never will.

Johnny Novgorod said:
The two biggest failures of this new trilogy are:

1) It failed at creating something new, instead it traced over the original and wallowed in the Greatest Hits.
2) It failed at justifying its very existence by never properly explaining (let alone convincing) how the Empire is still around, whatever you wanna call it; how the Rebels let the 100% victory of RotJ slide; how Palpatine is still alive. Part of my complete disinterest in Star Wars is simply that I've spent the past 4 years unconvinced by the continued fight between good guys and bad guys. I'm not saying it's an impossible scenario but these movies just took for granted that everything staid more or less the same.
This.

I know other people have said it, but I'll say it again - the prequels suffered from execution, but not in ideas. The sequels suffered from a lack of ideas, but are overall better made.

Lykosia said:
In the end, it's the fans who made Star Wars what it is today.
Really? Odd. I thought directors, producers, writers, and all those sorts made Star Wars, or any other franchise. Who'd have thought that consumers made the product they're consuming?

Yeah, I've never been fond of the whole "the fans made X." No, the creators of X made X. Fans consume X. Consumption isn't creation.

Dreiko said:
This is not new either, you have Overwatch for example, where Soldier 76 and Tracer are not gay in the Chinese version of its lore.
Really? How so? I mean, the only reason we know they're gay is because of short stories.

Kyrian007 said:
you'll see retcons of the moments you hate (even though the retcons aren't actually there if you really look at them.)
Episode 8: "Your parents were nobodies. They sold you for drink money."

Episode 9: "I never lied to you. Your parents chose to become nobodies and left you on Jakku to protect you."

It's either a retcon, or Ben is lying about not lying.

Everything aside, yes, nothing in Rise technically retcons TLJ, but it still reeks of corporate mandate.

It actually makes me wonder if the OT was made today, and people whined about Vader being Luke's father, would Return of the Jedi go back on it and say "Vader was lying, he did kill your dad." If so, IMO, RotJ would be a much poorer film because it would strip away much of the dynamic in the lightsaber duel and everything Luke does after it.

If you are a shipper you'll see your favorite "ship" destroyed and hate it.
Everyone seems to ship Reylo. Right now, going by ff.net, they're very, VERY happy. Or if not, they're only unhappy because they didn't get to be together.
CoCage said:
Which is why I always been a casual fan of SW. The fandom has good people, but too many of them ***** & moan, or harass actors over decision they had no involvement. The harassment of Jar Jar & Roses' respective actors deemed to always keep a far distance. The same thing happened to Hayden Christian too with the unnecessary harassment.
And Jake Lloyd.

I don't understand people sometimes. No, seriously. I can understand people disliking kid!Anakin, or Jar Jar, or Rose. I have some negative thoughts on all of those characters. But how the hell does someone go from disliking a character to abusing the person who portrayed them? :(
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
Hawki said:
Squilookle said:
You know, if everybody stopped posting in the 'last movie you watched' thread and just made their own thread for each movie, then we'd ALL have more discussion for each movie.
Except not every movie can generate discussion. Lots of people were going to see Star Wars. If I make a thread about an obscure film that no-one else has seen, then no-one is going to comment on it. Least in the movies thread I'm using less space.
How do you know? It's a lot more likely to be seen in its time on the top pages than being thrown into a thread that's already a thousand pages long. I sure know which option I'd be more willing to read through...

Besides- This is the internet. Space taken up by text is virtually non existent. Go nuts with it.

twistedmic said:
Not to be too picky, but Han and Chewie did more to destroy the Death Star by being instrumental in rescuing Princess Leia and bringing the Death Star plans to the Rebel Alliance, which allowed them to find the weakness and destroy it.
And from a viewer's perspective (as opposed to an in-universe perspective) Wedge is little more than a glorified extra in the original movie. He was a side character with a few lines of dialogue, he wasn't a main character.
Yeah yeah yeah, and Leia secured the plans in the first place and got the distress call out sucessfully etc and so on. Those are all commendable actions and worthy of recognition in their own right.

But these were military medals- awarded for actions taken in a military operation: The Battle of Yavin. 30ish went out and what... 5 came back? I don't know what the Y-Wing pilot got up to (the fact he even survived in that P.O.S. seems somewhat suspicious) but we see Wedge do his damndest every step of the way, including saving Luke's life. Honestly I think it's a remnant of George watching all those ancient Westerns where the cavalry shows up at the last second and gets glorified for it. The U.S. is all over that trope, even in actual wars. It's not particularly impressive to the ones that were fighting from the start.

So yeah. They should've had medals made for all 5 really, but if they only ever made 3, I would've given the 2nd one to Wedge, and seriously considered whether Han was worthy of the third one at all...
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Hawki said:
The daughter of his son, that he had, apparently, and that some poor soul writing Expanded Universe novels has to come up with a backstory for.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who wondered how long it'll be until Palpatine's son gets an EU story. I mean, it's been done before in what's now Legends - anyone remember Triclops?

Last Jedi establishing that Rey was, indeed, not related to anyone important served as an important step for the series away from its rigid focus on exceptional bloodlines to a more grounded and more humanist view of importance not as something inherited but as something acquired.
I might not go that far, but, this. I loved the twist in Last Jedi, how it demonstrated through Rey that one didn't need to have some special linneage to be a hero; a trait that's reflected in the closing scene with the kid. But, nup. We had to make her Palpatine's granddaughter, because God forbid we do something interesting.

In fairness, it isn't the worst twist in the world, in that it allows some parallels, but TFA gave us the mystery of Rey's parents, Last Jedi answered it. There was no need for this film to convolute it even further, because what we're left with are massive questions concerning her parents, and a plot that could have still worked without the connection.

Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores. The cynic in me already assumed at that point that this was a studio mandated decision because the suits felt that pairing a black man with a white woman was somehow too risky so they felt the need to hook him up with an appropriately ethnic love interest in the sequel. Rise of Skywalker feels the need to give him yet another love interest, a black character named Jannah played by gorgeous Naomi Ackie.
Da fuq?

Okay, there were complaints about Rose, viscious enough to drive her actress off social media, but I've never seen anyone resent the pairing on racial grounds. And it's tenuous to call Jannah a love interest. Also, interracial couples aren't new. They haven't been new for the better half of a century. I don't doubt there's some fuckwits out there that would have been put off from ReyxFinn on racial grounds, but I've never seen anyone seriously complain about that.

and while I dread to see him force the Marvel Cinematic Universes weird conservative subtext
...such as?

Finn was obviously set up to be romantically involved with Ray but then TLJ throws in an asian lady to protect white purity, and now since that likely pissed of Asian racists Finn is now tossed a black woman to fall in love with. There is an added layer of grossness to it considering how willing they were to retcon the romance twice, its like the only reason these female characters exist is to be love interests. How very feminist of you Disney./s
Oh God, not you too.

How the hell does one come to the assumption that Rose exists to "protect white purity," whatever the fuck that means? Also, FinnxRey was never explicit in TFA. The hints were there, sure, but if Disney was capitulating to anyone in shipping, it was the Reylo shippers.

And no, neither Rose nor Jannah exist to be love interests. Rose exists to provide Finn a window into the galaxy's seedy underbelly, and helps convey TLJ's themes of the need for heroes, even if those heroes don't always live up to the expectations of them. Jannah exists to show the fallout of Finn's actions, that they counted for something in the First Order. There's certainly grounds for JannahxFinn shipping, but it's reductive to assign these characters to the status of love interests.

Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
Rose's actress is Vietnamese. Also, Rose was created for...well, just read https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Rose_Tico#Behind_the_scenes.

For God's sake, what the hell is this obsession with race even doing here? People didn't like Rose. I didn't like Rose much. That's the reason why she isn't in Rise much. Frankly, I'd have liked her to be there more to spite the actual racists who tormented Tran, same way that Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd were tormented for the crime of acting in a story about space wizards, but guys, seriously...

Elfgore said:
Am I the only one who thought they looked like cosplayers?

Seriously, none of them even get actual lightsabers. :(

Squilookle said:
You know, if everybody stopped posting in the 'last movie you watched' thread and just made their own thread for each movie, then we'd ALL have more discussion for each movie.
Except not every movie can generate discussion. Lots of people were going to see Star Wars. If I make a thread about an obscure film that no-one else has seen, then no-one is going to comment on it. Least in the movies thread I'm using less space.

Still way better than the godawful prequels and Rogue One though.
No to the first, yes to the second.

This movie had a short time-frame of only a few days if I'm not mistaken.
16 hours plus however much time passes between Palpatine's death and the ending.

Nothing I saw in the sequel trilogy gave me the indication that Disney was pushing any kind of racial message or agenda, other than maybe skin color doesn't matter.
Not even that.

I think Disney massively, massively overestimated how much people care about Star Wars when they bought the license,
People care. Just look at the box office numbers. Even Rise might cross the $1 billion mark.

A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?

They aren't made for the small group of awful man-children who for whatever reason are still genuinely passionate about Star Wars, because they consistently shit on the kinds of things those people like about Star Wars.
So, in spite of everything, I still like Star Wars. Does that make me a man child?

They aren't made for kids, because kids aren't interested in this visually drab 1970s aesthetic or sad boomer pseudo-mysticism (them toy sales).
Um, I think kids care. Box office sales indicate that. And in the kid's section of the library, there's no shortage of Star Wars stuff.

Lykosia said:
Palpatine surviving isn't surprising. Darth Maul survived and he was cut in half and fell into a pit. Palpatine is actually well established villain unlike Snoke who we knew nothing about until Johnson stupidly killed him. It was TLJ that completely ruined the trilogy. It only managed to piss of fans. Rise has currently audience score of 86% on RT, which shows that JJ and Disney made the right call to try to forget TLJ.
Palpatine exploded, and the Death Star exploded. That's a bit different.

Also, when Maul was brought back, the cartoons did something interesting with him. Palpatine? Not so much.

Also, I'll agree to disagree with you on TLJ, but:

The best part of Rise was Luke's FU to Rian Johnson: Jedi's weapon deserves more respect.
That bit works with TLJ. It's not a FU, it syncs up with it given Luke's character arc.

Johnny Novgorod said:
On the contrary, I think Rose was a deliberate (and misguided) attempt to appeal to China. To Asia in general.
Here in Argentina we recognize the casting of Diego Luna and Oscar Isaac as obvious attempts to ingratiate the movies with the Latin American demographic. We don't care that the actors are Mexican and Guatemalan. We get what they're trying to do.
If Rose was, then Rian Johnson is outright lying about the casting process.

Also, seriously? How does one get to the point where people go "non-white actor, pandering!"

bluegate said:
Anyone else laugh at the end, where everyone came "home" to the resistance, everyone was hugging and Maz Kanata randomly gave Chewie a medal?
I didn't laugh, but I did smile.

It's fan service, but it's fan service I actually liked.

Also I have seen some crazy people interpret the deathly rivalry between the Jedi and Sith as "romanticized domestic violence" simply because you have romance spring forth from that condition which is all sorts of silly of a reason to dislike the movie lol.
Da fuq?

Actually, wait, never mind. Some people are insane. I shouldn't be surprised.

That said, if someone says that Reylo is a morally problematic ship, that Rey falls for a murderer while ignoring the affections of two decent men, then, yeah.

I've never understood the Reylo shippers. I probably never will.

Johnny Novgorod said:
The two biggest failures of this new trilogy are:

1) It failed at creating something new, instead it traced over the original and wallowed in the Greatest Hits.
2) It failed at justifying its very existence by never properly explaining (let alone convincing) how the Empire is still around, whatever you wanna call it; how the Rebels let the 100% victory of RotJ slide; how Palpatine is still alive. Part of my complete disinterest in Star Wars is simply that I've spent the past 4 years unconvinced by the continued fight between good guys and bad guys. I'm not saying it's an impossible scenario but these movies just took for granted that everything staid more or less the same.
This.

I know other people have said it, but I'll say it again - the prequels suffered from execution, but not in ideas. The sequels suffered from a lack of ideas, but are overall better made.

Lykosia said:
In the end, it's the fans who made Star Wars what it is today.
Really? Odd. I thought directors, producers, writers, and all those sorts made Star Wars, or any other franchise. Who'd have thought that consumers made the product they're consuming?

Yeah, I've never been fond of the whole "the fans made X." No, the creators of X made X. Fans consume X. Consumption isn't creation.

Dreiko said:
This is not new either, you have Overwatch for example, where Soldier 76 and Tracer are not gay in the Chinese version of its lore.
Really? How so? I mean, the only reason we know they're gay is because of short stories.

Kyrian007 said:
you'll see retcons of the moments you hate (even though the retcons aren't actually there if you really look at them.)
Episode 8: "Your parents were nobodies. They sold you for drink money."

Episode 9: "I never lied to you. Your parents chose to become nobodies and left you on Jakku to protect you."

It's either a retcon, or Ben is lying about not lying.

Everything aside, yes, nothing in Rise technically retcons TLJ, but it still reeks of corporate mandate.

It actually makes me wonder if the OT was made today, and people whined about Vader being Luke's father, would Return of the Jedi go back on it and say "Vader was lying, he did kill your dad." If so, IMO, RotJ would be a much poorer film because it would strip away much of the dynamic in the lightsaber duel and everything Luke does after it.

If you are a shipper you'll see your favorite "ship" destroyed and hate it.
Everyone seems to ship Reylo. Right now, going by ff.net, they're very, VERY happy. Or if not, they're only unhappy because they didn't get to be together.
CoCage said:
Which is why I always been a casual fan of SW. The fandom has good people, but too many of them ***** & moan, or harass actors over decision they had no involvement. The harassment of Jar Jar & Roses' respective actors deemed to always keep a far distance. The same thing happened to Hayden Christian too with the unnecessary harassment.
And Jake Lloyd.

I don't understand people sometimes. No, seriously. I can understand people disliking kid!Anakin, or Jar Jar, or Rose. I have some negative thoughts on all of those characters. But how the hell does someone go from disliking a character to abusing the person who portrayed them? :(
Because they're lonely, miserable assholes with nothing better to do with their lives or have too much time on their hands. And they build their identity around all things Star Wars, meaning they don't have time for much else. When they realize that, then comes the self hatred. They have no one to blame but themselves
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
Hawki said:
Episode 8: "Your parents were nobodies. They sold you for drink money."

Episode 9: "I never lied to you. Your parents chose to become nobodies and left you on Jakku to protect you."

It's either a retcon, or Ben is lying about not lying.
That could be written off as Kylo being wrong about why her parents left her on Jakku. They were still nobodies in the grand scheme of things. There is absolutely no indication that Palpatine had anything to do with his biological son. He may have had dozens of children that never manifested Force abilities and he didn't care about them at all. He only seemed interested in Rey because she was Force-sensitive and he could hijack her body.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,791
0
0
Hawki said:
Elfgore said:
Hell yeah. RIP fucking Knights of Ren, we literally didn't know ye.
Am I the only one who thought they looked like cosplayers?

Seriously, none of them even get actual lightsabers. :(
Their backstory is probably explained in a comic book, or a novel, or something, cuz that is what Disney seems to love doing with background details and exposition, especially if's important and/or interesting. Kind of like how Palpatine's message to the galaxy isn't actually in TRoS, except for a mention in the opening crawl.

The actual message is out there tho. It was a Fortnite event. [https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/2019/12/20/21031513/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-fortnite-opening-crawl-palpatines-message]
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Chimpzy said:
The actual message is out there tho. [url:https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/2019/12/20/21031513/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-fortnite-opening-crawl-palpatines-message]It was a Fortnite event.[/url]
Your link isn't working, but I found it on YouTube.

I mean, what the hell Disney? You couldn't slot that into the movie somehow? Less than a minute, and it could just be Palpatine's voice layered over what's going on screen as Ben searches for him.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,121
576
118
Country
4
Hawki said:
Chimpzy said:
The actual message is out there tho. [url:https://www.polygon.com/fortnite/2019/12/20/21031513/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-fortnite-opening-crawl-palpatines-message]It was a Fortnite event.[/url]
Your link isn't working, but I found it on YouTube.

I mean, what the hell Disney? You couldn't slot that into the movie somehow? Less than a minute, and it could just be Palpatine's voice layered over what's going on screen as Ben searches for him.
Because basic plot logic is now considered obscure lore to be parcelled out like dlc as easter eggs.


So, why is it called 'Rise of Skywalker'? Who's Skywalker in this, and how do they rise?
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Kwak said:
So, why is it called 'Rise of Skywalker'? Who's Skywalker in this, and how do they rise?
Rey takes the Skywalker name at the film's end, so I guess it's her rise by virtue of being the last Force-user standing?

Yeah, I dunno. Of the three "R" films, its title is the most tenuous.
 

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,076
114
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
Hawki said:
Kyrian007 said:
you'll see retcons of the moments you hate (even though the retcons aren't actually there if you really look at them.)
Episode 8: "Your parents were nobodies. They sold you for drink money."

Episode 9: "I never lied to you. Your parents chose to become nobodies and left you on Jakku to protect you."

It's either a retcon, or Ben is lying about not lying.
Actually yes, Ben is not lying... and it is not a retcon. You do have to pay attention to what Kylo is saying in The Last Jedi. Because more important than the lines you highlighted... were the ones preceding it.

Kylo Ren : Do you know the truth about your parents? Or have you always known? You've just hidden it away. Say it.
Rey : [in tears] They were nobody.

He didn't know the truth, neither did she. The only knowledge he had was her fears about her parents being nothing stitched together from half remembered childhood memories of parents surviving in a particularly harsh environment. He was never telling her what happened to her parents. He couldn't have, he didn't know. What he was doing was using their connection to look into her mind and, as a dark side user would, reinforcing her worst fears about who her parents were. He was very specifically starting down the direct path to the dark side; fear, then anger, then hate, and so on. It was what she feared the most, they were nobodies, they were dead, she didn't matter, nobody ever loved her, and no one was coming back for her. Her true parentage revealed in RoS, was chosen because it was worse than her fears ever had been. It wasn't a retcon of the moment in Rian Johnson's film... it reinforced and escalates that moment. The Emperor is trying to complete her journey, to heighten her... suffering. To the dark side, that leads. From my point of view... it really works within the framework set up by all the prior films.

Much like Kenobi telling Luke his father was dead, and mind you that was a Kenobi... a Jedi not telling Luke the truth in the most direct way. Do we somehow expect BETTER of Kylo Ren? Why?
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
For some reason even as a kid I could never get into Star Wars. So my expectations have always been pretty steady at zero. Same for Star Trek. I guess what I?m saying is I like sci-fi but not when it?s too quirky. Ironically enough though, I did find Guardians of the Galaxy entertaining, but it was mostly due to the characters.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,766
0
0
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
My understanding was basically this. And the black dude couldn't hook up with the white girl for the same reason - China.

Also if I recall for the Chinese movie posters, Disney purposefully moved Fynn to a corner, made him smaller, and lightened his skin tone so it was less obvious a black dude was in it.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,766
0
0
Hawki said:
Kwak said:
So, why is it called 'Rise of Skywalker'? Who's Skywalker in this, and how do they rise?
Rey takes the Skywalker name at the film's end, so I guess it's her rise by virtue of being the last Force-user standing?

Yeah, I dunno. Of the three "R" films, its title is the most tenuous.
But remember that broom kid in Last Jedi who used the Force?

Also, and this is probably not true but still, John Boyega said in an interview was Fynn was going to tell Rey wasn't he loved her, but that he was a Force user too.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,497
1,253
118
Country
United Kingdom
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,419
1,013
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Hawki said:
Episode 8: "Your parents were nobodies. They sold you for drink money."

Episode 9: "I never lied to you. Your parents chose to become nobodies and left you on Jakku to protect you."

It's either a retcon, or Ben is lying about not lying.
Star Wars is well known for trash retcons. The exact same situation happened for Luke when Kenobi says 'a certain point of view.' It's one thing JJ got right
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,802
407
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Silvanus said:
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Silvanus said:
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.
Also 99% of anime.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Asita said:
Silvanus said:
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.

Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
Probably this part between 1:00-1:20.


I remember Korey and his friends on Double Toasted joked about the clip saying Scar acts like a gay guy on Broadway in Be Prepared.


I have the video to start at the 13 minute mark.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,497
1,253
118
Country
United Kingdom
Asita said:
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
That he's tremendously camp.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Asita said:
Silvanus said:
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
To me he always seemed like the jealous beta narcissist who couldn't square his view of himself with the lack of outside adoration. A posh elitist basically. Maybe the thing I interpret as narcissism is what others interpret as effeminate or somehow gay? Not sure about that.

