Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 4:54:38 GMT
Regarding Padme, in a Legends book I read, she was from an elder family. Clearly that has changed since Disney bought out the franchise. Point conceded. Canon is as Canon does. Lucas said the Ewoks represented the Vietnamese? I remember reading the stuff Wookiepedia says in the novelizations of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, or stuff like it. Either way, they're what I was basing my prior comments on. In the audio commentary for Return of the Jedi, yep. In fact, apparently the Vietnam stuff goes even further than I thought. Apparently Star Wars was conceived as one third of an anti-war Vietnam trilogy along with American Graffiti and Apocalypse Now (before FFC took over as director). nypost.com/2014/09/21/how-star-wars-was-secretly-george-lucas-protest-of-vietnam/ So the Empire represented Anerica and the rebels the Viet Cong from the start. The liberal is strong in this. Did Lucas actually say anything indicating the Vietnamese connection? I didn't see anything indicating he actually said that. The only thing it quoted him on was a vague description of empire vs. freedom fighters. Also, I just want to make sure I'm clear. The Nazis were fighting the Vietcong on Endor? Or did the Nazis evolve into the U.S. between ANH and ROTJ? And if they did evolve into the U.S., did anybody tell them it was a so-called liberal who sent the U.S. over to Endor to destroy the Vietcong?
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 22, 2018 4:58:58 GMT
Star Wars was anti-white but it was more subtle. The Empire was more like a communist dictatorship than Fascist. The Emperor was unseen in the first film-he could have been Ming the Merciless for all we knew.
Tarkin and the other Death Star people were all white men-but the leaders of the rebels were also white men (the guys who greet Leia when she is brought to Yavin). Luke was a blonde working class guy but he was rebelling against his working class uncle. To beat the Death Star he has to use magic. Lando Calrissian did not need magic to blow up the second Death Star-and he didn't have Han Solo saving him by shooting someone in the back. Then in the sequels we learn the best Jedi of all is a little green alien. Multiculturalism. And Obi Wan Kenobi was a failure as a teacher. And Luke can only defeat evil with love, not strength--and he begs for help from his father to save him from the Emperor. Couldnt Luke have assisted his father in beating the Emperor? Lucas (probably under direction from FOX) weakened Luke. And the leader of the rebels in ROTJ was a woman. So its a slow build up. Then in the prequels it was carried over--the most bad ass Jedi was now a black man. Once again the white guys are failures...
The Master Race Hitler stuff was propaganda. There is NO evidence that Hitler wanted to take over the world the way Jewish-created Communism actually did (with a fantastic record of mass murder in Russia and Ukraine against the majority ethnic populations). Fascism is about a society maintaining an ethnic purity for the health of the community majority. Germany under fascism allowed free movement of people (unlike communism) and cared more about violent crime than thought crime (the opposite is the case with communism). Germany had a problem with international bankers (who funded communism) who sacrificed the native people for their own tribal supremacy beliefs. That is how the National Socialists got to power. The Communist-leaning Western media distorted the facts because they didnt care about native Germans.
As for Star Wars--you can only inject so much anti-white propaganda before the coherent storyline gets eaten away. Someone who worships Woody Allen is not the best choice for making a sci-fi action film. Someone who worshiped Paul Verhoeven or John McTeirnan would have made more sense. But that would be downright fascist in thinking.
