Vaderisnothayden

Already commented on his observations. Wasn't impressed with his take on the characters (Padme and Qui Gon). Felt his views were lacking in perception there. As for his habit of going through the whole thing saying this doesn't make sense and this doesn't make sense, I think that's a rather small-minded way of doing a review. Or at least a 70 minute review. It was ok in Confused Matthew's reviews. But there's so much more to discuss that isn't discussed. Except he was right about the lightsaber battles. But for all the time the review takes up there's surprisingly little in it. Good reason not to waste time on pointless "humor". I know people who've quit watching part-way through due to the "humor".

Ah. It stands for "Oh Oh Fuck, I've lined Lucas's pockets!"

Warbler said:

maybe you are supposed to enjoy him killing the guy,  but are you supposed to enjoy it because he's gay?  I don't see it.

You really think Scottish people are gong to attack English people because of Braveheart?  I don't think so.    You agree they did shitty things, what is so wrong about a movie depicting them doing those things?    Would you say it was wrong to do a movie about the holocaust for fear of people attacking ordinary Germans?  

Nope. Nor would I have problem a movie that depicts English people doing bad things to another people, like Michael Collins or The Wind That Shakes The Barley. But Braveheart doesn't just depict English people doing evil. The specific way the English are portrayed and treated by the film seems to me to particularly encourage hostility towards English people. I know people who've come out of that movie wanting to beat the shit out of some English people.

You really think Scottish people are gong to attack English people because of Braveheart? 

I think it's possible. I'm probably a lot more familiar with Celtic Anglophobia than you are, being a citizen of a celtic nation.

Warbler said:

maybe you are supposed to enjoy him killing the guy,  but are you supposed to enjoy it because he's gay?  I don't see it.

 Well maybe you don't, but other people do.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

vote_for_palpatine said:

That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.

"That's twisting the situation" implies some sort of intent to perform a takedown on you, and that's not what I was trying to do. I simply thought your first statement seemed extreme, but then you clarified it with the above statement, which was 100% reasonable.

But then you said this:

But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing.

This reads as though you mean to say that it is an anti-gay thing to portray gays as idiots. This is not necessarily true. A great number of eejits happen to be gay. I hate to say that and risk being labled as some sort of bigot, but idiocy runs rampant throughout humanity, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status - or sexual preference.

Maybe it was irrelevant to the larger point of the movie, but I think it goes to show what a despotic bully Longshanks was.

I did agree that the movie was stacked against the British, as though the Scots were pure as the driven snow and the EEEEEEEVILLL British existed only to commit atrocities. History is rarely so one-sided.

You can portray a gay person as an eejit (not idiot, not precisely the same thing, includes a side of jerk in there too) and have it come off like they're an eejit who just happens to be gay. But you can also portray a gay person as an eejit in such a way as to imply that they're an eejit because they're gay, and that's what I think Braveheart does there.

And I think you're really supposed to be cheering on Longshanks when he kills the guy.

 

 

the movie may or may not be anti-gay,  but it is pretty clear you are never supposed to cheer for Longshanks.    He's the bad guy of the film.     Maybe the film was anti-English, but the Brits have done some pretty bad things at times.  Its a movie about Scotland fighting for independence from England.   You can't it expect it to be pro-English. I am not offended and I am of English decent.

Longshanks being the villain doesn't mean you're never supposed to cheer for him, no matter how much he's the bad guy. I think it's very clear from that scene that you're supposed to enjoy him killing that gay guy.

And I know very well what shitty things England did, to Ireland, Wales and Scotland. But the film strikes me as encouraging real anger against English people, anger which could be dangerous for ordinary English people. Attacks on people for being English are not unheard of.

Hold on, is none RedLetterMedia?

(*bang*Again*bang*Again*bang*) : RedLetterMedia's 70 minute Phantom Menace Review

Hear that? None is getting violent. That sounds like gun shots.

Ben says "these aren't the droids you're looking for." But if you look closely, you'll see that they ARE the droids they're looking for! I can't believe no-one spotted this...(DE)

Maybe they weren't really looking for droids. Maybe they were just asking the question because that's what they figured good stormtroopers would do in that situation. When really they just wanted to hang out in Mos Eisley and watch the scum and villainy.

That line comes back to me all the time whenever somebody says something that sounds a bit like it. The same with some other classic Star Wars lines. "Move along now" "Sorry about the mess".

Krakatoa is a scary name. I keep expecting a volcanic eruption.

vote_for_palpatine said:

And I've already expressed my view that satire is often cover for bigotry. It's not just my view alone.

This reminds me of the marriage counselor in Forget Paris who believed marriage was institutionalized rape.

 Ok, so maybe I should have said "sometimes" rather than "often".

::scratches head:: Can't find where I said oof. Maybe it was Original Original Fuckingtrilogy.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Are you telling me that in all his reviews he cracks jokes about killing women?

I know! How annoying! Don't you just hate it when people get hung up on peripheral issues and absolutely refuse to let matters go? Geez!

