|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 8, 2021 3:23:54 GMT
CryogenicPlease stop derailing my thread. As yourself have put some sort of ownership on me over this thread because I created it, I have decided to allow the conversation to flow freely, naturally, and spontaneously, of which Rey as a role model seems to have peaked some interest.I thought i made that clear in my last post to you when i said i was changing the tone of the thread, as it is My thread. I do not wish to have my thread merged, title changed, micro-managed or have someone dictate to others how those others should be posting because someone doesn’t like what people are saying about the movies. If you crave that kind of controlled atmosphere, I’m sure you can create another sock account at TFN.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Aug 8, 2021 4:10:18 GMT
Projection. You derailed your own damn thread. Ownership? Please. I was seeking earnest clarification as to this thread's true purpose. I'm glad you've now confirmed it's a Rey bashfest. False accusation and a stupid ad hominem. I'm fine with a range of discussion. I know you don't care much for the sequels, which is why your thread was a nice surprise. Hence, I made a brief post of approval, then sat it out, seeing what else would be added by others, pro or con (but sincerely expecting more of the former, given your opening post). However, when you yourself decided to tear into the Rey character at length, completely inverting the thread's original purpose, because, to repeat: Well, my point in creating this little thread wasn’t for it to turn into another gauntlet for the sequels to run through. I became confused more than anything else. I thought you had intended to create a thread with a positive bent, purely of your own volition. Of course, there is nothing wrong with people opining in the negative about any facet of Star Wars; but I had assumed, based on your starting post, and your reminder quoted above, that you would resist it going down that path and stick to your original intent. I was clearly wrong. As for your childish parting shot about my creating sock accounts on TFN: I've done it a handful of times after being banned (and only posted for a very limited time under two of them). The last one, which I've been fully open about, was done in response to a taunt/challenge by another board member here, last year, as a scientific/sociological experiment. And yeah, I lasted all of ten days, because I called out the very hypocrisy that allows you to freely bash Rey and the other Disney characters here (i.e., I challenged the continued imposition of the "Mary Sue" limitation, by the same moderator who was rampantly bashing Padme in other threads with insulting language she forbade Disney critics from using -- for this grand crime, another mod stepped in, one who had already attacked me a day before in another thread, and I suddenly found that my account had been blocked with no warning or right to appeal). Other than that, carry on. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Aug 8, 2021 5:27:53 GMT
Here, take this olive branch. I don't want it. Olives are terrible anyway. Children don't know any better, but they love them, bless their hearts. Should we really let them eat olives?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 8, 2021 10:10:38 GMT
I mostly agree with you. Although, for me, when TFA came out, I was at least willing to give the character some leeway because there were hints at her character being something more than than the avatar you described. Leave it to TLJ and TROS though to really squash the potential. TFA sets up the mystery of who is Rey, TLJ, wastes that opportunity, and ROTS is too little too late with it's Palpatine bloodline/last minute solution. Definitely a wasted opportunity for the character. THough, I have to agree with smittysgelato to a degree. The little girl in the video doesn't care about any of that. In her mind, she just sees a female character that she can look up too. I think that's tough to shit on in any regards. I mean, if you had a 4 year old daughter, and Rey was her favorite character, would you sit her down and explain to her all the things you said? Or would you try to encourage the positive things of the character, even though you yourself "bowed" out on the characters arc? I'd start uploading her information to adoption agencies first thing.
I'd sell her for drinking money.  I mean, look, it's kind of a goofy false equivalence. Of course I'm not gonna shake a fist at my (or any) little girl for failing to meet intellectual standard X. What - lol. You guys are so funny. It's fine that little kids love this stuff. Obviously. But I was only responding to Smitty's proposal that there be qualities in Rey as a character from which even adult fans can gleam with my own personal assessment/expressed preferences. I've never held a grudge against these movies for simply being popular when-and-where they are, or with whom. That'd be Monty Pythonesque silly. But I don't think criticisms against the ST as a work of pop-art should be held in the same context either or, to frame another way, I don't think the ST needs justification on the grounds that God's most innocent angels have a good time with it; I'd say the trilogy is squarely justified to that extent via nothing else than the eccentric nerds here on this forum who've poured their spirit into opining whatever merits it allegedly has to offer—even when I disagree with those opinions to boot.
That being said, the little girl probably has commies for parents.
Just putting it out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 8, 2021 10:31:10 GMT
I mostly agree with you. Although, for me, when TFA came out, I was at least willing to give the character some leeway because there were hints at her character being something more than than the avatar you described. Leave it to TLJ and TROS though to really squash the potential. TFA sets up the mystery of who is Rey, TLJ, wastes that opportunity, and ROTS is too little too late with it's Palpatine bloodline/last minute solution. Definitely a wasted opportunity for the character. THough, I have to agree with smittysgelato to a degree. The little girl in the video doesn't care about any of that. In her mind, she just sees a female character that she can look up too. I think that's tough to shit on in any regards. I mean, if you had a 4 year old daughter, and Rey was her favorite character, would you sit her down and explain to her all the things you said? Or would you try to encourage the positive things of the character, even though you yourself "bowed" out on the characters arc? I'd start uploading her information to adoption agencies first thing.
I'd sell her for drinking money. I mean, look, it's kind of a goofy false equivalence. Of course I'm not gonna shake a fist at my (or any) little girl for failing to meet intellectual standard X. What - lol. You guys are so funny. It's fine that little kids love this stuff. Obviously. But I was only responding to Smitty's proposal that there be qualities in Rey as a character from which even adult fans can gleam with my own personal assessment/expressed preferences. I've never held a grudge against these movies for simply being popular when-and-where they are, or with whom. That'd be Monty Pythonesque silly. But I don't think criticisms against the ST as a work of pop-art should be held in the same context either or, to frame another way, I don't think the ST needs justification on the grounds that God's most innocent angles have a good time with it; I'd say the trilogy is squarely justified to that extent via nothing else than the eccentric nerds here on this forum who've poured their spirit into opining whatever merits it allegedly has to offer—even when I disagree with those opinions to boot.
That being said, the little girl probably has commies for parents.
Just putting it out there.
However, it isn't really a "goofy false equivalence". Is not one of the standing defenses of the PT and even elements of the OT, that they are made for kids? Thus to be looked at through the eyes of a child? Even as an adult? If we, as adults, can't stand back and even for a little while, see a movie through the eyes of the intended demographic, instead of our own jaded adult eyes, than why are we watching it? I mean, we all know that the Force doesn't really exist, our adult reasoning, common sense, and even cynicism tells us it doesn't exist. However, for those couple hours when we watch these movies, we (well most of us) revert to an almost childish mindset of fantasy where the Force does exist. Lightsabers exist. Wookies exist. Darth Vader exists. etc etc etc. Why does it have to be all of that can be taken not so serious in a kid centric mindset as an adult. But Rey? Full stop. no room for even a little fun with the character? Not even a little room for appreciation, as an adult that reverts back to a childhood imagination to believe in lightsabers and wookies, can you find something fun about Rey? Like I said, I get where you are coming from about the character. I think as the ST progressed, her character became worse and worse. But I think there are at some fun and nice things to say about the character even if I do agree with a lot of the negatives you laid out. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 8, 2021 17:49:55 GMT
If you’re suggesting that Reys powers are justified because she shares a common trait with young Anakin of having some measure of suffering as a child, than I would suggest that’s a false conflation. Anakins crappy childhood circumstances, and even counting Luke with his Tusken encounter as he was an orphaned child on some backwater planet, does not mean they were ordained the powers they were given based on the commonality. They still had to learn, fail, lose limbs because of that failure, etc etc until they could get to the point where they were “powerful”. Suffering is not part of the journey to learn how to use the Force. It is a trait used so that the audience (children specifically as they always see themselves as not having power or being ordered around by adults) sees themselves in the hero as he/she makes their way through the hero’s journey. Not intentional. Sorry Pyro... I just saw this. Could you please clarify on what you mean by not intentional? |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Aug 8, 2021 18:25:13 GMT
Sorry Pyro... I just saw this. Could you please clarify on what you mean by not intentional? I posted the comparison/similarity of Rey and Anakin more as an ambiguous musing on the topic than an attempt to make an argument or prove a point on either side of the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 9, 2021 10:15:39 GMT
However, it isn't really a "goofy false equivalence". Is not one of the standing defenses of the PT and even elements of the OT, that they are made for kids? Thus to be looked at through the eyes of a child? Even as an adult? No. That's just addressing an implicit purpose, not altogether unequal to saying: the movies are made to be entertaining. It's a valid statement, just not a particularly useful one. I could just as easily condemn the PT or the ST on the basis that: "They're just made for kids." But that wouldn't be much of an insightful criticism. If we, as adults, can't stand back and even for a little while, see a movie through the eyes of the intended demographic, instead of our own jaded adult eyes, than why are we watching it? I mean, we all know that the Force doesn't really exist, our adult reasoning, common sense, and even cynicism tells us it doesn't exist. However, for those couple hours when we watch these movies, we (well most of us) revert to an almost childish mindset of fantasy where the Force does exist. Lightsabers exist. Wookies exist. Darth Vader exists. etc etc etc. Why does it have to be all of that can be taken not so serious in a kid centric mindset as an adult. But Rey? Full stop. no room for even a little fun with the character? Not even a little room for appreciation, as an adult that reverts back to a childhood imagination to believe in lightsabers and wookies, can you find something fun about Rey? I still think you're conflating some things here. Accepting basic storied premises of a fantasy universe does not in and of itself constitute some blank check for engaging characters without consideration. Most of the characters throughout the ST, in fact, for me leave a lot to be desired; Rey being our central heroine protagonist in turn simply being a subject of proportionate critical focus. Why do I not have fun with a character I find weakly conceptualized and haphazardly managed? I'm not sure how to answer that, or how it doesn't already answer itself. The terms of your above argument are almost self-detonating. The very fact that someone is evidently onboard with whatever the fantasy content as a whole only to then take issue with this or that choice in storytelling should void any notion that the fun factor is inorganic or nonspecific.