As for Ursula, she always reminded me of my grandmother if she was evil due to her dimensions (she was a big woman haha), so I never had the slightest idea there was an actual drag queen that looked like a 70~ year old Greek old lady XD.


Johnny Novgorod said:
Silvanus said:
Hawki said:
A lot of queer people like Disney. Probably because Disney went through a long phase of queer-coding the hell out of villain characters in order to show that they were really bad people, thus unintentionally creating representation.
...such as?
Scar and Ursula most prominently. Ursula was even aesthetically based on a famous drag queen.

More broadly, effeminacy and campness has been used to characterise antagonists in Disney from the start.
Also 99% of anime.
Anime tend to go through a bit of cultural prism. The thing we see as effeminate is actually old school regal components. The idea being that the masculine folk were the ones who were low class and needed to be masculine in order to survive in battlefields or just regular fields doing all the farming, whereas the nobility could be all weak and effeminate cause they had no need to do that sort of work. Stuff like Freeza from DBZ might seem effeminate but he's actually just being regal in the correct context.

Silentpony said:
Marik2 said:
I thought Rose was put there to appeal to China, and maybe they got mad that a black guy was going to pair with her?
My understanding was basically this. And the black dude couldn't hook up with the white girl for the same reason - China.

Also if I recall for the Chinese movie posters, Disney purposefully moved Fynn to a corner, made him smaller, and lightened his skin tone so it was less obvious a black dude was in it.

Like I said earlier, they actually reduced the size of Finn's depiction in the Chinese posters of the movie. They clearly are taking China into account a lot here.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,121
576
118
Country
4
Johnny Novgorod said:
Three movies of homoerotic tension between Finn and Poe, then nothing.
I'm a little annoyed at this.
(I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just taking on this point as a pet peeve against modern society.)

What exactly was the 'homo-erotic tension'? That they had banter, and were enthusiastically pleased to see each other survive an assumed fatal crash?

This seems like the perfect example of society's hypocrisy over masculinity and male roles - we're displaying toxic masculinity over our fear of displaying basic human affection for each other or emotional vulnerability lest it be seen as gay, yet the mildest of camaraderie is immediately announced as homo-eroticism. What the fuck? Is it any wonder we have trouble expressing non-sexual affection beyond an arm punch and playful insult?

Anyway.... surprise.
A scene showing a lesbian kiss has been cut from the Singaporean version of the Star Wars film The Rise of Skywalker.

The country?s media regulatory body said Disney removed the clip to avoid the film being given a higher age rating. It is PG13, which means parental guidance is advised for children under 13.

?The applicant has omitted a brief scene which under the film classification guidelines would require a higher rating,? a spokesperson from Infocomm Media Development Authority said.

In Singapore, same-sex marriage is illegal and sex between men is a crime that carries a penalty of up to two years in prison. The law is silent on sex between women, says the LGBT rights charity Stonewall.

Singaporean censorship guidelines state that films containing LGBT themes or content as a subplot may be restricted to viewers aged 18 and above, while films focusing on homosexuality may be hit with a 21-and-over rating.

Disney owns Lucasfilm ? the Star Wars production company ? and it is not clear whether the scene was removed in other countries. The Hollywood Reporter said multiple people who had seen the film in Dubai reported that the moment had been removed.

Disney has not responded to requests for comment.

The scene in Rise of Skywalker, the first same-sex kiss in the franchise?s history, was hailed as historic by some, but the fleeting moment between two peripheral characters was criticised as tokenism by those hoping for greater LGBT representation.
 

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
295
14
23
Country
Canada
Marik2 said:
. Are they going to make a new trilogy where the cycle repeats itself where we get a new emipre, rebels, and force people to fight once again? I would rather much have a high budget tv show about knights of the old republic, considering that star wars would work so much better as an actual episodic television show about multiple factions, sacred lineages, and galactic politics.
I mean, that's basically the perpetual cycle of the Star Wars universe going right on back to KOTOR. There's always a Sith Empire, there's always a Republic, nothing changes technologically and it all repeats every hundred years or so.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Ravinoff said:
Marik2 said:
. Are they going to make a new trilogy where the cycle repeats itself where we get a new emipre, rebels, and force people to fight once again? I would rather much have a high budget tv show about knights of the old republic, considering that star wars would work so much better as an actual episodic television show about multiple factions, sacred lineages, and galactic politics.
I mean, that's basically the perpetual cycle of the Star Wars universe going right on back to KOTOR. There's always a Sith Empire, there's always a Republic, nothing changes technologically and it all repeats every hundred years or so.
So basically this:


Or this:


If you're feeling that cynical.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Just saw RoS. Honestly the only 2 things I could say I hated were Snoke's origins and Rey's parentage.

We did not need to know who Snoke was or where he came from. Snoke's purpose was to push Ben to the Dark Side and his death at his hands cemented it. Anything further is the kind of thing Star Wars movies leave for EU novels and such if they are brought up again at all. Having Snoke just be this thing Palpatine made to further his plans is not only cheap it also doesn't even address anything the haters were complaining they ever wanted to know about him to begin with. We still don't know anything about Snoke's creation, we don't know how he built the First Order, and we still don't know what his actual aims were or if they aligned with Palpatine's or anyone else's.

Rey's parentage was, beyond all doubt, the best revelation The Last Jedi could've given. Rey was awesome because she scraped herself up by her fingernails coming from nothing and with nothing but her own determination from childhood and became not only a hero, but the one who would ultimately decide the entire fate of the galaxy. Wow! I guess that means the sky's the limit for everybody now, anybody can be the ultimate hero or villain if they try! How inspiring!

Wait, nope, she's this special snowflake from a powerful bloodline, and of any they could have given her, Palpatine's bloodline. They've now continued the idea that has plagued the franchise that everybody's destiny is decided by birth and nobody will ever be worth anything especially not going to be the best of the best and save the galaxy unless they are born from the blood of someone who was important.

However, unlike SOME people, I'm not going to hate on a movie because of 1 or 2 plot points I hate, particularly a couple plot points that aren't really significant anyway. Otherwise, I liked it. It was fine, the worst in the trilogy bar none, but watchable. When "watchable" is the best thing you can say about a STAR WARS movie of all things something has broken somewhere along the line on their end. Had they simply followed through on the plot points of The Last Jedi rather than trying to throw out or retcon most of them the movie would've been much better. All I can do, all anyone can do, is hope for improvements somewhere along the line.

Star Wars is not dead, that much is for sure.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Just saw RoS. Honestly the only 2 things I could say I hated were Snoke's origins and Rey's parentage.

We did not need to know who Snoke was or where he came from. Snoke's purpose was to push Ben to the Dark Side and his death at his hands cemented it. Anything further is the kind of thing Star Wars movies leave for EU novels and such if they are brought up again at all. Having Snoke just be this thing Palpatine made to further his plans is not only cheap it also doesn't even address anything the haters were complaining they ever wanted to know about him to begin with. We still don't know anything about Snoke's creation, we don't know how he built the First Order, and we still don't know what his actual aims were or if they aligned with Palpatine's or anyone else's.

Rey's parentage was, beyond all doubt, the best revelation The Last Jedi could've given. Rey was awesome because she scraped herself up by her fingernails coming from nothing and with nothing but her own determination from childhood and became not only a hero, but the one who would ultimately decide the entire fate of the galaxy. Wow! I guess that means the sky's the limit for everybody now, anybody can be the ultimate hero or villain if they try! How inspiring!

Wait, nope, she's this special snowflake from a powerful bloodline, and of any they could have given her, Palpatine's bloodline. They've now continued the idea that has plagued the franchise that everybody's destiny is decided by birth and nobody will ever be worth anything especially not going to be the best of the best and save the galaxy unless they are born from the blood of someone who was important.

However, unlike SOME people, I'm not going to hate on a movie because of 1 or 2 plot points I hate, particularly a couple plot points that aren't really significant anyway. Otherwise, I liked it. It was fine, the worst in the trilogy bar none, but watchable. When "watchable" is the best thing you can say about a STAR WARS movie of all things something has broken somewhere along the line on their end. Had they simply followed through on the plot points of The Last Jedi rather than trying to throw out or retcon most of them the movie would've been much better. All I can do, all anyone can do, is hope for improvements somewhere along the line.

Star Wars is not dead, that much is for sure.

I don't think you needed to know Ray's parentage to notice that she isn't just the average snowflake due to her ability to do good at things that require lots of practice and experience on her first try.

Even if she wasn't from a jedi bloodline, the narrative still would be that you could become a hero irrespective of your birth....as long as you were perfect at everything you ever did from the beginning with no experience. It'd perpetuate the myth that you can "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" and that if you're not piloting random half-decaying spaceships perfectly on your first try you just are being a loser.

At least now it somewhat make sense why this random person was so talented at everything without earning it. Her ancestors earned it for her.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Dreiko said:
I don't think you needed to know Ray's parentage to notice that she isn't just the average snowflake due to her ability to do good at things that require lots of practice and experience on her first try.

Even if she wasn't from a jedi bloodline, the narrative still would be that you could become a hero irrespective of your birth....as long as you were perfect at everything you ever did from the beginning with no experience. It'd perpetuate the myth that you can "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" and that if you're not piloting random half-decaying spaceships perfectly on your first try you just are being a loser.

At least now it somewhat make sense why this random person was so talented at everything without earning it. Her ancestors earned it for her.
Don't perpetuate the myth that Rey was just this "great at everything" Mary Sue, she wasn't and nobody with any sense thought she was. Rey DID in fact pull herself up by her bootstraps, fail repeatedly, (in particular The Last Jedi is basically "Everybody fails at everything: the movie" and Rey is no exception) and earn everything she has. Rey is the main protagonist, they're always much better at everything than everybody else including previous protagonists except maybe the main villain and if they aren't they pick it up near instantly and become better than everybody else in like 5 seconds, that's what makes them the protagonist. Every story has always been written around making the main protagonist either absurdly lucky, absurdly good at most things if not everything, or both nearly always with little to no justification. Rey being a Palpatine not only cheapens Rey's status as a protagonist but throws away the message that anyone can be good or even exceptional if they really try. Rey being an average snowflake yet still managing to achieve what she does would've been inspiring, not a sign of a Mary Sue.

Nope! You have to be born special or you'll never achieve anything of significance, at best you'll be a stepping stone for those who are. That's the message Rise of Skywalker gives.
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,022
0
0
Ya know, this has to be the first movie I've went to in a theater at least where I was able to predict 100% what would happen next, and yes, that includes Rey and the Emps's connection.

I can't give it a failing grade because, despite the nonstop safety and retreads, I wasn't bored at all during it and was at least entertained, but that's as far as I can go. C-
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
immortalfrieza said:
Nope! You have to be born special or you'll never achieve anything of significance, at best you'll be a stepping stone for those who are. That's the message Rise of Skywalker gives.
Congratulations, you just pointed out the main problem with Naruto, Shaman King (manga version), Legend of Korra Season 2&3, and that stupid twist with Terry McGinnis being Bruce Wayne's son/clone (fuck you, Amanda Waller for not staying out of other people's lives) in that episode of Justice League (an episode I refuse to acknowledge)! I agree with you. With that said, I don't find Rey/Palpatine bloodline nearly as insulting. Though, in an earlier post, I mentioned how it's hypocritical of Disney to pull this off, while making EU non-canon due to hating similar plot twists in those novels and comics. What makes them so special? And this is coming from a fan of Rise.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
Asita said:
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
Here's the thing though. Look at Scar's actually behaviours and mannerisms. Is he "mousy", is he a "geek" (bear in mind that this is 1994, before the mainstreaming of geek culture so being a "geek" had very particular associations).

Scar isn't socially awkward, in fact kind of the opposite. He isn't shy. He's always melodramatic. The way he speaks is theatrical and flamboyant, his movements are expressive and exaggerated. He's not outside of conventional masculinity because he's a beta shyguy, he's excessive, he's over-the-top, he's inappropriate. In other words, he's camp.

This basically applies to most Disney villains from the period. Even Frollo, who is basically the only Disney villain I can think of who is motivated by his explicitly sexual lust for a woman, is also pretty camp (not as camp as Scar though). That's because Disney wasn't using this aesthetic to indicate that Scar was secretly a big gay, they were using it to show that he was a bad guy.

But it also made him a fun and likeable character, which is what queer audiences responded to.

I think comparing the 1994 Lion King and the 2019 Lion King is really interesting in terms of Disney's treatment of queerness and its queer audience. 1994 Disney queer-coded Scar because they wanted a villain character with a strong personality, who would be fun and over the top. 2019 Scar lacks any of that likeability, he's just a boring douche who the narrative goes out of its way to aggressively no-homo. Instead, we get WeHo Timon whose overt gayness is 100% intentional (but never actually stated), and who is basically just there as a stand-in for the queer audiences.

Basically, Disney is clearly uncomfortable with how its queer-coding of villain characters might look to a modern audience, but clearly hasn't worked out that "sassy comic relief" or "gay best friend" are far more offensive as stereotypes than "camp villain". A huge amount of queer cinema is the deliberate celebration of camp villains, it can be done in a way that's fun and empowering. What Disney has been doing with its queer characters recently isn't empowering.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Dreiko said:
I don't think you needed to know Ray's parentage to notice that she isn't just the average snowflake due to her ability to do good at things that require lots of practice and experience on her first try.

Even if she wasn't from a jedi bloodline, the narrative still would be that you could become a hero irrespective of your birth....as long as you were perfect at everything you ever did from the beginning with no experience. It'd perpetuate the myth that you can "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" and that if you're not piloting random half-decaying spaceships perfectly on your first try you just are being a loser.

At least now it somewhat make sense why this random person was so talented at everything without earning it. Her ancestors earned it for her.
Don't perpetuate the myth that Rey was just this "great at everything" Mary Sue, she wasn't and nobody with any sense thought she was. Rey DID in fact pull herself up by her bootstraps, fail repeatedly, (in particular The Last Jedi is basically "Everybody fails at everything: the movie" and Rey is no exception) and earn everything she has. Rey is the main protagonist, they're always much better at everything than everybody else including previous protagonists except maybe the main villain and if they aren't they pick it up near instantly and become better than everybody else in like 5 seconds, that's what makes them the protagonist. Every story has always been written around making the main protagonist either absurdly lucky, absurdly good at most things if not everything, or both nearly always with little to no justification. Rey being a Palpatine not only cheapens Rey's status as a protagonist but throws away the message that anyone can be good or even exceptional if they really try. Rey being an average snowflake yet still managing to achieve what she does would've been inspiring, not a sign of a Mary Sue.

Nope! You have to be born special or you'll never achieve anything of significance, at best you'll be a stepping stone for those who are. That's the message Rise of Skywalker gives.

Usually, when you have such a character, they go through character growth that bequeaths them those skills in some fashion. They go train up a mountain with a sage or they grow up in a magic family or something. Anything. She just kinda...is instantly better at using lightsabers than the evil emo dude despite him having practiced at using them since childhood. That's not the same as someone simply picking up their usage really fast or being extraordinarily talented. This bypasses the entire process. Same with being able to somehow reverse engineer the jedi mind trick process from having it be done to her without any explanation at all. That's not merely being talented. There's something more than that at work there.

Also, most interesting main characters tend to not start out that way, as well. They tend to suck for a long while until they surpass everyone at the end. So to imply that this is just how all protagonists just are is ridiculous on its face (or reveals the speaker to not have seen very many things). When you have someone start out as a main character who is instantly the best that ever existed, you DO need some form of justification for that to make sense, hence why you can't have her being just a random nobody. Most stories tend to use flashbacks where you see the character earnings their skills in their past or something. They don't just omit that very important part and imply it makes sense for the protagonist to be that skilled without explanation.

And yeah, of course she picked herself up by her bootstraps, but pretending everyone else would have an equal rate of success at doing the same by painting her as a nobody (and by extension that it's their fault if they fail cause an "average person" like Rey was able to so they should be able to as well) is a fallacy and is the issue I'm pointing out here. It's worse to imply that than to imply only someone of exceptional pedigree can achieve what she has.

Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Kwak said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
Three movies of homoerotic tension between Finn and Poe, then nothing.
I'm a little annoyed at this.
(I'm not aiming this at you, I'm just taking on this point as a pet peeve against modern society.)

What exactly was the 'homo-erotic tension'? That they had banter, and were enthusiastically pleased to see each other survive an assumed fatal crash?

This seems like the perfect example of society's hypocrisy over masculinity and male roles - we're displaying toxic masculinity over our fear of displaying basic human affection for each other or emotional vulnerability lest it be seen as gay, yet the mildest of camaraderie is immediately announced as homo-eroticism. What the fuck? Is it any wonder we have trouble expressing non-sexual affection beyond an arm punch and playful insult?
I'm really just voicing my girlfriend's disappointment. She ships them (and Reylo) and kept nudge-nudge/wink-winking every time the movie focused on them. Especially when Poe gets catty about Finn and whatever he "never told" Rey.

There's also the fact that Disney would never put anything same-sex front and center, so suggestive nudges have to suffice.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,802
407
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
Asita said:
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
Here's the thing though. Look at Scar's actually behaviours and mannerisms. Is he "mousy", is he a "geek" (bear in mind that this is 1994, before the mainstreaming of geek culture so being a "geek" had very particular associations).

Scar isn't socially awkward, in fact kind of the opposite. He isn't shy. He's always melodramatic. The way he speaks is theatrical and flamboyant, his movements are expressive and exaggerated. He's not outside of conventional masculinity because he's a beta shyguy, he's excessive, he's over-the-top, he's inappropriate. In other words, he's camp.

This basically applies to most Disney villains from the period. Even Frollo, who is basically the only Disney villain I can think of who is motivated by his explicitly sexual lust for a woman, is also pretty camp (not as camp as Scar though). That's because Disney wasn't using this aesthetic to indicate that Scar was secretly a big gay, they were using it to show that he was a bad guy.

But it also made him a fun and likeable character, which is what queer audiences responded to.

I think comparing the 1994 Lion King and the 2019 Lion King is really interesting in terms of Disney's treatment of queerness and its queer audience. 1994 Disney queer-coded Scar because they wanted a villain character with a strong personality, who would be fun and over the top. 2019 Scar lacks any of that likeability, he's just a boring douche who the narrative goes out of its way to aggressively no-homo. Instead, we get WeHo Timon whose overt gayness is 100% intentional (but never actually stated), and who is basically just there as a stand-in for the queer audiences.

Basically, Disney is clearly uncomfortable with how its queer-coding of villain characters might look to a modern audience, but clearly hasn't worked out that "sassy comic relief" or "gay best friend" are far more offensive as stereotypes than "camp villain". A huge amount of queer cinema is the deliberate celebration of camp villains, it can be done in a way that's fun and empowering. What Disney has been doing with its queer characters recently isn't empowering.
Still not sure I see it, but I suppose that's half the game, so to speak. Thank you for taking the time to explain the nuance to me.
 

Eacaraxe_v1legacy

New member
Mar 28, 2010
1,028
0
0
Dreiko said:
Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
Manage to hold his own against a Stormtrooper while using a weapon he's only touched for the first time, then at the end of the movie, not get insta-gibbed by the rampaging pseudo-Sith? That's pretty goddamn good, actually, with a clear narrative through-line that has establishment, set-up, and pay-off for what is more or less a complete character arc in the course of a single film.

Far more telling is the fact Finn's only allowed to do cool stuff in service to Rey's story-line, or when she's not in the scene. Any time Rey's around, Finn (like everyone else) just seems to lose a couple dozen IQ points.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
evilthecat said:
Asita said:
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
Here's the thing though. Look at Scar's actually behaviours and mannerisms. Is he "mousy", is he a "geek" (bear in mind that this is 1994, before the mainstreaming of geek culture so being a "geek" had very particular associations).

Scar isn't socially awkward, in fact kind of the opposite. He isn't shy. He's always melodramatic. The way he speaks is theatrical and flamboyant, his movements are expressive and exaggerated. He's not outside of conventional masculinity because he's a beta shyguy, he's excessive, he's over-the-top, he's inappropriate. In other words, he's camp.

This basically applies to most Disney villains from the period. Even Frollo, who is basically the only Disney villain I can think of who is motivated by his explicitly sexual lust for a woman, is also pretty camp (not as camp as Scar though). That's because Disney wasn't using this aesthetic to indicate that Scar was secretly a big gay, they were using it to show that he was a bad guy.

But it also made him a fun and likeable character, which is what queer audiences responded to.

