Voss Caltrez said:
The argument is absurd. There’s nothing about TLJ that is overtly political. Everything you mention is as “subtle” in TLJ as it is in Aliens.
No it’s not, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that either, if the goal is to have it immediately resonate with audiences now, rather than them discovering these themes years later.
First thing I think you should understand, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Quite on the contrary, if you ask me, TLJ should have been as explicitly political as many are complaining it is. But it’s not, which is what makes the reactionary commentary so ridiculous.
There’s nothing in TLJ that’s has anything to do with “gender inequality” (literally only one reference to gender I can think of). There’s not a single instance of “mansplaining” or the calling out of such. There’s not a single instance of any male having trouble with a female in charge (Poe’s problems with Holdo have nothing to do with that).
Forget that Poe ignored General Organa’s orders, and then creates a mutiny against Holdo, both women.
And about “mansplaining”:
Vanity Fair: “Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017”
The Washington Post: “…Leia is flanked by an unflinching vice admiral in the lavender-tressed Amilyn Holdo (Laura Dern), who, when called upon, has a deep sense of mission and knows well the painful wages of war. When challenged by a “mansplaining” flyboy like Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), she gives no quarter.”
TheMarySue.com: “his first conversation with her is to mansplain how they only have so much fuel left (something she would already have been briefed on) and let us not forget the first thing he does this movie is disobeying Leia’s orders, which leads to the destruction of all the current Rebel Bombers and the death of Rose’s sister.”
Just because others have interpreted it that way doesn’t make it the only “obvious” interpretation. Seems to me more Poe having an issue with authority in general. That they’re both women seems to be interpreting something that may or may not be there. At the very least, you have to agree it’s not in the text of the film, which by definition makes it subtext.
The “animal rights” message is barely anything (animal abuse being wrong is not a controversial or even liberal opinion, not to mention no one in the film even talks about it being wrong we just see it, and on top of that the Fathiers seem to be intelligent which makes this abuse specifically extra bad).
Considering how prominent it was in the film, with Rose and Finn saying “it was worth it” even if the Resistance is doomed, in conjunction with all the other themes, gives the film a more left-leaning tilt than Aliens. Which is fine.
“Now it’s worth it” has to do with the theme of “saving what you love.” I don’t see how that is an exclusively left-leaning message, or even all that political a message to begin with.
Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).
Isn’t there a part where Rose says something like “Only one business in the galaxy gets you this rich.”
Seems to be a criticism of the 1% percent, especially considering that we see all the rich elite drinking space wine while wearing tuxedos and gowns during a time of conflict. I immediately thought of video footage during Occupy Wall Street, of the rich drinking champagne from their balconies and looking down at the people on the streets protesting.
I didn’t say there was nothing there that could be interpreted that way, just that complaints overstated them. Don’t forget they went there to find the code breaker, who seems to be a good enough guy (Maz lauds him). And Rose’s line is really, like I said before, condemning war profiteers. She’s not saying all rich people suck, just these.
The arguments of TLJ being “shove in your face” political are some of the most annoying bullshit I’ve had to put up with talking Star Wars in this past year.
I never said TLJ “shoved” anything in anyone’s face. I agreed with someone else that it was more on the nose compared to something like Aliens. Disney obviously wanted to make Star Wars more relevant to today’s modern audiences, I think they succeeded in their approach.
I didn’t say you did, and I wasn’t speaking directly to you, more just in general about those complaints. I also very very strongly doubt Disney had anything to do with it. If anything Disney would be the ones asking for it to be less political.
How have you had to put up with it? Participating on message forums is voluntary. If it’s getting you that stressed out, take a break from certain topics.
There aren’t many things that gets me stressed out and I can promise you this isn’t one. I love Star Wars and I love talking about Star Wars. This site has been where I’ve done that for years. But the discourse around this film specifically has been exhausting.
I’m tired of the parroting of clunky, poorly thought out talking points. I try not to argue about this movie anymore but the Aliens comparison is particularly apt and really points out the extremely ridiculous double standard some guys apply to their analyses.
There was some nice arguments for and against Aliens handling a female action lead better.
You seem to the be the only one letting this discussion get under your skin while resorting to insults.
I’m not upset, just disappointed. For once we were having an intelligent discussion about the movie and then on cue it devolved into the same old tired and silly talking points. Me being insulting has nothing to do with these things - which I’ve read thousands of times at this point - “getting under my skin”. It’s just me being too tired to spend more of my time trying explain to people who don’t want to listen (not talking about you).