There is little common sense in communism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 5:07:13 GMT
Star Wars was anti-white but it was more subtle. The Empire was more like a communist dictatorship than Fascist. The Emperor was unseen in the first film-he could have been Ming the Merciless for all we knew. Tarkin and the other Death Star people were all white men-but the leaders of the rebels were also white men (the guys who greet Leia when she is brought to Yavin). Luke was a blonde working class guy but he was rebelling against his working class uncle. To beat the Death Star he has to use magic. Lando Calrissian did not need magic to blow up the second Death Star-and he didn't have Han Solo saving him by shooting someone in the back. Then in the sequels we learn the best Jedi of all is a little green alien. Multiculturalism. And Obi Wan Kenobi was a failure as a teacher. And Luke can only defeat evil with love, not strength--and he begs for help from his father to save him from the Emperor. Couldnt Luke have assisted his father in beating the Emperor? Lucas (probably under direction from FOX) weakened Luke. And the leader of the rebels in ROTJ was a woman. So its a slow build up. Then in the prequels it was carried over--the most bad ass Jedi was now a black man. Once again the white guys are failures... The Master Race Hitler stuff was propaganda. There is NO evidence that Hitler wanted to take over the world the way Jewish-created Communism actually did (with a fantastic record of mass murder in Russia and Ukraine against the majority ethnic populations). Fascism is about a society maintaining an ethnic purity for the health of the community majority. Germany under fascism allowed free movement of people (unlike communism) and cared more about violent crime than thought crime (the opposite is the case with communism). Germany had a problem with international bankers (who funded communism) who sacrificed the native people for their own tribal supremacy beliefs. That is how the National Socialists got to power. The Communist-leaning Western media distorted the facts because they didnt care about native Germans. As for Star Wars--you can only inject so much anti-white propaganda before the coherent storyline gets eaten away. Someone who worships Woody Allen is not the best choice for making a sci-fi action film. Someone who worshiped Paul Verhoeven or John McTeirnan would have made more sense. But that would be downright fascist in thinking. There is little common sense in communism. Anybody else? I already broke out the Jack Burton meme once in this thread.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 22, 2018 5:32:38 GMT
I remember reading the stuff Wookiepedia says in the novelizations of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, or stuff like it. Either way, they're what I was basing my prior comments on. In the audio commentary for Return of the Jedi, yep. In fact, apparently the Vietnam stuff goes even further than I thought. Apparently Star Wars was conceived as one third of an anti-war Vietnam trilogy along with American Graffiti and Apocalypse Now (before FFC took over as director). nypost.com/2014/09/21/how-star-wars-was-secretly-george-lucas-protest-of-vietnam/ So the Empire represented Anerica and the rebels the Viet Cong from the start. The liberal is strong in this. Did Lucas actually say anything indicating the Vietnamese connection? I didn't see anything indicating he actually said that. The only thing it quoted him on was a vague description of empire vs. freedom fighters. Also, I just want to make sure I'm clear. The Nazis were fighting the Vietcong on Endor? Or did the Nazis evolve into the U.S. between ANH and ROTJ? And if they did evolve into the U.S., did anybody tell them it was a so-called liberal who sent the U.S. over to Endor to destroy the Vietcong? ROTJ audio commentary 1:26:00 mark: "See, this film was written during the Vietnam War where a small group of ill-equipped people were able to overcome a mighty power.” I think you're being cute, but you should know that according to radical hippie liberals from the 70s like George Lucas, there was little difference between the Nazis and the US. I think you should also know that apparently The Emperor was based on none other than Richard Nixon. www.history.com/news/the-real-history-that-inspired-star-wars“(The Emperor) was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy.” Oh my. Quotes like these make Kathleen Kennedy sound like Alex Jones.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jan 22, 2018 6:05:26 GMT
In the Dale Pollack book on Lucas he says Lucas had all the right left-leaning beliefs in university.
I think when you look at the generation that Hollywood groomed in the 70s--Lucas, Carpenter too--there is a distinct liberal identity there.
The Fog is about a white community which discovers it is cursed by wealthy lepers (yeah, that's a big demographic) and even the ancestor of the priest is guilty of not only stopping the leper colony but stealing their gold (and making a cross out of it). And there is no redemption either--Blake must have his eye for an eye revenge.
As for Jack Burton--that's interesting too, if you look at the nature of the character--on the poster he is presented as some kind of independent action hero but in the film he is a fool.
If there was some traditional Flash Gordon type hero to prove it isn't monolithic that would be one thing-but there isn't.
Excluding Will Smith, maybe Shia Labouef was the super action man in Transformers when he defeated Megatron by himself.