I think comparing the 1994 Lion King and the 2019 Lion King is really interesting in terms of Disney's treatment of queerness and its queer audience. 1994 Disney queer-coded Scar because they wanted a villain character with a strong personality, who would be fun and over the top. 2019 Scar lacks any of that likeability, he's just a boring douche who the narrative goes out of its way to aggressively no-homo. Instead, we get WeHo Timon whose overt gayness is 100% intentional (but never actually stated), and who is basically just there as a stand-in for the queer audiences.

Basically, Disney is clearly uncomfortable with how its queer-coding of villain characters might look to a modern audience, but clearly hasn't worked out that "sassy comic relief" or "gay best friend" are far more offensive as stereotypes than "camp villain". A huge amount of queer cinema is the deliberate celebration of camp villains, it can be done in a way that's fun and empowering. What Disney has been doing with its queer characters recently isn't empowering.
I guess the most obvious example for Disney's tendency to give their villains stereotypically gay traits is Ratcliffe from Pocahontas:

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

He's easy to forget, because Pocahontas is easy to forget, but he illustrates the point pretty well. Those gay traits seem very archaic themselves from a modern perspective but you know, then again, the 90s where a while ago. Regardless of that, when it comes to actually representing the queer population Disney will, sooner or later, have to face the fact that that means actually depicting queer relationships. There's absolutely no point to just stating that a character is gay and maybe having him look at a character of the same gender with a lovesick expression once or twice. Just fucking show a gay relationship. It's not really all that different from depicting a straight relationship. Have husband and husband instead of husband and wife. That's it.

As long as they are incapable of depicting something as innocent as a healthy relationship out of fear of alienating people either at home or abroad it's reasonable to assume that they have absolutely zero interest in representing that part of the population. That whole "LeFou is gay, Lando Calrissian is pansexual, there's a guy talking about having had a date with a men in a self help group" shit is just... nothing. It's meaningless. It's not representation, it's just vague acknowledgement. Healthy representation is when gay love isn't depicted any differently from straight love.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Eacaraxe said:
Dreiko said:
Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
Manage to hold his own against a Stormtrooper while using a weapon he's only touched for the first time, then at the end of the movie, not get insta-gibbed by the rampaging pseudo-Sith?
Fighting off a stormtrooper is like swatting a fly in the Star Wars universe.
As for fighting the pseudo-Sith... Kylo's already tired and wounded when the fighting begins, and even then manages to put Finn in a coma. Not that any of this matters. Finn's one of the leads in YA shtick. He was always going to be lucky and just good enough to survive anything.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
Just saw RoS. Honestly the only 2 things I could say I hated were Snoke's origins and Rey's parentage.

We did not need to know who Snoke was or where he came from. Snoke's purpose was to push Ben to the Dark Side and his death at his hands cemented it. Anything further is the kind of thing Star Wars movies leave for EU novels and such if they are brought up again at all. Having Snoke just be this thing Palpatine made to further his plans is not only cheap it also doesn't even address anything the haters were complaining they ever wanted to know about him to begin with. We still don't know anything about Snoke's creation, we don't know how he built the First Order, and we still don't know what his actual aims were or if they aligned with Palpatine's or anyone else's.

Rey's parentage was, beyond all doubt, the best revelation The Last Jedi could've given. Rey was awesome because she scraped herself up by her fingernails coming from nothing and with nothing but her own determination from childhood and became not only a hero, but the one who would ultimately decide the entire fate of the galaxy. Wow! I guess that means the sky's the limit for everybody now, anybody can be the ultimate hero or villain if they try! How inspiring!

Wait, nope, she's this special snowflake from a powerful bloodline, and of any they could have given her, Palpatine's bloodline. They've now continued the idea that has plagued the franchise that everybody's destiny is decided by birth and nobody will ever be worth anything especially not going to be the best of the best and save the galaxy unless they are born from the blood of someone who was important.

However, unlike SOME people, I'm not going to hate on a movie because of 1 or 2 plot points I hate, particularly a couple plot points that aren't really significant anyway. Otherwise, I liked it. It was fine, the worst in the trilogy bar none, but watchable. When "watchable" is the best thing you can say about a STAR WARS movie of all things something has broken somewhere along the line on their end. Had they simply followed through on the plot points of The Last Jedi rather than trying to throw out or retcon most of them the movie would've been much better. All I can do, all anyone can do, is hope for improvements somewhere along the line.
100% agree with you here about Rey's parent reveal in RoS being a huge mistake for those exact reasons, but as for your theory on protagonists being better than everyone else, I'm gonna have to go with Dreiko here where they say:

Dreiko said:
Usually, when you have such a character, they go through character growth that bequeaths them those skills in some fashion. They go train up a mountain with a sage or they grow up in a magic family or something. Anything. She just kinda...is instantly better at using lightsabers than the evil emo dude despite him having practiced at using them since childhood. That's not the same as someone simply picking up their usage really fast or being extraordinarily talented. This bypasses the entire process. Same with being able to somehow reverse engineer the jedi mind trick process from having it be done to her without any explanation at all. That's not merely being talented. There's something more than that at work there.

Also, most interesting main characters tend to not start out that way, as well. They tend to suck for a long while until they surpass everyone at the end. So to imply that this is just how all protagonists just are is ridiculous on its face (or reveals the speaker to not have seen very many things). When you have someone start out as a main character who is instantly the best that ever existed, you DO need some form of justification for that to make sense, hence why you can't have her being just a random nobody. Most stories tend to use flashbacks where you see the character earnings their skills in their past or something. They don't just omit that very important part and imply it makes sense for the protagonist to be that skilled without explanation.

And yeah, of course she picked herself up by her bootstraps, but pretending everyone else would have an equal rate of success at doing the same by painting her as a nobody (and by extension that it's their fault if they fail cause an "average person" like Rey was able to so they should be able to as well) is a fallacy and is the issue I'm pointing out here. It's worse to imply that than to imply only someone of exceptional pedigree can achieve what she has.
Rey's Mary-Sue qualities were well documented in The Force Awakens. It got better with each subsequent film, but in TFA she really did come across as a classic example of the trope. Protagonists are supposed to be flawed from the outset. That's one of the biggest building blocks of a well-rounded character. Sometimes they are the ONLY character with a deficiency (Think Hiccup in How to Train your Dragon, Forrest Gump, virtually any Hitchcock protagonist, for instance). The story does not follow them because they are good at something, it follows them because theirs is the most interesting journey to experience the plot through.

Remember, C-3PO and R2D2 in the desert is based on The Hidden Fortress, about a headstrong princess and a general travelling through enemy lines to avoid a trap. But they aren't the main characters. Instead the focus is on the two bumbling, idiotic peasants with them. THEY are the protagonists because they have the most change, they get the best perspective on what goes down, and they have the most interesting things to say about events they barely understand.

Since people are talking about The Lion King, that's also a pretty good example. You wouldn't see the child Simba just up and murder Scar as soon as he betrays Mufasa, would you? of course not, he's puny, lazy and self centred at the start of the movie. He grows into the hero by the end of the film. But he is always the protagonist.
 

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
295
14
23
Country
Canada
Johnny Novgorod said:
Eacaraxe said:
Dreiko said:
Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
Manage to hold his own against a Stormtrooper while using a weapon he's only touched for the first time, then at the end of the movie, not get insta-gibbed by the rampaging pseudo-Sith?
Fighting off a stormtrooper is like swatting a fly in the Star Wars universe.
As for fighting the pseudo-Sith... Kylo's already tired and wounded when the fighting begins, and even then manages to put Finn in a coma.
Lightsabers are supposed to be very difficult for someone untrained to handle, though. That was one of the things Ben Kenobi had to teach Luke in Episode IV, IIRC. With no weight and minimal to no tactile feedback, anyone not familiar with a lightsaber is going to flail it around like an idiot because of how much differently it moves compared to...basically anything else.

Side note: having only watched TFA, do they ever explain how the fuck that goggle-eyed alien bartender came to have that saber in the first place? It was Anakin's, Obi-Wan kept it after the prequels and gave it to Luke in IV, but Luke lost it when Vader cut his hand off in The Empire Strikes Back and it falls down the Giant Doom Hole. Hence why Luke has a green saber with a different design in RotJ, which Vader even comments on at one point.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Ravinoff said:
Side note: having only watched TFA, do they ever explain how the fuck that goggle-eyed alien bartender came to have that saber in the first place? It was Anakin's, Obi-Wan kept it after the prequels and gave it to Luke in IV, but Luke lost it when Vader cut his hand off in The Empire Strikes Back and it falls down the Giant Doom Hole. Hence why Luke has a green saber with a different design in RotJ, which Vader even comments on at one point.
Short answer is nope.
I don't think there's a long answer.
Maybe they'll make A Star Wars Story about how Maz got it. Like how they made one about why the Death Star has a weak spot.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Eacaraxe said:
Dreiko said:
Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
Manage to hold his own against a Stormtrooper while using a weapon he's only touched for the first time, then at the end of the movie, not get insta-gibbed by the rampaging pseudo-Sith? That's pretty goddamn good, actually, with a clear narrative through-line that has establishment, set-up, and pay-off for what is more or less a complete character arc in the course of a single film.

Far more telling is the fact Finn's only allowed to do cool stuff in service to Rey's story-line, or when she's not in the scene. Any time Rey's around, Finn (like everyone else) just seems to lose a couple dozen IQ points.
Right, and Finn is a main character and force sensitive too. So it makes sense he'd not get thrashed cause he's also somewhat special. But his performance (which I agree is good, of course) was about the best you can expect someone to be without needing DEEP LORE explanations behind it to have it make sense.

You could see Finn struggling with the lightsaber, you could see him being uncomfortable and trying to fight with an unfamiliar weapon as best he could but ultimately losing to that energy lance using trooper who seemed to be higher rank than average. All in all, a good showing and while a bit unrealistic it's still definitely believable. I'm sure the lance dude had not much experience fighting freaking lightsabers either.

Rey just...kinda did things that were effective without thinking much about it while in the same situation he was. You need to explain that lol.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,578
0
0
Ravinoff said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
Eacaraxe said:
Dreiko said:
Do you remember how Finn did when he picked up a lightsaber during the first movie? That's about what you can expect from an ACTUAL average nobody lol.
Manage to hold his own against a Stormtrooper while using a weapon he's only touched for the first time, then at the end of the movie, not get insta-gibbed by the rampaging pseudo-Sith?
Fighting off a stormtrooper is like swatting a fly in the Star Wars universe.
As for fighting the pseudo-Sith... Kylo's already tired and wounded when the fighting begins, and even then manages to put Finn in a coma.
Lightsabers are supposed to be very difficult for someone untrained to handle, though. That was one of the things Ben Kenobi had to teach Luke in Episode IV, IIRC. With no weight and minimal to no tactile feedback, anyone not familiar with a lightsaber is going to flail it around like an idiot because of how much differently it moves compared to...basically anything else.

Side note: having only watched TFA, do they ever explain how the fuck that goggle-eyed alien bartender came to have that saber in the first place? It was Anakin's, Obi-Wan kept it after the prequels and gave it to Luke in IV, but Luke lost it when Vader cut his hand off in The Empire Strikes Back and it falls down the Giant Doom Hole. Hence why Luke has a green saber with a different design in RotJ, which Vader even comments on at one point.
Well the obvious explanation is that it was recovered and traded around black market collectors and fanatics until it ended up in Maz Kanata?s possession.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
Ravinoff said:
Lightsabers are supposed to be very difficult for someone untrained to handle, though. That was one of the things Ben Kenobi had to teach Luke in Episode IV, IIRC. With no weight and minimal to no tactile feedback, anyone not familiar with a lightsaber is going to flail it around like an idiot because of how much differently it moves compared to...basically anything else.
I don't remember it ever being said in any of the movies that lightsabers are overly difficult to wield over other weapons. I remember Obi-Wan saying that a lightsaber is "an elegant weapon... for a more civilized age." He never mentions that it's all but impossible for a non-Jedi/Sith to use. I'm pretty sure that is a fan-created idea.
It's been shown in the movies and the (now no-cannon) books that force-blind people can ignite and use lightsabers. Han briefly used one to cut open the dead Tauntaun on Hoth and in the Young Jedi Knights series there was a character who could not use the force but carried a fancy-hilted lightsaber. I can't remember her name right now though.
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
Johnny Novgorod said:
Short answer is nope.
I don't think there's a long answer.
Maybe they'll make A Star Wars Story about how Maz got it. Like how they made one about why the Death Star has a weak spot.

Replace knife/switchblade with Anakin's lightsaber and I think you've pretty much got the story down.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
immortalfrieza said:
Don't perpetuate the myth that Rey was just this "great at everything" Mary Sue, she wasn't and nobody with any sense thought she was. Rey DID in fact pull herself up by her bootstraps, fail repeatedly, (in particular The Last Jedi is basically "Everybody fails at everything: the movie" and Rey is no exception) and earn everything she has.
She doesn't really fail in TFA.

Last Jedi tones her down a peg, but TFA is where the statements of her being a Mary Sue began, and TBH, I actually agree there.

Rey is the main protagonist, they're always much better at everything than everybody else including previous protagonists except maybe the main villain and if they aren't they pick it up near instantly and become better than everybody else in like 5 seconds, that's what makes them the protagonist.
Um, not really.

Confining this to Star Wars, look at Anakin and Luke. For Anakin, it took him 3 episodes to get to the "better than everyone" stage. For Luke, he was certainly skilled, but not the be all and end all. He couldn't use a lightsaber in combat, and Han's a better shot than he him. A difference I like to cite that if Rey was the protagonist of Episode IV, she'd have run over and beat Vader instantly as soon as Obi-Wan was killed.
Rey being a Palpatine not only cheapens Rey's status as a protagonist but throws away the message that anyone can be good or even exceptional if they really try. Rey being an average snowflake yet still managing to achieve what she does would've been inspiring, not a sign of a Mary Sue.

Nope! You have to be born special or you'll never achieve anything of significance, at best you'll be a stepping stone for those who are. That's the message Rise of Skywalker gives.
I agree, but it took TLJ to undo Rey's Mary Sue status. Rise of Skywalker doesn't really undo the undo per se, but it does carry the bitter implication that to be anyone in this universe, you have to come from a notable bloodline.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
Scar isn't socially awkward, in fact kind of the opposite. He isn't shy. He's always melodramatic. The way he speaks is theatrical and flamboyant, his movements are expressive and exaggerated. He's not outside of conventional masculinity because he's a beta shyguy, he's excessive, he's over-the-top, he's inappropriate. In other words, he's camp.

This basically applies to most Disney villains from the period. Even Frollo, who is basically the only Disney villain I can think of who is motivated by his explicitly sexual lust for a woman, is also pretty camp (not as camp as Scar though). That's because Disney wasn't using this aesthetic to indicate that Scar was secretly a big gay, they were using it to show that he was a bad guy.

But it also made him a fun and likeable character, which is what queer audiences responded to.

I think comparing the 1994 Lion King and the 2019 Lion King is really interesting in terms of Disney's treatment of queerness and its queer audience. 1994 Disney queer-coded Scar because they wanted a villain character with a strong personality, who would be fun and over the top. 2019 Scar lacks any of that likeability, he's just a boring douche who the narrative goes out of its way to aggressively no-homo. Instead, we get WeHo Timon whose overt gayness is 100% intentional (but never actually stated), and who is basically just there as a stand-in for the queer audiences.

Basically, Disney is clearly uncomfortable with how its queer-coding of villain characters might look to a modern audience, but clearly hasn't worked out that "sassy comic relief" or "gay best friend" are far more offensive as stereotypes than "camp villain". A huge amount of queer cinema is the deliberate celebration of camp villains, it can be done in a way that's fun and empowering. What Disney has been doing with its queer characters recently isn't empowering.
I'm one to talk, but isn't this reading a bit much into things? When does "flamboyant = gay?"

If we want to look at Scar particularly, bear in mind that even if we cast aside Zira, a plotline that was cut from the film was him trying to seduce Nala, and IIRC, was re-introduced in the Broadway version. And if we're looking at the live action version, the narrative isn't doing anything "no-homo." Scar's toned down, but so is every other character in the film. And I didn't get any sense of gayness from Timon and Pumba. They're friends. That's it. The film never implies anything beyond that, or if it did, I missed it.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Johnny Novgorod said:
The two biggest failures of this new trilogy are:

1) It failed at creating something new, instead it traced over the original and wallowed in the Greatest Hits.
2) It failed at justifying its very existence by never properly explaining (let alone convincing) how the Empire is still around, whatever you wanna call it; how the Rebels let the 100% victory of RotJ slide; how Palpatine is still alive. Part of my complete disinterest in Star Wars is simply that I've spent the past 4 years unconvinced by the continued fight between good guys and bad guys. I'm not saying it's an impossible scenario but these movies just took for granted that everything staid more or less the same.
I don't think these points are "wrong," but I'll offer some counterpoints:

1) Yes, the new trilogy, especially TFA, took broad strokes of the original trilogy (a droid with a secret code lands on a desert planet and somehow stumbles across the soon-to-be hero, the bad guys have an enormous, planet-killing weapon that has a curious flaw which a bunch of X-wings will exploit, etc.). But I've written this before on this forum -- I don't think the new trilogy gets enough credit for the risks it took when it DID do things that went against the original trilogy. Specifically, they took the heroes of the original trilogy and broke them up and put them at arguably their lowest points in the entire saga. Not only was Han and Leia's son the villain, he freakin' killed Han (I know we were all expecting Han's death but...damn that was cold). Luke turns his back on the Resistance and the Force (which a lot of fans hated but I loved since the character was never more interesting than in TLJ, and Hamill was never better). And I think making the next Skywalker the villain and a Stormtrooper and Palpatine descendent the heroes was pretty brilliant. So I do think the new trilogy tried new things, though we can argue how successful the movies were in executing on those ideas.

2) I mostly agree with this. I found TFA a little off-putting on the first viewing because it felt like a lot of backstory about the Republic/First Order/Resistance situation was missing. However...you could argue the prequel trilogy spent the better part of three movies explaining how the Empire/Emperor/Vader rose to power, and 1) I don't think it was compelling at all, and 2) I'm still not sure I understand how basically a two-man Sith team was able to take over the Galactic Republic and eliminate the Jedi.

On a somewhat related note, I'll just say I loved the new trilogy and thought as flawed as Rise of Skywalker was in terms of structure/plot, it was still pretty damn good (though it's nowhere near TLJ, which belongs in the conversation with Empire as the best Star Wars film). I understand all of the complaints about bringing Palpatine back and that he just sort of comes and goes with no real explanation, but I'd argue that it's consistence with previous films' use of the character, which has always been sort of a cardboard villain in the series. Seriously, in the original trilogy he's just sort of...there, and we never really know who he is, or why he's doing what he's doing. He gets a mention in a New Hope, he's seen for one minute in Empire, and then he shows up in Jedi, but we're never, ever told in those movies how he was able to turn Luke's father to the dark side. Back then Star Wars fans just kind of accepted that he's an all powerful villain who somehow seduced the galaxy's most gifted Jedi.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,239
0
0
evilthecat said:
Hola, vamanos! Everybody, let's SNIP
You've brought this up before and I'm ready to disagree with it again. Disney villains are invariably foils to the protagonist, which means they epitomise some flavour of what the hero *isn't* (not brave, not selfless, not pure, etc). That you choose to describe this as "queer coding" I think says more about the chip on your shoulder (and your unflattering predesposition to equate cruel, foppish, nefarious behaviour to gayness) than any systemic bias at Disney HQ.