Misogyny is a serious issue and deserves to be addressed. Maybe you'd prefer to sweep it under the carpet, but I don't agree.

And for the record, I'd have been quite happy to let it go ages ago if other people would have let it go, but they've constantly come back telling me my view is mistaken. It should come as no surprise that I'd want to keep defending my view as long as it's being attacked. If they'd have shut up about it I would have done so too.

Ok, I've PMed Bingowings and asked if we could stop discussing the issue on the thread. Happy now?

vote_for_palpatine said:

That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.

"That's twisting the situation" implies some sort of intent to perform a takedown on you, and that's not what I was trying to do. I simply thought your first statement seemed extreme, but then you clarified it with the above statement, which was 100% reasonable.

But then you said this:

But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing.

This reads as though you mean to say that it is an anti-gay thing to portray gays as idiots. This is not necessarily true. A great number of eejits happen to be gay. I hate to say that and risk being labled as some sort of bigot, but idiocy runs rampant throughout humanity, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status - or sexual preference.

Maybe it was irrelevant to the larger point of the movie, but I think it goes to show what a despotic bully Longshanks was.

I did agree that the movie was stacked against the British, as though the Scots were pure as the driven snow and the EEEEEEEVILLL British existed only to commit atrocities. History is rarely so one-sided.

You can portray a gay person as an eejit (not idiot, not precisely the same thing, includes a side of jerk in there too) and have it come off like they're an eejit who just happens to be gay. But you can also portray a gay person as an eejit in such a way as to imply that they're an eejit because they're gay, and that's what I think Braveheart does there.

And I think you're really supposed to be cheering on Longshanks when he kills the guy.

19 novel epics... you're talking about the bleedin You-Zahn Pong invasion/NJO, aren't you? Stupid idea, that thing. Clever money-wise, though, making a lot of money off fans, something which Lucasfilm does so much with all the merchandise. I'm very restrictive about what I let myself buy. I don't want to get the latest unnecessary Star Wars coffee table book to put money in Georgie's pocket. Still, I have given Georgie a fair share oof money anyway. (:

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden, I couldn't disagree with you more about the Godfathers film.  But, you're entitled to your opinion.   I guess we just have different tastes when it comes to movies and that's ok.   

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies?   I can perhaps understand not wanting to buy a ticket to his movie and give him money.  But you can still the enjoy his movies when they come on TV.   Even if want to take it as far as not watching his movies and boycotting everything Gibson,  I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is.  For instance,  I boycott the Eagles because of Michael Vick.   But  I don't let that affect how I evaluate Vick as a QB nor do I let it affect how I evaluate the quality of the Eagles' team as a whole.    see what I mean?

As for Braveheart,  if we were only supposed to get a kick out of the death  because the guy was gay,  explain I how got a kick out of it without knowing he was gay?

Because he's portrayed as an eejit. But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing. You're supposed to get a kick out of seeing a gay guy go out the window. I'm sorry but that's obvious. Just because you didn't know and got a kick anyway doesn't change it.

 

ok, if you say so. 

Vaderisnothayden

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies? 

Well I don't know how anybody could enjoy his movies knowing about his views.

well for one thing, I liked some of his movies before he made the remarks.  Should I just lie and say I hate them now?   I liked Braveheart and thought it was a great movie before his remarks,  should I now say it stinks?   His remarks don't change the quality(or lack there of) of his movies themselves.

Vaderisnothayden

I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is. 

Well, as far as I'm concerned having Gibson in a movie is like having a big crap front and center the whole movie. I don't want to watch that and I don't think it's much good.

I'm guessing you thought before the statements.    So your dislike comes from the movies themselves and not the offending statements he made

My dislike comes from what I know about the man. Knowing that about him, I dislike his presence onscreen and thus I dislike any movie with him in it.

well for one thing, I liked some of his movies before he made the remarks.  Should I just lie and say I hate them now?   I liked Braveheart and thought it was a great movie before his remarks,  should I now say it stinks?   His remarks don't change the quality(or lack there of) of his movies themselves.

Well, for me, learning about the man (like reading his statement about Jews and adding that to other info and stuff about him) made me feel differently about all his movies, because now I couldn't stand the guy and thus couldn't stand any movie with him in it. 

Braveheart happened in an earlier decade when people were used to giving homophobia more of a free pass, so I downplayed the homophobia in Braveheart and other negative stuff in it, even though I heard people complain about it. But after his statement about Jews I took a new look at everything about him. Things I'd let pass before (when I shouldn't have) I now paid attention to. Apart from the homophobia in Braveheart, there was the portrayal of the English in Braveheart, for example. It's my impression that Braveheart is seething with serious Anglophobia. Then there's the sadistic elements in Braveheart and The Passion (I'm not the only person who's noted those). And there's the heavy repetition of the theme of revenge in films Gibson stars in or directs. I'm not against revenge in movies, but I think this gets to be a bit much.

