DrDre

Excellent poita, wow!!!

DominicCobb said:

ZkinandBonez said:

DominicCobb said:

snooker said:

“Wait, Mace Windu, don’t kill Palpatine, it’s not the Jedi way!”

Literally 15 minutes later:

Anakin slaughters the Jedi, including defenseless toddlers

This is the biggest logic leap in the entire franchise, and it completely ruins the rest of the movie for me.

I unfortunately have to agree. The kid’s all over the place. It’s telling that the only way for the novelization to make this work was to spell out that Anakin was literally out of his mind and seemingly incapable of making rational decisions.

Isn’t that how the Dark Side works though? Prior to ROTS we saw Anakin loose it completely in AOTC when he slaughtered an entire village (incl. the children), and even Luke went kinda berserk in ROTJ after Vader threatened to turn Leia. That’s a pretty agressive and wild outburst for an otherwise fairly calm and rational character. ROTS even emphasises Anakin’s yellow eyes to illustrate that he has been completely consumed by the Dark Side.

Well sure, but the problem is he turns to the dark side forever on a dime.

In the two situations you referred to, big emotional moments spark them to lash out with the dark side, after which they both later repented/regretted. In ROTS, I guess we can say that Windu almost killing Palpatine is a big emotional moment, but is it really enough to push him past the point of no return and seemingly turn the dark side switch on and lock it there for the rest of his life? No… and the film tries to make it out that he’s doing this semi-rationally, as a means to save Padme (he even second guesses himself, saying “What have I done?”). But… no, he’s got no problem murdering his friends and colleagues minutes later.

He’s all over the place, and the motivation for the consummation you refer to just isn’t there.

I don’t agree. While I will concede the execution at times leaves something to desire, to me it’s pretty clear after he attacks Mace he decides to serve Darth Sidious and from that point on is committed to that choice, and get’s more consumed with the dark side as time progresses. While the entire sequence felt somewhat rushed to me, in a time where important character development is explained through a tiny flashback, it seems quite extensive by comparison. I will admit that I personally would have preferred an Anakin, that rationally chooses the quick and easy path, rather than coming across as kind of gullible, and crazed, but that’s the story Lucas wanted to tell, and aside from some weak acting and dialogue here and there that story works for me mostly.

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

The alien on the right is definitely Asian in facial characteristics but that is not the only trait I’m talking about. At any rate it is not important for my basic premise to be true. Many thought similarly, including the persons in the piece I linked. All my friends felt this way at the first viewing.

Yes, but the fact that many thought similarly doesn’t make it true.

Really? How does that make sense? If one person or a few dozen thought this then you might have a case. The debate over this issue in general with the TPM and the PT is well known and well documented. As noted before, I don’t believe Lucas was going out of his way here but To say this has no legs is just false.

Watto in the next movie has a small beard and hat that looks decidedly Hasidic. Am I really just imagining this? Seriously?

Humans see patterns in things that simply aren’t there. It is our nature.

Is the cloud deliberately or subconciously attempting to look like Winnie the Poo, or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

Actually that is a cloud that looks very much like Winnie the Pooh. Not sure how that helps your case.

You’re missing the point. Looks like and is are two different things. The cloud looks like Winnie the Pooh, because we through our history associate the shape with Winnie the Pooh, but the cloud isn’t Winnie the Pooh. The cloud doesn’t look like Winnie the Pooh by design. It’s just incidental. In the same way some of us see racial stereotypes in some of Lucas’ characters, but that is not the same as them being racial stereotypes. The characters don’t look like racial stereotypes by design. It’s just incidental. We think we see a pattern, but it isn’t there. We think we see Winnie the Pooh, but it’s just a cloud that for no reason whatsoever shares some similarities with Winnie the Pooh. To me those here that try to convince me, that Neimoidians are Asian, and Jar Jar a black dude, are trying to convince me that the cloud is actually Winnie the Pooh. The fact that some of these characters share some vague similarities with racial stereotypes (along with plenty of differences) doesn’t make them racial stereotypes.

I understand what point you are trying to make but it doesn’t ring true for me. I know the cloud is not Winnie the Pooh…but anyone who has ever seen the character would immediately recognize the formation as that bear in a heart beat. Many who have seen and heard a racist stereotype of an Asian or Jew would recognize and have recognized Watto and the Neimoidians. Jar Jar is less recognizable as a single stereotype but enough of one that many people see it and have commented on it. Fetchit reflects part of his demeanor, speech and gait but his accent strikes me as mostly creole tbh. I think Lucas was genuinely taken aback by any criticisms in this regard and appeared pretty pissed off about it understandably but that doesn’t mean the stereotypes are not visible and audible to many people.