|
|
|
Post by audiosane on Jan 22, 2018 7:47:40 GMT
TLJ was the only Disney SW film that overtly too liberal, the others were a bit more subtle That's not to say that KK and crew didn't push these agendas off screen, they did. How do you define "overtly too liberal"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 16:53:51 GMT
Did Lucas actually say anything indicating the Vietnamese connection? I didn't see anything indicating he actually said that. The only thing it quoted him on was a vague description of empire vs. freedom fighters. Also, I just want to make sure I'm clear. The Nazis were fighting the Vietcong on Endor? Or did the Nazis evolve into the U.S. between ANH and ROTJ? And if they did evolve into the U.S., did anybody tell them it was a so-called liberal who sent the U.S. over to Endor to destroy the Vietcong? ROTJ audio commentary 1:26:00 mark: "See, this film was written during the Vietnam War where a small group of ill-equipped people were able to overcome a mighty power.” I think you're being cute, but you should know that according to radical hippie liberals from the 70s like George Lucas, there was little difference between the Nazis and the US. I think you should also know that apparently The Emperor was based on none other than Richard Nixon. www.history.com/news/the-real-history-that-inspired-star-wars“(The Emperor) was a politician. Richard M. Nixon was his name. He subverted the senate and finally took over and became an imperial guy and he was really evil. But he pretended to be a really nice guy.” Oh my. Quotes like these make Kathleen Kennedy sound like Alex Jones. I stand corrected once again. But can you really blame me for not viewing the OT or the PT through this lens? After all, I am not fluent in retard. I understand a few phrases here and there and can ask for a bathroom or a beer, but full retard is not a language I speak well. How in the hell is anybody who understands dick about actual history supposed to gleam that freedom fighters fighting to restore a democratic Republic were actually supposed to represent communists and that a fascist empire was supposed to represent a democratic republic? Talk about mixing up your political ideologies! I had never read anything on Lucas really up until now. Your post inspired additional reading. i am shocked to find out how politically-naive he was (is?). I've never understood the left's association with Republican presidents as war-mongers. Democrat presidents are the ones who brought us into every major war up until Bush Sr. (if you even want to call Iraq I a "major war," which I don't), from WW1 through Vietnam. Why isn't The Emperor based on Wilson or Roosevelt or Truman or the guy who got us into Vietnam in the first place, Jack Kennedy? /facepalm Thanks for the post and also for carving away yet another layer of my appreciation for the saga.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 22, 2018 20:23:32 GMT
Thank you. People talk about feminism? Leia's behavior during Luke and Han's clumsy rescue is honestly more "girl power!" than anything with Rey. Not to mention the rebel leaders basically amount to Mon Mothna and Leia while the Empire is an all-white sausage party. TFA actually diversified the "Empire" with Phasma and Finn, but the ST is the one saying all white men are evil. Go figure. Speaking of Rey the Mary Sue, I'd love to see her get elected queen at age 14 through sheer awesomeness like Padme. Oh, and forced diversity? Hate to break it to people, but the ewok and gungan cultures kind of symbolize something (besides selling out, of course). Remember when the white human oppressors get on their knees and beg for their help? That bothers people less than the mere existence of an Asian girl? Okay. The issue is not about whether girl power has existed before Rey in SW. It clearly has with Leia in the OT and Padmé in the PT. The issue is whether or not it is organic! In the OT there was never anything inorganic about Leia's displays of girl power. They totally fit her personality, background, and character development. They totally fit the context of her abilities and the story's established universe. Padmé was a definitely a girl power character from a socio-political standpoint. But it was fairly organic in the context of the culture of her planet. There was nothing unusual about it with the exception that she was the youngest to do it. Her culture allowed women (even young women) to hold positions of power in their government. Queen Jamillia was onscreen in AOTC. And Queen Neeyutnee appeared in the CWAS. Neither of those queens seemed to be of considerable age. And even in real life we occasionally see kid geniuses who run their own business or have a career before being high school age. So it's still organic within the context. The problem with the Sequel Trilogy is that the girl power has been mostly inorganic. It started with Rey's inorganic connection to the Force. All kinds of defense theories popped up after TFA. "Well