I'd already noted his father's comments about Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson ) and the fact that Mel Gibson said his father never lied to him (I asked myself what did his father say to him about Jews and did Gibson consider it a lie?), but before I'd hoped Mel didn't agree with his father's views. Before Mel's comments about Jews, I had grown more suspicious when he made The Passion, because I'm aware that the myth that the Jews killed Jesus has been motivation for genocide in the past. After his comments about Jews I felt my suspicions had been confirmed.

I also picked up various anecdotes about him over the years and, adding all this stuff (including all the above listed stuff) together, I ended up with a picture that revolted me. I don't want to see this guy on the screen and I would not enjoy watching this guy onscren or watching any film with him in it. It's a pity, because Braveheart has many positive elements (like many good performances from other actors). But I don't want to be watching a guy like that or trying to identify with him like you often have to with the main character in a film. And ultimately I think boycotting him is the morally right thing to do. I'm actually pretty pissed off that he still has a career. 

Here's an article about Gibson's views from around the time of The Passion, about 2.5 years before his 2006 comments about Jews:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/02/16/does_gibson_deserve_the_passion_backlash/

 It shows the sort of suspicions I had around that time.

C3PX said:

Warbler said:

That said, I think the movie is overrated to a good degree. I think it just gets far more credit than any film deserves. It is elevated to the level that for someone to say they don't like it is almost blasphemous. To an extent, I think we are even at the point where proclaiming it one of the, if not the greatest film of all time is a prerequisite to being considered a true film geek. Sometime I wonder if half the people who "love it" don't do so simply because they feel they should, rather than because of their own honest objective viewing of the film. (Don't think I doubt that you genuinely like the movie, Warb. I've no doubt that you do).

A lot of "classics" get that treatment.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden, I couldn't disagree with you more about the Godfathers film.  But, you're entitled to your opinion.   I guess we just have different tastes when it comes to movies and that's ok.   

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies?   I can perhaps understand not wanting to buy a ticket to his movie and give him money.  But you can still the enjoy his movies when they come on TV.   Even if want to take it as far as not watching his movies and boycotting everything Gibson,  I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is.  For instance,  I boycott the Eagles because of Michael Vick.   But  I don't let that affect how I evaluate Vick as a QB nor do I let it affect how I evaluate the quality of the Eagles' team as a whole.    see what I mean?

As for Braveheart,  if we were only supposed to get a kick out of the death  because the guy was gay,  explain I how got a kick out of it without knowing he was gay?

Because he's portrayed as an eejit. But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing. You're supposed to get a kick out of seeing a gay guy go out the window. I'm sorry but that's obvious. Just because you didn't know and got a kick anyway doesn't change it.

As for Gibsom.   Yes his statements are unacceptable, but why let that deprive you from enjoying his movies? 

Well I don't know how anybody could enjoy his movies knowing about his views.

I still don't understand letting his statements affect you opinions how good or bad the movie is. 

Well, as far as I'm concerned having Gibson in a movie is like having a big crap front and center the whole movie. I don't want to watch that and I don't think it's much good.

You should allow female candidates too or it'll be discrimination. I vote Rabe. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rabe

Did he kill his wife in it?

Rugged good looks? You have no chin and wear glasses.  ;)

Well I don't know what C3PX meant and Frink is my sock and C3PX is his sock, so C3PX must be my sock too.

You're pissed off because Ric Olie and Xhonzi are having fun on your thread? Don't you know that people do that here? Lighten up. Have some fun. Join in the humor.

As for debating with you about the previous stuff, I already told you that I'm done with that.

Ric Olie said:

Well, if we're still talking a new movie or TV series, I'd absolutely like to be involved.

I'd prefer to play Mace Windu if possible.

 Windu is a wanker. Pick somebody better. Like Jar Jar.

xhonzi said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Ric Olie said:

I'm still waiting for someone to involve everyone's favorite SW character...

Ric Olie wants to get involved? 

I'm pretty sure he meant Typho.

 Or maybe Panaka. Or Biff Tannen. Was he in Star wars?

xhonzi said:

The most common opinions here are: (as far as I can tell)

O-OT is the best.

PT is the worst.

The EU is here or there, but probably group consensus is that it's overall better than the PT.  (Or tell me if I've assumed incorrectly.  VINH, if you had to rank your disdain... would you put the PT or EU as the worst part of SW?)

So, any attempts to overwrite the standing EU with something that is more similar or takes its cues from the PT probably isn't going to be a very popular idea.

I gave my opinion earlier.  I think the EU has a lot of crap in it, but also some awesomeness.  I don't read all of it or much of it anymore, but I would rather have what's there currently than start over from scratch and have 100% garbage.  Especially since so much of the EU was based on just the O-OT and a reboot would necessarily be based more on the "wholistic" 1-6 "saga" and "clone wars" show.

 VINH, if you had to rank your disdain... would you put the PT or EU as the worst part of SW?

Um, the EU isn't real Star wars and has plenty shit but we're not expected to take it as seriously, so it's less of a problem.

Ric Olie said:

I'm still waiting for someone to involve everyone's favorite SW character...

Ric Olie wants to get involved?