"I can't wait for the next Star Wars, so I can be subconsciously told that white men and tradition are bad, and women, brown people, and iconoclasm are good some more."The film induced me at the time to create this graphic illustration of the differences between what leftists and Conservatives expect in movies.
The Last Jedi was such a profound disappointment. I walked out of the theater with a protracted sigh. I'd just watched the deliberate murder of one of the most beloved franchises in entertainment history.
The portrayal of the male seen in the list above, just as in The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., was plainly manifest in the TLJ via the arc of Poe Dameron. If you didn't see it, you weren't paying attention, or you're simply blind. Poe was the typical pig headed, brash male, of leftist entertainment. His attempt at "man-splaining" was shut down by the "strong" and "independent" vice admiral purple hair. And purple hair's superior, calm and collected female wisdom, eventually prevailed and exposed Poe's masculine folly. Her and Leia condescendingly revel in their mutual superiority over stupid, brash, male Poe Dameron. And rightly so. I mean, what have men ever accomplished with their pig headedness? Besides establishing civilization, American liberty, ending German fascism, etc., etc., etc.
"Feminists" will of course argue those accomplishments have no merit, because all of those conflicts and circumstances resolved by men were created by men. Men are a blight. The world would be much better off under female rule, because women are never visceral, brash, obtuse, or violent.
This portrayal of men is, as with all things concerning the left, the opposite of reality. Everything leftists say and believe is, without fail, the utter converse of truth/reality. It is typically women that are driven by emotion, and men who are pragmatic by nature. This existential truth is often depicted via memes in which a woman complains to her boyfriend/husband about a personal problem, and then chides the man for proposing a solution to the problem, when she wanted him to "just listen." Sure, there are exceptions to this paradigm. I've seen/met pragmatic women (Margaret Thatcher) and emotional men (Joel Osteen), but as a general rule women are the more visceral, as they are nurturers by nature. And to make the former into the latter far too often comes at the expense of extirpating their feminine virtues.
If anyone was paying attention they would have noticed this portrayal of men employed in the last election.
What Hillary's really saying is, I'm more rational and level leaded, and therefore more trustworthy; because I'm a woman. You don't want the brash, petulant, pig headed man with his finger on the nuclear button. Because men, as portrayed by Poe Dameron, are impulsive and stupid. You want the calm, cool, and collected woman making those decisions. Even a woman who's been mired in controversy her entire life is better than a man being in charge. Because women approach everything from a female serenity of which men are incapable.
It is no less fallacious to portray men as incapable of self-restraint and placid lucidity than it is to portray women as suited purely for the kitchen. But again, leftists have no problem engaging in the sort of abject generalization of which they claim to be victim.
It's not coincidence that leftists have completely subverted entertainment, and this narrative is constantly pushed therein. Entertainment has a significant influence upon people, and people do to a significant degree emulate entertainment. How many of you recognize, or have heard the phrase "I'm Rick James bitch" from someone you know? People, particularly young stupid millennials, are heavily influenced by their entertainment. And leftists like Kathleen Kennedy know this. These portrayals of men and women, inversely to their traditional portrayal, in modern entertainment is not coincidence. It's social engineering to which the young are, and have always been, the most vulnerable. It behooves a totalitarian state (or those seeking to establish one) to extirpate masculinity and ruggedness, and inculcate the notion that "violence never solves anything."
It behooves a totalitarian state (or those seeking to establish one) for a populace to believe that unwavering deference, or peaceful "dialogues," are the only acceptable recourse to any problem. But that's not the truth; that's not reality. There are times when that is indeed the preferable solution to a circumstance, and times when the circumstance requires brash, risk taking, masculine aggression. It's not that women are "inferior," it's that men and women are different, but different is contrary to the Socialist myth of "equality." So it promotes masculine qualities in women and feminine qualities in men, and what you ultimately get with both, is some androgynous crap in the middle. What's lost in the process is the spirit of "opposing with manly firmness (the King's) invasions on the rights of the people," that gave birth to all the things traditionally American we love.
