Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Dec 15th, 2017)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:yess:


:lol



And now for something serious from The New Statesman:

FILM
19 DECEMBER 2017
The Last Jedi is the first properly feminist Star Wars


Warning: spoilers and deconstruction of the patriarchy ahead.

Several years ago, some time after Revenge of the Sith but well before any of the latest crop of Star Wars films were announced, I wrote a humorous open letter in which I broke up with my boyfriend, Darth Vader. Really it was a plea for the internet and fandom to drop its Star Wars obsession. This was because all I could see, as a former Star Wars enthusiast, was endless and overwhelmingly male worship of a franchise which should have died when Queen Amidala did. The prequels had killed Star Wars, I thought, and I was tired of seeing the corpse still twitching.

My reluctant impatience wasn’t cured by the announcement of new films, particularly because they were to bring back Luke, Han, Chewie and Leia. I saw that as an attempt to capitalise on what made Star Wars great in the first place, but I have never believed you can go back by revisiting characters.

Everything from the hell of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull to the bafflingly dumb Gilmore Girls reboot failed precisely because it’s impossible to recapture in old age what was loved about youth. And I don’t mean just the characters, I mean the fans too. Everyone was taking Star Wars way too seriously, while I was always more in tune with Yoda comedically clambering around for snacks.

But of course old Star Wars fans die hard, so I went to see The Force Awakens and even enjoyed it. Fan service sat neatly alongside new characters. Rey was established as being as self-sufficient – “stop holding my hand!” – as Leia ever was, but without Leia’s royal resources. Rey is a true equal in a galaxy obsessed with balance.

But it still felt overwhelmingly like the domain of men. There has never been a female Star Wars director, and before Rey, the coolest characters were Luke and Han. The bad guys were precisely that, too – guys. Female role models were limited to Leia, a princess who began as a rebel with a blaster but was reduced to a pinup by the gold bikini slave costume Carrie Fisher eventually admitted was not her choice. That Leia used her chains against her captor doesn’t change the distinctly male gaze that turned that scene into a grubby bedroom fantasy for boys.

In the prequels, Queen Amidala couldn’t offer any feminist hope because her entire existence was to fulfill her biological destiny. Whatever character arc she was allowed was undone in the ridiculous and disrespectful birth scene in which Amidala, screaming in pain and seemingly trapped under some sort of metal band, gives birth to the twins she randomly names Luke and Leia, before dying of something (the film seems to want us to think it’s a broken heart, but given the midwife droids didn’t administer any pain relief, I suspect Amidala actually died from substandard medical care and the Skywalkers should sue).

But then, a new hope, for me. The Last Jedi is the first Star Wars film for women. (Massive spoilers ahead). Most obviously, there are women in The Last Jedi at every level, from high-ranking military to starship basements. I haven’t done a screen time count but if women aren’t onscreen – and speaking – for more time than any other Star Wars film I will eat my womp rat. New character Rose, played by Kelly Marie Tran, has a taser and a brain and isn’t afraid to use either. In an early scene, John Boyega’s Finn stands in front of her, mansplaining, until she loudly interrupts him because dude, shush. Lupita Nyong'o’s “wise old mysteriously foreign alien” Maz Kanata gets a frenetic action scene seemingly designed to make up for how poorly she was served in The Force Awakens.

There are no lone heroes in The Last Jedi, everything is a team effort, but what heroics there are truly belong to the ladies, from the very early bombing scene to the final rocky rescue. General Leia leads the rebellion, eventually replaced by Laura Dern’s Admiral Holdo after a bit of Force flying that lazy commenters compared with Mary Poppins because apparently 1964 was the last time a woman did anything cool on screen.

Holdo takes charge of the rebellion fleet, but the cocky, Solo-esque half-hero of The Force Awakens, Poe Damaron, is exasperated by Holdo’s refusal to respect his superior manly tactics and mind, so leads a mutiny that in any other Star Warsfilm would have succeeded. It fails, because he doesn’t know what he’s doing and didn’t respect the vastly superior and more experienced woman above him.