Regardless, how one thinks or interprets an image or portrayal is an important aspect of art compared to how that image or portrayal was originally intended. It is arrogant imo to suggest that what people see and hear is “not there” though, Dre. To me they are as obvious as that bear looking EXACTLY like Pooh. I am truly puzzled how these caricatures got by the the design team and Lucas, frankly. I just think they were a bit lazy in trying to come up with these characters and/or thought using cliches would send the message they wanted with respects to who the villains were, who the sidekick was…who knows. I don’t think there was any conscious effort to appear racist but insensitive? Yeah.

To me anyone is innocent until proven guilty, and pointing to some circumstantial evidence and fitting it into a narrative whilst ignoring evidence supporting the opposite viewpoint simply doesn’t cut it. The fact is, it cannot be denied, it is possible, that these similarities are simply coincidental. In such circumstances the only sensible thing is to consider the people accused of committing this “crime”, and to see if the accusations fit a historic pattern. Given Lucas’ and his collaborators historic record and their statements on this matter, I think it is obvious, that it does not. Additionally one should consider the context in which these alleged racial stereotypes are placed. Historically racial stereotypes served a purpose, and were used to promote distorted images of groups of people, or reflected certain biases and prejudices that people had about these groups of people. So, for the characters in Lucas’ films to fit the definition of racial stereotype it is not enough to point to some similarities, it should also be obvious that Lucas intended to promote distorted images of blacks, Asians, and Jews, or that these characters reflect biases and or prejudices, he has towards these people. Again there’s simply no evidence for this, in fact quite the opposite. Lucas is known for his left-wing politics, and is married to black woman. His best friend Steven Spielberg is Jewish. He created Star Wars in part as an analogy for the evils of the Vietnam war. It doesn’t seem logical for a person of his background and beliefs to perpetuate racial stereotypes about blacks, Asians, and Jews. As such, I can only conclude that those eager to convict Lucas are the ones who are biased by their dislike of Lucas’ new brand of Star Wars to the point, that they ignore any evidence that points to a different conclusion.

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

The alien on the right is definitely Asian in facial characteristics but that is not the only trait I’m talking about. At any rate it is not important for my basic premise to be true. Many thought similarly, including the persons in the piece I linked. All my friends felt this way at the first viewing.

Yes, but the fact that many thought similarly doesn’t make it true.

Really? How does that make sense? If one person or a few dozen thought this then you might have a case. The debate over this issue in general with the TPM and the PT is well known and well documented. As noted before, I don’t believe Lucas was going out of his way here but To say this has no legs is just false.

Watto in the next movie has a small beard and hat that looks decidedly Hasidic. Am I really just imagining this? Seriously?

Humans see patterns in things that simply aren’t there. It is our nature.

Is the cloud deliberately or subconciously attempting to look like Winnie the Poo, or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

Actually that is a cloud that looks very much like Winnie the Pooh. Not sure how that helps your case.

You’re missing the point. Looks like and is are two different things. The cloud looks like Winnie the Pooh, because we through our history associate the shape with Winnie the Pooh, but the cloud isn’t Winnie the Pooh. The cloud doesn’t look like Winnie the Pooh by design. It’s just incidental. In the same way some of us see racial stereotypes in some of Lucas’ characters, but that is not the same as them being racial stereotypes. The characters don’t look like racial stereotypes by design. It’s just incidental. We think we see a pattern, but it isn’t there. We think we see Winnie the Pooh, but it’s just a cloud that for no reason whatsoever shares some similarities with Winnie the Pooh. To me those here that try to convince me, that Neimoidians are Asian, and Jar Jar a black dude, are trying to convince me that the cloud is actually Winnie the Pooh. The fact that some of these characters share some vague similarities with racial stereotypes (along with plenty of differences) doesn’t make them racial stereotypes.

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

The alien on the right is definitely Asian in facial characteristics but that is not the only trait I’m talking about. At any rate it is not important for my basic premise to be true. Many thought similarly, including the persons in the piece I linked. All my friends felt this way at the first viewing.

Yes, but the fact that many thought similarly doesn’t make it true.

Really? How does that make sense? If one person or a few dozen thought this then you might have a case. The debate over this issue in general with the TPM and the PT is well known and well documented. As noted before, I don’t believe Lucas was going out of his way here but To say this has no legs is just false.

Watto in the next movie has a small beard and hat that looks decidedly Hasidic. Am I really just imagining this? Seriously?

Humans see patterns in things that simply aren’t there. It is our nature.

Is the cloud deliberately or subconciously attempting to look like Winnie the Poo, or is it all in the eyes of the beholder?

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

The alien on the right is definitely Asian in facial characteristics but that is not the only trait I’m talking about. At any rate it is not important for my basic premise to be true. Many thought similarly, including the persons in the piece I linked. All my friends felt this way at the first viewing.

Yes, but the fact that many thought similarly doesn’t make it true. It’s cherry picking. You ignore the alien on the left, and focus on the one on the right, because you believe, he fits the narrative, even though the visual similarity is tenuous at best.

