The Official Movie Thread

[Einherjar86]

What an awful opinion.

I knew you'd say that. *triggered*

 

[CiG]

I knew the feminist would not only be triggered by a mild anti-feminist opinion but would also claim to see no feminist agenda in a film while simultaneously calling for more feminist agendas in film.

And the irony is, if you got what you wanted via this:

I think there should be more films that overcompensate the feminist side, and I realize I'm probably in the minority on that opinion. Star Wars is already a fantasy, so let it fantasize a world where women have more power than men do. I for one am excited to see the new movie.

There'd still be some idiot like this to deny you even got what you wanted:

Draehl is being a crybaby. It wasn't pushed.

Because with ideologues it's never enough until it becomes unadulterated propaganda with entertainment and canon becoming secondary if not completely irrelevant.

 

[rms]

I think there should be more films that overcompensate the feminist side, and I realize I'm probably in the minority on that opinion. Star Wars is already a fantasy, so let it fantasize a world where women have more power than men do. I for one am excited to see the new movie.

I like how you talk about Star Wars like this is the 2nd film of the universe/franchise

 

[Einherjar86]

I knew the feminist would not only be triggered by a mild anti-feminist opinion but would also claim to see no feminist agenda in a film while simultaneously calling for more feminist agendas in film.

I knew the femino-skeptic (my word, patent pending) would be triggered by me co-opting his ilk's favorite word. But I don't want to argue about this. It's dumb, and derails the thread.

In other news, I finally saw Logan the other night, which is now my favorite X-Men movie; although I'm not sure it really counts as an X-Men movie. More like a movie set in the X-Men universe.

I like how you talk about Star Wars like this is the 2nd film of the universe/franchise

I don't follow. Not sure why it looks that way to you.

 

[CiG]

Just like religious people, subvert subvert subvert.

It's never enough and if you notice it, point it out and/or complain to any degree it's you who has the problem. To top it off, it's never any kind of interesting or sophisticated feminist angle employed, it's always some low-brow pop feminism rawr womenz & men are dumb hurdur horseshit.

Basically just further Hollywood virtue-signalling with zero substance, pushed on us by rich neo-aristocrats who are complicate in the Hollywood culture of sexual abuse while they also preach to us with their feminism. That's why most of these movies won't stand the test of time imo, they're empty while at the same time being politically preachy.

I knew the femino-skeptic (my word, patent pending) would be triggered by me co-opting his ilk's favorite word.

Triggered is my ilk's favourite word? I don't even know what that means. Doesn't it originally come from whatever lingo surrounds PTSD and mental health? Wasn't it inserted into pop-politics by the whole 'trigger warning' thing? I'm nothing to do with either of those things.

In other news, I finally saw Logan the other night, which is now my favorite X-Men movie; although I'm not sure it really counts as an X-Men movie. More like a movie set in the X-Men universe.

Cool movie.

 

[rms]

I don't follow. Not sure why it looks that way to you.

the original quote suggests that since Star Wars is a fantasy universe, women can be more powerful than me. Yet we have 6 films that don't depict this possibility. The only way your claim makes any sense is if the rules/power structures in Star Wars are fluid/un predictable where everything changes within one generation

 

[Einherjar86]

the original quote suggests that since Star Wars is a fantasy universe, women can be more powerful than me. Yet we have 6 films that don't depict this possibility. The only way your claim makes any sense is if the rules/power structures in Star Wars are fluid/un predictable where everything changes within one generation

There's actually an interesting point in here about the consistency of fantasy universes. If Star Wars is a fantasy, then why can't women all of the sudden be depicted in this way? A fantasy universe need not abide by the same rules or expectations as ours.

But that's really beside the point. All movies reflect the ideological urgency of their times, in some way or another. I personally feel that art (especially speculative fiction) shouldn't suppress its political context, whether in the name of diegetic consistency or for some other reason, but should reflect and explore it. That's something I enjoy about literature and film.

To take an extreme example, if someone were to make a sequel to Birth of a Nation today, it wouldn't be appropriate or productive to convey the original diegetic world and ideological/political sentiment of that film. It would be appropriate, however, to take Nate Parker's route and put out a politically relevant variation on the original work.