I also think this childhood mindset variable is an odd point to drop in such anchor. It remains a nice sentiment in plain but taken to this degree I don't know what it means anymore. I can enjoy laser battles and talking robots and space wizards all day long in pretty basic theory but I can't just shut off whatever natural response I have to storytelling and characters etc. Nothing good to say about Rey, not even an iota, you ask? Well, sure. To reiterate from the previous page:
- I think Daisy Ridley is spunky in the role and physically game.
- I think the character is, if nothing else, successfully commercial.
But I can't just automate myself to "have fun" with that character by, I dunno, interchangeably remembering what it was like to eat Pop Rocks and stay up all night playing Fester's Quest on NES. Da brain don't work dat way. |
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 9, 2021 15:38:00 GMT
However, it isn't really a "goofy false equivalence". Is not one of the standing defenses of the PT and even elements of the OT, that they are made for kids? Thus to be looked at through the eyes of a child? Even as an adult? No. That's just addressing an implicit purpose, not altogether unequal to saying: the movies are made to be entertaining. It's a valid statement, just not a particularly useful one. I could just as easily condemn the PT or the ST on the basis that: "They're just made for kids." But that wouldn't be much of an insightful criticism. It's more than just addressing an "implicit" purpose. It is not implicit when the creator of the movie says that the movies are made for kids. That is where that defense of the Lucas movies comes from, right from Lucas himself. So that is explicit. The exclipict purpose of these movies was a mythology for kids. So they are made, primarily, to be seen through the eyes of a child. Jar Jar Binks is a perfect example of this. The most derided character in all of Star Wars is seen as such because adults took an extreme disliking to the character, which than shut down those adults willingness to see the purpose of the character. If maybe those adults would have remembered, that Star Wars is made primarily for kids, so there will be elements for kids in Star Wars (like Jar Jar), than they would not have been so closed off to enjoying Jar Jar as a character, at least a little. Not saying that they would have all of a sudden loved him, or that their complaints of the things they did not like about Jar Jar would have changed, but, they might have been able to appreciate the character a little more had they remembered to set aside their jaded adult eyes for a couple hours. If we, as adults, can't stand back and even for a little while, see a movie through the eyes of the intended demographic, instead of our own jaded adult eyes, than why are we watching it? I mean, we all know that the Force doesn't really exist, our adult reasoning, common sense, and even cynicism tells us it doesn't exist. However, for those couple hours when we watch these movies, we (well most of us) revert to an almost childish mindset of fantasy where the Force does exist. Lightsabers exist. Wookies exist. Darth Vader exists. etc etc etc. Why does it have to be all of that can be taken not so serious in a kid centric mindset as an adult. But Rey? Full stop. no room for even a little fun with the character? Not even a little room for appreciation, as an adult that reverts back to a childhood imagination to believe in lightsabers and wookies, can you find something fun about Rey? I still think you're conflating some things here. Accepting basic storied premises of a fantasy universe does not in and of itself constitute some blank check for engaging characters without consideration. Most of the characters throughout the ST, in fact, for me leave a lot to be desired; Rey being our central heroine protagonist in turn simply being a subject of proportionate critical focus. Why do I not have fun with a character I find weakly conceptualized and haphazardly managed? I'm not sure how to answer that, or how it doesn't already answer itself. The terms of your above argument are almost self-detonating. The very fact that someone is evidently onboard with whatever the fantasy content as a whole only to then take issue with this or that choice in storytelling should void any notion that the fun factor is inorganic or nonspecific.
I also think this childhood mindset variable is an odd point to drop in such anchor. It remains a nice sentiment in plain but taken to this degree I don't know what it means anymore. I can enjoy laser battles and talking robots and space wizards all day long in pretty basic theory but I can't just shut off whatever natural response I have to storytelling and characters etc. Nothing good to say about Rey, not even an iota, you ask? Well, sure. To reiterate from the previous page:
- I think Daisy Ridley is spunky in the role and physically game.
- I think the character is, if nothing else, successfully commercial.
But I can't just automate myself to "have fun" with that character by, I dunno, interchangeably remembering what it was like to eat Pop Rocks and stay up all night playing Fester's Quest on NES. Da brain don't work dat way. Actually... "Da brain does work dat way"... one way is called nostalgia. Or as South Park puts it.. Member Berries. That is why TFA was such a commercial success, because it hit on that nostalgia chord of people almost perfectly. It brought people back to their childhood to a large degree. Which is one of the main reasons I do not like TFA. Not that I am against Nostalgia, I love Nostalgia... It's just I prefer my nostalgia sprinkled into a new and fresh story, not a new and fresh story sprinkled into my nostalgia. But nostalgia is the brain firing on those childhood memories. Like this: Being 46, I obviously grew up with the OT. So when that trailer hit, and I saw that part for the first time, I have no problems in admitting that I got goosebumps and tears in my eyes. That was and is me reverting, even so briefly, back to my childhood self with those characters. Once again, seeing those characters through the eyes of my 6/7 year old self. If I had never made that connection as a child with those characters, than I would not have had that reaction. So yes, the brain does work that way. To a degree... Now maybe your brain doesn't work that way, which is fair enough. We are all different. So I am not trying to put my reactions onto you. Just trying to get you and anyone else reading this to think a little... I do not know your story, I do not know how you were introduced to Star Wars. I can make an assumption you were introduced to it (and Indy) at some point in your youth. The vast vast majority of us were. Obviously I could be wrong and you could have been introduced as an adult. But the odds are stacked heavily against that. So, of course making an assumption that could be entirely wrong and blow these next points out of the water (lol), when you watch whichever Trilogy you were introduced too as a child, as an adult, you don't remember what it was like watching those movies as a child? Because your brain does not work like that?.. your words.. You can only strictly look at these movies through the eyes of an adult and all it's jaded and cynical views of the world? Do you tear down the Ewoks than? Do you complain about how a bunch of Teddy Bears take down a legion of the Empire's best troops? Do you tear down Jar Jar? Or do you realize those elements have a more kid centric purpose to them thus maybe to not take yourself so serious with them? So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey? When watching these movies, you can't put yourself into that 4 year olds spot, or your younger self's spot, even for a little while? Again Ingram, I am not trying to change your mind on the movies, or even Rey as an overall character. Again, I am right there with you. But the "nice" things you had to say were not about the character even. They were about the actress, and marketing lol.. I am also not trying to get you to write a list of nice things about the character for me.. I am not trying to give you a homework assignment lol. This is more of a discussion, rhetorical in nature to a large degree, not really meant to badger you into making a list. That's why I haven't given a list either, it isn't about the list of nice things to say about the character.. it's just about maybe reminding ourselves not to take ourselves so serious. It's Ok to be a little 4 year old fan girl sometimes lol. That is why the video was worth posting for me. Even as an adult, I can remember what it was like to be that 4 year old... I can remember not caring about acting, graphics, marketing, "pantomime of story drama", or "theoretical motor function of dramatic heft"... I can't completely shut off my adult brain, reality comes back quickly, the jaded cynical adult world crashes in on those memories quite quickly. But I can still appreciate what that 4 year old girl sees in Rey, cause I can put myself in that spot while watching the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Aug 9, 2021 16:12:01 GMT
Honestly, setting my disdain aside, can it be said that a single ST production was made for or marketed towards kids? If anything, it was marketed to everyone but kids. Not that I keep an eye on the fandom, but I don't see any new blood being brought up into it (or what's left of it) by Disney material. I do see people in their 30s, 40s and 50s gushing or trashing it. But I don't think it can be said that the younger generations cares about nu-Star Wars. I don't see any evidence of that. It's not happening with just Star Wars either.