Creox said:

ZkinandBonez said:

“West-Indian accent”? I though Jar Jar was supposed to sound Creole. And previously in this thread his accent was described as resembling Jamaican. This is really why the Jar Jar criticism confuses me so much. People can never agree on how exactly he is offensive. Also this is literally the first time I’ve heard mention of Jar Jar’s “buttocks”, and what does that have to do with Indians?

Also when was “crafty Japanese trade villains” ever a thing? I’ve heard people make ‘yellow peril’ comparisons, but apart from the accent (which the voice actor based on Philippino I belive) there’s not much about them that resembles any Asian cultures. Not that I’m aware of at least.

LoL

Well, sure but the point is that Jar Jar sounds decidedly stereotyped in that fashion. Be it Caribbean or Jamaican they all have a very noticeable trait that is very much human being of color. The trade federation have very obvious, thick Asian accents with large slitted eyes…they walk around like Geishas with their hands folded in front of them. I took the “crafty” in that phrase to just illustrate they were stereotypes that were cast as villains. Nothing more. Yellow peril certainly would fit that stereotype.

Watto and Jewish is ( I hope) not in need of an explanation?

Large slitted eyes…that’s a contradiction in terms if I ever saw one.

Obviously Asian…

Creox said:

DrDre said:

Creox said:

DrDre said:

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

For what it’s worth, my friends and I all agreed Jar Jar acted, walked and talked with the racial stereotypes of a black man. From the strutting type gait, the “mesa sorry” type language etc. It was painfully obvious to me and many others. It isn’t one of those things that you have to look at “just right” to see it either.

Well, I’m a black man, and I didn’t percieve Jar Jar as reflecting on me as a person, or on my racial background. I just saw a clumpsy floppy eared orange character meant to entertain kids portrayed by a black man who gave the character a somwhat Caribbean inflection in his speech. However, I’m absolutely convinced that the character in no way was intended to ridicule or attack people of color, and so I can only view such a point of view as stemming from a sort of overcompensation in response to racial stereotyping that happened in the past. To quote another user on another forum:

If I’m a black man and another black man says “Hey, that guy is tall, clumsy , stupid and speaks funny, that’s supposed to be us.”, I would say “it may be you sir, but that does not represent me.”

So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.

I agree that Lucas did not intend to ridicule anyone…that being said, Jar Jar is a stereotypical African American in many ways. They are exaggerated in the manner Dom mentioned of course but that is what makes it glaringly obvious. The asian and Jewish stereotypes are quite obvious as well.

Interesting bit I found whilst typing this out for you.

https://davechen.net/2012/02/racism-and-ethnic-stereotypes-in-star-wars-the-phantom-menace/

"Bruce Gottlieb over at Slate wrote up a pretty good summary of Lucas’s racial offenses when Phantom Menace was first released:

Crafty Japanese trade villains aren’t the only heavy-handed ethnic stereotype in The Phantom Menace. As the story continues, the heroes slip past the evil Japanese to a nearby planet. There, they attempt to repair their broken spaceship but are stymied by the hook-nosed owner of the local parts shop–Watto–who also happens to have a thick Yiddish accent! (To hear an example, click “Great.”) Psychological manipulations that work on almost everyone fail with Watto–“Mind ticks don’ta work on me … only money! No,” he cries–and the heroes get what they want only through the bravery of a gifted slave boy (Anakin Skywalker). At the end of the desert planet sequence, Anakin is emancipated but separated from his mother, who still belongs to Watto. Even in a galaxy far away, the Jews are apparently behind the slave trade.

And then there’s Jar Jar Binks, the childlike sidekick with the unmistakably West Indian accent and enormous buttocks. Jar Jar is likable, easygoing, and dumb as dirt–always being scolded or saved from death by the Jedi knights. His stupidity and cowardice are running jokes throughout the film. And his people, the Gungan, are a brave but primitive tribe who throw spears and rocks at the oncoming army in the climactic battle sequence. Only Hispanics escape Lucas’ caricature, which is actually something of a mixed blessing since Hispanics often rightly complain that they are ignored in the national race debate."

Well to me these comparisons are like people that see dogs in a cloud. It says more about people claiming there’s a stereotype than what’s actually being conveyed by the movie. The above narrative is not Lucas’ narrative. It is Bruce Gottlieb’s. It’s like those videos that through clever editing make it seem Frodo and Sam in LOTR, or Rocky and Apollo in Rocky 3 are gay lovers. You take a flying blue alien who’s driven by money with a slurf, you claim the slurf is a hook nose, the rough voice is yiddish somehow, and voilá you just invented a Jewish stereotype.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

It’s interesting that you criticize Qui-Gon’s death and bearing on the story, when Lucas ultimately managed to better flesh out Qui-Gon’s character, motivations, and relationships with Obi-Wan, and Anakin over the course of a single movie than Snoke was developed over the course of two movies in the ST. I would say Snoke is to Ben Solo what Qui-Gon is to Obi-Wan and to a lesser degree Anakin, only Snoke has far less scenes, and Snoke and Ben Solo’s relationship is far less developed obscuring Ben Solo’s character motivations.