it should probably be explained in the next movie. Rey is probably: " - a literal incarnation of the Force - a reincarnation of Anakin - a Skywalker - a Kenobi - it's due to a special connection with the lightsaber - it's due to the Force visions from the lightsaber - she's Kylo's sister - she's Luke's daughter - she's a clone of Palpatine - she's Palpatine and Shmi's granddaughter Turns out none of it was true. The fact that she needs no training is inorganic. And no organic explanation was ever given because there isn't one. The lightsaber was so significant that Luke tossed it over his shoulder as soon as he saw it, and it's later destroyed. The idea that it had some organic relevance was a lie (aka Jar Jar Abrams mystery box). Then there's the girl power "Leia ignores Chewie and hugs Rey" scene. It came off contrived considering Leia and Rey never met and are strangers. It was an inorganic bonding moment between the 2 most significant female characters in the trilogy. And then there's the composition transition of the Resistance between the end of TFA and the beginning of TLJ. Mind you TLJ picks up immediately from the end of TFA. Admiral Statura and the other male generals that surrounded the command center (displaying the Starkiller base hologram) never appeared in TLJ. Instead Vice Admiral Holdo appeared out of nowhere. And then there's another female general who is prominently featured by Holdo and Leia's side. Not to mention the percentage of females that makes up the Resistance army suddenly had a 30% to 40% increase, replacing that respective male percentage from what we saw onscreen at the end of TFA. How does this happen?!? Remember, TLJ begins right where TFA ends... It's an inorganic "girl power" change within the context of the saga.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 22, 2018 22:24:29 GMT
Thank you. People talk about feminism? Leia's behavior during Luke and Han's clumsy rescue is honestly more "girl power!" than anything with Rey. Not to mention the rebel leaders basically amount to Mon Mothna and Leia while the Empire is an all-white sausage party. TFA actually diversified the "Empire" with Phasma and Finn, but the ST is the one saying all white men are evil. Go figure. Speaking of Rey the Mary Sue, I'd love to see her get elected queen at age 14 through sheer awesomeness like Padme. Oh, and forced diversity? Hate to break it to people, but the ewok and gungan cultures kind of symbolize something (besides selling out, of course). Remember when the white human oppressors get on their knees and beg for their help? That bothers people less than the mere existence of an Asian girl? Okay. The issue is not about whether girl power has existed before Rey in SW. It clearly has with Leia in the OT and Padmé in the PT. The issue is whether or not it is organic! In the OT there was never anything inorganic about Leia's displays of girl power. They totally fit her personality, background, and character development. They totally fit the context of her abilities and the story's established universe. Padmé was a definitely a girl power character from a socio-political standpoint. But it was fairly organic in the context of the culture of her planet. There was nothing unusual about it with the exception that she was the youngest to do it. Her culture allowed women (even young women) to hold positions of power in their government. Queen Jamillia was onscreen in AOTC. And Queen Neeyutnee appeared in the CWAS. Neither of those queens seemed to be of considerable age. And even in real life we occasionally see kid geniuses who run their own business or have a career before being high school age. So it's still organic within the context.The problem with the Sequel Trilogy is that the girl power has been mostly inorganic. It started with Rey's inorganic connection to the Force. All kinds of defense theories popped up after TFA. "Well it should probably be explained in the next movie. Rey is probably: " - a literal incarnation of the Force - a reincarnation of Anakin - a Skywalker - a Kenobi - it's due to a special connection with the lightsaber - it's due to the Force visions from the lightsaber - she's Kylo's sister - she's Luke's daughter - she's a clone of Palpatine - she's Palpatine and Shmi's granddaughter Turns out none of it was true. The fact that she needs no training is inorganic. And no organic explanation was ever given because there isn't one. The lightsaber was so significant that Luke tossed it over his shoulder as soon as he saw it, and it's later destroyed. The idea that it had some organic relevance was a lie (aka Jar Jar Abrams mystery box). Then there's the girl power "Leia ignores Chewie and hugs Rey" scene. It came off contrived considering Leia and Rey never met and are strangers. It was an inorganic bonding moment between the 2 most significant female characters in the trilogy. And then there's the composition transition of the Resistance between the end of TFA and the beginning of TLJ. Mind