If I were to bet, I'd say that young girl Rey's costume was more a result of the parents liking it and the respective movies than the kid herself. Well, at that age, it would be more than expected.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 9, 2021 17:58:11 GMT
Honestly, setting my disdain aside, can it be said that a single ST production was made for or marketed towards kids? If anything, it was marketed to everyone but kids. Not that I keep an eye on the fandom, but I don't see any new blood being brought up into it (or what's left of it) by Disney material. I do see people in their 30s, 40s and 50s gushing or trashing it. But I don't think it can be said that the younger generations cares about nu-Star Wars. I don't see any evidence of that. It's not happening with just Star Wars either. If I were to bet, I'd say that young girl Rey's costume was more a result of the parents liking it and the respective movies than the kid herself. Well, at that age, it would be more than expected. Damnit Alex… I was hoping no-one would point that out. Not surprised it was you. I agree… unfortunately Disney Star Wars movies have lost that kind of “for the kids” element to it. However, there are still things in the movies the kids can enjoy, nor, does that stop us from we ourselves still remembering to enjoy the movies from that perspective. As for the little girl in the video. I don’t think it’s fair to just assume that her reaction is not genuine. Especially at the end when she sees Rey and goes in for the hug. Most little kids at that age aren’t really openly affectionate like that to strangers. Her reaction at the end suggests she is genuinely happy to see Rey, that there is a familiarity with her and Chewbacca that if there wasn’t an familiarity, her reaction would show it. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Aug 9, 2021 19:43:20 GMT
I'm not saying the reaction is not genuine. I'm just saying that all of it was probably more a result of the parents liking the content than the kid clamoring for it. Of course the kid might have liked it. She even might have liked it because the parents liked it and incentivized playing pretend with the ST. That's my bet anyway.
I just don't see the ST having an innate appeal to kids, nor do I think any of those movies were designed with them in mind. A lot of content nowadays isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 10, 2021 11:21:00 GMT
No. That's just addressing an implicit purpose, not altogether unequal to saying: the movies are made to be entertaining. It's a valid statement, just not a particularly useful one. I could just as easily condemn the PT or the ST on the basis that: "They're just made for kids." But that wouldn't be much of an insightful criticism. It's more than just addressing an "implicit" purpose. It is not implicit when the creator of the movie says that the movies are made for kids. That is where that defense of the Lucas movies comes from, right from Lucas himself. So that is explicit. The exclipict purpose of these movies was a mythology for kids. So they are made, primarily, to be seen through the eyes of a child. Uh, okay, so it's explicit, presumably for the ST as well. So what? Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. I still think you're conflating some things here. Accepting basic storied premises of a fantasy universe does not in and of itself constitute some blank check for engaging characters without consideration. Most of the characters throughout the ST, in fact, for me leave a lot to be desired; Rey being our central heroine protagonist in turn simply being a subject of proportionate critical focus. Why do I not have fun with a character I find weakly conceptualized and haphazardly managed? I'm not sure how to answer that, or how it doesn't already answer itself. The terms of your above argument are almost self-detonating. The very fact that someone is evidently onboard with whatever the fantasy content as a whole only to then take issue with this or that choice in storytelling should void any notion that the fun factor is inorganic or nonspecific.
I also think this childhood mindset variable is an odd point to drop in such anchor. It remains a nice sentiment in plain but taken to this degree I don't know what it means anymore. I can enjoy laser battles and talking robots and space wizards all day long in pretty basic theory but I can't just shut off whatever natural response I have to storytelling and characters etc. Nothing good to say about Rey, not even an iota, you ask? Well, sure. To reiterate from the previous page:
- I think Daisy Ridley is spunky in the role and physically game.
- I think the character is, if nothing else, successfully commercial.
But I can't just automate myself to "have fun" with that character by, I dunno, interchangeably remembering what it was like to eat Pop Rocks and stay up all night playing Fester's Quest on NES. Da brain don't work dat way. Actually... "Da brain does work dat way"... one way is called nostalgia. Or as South Park puts it.. Member Berries. That is why TFA was such a commercial success, because it hit on that nostalgia chord of people almost perfectly. It brought people back to their childhood to a large degree. Which is one of the main reasons I do not like TFA. Not that I am against Nostalgia, I love Nostalgia... It's just I prefer my nostalgia sprinkled into a new and fresh story, not a new and fresh story sprinkled into my nostalgia. So then...da brain doesn't work dat way. Yours didn't. Mine didn't. You just negated your own argument in the same breath. And people who liked The Force Awakens where I did not was because they had a separate (arguably lower but, for now, separate) set of standards and sophistications. It's not as if we're all copies of one another but some of us fail to connect with a new Star Wars character because we haven't been taking our nostalgia 'childhood wonderment' supplements. But nostalgia is the brain firing on those childhood memories. Like this: Being 46, I obviously grew up with the OT. So when that trailer hit, and I saw that part for the first time, I have no problems in admitting that I got goosebumps and tears in my eyes. That was and is me reverting, even so briefly, back to my childhood self with those characters. Once again, seeing those characters through the eyes of my 6/7 year old self. If I had never made that connection as a child with those characters, than I would not have had that reaction. So yes, the brain does work that way. To a degree... Now maybe your brain doesn't work that way, which is fair enough. We are all different. So I am not trying to put my reactions onto you. Just trying to get you and anyone else reading this to think a little... I do not know your story, I do not know how you were introduced to Star Wars. I can make an assumption you were introduced to it (and Indy) at some point in your youth. The vast vast majority of us were. Obviously I could be wrong and you could have been introduced as an adult. But the odds are stacked heavily against that. So, of course making an assumption that could be entirely wrong and blow these next points out of the water (lol), when you watch whichever Trilogy you were introduced too as a child, as an adult, you don't remember what it was like watching those movies as a child? Because your brain does not work like that?.. your words.. You can only strictly look at these movies through the eyes of an adult and all it's jaded and cynical views of the world? Do you tear down the Ewoks than? Do you complain about how a bunch of Teddy Bears take down a legion of the Empire's best troops? Do you tear down Jar Jar? Or do you realize those elements have a more kid centric purpose to them thus maybe to not take yourself so serious with them? So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey? When watching these movies, you can't put yourself into that 4 year olds spot, or your younger self's spot, even for a little while? This is...weird. Especially the [So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey?] part. Taking myself so serious? I'm confused by this premise. I sat through all three of these ST movies in theaters. Each of them twice—as I try to give this stuff its due as best I can. The reason I never threw up my hands and stormed out midway through, decrying film theory to the other patrons, is because I can in fact just sit down with these movies and go along for the ride ...as best I can. I didn't plant myself in the theater with a pen & paper, reference notes, a checklist what-have-you dead set on auditing the films as they played out. But, yes, my preferences and standards yielded a reaction; having a negative one then makes me too self-serious? I can tell ya this much: it was an honest one.
I liked the Ewoks when I was a kid because I was a kid, and it was Star Wars (presumably). I've since liked the Ewoks as an adult in how they make for an absurdist riff on the idea of a mighty technocracy thwarted by cuddly mischief natives with bows and arrows. When seeing Episode I for the first time at age nineteen -- the height of hip cynicism, no less -- I may never have laughed at/along-with Jar Jar Binks as candidly as any little kid sitting near me in the theater but I still to this day dig the character as a quixotic curiosity, a Buster Keaton-like village idiot thrown as a cosmic joke into the mix of otherwise serious galactic business that, too, results in grand evil designs failing to account for an unconventional, less-than-dignified adversary.
The Ewoks, Jar Jar, little Anakin etc. ...whether these elements are tonally foolish at times and regardless of how I feel about their kid-centricity, they nonetheless make sense to me. They're clear enough in theme and facilitate the dramatic narrative in a way purposeful. Rey for me does not. So where is this "fun" suppose to come from, the prompted mindset of a child? I didn't grow up watching the ST so that nostalgic life experience is not an option. But I'm still suppose to just put on said magic goggles anyways? I can't force myself to have an instinctive, positive emotional reaction based on -- or, in this case, not on -- who I am. Moreover, even if I could, why should I?
How 'bout the filmmakers write a better fucking character.