Compare the dignified and graceful exchanges between Holdo – who eventually pulls off the most badass kamikaze move in sci fi history – and Leia to those between darkly brooding men’s rights activist Kylo Ren and the red-haired punchbag General Hux, who can’t share a scene without fighting because neither of them truly earned their position. Their respective scrambling and scrapping for power reveals an immaturity and insecurity in contrast to Poe Damaron’s arrogance but no less patriarchal for it. While the guys fight over power, the women simply get on with the job.

And that of course is why Kylo reacts as he does when his new love, Rey, rejects him and his offer to rule in favour of saving her friends, the rebellion, and ultimately the Force itself. Of course Kylo becomes even angrier and more violent, that’s exactly how men who feel entitled to sex but are denied it act. He’s a 2017 baddie. It’s almost like writer director Rian Johnson has done his feminist homework (or maybe just hangs around on Reddit like the rest of us).

The early scene of Kylo smashing his own helmet is another clue to Johnson’s brave new world. No more hiding behind silly masks, no more blind worship or fear of the masked man. Characters are stripped bare. Gwendoline Christie’s Captain Phasma is a sad victim of this, her helmet punctured to reveal a vulnerable but unrepentant eye, before she too is (presumably) killed off as belonging to the old order of silly helmets. It's sad to lose a female character – but clothes no longer maketh the woman, and she wasn’t given much more to work with than a fancy hat.

Rey’s rejection of Kylo’s love and power is a feminist triumph. Unlike Leia, who earns her credential as General but was adopted into royalty and born into her Skywalker family destiny, Rey is revealed to be absolutely nobody. I cheered, I cried. The Force Awakens was so desperately trying to hint that Rey’s parentage was Luke-and-Leia special and the internet was agog with speculation for months, but The Last Jedi threw that old trope into a trash compactor where it belongs.

Rey is herself, no resources inherited or bought, self-made with no help from anyone. Not even Luke, really. His rejection of her request for training, and the entire Jedi religion itself is what causes Rey to reinvent the Force on her own terms. Forget the Master/Padawan relationship, that stuff belongs to the failed patriarchy of the old films. New Star Wars belongs to a new generation, and this time it’s women.

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/film/2017/12/last-jedi-first-properly-feminist-star-wars







Like so many reviews - openly smirking, mocking ageism, sexism and the subtext being that older fans should just die out. And that the movie is good simply "because it has a lot of women in it" and Girl-luke Skywalker as lead... not necessarily that it is good as the mythic hero's journey it's supposed to be.

The bigger question for Disney - with a sizable percentage of lifelong SW fans being widely mocked and dismissed in the media due their assumed political views, age and even race, who is going to do the heavy-lifting to get SW mainline films from the "normal" blockbuster $1-1.2 billion gross level up to the SW level of $1.5B to $2B? Who will buy all the collectibles?

Is catering to female fans going to result in new obsessive fans or fans who see it opening weekend and move on, not sticking around for the third, fifth, tenth and fifteenth showing (I always mention the diehard I met a few years ago who saw TPM 27 times) as well as a new crop of adults-who-buy-toys (because Toys-R-Us going bankrupt is all about kids-don't-want-physical-toys)?

Only time will tell.
 
Also Gareth Edwards is a genuine Star Wars nerd, the guy worships this universe. I'm not buying that from Rian Johnson, he changed too many things for someone that truly respects/loves the world of Star Wars.

Yeah, I had the good fortune to hang out with Gareth for a few hours several months before he signed onto Godzilla and heard the passion that guy had for SW... and the idea of shooting a SW movie with a handheld camera (I thought "you can dream, brah":lol.) A good guy all round.
 
Just wow, :lol

Like so many reviews - openly smirking, mocking ageism, sexism and the subtext being that older fans should just die out. And that the movie is good simply "because it has a lot of women in it" and Girl-luke Skywalker as lead... not necessarily that it is good as the mythic hero's journey it's supposed to be.

:lecture

You can go to any media site and read a review slanted towards their own agenda.

But you just have to watch it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

TLJ appears to be a film that had too many cooks. Or maybe just two: Rian and Kennedy. But she was probably like Gordon Ramsay, screaming until things were done the way she wanted them.

Pardon, the sexist pun, but one of them should have stayed in the kitchen and let the other get on with the job in hand. :monkey3

Maybe she has genuinely good intentions, but achieved her goals with a meat tenderizer instead of a pastry brush.
 