I mean, let's analyse some Disney villains, in reverse chronological order:

Frozen 2: Villain: Elsa's grandfather. A militaristic, xenophobic reactionary who resorts to literal backstabbing. Plus some elemental forces that act as temporary speedbumps.
Toy Story 4, Wreck it Ralph, Zootopia, Cars etc: Didn't watch, will get back to you.
Moana: Villains and antagonists: Moana's father who is conservative to the point of endangering her people, a bling-loving crab who sings a bit like David Bowie, and a "righteously furious" female island spirit.
Tangled: Villain: An overbearing passive aggressive stepmother.
Toy Story 3: Villain: A charismatic cult leader whose gentlemanly Southern manners belie an ugly authoritarian streak (identical to Toy Story 2's antagonist, basically)
Princess and the Frog: A skinny voodoo guy who bites off more than he can chew when he makes a deal with dark forces. Queer? Meh, you tell me.
UP: Villain: Err, a 1940s action hero who is actually dastardly? It's been a while.
Monsters Inc: Villain: A corporate fat cat (again, the theme of evil dressed as respectability, this time in the guise of old-school capitalism/industrialism) and his sinister chameleon underling.
Tarzan: Villain: A brutish mustachio'd alpha male.
Mulan: Villain: Some Atilla The Hun dude.
Hercules: Villain: OK, I'll give you this one.
Hunchback: Frollo: Tortured man of the cloth. Slightly prissy appearance, not convinced this is equivalent to "coding" as a gay character.
Toy Story: Villain: The local trailer trash bully kid.
Pocahontas: Villain: Ratcliffe. He's a fop, a dandy, a posturing stuffed shirt who keeps his manicured hands clean as he gets others to do his dirty work. A marked contrast to the honest working class heroism of John Smith or the hackneyed Noble Savage romanticism of the native Americans. Is this a swipe at queer characteristics? It could just as validly be viewed as attacking the stuffy colonialist fashions and sensibilities that made first contact with the New World and quickly fell by the wayside.
Lion King: Villain: Scar's appearance was famously modeled on Jeremy Irons, and he shares his boney, gaunt physique. Scar is a tinpot dictator and his song Be Prepared makes use of Third Reich imagery. Worth noting; yet another British-voiced villain in a franchise of American films - isn't that as relevant as an imagined grievance against homosexuals? Disney villains are "coded" as haughty, avaricious, power-hungry, scheming, underhanded; all traits that are anathema to the patriotic American persona.

And, reality check, at this point in the list of releases we're currently in the mid-90s. This was an important era in both our formative years, I feel, but borderline boomers like us need to remember the world has moved on since those times. The Little Mermaid, with its antagonist (in)famously modeled on a drag queen, was released in the EIGHTIES. In about 72 hours we'll be in 2020. Perhaps it's time to stop beating this sad little drum and repeating the mantra about how homophobic Disney are/were? Or at the very least you could acknowledge the nuance in the argument that Disney villains have over the years represented a varied tapestry of unpleasant traits, only some of which intersect with "queer" traits, whatever those are?

It's just not that deep, as the youth of today apparently say.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,688
743
118
Country
Argentina
Exley97 said:
On a somewhat related note, I'll just say I loved the new trilogy and thought as flawed as Rise of Skywalker was in terms of structure/plot, it was still pretty damn good (though it's nowhere near TLJ, which belongs in the conversation with Empire as the best Star Wars film). I understand all of the complaints about bringing Palpatine back and that he just sort of comes and goes with no real explanation, but I'd argue that it's consistence with previous films' use of the character, which has always been sort of a cardboard villain in the series. Seriously, in the original trilogy he's just sort of...there, and we never really know who he is, or why he's doing what he's doing. He gets a mention in a New Hope, he's seen for one minute in Empire, and then he shows up in Jedi, but we're never, ever told in those movies how he was able to turn Luke's father to the dark side. Back then Star Wars fans just kind of accepted that he's an all powerful villain who somehow seduced the galaxy's most gifted Jedi.
I don't need an origin story for Palpatine, all the original trilogy needed was a mention here and there and the occasional glimpse. That was enough for a build up, which is more than the new trilogy has. And just as I don't need an origin story for Palpatine in Return of the Jedi, I most certainly need some kind of explanation as to why is this guy still around in Rise of Skywalker. Which, by the way, totally depends on viewers having watched the trailer so they're mentally prepared to accept Palpatine is still alive. It really feels like they just slapped him in there.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,074
309
88
Country
The Netherlands
Exley97 said:
Johnny Novgorod said:
I don't think the new trilogy gets enough credit for the risks it took when it DID do things that went against the original trilogy. Specifically, they took the heroes of the original trilogy and broke them up and put them at arguably their lowest points in the entire saga.
I think its exactly this that doesn't work out in the new trilogy. The old heroes being defeated could really increase the stakes but the way its handled just made it kinda humiliating for the old characters without even raising the stakes that much.

It all has to do with how much of a non entity the First Order is. They are an evil organisation with no real traits aside from being really evil. Not only is the organisation bare bones but their leadership is also completely inept. The villains carrying the first order are Kylo Ren who's an emo manchild with temper tantrums, General Hux who gets depicted as a complete loser and Snoke who's such a pathetic villain he dies halfway into the trilogy with his killer barely having to put in any effort. The old generation having been humiliated and trampled on is just sad when the villains are so devoid of any power, charm or competence.

Palpatine taking over the Galaxy and rooting out the Jedi was earned. With the new trilogy we are required to believe a bunch of complete losers completely defeated the old heroes just because the opening narration said they did.
 

Ravinoff

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
295
14
23
Country
Canada
twistedmic said:
Ravinoff said:
Lightsabers are supposed to be very difficult for someone untrained to handle, though. That was one of the things Ben Kenobi had to teach Luke in Episode IV, IIRC. With no weight and minimal to no tactile feedback, anyone not familiar with a lightsaber is going to flail it around like an idiot because of how much differently it moves compared to...basically anything else.
He never mentions that it's all but impossible for a non-Jedi/Sith to use. I'm pretty sure that is a fan-created idea.
It's been shown in the movies and the (now no-cannon) books that force-blind people can ignite and use lightsabers. Han briefly used one to cut open the dead Tauntaun on Hoth and in the Young Jedi Knights series there was a character who could not use the force but carried a fancy-hilted lightsaber. I can't remember her name right now though.
Didn't mean to say they were impossible for non-Force-users to wield at all, just so completely different from any other melee weapon (or tool, even) that using one effectively requires a lot of specific training. The blade beam has effectively no weight so conventional things like wind-up and follow-through on swings don't apply, but with no momentum you have to push through the entire strike and can't let the weight of the weapon do the work (which applies a lot to saber vs saber duels, parries and blocks are going to be weird). And you've got to be aware of where your blade is at all times, because it cuts/burns whatever it touches regardless of angle or whether you're swinging it.

The Jedi Knight games actually demonstrate the latter really well, when your lightsaber is equipped it applies contact damage to anything you touch. Just moving around leaves glowing and melted scars in the walls from where the saber collision model touches the wall mesh, stuff like that.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,590
0
0
Ravinoff said:
twistedmic said:
Ravinoff said:
Lightsabers are supposed to be very difficult for someone untrained to handle, though. That was one of the things Ben Kenobi had to teach Luke in Episode IV, IIRC. With no weight and minimal to no tactile feedback, anyone not familiar with a lightsaber is going to flail it around like an idiot because of how much differently it moves compared to...basically anything else.
He never mentions that it's all but impossible for a non-Jedi/Sith to use. I'm pretty sure that is a fan-created idea.
It's been shown in the movies and the (now no-cannon) books that force-blind people can ignite and use lightsabers. Han briefly used one to cut open the dead Tauntaun on Hoth and in the Young Jedi Knights series there was a character who could not use the force but carried a fancy-hilted lightsaber. I can't remember her name right now though.
Didn't mean to say they were impossible for non-Force-users to wield at all, just so completely different from any other melee weapon (or tool, even) that using one effectively requires a lot of specific training. The blade beam has effectively no weight so conventional things like wind-up and follow-through on swings don't apply, but with no momentum you have to push through the entire strike and can't let the weight of the weapon do the work (which applies a lot to saber vs saber duels, parries and blocks are going to be weird). And you've got to be aware of where your blade is at all times, because it cuts/burns whatever it touches regardless of angle or whether you're swinging it.

The Jedi Knight games actually demonstrate the latter really well, when your lightsaber is equipped it applies contact damage to anything you touch. Just moving around leaves glowing and melted scars in the walls from where the saber collision model touches the wall mesh, stuff like that.
And yet absolutely none of that mattered when Obi Wan handed Anakin's lightsaber to Luke in A New Hope. He wasn't even fussed when Luke ignited it and started waving it around everywhere. Guess intense balance theory and swing weight-to-thrust ratios didn't really matter at all.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,082
838
118
Country
United States
So, I saw Cats on Thursday and due to shenanigans the movie started 45 minutes late and I got a coupon for a free movie. It's a terrible movie that should be on the roster for anybody's Bad Movie Night. I thought to myself "hey, at least I saw Cats for free".

Then I saw Rise on Friday. My thought process now is "at least Star Wars was free". It takes a special kind of stupid to make an idea like "Rey is a Palpatine clone" and make it Dumber. Where do I even start with this trash heap? From no-stakes "deaths" to frantic but boring montage chase sequences to a final climactic showdown at night in cloudy conditions with dark ships where the best star fighter pilot in the galaxy does nothing on screen.
SERIOUSLY, what the hell? "Oh noes, Rey accidentally killed Chewie with force light-oh he's fine" "3P0 sacrificed his memories to save the-oh he's fine" "Wow, Hux was a trait-oh he's dead" "Wow, Leia distracted Kylo just long enough for Rey to stab hi-oh he's fine. And redeemed because he talked to his not-actually-a-ghost dad" "oh no, Ben Solo got tossed into a pit and die-oh he's fine" "Rey, who we made sure to explain at length why she *is* actually the biggest Mary to ever Sue (all past evidence to the contrary), is embodying Every Jedi and died redirecting the Emperor's energy back at hi-oh, she's fine, but Ben Heroically Died". Wouldn't want an interesting plot point where a dude tries to find redemption and atonement in a Galaxy where 75% of the inhabitants wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the face. Good thing the Old Ship with the Old Crew were able to completely bail out the new kids in the massive Space Battle a few times, once off screen. Wouldn't want the new generation to have *too* many victories. I doubly liked that in context with the new Knights of Ren baddies who look like Warhanmer 40k rejects that manage to do nothing at all ever except capture Chewie off screen and lightly beat up unLightsabered Ben Solo.

Seriously, did JJ just trawl reddit theory threads to write this shit?

TL:DR Cats is more worthy of your movie dollar. It knows what it is and just fucking goes for it. Regardless of its quality, that deserves respect.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,074
309
88
Country
The Netherlands
I just returned from watching episode IX. I don't get the negativity. You can definitely recognize the sight of a troubled production but the movie takes the bad hand the previous two movies left it and manages to at least be adequate. Its probably the best movie of the new trilogy even if that has just as much to do with the failings of the previous movies as with the merits of this one.

Its a bit of a mess but a fun mess. Unlike the Force Awakens this movie has a soul and unlike the Last Jedi its soul isn't grumpy and unpleasant. It also lacks the more questionable technical aspects of the Last Jedi like admiral Pinkhair or the weird casino filler.

I'd say episode IX is the first time there really was a little bit of merit in the sequel trilogy. What doesn't work tends to be inherited from the previous two movies. Palpatine's return is a little silly but the First Order immediately falling into the background does indicate what a pathetic villain organisation it really was. Silly as he is Palphatine is at least an improvement over that bunch of losers.

Rise of Skywalker is a little dumb but I enjoyed my time watching it, unlike the Last Jedi which was ''smarter'' but not as enjoyable. The Force Awakens might be technically better put together but I can't really respect the movie since its a barely disguised remake of New Hope.
 

Elvis Starburst

Unprofessional Rant Artist
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,151
144
68
altnameJag said:
So, I saw Cats on Thursday and due to shenanigans the movie started 45 minutes late and I got a coupon for a free movie. It's a terrible movie that should be on the roster for anybody's Bad Movie Night. I thought to myself "hey, at least I saw Cats for free".

Then I saw Rise on Friday. My thought process now is "at least Star Wars was free". It takes a special kind of stupid to make an idea like "Rey is a Palpatine clone" and make it Dumber. Where do I even start with this trash heap? From no-stakes "deaths" to frantic but boring montage chase sequences to a final climactic showdown at night in cloudy conditions with dark ships where the best star fighter pilot in the galaxy does nothing on screen.
SERIOUSLY, what the hell? "Oh noes, Rey accidentally killed Chewie with force light-oh he's fine" "3P0 sacrificed his memories to save the-oh he's fine" "Wow, Hux was a trait-oh he's dead" "Wow, Leia distracted Kylo just long enough for Rey to stab hi-oh he's fine. And redeemed because he talked to his not-actually-a-ghost dad" "oh no, Ben Solo got tossed into a pit and die-oh he's fine" "Rey, who we made sure to explain at length why she *is* actually the biggest Mary to ever Sue (all past evidence to the contrary), is embodying Every Jedi and died redirecting the Emperor's energy back at hi-oh, she's fine, but Ben Heroically Died". Wouldn't want an interesting plot point where a dude tries to find redemption and atonement in a Galaxy where 75% of the inhabitants wouldn't hesitate to shoot him in the face. Good thing the Old Ship with the Old Crew were able to completely bail out the new kids in the massive Space Battle a few times, once off screen. Wouldn't want the new generation to have *too* many victories. I doubly liked that in context with the new Knights of Ren baddies who look like Warhanmer 40k rejects that manage to do nothing at all ever except capture Chewie off screen and lightly beat up unLightsabered Ben Solo.

Seriously, did JJ just trawl reddit theory threads to write this shit?

TL:DR Cats is more worthy of your movie dollar. It knows what it is and just fucking goes for it. Regardless of its quality, that deserves respect.
God I didn't even think about all of that. Wow, what the fuck was this whole movie?
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Hades said:
Its a bit of a mess but a fun mess. Unlike the Force Awakens this movie has a soul and unlike the Last Jedi its soul isn't grumpy and unpleasant. It also lacks the more questionable technical aspects of the Last Jedi like admiral Pinkhair or the weird casino filler.
Admiral Po sucked donkey balls, and that casino scene went almost nowhere in the grand scheme of things. Still love Las Jedi, but Rise has the best pacing out the new trilogy. Can't wait for the blu-ray.

To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? This is to the overzealous fans or the ones that do nothing, but complain. I remember the Double Toasted guys saying they like VII & VIII, only to just saying "VII is just a remake of IV" & "VIII was too different". I like and respect Korey and Martin, but it's one of the few times I thought fuck you both. Y'all want things to be different? Complain! Y'all want things to be the same? Complain! The fans are big part of the problem. A majority of them don't know what they want! It's the same problem with the prequel trilogy. Lucas sold Star Wars for a reason (yet still makes money off the profits, including the Disney films), because of shit like this. Me personally, Episode I was average, Episode II was boring as fuck, and Episode III is legit good despite a few dialogue hick ups and some writing problem. The Clone Wars cartoons (both 2D & 3D) still showed Anakin's gradual fall to the Dark Side better than any of the prequel movies.

But you know what, you get what you wished for. This is what you deserve. Disney (no road map or plan) and Lucas had their own screw ups, but certain people in the fandom are part of the damn problem.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
Hawki said:
When does "flamboyant = gay?"
Since the trial of Oscar Wilde, mostly.

Hawki said:
If we want to look at Scar particularly, bear in mind that even if we cast aside Zira, a plotline that was cut from the film was him trying to seduce Nala, and IIRC, was re-introduced in the Broadway version.
I feel like I specifically went out of my way to address this, but again. Disney did not camp up its villains to signify that they were gay. It did it to signify that they were bad people. For all we know, camping them up may even have been a completely unintentional side effect of adhering to a successful formula. However, sometimes it was not. Ursula in the Little Mermaid is explicitly modelled on real life drag queen Divine, so we know that there was some measure of thought put into this characterisation.

This is not about whether Scar, the fictional character who doesn't really exist, is actually gay. It's about whether or not Scar's characterisation uses stereotypes and aesthetic conventions associated with gay people to show that he is a bad person, which is undeniably true.

Hawki said:
And if we're looking at the live action version, the narrative isn't doing anything "no-homo."
I mean, they insert a whole sexual jealousy subplot which is so hetero it makes my eyes bleed.

Hawki said:
And I didn't get any sense of gayness from Timon and Pumba. They're friends. That's it.
Timon in the 2019 film was played by a gay comedian who has talked very openly about playing the character with a gay sensibility. Again, it's not really relevant whether the character is gay because the character is fictional, but I'm going to tell you that Timon in 2019 is stereotypically gay-coded in a way that's far more overt than any 90s camp.

I get that if you're straight you might not need to see that, but take it from me.. it's extremely blatant.

Batou667 said:
That you choose to describe this as "queer coding" I think says more about the chip on your shoulder (and your unflattering predesposition to equate cruel, foppish, nefarious behaviour to gayness) than any systemic bias at Disney HQ.
I don't think "foppishness" is a bad thing.

I think your casual association of foppishness with cruelty or duplicity is far, far more unflattering than pointing out that these things have been associated, for better or worse, with gayness for a good century. When the lion king first came out, camp was the definitive gay stereotype. If a straight person wanted to do a "gay voice", or affect "gay" body language, it would be camp.

Like, I could talk about "foppishness" in terms of libertine culture and the aristocratic society of the early modern period, or about Oscar Wilde and the decadence movement's ironic celebration of those same libertine conventions as an antithesis to the conventions of bourgeois society. But it wouldn't matter, it's done. Camp is a part of the culture we live in, and it has been for a long time.

Batou667 said:
In about 72 hours we'll be in 2020. Perhaps it's time to stop beating this sad little drum and repeating the mantra about how homophobic Disney are/were?
I'll stop pointing out how homophobic Disney are when they stop being homophobic.

Because again, I don't care about Ursula being modelled on Divine or what that does for gay representation. Divine's most famous role has her eating dog shit to prove she is the filthiest person alive. When society defines you as disgusting or filthy or evil just for existing, then part of learning to live with that is to become comfortable with being the villain in someone else's story. Camp can (and often is) incredibly empowering precisely because it's "bad" representation, it's honest representation of the world we live in and how to survive in it.

Again, I don't think what Disney does now is empowering. I don't think this vapid dancing around symbolic LGBT inclusion while keeping it covert enough that it'll pass the hets and their defective gaydars is really sending any message to queer people other than Disney wants their money but is ashamed to admit it.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
I feel like I specifically went out of my way to address this, but again. Disney did not camp up its villains to signify that they were gay. It did it to signify that they were bad people. For all we know, camping them up may even have been a completely unintentional side effect of adhering to a successful formula. However, sometimes it was not. Ursula in the Little Mermaid is explicitly modelled on real life drag queen Divine, so we know that there was some measure of thought put into this characterisation.

This is not about whether Scar, the fictional character who doesn't really exist, is actually gay. It's about whether or not Scar's characterisation uses stereotypes and aesthetic conventions associated with gay people to show that he is a bad person, which is undeniably true.
I'm kind of left to ask at this point how many Disney villains are actually "camp." Ursula? Maybe, never seen the film. Scar? I really can't call him "camp." If I had to describe Scar in one word, it would be "menacing" or "manipulative."

I mean, they insert a whole sexual jealousy subplot which is so hetero it makes my eyes bleed.
You mean where Scar is courting Nala? You mean that plot point that was in the original film and re-introduced in the musical IIRC? Even if that wasn't the case, Scar wanting a mate to further his lineage is kinda expected in both the animal kingdom and in monarchies.

I mean, it does bother me, but not for the same reasons. I stated in my review of the film that there was arguably a case to remake the film if it took into account Lion King 2, and featured characters like Zira and the other future Outlanders from the start, as LK2 relies on the whole "yeah, they were there the whole time, you just didn't see them" schtick. Alas, that didn't happen.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,578
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
evilthecat said:
Asita said:
Scar is prominent in that regard? He always struck me as the mousy geek to Mufasa's star quarterback (or the Iago to his Othello). What am I missing that made him stand out as queer-coded?
Here's the thing though. Look at Scar's actually behaviours and mannerisms. Is he "mousy", is he a "geek" (bear in mind that this is 1994, before the mainstreaming of geek culture so being a "geek" had very particular associations).

Scar isn't socially awkward, in fact kind of the opposite. He isn't shy. He's always melodramatic. The way he speaks is theatrical and flamboyant, his movements are expressive and exaggerated. He's not outside of conventional masculinity because he's a beta shyguy, he's excessive, he's over-the-top, he's inappropriate. In other words, he's camp.

This basically applies to most Disney villains from the period. Even Frollo, who is basically the only Disney villain I can think of who is motivated by his explicitly sexual lust for a woman, is also pretty camp (not as camp as Scar though). That's because Disney wasn't using this aesthetic to indicate that Scar was secretly a big gay, they were using it to show that he was a bad guy.

But it also made him a fun and likeable character, which is what queer audiences responded to.