Let’s try not to get too far off topic with the ST talk, especially when the comparison is so labored and irrelevant to the discussion.

The problem is Qui-Gon is basically the closest thing to a main character in TPM, and then he’s gone. There are two things that went wrong - he should have been far more in the background in a mentor role, and his influence on Obi-wan and Anakin should have been more clearly conveyed in the other films (which is to say more than not at all, which is the case).

Anyway, I’m going to give this as half a point in favor of ROTS.

I used the example to point out a possible double standard, but I might have used ANH as an example as well. Tarkin serves as one of the main antagonists in that film, and after ANH he’s gone, never to be mentioned again.

My criticism of Qui-Gon has nothing to do with him dying. In fact, that he dies in TPM is one of the few things I would not change about him.

However, Tarkin serves a purpose beyond his apparent role as the villain. Firstly, ANH is far more political than TESB and ROTJ. For one the political situation is mentioned or discussed on numerous occasions, between Leia and Vader early on, in the Death Star conference room, and again between Tarkin and Leia before the destruction of Alderaan. The more personal story of Luke, Obi-Wan, and Vader is very much in the background, and used as a McGuffin to get Luke to join the fight against the Empire.

Saying ANH has more politics than TESB and ROTJ doesn’t say much, because those two films have practically zero politics. And I’m not saying these films shouldn’t have galactic politics in them, they just shouldn’t be at the forefront. If you think Tarkin’s politicking is the focus of ANH while Luke’s story is in the background, you need to watch that film again. The Death Star scenes are asides to Luke’s story, with the galactic politics featured therein minimal (and succinctly presented in direct relation to the stakes of the story at hand), and nothing near the extent of what is portrayed in the PT.

Qui-Gon’s character serves a number of purposes. For one he is the mirror that exposes the Jedi order’s dogmatism, a dogmatism that would continue to plague them in subsequent films. Secondly, without Qui-Gon’s involvement Anakin would never have been trained. Qui-Gon’s actions in the story directly impact the further development of the main characters, and the development and outcome of Lucas’ six part story. Thirdly, Qui-Gon’s death is a stark reminder to the Jedi order that the Sith are still at large and as dangerous as ever.

When did I ever say Qui-Gon was pointless? The problem is TPM puts too much focus on the one off character, while Obi-wan stands around in the background, and Anakin isn’t introduced until halfway through the film.

The death of a main character reminds us of the stakes,

You’re suggesting that Lucas made Qui-Gon a main character, so that his death could raise the stakes more significantly? The stakes in a series of films where we already know the outcome? Not to mention, the threat that kills him is also dispatched immediately thereafter.

The main purpose of killing the mentor is not to simply raise the stakes. It is to affect the protagonist’s journey, and leave them to fend for themselves. Unfortunately, though Lucas obviously had it in mind, the impact of Qui-Gon’s death is not touched upon in a meaningful way in the later films.

and also conveys the idea that Anakin has lost a father figure who might have steered him on the path of the righteous. That void is filled by Palpatine who would take over the role of father figure in subsequent films to the detriment of the entire galaxy.

Except we only see Palpatine talk to Anakin once in AOTC, while in the same film he says that Obi-wan is like a father to him… but then in ROTS they’re “brothers”… The truth is Lucas had an interesting idea with the dueling father figures, but completely fucked it up in terms of what actually made it on screen (where Anakin and Obi-wan bicker half the time, and we only know Anakin and Palpatine are friends because he tells us such, not because we actually see it). Good ideas that are practically nonexistent in the finished product due to poor execution - the prequels in a nutshell.

DrDre said:

So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.

That’s pretty obviously not how recognizing stereotypes actually works (and is kind of insulting). I don’t think there are many who think Lucas consciously included characters that resemble racist caricatures in his films (and, indeed, one should note that much of Jar Jar is Ahmed Best’s creation).

Personally I had no idea of the resemblance when I first saw the film, because I was a kid. But the similarities are obviously there when you compare Jar Jar to historical caricatures such as Stepin Fetchit and the like. I don’t think it’s enough of a similarity to be a significant criticism of the film (and hell if that film’s critics need anything more to criticize), but it’s disingenuous to say there’s no comparison to be made and then to also claim stereotyping of those making the comparison.

I’m not saying no comparison can be made, I’m saying how one judges such a comparison depends heavily on conditioning, and in my view the US’s history with racial issues has conditioned many people to be hyper sensitive to any percieved racial stereotyping. I certainly don’t remember it being a point of discussion in my country.

Creox said:

DrDre said:

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

For what it’s worth, my friends and I all agreed Jar Jar acted, walked and talked with the racial stereotypes of a black man. From the strutting type gait, the “mesa sorry” type language etc. It was painfully obvious to me and many others. It isn’t one of those things that you have to look at “just right” to see it either.