Yeah, I had the good fortune to hang out with Gareth for a few hours several months before he signed onto Godzilla and heard the passion that guy had for SW... and the idea of shooting a SW movie with a handheld camera (I thought "you can dream, brah":lol.) A good guy all round.

You know, now that I think about it, JJ is exactly what IX needs, because he is a veteran and a huge deal. No one is going to push him around, not even Kathleen Kennedy. If he feels like some of the backlash needs to be answered in IX, he'll have his way because otherwise who are they going to give the movie to? They already had to fire Colin Trevorrow.
Say what you will about TFA but Han Solo was still Han Solo in that movie. Finn had a pretty good arc, Kylo Ren was really emo yet really badass (let's not forget he was dying from his wound in that forest when Rey bested him), etc... I mean it was a Star Wars movie that respected the universe, introduced great plot threads to be exploited and left audiences with a huge question mark regarding the return of Luke. And Snoke. That's exciting. Sure, total rehash but it was a cool one.

Gareth Edwards, such a young and new director, of course it was easy to change his movie (which still came out pretty good fortunately). I don't think that will happen with JJ. If he feels something truly needs to be done in IX, I don't think Kathleen Kennedy is gonna convince him otherwise. Unless she wants to fire him as well and give the rest of the shoot to Ron Howard again?
 
rts.jpg
 
drggrd.jpg

At the moment, TLJ is barely making more money than Rogue One on the same day.
 
View attachment 383569

At the moment, TLJ is barely making more money than Rogue One on the same day.

And so begins... Endgame. :lol

But wow that's much more of a drop than I would have imagined... Curious to see how this pans out.

Could the Mouse really short circuit Star Wars only 3 films in? That would be insane.
 
As feminist scholars have demonstrated, logic and objectivity are patriarchal constructs. How naive was The Guardian in declaring feminism and inclusivity were consistent with the “Jedi spirit”? As we now know, subjective experience, the display of emotion, and the acknowledgment of multiple truths are the gateway to knowledge. Rey does not recognise this, but foolishly acquiesces in the Jedi’s oppressive ideology. Fail.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Anyone who considers themselves a feminist is a moron, specifically for this reason. My contempt for feminism has nothing to do with bigotry or a desire for women to be domesticated. Feminism rejects Critical Rationalism. It's dumb.

Objectivity is obtained by requiring falsifiable evidence. This removes subjectivity from the acquisition of knowledge, so we can communicate intelligibly to each other about the world. Feminists think that you can construct "truths" based on feelings. It's not "The" truth, but "Your" truth. :rotfl

Question: How can feminism demonstrate anything, if Truth is subjective? What if "my" truth is that "their" truth is falsehood? They can't answer that, because they lack a coherent epistemology. They're trapped in the Derridian Matrix, with their feelings.

This abandonment of logic is the reason why The Last Jedi sucked. Internal logic to a film? Unnecessary. Logic is a patriarchal construct.
 
And so begins... Endgame. :lol

But wow that's much more of a drop than I would have imagined... Curious to see how this pans out.

Could the Mouse really short circuit Star Wars only 3 films in? That would be insane.

I have lost count of how many times I have heard hardcore fans say "I don't really want a Solo movie".
Granted, if the movie is actually good then it will be fine and it will cross the 1 billion mark like RO did (which is enough for a Story movie), but if they screw up with that one as well...

At least in Solo, Kathleen Kennedy's agenda can't really be represented as heavily due to the nature of the movie. It's gonna be a lot of guys, and they have to do the characters justice, be it Solo or Lando, because there is nothing else to rely on.
 
Anyone who considers themselves a feminist is a moron, specifically for this reason. My contempt for feminism has nothing to do with bigotry or a desire for women to be domesticated. Feminism rejects Critical Rationalism. It's dumb.

I think feminism had its purpose and it's heart in a good place way back when, when it was actually about equality. That truly was needed. However in modern feminism they think they're superior to men which ironically makes them the male chauvinists of the current era, but they're blind to it.

Any feminist who's fighting for equality in a place that needs it is good in my books, just not these western ones who've falsely taken up the mantle and are always angry and want something, anything to complain about or want to force their views upon you. Of course I'm not saying they're all like that, but the vocal ones really give the rest a bad name.