you TLJ picks up immediately from the end of TFA. Admiral Statura and the other male generals that surrounded the command center (displaying the Starkiller base hologram) never appeared in TLJ. Instead Vice Admiral Holdo appeared out of nowhere. And then there's another female general who is prominently featured by Holdo and Leia's side. Not to mention the percentage of females that makes up the Resistance army suddenly had a 30% to 40% increase, replacing that respective male percentage from what we saw onscreen at the end of TFA. How does this happen?!? Remember, TLJ begins right where TFA ends... It's an inorganic "girl power" change within the context of the saga. Even though I find an 8 year becoming a senatorial adviser (among literally everything about Padme's political career) utterly stupid in any context you give me, I'll ignore that and play by your rules. Are we really calling Padme Amidala a genius? The dingbat that mustache-twirling Palpatine played like a flute, who married Anakin 20 minutes after child genocide and then was shocked he committed child genocide again? This girl who displayed more dresses than thoughts getting elected queen through "kid genius" is organic to the story? Isn't it possible that being left on a s***hole and having to survive on her own from childhood forced Rey to harness the force, even accidentally? The same way Anakin harnessed it in his podracing? And if AotC and ROTS are allowed to retroactively explain child presidents (basically what a Naboo queen is) by showing that young girls in power aren't that abnormal there, TLJ does the same thing by showing more people (kids, even) using the force without training.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 22, 2018 22:36:43 GMT
The issue is not about whether girl power has existed before Rey in SW. It clearly has with Leia in the OT and Padmé in the PT. The issue is whether or not it is organic! In the OT there was never anything inorganic about Leia's displays of girl power. They totally fit her personality, background, and character development. They totally fit the context of her abilities and the story's established universe. Padmé was a definitely a girl power character from a socio-political standpoint. But it was fairly organic in the context of the culture of her planet. There was nothing unusual about it with the exception that she was the youngest to do it. Her culture allowed women (even young women) to hold positions of power in their government. Queen Jamillia was onscreen in AOTC. And Queen Neeyutnee appeared in the CWAS. Neither of those queens seemed to be of considerable age. And even in real life we occasionally see kid geniuses who run their own business or have a career before being high school age. So it's still organic within the context.The problem with the Sequel Trilogy is that the girl power has been mostly inorganic. It started with Rey's inorganic connection to the Force. All kinds of defense theories popped up after TFA. "Well it should probably be explained in the next movie. Rey is probably: " - a literal incarnation of the Force - a reincarnation of Anakin - a Skywalker - a Kenobi - it's due to a special connection with the lightsaber - it's due to the Force visions from the lightsaber - she's Kylo's sister - she's Luke's daughter - she's a clone of Palpatine - she's Palpatine and Shmi's granddaughter Turns out none of it was true. The fact that she needs no training is inorganic. And no organic explanation was ever given because there isn't one. The lightsaber was so significant that Luke tossed it over his shoulder as soon as he saw it, and it's later destroyed. The idea that it had some organic relevance was a lie (aka Jar Jar Abrams mystery box). Then there's the girl power "Leia ignores Chewie and hugs Rey" scene. It came off contrived considering Leia and Rey never met and are strangers. It was an inorganic bonding moment between the 2 most significant female characters in the trilogy. And then there's the composition transition of the Resistance between the end of TFA and the beginning of TLJ. Mind you TLJ picks up immediately from the end of TFA. Admiral Statura and the other male generals that surrounded the command center (displaying the Starkiller base hologram) never appeared in TLJ. Instead Vice Admiral Holdo appeared out of nowhere. And then there's another female general who is prominently featured by Holdo and Leia's side. Not to mention the percentage of females that makes up the Resistance army suddenly had a 30% to 40% increase, replacing that respective male percentage from what we saw onscreen at the end of TFA. How does this happen?!? Remember, TLJ begins right where TFA ends... It's an inorganic "girl power" change within the context of the saga. who married Anakin 20 minutes after child genocide and then was shocked he committed child genocide again? Eh, this one isn't so bad. After all Leia was fine marrying Han when she knew he worked for a Slaver (Jabba the Hutt).