This all seems like a lot of work, it now being my obligation to just drink the Kool-Aid and reprogram my imagination to that of a theoretical 4-yearold when, ironically, imagination is where by my stock the filmmaker's themselves failed at realizing a main Star Wars heroine lastingly beyond a slipshod product platitude. That's not "seeing it through the eyes of a child" but flipping some kind of mental retardation switch. I don't have one of those. Well, maybe I do for the important things in life, like careers and relationships, but not here. Not with Star Wars. I can have fun—i.e., crowd-pleasing highs of a well-oiled pulp space opera. I can even have stupid fun—i.e., Jar Jar landing on his nuts, Threepio's head stuck to a battle droid's body or, hell, Mutt swinging through the jungle with monkeys. Having no real engagement with a character doesn't all the sudden make one a jaded Mr. Buzzkill; I can NOT hate or dismiss or (over)analyze or deconstruct the character Rey when she's simply, even stupidly, hot-dogging her way through a Star Wars movie as does every other Star Wars protagonist respectively. If that still doesn't pass the bar of warming to her character vis-à-vis the little girl in the video, sorry. That's the best I can do. Your whole angle here is still more a meditation than anything else, as you say. I can definitely appreciate that. Sure, why not take a moment to consider such things as they might appeal to prepubescents. Like I said, a perfectly fine sentiment. It certainly doesn't hurt. I just don't think it's a magic wand either, nor do I think my reaction to the character of Rey is fundamentally any less innocent than that of the (or any) little girl.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 21, 2021 13:42:36 GMT
It's more than just addressing an "implicit" purpose. It is not implicit when the creator of the movie says that the movies are made for kids. That is where that defense of the Lucas movies comes from, right from Lucas himself. So that is explicit. The exclipict purpose of these movies was a mythology for kids. So they are made, primarily, to be seen through the eyes of a child. Uh, okay, so it's explicit, presumably for the ST as well. So what? Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. So we can't praise or criticize a movie, that is made for kids, on the merits of whether or not the kids like it? Adults can't have any sense of understanding, empathy, recognition, or relatability with a young child that loves the movies or it's characters? Because we are adults? Because, heaven forbid, an adult might stop taking themselves so serious, even for a moment to you know.. do something they once did as a kid... like... dressing up as a character they loved:    Do you think these grown ass adults are dressing up, like they used to as kids (or at least wanted too but never had the means), because they thought the characters were not.. "pantomime of story drama", or were more than just " theoretical motor function of dramatic heft". Or could they be.. gasp... remembering their love for these characters from when they were small children, and now have the capability to live out their childhood dreams of being these characters even for a little while... OMG.. so weird.. right..? Actually... "Da brain does work dat way"... one way is called nostalgia. Or as South Park puts it.. Member Berries. That is why TFA was such a commercial success, because it hit on that nostalgia chord of people almost perfectly. It brought people back to their childhood to a large degree. Which is one of the main reasons I do not like TFA. Not that I am against Nostalgia, I love Nostalgia... It's just I prefer my nostalgia sprinkled into a new and fresh story, not a new and fresh story sprinkled into my nostalgia. So then...da brain doesn't work dat way. Yours didn't. Mine didn't. You just negated your own argument in the same breath. And people who liked The Force Awakens where I did not was because they had a separate (arguably lower but, for now, separate) set of standards and sophistications. It's not as if we're all copies of one another but some of us fail to connect with a new Star Wars character because we haven't been taking our nostalgia 'childhood wonderment' supplements. Well, if you were going to take a supplement.. you might want to take a chill pill. LOL.. First of all, take a deep breath. I said the brain DOES work that way, than went on to give an example of it. I didn't negate anything. Not sure why you feel the need to take what I am saying and use over the top exaggerations in order to make your point (which you do further on in your reply as well). I am not saying that you should, or have to sit there and just turn a switch and all of a sudden your a 5 year old again. Your eagerness to just sit stone faced at the idea of allowing yourself to be a kid again at a Star Wars movie, which is made for kids, is what is "weird" to me. Never quite met someone that was so vehemently opposed to the idea of being a kid at heart. Neither side is mutually exclusive, they both can exist in the same space. That is how people like Lucas, Rowling, etc etc does this... Kids movies, shows, cartoons, books, etc etc are not being written by kids. They are being written by adults. Adults that can put themselves back into that mindset of being a child. Now, yes, you are correct, everyone is different. You are different from me. However, that isn't just the only issue. You've, on multiple occasions, suggested that it cannot be done at all. There is evidence all around us that it can.   I guess.. I am at a lower end of the sophistication scale though. Because I can still laugh at stupid shit like Spongebob.. I can sit and watch a cartoon and laugh, and enjoy it, without going into some deep level of "sophistication" to break down a character.. Because it is made for kids.. like Star Wars.. I recently came across something Lucas said in 2017 about making the Prequels: Thank goodness even Lucas isn't all that sophisticated and can enjoy a poop joke. But nostalgia is the brain firing on those childhood memories. Like this: Being 46, I obviously grew up with the OT. So when that trailer hit, and I saw that part for the first time, I have no problems in admitting that I got goosebumps and tears in my eyes. That was and is me reverting, even so briefly, back to my childhood self with those characters. Once again, seeing those characters through the eyes of my 6/7 year old self. If I had never made that connection as a child with those characters, than I would not have had that reaction. So yes, the brain does work that way. To a degree... Now maybe your brain doesn't work that way, which is fair enough. We are all different. So I am not trying to put my reactions onto you. Just trying to get you and anyone else reading this to think a little... I do not know your story, I do not know how you were introduced to Star Wars. I can make an assumption you were introduced to it (and Indy) at some point in your youth. The vast vast majority of us were. Obviously I could be wrong and you could have been introduced as an adult. But the odds are stacked heavily against that. So, of course making an assumption that could be entirely wrong and blow these next points out of the water (lol), when you watch whichever Trilogy you were introduced too as a child, as an adult, you don't remember what it was like watching those movies as a child? Because your brain does not work like that?.. your words.. You can only strictly look at these movies through the eyes of an adult and all it's jaded and cynical views of the world? Do you tear down the Ewoks than? Do you complain about how a bunch of Teddy Bears take down a legion of the Empire's best troops? Do you tear down Jar Jar? Or do you realize those elements have a more kid centric purpose to them thus maybe to not take yourself so serious with them? So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey? When watching these movies, you can't put yourself into that 4 year olds spot, or your younger self's spot, even for a little while? This is...weird. Especially the [So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey?] part. Taking myself so serious? I'm confused by this premise. I sat through all three of these ST movies in theaters. Each of them twice—as I try to give this stuff its due as best I can. The reason I never threw up my hands and stormed out midway through, decrying film theory to the other patrons, is because I can in fact just sit down with these movies and go along for the ride ...as best I can. I didn't plant myself in the theater with a pen & paper, reference notes, a checklist what-have-you dead set on auditing the films as they played out. But, yes, my preferences and standards yielded a reaction; having a negative one then makes me too self-serious? I can tell ya this much: it was an honest one.
I liked the Ewoks when I was a kid because I was a kid, and it was Star Wars (presumably). I've since liked the Ewoks as an adult in how they make for an absurdist riff on the idea of a mighty technocracy thwarted by cuddly mischief natives with bows and arrows. When seeing Episode I for the first time at age nineteen -- the height of hip cynicism, no less -- I may never have laughed at/along-with Jar Jar Binks as candidly as any little kid sitting near me in the theater but I still to this day dig the character as a quixotic curiosity, a Buster Keaton-like village idiot thrown as a cosmic joke into the mix of otherwise serious galactic business that, too, results in grand evil designs failing to account for an unconventional, less-than-dignified adversary.
The Ewoks, Jar Jar, little Anakin etc. ...whether these elements are tonally foolish at times and regardless of how I feel about their kid-centricity, they nonetheless make sense to me. They're clear enough in theme and facilitate the dramatic narrative in a way purposeful. Rey for me does not. So where is this "fun" suppose to come from, the prompted mindset of a child? I didn't grow up watching the ST so that nostalgic life experience is not an option. But I'm still suppose to just put on said magic goggles anyways? I can't force myself to have an instinctive, positive emotional reaction based on -- or, in this case, not on -- who I am. Moreover, even if I could, why should I?
How 'bout the filmmakers write a better fucking character.
This all seems like a lot of work, it now being my obligation to just drink the Kool-Aid and reprogram my imagination to that of a theoretical 4-yearold when, ironically, imagination is where by my stock the filmmaker's themselves failed at realizing a main Star Wars heroine lastingly beyond a slipshod product platitude. That's not "seeing it through the eyes of a child" but flipping some kind of mental retardation switch. I don't have one of those. Well, maybe I do for the important things in life, like careers and relationships, but not here. Not with Star Wars. I can have fun—i.e., crowd-pleasing highs of a well-oiled pulp space opera. I can even have stupid fun—i.e., Jar Jar landing on his nuts, Threepio's head stuck to a battle droid's body or, hell, Mutt swinging through the jungle with monkeys. Having no real engagement with a character doesn't all the sudden make one a jaded Mr. Buzzkill; I can NOT hate or dismiss or (over)analyze or deconstruct the character Rey when she's simply, even stupidly, hot-dogging her way through a Star Wars movie as does every other Star Wars protagonist respectively. If that still doesn't pass the bar of warming to her character vis-à-vis the little girl in the video, sorry. That's the best I can do. Your whole angle here is still more a meditation than anything else, as you say. I can definitely appreciate that. Sure, why not take a moment to consider such things as they might appeal to prepubescents. Like I said, a perfectly fine sentiment. It certainly doesn't hurt. I just don't think it's a magic wand either, nor do I think my reaction to the character of Rey is fundamentally any less innocent than that of the (or any) little girl.