I think comparing the 1994 Lion King and the 2019 Lion King is really interesting in terms of Disney's treatment of queerness and its queer audience. 1994 Disney queer-coded Scar because they wanted a villain character with a strong personality, who would be fun and over the top. 2019 Scar lacks any of that likeability, he's just a boring douche who the narrative goes out of its way to aggressively no-homo. Instead, we get WeHo Timon whose overt gayness is 100% intentional (but never actually stated), and who is basically just there as a stand-in for the queer audiences.

Basically, Disney is clearly uncomfortable with how its queer-coding of villain characters might look to a modern audience, but clearly hasn't worked out that "sassy comic relief" or "gay best friend" are far more offensive as stereotypes than "camp villain". A huge amount of queer cinema is the deliberate celebration of camp villains, it can be done in a way that's fun and empowering. What Disney has been doing with its queer characters recently isn't empowering.
I guess the most obvious example for Disney's tendency to give their villains stereotypically gay traits is Ratcliffe from Pocahontas:

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

He's easy to forget, because Pocahontas is easy to forget, but he illustrates the point pretty well. Those gay traits seem very archaic themselves from a modern perspective but you know, then again, the 90s where a while ago. Regardless of that, when it comes to actually representing the queer population Disney will, sooner or later, have to face the fact that that means actually depicting queer relationships. There's absolutely no point to just stating that a character is gay and maybe having him look at a character of the same gender with a lovesick expression once or twice. Just fucking show a gay relationship. It's not really all that different from depicting a straight relationship. Have husband and husband instead of husband and wife. That's it.

As long as they are incapable of depicting something as innocent as a healthy relationship out of fear of alienating people either at home or abroad it's reasonable to assume that they have absolutely zero interest in representing that part of the population. That whole "LeFou is gay, Lando Calrissian is pansexual, there's a guy talking about having had a date with a men in a self help group" shit is just... nothing. It's meaningless. It's not representation, it's just vague acknowledgement. Healthy representation is when gay love isn't depicted any differently from straight love.
Just had to re-read both of these quotes to make sure neither of you were throwing shade at Professor Ratigan.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
Hawki said:
I'm kind of left to ask at this point how many Disney villains are actually "camp."
Pretty much all the "golden age" Disney villains are, to one degree or another. Disney films are essentially musical theatre with animation. Certainly at that point, they very much have the sensibility of musical theatre.

It's not even like camp is a secret gay thing, it's a well recognised sensibility, especially in comedy and performing arts. Tim Curry is performing camp in the Rocky Horror Show, but he's also performing camp in Muppet Treasure Island. If you set out to make a character fun, especially if you're trying to make them a fun villain whose purpose is to be entertaining rather than frightening, you'll probably end up employing elements of camp.

Hawki said:
If I had to describe Scar in one word, it would be "menacing" or "manipulative."
I struggle to imagine a person, even a child, who would be genuinely "menaced" by Scar. He's basically a panto villain.

Hawki said:
You mean that plot point that was in the original film and re-introduced in the musical IIRC?
It literally wasn't in the original film.

In fact, several commentators at the time went further than I am and claimed that Stars disinterest in any of the lionesses in the film, combined with his very obviously stereotypical mannerisms, was essentially Disney trying to position the character as canonically gay. I don't agree with that, but it does show how ludicrously unsubtle the whole thing was.

Also, again, Frollo's entire character motivation is based on a conflict between his devout catholicism and his lust for a woman. He is canonically 100% heterosexual. However, the aesthetic by which this is presented to us is not.

Gordon_4 said:
Just had to re-read both of these quotes to make sure neither of you were throwing shade at Professor Ratigan.
Honestly, me pointing out that Ratigan is camp (he is) wouldn't be throwing shade, actually the opposite. I throw shade by pointing out that 2019 Scar lacks a camp aesthetic and is thus a boring non-entity who has nothing fun or interesting going on..

..although I guess that's actually just a read.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,748
374
88
Country
USA
I thought FA was fun forgettable popcorn film until I really thought about how disappointed in it I was. There was no progress (intentionally). We've watched 6 movies so far, and now we're right back to where we were in 1977. Even Palpatine is back! I was also outraged that they had an opportunity to put our 3 heroes together again and blew it. The Last Jedi had tried some things that are interesting. Anyone should be able to learn to use the force if it is a metaphor for becoming like a Samurai. Rey's parents need not be anyone special. Next interesting idea: get rid of the light/dark dichotomy. But they appear to have chickened out. So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
Pretty much all the "golden age" Disney villains are, to one degree or another.
If you mean the Disney Renaissance as being the "golden age," then going by the films I've seen of this era:

-Gaston: Not really. He arguably starts out as being camp, but he darkens a lot towards the end. It's also at this point that Gaston becomes a true villain rather than your village jock.

-Jaffar: I can't think of anything about him that's camp. Maybe in Return of Jaffar in the 'Second Best' song sequence, but that's about it.

-Scar: See above.

-Ratcliffe: Maybe? Honestly I barely remember him.

-Frollo: Not at all.

-Hades: Yep.

That isn't every villain of this era, but I can't see a "villain = camp" train of thought for this period.

I struggle to imagine a person, even a child, who would be genuinely "menaced" by Scar. He's basically a panto villain.
I was menaced a bit by Scar as a kid, but that aside, Scar is a schemer. He's manipulative, he's sociopathic, he's power hungry, etc. I can't think of any camp moments for him. Maybe 'Be Prepared,' but that entire sequence has a dark undertone to it, and I'm not just referring to the Nazi imagery.


It literally wasn't in the original film.
You can look up the cut clip on YouTube where Scar tries to seduce Nala.

However, the aesthetic by which this is presented to us is not.
Gothic?

Um, okay.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,748
374
88
Country
USA
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
I would recommend you see the Youtube series, "Cobra Kai". Nostalgia fun that gives old fans a chance to see characters we appreciate from the past, catch up with them. There has been movement in their lives (Unlike Star Wars returning us to 1977 after 6 movies) while the old characters introduce us to interesting new characters.

Star Wars could have done this. They didn't
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,802
407
88
Country
USA
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
Hawki said:
You mean that plot point that was in the original film and re-introduced in the musical IIRC?
It literally wasn't in the original film.

In fact, several commentators at the time went further than I am and claimed that Stars disinterest in any of the lionesses in the film, combined with his very obviously stereotypical mannerisms, was essentially Disney trying to position the character as canonically gay. I don't agree with that, but it does show how ludicrously unsubtle the whole thing was.
Eh...you're both kinda right. The Scene/Song "The Madness of King Scar" - wherein Scar expresses that he intends to make Nala his queen - is kinda in the same boat as Aladdin's "Proud of Your Boy" number. It was something they scripted and storyboarded, but it never made it to the final cut of the film. The remake has him proposition Sarabi instead, which - while as unnecessary as him propositioning Nala - is far less creepy. To borrow from the film's inspirations for a moment, imagine if Claudius had tried to wed Ophelia rather than Gertrude. There's some political sense in marrying the queen, but pursuing his nephew's love interest is just shudder inducing, and it's unsurprising that Disney would opt to leave it on the cutting room floor.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Gorfias said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
I would recommend you see the Youtube series, "Cobra Kai". Nostalgia fun that gives old fans a chance to see characters we appreciate from the past, catch up with them. There has been movement in their lives (Unlike Star Wars returning us to 1977 after 6 movies) while the old characters introduce us to interesting new characters.

Star Wars could have done this. They didn't
There some alternate universe where it would happen, and people would still complain. Even if they did what Cobra Kai did, Carrie Fisher's unfortunate death would've smashed that plan. Overall, the sequel trilogy did fine for me.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,748
374
88
Country
USA
CoCage said:
Gorfias said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
I would recommend you see the Youtube series, "Cobra Kai". Nostalgia fun that gives old fans a chance to see characters we appreciate from the past, catch up with them. There has been movement in their lives (Unlike Star Wars returning us to 1977 after 6 movies) while the old characters introduce us to interesting new characters.

Star Wars could have done this. They didn't
There some alternate universe where it would happen, and people would still complain. Even if they did what Cobra Kai did, Carrie Fisher's unfortunate death would've smashed that plan. Overall, the sequel trilogy did fine for me.
Were it up to me, the Republic would have been fine BUT facing "Foundation" series type problems. Force Awakens would have our 3 heroes well, together but teaching young people about growing dangers and then, let the young go on new adventures we will care about. Cobra Kai is still clinging to the old as well as new so... not a perfect analogy. I love it and hope you get a chance to see it.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,578
0
0
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
That is both asinine and incorrect.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Gorfias said:
I thought FA was fun forgettable popcorn film until I really thought about how disappointed in it I was. There was no progress (intentionally). We've watched 6 movies so far, and now we're right back to where we were in 1977. Even Palpatine is back! I was also outraged that they had an opportunity to put our 3 heroes together again and blew it. The Last Jedi had tried some things that are interesting. Anyone should be able to learn to use the force if it is a metaphor for becoming like a Samurai. Rey's parents need not be anyone special. Next interesting idea: get rid of the light/dark dichotomy. But they appear to have chickened out. So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
Why would any movie be a "hate letter" to literally half of the world's population?
 

Kyrian007

Officially no longer the Enemy of the People
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
2,076
114
68
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Gorfias said:
I thought FA was fun forgettable popcorn film until I really thought about how disappointed in it I was. There was no progress (intentionally). We've watched 6 movies so far, and now we're right back to where we were in 1977. Even Palpatine is back! I was also outraged that they had an opportunity to put our 3 heroes together again and blew it. The Last Jedi had tried some things that are interesting. Anyone should be able to learn to use the force if it is a metaphor for becoming like a Samurai. Rey's parents need not be anyone special. Next interesting idea: get rid of the light/dark dichotomy. But they appear to have chickened out. So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
Why would any movie be a "hate letter" to literally half of the world's population?
Its the persecution complex of the same type of person who believes in a "war on Christmas."
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
Hawki said:
-Gaston: Not really. He arguably starts out as being camp, but he darkens a lot towards the end. It's also at this point that Gaston becomes a true villain rather than your village jock.
Why would being a villain preclude him from being camp?

Gaston is a Dandy. That's his entire motivation. On the surface he's this super-masc ideal, but he's also obsessed with his own appearance in a way that is actually very foppish. All of his "dark" actions stem from this desire to fill this role of being the town hero everyone admires, because that role is an affectation.

Hawki said:
I can't think of anything about him that's camp.
Did you watch it?

Leaving aside the fact that he is doing a gay voice, he's literally wearing dramatic eyeliner.

I mean, Jafar is a bit complex because he's an orientalist stereotype, which very much overlaps with the idea of being femmey and decadent (and gay), but he is still noticably more femme than any other male character in the same setting.

Hawki said:
That isn't every villain of this era, but I can't see a "villain = camp" train of thought for this period.
That's fine, don't.

This isn't heterosexual culture. Noone expects you to see it.

Hawki said:
Affected. Contrived. Melodramatic.

You know, camp.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,239
0
0
evilthecat said:
Gaston is a Dandy. That's his entire motivation. On the surface he's this super-masc ideal, but he's also obsessed with his own appearance in a way that is actually very foppish.
I was about to challenge you on the subject of Disney villains who are very masculine, like Tarzan's Clayton or Beauty's Gaston, but it looks like you've already covered that. To begin with it sounded like you were criticising the use of feminine or gay elements in signposting villainous characters, but you're now using a broad enough definition for even the ultra virile, five-dozen-eggs-eating, not-an-inch-hairless Gaston to be considered camp? You and I are using very different dictionaries, apparently.

The follow up question would then be, since you see campness everywhere and actually think it's a positive quality in that it's a requisite for a fun, interesting character; what's your beef?

evilthecat said:
I mean, Jafar is a bit complex because he's an orientalist stereotype, which very much overlaps with the idea of being femmey and decadent (and gay), but he is still noticably more femme than any other male character in the same setting.
Something that occurred to me a while ago is that Jafar is, design wise, basically the male equivalent of Cruella DeVille. The resemblance is uncanny - the wild eyes, the wide mouth, the comically bony frame. Trying to argue that this is a feminine (or "femmey" if that's the newspeak version) aesthetic is a dead-end because Jafar is about as feminine as Cruella is masculine - which is to say, not much. They're both manic, scheming, rake-thin old coots; barely sexualised at all except when it's to evoke disgust or a laugh.

As for "orientalist stereotype" - oh, come on, if you're going to invoke that then you'd have to also apply it to the film's protagonists too, since that's the setting and the aesthetic they inhabit.

Final point. You said you'll stop calling out Disney's homophobia when they stop being homophobic. The purpose of me listing notable villains from the last 30 years of Disney films was to hammer the point that if Disney have in the past used obvious homophobic tropes, that's something that's been almost completely absent in the last 20 years. Disney villains these days are much more likely to be males of the straight acting (Hans) or conservative (Lots-o-Huggin Bear, Stinky Pete, Runeard) varieties, or else females. So, umm, yay?
 

Elvis Starburst

Unprofessional Rant Artist
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,151
144
68
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want?
Dunno if I'd call myself overzealous, but I know I at least wanted a trilogy of movies that was handled with proper attention and care that simultaneously wasn't passed around to people like the college party girl. A trilogy that didn't add so many ultimately pointless/worthless characters in asinine sequences that didn't go anywhere. At least with the prequel trilogy I felt like there was a concise vision in place, despite changes being made after the response to Episode 1
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,896
120
68
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
I have no idea what you are dribbling on about. As a man and a boy at heart, I felt no hate salvo fired at me from the film. Maybe I'm not looking at the right things to get upset about. Or looking at all. Also, Luke Skywalker is actually in the film. He shows up as a ghost towards the end of the film and again at the end of the film. Spoilers. If they were writing him out, they could of just you know, not put him in the film and never mention him again.

I'm going to stop writing now or I'm going to get myself in trouble.
 

Catfood220

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
1,896
120
68
altnameJag said:
"Oh noes, Rey accidentally killed Chewie with force light-oh he's fine"
That really bugged me more than it should have done I was like "oh wow, they killed off Chewie, that's brave...oh wait, he's alive and well in the very next scene". I mean, if they wanted that moment to mean anything at all, they could have kept the fact that he was alive a secret until a raid on a First Order outpost further into the film and not have him rescued 30 seconds after he "died". Maybe they didn't want to upset the kids or something, I don't know.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,481
93
53
Batou667 said:
evilthecat said:
Gaston is a Dandy. That's his entire motivation. On the surface he's this super-masc ideal, but he's also obsessed with his own appearance in a way that is actually very foppish.
I was about to challenge you on the subject of Disney villains who are very masculine, like Tarzan's Clayton or Beauty's Gaston, but it looks like you've already covered that. To begin with it sounded like you were criticising the use of feminine or gay elements in signposting villainous characters, but you're now using a broad enough definition for even the ultra virile, five-dozen-eggs-eating, non-an-inch-hairless Gaston to be considered camp? You and I are using very different dictionaries, apparently.
Thanks to a weird conversation in a weird place that I won't get too far into, I've come across this in the past. I look a little like Gaston. Not exactly the same, but yes the "masculine jaw, five-dozen-eggs, poorly shaven bear" descriptors all broadly apply to me. And the use of the term "bear" is apropos because that's the kind of gay I apparently look like. Through this conversation I learned that basically everything except for extreme dudebro signalling is super gay, and even the dudebros secretly want it too.

On a personal level I really think that the signalling used by Disney villains had way more to do with the appearances and airs of nobility and aristocracy - and the implicit negativity in taking on the airs of a class that you are not a part of - than anything else, but there can be only gay I guess.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,419
1,013
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Gorfias said:
I thought FA was fun forgettable popcorn film until I really thought about how disappointed in it I was. There was no progress (intentionally). We've watched 6 movies so far, and now we're right back to where we were in 1977. Even Palpatine is back! I was also outraged that they had an opportunity to put our 3 heroes together again and blew it. The Last Jedi had tried some things that are interesting. Anyone should be able to learn to use the force if it is a metaphor for becoming like a Samurai. Rey's parents need not be anyone special. Next interesting idea: get rid of the light/dark dichotomy. But they appear to have chickened out. So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
Why would any movie be a "hate letter" to literally half of the world's population?
Also, does this make New Hope Luke Skywalker a "hate letter" to girls and women?
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,239
0
0
EvilRoy said:
On a personal level I really think that the signalling used by Disney villains had way more to do with the appearances and airs of nobility and aristocracy - and the implicit negativity in taking on the airs of a class that you are not a part of - than anything else, but there can be only gay I guess.
Bingo. I alluded to this before with my observation that in a series of animated features dominated by American voice talent, the villains frequently have British accents - because it sounds aristocratic and lends itself well to an arrogant or pompous character. While Disney villains span the range from beefcake to weedy fop to drag queen to femme fatale, what they tend to have in common is a greed for (unearned) power... as opposed to all the ostensibly benevolent but unelected monarchies which go largely unexamined, but that's a point for another discussion. Having the villain put on condescending airs well above their station is a way of communicating that. That comes across in the voice acting, visual design, and animated mannerisms.

I would say that historically Disney has used the foppish, weak-but-cruel aristocrat template to signal its bad guys; the sexual or gendered component is in my opinion likely to be mostly incidental - if not outright imagined.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,791
0
0
trunkage said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Gorfias said:
Why would any movie be a "hate letter" to literally half of the world's population?
Also, does this make New Hope Luke Skywalker a "hate letter" to girls and women?
Maybe, but Empire Strikes Back is absolutely a hate letter to dads.

I mean Vader tells Luke he's his father, Luke goes "NOOOOOOOO" all superdramatically and then even throws himself down a really deep hole. Movie hates dads. Can't get any more clear that.
 

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,028
1,393
118
Country
Texas
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
Good movies would have been a decent start.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Elvis Starburst said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want?
Dunno if I'd call myself overzealous, but I know I at least wanted a trilogy of movies that was handled with proper attention and care that simultaneously wasn't passed around to people like the college party girl. A trilogy that didn't add so many ultimately pointless/worthless characters in asinine sequences that didn't go anywhere. At least with the prequel trilogy I felt like there was a concise vision in place, despite changes being made after the response to Episode 1
Too bad Episode II was boring as fuck. It's the only Star Wars film I cannot finish at all after seeing it once.

SupahEwok said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
Good movies would have been a decent start.
They are good movies, despite the problems. Some of the problems they have are very present in the OT and PT.
 

Elvis Starburst

Unprofessional Rant Artist
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,151
144
68
CoCage said:
Too bad Episode II was boring as fuck. It's the only Star Wars film I cannot finish at all after seeing it once.
Oh yeah, it's a total slog. Though my favourite Star Wars game takes place during the Clone Wars, so I have some warm feelings towards the movie cause of that
 

twistedmic

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,339
25
53
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want?
My guess is that they want a film version of their personal playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic. A lot of people seem to have a massive hard-on for that game in general and specifically for Darth Revan.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
twistedmic said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want?
My guess is that they want a film version of their personal playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic. A lot of people seem to have a massive hard-on for that game in general and specifically for Darth Revan.
They better keep dreaming; their personal fanfic ain't gonna happen. I wouldn't mind a KOTOR TV series or movies. It would work better as a TV show.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,121
576
118
Country
4
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
What level of sjw persecution complex do you have to be on to believe something so pathetic?
 

Kwak

Elite Member
May 2, 2020
1,121
576
118
Country
4
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want?
Some integrity of vision, and a passing grade in a 'Structural Form in Myths and Storytelling' community college course.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
Batou667 said:
I was about to challenge you on the subject of Disney villains who are very masculine, like Tarzan's Clayton or Beauty's Gaston, but it looks like you've already covered that.
That's the thing though, Gaston is not (traditionally) masculine.



Sure, he's built and has body hair and his vocal pitch is fairly low. But he also constantly checks himself out in any reflective surface. He poses in casual conversation. His motions and voice are unusually florid. Again, he's not just a guy who happens to be hot. He's a dandy. His entire identity is an affectation, which is kind of the point. "Real men" are beasts, not dandies.

Batou667 said:
The follow up question would then be, since you see campness everywhere and actually think it's a positive quality in that it's a requisite for a fun, interesting character; what's your beef?
Well, firstly, because this was never a positive quality for Disney. They made characters queer people would like, but they did so entirely by accident. The intention is still pejorative.

Secondly, because despite clearly being ashamed of its history of queer coding and use of camp villains, Disney still panders to obnoxious stereotypes and empty tokenism regarding queer inclusion, we've just moved on to using irrelevant side-characters, "sassy" friends and comic relief which to me is a genuine step backwards.