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 22, 2018 23:37:16 GMT
who married Anakin 20 minutes after child genocide and then was shocked he committed child genocide again? Eh, this one isn't so bad. After all Leia was fine marrying Han when she knew he worked for a Slaver (Jabba the Hutt). That's like saying it's okay for someone to marry Albert Fish because their daughter married a guy who worked for Apple.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 23, 2018 0:13:40 GMT
Eh, this one isn't so bad. After all Leia was fine marrying Han when she knew he worked for a Slaver (Jabba the Hutt). That's like saying it's okay for someone to marry Albert Fish because their daughter married a guy who worked for Apple. I'm just saying that no one cared about Leia marrying Han when Han has done despicable stuff like work for a Slaver Lord (which he shows no remorse for). So Padme shouldn't be too harshly condemned for marrying a guy who killed desert raiders and felt bad about it.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 23, 2018 1:14:21 GMT
That's like saying it's okay for someone to marry Albert Fish because their daughter married a guy who worked for Apple. I'm just saying that no one cared about Leia marrying Han when Han has done despicable stuff like work for a Slaver Lord (which he shows no remorse for). So Padme shouldn't be too harshly condemned for marrying a guy who killed desert raiders and felt bad about it. And I'm saying I think it's a false equivalency. Also: "Not just the men, but the women. And the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I hate them!" He doesn't sound like he feels TOO bad about it. At the very least, a child genius could deduce from that psychotic rant that he'd probably kill again. Leia only started to like Han after years of him being a good guy. Padme started making out with Anakin the same day he confessed to chopping up kids. Anyway, the issue isn't that Padme is a bad person (though she is), but that she's shocked later when Anakin does it once again. It just doesn't line up with the child genius narrative waxer is selling me.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 23, 2018 2:12:31 GMT
I'm just saying that no one cared about Leia marrying Han when Han has done despicable stuff like work for a Slaver Lord (which he shows no remorse for). So Padme shouldn't be too harshly condemned for marrying a guy who killed desert raiders and felt bad about it. And I'm saying I think it's a false equivalency. Also: "Not just the men, but the women. And the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I hate them!" He doesn't sound like he feels TOO bad about it. At the very least, a child genius could deduce from that psychotic rant that he'd probably kill again. Leia only started to like Han after years of him being a good guy. Padme started making out with Anakin the same day he confessed to chopping up kids. Anyway, the issue isn't that Padme is a bad person (though she is), but that she's shocked later when Anakin does it once again. It just doesn't line up with the child genius narrative waxer is selling me. Well, frankly I haven't seen ATOC in a long while...in fact I don't I've sat through the entire thing once since I saw it in the theater in 2002. My real problem there wasn't Anakin killing the Sand People (they're all raiders, who gives a crap about any of them?)...it's that no one thought of going back to free Shmi once in 10 years. You'd think if the Jedi were unwilling/unable to go back then Padme would've bought her to free her for Anakin's sake.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jan 23, 2018 3:31:18 GMT
And I'm saying I think it's a false equivalency. Also: "Not just the men, but the women. And the children, too. They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I hate them!" He doesn't sound like he feels TOO bad about it. At the very least, a child genius could deduce from that psychotic rant that he'd probably kill again. Leia only started to like Han after years of him being a good guy. Padme started making out with Anakin the same day he confessed to chopping up kids. Anyway, the issue isn't that Padme is a bad person (though she is), but that she's shocked later when Anakin does it once again. It just doesn't line up with the child genius narrative waxer is selling me. Well, frankly I haven't seen ATOC in a long while...in fact I don't I've sat through the entire thing once since I saw it in the theater in 2002. My real problem there wasn't Anakin killing the Sand People (they're all raiders, who gives a crap about any of them?)...it's that no one thought of going back to free Shmi once in 10 years. You'd think if the Jedi were unwilling/unable to go back then Padme would've bought her to free her for Anakin's sake. The Jedi were too busy with tax disputes, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 23, 2018 4:00:48 GMT
Well, frankly I haven't seen ATOC in a long while...in fact I don't I've sat through the entire thing once since I saw it in the theater in 2002. My real problem there wasn't Anakin killing the Sand People (they're all raiders, who gives a crap about any of them?)...it's that no one thought of going back to free Shmi once in 10 years. You'd think if the Jedi were unwilling/unable to go back then Padme would've bought her to free her for Anakin's sake. The Jedi were too busy with tax disputes, I guess. And Anakin himself was too busy to ever ask anyone "Hey, can anyone do anything about my mom?"