Well, I’m a black man, and I didn’t percieve Jar Jar as reflecting on me as a person, or on my racial background. I just saw a clumpsy floppy eared orange character meant to entertain kids portrayed by a black man who gave the character a somwhat Caribbean inflection in his speech. However, I’m absolutely convinced that the character in no way was intended to ridicule or attack people of color, and so I can only view such a point of view as stemming from a sort of overcompensation in response to racial stereotyping that happened in the past. To quote another user on another forum:

If I’m a black man and another black man says “Hey, that guy is tall, clumsy , stupid and speaks funny, that’s supposed to be us.”, I would say “it may be you sir, but that does not represent me.”

So, in my view if you see a racial stereotype in Jar Jar Binks, it’s because you are conditioned to see a racial stereotype, not because Lucas put it there to ridicule another race of people.

snooker said:

Despite all that, and despite it’s insignificance to the greater Star Wars saga, I still think that the Phantom Menace is the most watchable movie in the prequel trilogy.

JEDIT: Even if Jar Jar isn’t racist, you gotta admit the nemoidians accents are disgusting.

I must admit the accents reminded me somewhat of an Asian stereotype, but then again there wasn’t much else about those characters that seemed particulary Asian, so I view the similarity as coincidental. I think people were generally so upset about TPM, that they were looking for anything bad to accuse Lucas off, and so the whole racism angle was born. I think there’s plenty of evidence in the real world, that Lucas is anything but a racist, and so my belief is that dislike for TPM drove critics to embrace the worst possible interpretation of these characters and events.

chyron8472 said:
And Jar Jar’s character was overtly racist

I think this statement has no real basis in reality to be honest, and says more about the US’s historic relationship with racial stereotypes and racial issues in general then what’s actually in the movie. For the character to be overtly racist one must first find sufficient evidence for either racist intentions, or clear evidence of the character being a racial stereotype, neither of which is the case in my view. I personally fail to see how an orange amphibian with floppy ears is supposed to be representative of a person of color outside of the fact that the character was portrayed by a black man.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

It’s interesting that you criticize Qui-Gon’s death and bearing on the story, when Lucas ultimately managed to better flesh out Qui-Gon’s character, motivations, and relationships with Obi-Wan, and Anakin over the course of a single movie than Snoke was developed over the course of two movies in the ST. I would say Snoke is to Ben Solo what Qui-Gon is to Obi-Wan and to a lesser degree Anakin, only Snoke has far less scenes, and Snoke and Ben Solo’s relationship is far less developed obscuring Ben Solo’s character motivations.

Let’s try not to get too far off topic with the ST talk, especially when the comparison is so labored and irrelevant to the discussion.

The problem is Qui-Gon is basically the closest thing to a main character in TPM, and then he’s gone. There are two things that went wrong - he should have been far more in the background in a mentor role, and his influence on Obi-wan and Anakin should have been more clearly conveyed in the other films (which is to say more than not at all, which is the case).

Anyway, I’m going to give this as half a point in favor of ROTS.

I used the example to point out a possible double standard, but I might have used ANH as an example as well. Tarkin serves as one of the main antagonists in that film, and after ANH he’s gone, never to be mentioned again. However, Tarkin serves a purpose beyond his apparent role as the villain. Firstly, ANH is far more political than TESB and ROTJ. For one the political situation is mentioned or discussed on numerous occasions, between Leia and Vader early on, in the Death Star conference room, and again between Tarkin and Leia before the destruction of Alderaan. The more personal story of Luke, Obi-Wan, and Vader is very much in the background, and used as a McGuffin to get Luke to join the fight against the Empire. Secondly, Tarkin and Vader are exponents of two different worlds, the old and the new. Tarkin’s presence is a constant reminder that Vader is a leftover of a bygone era in a world where technology is seen as the ultimate political tool. With Tarkin’s death Vader comes into his own, and the personal story of Luke, Vader, and Obi-Wan is put front and center in the next movie.

Qui-Gon’s character serves a number of purposes. For one he is the mirror that exposes the Jedi order’s dogmatism, a dogmatism that would continue to plague them in subsequent films. Secondly, without Qui-Gon’s involvement Anakin would never have been trained. Qui-Gon’s actions in the story directly impact the further development of the main characters, and the development and outcome of Lucas’ six part story. Thirdly, Qui-Gon’s death is a stark reminder to the Jedi order that the Sith are still at large and as dangerous as ever. The death of a main character reminds us of the stakes, and also conveys the idea that Anakin has lost a father figure who might have steered him on the path of the righteous. That void is filled by Palpatine who would take over the role of father figure in subsequent films to the detriment of the entire galaxy.