 

[CiG]

It's already well established that there are powerful women in the Star Wars universe, feminism however due to its inclination to embody revenge politics always seems to create powerful women at the expense of men. Rey couldn't be powerful in her own right via some character development, she had to be powerful from the get-go at the expense of Fin's clumsy 'dumb male' trope and more controversially Kylo Ren, the first film's arch-antagonist who is supposed to be so ruthless that he murdered all of Luke Skywalker's students.

 

[Dak]

Like with most politicized words, "reflect" or "explore" mean nothing of the sort. Artwork provides a sermon, not a Socratic dialogue or a quest.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Contemporary commentary has no place in a film series in which each installment starts with the phrase "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

(Haven't seen the movie, I just think Ein's argument is bullshit)

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Assuming it's always been about character development what's the deal with the original films? Those male characters I listed were already actual men upon their introduction and didn't need to go through a whiny confused build-up phase like Luke. Not every character is going on the hero's journey. A small handful, yes, but the rest are supporting cast and if you compare the male vs female supporting cast the difference is night and day.

"Actual men"? it seems like your frustration is that there weren't enough guys in the movie that fit your prototypical gender expectation for being a "man". I don't really want to get into if the characters in the original films were "real men" or not because that's a bullshit classification that I'm not interested in appropriating. But most of the characters you mentioned did have development (I never said it had to be the hero's journey... that's only one means of development).

Obi-Wan- Doesn't really have development in the OT, since by that point, he's a fully refined master, but does in the prequels. Starts as a brash and arrogant padowan, but after seeing Qui Gon Jinn die, has to grow up too fast. Is a struggling Master who ultimately fails his pupil and needs to defeat him in battle and head into exile. By A New Hope, he's fully developed into the old wise master, so I'll grant in that movie he doesn't have development, but by that point he doesn't need it.

Yoda- Same as Obi Wan, his development happens in the prequels. Starts as an arrogant leader of the Jedi who fails to see the catastrophe brewing right under his nose. He utterly fails and see the Jedi Order destroyed right before his eyes.

Vader- Just looking at the OT he goes from being a pure "big bad" in ANH to showing a little more nuance in ESB and ton in ROTJ, when he reveals that he's broken and feels as if he is beyond the point of no return, despite the growing conflict within him. Obviously, it ends with his redemption and self-sacrifice.

Han- Goes from a selfish smuggler to a general in a rebellion who puts his friends before himself. Wavers on this throughout ANH and ESB. Reaches resolution on this issue by ROTJ. Learns to truly love Leia by the end of the OT and is even willing to let her go if it's what truly will make her happy.

Tarkin, Emperor Palpatine- These two are pretty much the "big bad." Just like Snoke and most other "big bads" they didn't really experience development.

General Veers, Wedge, Boba Fett, etc.- These are bit characters.

That said, I really don't get the ad-hominem you threw at me there. My gripe isn't with feminism, but rather (like I said before) how unbelievably bluntly and distastefully it was presented... to the point of becoming a distraction. It's the same concept as letting far-right, far-left, satanic, etc. sentiments creep too much into metal music. It more often than not is a soapbox that becomes a burden on the presentation of the actual art itself, in this case a fucking space war movie where I can't even for a second suspend disbelief that these men are actually soldiers/rebels/etc.

If you found this entire movie to be a soapbox for feminism because there were a number of female characters in important roles and because the male characters experienced developments (all of which were logical for said characters and where they were coming into the film), then yes, you probably have some psychological issues surrounding gender that you need to deal with (it's sounding more and more like that with your "real men" talk). Had you specifically isolated it to the relationship between Poe and Holdo, I would at least see where you're coming from, but the fact that you think it was blunt and distasteful just because women had 1. positions of power and 2. influenced men reveals a fundamentally sexist ideology on your part. I don't expect you to acknowledge this, as most people hate being called out on this shit, but it is what it is.

 

[no country for old wainds]

To top it off, it's never any kind of interesting or sophisticated feminist angle employed, it's always some low-brow pop feminism rawr womenz & men are dumb hurdur horseshit.