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Jan 23, 2018 6:12:30 GMT
The issue is not about whether girl power has existed before Rey in SW. It clearly has with Leia in the OT and Padmé in the PT. The issue is whether or not it is organic! In the OT there was never anything inorganic about Leia's displays of girl power. They totally fit her personality, background, and character development. They totally fit the context of her abilities and the story's established universe. Padmé was a definitely a girl power character from a socio-political standpoint. But it was fairly organic in the context of the culture of her planet. There was nothing unusual about it with the exception that she was the youngest to do it. Her culture allowed women (even young women) to hold positions of power in their government. Queen Jamillia was onscreen in AOTC. And Queen Neeyutnee appeared in the CWAS. Neither of those queens seemed to be of considerable age. And even in real life we occasionally see kid geniuses who run their own business or have a career before being high school age. So it's still organic within the context.The problem with the Sequel Trilogy is that the girl power has been mostly inorganic. It started with Rey's inorganic connection to the Force. All kinds of defense theories popped up after TFA. "Well it should probably be explained in the next movie. Rey is probably: " - a literal incarnation of the Force - a reincarnation of Anakin - a Skywalker - a Kenobi - it's due to a special connection with the lightsaber - it's due to the Force visions from the lightsaber - she's Kylo's sister - she's Luke's daughter - she's a clone of Palpatine - she's Palpatine and Shmi's granddaughter Turns out none of it was true. The fact that she needs no training is inorganic. And no organic explanation was ever given because there isn't one. The lightsaber was so significant that Luke tossed it over his shoulder as soon as he saw it, and it's later destroyed. The idea that it had some organic relevance was a lie (aka Jar Jar Abrams mystery box). Then there's the girl power "Leia ignores Chewie and hugs Rey" scene. It came off contrived considering Leia and Rey never met and are strangers. It was an inorganic bonding moment between the 2 most significant female characters in the trilogy. And then there's the composition transition of the Resistance between the end of TFA and the beginning of TLJ. Mind you TLJ picks up immediately from the end of TFA. Admiral Statura and the other male generals that surrounded the command center (displaying the Starkiller base hologram) never appeared in TLJ. Instead Vice Admiral Holdo appeared out of nowhere. And then there's another female general who is prominently featured by Holdo and Leia's side. Not to mention the percentage of females that makes up the Resistance army suddenly had a 30% to 40% increase, replacing that respective male percentage from what we saw onscreen at the end of TFA. How does this happen?!? Remember, TLJ begins right where TFA ends... It's an inorganic "girl power" change within the context of the saga. Even though I find an 8 year becoming a senatorial adviser (among literally everything about Padme's political career) utterly stupid in any context you give me, I'll ignore that and play by your rules. Are we really calling Padme Amidala a genius? The dingbat that mustache-twirling Palpatine played like a flute, Was she a dingbat because she got played by Palpatine? If you recall Palpatine played 99% of everyone in the galaxy. So Padmé is a dingbat for that reason? And wasn't Padmé the one who devised the plan to team up with the Gungans and launched a diversion battle and surprise kidnapping of Gunray? Even Palpatine in the guise of Sidious was surprised calling it "a bold move" and "unexpected for her". That doesn't sound like a dingbat. I'll make no excuses for Padmé looking the other way for Anakin murdering children. But killing a bunch of murdering Tusken Raiders who kidnapped and tortured Anakin's mother? If you condemn her for that, you may as well condemn the mates of soldiers and police officers. And I don't see what wearing ceremonial clothing has to do with her intelligence. Such customs are often expected of royalty. Ultimately they have no bearing on how capable a ruler is. It would help her harness abilities that she was using. Young Anakin harnessed Jedi reflexes and perception in pod racing - not Jedi mind tricks, lightsaber skills, Force grabs and pulls. To say Rey's piloting skills were enhanced by the Force when she was in that dogfight on Jakku might be credible. Because she had taken a few real flights and (according to the novelization) trained on simulators. But overwhelming a trained opponent in things she had never done before... that's just not very organic. The fact that they went out of their way to say there is no explanation or exposition for Rey in TLJ just further underscores that point. "Isn't it possible..." is exactly how all of those theories about Rey started out (that I listed) that have now been debunked. Practicing moving a broom is a long way away from using more advanced skills... on top of defeating (and embarrassing someone who has been trained by masters (like Rey did to Kylo)... and on top of that, they were things Rey admitted she had never done in her life before.
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Jan 23, 2018 12:18:58 GMT
The Jedi were too busy with tax disputes, I guess. And Anakin himself was too busy to ever ask anyone "Hey, can anyone do anything about my mom?" It's a plot contrivance and one of the few issues I had with the script. Namely, that the central emotional conflict seems somewhat forced.
This is clearly about the story trope of a guy who left his lowly origins to begin a better life and fullfill his (Jedi) dream - and somehow "forgot" (Jedi attachments teachings) about them. When he finally decisdes to keep his promise and goes back, it's too late and guilt leads him to his downfall.