Also I can't believe this is a Star Wars thread

The wide variety of subjects and humor that has been covered in a day has been... Interesting, to say the least. :lol
 
I think feminism had its purpose and it's heart in a good place way back when, when it was actually about equality. That truly was needed. However in modern feminism they think they're superior to men which ironically makes them the male chauvinists of the current era, but they're blind to it.

Any feminist who's fighting for equality in a place that needs it is good in my books, just not these western ones who've falsely taken up the mantle and are always angry and want something, anything to complain about.

Respectfully, I'd beg to differ. I'd argue there have been serious problems with each wave of feminism. I agree that women faced bigotry, and I'm glad that the bigotry has been addressed. However, when you argue for equality as a moral or ethical imperative, you're being presumptuous about the framework you want equality within.

Suppose we lived in a framework where children are molested for candy. Blonde boys get molested more often than all the other children combined, so they have more candy. Are the blonde boys privileged? Would egalitarianism be an acceptable approach in this scenario, as the foundation for how we ought to behave? No. Obviously not, because we don't want any children to be molested.

Likewise, I don't want to be a servant. Some people do. To say it's "just" that we're all paid equally to rent ourselves, is to suggest that it's "just" to be renting ourselves for survival in the first place. Don't get me wrong, if you like the system, I sincerely envy you. It meets your subjective needs. Many people don't like the system, so for them, egalitarianism sounds like saying, "Don't tell ME about your problems. At least you don't have to deal with MY problems..."

In my view, the only remedy to the fact that we all want different things for ourselves, is free association. Get out of each others way. Egalitarianism doesn't accomplish this.

This is the reason why The Last Jedi is propaganda. It legitimizes authoritarianism in the name of equality. That's Feminism.

Here's a Den of Geek article talking about how the villain of The Last Jedi is "Toxic Masculinity".

https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/star-wars/269657/toxic-masculinity-is-the-true-villain-of-star-wars-the-last-jedi

People get angry when you criticize feminism while talking about this film, but the film is ABOUT feminism. In other words, if you depoliticize a conversation about a politicized film, what you essentially say is that you're going to passively accept the subtext without question. Don't do that. Question everything. Logic and Reason are the only way you learn anything.
 
In my view, the only remedy to the fact that we all want different things for ourselves, is free association. Get out of each others way. Egalitarianism doesn't accomplish this.

This is the reason why The Last Jedi is propaganda. It legitimizes authoritarianism in the name of equality. That's Feminism.

I could never get along with the feminist critique when I was doing my degree.

You were compelled to choose one of the various methods of criticism. Marxism worked for a short while. Then I read Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and at the same time began to understand postmodernism. And applied it to everything including Shakespeare. It was a postmodernism with a dose of Godwinian anarchism: you have to experience reality for yourself, or else how do you know it's not just somebody else's version?

It implies putting everything to the test. Believing nothing unless you can prove it to yourself. So you peel each layer of the text away until you finally reach the bare bones. I loved it. I was finally in my element. I had notes on my essays from the lecturers saying when they started reading they disagreed with me, but were eventually "dragged kicking and screaming" to my viewpoint. (That was an actual quote from one of them!)

I ended up with a First Class BA (Hons) in English and History. But it was essentially a dark journey that leaves you with huge cynicism and disbelief in everyone and everything. You can't live in the darkness of reality forever - you have to find a way back into the illusory light of everyday life. The world of pop culture, of movies, televison and toys. I had to abort my Ph.D on Conrad to save myself! (I may go back to it at some point).

And then along comes a Star Wars film that forces you to face the darkness again! :lol
 
I'm done in this thread.

The constant stream of hate, political and non-political bashing, little to no actual discussion going on of any relevance to the film.

It's just an ugly place now.

I'm so disappointed in this forum.

I can handle people not liking something I like, but this has just gotten out of hand.

BYE :wave
 
From the Den of Geek article:

"The Last Jedi is a story that recognizes that we won't "win" by fighting the things we hate, but by saving the things we love—and by being able to tell the difference between someone who is unable to accept any degree of accountability for their actions, the Kylo Rens of the world, and someone who has the capacity to recognize his mistakes and learn from them. It is a deeply empathetic story that explores the dangers of toxic masculinity, the competency of women, and the boxes we all must break out of to be free. "

I hate this film. Feminism is moronic.
 