Basically just further Hollywood virtue-signalling with zero substance, pushed on us by rich neo-aristocrats who are complicate in the Hollywood culture of sexual abuse while they also preach to us with their feminism. That's why most of these movies won't stand the test of time imo, they're empty while at the same time being politically preachy.

this is how i feel too. i don't mind ideology as long as it's nuanced and organically embedded in the narrative, but the superficial agenda-pushing you generally get in hollywood is an insult to everybody's intelligence, regardless of the specifics of that agenda.

 

[rms]

All movies reflect the ideological urgency of their times, in some way or another.

yes, which is why your original comment is cowardice at best. no idea why you attempted to act like that was a reasonable assertion to Star Wars

 

[The Ozzman]

Watched The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers last night with the kids (first time for them). Really impressed with how they have held up after all these years.

I saw those in theaters but never saw ROTK. I promised myself I wouldn't watch that until I finished the book trilogy so now I need to get all the films on Blu Ray so I can finally watch it!

 

[Draehl]

"Actual men"? it seems like your frustration is that there weren't enough guys in the movie that fit your prototypical gender expectation for being a "man". I don't really want to get into if the characters in the original films were "real men" or not because that's a bullshit classification that I'm not interested in appropriating.

I'm done. Whether or not you agree whether the definition "a real man" is appropriate or not we both know exactly the character attributes it represents and Disney made a clear choice in showing they don't want those types of traditional men in their film. It stuck out like a sore thumb and rather than just have strong women (good!) they had to so bluntly play the contrast game with unstable/weak/useless men and that contrast is so drastic it's not only politically annoying but more importantly aesthetically disruptive to the film.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

Yeah repeating the exact same points that were unconvincing and unsubstantiated the first time was totally convincing this time.

 

[Einherjar86]

yes, which is why your original comment is cowardice at best. no idea why you attempted to act like that was a reasonable assertion to Star Wars

Sorry, I wanted to handle your comment graciously; but then you go and call my comment "cowardice." I have no idea what that means, and I really don't care.

Like with most politicized words, "reflect" or "explore" mean nothing of the sort. Artwork provides a sermon, not a Socratic dialogue or a quest.

Dak, sharpshooter of all that is aesthetic, artistic, or narrative, strikes again.

I'd advise you adjust that comment to some art provides a sermon. Claiming that all artworks are sermons is blatantly absurd to anyone who studies art.

Contemporary commentary has no place in a film series in which each installment starts with the phrase "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

(Haven't seen the movie, I just think Ein's argument is bullshit)

I think it's an opinion, not an argument. I'm saying that I prefer films that acknowledge their cultural, political, and/or ideological context. I'm not saying that escapist or non-critical films aren't worth watching, or even that I don't enjoy such films.

I would argue that all films are already political to some degree (what Fred Jameson calls the political unconscious of all aesthetic works), but obviously some films acknowledge this more than others.

It's a personal position that I don't mind excessive feminism in contemporary films. I just find it disheartening that so many people get turned off by it. But whatever, it is what it is.

 

[Dak]

I'd advise you adjust that comment to some art provides a sermon. Claiming that all artworks are sermons is blatantly absurd to anyone who studies art.

How about a compromise with most art? Certainly the overwhelming majority put out in the modern and post-modern era because it has been determined that that is the purpose of art. I see this second hand because no art my wife actually wants to make is acceptable to art school teachers because "it isn't starting or participating in a dialogue" and other such bullshit.

 

[Einherjar86]

But you just insinuated that art should participate in a dialogue...

Like with most politicized words, "reflect" or "explore" mean nothing of the sort. Artwork provides a sermon, not a Socratic dialogue or a quest.

I'd also say that, if anything, modernist and postmodernist art is the least sermon-y art. Go read Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow and tell me what the sermon is.

 

[Draehl]

It's a personal position that I don't mind excessive feminism in contemporary films. I just find it disheartening that so many people get turned off by it. But whatever, it is what it is.

I can 100% respect that. At least you own up to the fact that it's occurring. I'd rather have an honest, healthy difference of opinion than bother with the post modernist games of fucking around with definitions/truth/etc. that comes up so often with the topic of media bias. Deny deny deny all the while knowing that it is happening. I say stand tall with what you believe, admit there is a bias, and explain WHY it need to be there to influence culture to create a better society. We might disagree, but I tip my hat to you, sir.