The in-story reasons are there, so it's not a proper plot hole:
- It's the central philosophical conflict: The Jedi are genuinly anti-attachment (and it's abundandly discussed) it's their code,
- Obi Wan does even comment Anakins nightmares about his mother with a cold, disinterested "dreams go away with time", so that Anakin finally has to abandon his solo mission to help his mother.
- And Tatooine is in the Outer Rim: Even if the Jedi were willing they may not officially act there as it's not in the Republic (competence), the council would/could not allow it (it's a legal thing, but this is how laws and codes work).
- Anakin did not meet Padme for 10 years, and he as an apprentice was typically shut off in his Jedi sect.
- Comically speaking, "I don't like sand" subtly hinting at his problem with his (sand) slave origins, and his repressed attachment to his mother.
moviebrat's reasons can be disregarded.
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on Jan 23, 2018 14:13:56 GMT
And Anakin himself was too busy to ever ask anyone "Hey, can anyone do anything about my mom?" It's a plot contrivance and one of the few issues I had with the script. Namely, that the central emotional conflict seems somewhat forced.
This is clearly about the story trope of a guy who left his lowly origins to begin a better life and fullfill his (Jedi) dream - and somehow "forgot" (Jedi attachments teachings) about them. When he finally decisdes to keep his promise and goes back, it's too late and guilt leads him to his downfall.
The in-story reasons are there, so it's not a proper plot hole:
- It's the central philosophical conflict: The Jedi are genuinly anti-attachment (and it's abundandly discussed) it's their code,
- Obi Wan does even comment Anakins nightmares about his mother with a cold, disinterested "dreams go away with time", so that Anakin finally has to abandon his solo mission to help his mother.
- And Tatooine is in the Outer Rim: Even if the Jedi were willing they may not officially act there as it's not in the Republic (competence), the council would/could not allow it (it's a legal thing, but this is how laws and codes work).
- Anakin did not meet Padme for 10 years, and he as an apprentice was typically shut off in his Jedi sect.
- Comically speaking, "I don't like sand" subtly hinting at his problem with his (sand) slave origins, and his repressed attachment to his mother.
moviebrat's reasons can be disregarded.
You'd think Obi-Wan would feel he owed it to Qui-Gon to go back and free a slave. The Jedi believe in slavery?
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Jan 23, 2018 14:31:24 GMT
It's a plot contrivance and one of the few issues I had with the script. Namely, that the central emotional conflict seems somewhat forced.
This is clearly about the story trope of a guy who left his lowly origins to begin a better life and fullfill his (Jedi) dream - and somehow "forgot" (Jedi attachments teachings) about them. When he finally decisdes to keep his promise and goes back, it's too late and guilt leads him to his downfall.
The in-story reasons are there, so it's not a proper plot hole:
- It's the central philosophical conflict: The Jedi are genuinly anti-attachment (and it's abundandly discussed) it's their code,
- Obi Wan does even comment Anakins nightmares about his mother with a cold, disinterested "dreams go away with time", so that Anakin finally has to abandon his solo mission to help his mother.
- And Tatooine is in the Outer Rim: Even if the Jedi were willing they may not officially act there as it's not in the Republic (competence), the council would/could not allow it (it's a legal thing, but this is how laws and codes work).
- Anakin did not meet Padme for 10 years, and he as an apprentice was typically shut off in his Jedi sect.
- Comically speaking, "I don't like sand" subtly hinting at his problem with his (sand) slave origins, and his repressed attachment to his mother.
moviebrat's reasons can be disregarded.
You'd think Obi-Wan would feel he owed it to Qui-Gon to go back and free a slave. The Jedi believe in slavery? No and no.
Qui Gon dryly stated himself that he did not intend to free slaves; Padme was outraged but "the Republic does not exist out here", it's the Outer Rim. So why would Obi Wan even contemplate to violate teh Jedi rules and competences and go out to free slaves?
The Jedi seem not to believe in slavery as it was explicitly stated that slavery was long outlawed in the Republic. They were guardians of peace of justice in the Republic, not of the galaxy or the entire universe. They report to the Chancellor and the Senate. A policeman will not enforce his homecountries laws in a foreign state even if he hates the laws there, this would be a crime and potentially an act of war.
It's reasonable worldbuilding written by a grown up who understands the principles and limitations of the state of law.
|
|