No one is obligating you to do anything. Or asking you to drink the kool aid. So again, the unnecessary exaggerations are.. unnecessary. It's a discussion for goodness sake. I have no power over you. To make you do anything. I just have to wonder...  |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 23, 2021 11:41:28 GMT
Uh, okay, so it's explicit, presumably for the ST as well. So what? Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. So we can't praise or criticize a movie, that is made for kids, on the merits of whether or not the kids like it? Adults can't have any sense of understanding, empathy, recognition, or relatability with a young child that loves the movies or it's characters? Because we are adults? Because, heaven forbid, an adult might stop taking themselves so serious, even for a moment to you know.. do something they once did as a kid... like... dressing up as a character they loved: Do you think these grown ass adults are dressing up, like they used to as kids (or at least wanted too but never had the means), because they thought the characters were not.. "pantomime of story drama", or were more than just " theoretical motor function of dramatic heft". Or could they be.. gasp... remembering their love for these characters from when they were small children, and now have the capability to live out their childhood dreams of being these characters even for a little while... OMG.. so weird.. right..? I'm not sure with whom you're conversing, because it's not me. ... Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. I don't know how to clarify ^this^ to any simpler level. So then...da brain doesn't work dat way. Yours didn't. Mine didn't. You just negated your own argument in the same breath. And people who liked The Force Awakens where I did not was because they had a separate (arguably lower but, for now, separate) set of standards and sophistications. It's not as if we're all copies of one another but some of us fail to connect with a new Star Wars character because we haven't been taking our nostalgia 'childhood wonderment' supplements. Well, if you were going to take a supplement.. you might want to take a chill pill. LOL.. First of all, take a deep breath. I said the brain DOES work that way, than went on to give an example of it. Your example was nostalgia. Nostalgia does not illustrate how a person can at once genuinely, holistically not like a movie -- it's content, characters, execution -- and genuinely, holistically like that same movie via general associations with positive childhood memories & experiences. As you're arguing it, nostalgia only illustrates one's selective investment to begin with; how they go into a movie primarily with a certain standard predicated on, as you say, "member berries." When people have an overwhelmingly positive takeaway because nostalgia is what's working for them the most then it's because nostalgia is what's working for them the most and thus by definition either cut slack elsewhere with story & characters or don't harbor as much sophistication/investment with the latter to begin with. That does not exemplify how the brain can decidedly like and not like something conclusively. I don't think anything can. Because the brain doesn't work that way. I didn't negate anything. Not sure why you feel the need to take what I am saying and use over the top exaggerations in order to make your point (which you do further on in your reply as well). I am not saying that you should, or have to sit there and just turn a switch and all of a sudden your a 5 year old again. Well, effectively, you are. Or at least the sentiment you keep asserting is built on such a premise. More on that below, at the bottom... Your eagerness to just sit stone faced at the idea of allowing yourself to be a kid again at a Star Wars movie, which is made for kids, is what is "weird" to me. Never quite met someone that was so vehemently opposed to the idea of being a kid at heart. Neither side is mutually exclusive, they both can exist in the same space. That is how people like Lucas, Rowling, etc etc does this... Kids movies, shows, cartoons, books, etc etc are not being written by kids. They are being written by adults. Adults that can put themselves back into that mindset of being a child. Now, yes, you are correct, everyone is different. You are different from me. However, that isn't just the only issue. You've, on multiple occasions, suggested that it cannot be done at all. There is evidence all around us that it can. I've suggested what, that adult artists cannot fashion quality entertainment intended at core for children or that adult audiences cannot enjoy as much on the same grounds? When?
Neither have I. I'm also not sure how such a disposition can be drawn from any argument I've made thus far.
Perhaps you can source something for me.
I'd say my previous post explicitly details that no such eagerness exists. Again, is there a third party amidst this debate I'm not aware of? You've certainly painted a portrait of... someone. I guess.. I am at a lower end of the sophistication scale though. Because I can still laugh at stupid shit like Spongebob.. I can sit and watch a cartoon and laugh, and enjoy it, without going into some deep level of "sophistication" to break down a character.. Because it is made for kids.. like Star Wars.. I recently came across something Lucas said in 2017 about making the Prequels: Thank goodness even Lucas isn't all that sophisticated and can enjoy a poop joke. There's so much vagueness, reduction, bad correlation and context-disregard going on here that now it's just starting to come across like you're baiting. I guess I could try and pick up all these pieces, or instead maybe I'll attempt to streamline this whole debate as best I can.
I think + something + was poorly crafted = I didn't like it
(Many aspects of the ST broad and finite but, for the moment, the character Rey being no exception) I'd say that's a pretty brass tacks formula, yet one you seem to be having a bizarrely difficult time with.
"But it was crafted for kids so, even if poorly done, you should still be able to like it because: it was crafted for kids, because: we can all be a kid at heart."
I...I don't know what that means.
First of all, you should really try to avoid wielding "being a kid at heart" like some kind of universal metric when in fact it is an inherently subjective thing that from one person to the next will factor into their enjoyment to varying degrees ...or maybe not all, lastingly, if other negative factors persist. It's odd that this has to be explained. Citing a bunch of popular kid-friendly entertainment or grown ups in cosplay or poop jokes or even a George Lucas quote—I don't know what point any of this is supposed to make. People like stuff? Adults like stuff that's for kids? Okay. I'm sure they do. I know I do. But that's not a fixed outcome.
This is...weird. Especially the [So you can't sit back and not take yourself so serious with Rey?] part. Taking myself so serious? I'm confused by this premise. I sat through all three of these ST movies in theaters. Each of them twice—as I try to give this stuff its due as best I can. The reason I never threw up my hands and stormed out midway through, decrying film theory to the other patrons, is because I can in fact just sit down with these movies and go along for the ride ...as best I can. I didn't plant myself in the theater with a pen & paper, reference notes, a checklist what-have-you dead set on auditing the films as they played out. But, yes, my preferences and standards yielded a reaction; having a negative one then makes me too self-serious? I can tell ya this much: it was an honest one.
I liked the Ewoks when I was a kid because I was a kid, and it was Star Wars (presumably). I've since liked the Ewoks as an adult in how they make for an absurdist riff on the idea of a mighty technocracy thwarted by cuddly mischief natives with bows and arrows. When seeing Episode I for the first time at age nineteen -- the height of hip cynicism, no less -- I may never have laughed at/along-with Jar Jar Binks as candidly as any little kid sitting near me in the theater but I still to this day dig the character as a quixotic curiosity, a Buster Keaton-like village idiot thrown as a cosmic joke into the mix of otherwise serious galactic business that, too, results in grand evil designs failing to account for an unconventional, less-than-dignified adversary.
The Ewoks, Jar Jar, little Anakin etc. ...whether these elements are tonally foolish at times and regardless of how I feel about their kid-centricity, they nonetheless make sense to me. They're clear enough in theme and facilitate the dramatic narrative in a way purposeful. Rey for me does not. So where is this "fun" suppose to come from, the prompted mindset of a child? I didn't grow up watching the ST so that nostalgic life experience is not an option. But I'm still suppose to just put on said magic goggles anyways? I can't force myself to have an instinctive, positive emotional reaction based on -- or, in this case, not on -- who I am. Moreover, even if I could, why should I?
How 'bout the filmmakers write a better fucking character.
This all seems like a lot of work, it now being my obligation to just drink the Kool-Aid and reprogram my imagination to that of a theoretical 4-yearold when, ironically, imagination is where by my stock the filmmaker's themselves failed at realizing a main Star Wars heroine lastingly beyond a slipshod product platitude. That's not "seeing it through the eyes of a child" but flipping some kind of mental retardation switch. I don't have one of those. Well, maybe I do for the important things in life, like careers and relationships, but not here. Not with Star Wars. I can have fun—i.e., crowd-pleasing highs of a well-oiled pulp space opera. I can even have stupid fun—i.e., Jar Jar landing on his nuts, Threepio's head stuck to a battle droid's body or, hell, Mutt swinging through the jungle with monkeys. Having no real engagement with a character doesn't all the sudden make one a jaded Mr. Buzzkill; I can NOT hate or dismiss or (over)analyze or deconstruct the character Rey when she's simply, even stupidly, hot-dogging her way through a Star Wars movie as does every other Star Wars protagonist respectively. If that still doesn't pass the bar of warming to her character vis-à-vis the little girl in the video, sorry. That's the best I can do. Your whole angle here is still more a meditation than anything else, as you say. I can definitely appreciate that. Sure, why not take a moment to consider such things as they might appeal to prepubescents. Like I said, a perfectly fine sentiment. It certainly doesn't hurt. I just don't think it's a magic wand either, nor do I think my reaction to the character of Rey is fundamentally any less innocent than that of the (or any) little girl.
No one is obligating you to do anything. Or asking you to drink the kool aid. So again, the unnecessary exaggerations are.. unnecessary. It's a discussion for goodness sake. I have no power over you. To make you do anything. I just have to wonder... Let me try and help you with the discourse here. Remember, this was your interjection to begin with. It continues to be your expressed point of contention.
Nothing I've argued so far is a rebuke of you telling me what I have to do. But you are inquiring as to why I'm not vibing with a character as you and others do, yes? Moreover, by this juncture, you're quoting my articulations with clear enough mockery and in general tagging me as a self-serious snob—all of this on the premise of "being a kid at heart", or failing to do so in my case. What I've been arguing is the logic of this premise, it's limitations, how it's built on a false dichotomy and, yes, how it seems to dictate a fixed movie-going mentality above any other considerations personal to the individual.