Batou667 said:
Something that occurred to me a while ago is that Jafar is, design wise, basically the male equivalent of Cruella DeVille. The resemblance is uncanny - the wild eyes, the wide mouth, the comically bony frame. Trying to argue that this is a feminine (or "femmey" if that's the newspeak version) aesthetic is a dead-end because Jafar is about as feminine as Cruella is masculine - which is to say, not much.
If your argument that Jafar is not femme is to compare him to Cruella de Vil, a character who is a parody of the supposed vanity, narcissism and decadence of urban socialites, whose motivation and character is defined largely around her clothes and who looks and acts like a drag queen, a literally parody of hyperfemininity practiced primarily by gay men, I think you've kind of shot your own argument in the dick.

Batou667 said:
As for "orientalist stereotype" - oh, come on, if you're going to invoke that then you'd have to also apply it to the film's protagonists too, since that's the setting and the aesthetic they inhabit.
Yeah, of course. The entire film is an orientalist fantasy. I literally referenced this in the post you're quoting.

It doesn't change the fact that Jafar is a particular kind of orientalist stereotype.

Batou667 said:
Disney villains these days are much more likely to be males of the straight acting (Hans) or conservative (Lots-o-Huggin Bear, Stinky Pete, Runeard) varieties, or else females. So, umm, yay?
Again, did I not already make this clear?

I've pointed multiple times to the existence of two distinct forms of homophobia, one historical and one current. The problem is that I actually prefer Disney's old homophobia to Disney's new homophobia, so for me what you're describing isn't progress.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
Sure, he's built and has body hair and his vocal pitch is fairly low. But he also constantly checks himself out in any reflective surface. He poses in casual conversation. His motions and voice are unusually florid. Again, he's not just a guy who happens to be hot. He's a dandy. His entire identity is an affectation, which is kind of the point. "Real men" are beasts, not dandies.
Okay.....he's a narcissistic douche. Basically Johnny Bravo, but even more of an asshole. And "Real Men" can be dandy. Just ask Space Dandy.

https://cdn1us.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeekus/files/styles/main_wide/public/11111111111111111111111111_0.jpg?itok=8A76lG8A


Dandy is more of a real man, that Gaston can ever hope to be.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
6,633
1,280
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
SupahEwok said:
CoCage said:
To the fans going overboard on the negativity to the sequel trilogy: What the fuck do you want? .
Good movies would have been a decent start.
Having some idea what they were doing and the consistency to follow it through. MCU can roadmap and somehow have 20 something films and a couple TV shows in the same universe over 10 years and more or less have them work together. Star Wars can't seem to do it with 3 films in 5 years, so as a result the 3 films feel schizophrenic at best.

Not to mention just how much they cribbed from the OT as far as story structure goes which means that setting the New Republic as the embattled resistance yet again in the face of overwhelming Imperial/First Order odds feels like it doesn't work nearly as well as it did the first time.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,082
838
118
Country
United States
This movie failed so badly at basic storytelling that their newly made up Force Dyad was immediately separated and had one half of the pair fight the big bad on their own.

And win.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
altnameJag said:
This movie failed so badly at basic storytelling that their newly made up Force Dyad was immediately separated and had one half of the pair fight the big bad on their own.

And win.
Y'know, the force dyad thing wouldn't have bothered me so much if the term was used beforehand. Like, Luke was aware of the connection between Rey and Ben, he could have brought it up then.

But it's not just that aspect that bothers me, it's that the fights against Palpatine have gotten dumber. In Return, Luke only wins because he turned his father back to the Light Side - there's something to be said where compassion is what grants Luke victory rather than brute force. In Revenge, it's a slugfest, but there's a sense that this is something special, the Sith-Jedi conflict coming to a head, and the pillars of democracy literally being destroyed in the process (how the senate seats are tossed around, symbolizing the end of the Republic). Even Palpatine's "unlimited power!" scene with Mace has some weight because it shows just how far the Jedi have let their arrogance blind them.

But this? This is just Rey using lightsabers to reflect Force lightning. That's it. There's no deeper theme or message here. It's just a light show.
 

Dreiko_v1legacy

New member
Aug 28, 2008
4,696
0
0
Kwak said:
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
What level of sjw persecution complex do you have to be on to believe something so pathetic?

Yeah, I have to agree, from what I've seen the SJWs are mad too because either the movie is depicting spousal abuse in a positive light or condemns an abused boy right as he was about to become good (seen some crazy SJW reactions to Ben biting the dust, like, super out there insane where people are unable to eat/sleep and need to take pills and so on lmao, someone apparently even stalked the actor portraying him and gave him a carving of his (the actor's, not the stalker's) dog).


You could make that argument with the second movie (admiral purple hair was a prime example) but in this one there's something for everyone to hate lol.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,239
0
0
evilthecat said:
That's the thing though, Gaston is not (traditionally) masculine.

Sure, he's built and has body hair and his vocal pitch is fairly low. But he also constantly checks himself out in any reflective surface. He poses in casual conversation. His motions and voice are unusually florid. Again, he's not just a guy who happens to be hot. He's a dandy.
So that's one cherry-picked gif. He's vain - ok; are you saying vanity is never a straight masculine trait?

evilthecat said:
His entire identity is an affectation, which is kind of the point. "Real men" are beasts, not dandies.
According to who, exactly?

evilthecat said:
If your argument that Jafar is not femme is to compare him to Cruella de Vil, a character who is a parody of the supposed vanity, narcissism and decadence of urban socialites, whose motivation and character is defined largely around her clothes and who looks and acts like a drag queen, a literally parody of hyperfemininity practiced primarily by gay men, I think you've kind of shot your own argument in the dick.
Cruella is villainous and/or a figure of fun because she LACKS traditional femininity.

evilthecat said:
I've pointed multiple times to the existence of two distinct forms of homophobia, one historical and one current. The problem is that I actually prefer Disney's old homophobia to Disney's new homophobia, so for me what you're describing isn't progress.
This is coming across more and more like painting the bullseyes around the bullet holes. Where is the homophobia, overt or otherwise, in the crop of modern Disney villains?

Also, could I press you to respond to the point I and EvilRoy were making earlier - a lot of the traits exhibited by these classic villains could be described as lampooning the American view of traditional European stuffiness, arrogance, pomp and haughtiness? That's evidence of historic and national rivalry, not necessarily queer bias.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,748
374
88
Country
USA
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Gorfias said:
I thought FA was fun forgettable popcorn film until I really thought about how disappointed in it I was. There was no progress (intentionally). We've watched 6 movies so far, and now we're right back to where we were in 1977. Even Palpatine is back! I was also outraged that they had an opportunity to put our 3 heroes together again and blew it. The Last Jedi had tried some things that are interesting. Anyone should be able to learn to use the force if it is a metaphor for becoming like a Samurai. Rey's parents need not be anyone special. Next interesting idea: get rid of the light/dark dichotomy. But they appear to have chickened out. So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
Why would any movie be a "hate letter" to literally half of the world's population?
To wage war against a people, it helps to dehumanize them. So, Hollywood is doing its share.

Kwak said:
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
What level of sjw persecution complex do you have to be on to believe something so pathetic?
You do know California has passed a law REQUIRING bigotry against men in forming Corporate boards.

I think the attempt to erase Luke and Han is further evidence of a problem. I do not buy someone thought it a good idea money making wise, to kill the past on a nostalgia property! So, the alternative:


Dreiko said:
Kwak said:
Gorfias said:
So, all that is left is to see the movie as an open hate letter to men and boys. A salvo in the war against them. I understand ROS is about trying to write Luke Skywalker out of existence. I think I'll pass.
What level of sjw persecution complex do you have to be on to believe something so pathetic?

Yeah, I have to agree, from what I've seen the SJWs are mad too because either the movie is depicting spousal abuse in a positive light or condemns an abused boy right as he was about to become good (seen some crazy SJW reactions to Ben biting the dust, like, super out there insane where people are unable to eat/sleep and need to take pills and so on lmao, someone apparently even stalked the actor portraying him and gave him a carving of his (the actor's, not the stalker's) dog).


You could make that argument with the second movie (admiral purple hair was a prime example) but in this one there's something for everyone to hate lol.
Agreed sorta. They tried to please everyone and ended up pleasing no one. A movie that should have made about $3 billion is going to make about $1. Heads should roll. But you appear to be saying I am suffering a persecution complex and ... I think I am right. And I hear the SJWs without dismissing them too. "Ben" literally is a mass murderer. And she kisses him? BTW: I'm not too fond of the idea of redeeming Vader either. Another mass murderer. He couldn't murder his own son, so all is forgiven now? The extended Universe of books did this better. I think it was Ben that in a moment of clairvoyance realizes he must surrender to the dark side as the only way to save the Galaxy, as Vader does killing Palpetine.

Interesting analysis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q3xQdfcoOQ&t=

Have y'all seen the "somehow Palpatine has returned" meme's ? Great writing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVRLZ43mVBM&fbclid=
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
All I can really say at this point is that the worst part of all of it is how they went out of their way to ignore or retcon nearly everything that occurred in The Last Jedi in this movie. I don't care whether you like TLJ or didn't, the fact is The Rise of Skywalker would've been a much much better and more coherent movie had they simply followed through with what TLJ set up in it's plot instead of acting like TLJ didn't exist. The Trilogy as a whole is now worse as a direct result of Rise of Skywalker.

Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
immortalfrieza said:
Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
Even Palpatine coming back, while not the worst thing in the world, is iffy for me. I could have bought it if there was even the slightest hint of him surviving in TFA or Last Jedi, but there simply isn't. And it undercuts TFA for me, because one of the most interesting ideas in the film (what few of them there were) was the idea of the Dark Side operating through proxies. First the Sith, then the Empire, now the First Order. With Palpatine coming back, it undercuts this idea, in that everything that's gone wrong for the setting since Episode I can be lain at his feet. This isn't inherently a bad idea, but I've seen it done poorly before, and it's done poorly here.

But that aside, you're right, in that Rise discards elements from Last Jedi. Namely that:

a) The Dark Lord schtick is old (see Snoke being killed off unceremoniously). I wouldn't have objected to learning about Snoke, but Rise recontextualizes him as part of Palpatine's plan. Last Jedi tried to break free from the dark lord stuff, Rise forces it right back in.

b) Last Jedi emphasizes the idea that anyone can be a hero, that one's worth isn't determined by blood. Rey's parents were "nobodies," but she's still a powerful Force user. Rise undercuts this with the whole granddaughter of Palpatine nonsense.

c) Last Jedi had something to say on the importance of myths, that even if one can't live up to the myth surrounding them, that mythology has worth of its own. We see that with Luke's arc, and we see it with the final shot in the film. My anticipation of Rise was that it would build on this, showing how Luke's actions have inspired the galaxy to take on the First Order. What's so bizzare about Rise is that it kind of does this (one of the most powerful lines in the film is "they're just people," as the galaxy comes to Exigal), but it's actions that have nothing to do with Luke's sacrifice. They're there because Lando flew to the Core Systems.

Last Jedi was far from perfect, but it actually had things to say, and IMO, said them well overall. Rise didn't have to be subversive, but it didn't have to be so damn SAFE either. :(
 

Dansen

Master Lurker
Mar 24, 2010
894
0
0
immortalfrieza said:
All I can really say at this point is that the worst part of all of it is how they went out of their way to ignore or retcon nearly everything that occurred in The Last Jedi in this movie. I don't care whether you like TLJ or didn't, the fact is The Rise of Skywalker would've been a much much better and more coherent movie had they simply followed through with what TLJ set up in it's plot instead of acting like TLJ didn't exist. The Trilogy as a whole is now worse as a direct result of Rise of Skywalker.

Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
What did TLJ set up exactly? Luke's arc finishes when he decides to get involved again and sacrifice himself. The Kylo/Rey team up was teased and slapped down in the same scene it appears. Holdo dies, Snoke dies, Phasma dies, all inconsequentially. Finn Poe and Rose accomplish nothing and may as well not been in the film. TLJ sets up nothing. Rey's supposed lack of lineage is fine but you can't make a film out of that so the Palpatine ass pull was inevitable as soon as Snoke died. The cluster fuck came from TLJ "tearing it all down".
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,419
1,013
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Dansen said:
immortalfrieza said:
All I can really say at this point is that the worst part of all of it is how they went out of their way to ignore or retcon nearly everything that occurred in The Last Jedi in this movie. I don't care whether you like TLJ or didn't, the fact is The Rise of Skywalker would've been a much much better and more coherent movie had they simply followed through with what TLJ set up in it's plot instead of acting like TLJ didn't exist. The Trilogy as a whole is now worse as a direct result of Rise of Skywalker.

Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
What did TLJ set up exactly? Luke's arc finishes when he decides to get involved again and sacrifice himself. The Kylo/Rey team up was teased and slapped down in the same scene it appears. Holdo dies, Snoke dies, Phasma dies, all inconsequentially. Finn Poe and Rose accomplish nothing and may as well not been in the film. TLJ sets up nothing. Rey's supposed lack of lineage is fine but you can't make a film out of that so the Palpatine ass pull was inevitable as soon as Snoke died. The cluster fuck came from TLJ "tearing it all down".
Poe was being taught to become a better leader through screwing up. Rey and Kylo would have teamed up, just like eventually Vader and Luke teamed up after being slapped down in the scene it was teased. That slap you detest was an exact copy of Empire.

The force was awakening in others that werent Skywalker or Palapatine. They should have been rising up from the inspirational survival at the end of Last Jedi. Think of Mao's march which destroyed 90% of his forces but won him China. I personally was hoping that a new organization, like the grey Jedis, would have been created. Because both the Jedi and Sith are evil to varying degrees. Someone who actually cared about the people would have been nice.

Nobody knows what to do about Finn. He should have been recruiting fellow deserters. So I definitely agree with you there.

Other than being used as bait, what was the point of Han, Chewie and Leia in Empire Stikes Back? They could have been cut and it would have been a better movie
 

Neurotic Void Melody

Bound to escape
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,954
6
13
Haven't seen it yet, but spoiled myself cos really star wars ain't that important. So far it sounds highly reminiscent of how Alien Covenant basically erased Prometheus in a desperate attempt to bow to fan pressure, killing off any potential intrigue in the process. I'll still watch it at some point cos big budget spectacle remains entertaining after a few doses of THC regardless of narrative foibles, and the characters are quite likeable. Though though be honest, I never saw what people found interesting about Snoke. He seemed the most generic of any generic fantasy big-bad guy, unless I missed some important detail somewhere.

What baffles me is how star wars has accumulated such a massive fanbase who generate an infinite stream of arguments online and seem to be paying the bills of committed YouTubers on the franchise alone. It just doesn't seem to have much worth discussing really. All arguments tend to boil down to is events and who remembered them the bestest. Well, before the Culture Wars[sup][sup]TM[/sup][/sup] naturally gravitated towards everything popular. I can understand other nerd passions creating extensive chatter, like star trek, due to intelligent themes and ideas fueling the imagination. And comics to an extent also. But there's hardly anything there in star wars. It's themes are out-nuanced by pretty much all of Pixar's output and all I ever see is wasted potential due to the highly conservative nature of fan expectations. I wondered if the EU helped with it's unique form of crowdsourced lore-building, but rarely do I see that in discussion. There's so many other dumb sci-fi films with way more discussion potential that avoid this vast toxic kerfuffle, so what gives? I'd go so far to say a film such as Lucy is one of them. Yes it's built on the foundation of a hugely dumb premise, but so is star wars!

Rogue One had huge promise, but it turned out to be fan wank, for some reason omitting any character for the fated people within whom are all played by talented performers which I respect, but felt nothing for when they died. Is it because they needed the PG13 rating and showing all people die on screen whom the viewer emotionally connected with would've raised it? The mainline series presented character very clearly, so it is a bit of a mystery to me still.
The Last Jedi I literally had no expectations for, so subversion wasn't an issue. But it did what I'd kinda been hoping for a while which is moving away from buckling to fan wank, and, after Rogue One, it was relieving to be with actual characters again. It was no less dumb than the rest of the series, in fact it gave hope for a fresher path!

In the end, they're just simple spectacle movies. And why won't they do more with black holes?? The most interesting mysteries loitering around space allow infinite potential for creativity to flow, but so much space fiction including star wars just don't bother at all. They're scary and destructive too...perfect for cartoonishly evil plans! Interstellar was a godsend in that regard. Oh well. Back to...no wait! One more musing...what have star wars fans got against the concept of a person surviving alone on alien milk amongst other foraged foods? It's like one of the most logical elements I've seen the IP throw out there.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
Hawki said:
immortalfrieza said:
Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
Even Palpatine coming back, while not the worst thing in the world, is iffy for me. I could have bought it if there was even the slightest hint of him surviving in TFA or Last Jedi, but there simply isn't. And it undercuts TFA for me, because one of the most interesting ideas in the film (what few of them there were) was the idea of the Dark Side operating through proxies. First the Sith, then the Empire, now the First Order. With Palpatine coming back, it undercuts this idea, in that everything that's gone wrong for the setting since Episode I can be lain at his feet. This isn't inherently a bad idea, but I've seen it done poorly before, and it's done poorly here.
I was saying that having Palpatine as the main villain of RoS could've worked decently and while still following along with what The Last Jedi set up. Sure, it would've been far better to complete Kylo Ren's arc and have him be the Big Bad or something but Palpatine could've worked just fine as the core villain of RoS without having to compromise anything The Last Jedi did.

Dansen said:
immortalfrieza said:
All I can really say at this point is that the worst part of all of it is how they went out of their way to ignore or retcon nearly everything that occurred in The Last Jedi in this movie. I don't care whether you like TLJ or didn't, the fact is The Rise of Skywalker would've been a much much better and more coherent movie had they simply followed through with what TLJ set up in it's plot instead of acting like TLJ didn't exist. The Trilogy as a whole is now worse as a direct result of Rise of Skywalker.

Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
What did TLJ set up exactly? Luke's arc finishes when he decides to get involved again and sacrifice himself. The Kylo/Rey team up was teased and slapped down in the same scene it appears. Holdo dies, Snoke dies, Phasma dies, all inconsequentially. Finn Poe and Rose accomplish nothing and may as well not been in the film. TLJ sets up nothing. Rey's supposed lack of lineage is fine but you can't make a film out of that so the Palpatine ass pull was inevitable as soon as Snoke died. The cluster fuck came from TLJ "tearing it all down".
Let's see... there's quite a bit that The Last Jedi set up that Rise of Skywalker squandered.

The Last Jedi reduced The Resistance to a handful and Rise of Skywalker didn't follow up on it. Hell, a whole TV series could've been made on the premise of rebuilding The Resistance back up on it's own. However, Rise of Skywalker just begins with The Resistance pretty much right back where they were at the beginning of The Last Jedi, if not stronger without any explanation.

Rey is now the grandchild of Palpatine instead of a nobody making Star Wars a tale of blue bloods once again. All the potential made for other future characters because Rey was a nobody yet still is so powerful The Last Jedi established is thrown out as a result.

Kylo Ren goes from head of the First Order in The Last Jedi to Palpatine's ***** in place of Snoke and then redeems himself instead of finishing his arc and taking center stage as the Big Bad.

Rise of Skywalker shoves aside Rose Tico in every scene she could've been in and nearly every scene she could have been in is done by some random black woman Finn meets. The worst part about that one is even if it wasn't the intention it looks like they're giving a win to the trolls that were harassing Rose's actress. Not to mention how DJ apparently has gotten away with screwing over the whole galaxy scot free.

No mention is made of Rey building a new Jedi Order especially a more grey one fitting with what Luke said. Maybe it'll happen in future installments but that would be much more interesting than just a repeat of the Old Jedi Order.

And there's more, but that's what immediately comes to mind. Rise of Skywalker is just good enough overall that I don't hate it in spite of this, but if they had gone along with the plot points of The Last Jedi instead of avoiding or removing them the movie would've been a lot better. There was plenty that The Last Jedi set up that could've been and should've been made use of but Rise of Skywalker failed to do that and a LOT of great stuff is thrown away as a result.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,593
1,213
118
immortalfrieza said:
Hawki said:
immortalfrieza said:
Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
Even Palpatine coming back, while not the worst thing in the world, is iffy for me. I could have bought it if there was even the slightest hint of him surviving in TFA or Last Jedi, but there simply isn't. And it undercuts TFA for me, because one of the most interesting ideas in the film (what few of them there were) was the idea of the Dark Side operating through proxies. First the Sith, then the Empire, now the First Order. With Palpatine coming back, it undercuts this idea, in that everything that's gone wrong for the setting since Episode I can be lain at his feet. This isn't inherently a bad idea, but I've seen it done poorly before, and it's done poorly here.
I was saying that having Palpatine as the main villain of RoS could've worked decently and while still following along with what The Last Jedi set up. Sure, it would've been far better to complete Kylo Ren's arc and have him be the Big Bad or something but Palpatine could've worked just fine as the core villain of RoS without having to compromise anything The Last Jedi did.

