- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 482
- Reaction score
- 8
The original films had a linear plot that involved character arcs. The new trilogy is all over the place. The original trilogy involved graphic design by Ralph McQuarrie that broke convention, altering how we perceive fiction. It was so unusual that there were no other films capable of competing with Star Wars merchandise, so toy companies literally had to create narratives for toys from their offices because character design wasn't taken seriously as a commodity in Hollywood. Star Wars was so influential that it drove innovation. Some countries actually had to rethink censorship in seeing the effect on innovation Star Wars had.
Yes and no. Aesthetics are subjective in terms of taste, and stipulated meaning. However, art has certain functional prerequisites if you want to communicate. Stories are a form of communication. It's as much a craft, as it is an art. You can't just abandon the English language and tell a story, for example, with your own made up jibberish. Saying, "Snoggle flot biglady bop!" is not a functional statement, despite the fact that aesthetics are subjective. The original trilogy wasn't perfect, but it had a strong, linear plot that also paralleled theories by an academic named Joseph Campbell regarding mythology. George Lucas was heavily influenced by these theories, in attempting to access ideas that transcended our differences, arriving at a "human condition". He succeeded. The new trilogy? It was just bad writing.
Morality doesn't exist. All moral claims are false, and all ideology is dogmatic and absurd. If you make a claim about the world, including the claim "Morality exists", you have a burden of proof. There is no evidence to suggest that morality exists.
Meanwhile, if I tell you, "You have a moral obligation to refrain from being self-sufficient", or "You have a moral obligation to obey authority", it's not enough to say, "Well, we all have different beliefs." Normative beliefs involve you. They're about what people believe are your obligation to do things. You can't just sit on the sidelines with relativism. You'll be coerced one way or another, so you may as well get your head in the game.
In logic, contradictions are false. In fiction, like logic, you need consistency (as opposed to contradiction) in order to maintain the suspension of disbelief. Otherwise, if you see a puzzle piece that doesn't fit into the picture, you realize you're looking at a picture. You might not notice the piece doesn't fit, but for anyone who does... it's a problem.
As for moronic subtext, again, you can make claims about moral theories. For instance, if the internal logic of a theory is contradictory, or there's no evidence to suggest it reflects reality.
"