I could never get along with the feminist critique when I was doing my degree.

You were compelled to choose one of the various methods of criticism. Marxism worked for a short while. Then I read Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and at the same time began to understand postmodernism. And applied it to everything including Shakespeare. It was a postmodernism with a dose of Godwinian anarchism: you have to experience reality for yourself, or else how do you know it's not just somebody else's version?

It implies putting everything to the test. Believing nothing unless you can prove it to yourself. So you peel each layer of the text away until you finally reach the bare bones. I loved it. I was finally in my element. I had notes on my essays from the lecturers saying when they started reading they disagreed with me, but were eventually "dragged kicking and screaming" to my viewpoint. (That was an actual quote from one of them!)

I ended up with a First Class BA (Hons) in English and History. But it was essentially a dark journey that leaves you with huge cynicism and disbelief in everyone and everything. You can't live in the darkness of reality forever - you have to find a way back into the illusory light of everyday life. The world of pop culture, of movies, televison and toys. I had to abort my Ph.D on Conrad to save myself! (I may go back to it at some point).

And then along comes a Star Wars film that forces you to face the darkness again! :lol

I can save you from your Godwinian nightmare. Are you ready?

It's true, that you have to experience reality for yourself. However, it's a matter of relativity, not subjectivity. Relativity and objectivity are not opposites; they're necessarily intertwined. Consider a perspective drawing, with a vanishing point that moves around the page. Every time you move the vanishing point, all of the angles change. However, if you're doing a perspective drawing for, say, drafting, there's still a "right" and "wrong" answer from each perspective, if you intend to create a blueprint that is to scale.

Your subjective feelings about whether or not 20 feet is taller than 80 feet are irrelevant. We perceive constants. We have no choice in the matter... it's part of your sensory input, unless you're hallucinating. Perspective doesn't happen in a vacuum.

Read about Karl Popper and Critical Rationalism. Science describes how we learn everything. All other epistemology is nonsense.
 
I can save you from your Godwinian nightmare. Are you ready?

It's true, that you have to experience reality for yourself. However, it's a matter of relativity, not subjectivity. Relativity and objectivity are not opposites; they're necessarily intertwined. Consider a perspective drawing, with a vanishing point that moves around the page. Every time you move the vanishing point, all of the angles change. However, if you're doing a perspective drawing for, say, drafting, there's still a "right" and "wrong" answer from each perspective, if you intend to create a blueprint that is to scale.

Your subjective feelings about whether or not 20 feet is taller than 80 feet are irrelevant. We perceive constants. We have no choice in the matter... it's part of your sensory input, unless you're hallucinating.

Read about Karl Popper and Critical Rationalism.

It's not the reality of physical perspective, but the reality of the things people say and write, and how the present and the past is rewritten from certain viewpoints.

On a simplistic level, and without going too deep because this isn't the forum for it, Conrad's Marlow leaves the safety of civilization and goes on a journey into the wilderness. He has to keep his mind occupied to prevent himself going insane, and then he eventually meets Kurtz who did go insane without the safety net of civilization.

Marlow returns to London a completely changed person. He's seen what lies beneath the safety net, that illusory light that keeps people too occupied to dwell on the darkness. And he's jealous of their petty lives. Kurtz' Intended asks him what his last words were. And he lies to her. On one level he can't bring himself to ruin her with the awful truth. On another how can he truly relate the darkness? She would have to make the journey herself. As do we all.

How else do we separate propaganda from truth? It's all too easy to get sucked in by one side or another. Hence the point at which Godwin comes in.

In essence it's what you do when you study history. You search for evidence, and more evidence until you feel you have enough to make the most likely theory of what actually happened.
 
It's not the reality of physical perspective, but the reality of the things people say and write, and how the present and the past is rewritten from certain viewpoints.

On a simplistic level, and without going too deep because this isn't the forum for it, Conrad's Marlow leaves the safety of civilization and goes on a journey into the wilderness. He has to keep his mind occupied to prevent himself going insane, and then he eventually meets Kurtz who did go insane without the safety net of civilization.