Dansen said:
immortalfrieza said:
All I can really say at this point is that the worst part of all of it is how they went out of their way to ignore or retcon nearly everything that occurred in The Last Jedi in this movie. I don't care whether you like TLJ or didn't, the fact is The Rise of Skywalker would've been a much much better and more coherent movie had they simply followed through with what TLJ set up in it's plot instead of acting like TLJ didn't exist. The Trilogy as a whole is now worse as a direct result of Rise of Skywalker.

Rian Johnson did not write JJ Abrams into a corner, The Last Jedi had plenty there that JJ Abrams could've built off of, even Palpatine coming back could've fit just fine into everything. JJ Abrams refused to make use of what Rian Johnson put up and RoS is a much worse film than it could've been because of it.
What did TLJ set up exactly? Luke's arc finishes when he decides to get involved again and sacrifice himself. The Kylo/Rey team up was teased and slapped down in the same scene it appears. Holdo dies, Snoke dies, Phasma dies, all inconsequentially. Finn Poe and Rose accomplish nothing and may as well not been in the film. TLJ sets up nothing. Rey's supposed lack of lineage is fine but you can't make a film out of that so the Palpatine ass pull was inevitable as soon as Snoke died. The cluster fuck came from TLJ "tearing it all down".
Let's see... there's quite a bit that The Last Jedi set up that Rise of Skywalker squandered.

The Last Jedi reduced The Resistance to a handful and Rise of Skywalker didn't follow up on it. Hell, a whole TV series could've been made on the premise of rebuilding The Resistance back up on it's own. However, Rise of Skywalker just begins with The Resistance pretty much right back where they were at the beginning of The Last Jedi, if not stronger without any explanation.

Rey is now the grandchild of Palpatine instead of a nobody making Star Wars a tale of blue bloods once again. All the potential made for other future characters because Rey was a nobody yet still is so powerful The Last Jedi established is thrown out as a result.

Kylo Ren goes from head of the First Order in The Last Jedi to Palpatine's ***** in place of Snoke and then redeems himself instead of finishing his arc and taking center stage as the Big Bad.

Rise of Skywalker shoves aside Rose Tico in every scene she could've been in and nearly every scene she could have been in is done by some random black woman Finn meets. The worst part about that one is even if it wasn't the intention it looks like they're giving a win to the trolls that were harassing Rose's actress. Not to mention how DJ apparently has gotten away with screwing over the whole galaxy scot free.

No mention is made of Rey building a new Jedi Order especially a more grey one fitting with what Luke said. Maybe it'll happen in future installments but that would be much more interesting than just a repeat of the Old Jedi Order.

And there's more, but that's what immediately comes to mind. Rise of Skywalker is just good enough overall that I don't hate it in spite of this, but if they had gone along with the plot points of The Last Jedi instead of avoiding or removing them the movie would've been a lot better. There was plenty that The Last Jedi set up that could've been and should've been made use of but Rise of Skywalker failed to do that and a LOT of great stuff is thrown away as a result.
The only thing you listed that's a set up to a plot is rebuilding the resistance. And you're correct that that would take a whole tv show to adequately explain. The problem is that Johnson destroyed the resistance at the end of movie 2 out of 3 with absolutely nothing stopping the FO from taking the galaxy, so movie 3 would have to be about going into hiding and building up to the new new trilogy. Nothing could realistically stop them now.

The rest of your points are complaining about retconning TLJ and admittedly like I said earlier in this thread (or another thread, it blends together), I despise TLJ and still think just retconning it was the poorest move they could make.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
crimson5pheonix said:
The only thing you listed that's a set up to a plot is rebuilding the resistance.
Nope, everything I mentioned is setup to a plot, rebuilding the Resistance is just one of the few things in The Last Jedi that could've been the basis for a plot on it's lonesome. Plot points in previous works leading only to plot points in future works doesn't mean the plot points in the previous weren't still setups.

And you're correct that that would take a whole tv show to adequately explain. The problem is that Johnson destroyed the resistance at the end of movie 2 out of 3 with absolutely nothing stopping the FO from taking the galaxy, so movie 3 would have to be about going into hiding and building up to the new new trilogy. Nothing could realistically stop them now.
Not really, though they'd have had to extend the movie a bit (RoS was already 2 movies crammed into one) to do it. Just have a scene somewhere along the line of Poe and Co convincing some rich guy or military commander or someone like that to support the Resistance, maybe throw in a space battle to show that they were worth the time to recruit. After that, a throwaway line or two about similar groups they've brought into the fold for the Resistance would've been enough to adequately explain with just a movie's length. Yeah, building back up the Resistance could've been the basis for a TV show, but it didn't have to be to work as a plot setup.
The rest of your points are complaining about retconning TLJ and admittedly like I said earlier in this thread (or another thread, it blends together), I despise TLJ and still think just retconning it was the poorest move they could make.
No they aren't, they're retconning and that's bad in itself and thus cause of complain but all those point were something RoS could've followed up on and didn't. I was mentioning a bunch of plot points Rise of Skywalker could've used in response to the claim that The Last Jedi didn't set up anything and made it clear that wasn't the case.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,593
1,213
118
immortalfrieza said:
crimson5pheonix said:
The only thing you listed that's a set up to a plot is rebuilding the resistance.
Nope, everything I mentioned is setup to a plot, rebuilding the Resistance is just one of the few things in The Last Jedi that could've been the basis for a plot on it's lonesome. Plot points in previous works leading only to plot points in future works doesn't mean the plot points in the previous weren't still setups.
Rose Trico is not a plot. Rey building the Jedi Order wasn't set up, if anything the movie wanted to shoot such structural institutions down. Which is fine, but it's not a setup to any sort of plot. Rey being a nobody is also not a plot point to build off of.

As a side rant, I have no clue why people are hung up about this. Star Wars is almost nothing but powerful force users who didn't come from any sort of force using family. The Skywalkers are the weird ones in universe, everyone else just had to build up their power through hard work and effort. Actually so did the Skywalkers, they just had good potential. Rey inheriting her force powers actually would buck the normal SW trend. Not necessarily in a good way mind you, but that is what's actually novel in SW. Her being a nobody makes her like everyone else except Anakin and Luke.

And you're correct that that would take a whole tv show to adequately explain. The problem is that Johnson destroyed the resistance at the end of movie 2 out of 3 with absolutely nothing stopping the FO from taking the galaxy, so movie 3 would have to be about going into hiding and building up to the new new trilogy. Nothing could realistically stop them now.
Not really, though they'd have had to extend the movie a bit (RoS was already 2 movies crammed into one) to do it. Just have a scene somewhere along the line of Poe and Co convincing some rich guy or military commander or someone like that to support the Resistance, maybe throw in a space battle to show that they were worth the time to recruit. After that, a throwaway line or two about similar groups they've brought into the fold for the Resistance would've been enough to adequately explain with just a movie's length. Yeah, building back up the Resistance could've been the basis for a TV show, but it didn't have to be to work as a plot setup.
Except TLJ established that the uber rich are helping the FO, with a long spiel about it. Though that is something else that the new movies in general mess up, time skips.

The new trilogy takes place over like a week or two, every movie leads right off the other one. The OT takes place over something like 6 years with multi-year timeskips between them, and something like that would help here since in Empire Strikes Back the resistance is hurt, but they don't make them effectively wiped out and give them a few years to build back up too.


The rest of your points are complaining about retconning TLJ and admittedly like I said earlier in this thread (or another thread, it blends together), I despise TLJ and still think just retconning it was the poorest move they could make.
No they aren't, they're retconning and that's bad in itself and thus cause of complain but all those point were something RoS could've followed up on and didn't. I was mentioning a bunch of plot points Rise of Skywalker could've used in response to the claim that The Last Jedi didn't set up anything and made it clear that wasn't the case.
Not really, and it ignores that while RoS is bad for retconning TLJ, TLJ did it first by retconning Force Awakens, resetting everyone's character progression, killing all the plot points JJ set up (basic as they were), and then spinning wheels for 2 hours or so.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 20, 2020
2,871
338
88
Country
United Kingdom
CoCage said:
Okay.....he's a narcissistic douche. Basically Johnny Bravo, but even more of an asshole.
What about any of the things I have mentioned would make someone a "douche" or an "asshole?"

Gaston is shown to have a lot of actually negative qualities, qualities which actually demonstrate cruelty or neglect of those around him. The fact that he puts a lot of regard in his own appearance is not one of these qualities, and yet, I don't think your reaction is unreasonable. I think it's the intentional reaction the films wants its audience to have. Why?

CoCage said:
And "Real Men" can be dandy.
"Real men" don't exist.

I'm commenting on the film's framing of Gaston's (apparent) masculinity. If you think that translates into my general views on what should and should not be acceptable or appropriate to an actual category of people who are "real men", then you don't know me too well.

Batou667 said:
So that's one cherry-picked gif.
Trust me, it's not. It's just exceptionally blatant.

Batou667 said:
According to who, exactly?
Is the film a tragedy because Gaston dies at the end?

Batou667 said:
Cruella is villainous and/or a figure of fun because she LACKS traditional femininity.
In what ways, exactly, does she "lack traditional femininity"?

Because you're not wrong. Cruella is not appropriately feminine. Anita (and Perdita) are, which is why they are not villains. Incidentally, I'm glad we're not at the point of admitting that villainy is a gendered concept in this era of Disney films.

The problem is that Cruella isn't "traditionally masculine" either, so what is she?

The answer is that Cruella is inappropriately feminine. Which, again, actually makes her very similar to Jafar.

Batou667 said:
This is coming across more and more like painting the bullseyes around the bullet holes. Where is the homophobia, overt or otherwise, in the crop of modern Disney villains?
I've explained this several times now. I'm not sure what's not clear about it. The problem is that there isn't any "homo" to be "phobic" of. That's kind of the issue.

Disney doesn't do camp villains any more. Okay, maybe Maleficent a bit but that's only because she can be folded easily into liberal feminist "girl-boss" nonsense about "badass" women. Generally though, Disney has clearly attempted to do away with this kind of coding for villains (or "villains").

What Disney does now instead is to consciously try to pander to queer audiences in ways which demonstrate actual contempt. From the cynical JK Rowling dance of promoting characters as queer in marketing and never actually putting it in the film, to just using even lazier gay stereotyping for comic relief side characters, to pointless gestures like having a lesbian kiss in the background of a scene between two characters with no lines.

In terms of messaging, I don't have a problem with telling queer kids to go and be the fucking villains, because surviving as a queer person requires you to understand on some level that the world you live in is not kind or fair and you have to cut a ***** sometimes. I have a much bigger problem with telling queer kids that they need to reconcile themselves to being the supporting cast, or bit parts, or providing comic relief for the incredibly important heterosexuals who matter or who want to pat themselves on the back for being tolerant while watching pretty women awkwardly kiss.

Batou667 said:
Also, could I press you to respond to the point I and EvilRoy were making earlier - a lot of the traits exhibited by these classic villains could be described as lampooning the American view of traditional European stuffiness, arrogance, pomp and haughtiness?
In the Lion King, James Earl Jones is doing an accent.

Describe that accent to me.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 2, 2020
2,023
54
53
Country
USA
crimson5pheonix said:
Rose Trico is not a plot. Rey building the Jedi Order wasn't set up, if anything the movie wanted to shoot such structural institutions down. Which is fine, but it's not a setup to any sort of plot. Rey being a nobody is also not a plot point to build off of.
Actually yes, they all are plots. Rose Tico had so many possible directions she could've gone, not the least of which being a romance plot, that's plot. Rey rebuilding the Jedi Order couldn't have been more blatantly established had they tried. The whole Sacred Jedi Texts, the plot to moving on and avoid both previous incarnations of the old Jedi Order's mistakes, and that she's "The Last Jedi", that's plot. Rey being a nobody is an incredible plot hook, revealed how unimportant family lineage was and opened the doors to everybody involved being important in some way, that's plot, tons of it. Rise of Skywalker ignored and retconned all of it.

Just because you can't see the significance of the plot points in The Last Jedi doesn't mean they aren't plot. Otherwise I could say Vader being Luke's father isn't plot, the existence of the Death Star isn't plot, the Emperor isn't plot, etc.

As a side rant, I have no clue why people are hung up about this. Star Wars is almost nothing but powerful force users who didn't come from any sort of force using family. The Skywalkers are the weird ones in universe, everyone else just had to build up their power through hard work and effort. Actually so did the Skywalkers, they just had good potential. Rey inheriting her force powers actually would buck the normal SW trend. Not necessarily in a good way mind you, but that is what's actually novel in SW. Her being a nobody makes her like everyone else except Anakin and Luke.
Star Wars is almost completely about Force Users I grant you that, but there's a clear line between "powerful" Force Users and "decent to mediocre" Force Users. 99% of Force Users in the movies and even Legends/Disney EU are of barely any significance and die in droves, and even most of the powerful Force Users have little to no mention of their origins which makes their power no less inexplicable than Rey. We don't know where Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan or Yoda came from, we don't know if they came from some families somewhere famous for popping out Powerful Force Users or what. However, they're all clearly not nobodies from the word jump.

Legends is a little more murky about this, but even so, going by the movies alone, the only ones of significance are the Chosen One and his progeny, and now Palpatine's bloodline, everybody else is there to help them along at the best and corpses to die in their place at worst. Rey being nobody from a nothing special bloodline and yet being so important and talented would have bucked the Star Wars trend of special people being the only ones of importance to anything. It would've turned things from "Only this guy from this bloodline is allowed to beat the Big Bad" to "Anyone can potentially beat the Big Bad now if they're determined enough!"

Except TLJ established that the uber rich are helping the FO, with a long spiel about it.
You're missing the point. First you're assuming that SOME of the uber rich are helping The First Order means all of them are. Second, the point was that they could've plausibly established why The Resistance is back up and running after being almost completely destroyed in TLJ in the space of a single movie's runtime fairly easily and not even a significant chunk of it. All it would've taken is a scene or two showing at least a portion of how they did it and a couple throwaway lines. The Resistance nearly getting wiped out in TLJ didn't have to be ignored to bring the Resistance back to fighting shape in RoS.

Not really, and it ignores that while RoS is bad for retconning TLJ, TLJ did it first by retconning Force Awakens, resetting everyone's character progression, killing all the plot points JJ set up (basic as they were), and then spinning wheels for 2 hours or so.
The Last Jedi didn't retcon a thing about Force Awakens, it took what it established and followed through with TFA's plot points in ways viewers didn't expect. The Last Jedi continued everybody's character progression, it didn't reset it.

-Finn goes from simply wanting to escape The First Order and then just wanting to help Rey (TFA} to growing out of that attitude and wanting to fight for the cause itself (TLJ).

- Kylo Ren goes from the loyal second to Snoke conflicted about his place in the galaxy and hoping to live up to his Grandfather's legacy (TFA) to successfully offing Snoke and cementing both his rise to power and his commitment to the Dark Side and The First Order. While Luke's deception and the failure to stop the Resistance from getting away takes away much of the respect he could've had(TLJ).

- Rey goes from an idealistic young woman dreaming about the legends she grew up with and hoping she has an important destiny and lineage waiting pointlessly for her parents to come back, to realizing her parents aren't coming back and motivated to fight to save the galaxy (TFA) to realizing the legends aren't all they're cracked up to be, that her parents and origins didn't matter, and things don't always work out the way they did in the stories she heard growing up. (TLJ)

- Poe goes from a hotshot pilot determined to take insane risks to attack The First Order in grand battles(TFA, though really all TFA does is establish rather than develop Poe) to starting that way and learning to drop the hotshot side and become a real leader concerned with the lives of those who follow him (TLJ, though this one got shot in the foot in it's presentation it was still there).

If anything, Rise of Skywalker reverses character development taking place over the whole trilogy. Finn and Poe are left mostly intact but the movie doesn't focus much at all on them. Kylo is back to simpering second in command to Palpatine and conflicted about who he is all over again while Rey's parents have come back into the forefront and a dark nature she's never been hinted at having before comes up in this movie.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
crimson5pheonix said:
The new trilogy takes place over like a week or two, every movie leads right off the other one. The OT takes place over something like 6 years with multi-year timeskips between them, and something like that would help here since in Empire Strikes Back the resistance is hurt, but they don't make them effectively wiped out and give them a few years to build back up too
The ST takes place over a year, as one year passes between Last Jedi and Rise. The OT takes place over 4 years, with 3 between Hope and Empire, and 1 between Empire and Return.

immortalfrieza said:
If anything, Rise of Skywalker reverses character development taking place over the whole trilogy. Finn and Poe are left mostly intact but the movie doesn't focus much at all on them. Kylo is back to simpering second in command to Palpatine and conflicted about who he is all over again while Rey's parents have come back into the forefront and a dark nature she's never been hinted at having before comes up in this movie.
I will say that Rey having a dark nature is kind of hinted at in the previous films. In TFA, look at her face when she delivers the crippling blow to Ben. She's looking at him with hate, and the novelization goes a step further, a voice at the back of her head urging her to kill him (i.e. the Dark Side). In TLJ, Luke comments how readily she let herself go to the Dark Side, and when she draws her lightsaber on Luke, she's fighting from a position of anger. You're right in that a lot of Rey's character development in Rise feels forced (we can add in the whole connection between her and Ben, which feels like a regression of their parting of ways in the previous film), but her having a dark side (no pun intended) is something that the film does actually build off.

Also, as for Ben, I don't think he's a simpering XO for Palpatine here, as I got the sense that he was planning to turn on Palpatine as well. However, he still feels like he's in regression, so to speak, and that's symbolic of him reforging the mask. In TFA, the point of it was that he was trying to emulate Vader, and there's some weight when he takes it off for Rey (I think the reveal of his face should have waited for Han, but whatever). In Last Jedi, there's similarly narrative weight when he smashes the thing, showing that he wants to forge his own path, that he's realized that following Snoke has led him to ruin. In Rise, the helmet is reforged, but ends up being discarded again regardless. I can't think of a single reason why his mask is back apart from it being "kewl."
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,202
1,815
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
evilthecat said:
"Real men" don't exist.
Tell that to Kazuma Kuwabara. Or almost anyone's subjective opinion on what a "real man" is. Me personally, I don't care that much about "real men", but with that said, I have my own set of standards that I go by. I'm sure you feel the same way.

evilthecat said:
If you think that translates into my general views on what should and should not be acceptable or appropriate to an actual category of people who are "real men", then you don't know me too well.
I never made that implication, you're just assuming. I was more or less pointing something out. Sorry, for the misunderstanding.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,593
1,213
118
immortalfrieza said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Rose Trico is not a plot. Rey building the Jedi Order wasn't set up, if anything the movie wanted to shoot such structural institutions down. Which is fine, but it's not a setup to any sort of plot. Rey being a nobody is also not a plot point to build off of.
Actually yes, they all are plots. Rose Tico had so many possible directions she could've gone, not the least of which being a romance plot, that's plot. Rey rebuilding the Jedi Order couldn't have been more blatantly established had they tried. The whole Sacred Jedi Texts, the plot to moving on and avoid both previous incarnations of the old Jedi Order's mistakes, and that she's "The Last Jedi", that's plot. Rey being a nobody is an incredible plot hook, revealed how unimportant family lineage was and opened the doors to everybody involved being important in some way, that's plot, tons of it. Rise of Skywalker ignored and retconned all of it.

Just because you can't see the significance of the plot points in The Last Jedi doesn't mean they aren't plot. Otherwise I could say Vader being Luke's father isn't plot, the existence of the Death Star isn't plot, the Emperor isn't plot, etc.
They did have a romance plot with Finn, without Rose Trico. But that's just because they give him a new love interest every movie :V
Should have just made it FinnxPoe V:

Family lineage has never been important except for Anakin and Luke. There's thousands of years of history in SW that was shaped without saying 'son of blah blah son of blah blah'. I'll never accept that that's an interesting idea because it is the bog standard for SW.