It’s interesting that you criticize Qui-Gon’s death and bearing on the story, when Lucas ultimately managed to better flesh out Qui-Gon’s character, motivations, and relationships with Obi-Wan, and Anakin over the course of a single movie than Snoke was developed over the course of two movies in the ST. I would say Snoke is to Ben Solo what Qui-Gon is to Obi-Wan and to a lesser degree Anakin, only Snoke has far less scenes, and Snoke and Ben Solo’s relationship is far less developed obscuring Ben Solo’s character motivations. Overall I think the PT has more layers, and character development, while the ST has far less, but tends to be better executed, largely driven by compelling performances.

ZkinandBonez said:

Is the plot really that convoluted and irrelevant though? TPM has very few Palpatine scenes, and mostly sticks to the action-plot and eventually Anakin’s story (which ties in with Qui-Gon’s story). There’s not too much going on character-wise, but it is supposed to simply set the stage and establish the characters.

The only PT film where I find that the politics/plot gets out of hand is AOTC. Though even it stays very focused on both Anakin and Obi-Wan, mostly using the politics as part of the “mystery-plot” that Obi-Wan has to solve, while Anakin is off having his awkwardly written emotional conflicts. AOTC is a very clumsy story in many ways, but I’d say the fault mostly lies in awkward characterization and simple technical execution). The important thing is Anakin’s development, which despite its weird execution, it does communicate quite clearly.

ROTS has a lot of politics and Palpatine scenes, but all of it relates to Anakin’s story and character development, and clearly follows up on what was established in AOTC. I don’t see how the Palpatine scenes can be considered irrelevant to Anakin’s story, when his whole plot relates to Anakin in one way or another. There’s hardly any Palpatine scenes in ROTS that doesn’t directly or indirectly affect Anakin and move his character forward.

It’s far from perfect, but I’d hardly say Lucas forgot he was making a trilogy about Anakin as the main character and just focused on the world-building.
(Plus, in many ways, but to a slightly lesser degree, it’s also Obi-Wan’s story. Which in-of-itself is very important to Anakin’s story.)

I agree. The execution falls flat on numerous occassions, but all the story threads, and character arcs are closely intertwined, often on a very clever way. The intercutting of Obi-Wan’s fight with Anakin, and Yoda’s fight with Palpatine is symbolic in the sense, that it represents a fight for both Anakin’s soul, and the soul of the Republic.

chyron8472 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

I have just been revisiting the PT because I decided return to tackling them before trying TESB, ROTJ, or TFA. After watching them again I have to agree that ROTS is the most dramatic and is a great fast paced action film and tragedy. But I still feel that TPM got the universe right. Yes, we see the galaxy looking pretty good, but like fruit that is about to spoil, it looks good on the outside while hiding the rot on the inside. And the story goes where the characters are. The focus in the fall of the Republic so spending so much time on Coruscant makes sense.

I think one would argue though that the focus should not have been on the fall of the Republic, that should have merely been the backdrop to Anakin’s story. It isn’t quite in keeping with the other SW films to have galactic politics so far at the forefront of the story.

I disagree since the OT focused on the the rebellion against the Empire - something that is very much galactic politics.

Nope, that was merely the backdrop to the characters’ stories. We see more rebellion politics in Rogue One than we do in the entire OT put together (which isn’t saying much at all).

I disagree with respect to the PT, since the PT to a large degree was also Palpatine’s story, and so the galactic politics are the characters’ story. The Jedi order in the PT is also shown to be highly political, as such the politics are simply an integral part of the story told in the PT, in addition to being an integral part of Anakin’s personal history through his relationship with Palpatine.

But that’s the problem. The PT is Palpatine’s story when it should be Anakin’s. And the story should be about Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme’s adventures amid the corrupt and crumbling Republic as it becomes (or moves to become) the Empire.

The OT isn’t about the Rebellion. It’s about the adventures of Luke, Leia, Han, etc. The politics play a part in the characters’ stories, even an integral part, but the story itself is not about the politics. It about good versus evil.

The PT is not about good versus evil. It’s not even about the lure of power, the dangers of fear, or the insidiousness of evil. It’s about how Palpatine manipulates the galaxy, from both sides of the conflict simultaneously, into making him Emperor. Anakin plays a role in Palpatine’s story in the PT when it should be the other way around.

Should is in the eyes of the beholder. The PT is the story of many characters, and from a number of different perspectives. This is what makes it interesting to me. While there were flaws in the execution, I think Lucas was on the right track when he decided to change the story dynamic in the PT compared to the OT. The ST being a case in point, where staying so close to the OT plot, dynamic, and aesthetics creates a strong sense of deja vu.

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

I have just been revisiting the PT because I decided return to tackling them before trying TESB, ROTJ, or TFA. After watching them again I have to agree that ROTS is the most dramatic and is a great fast paced action film and tragedy. But I still feel that TPM got the universe right. Yes, we see the galaxy looking pretty good, but like fruit that is about to spoil, it looks good on the outside while hiding the rot on the inside. And the story goes where the characters are. The focus in the fall of the Republic so spending so much time on Coruscant makes sense.