Marlow returns to London a completely changed person. He's seen what lies beneath the safety net, that illusory light that keeps people too occupied to dwell on the darkness. And he's jealous of their petty lives. Kurtz' Intended asks him what his last words were. And he lies to her. On one level he can't bring himself to ruin her with the awful truth. On another how can he truly relate the darkness? She would have to make the journey herself. As do we all.

How else do we separate propaganda from truth? It's all too easy to get sucked in by one side or another. Hence the point at which Godwin comes in.

In essence it's what you do when you study history. You search for evidence, and more evidence until you feel you have enough to make the most likely theory of what actually happened.

At what moment did Hamlet sincerely go mad?
 
It's not the reality of physical perspective, but the reality of the things people say and write, and how the present and the past is rewritten from certain viewpoints.

On a simplistic level, and without going too deep because this isn't the forum for it, Conrad's Marlow leaves the safety of civilization and goes on a journey into the wilderness. He has to keep his mind occupied to prevent himself going insane, and then he eventually meets Kurtz who did go insane without the safety net of civilization.

Marlow returns to London a completely changed person. He's seen what lies beneath the safety net, that illusory light that keeps people too occupied to dwell on the darkness. And he's jealous of their petty lives. Kurtz' Intended asks him what his last words were. And he lies to her. On one level he can't bring himself to ruin her with the awful truth. On another how can he truly relate the darkness? She would have to make the journey herself. As do we all.

How else do we separate propaganda from truth? It's all too easy to get sucked in by one side or another. Hence the point at which Godwin comes in.

In essence it's what you do when you study history. You search for evidence, and more evidence until you feel you have enough to make the most likely theory of what actually happened.

I've seen Apocalypse Now, but I've never read Heart of Darkness. Regardless, what I said applies to history, ideas and what people say and write. Science teaches us that there's an interplay between an abstract model in our heads, and our sensory perception. Language is no different. You have to stipulate terms in order for them to have "meaning", if by "meaning" we say a coherent association that corresponds with our perceptions of the world. Post Modernism is flawed, because it's value based. Value doesn't exist.

Regarding history, it's hearsay in the absence of falsifiable evidence. Its only function is to draw attention to observable phenomenon in our present, regarding the human condition (or ruins from the past...). The rest is anecdotal.

Edit: Regarding "How else do we separate propaganda from truth? It's all too easy to get sucked in by one side or another. Hence the point at which Godwin comes in. "

You can separate propaganda from truth via skepticism toward the existence of value. There's no evidence to suggest value exists. Remove value from the equation, and there's no bias. There is no "ought", no morality, no justice... Existential fear is for people who think the concept of "meaning" is intelligible. There is no meaning, so mourning it's absence is like crying because unicorns don't exist. That's the real Heart of Darkness that people who return from war can't face. They have cognitive dissonance about obligation, because the veneer of civility is a house of cards. They know it, because they've experienced regime change. Once you see it, you can't go back.

You can deal with it, so long as you don't have irrational expectations.
 
From the Den of Geek article:

"The Last Jedi is a story that recognizes that we won't "win" by fighting the things we hate, but by saving the things we love—and by being able to tell the difference between someone who is unable to accept any degree of accountability for their actions, the Kylo Rens of the world, and someone who has the capacity to recognize his mistakes and learn from them. It is a deeply empathetic story that explores the dangers of toxic masculinity, the competency of women, and the boxes we all must break out of to be free. "

I hate this film. Feminism is moronic.

From Den of Geek no less.:rotfl

Again, it reads like a freshman feminist from Santa Cruz's blog, but no, many of these emanate from major news outlets.

But there's that term yet again - "toxic masculinity." The one that assumes every man is Harvey Weinstein (who feminist icons Meryl Streep and Hillary Clinton adored - Meryl called him "God" in her gushing Oscar acceptance speech, and Hillary attended fundraisers at his house - both apparently having "no idea" the rumors they absolutely had heard were of course true).:slap

The defining days of toxic femininity are most certainly upon us. And there's an awful lot of Patty Hearsts caught up in the tsunami of virtue signalling - all with Stockholm Syndrome coursing through their veins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top