So all of this sprinkled rhetoric about me needing to chill out, that's solely your slant. And the optics aren't great either: you first perplexed by my "inability" then sniding me with anti-intellectualism disguised as gee-whiz 'child at heart' adorable-little-girl-in-video sentiment and in the same stretch calling it overreactive hyperbole when I probe and challenge the merit of said sentiment. Maybe that's not you're honest intent, but it's certainly the optics. Just sayin'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 23, 2021 16:46:37 GMT
I'm not sure with whom you're conversing, because it's not me. ... Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. I don't know how to clarify ^this^ to any simpler level. Well, you have made my point. You continue to make my point. You have taken my stance to such a rigid state of it has to be this or that. I have never said that you HAVE to like Rey as a complete character. I have never said it has to be one or the other. All I have ever suggested is that for many fans, there is a return to child like fantasy and mindset, where the fans can and do, to some degree, have fun with the movies not very different than what that little girl in the video has. I proposed the (mostly rhetorical) question to you of could you do that. I have said, continuously over my replies, that I largely agree with you on Rey, but, there are some things of the character that I can see appealing and fun because I can remember what it was like to be a little 5 year old watching Star Wars. Some would say that our small discussion here is a subset of the larger discussion of "Toxic Fandom". The toxic fandom, to some degree, is the result of adult fans wanting Kids movies to be kids movie made for adults. A movie built with the removal of the child like whim, and replaced with more adult (ie dark) themes built into the same fantasy world that the adults loved as kids. That is why Jar Jar is so derided. The idea that things like poop jokes, or fart jokes don't belong in a Star Wars movie. Well, it's a damned Kids movie, kids think that stuff is funny. Yet a large segment of the fandom forgets that it's ok to laugh at a fart joke or a poop joke, like a little kid would, and instead throw a hissy fit over it. Clutching pearls as if their adultness has been offended. Again, I don't know how I can make it any "simpler" for you.. I have never said your disdain for Rey is not genuine. I never said that you couldn't have those opinions. I never said that if you only do what I say, than you would have an epiphany on the character and all of a sudden love her unflinchingly. All I have ever suggested is that sometimes we (all of us, not just an indictment of you), have to remember that these movies are kids movies. That we can interact with them, at least a little bit, on the level of the experiences we had with the movies when we were kids to find some enjoyable things. That's all really. You are unrelenting in your sentiment that this is impossible for the brain to do. I disagree. You seem to be falling on my statement on the sprinkling of nostalgia as the tool of my hypocrisy (my word, not yours, but obviously your sentiment). Again, you are missing the point I have made over and over. I am not trying to approach this a mathematical proof where if only you do "X", than "Y" happens in totality. Over all, I do not like TFA, but, there are fun parts of it that I can appreciate it because it does bring me back to my childhood of loving Star Wars. I have never implied it is all or nothing. Now maybe to you, the idea of bringing a kids opinion of a kids movie, where the creator of the movies says he made the movies for kids, should not be accounted for in praise or criticism... I disagree. Simple as that. I mean, when a movie is made for kids, as a means to teach kids moral lessons, create modern mythologies to teach kids lessons of how our society operates, than it is important that kids relate and react to the characters. We shouldn't lose sight of that in our discussions, and even our opinions. Not sure why that would not be part of any conversation about the characters, themes etc etc of a movie that is made for kids. It's the difference between Star Wars and Strange Magic. One connected with kids, and that connection has lasted for decades where, for most of us, we can still make that connection. And the other did not connect with kids at all, and is now a defunct piece of media that most people will never know existed. And they came from the same guy.. So I disagree with you on the importance of taking into account how kids connect with these characters, or at least if they are worthy of part of the discussion of praise or criticism. Well, if you were going to take a supplement.. you might want to take a chill pill. LOL.. First of all, take a deep breath. I said the brain DOES work that way, than went on to give an example of it. Your example was nostalgia. Nostalgia does not illustrate how a person can at once genuinely, holistically not like a movie -- it's content, characters, execution -- and genuinely, holistically like that same movie via general associations with positive childhood memories & experiences. As you're arguing it, nostalgia only illustrates one's selective investment to begin with; how they go into a movie primarily with a certain standard predicated on, as you say, "member berries." When people have an overwhelmingly positive takeaway because nostalgia is what's working for them the most then it's because nostalgia is what's working for them the most and thus by definition either cut slack elsewhere with story & characters or don't harbor as much sophistication/investment with the latter to begin with. That does not exemplify how the brain can decidedly like and not like something conclusively. I don't think anything can. Because the brain doesn't work that way. Yes.. "selective investment" built when they were a kid. So that "selective investment" is cashed in as an adult in the form of remembering what it was like to be a kid. The brain firing on those memories and releasing a dopamine rush. I enjoy remembering what it was like to be kid, so I am going to try and recreate that memory to some degree. When was the last time you had a dopamine rush over remembering how you paid the bills last month or last year? Any nostalgia over mowing the lawn a few years ago? How about that child like feeling that rushed over you when you remembered how much you crushed cleaning that pool? Once again, you continue to suggest it has to be all or nothing. I have never implied that. You are simply making that a part of your argument that I have never made. We "cut slack" with characters and movies all the time. When something doesn't make sense in a movie, we fill in the gaps ourselves in order to make the disconnect work. How does Padme know they were heading to a cave in AOTC... If we like the movies, we tend to fill that in with a reason that works for us. If we don't like the movies we tend to find it a unconceivable error in writing and movie making. Obi Wan not force running through the energy walls/gates.. If you like TPM, than you come up with a reason, if you don't like it, than you deride it. A lot of fans have even convinced themselves that we can appreciate the ewoks ONLY from the metaphorical standpoint they represent, instead of just saying, I ALSO liked them as a kid, I ALSO enjoyed them as a kid, so I am not going to shit on that because the movie was made for kids and I can remember what that was like, while also appreciating them from the more adult and sophisticated view. Both things can exist at the same time. Of course nostalgia works on good experiences. No one is nostalgic for something bad, for example, when their parents beat them. However, we still carry those negative emotions into adulthood as well, and we don't forget what it was like to be that kid. There's so much vagueness, reduction, bad correlation and context-disregard going on here that now it's just starting to come across like you're baiting. I guess I could try and pick up all these pieces, or instead maybe I'll attempt to streamline this whole debate as best I can.
I think + something + was poorly crafted = I didn't like it
(Many aspects of the ST broad and finite but, for the moment, the character Rey being no exception) I'd say that's a pretty brass tacks formula, yet one you seem to be having a bizarrely difficult time with.
"But it was crafted for kids so, even if poorly done, you should still be able to like it because: it was crafted for kids, because: we can all be a kid at heart."
I...I don't know what that means.
First of all, you should really try to avoid wielding "being a kid at heart" like some kind of universal metric when in fact it is an inherently subjective thing that from one person to the next will factor into their enjoyment to varying degrees ...or maybe not all, lastingly, if other negative factors persist. It's odd that this has to be explained. Citing a bunch of popular kid-friendly entertainment or grown ups in cosplay or poop jokes or even a George Lucas quote—I don't know what point any of this is supposed to make. People like stuff? Adults like stuff that's for kids? Okay. I'm sure they do. I know I do. But that's not a fixed outcome. I never said it was a fixed outcome lmao... Again, that is how you want to characterize my side of this discussion. As I have said before. I am not expecting you to do do homework for me. It isn't about an actual list, or getting you to say something nice about the character. The character of Rey is but the pivot for the discussion. As I have said multiple times to you, and I think it merits repeating again. I largely agree with you on the character of Rey. However, the pivot of the discussion is whether, as adults, can we find something enjoyable about the character, as in the same way that little girl does. Your stance, at least from my perspective, is a hard no because the brain doesn't work that way. I disagree.. Nothing I've argued so far is a rebuke of you telling me what I have to do. But you are inquiring as to why I'm not vibing with a character as you and others do, yes? Moreover, by this juncture, you're quoting my articulations with clear enough mockery and in general tagging me as a self-serious snob—all of this on the premise of "being a kid at heart", or failing to do so in my case. What I've been arguing is the logic of this premise, it's limitations, how it's built on a false dichotomy and, yes, how it seems to dictate a fixed movie-going mentality above any other considerations personal to the individual.
So all of this sprinkled rhetoric about me needing to chill out, that's solely your slant. And the optics aren't great either: you first perplexed by my "inability" then sniding me with anti-intellectualism disguised as gee-whiz 'child at heart' adorable-little-girl-in-video sentiment and in the same stretch calling it overreactive hyperbole when I probe and challenge the merit of said sentiment. Maybe that's not you're honest intent, but it's certainly the optics. Just sayin'.