I think one would argue though that the focus should not have been on the fall of the Republic, that should have merely been the backdrop to Anakin’s story. It isn’t quite in keeping with the other SW films to have galactic politics so far at the forefront of the story.

I disagree since the OT focused on the the rebellion against the Empire - something that is very much galactic politics.

Nope, that was merely the backdrop to the characters’ stories. We see more rebellion politics in Rogue One than we do in the entire OT put together (which isn’t saying much at all).

I disagree with respect to the PT, since the PT to a large degree was also Palpatine’s story, and so the galactic politics are the characters’ story. The Jedi order in the PT is also shown to be highly political, as such the politics are simply an intregal part of the story told in the PT, in addition to being an integral part of Anakin’s personal history through his relationship with Palpatine.

Darth Lucas said:

Bens cloak is looking a touch green in a few shots Dre. Otherwise phenomenal work as always.

Yeah, I noticed it too. Here’s an update for these shots (including a few more tiny tweeks):

luckydube56 said:

screams in the void said:

luckydube56 said:

The leadership over at Disney says the reason why the franchise is taking a nosedive is because:

1. half the fans are racist and sexist.
2. the other half is just sick of the franchise.

These are clearly brilliant statements with the full weight of truth behind it.

see OP and kindly knock it off please .

After having phrased it as you did, I don’t believe you can ask for that. That’s like saying “Ok everyone, I’ll be the good guy and you be the villain”. No. What if I don’t think I’m the villain. Toxicity? The franchise itself was poisoned and you, like RJ and Kennedy, are “taking a stand”?

This franchise belongs to us. We all said so in unison when Lucas proclaimed he would destroy the original version of the OTs in favor of the remastered editions. Rian Johnson says it’s his film so if you don’t like then tough t!ts.

Truth be told, I don’t have that much of a dog in the fight and in some way I can see RJs perspective. I can drop this film from my own head canon. None of this sequel trilogy ever happened as far as I’m concerned. But I tend to feel more sympathetic towards those that feel abandoned.

If you are taking a stand, then it’s against somebody so this idea that you were gonna have this one sided stand-taking thread is silly.

Have at it.

I don’t really see what disliking the current batch of Star Wars movies has to do with the topic of this thread, unless you’re arguing not liking a movie gives you the right to behave like an *******? I also don’t remember anyone claiming the franchise belongs solely to the fans, or that fans should be allowed to dictate its future, woe to those that dare to ignore the fans’ wishes. In either case the OP determines the thread topic. Those are the rules. If you don’t like it, take it up with the mods/admin…

Here’s the next batch of in an ever growing set of reference frames:

Collipso said:

DrDre said:

SilverWook said:

Anyway, I’d be more excited for a Han Solo series or something set in the years right after ROTJ. This isn’t moving the needle for me, so far.

The upcoming live action series is set in the years right after ROTJ, I believe.

but due to its live action nature there’s only a 0,1% chance of one of the big three of the OT making an appearance.

You never know. The de-aging software used in the MCU looks very convincing, so perhaps we will get a cameo at some point, although I agree that it is not very likely.

SilverWook said:

Anyway, I’d be more excited for a Han Solo series or something set in the years right after ROTJ. This isn’t moving the needle for me, so far.

The upcoming live action series is set in the years right after ROTJ, I believe.

Anakin Starkiller said:

Guys, can we get the conversation back on track please? Just agree to disagree.

You’re late to the party, dude. Our little debate came to an end two hours ago, but I agree, it should have ended a lot sooner.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

So calm down and stop trying to look for a “gotcha” when there isn’t one and start actually paying attention to what I’m saying before you post. By acting like that, you are you’re participating in that same kind of combative and disrespectful fan discourse that you talk about.

Nonsense. Don’t try to turn this on me. I’m not the one calling people pathetic for expressing their opinion, or saying most of these people harrass the creators, and it’s not the first time such generalizations have been expressed on these forums either.

You’re putting words in my mouth, which is not exactly what I’d consider positive discourse. You’re saying I’m disrespectful and feeding into the toxic fandom. I can call some people pathetic without calling everyone pathetic, believe it or not. By generalizing my statements your perpetuating a false notion that anyone calling out harrasers is calling everyone harassers. You’re eroding the nuance of the discussion and furthering the polarization. I don’t appreciate it and I think it’s incredibly frustrating.

You eroded the nuance of the discussion the moment you stated most of “these people” harrass. That’s not putting words in your mouth. You said that.

Read my post again Dre. Who are the people I’m talking about? Am I talking about fans who criticize? Or am I talking about fans who act like children?

If you weren’t skimming my posts for things to get mad about you’d realize that and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Try harder.

You criticized those that complain, and feel entitled. So far, so good, but then you stated these people are pathetic, and that most of them harrass. That is a generalization, and a pretty nasty one. I criticized you for it, and now rather than admit you made a mistake, you try to make it about me.