As a side rant, I have no clue why people are hung up about this. Star Wars is almost nothing but powerful force users who didn't come from any sort of force using family. The Skywalkers are the weird ones in universe, everyone else just had to build up their power through hard work and effort. Actually so did the Skywalkers, they just had good potential. Rey inheriting her force powers actually would buck the normal SW trend. Not necessarily in a good way mind you, but that is what's actually novel in SW. Her being a nobody makes her like everyone else except Anakin and Luke.
Star Wars is almost completely about Force Users I grant you that, but there's a clear line between "powerful" Force Users and "decent to mediocre" Force Users. 99% of Force Users in the movies and even Legends/Disney EU are of barely any significance and die in droves, and even most of the powerful Force Users have little to no mention of their origins which makes their power no less inexplicable than Rey. We don't know where Qui-Gon or Obi-Wan or Yoda came from, we don't know if they came from some families somewhere famous for popping out Powerful Force Users or what. However, they're all clearly not nobodies from the word jump.

Legends is a little more murky about this, but even so, going by the movies alone, the only ones of significance are the Chosen One and his progeny, and now Palpatine's bloodline, everybody else is there to help them along at the best and corpses to die in their place at worst. Rey being nobody from a nothing special bloodline and yet being so important and talented would have bucked the Star Wars trend of special people being the only ones of importance to anything. It would've turned things from "Only this guy from this bloodline is allowed to beat the Big Bad" to "Anyone can potentially beat the Big Bad now if they're determined enough!"
Yeah, all the other important force users who shaped history. Funnily enough Anakin barely does anything important in the prequels until the end of Revenge of the Sith. Otherwise the big movers and shakers in the galaxy are Obi-wan (no family lineage we know of), Yoda (no family lineage we know of), Mace Windu (no family lineage we know of), Palpatine (family is important, but as politicians and not force users), Dooku (no family lineage we know of), and that's just if you only know the movies (and like me don't remember the names of the other jedi masters who were generals in a major galaxy spanning war). And it's very unlikely any of the jedi come from force using families because Jedi are typically the strongest force users around and aren't allowed to have kids (with one exception).

Except TLJ established that the uber rich are helping the FO, with a long spiel about it.
You're missing the point. First you're assuming that SOME of the uber rich are helping The First Order means all of them are. Second, the point was that they could've plausibly established why The Resistance is back up and running after being almost completely destroyed in TLJ in the space of a single movie's runtime fairly easily and not even a significant chunk of it. All it would've taken is a scene or two showing at least a portion of how they did it and a couple throwaway lines. The Resistance nearly getting wiped out in TLJ didn't have to be ignored to bring the Resistance back to fighting shape in RoS.
Alright, but that's your movie, there's supposed to be more to SW than army building. We did that in the prequels and everyone hated it. Even though that part was actually the better part of the prequels.

Not really, and it ignores that while RoS is bad for retconning TLJ, TLJ did it first by retconning Force Awakens, resetting everyone's character progression, killing all the plot points JJ set up (basic as they were), and then spinning wheels for 2 hours or so.
The Last Jedi didn't retcon a thing about Force Awakens, it took what it established and followed through with TFA's plot points in ways viewers didn't expect. The Last Jedi continued everybody's character progression, it didn't reset it.

-Finn goes from simply wanting to escape The First Order and then just wanting to help Rey (TFA} to growing out of that attitude and wanting to fight for the cause itself (TLJ).
He goes from wanting to escape to wanting to join the good guys to immediately wanting to escape again before he learns by the end to join the good guys. His character arc repeated.

- Kylo Ren goes from the loyal second to Snoke conflicted about his place in the galaxy and hoping to live up to his Grandfather's legacy (TFA) to successfully offing Snoke and cementing both his rise to power and his commitment to the Dark Side and The First Order. While Luke's deception and the failure to stop the Resistance from getting away takes away much of the respect he could've had(TLJ).
He goes from being wishy washy about joining the dark side and wanting to prove himself by killing his dad to fully commit to the bit to being wishy washy about joining the dark side and wanting to prove himself by killing his mom to fully commit to the bit and kills Snoke instead to go one step further. His arc repeated with a slight improvement (since Kylo Ren has been the secret protag all along and he's the only one who grows and changes over time)

- Rey goes from an idealistic young woman dreaming about the legends she grew up with and hoping she has an important destiny and lineage waiting pointlessly for her parents to come back, to realizing her parents aren't coming back and motivated to fight to save the galaxy (TFA) to realizing the legends aren't all they're cracked up to be, that her parents and origins didn't matter, and things don't always work out the way they did in the stories she heard growing up. (TLJ)
She sure as shit doesn't change over either movie. I don't remember her stressing over how important her lineage was in TFA except that she wanted parents full stop. Her wanting super special awesome parents is a fabrication of TLJ wholly. Just to add further confusion on why that was supposed to be a revolutionary plot point.

- Poe goes from a hotshot pilot determined to take insane risks to attack The First Order in grand battles(TFA, though really all TFA does is establish rather than develop Poe) to starting that way and learning to drop the hotshot side and become a real leader concerned with the lives of those who follow him (TLJ, though this one got shot in the foot in it's presentation it was still there).
I'll grant that that's probably what they were going for, but yeah, it comes off more like 'Poe learned that the correct way to resist a fascist regime is to shut up and follow orders blindly without question'. And yes, any character development he got in TLJ is new since he was barely in TFA.

If anything, Rise of Skywalker reverses character development taking place over the whole trilogy. Finn and Poe are left mostly intact but the movie doesn't focus much at all on them. Kylo is back to simpering second in command to Palpatine and conflicted about who he is all over again while Rey's parents have come back into the forefront and a dark nature she's never been hinted at having before comes up in this movie.
I remember in TLJ Luke gave up training Rey because she had a strong dark side, and there was that bit in the really reflective cave where she wasn't supposed to be. So she did have a dark nature hinted at before, though since Johnson wasn't going for the Palpatine reveal, it was just that bit of dark side everyone has and all that.
 

Batou667

New member
Oct 5, 2011
2,239
0
0
evilthecat said:
"Real men" are beasts, not dandies.
evilthecat said:
"Real men" don't exist.
Please, for the sake of my sanity, pick ONE.

evilthecat said:
Is the film a tragedy because Gaston dies at the end?
That's verging on being an almost complete non sequitur. No, the film isn't a tragedy because Gaston (the villain) dies at the end. But that was in response to you asserting that "real men are beasts, not dandies", so I'll repeat the question; according to who?

evilthecat said:
The problem is that Cruella isn't "traditionally masculine" either, so what is she?

The answer is that Cruella is inappropriately feminine. Which, again, actually makes her very similar to Jafar.
Cool. I agree. If somebody is lacking femininity, that doesn't necessarily make them masculine, and vice versa.

evilthecat said:
I've explained this several times now. I'm not sure what's not clear about it. The problem is that there isn't any "homo" to be "phobic" of. That's kind of the issue.

Disney doesn't do camp villains any more. Okay, maybe Maleficent a bit but that's only because she can be folded easily into liberal feminist "girl-boss" nonsense about "badass" women. Generally though, Disney has clearly attempted to do away with this kind of coding for villains (or "villains").

What Disney does now instead is to consciously try to pander to queer audiences in ways which demonstrate actual contempt. From the cynical JK Rowling dance of promoting characters as queer in marketing and never actually putting it in the film, to just using even lazier gay stereotyping for comic relief side characters, to pointless gestures like having a lesbian kiss in the background of a scene between two characters with no lines.
OK, cool, I see your point and I agree. Most of Disney's "woke" rebranding has been superficial and tokenistic which I imagine is probably fairly frustrating for minority audiences.

evilthecat said:
In the Lion King, James Earl Jones is doing an accent.

Describe that accent to me.
Without pulling up YouTube, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess British?

You are surely much too intelligent to suggest that a single counter example is enough to disprove the existence of a trend. Sure, going through the Disney back catalogue we can find several non-villainous British-voiced characters. King Richard. Merlin. Mrs Potts. Aladdin's Sultan. Zazu. Mufasa. What do these all have in common? They're either anciliary characters or comic relief. Remarkably similar to the objections you raised earlier of Disney's treatment of camp characters.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,792
2,879
118
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Eventually the movie reveals to us, and I'm not making this up, that Rey is the grand daughter of Emperor Palpatine
I think you're right here. One might hope for a message that anyone, with luck of the talent genes and hard work, can make it to the top. But Star Wars has instead decided to teach us that if you're not born to greatness because mummy/daddy was the dog's bollocks, then fuck you redshirt (to mix a science fiction metaphor). It's all very medieval aristocratic.

Finn, you see, was built up as love interest for Rey in the first movie. So far so good. The second movie gave him a new love interest in an Asian character called Rose, who this movie mostly ignores.
No clear comments about Finn's new love interest, but Rose clearly got the boot because she highly annoyed some vocal segments of the community (particularly the anti-SJW wing), and as a non-central character it's easier to kick her to the kerb. JJ Abrams has, I think, a finely honed sense of safety-first crowd-pleasing, and he'd totally do that sort of thing. I am not a big fan of JJ Abrams precisely because I think he's the ultimate safe pair of hands, and creatively often seems to fall short.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
crimson5pheonix said:
Family lineage has never been important except for Anakin and Luke. There's thousands of years of history in SW that was shaped without saying 'son of blah blah son of blah blah'. I'll never accept that that's an interesting idea because it is the bog standard for SW.
Anakin and Luke are still the 'face' of Star Wars. Or rather, for most people, the films are the entry point to Star Wars, and many don't go beyond those films.

So in Episodes I-III, we have Anakin, who's important because a prophecy declared he's important. Qui-Gon asks Shimi who his father is as well. Family doesn't account for Anakin's powers in of itself, but Anakin still has linneage via providence.

Episodes IV-VI, Luke is very much in his father's shadow. That's self-explanatory.

If Rey didn't have some linneage behind her, it might not be unusual for the wider universe, but it would break the mould for Star Wars. And even that aside, I like the message of "anyone can be a hero" more than the implicit association in Rise that she's only powerful because her granddaddy is powerful.

He goes from wanting to escape to wanting to join the good guys to immediately wanting to escape again before he learns by the end to join the good guys. His character arc repeated.
It's arguable as to how much Finn's actions in TFA are due to wanting to help the good guys vs. helping Rey. Heck, on Starkiller Base, he says "I'm just here for Rey" (or something similar). But even that aside, Finn's arc in TLJ still incorporates him learning to understand the moral grey areas of the galaxy. There's still an arc there.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,536
175
68
Agema said:
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Eventually the movie reveals to us, and I'm not making this up, that Rey is the grand daughter of Emperor Palpatine
I think you're right here. One might hope for a message that anyone, with luck of the talent genes and hard work, can make it to the top. But Star Wars has instead decided to teach us that if you're not born to greatness because mummy/daddy was the dog's bollocks, then fuck you redshirt (to mix a science fiction metaphor). It's all very medieval aristocratic.
It's so frustrating, though. Between Rogue One and Last Jedi it really felt like they were finally getting over it and starting to evolve the series past all of this King Arthur crap. It's not just that Rise of Skywalker shat all over George Lucas' work, it even shat all over LucasFilm's work under Disney. I like Star Wars but I don't want Star Wars to be this relic that's locked away into a museum where no one is ever allowed to do anything with it because they're afraid of breaking it. "Your parents were no one of consequence, you're your own person, make your own destiny." was a genuinely positive moral and they just destroyed it. "No, actually you're the granddaughter of this evil dictator who was supposed to have died 50 years ago" is just nothing. It's meaningless. I she had actually been raised by Palpatine and the movies were about her learning to reject his morals and become a hero despite being raised as a villain, that might have been a compelling character arc, but as it is that revelation matters little to her and matters little to the audience. It just undermines a perfectly good and pretty universal message. That's the note the new trilogy ends on. "You ain't shit unless you're related to someone important.". Thanks, I hate it. Then, of course, both of Abrams parents were television and film producers so I imagine that's what helps him sleep at night.

Agema said:
No clear comments about Finn's new love interest, but Rose clearly got the boot because she highly annoyed some vocal segments of the community (particularly the anti-SJW wing), and as a non-central character it's easier to kick her to the kerb. JJ Abrams has, I think, a finely honed sense of safety-first crowd-pleasing, and he'd totally do that sort of thing. I am not a big fan of JJ Abrams precisely because I think he's the ultimate safe pair of hands, and creatively often seems to fall short.
What did that get them? The "safe" movie ended up considerably less commercially succesful than the two "risky" movies that were Rogue One and Last Jedi. And let's be honest here for a moment, Force Awakens wasn't the overwhelming success it was because it's especially good, but because people back then had a lot of unwarranted good will towards a new Star Wars movie. The red flags were there, people just chose to overlook them because they were excited for more Star Wars.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
34,593
1,213
118
Hawki said:
crimson5pheonix said:
Family lineage has never been important except for Anakin and Luke. There's thousands of years of history in SW that was shaped without saying 'son of blah blah son of blah blah'. I'll never accept that that's an interesting idea because it is the bog standard for SW.
Anakin and Luke are still the 'face' of Star Wars. Or rather, for most people, the films are the entry point to Star Wars, and many don't go beyond those films.

So in Episodes I-III, we have Anakin, who's important because a prophecy declared he's important. Qui-Gon asks Shimi who his father is as well. Family doesn't account for Anakin's powers in of itself, but Anakin still has linneage via providence.

Episodes IV-VI, Luke is very much in his father's shadow. That's self-explanatory.

If Rey didn't have some linneage behind her, it might not be unusual for the wider universe, but it would break the mould for Star Wars. And even that aside, I like the message of "anyone can be a hero" more than the implicit association in Rise that she's only powerful because her granddaddy is powerful.
I think I posted it here (but it's been a while, I've slept), Anakin isn't actually that important to the prequels, all things considered. He doesn't do anything really important to the galaxy until the third movie, and that was just killing Dooku and then killing children. The prequels are about deconstructing the chosen hero narrative (so deconstructing the normal SW story happened nearly 20 years ago), Anakin is told he's super special awesome, and it ends up warping him into a villain.

Meanwhile, literal nobodies are the heroes and villains of the force, even if you only know the movies.

Yoda, Mace Windu, Qui-Gon Gin, Obiwan Kenobi, Count Dooku, Darth Maul, even Palpatine himself. And that's if you only know the named characters without reading the credits to know all the other jedi names.

He goes from wanting to escape to wanting to join the good guys to immediately wanting to escape again before he learns by the end to join the good guys. His character arc repeated.
It's arguable as to how much Finn's actions in TFA are due to wanting to help the good guys vs. helping Rey. Heck, on Starkiller Base, he says "I'm just here for Rey" (or something similar). But even that aside, Finn's arc in TLJ still incorporates him learning to understand the moral grey areas of the galaxy. There's still an arc there.
Not really. mostly because there aren't a lot of moral grays presented in TLJ.
 

SupahEwok

Malapropic Homophone
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,028
1,393
118
Country
Texas
crimson5pheonix said:
I think I posted it here (but it's been a while, I've slept), Anakin isn't actually that important to the prequels, all things considered. He doesn't do anything really important to the galaxy until the third movie, and that was just killing Dooku and then killing children. The prequels are about deconstructing the chosen hero narrative (so deconstructing the normal SW story happened nearly 20 years ago), Anakin is told he's super special awesome, and it ends up warping him into a villain.
There's a thing to poke at. Firstly, although I agree with you in general principle for most of your post, Anakin being a flop in the prequels is more due to Lucas mucking it up than actual intent. The Star Was saga, at least as professed by Lucas by the time the prequels were going, was the tale of Anakin. His fall, and his repentance. That would make intent to be that Anakin is the main protagonist that the series revolves around. The fact that he was at best a deuteragonist in the prequels who didn't actually move the plot all that much is more a failure of Lucas' direction.

So far as the wider point about bloodlines go, I sometimes wonder how much people conflate themes from the old EU with the new EU. The old EU did, as a matter of fact, have a lot to do with bloodlines, just by how much of the dang thing revolved around the Skywalker clan. Luke, Leia, Han, and their children are the focus for nearly all the novels (and the galactic events they focused on) that wrote canon for 30ish years in the "Star Wars moving present". The ultimate expression of which was the "Legacy" time period that's actually Star Wars future which revolves around Luke's descendant saving the galaxy from the Sith - twice. Peppered throughout the past, present, and future timelines, you also have some recurring families, although I can't actually think of any where the fact they were descended from somebody had an effect on plot; rather than a theme, they were more of the kind of easter egg wink which is the delight of tortuous continuity contortions (example: "Cassius Fett", a Mandalorian warlord 4000 years before the movies, who goes on to never actually being mentioned as a famous ancestor by the contemporary Jango or Boba Fett).

But the thing is, from my observation, most of the people who think that TLJ is "liberating Star Wars storytelling from bloodlines" don't actually know much or anything about the old EU, and as a matter of fact disdain the very idea of decades of collective pulpy stories of uneven quality which make up the mythos. They regard all that as so much baggage that they were happy to see Disney jettison. So you'd think that they'd only know about the movies, and would be taking those on their own merits. And you're right: taking just the movies, there isn't any theme on dynasties of power. The only thing that comes close is Vader and Luke's father-son relationship, naturally, but that isn't a theme that you have to have a notable parent to be notable. That's a theme of kinship, and Lucas reading too much of Campbell's Hero's Journey and taking it literally.

Step 9/17 of Campbell's interpretation: "Atonement with the Father/Abyss: In this step the hero must confront and be initiated by whatever holds the ultimate power in his life. In many myths and stories this is the father, or a father figure who has life and death power. This is the center point of the journey. All the previous steps have been moving into this place, all that follow will move out from it. Although this step is most frequently symbolized by an encounter with a male entity, it does not have to be a male; just someone or thing with incredible power."
Hell, compare Luke's power to Anakin's. Anakin was the only human in the galaxy who had the reflexes for podracing, and he fought and blew up a capital ship in a space battle, when he was like, 9. Luke was a grown-ass man, and all he did was keep up with his friends in Beggar's Canyon in a recreational flying shuttle thing (in deleted scenes, if you wanna take that pinch of salt), and he needed Obi-Wan's coaching over his shoulder to complete the Death Star trench run. I think these were intentional parallels: what Luke did, his daddy had done better. And if you want to bring in the sequels, Rey kicks Luke's ass in regards to learning and using the Force. Luke is weaker than Anakin, cuz it's Anakin, and only Anakin, who is the "prophesied one"; there is no "prophesied dynasty". And Luke's place in redeeming his father is a simple theme of the healing power of family and belief in each other.

So this whole bloodlines theme? I can only really see it coming from a few directions. One is that the old EU managed to build a monolithic conception on what Star Wars is, and what this really comes down to is cheering for spiting that old, noncanonical conception of that interpretation. So that's just fan war bait, really.

Another direction I see it coming is generational conflict. From the beginning of the millenium on, heat's been growing between the boomer generation and the millennial generation, which is basically insultingly simply spelled out in the sequels: the old generation managed a fairy tale rise to good and plentiful times, only to fuck it up and pass on the mess to a new generation who are shaken out of their mystified conceptions on the legends of yesterday. It's a very, very 2010's theme (when things really started heating up when the zoomers came in to reinforce the millennials), just like how the prequels got a massive chunk of inspiration from 9/11, the War on Terror, and the Patriot Act. So the classic movies are framed as a boomer narrative, a legacy for millennial storytelling to tear down. And that leads folks to conflate boomer "traditional family" values (or class values or however you want to frame it) with a perceived "mythic dynasty" theme, and the "deconstruction" of such values is in vogue with the current generational conflict, no matter how slapdash said deconstruction is.

And a third direction I see it coming from is people conflating the Star Wars movies with Disney themselves. Disney has a long history of movies with chosen ones of prophecies, descendants of heroes taking on the charge, princesses claiming the protagonist role by right of birth, etc. So mixing Star Wars as a mythology within the greater, averaged out Disney set of mythos does make a repudiation of bloodright themes transgressive and revolutionary and whatever, something which I've heard Disney has been doing with its other movies as well. I guess you could draw a connection between this one and the previous point about generational themes.

Tl;dr: Last Jedi is not nearly as smart and sophisticated as it wants to be. It's mostly logic chains of apologetics that want it to be. Fucking thing didn't even have the god damn balls to see its big, transgressive theme of Luke coming to terms with his mistakes through. Just killed him off after a magnificently executed twist that only matters if Luke doesn't get killed off (answer me this: if Luke was gonna die anyway, what was the point of him not dying in person? And don't give me crap about leaving an X-Wing on that island for Rey in the next movie, we all know the movies weren't planned that far ahead). And this is what people hold up as "revolutionary" storytelling.
 

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
6,831
577
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male