The chill pill was more of a joke, meant to play off your "supplement" comment. That was supposed to be funny, not confrontational. Wasn't my intention to be confrontational. Some of the other stuff, yeah, a little bit confrontational. Do you think when you refer to someone's opinions and stances as weird (an insult), that you won't get some snark back? A comment that obviously looks down upon some fans and their "lower levels of sophistication" for liking TFA for reasons you don't agree with? You get to just throw that out there? Now, I am not an overall fan of TFA, but, there are things I like about it, and for the reasons you were insulting fans as having a lower level of sophistication over. When people throw the "drinking the koolaid" phrase out there, it is at the very least a disparaging remark of the other person's views, if not a direct insult. (the obvious origins of the phrase coming from the Jonestown incident of fanatics commiting suicide) Again, you expected to just throw that out there without a little jab back? Angels with devils horns? Or devils with angel wings? lol As I have said before. Rey is but the tool of the larger discussion. I was never looking for you to actually make a list, or give in and say something nice about her. I don't care if you ever do or don't. I am not invested in trying to get you to say something nice about her. The larger context of the conversation is just an interesting conversation to have. |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Aug 25, 2021 4:14:41 GMT
Quick preface: I've moved some comments around to better align my thoughts, hopefully not at the expense of yours. Some would say that our small discussion here is a subset of the larger discussion of "Toxic Fandom". The toxic fandom, to some degree, is the result of adult fans wanting Kids movies to be kids movie made for adults. A movie built with the removal of the child like whim, and replaced with more adult (ie dark) themes built into the same fantasy world that the adults loved as kids. That is why Jar Jar is so derided. The idea that things like poop jokes, or fart jokes don't belong in a Star Wars movie. Well, it's a damned Kids movie, kids think that stuff is funny. Yet a large segment of the fandom forgets that it's ok to laugh at a fart joke or a poop joke, like a little kid would, and instead throw a hissy fit over it. Clutching pearls as if their adultness has been offended. Great. Has nothing to do with me, the views I'm expressing. Again, I don't know how I can make it any "simpler" for you.. I have never said your disdain for Rey is not genuine. I never said that you couldn't have those opinions. I never said that if you only do what I say, than you would have an epiphany on the character and all of a sudden love her unflinchingly. All I have ever suggested is that sometimes we (all of us, not just an indictment of you), have to remember that these movies are kids movies. That we can interact with them, at least a little bit, on the level of the experiences we had with the movies when we were kids to find some enjoyable things. That's all really. You are unrelenting in your sentiment that this is impossible for the brain to do. I disagree. No, that hasn't been my argument. At all. You seem to be falling on my statement on the sprinkling of nostalgia as the tool of my hypocrisy (my word, not yours, but obviously your sentiment). Again, you are missing the point I have made over and over. I am not trying to approach this a mathematical proof where if only you do "X", than "Y" happens in totality. Over all, I do not like TFA, but, there are fun parts of it that I can appreciate it because it does bring me back to my childhood of loving Star Wars. I have never implied it is all or nothing. And yet you're puzzled by the notion that someone might not have as much fun with those "fun parts" as you do, or a child hypothetically; that someone's overall takeaway of a movie -- or its lead heroine -- is chiefly a product of their preferences for storytelling above any general youthful enthusiasms; and that, as a result, when asked to conjure up something positive to say about the character, they say very little. Yes? No? There's so much vagueness, reduction, bad correlation and context-disregard going on here that now it's just starting to come across like you're baiting. I guess I could try and pick up all these pieces, or instead maybe I'll attempt to streamline this whole debate as best I can.
I think + something + was poorly crafted = I didn't like it
(Many aspects of the ST broad and finite but, for the moment, the character Rey being no exception) I'd say that's a pretty brass tacks formula, yet one you seem to be having a bizarrely difficult time with.
"But it was crafted for kids so, even if poorly done, you should still be able to like it because: it was crafted for kids, because: we can all be a kid at heart."
I...I don't know what that means.
First of all, you should really try to avoid wielding "being a kid at heart" like some kind of universal metric when in fact it is an inherently subjective thing that from one person to the next will factor into their enjoyment to varying degrees ...or maybe not all, lastingly, if other negative factors persist. It's odd that this has to be explained. Citing a bunch of popular kid-friendly entertainment or grown ups in cosplay or poop jokes or even a George Lucas quote—I don't know what point any of this is supposed to make. People like stuff? Adults like stuff that's for kids? Okay. I'm sure they do. I know I do. But that's not a fixed outcome. I never said it was a fixed outcome... And yet you're puzzled that I'm not a part of an outcome that can warm to the character of Rey and in turn peg my disposition as one that is compromised. Yes? No? Your example was nostalgia. Nostalgia does not illustrate how a person can at once genuinely, holistically not like a movie -- it's content, characters, execution -- and genuinely, holistically like that same movie via general associations with positive childhood memories & experiences. As you're arguing it, nostalgia only illustrates one's selective investment to begin with; how they go into a movie primarily with a certain standard predicated on, as you say, "member berries." When people have an overwhelmingly positive takeaway because nostalgia is what's working for them the most then it's because nostalgia is what's working for them the most and thus by definition either cut slack elsewhere with story & characters or don't harbor as much sophistication/investment with the latter to begin with. That does not exemplify how the brain can decidedly like and not like something conclusively. I don't think anything can. Because the brain doesn't work that way. Yes.. "selective investment" built when they were a kid. So that "selective investment" is cashed in as an adult in the form of remembering what it was like to be a kid. The brain firing on those memories and releasing a dopamine rush. I enjoy remembering what it was like to be kid, so I am going to try and recreate that memory to some degree. Why.
This is what I was talking about earlier, about this seeming like a lot of work (which you misinterpreted as something defensive).
What exactly is the point of this exercise, to help one recognize and appreciate how a child might enjoy these movies or their heroine? I can do that already, sans the psychological gymnastics—for the love of St. Timothy let that corner of the debate be put to bed already. So, what is the point of this exercise? Perhaps to provide for one's own sake at having a bit of fun where there might otherwise not be any? Call me crazy, but, that sorta sounds like the opposite of fun outright. Fun for me, with movies, is an organic reaction to the sum of parts (childlike enthusiasm among them, certainly) working together; not perfectly, by necessity, but at least working together more than folding under inept craft and lack of inspiration.
Even if I could mind-conduct as you describe above, what results just seems like a hollow value: mere association ..."happy thoughts" fundamentally divorced from the movie before me on its own terms. Hooray. When was the last time you had a dopamine rush over remembering how you paid the bills last month or last year? Any nostalgia over mowing the lawn a few years ago? How about that child like feeling that rushed over you when you remembered how much you crushed cleaning that pool? Once again, you continue to suggest it has to be all or nothing. I have never implied that. You are simply making that a part of your argument that I have never made. We "cut slack" with characters and movies all the time. When something doesn't make sense in a movie, we fill in the gaps ourselves in order to make the disconnect work. How does Padme know they were heading to a cave in AOTC... If we like the movies, we tend to fill that in with a reason that works for us. If we don't like the movies we tend to find it a unconceivable error in writing and movie making. Obi Wan not force running through the energy walls/gates.. If you like TPM, than you come up with a reason, if you don't like it, than you deride it. A lot of fans have even convinced themselves that we can appreciate the ewoks ONLY from the metaphorical standpoint they represent, instead of just saying, I ALSO liked them as a kid, I ALSO enjoyed them as a kid, so I am not going to shit on that because the movie was made for kids and I can remember what that was like, while also appreciating them from the more adult and sophisticated view. Both things can exist at the same time.
Some do this, maybe, to an RLM degree that is more rhetorical than insightful. Some do this, but not everyone. And the examples you give are fairly petty either way: 1. Padme refers to it as a "hangar", presumably the nearest, which would seem like a logical place that exists, a logical step in Dooku's escape and is a location for which there's no reason to assume is beyond the Clone troopers' ability to obtain/track; 2. Obi-Wan is tired, mid fight with a Sith no less, and had just plummeted thirty feet. (Note: it was only my best guess that the scene with Padme you're referring to is the one I discussed, or perhaps it's where she and Anakin first land on Geonosis. If the latter, that one's even easier to make sense of)
Am I stretching? Am I bending over backwards? I dunno. I don't think these scenes require annotations in the scripting to keep audiences from getting lost in the dramatic narrative, nor some irrational leap of love for the movie in order to explain post hoc, but they can be excuses for anyone looking to justify their shallow preferences as pithy, valid criticisms, as we've all heard many times over by now. My only point is that when people make allowances, they make them per their standards. Everything that determines a person's enjoyment comes from their own standards. But standards differ. For some, nostalgia is not at the top of the list, nor does it even hold much influence over isolated components of a movie, a character, this or that. Now, Mike... I know that when speaking about alternately routed positives & enjoyment of a movie, or Rey in this case, I know you don't mean it as an absolute, as that which completely overturns one's opinion. I get that, okay? Just wanna be clear here. But understand that when reconsidering or salvaging Rey as a character, I'm only really working from lasting impressions. Again, the sum total of elements as mentioned above. I can highlight a few qualities that went into the character's onscreen realization. I can and have since. I...suppose...I can even single out the very basic idea, in theory, of a plucky Star Wars heroine swashbuckling her way through Star Wars set-pieces, and remember back how I enjoyed the character Luke as a kid on similar, cursory grounds. But that doesn't do anything for me emotionally. I simply get no worth from it. To me it comes off more cerebral than organic.