This is my exact quote:

A lot of the fans are entitled and honestly acting like children. I fully understand why they are, and I respect that they have a right to do so, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them. Pathetic is the exact right word for it. Especially when most of these same people harass creators and others. At that point no respect is deserved and none will be given.

I made no mistake. I admit I should have said many, if only because, in fairness, it’s all speculation and I should’ve known someone would misinterpret. But I stand by what I said.

If you’re acting like you’re entitled to specific content that caters to only you, and then whine when you don’t get what you want, that is pathetic and childish. Simple as that. Saying that many of the people who do that end up being harrasers is not such an incredible leap to make.

And I’m not trying to make it about you. You already did that yourself by making a scene over a fairly inoffensive statement on my part. Now we’ve been arguing on a whole page because you got your pants in a tizzy because I made that impossible suggestion that maybe these childish, entitled fans are the ones who tend to harass.

Well I disagree. Just because entitled fans are more likely to harrass, does not mean that most or even many of them do. That’s an offensive statement. The fact that poor people are statistically more likely to commit street crimes, does not excuse someone for saying most poor people are street criminals, that many of these people end up being street criminals, or that many of these people tend to commit street crimes. That’s just prejudice.

That comparison is absurd. Now I’m “prejudiced” against entitled fans? Being an entitled fan is caused by personality traits such as assholery and immaturity. These things also cause them to be harassers. The line between constantly commenting “TLJ ruined Star Wars” and constantly tweeting at Rian Johnson “you ruined Star Wars” is pretty thin. You’re splitting hairs that don’t exist.

The line is not thin. There are large numbers of articles, where fans respectfully argue why in their opinion Disney and Lucasfilm have damaged the Star Wars brand, and harshly criticize the films. They may be feeling entitled in your opinion, but most of them would never dream of harrassing creators and actors. That’s just your prejudism speaking. It is not based in reality. Entitled fans do a lot of barking online for sure, but barking dogs (almost) never bite.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

So calm down and stop trying to look for a “gotcha” when there isn’t one and start actually paying attention to what I’m saying before you post. By acting like that, you are you’re participating in that same kind of combative and disrespectful fan discourse that you talk about.

Nonsense. Don’t try to turn this on me. I’m not the one calling people pathetic for expressing their opinion, or saying most of these people harrass the creators, and it’s not the first time such generalizations have been expressed on these forums either.

You’re putting words in my mouth, which is not exactly what I’d consider positive discourse. You’re saying I’m disrespectful and feeding into the toxic fandom. I can call some people pathetic without calling everyone pathetic, believe it or not. By generalizing my statements your perpetuating a false notion that anyone calling out harrasers is calling everyone harassers. You’re eroding the nuance of the discussion and furthering the polarization. I don’t appreciate it and I think it’s incredibly frustrating.

You eroded the nuance of the discussion the moment you stated most of “these people” harrass. That’s not putting words in your mouth. You said that.

Read my post again Dre. Who are the people I’m talking about? Am I talking about fans who criticize? Or am I talking about fans who act like children?

If you weren’t skimming my posts for things to get mad about you’d realize that and we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Try harder.

You criticized those that complain, and feel entitled. So far, so good, but then you stated these people are pathetic, and that most of them harrass. That is a generalization, and a pretty nasty one. I criticized you for it, and now rather than admit you made a mistake, you try to make it about me.

This is my exact quote:

A lot of the fans are entitled and honestly acting like children. I fully understand why they are, and I respect that they have a right to do so, but that doesn’t mean I can’t criticize them. Pathetic is the exact right word for it. Especially when most of these same people harass creators and others. At that point no respect is deserved and none will be given.

I made no mistake. I admit I should have said many, if only because, in fairness, it’s all speculation and I should’ve known someone would misinterpret. But I stand by what I said.

If you’re acting like you’re entitled to specific content that caters to only you, and then whine when you don’t get what you want, that is pathetic and childish. Simple as that. Saying that many of the people who do that end up being harrasers is not such an incredible leap to make.

And I’m not trying to make it about you. You already did that yourself by making a scene over a fairly inoffensive statement on my part. Now we’ve been arguing on a whole page because you got your pants in a tizzy because I made that impossible suggestion that maybe these childish, entitled fans are the ones who tend to harass.

Well I disagree. Just because entitled fans are more likely to harrass, does not mean that most or even many of them do. That’s an offensive statement. The fact that poor people are statistically more likely to commit street crimes, does not excuse someone for saying most poor people are street criminals, that many of these people end up being street criminals, or that many of these people tend to commit street crimes. That’s just prejudice, and exactly the thing I’ve been addressing on these boards, where some here like to conflate harsh criticism and openly expressed dislike for Disney Star Wars with misogynism, sexism, and harrassment, and then add a veneer of balance by saying not all of them are like this.