If I have something lastingly positive to gleam-then-say, it comes from the lasting impression—the whole, the aggregate, the modus operandi, the butterfly rather than the caterpillar, the symphony rather than that one cellist, call it what you will. I don't think mine is a particularly abnormal mindset..?
If it is, well, it is. *shrugs*
But that's where I'm coming from when dismissing nostalgia or childhood wonderment as a magic wand. It's what I mean when I say the brain doesn't work that way: no semblance of fond memory is enough to cultivate positives amid someone's otherwise negative takeaway of a character; at least not any positives that go beyond a relatively superficial recognition; nothing sincere to that individual's enjoyment. I can easily nod in abstract agreement to any general claim that Rey is fun for little girls because she's "live-action" and "brave" and "daring" and "she wields a lightsaber", but said nod wouldn't be much for its weight in gold.
Now maybe to you, the idea of bringing a kids opinion of a kids movie, where the creator of the movies says he made the movies for kids, should not be accounted for in praise or criticism... I disagree. Simple as that. I mean, when a movie is made for kids, as a means to teach kids moral lessons, create modern mythologies to teach kids lessons of how our society operates, than it is important that kids relate and react to the characters. We shouldn't lose sight of that in our discussions, and even our opinions. Not sure why that would not be part of any conversation about the characters, themes etc etc of a movie that is made for kids. Think on ^this^ paragraph for a moment. Think hard. Moral lessons? Modern mythologies? I'm assuming that by this you don't simply mean wisdoms and pop-myths as a mere mission statement but wisdoms and pop-myths that are effective. Mike. Homie. How do you think this is done? How do you think one achieves such an endeavor? Well, they have to craft it. Craft it well. Thoughtfully. With some structure. With some integrity in things like plotting and characterization. Maybe even with some thematic wit. Hell, maybe even with some filmmaking prowess. If one is to discuss whether such an endeavor fails or succeeds, to whatever degree, would it not make sense that the emphasis would be on the above and all the details therein?
Now, imagine someone were to chime in with: "Yeah, but it's made for kids. I think we should remember that. Here, check out this Youtube video of this adorable little girl."
"For kids" does not a good movie make, of course. But not even an insightful argument does it make—either way, not even if you were attempting it as a means of criticizing the movie (see below). It is all but a circular non-point. Observe your own paragraph above as an illustration: you stress kids as the target demographic and yet are forced address the underlying value that is meaningful, effective content. You could add to the debate a triple-stuffed-Oreo sentiment on how important it is to remember that kid audiences are the ultimate agenda, and yet for that to mean anything you'll still end up back at square one, discussing the actual content and its crafting.
I'm not holding my nose up at the idea that these movies are on some intrinsic level made for kids. It's a perfectly valid fact...that goes nowhere. It does next to nothing to illuminate whether or not a character works, or how. Kids on average have fairly, how shall we say, liberal standards, being happy enough with spectacle and episodic heroics, and are typically none too invested in neither the nuts 'n' bolts of storytelling nor potential curiosities of pop-auteur cinema. Hey, do you know who is? George Lucas. How 'bout that. Yes, he geared his art towards youth but, internally, under the hood, likewise built and maintained a well-oiled machine in storytelling and filmmaking. So which is more relevant when discussing how well the thing drives, the engine or the passengers? The latter is mainly an expressed sentiment that obviously nobody should (nor even logically could) refute, but also one that practically brings nothing to the table... Huh. That sounds vaguely familiar.
... Pointing out kids who love the ST doesn't bring a whole lot to the table as a discussion equal to actually praising or criticizing the films themselves, was my only point. It's the difference between Star Wars and Strange Magic. One connected with kids, and that connection has lasted for decades where, for most of us, we can still make that connection. And the other did not connect with kids at all, and is now a defunct piece of media that most people will never know existed. And they came from the same guy.. So I disagree with you on the importance of taking into account how kids connect with these characters, or at least if they are worthy of part of the discussion of praise or criticism. Not for nothing, but, to say Strange Magic didn't connect with kids is a gross generalization. I'd wager that most little kids who watched the movie plainly enjoyed it in a basic sense. A number of factors played into it going down the memory hole, it's marketing and release post-Disney takeover being central; Disney could've easily made a success of it in the same vein as their home video Tinker Bell spinoff series, if nothing else. Moreover, it simply was not a work whose ambition equaled that of a live-action Star Wars feature, nor did it have the luxury of any such pop-cultural cache. Personally, I found the movie mildly charming for the most part, a few garish song choices and facial animation designs aside. I thought it a clever change-up of fairy tale conventions and that its mischief was Jim-Henson-like, akin to Fraggle Rock or Labyrinth.
In any event, drawing this comparison was an odd move as it inadvertently does you no favors. Let's say one were to nonetheless argue how the movie doesn't connect with kid audiences, as well-enough as it should at least. Alright. What exactly would be the drift of their argument?
"It didn't connect with kids and therefore doesn't work because when something is made for kids but doesn't connect with kids then it fails because kids are the target demographic and this didn't connect with kids. Take Star Wars. Star Wars was made for kids and it connected with kids. So it works. But this doesn't connect with kids. So it doesn't. Because kids. Also, did I mention kids?"
Or would they actually, ya know, opine on stuff like storylines and characterization, aesthetics, musical numbers, pacing etc., analogize the filmmaking via other animated musicals of a similar persuasion. Stuff like that.
If someone were to criticize Star Wars for the mere presence of Jar Jar slapstick or because it lacks the challenge of a Bertolt Brecht play, countering with the fact that the movie is in no small measure intended for children is about as instrumental as such a fact can be, equivalent to redirecting a person down the hall to the German Modernist Theater class. The more someone actually contends, praises or criticizes Star Wars on its own terms, within a reasonable context, how coherent its archetypes are and how well they facilitate a myth wonder-tale, the more said fact becomes virtually useless as a point of discussion. Nothing I've argued so far is a rebuke of you telling me what I have to do. But you are inquiring as to why I'm not vibing with a character as you and others do, yes? Moreover, by this juncture, you're quoting my articulations with clear enough mockery and in general tagging me as a self-serious snob—all of this on the premise of "being a kid at heart", or failing to do so in my case. What I've been arguing is the logic of this premise, it's limitations, how it's built on a false dichotomy and, yes, how it seems to dictate a fixed movie-going mentality above any other considerations personal to the individual.
So all of this sprinkled rhetoric about me needing to chill out, that's solely your slant. And the optics aren't great either: you first perplexed by my "inability" then sniding me with anti-intellectualism disguised as gee-whiz 'child at heart' adorable-little-girl-in-video sentiment and in the same stretch calling it overreactive hyperbole when I probe and challenge the merit of said sentiment. Maybe that's not you're honest intent, but it's certainly the optics. Just sayin'.
The chill pill was more of a joke, meant to play off your "supplement" comment. That was supposed to be funny, not confrontational. Wasn't my intention to be confrontational. Some of the other stuff, yeah, a little bit confrontational. Do you think when you refer to someone's opinions and stances as weird (an insult), that you won't get some snark back? A comment that obviously looks down upon some fans and their "lower levels of sophistication" for liking TFA for reasons you don't agree with? You get to just throw that out there? Now, I am not an overall fan of TFA, but, there are things I like about it, and for the reasons you were insulting fans as having a lower level of sophistication over. When people throw the "drinking the koolaid" phrase out there, it is at the very least a disparaging remark of the other person's views, if not a direct insult. (the obvious origins of the phrase coming from the Jonestown incident of fanatics commiting suicide) Again, you expected to just throw that out there without a little jab back? Angels with devils horns? Or devils with angel wings? lol As I have said before. Rey is but the tool of the larger discussion. I was never looking for you to actually make a list, or give in and say something nice about her. I don't care if you ever do or don't. I am not invested in trying to get you to say something nice about her. The larger context of the conversation is just an interesting conversation to have. What I observed in the previous post regarding optics, I wasn't talking about something that was confrontational, let alone something that offended me (I'm pretty thick-skinned—I think I'll live), but rather that which potentially undercuts the integrity of your own position in a manner I detailed. To reiterate, if you wish to spotlight for its own worth the unaffected enthusiasms of kid audiences with anything-Star Wars and how such might possibly serve a more positive ethos, turning around and mocking as an elitist anyone who expresses a differing sophistication bent on wits/artistry can make the whole thing seem a bit disingenuousness. Though, again, this is just the perception. And I may hold my standards high, yes, even over others in a way unavoidable; it's up to others whether or not they take insult. But I don't think expressing as much negates my arguments, nor my candidness. |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Aug 25, 2021 6:12:17 GMT
Bravo, boys! You both win the internet. Gold stars for everybody. Everyone wins the internet. I still don't quite know what you guys were arguing about, let alone why, but you sure did do a good job. Keep going. 🤗
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Aug 25, 2021 20:39:11 GMT
 Star Wars: Episode III - That's For Babies! Revenge of the Sith |
|