If "feminists" like Kathleen Kennedy have their way traditional gender roles will be extirpated. Femininity is a disability in women, in their minds, and masculinity a vice in men. Neither of us, men or women, can be ourselves or true to our nature under the psychotic Socialist paradigm. Both of us are assiduously being nudged, coerced, and warped into being something contrary to it.
I recall some "feminist" appeal, years ago, for women to major in engineering to mitigate or eliminate the disparity in engineering degrees obtained by women and men; as if that were some kind of "problem" that needed to be solved. In such instances the Marxist roots of Feminism shine through; this doctrinaire insistence on eliminating disparity, with no regard for pragmatic concerns or cognizance of any other factors, wherever it exists. If a woman wants to major in engineering so be it, but what's wrong with most women not wanting to be engineers? Again, it illustrates the (ironic) hatred for the female gender endemic to and on constant display in "feminism." Don't be a woman. Don't like things girls like. Be a man. Like what men like. Do what men do. Because being female is a form of disability to leftists, that can only be cured by turning women into doppelgangers of men; this coming from a movement that claims to be the vanguard of "diversity." (Again, always the opposite of what it purports.)
Some (leftists) will of course argue this hyperbole or nonsense. But Kathleen Kennedy made her feminist (feminist merely being code for female Socialist) disposition abundantly clear in her remarks to the New York Times.
"I don’t feel that I have a responsibility to cater in some way. [...] I would never just seize on saying, 'Well, this is a franchise that’s appealed primarily to men for many, many years, and therefore I owe men something.'"This is Kathleen Kennedy basically saying **** men; especially white men. And this statement as such conveys everything wrong, on a fundamental level, with the new Star Wars films. Who, if not white males, made SW the film/entertainment juggernaut it is? But they deserve no consideration, according to Kennedy, who like all leftists apparently believes you should cater to everyone equally, regardless of their level of contribution, etc. One sees this same mentality in leftists regarding any other number of things, e.g., the notion that Americans, i.e., the people who make the country what it is, shouldn't be catered to in its immigration policies. Rather, we should try to cater to everyone equally, even non-citizens and criminals who played no significant part (if any) in its creation and prosperity. Of course when a leftist says treat or represent everyone "equally," what they really mean is extend preferential treatment to everyone besides white Christian males of European descent.
Anyone paying attention will immediately recognize that this is the exact same agenda of leftist orchestrated demographic transition we see in politics. Kennedy is doing to Star Wars, and leftists to our entertainment in general, what Marxist politicians like Nancy Pelosi are doing to America. Kennedy, like Pelosi, hates white men, and doesn't want the Star Wars universe filled with them, in the same manner that Pelosi doesn't want America (or any other country) filled with them. And so both are flagrantly doing their part to purge them from their respective spheres of prominence, regardless of the consequences for such, and even if it means their complete ruination. Just as Pelosi would gladly drive America into the ground to procure the elimination of white men from positions of prominence in politics, or altogether, Kennedy will gladly do the same to the SW franchise, rather than continue catering to the demographic that made it, and her posh lifestyle from association with it, possible. And it will have the same result for the films as it has for the country. Perpetual decline, as subversive iconoclasts extirpate everything that made it special, in the pursuit of that most fundamental and illusory construct of the leftist mind; "equality."
To that end Screen Rant's Valerie Davis says.
"A bigger test for this franchise would actually come when and if a those film posters ever feature more women than men."The abject senseless drivel these people produce from their benighted, shriveled brains, never ceases to amaze me. Again, this is an utterly typical display of leftist anti-logic. This sentiment, along with Kathleen Kennedy's above, is tantamount to saying the Madea film franchise should try to appeal more to white people, and depict more white people in its posters, than black people. But of course that will never happen. It's only okay to exclude and be racist toward white people; especially white men. Why do this? Why would you try to represent, and appeal more to a demographic that doesn't make what you're doing possible, than the one that does? Well, because that's what leftists do, for reasons I've already explained. Artificially create parity wherever you find disparity, no matter the cost, with no consideration for the fact that some things find their natural balance through imbalance.
What little interest for this franchise that remained for me was promptly strangled, the moment I saw that Lando was apparently a sexual deviant, and the new droid in this film was a droid rights activist.
What's so revolutionary about L3-37? Well, she apparently feels really strongly about droid rights according to the actor that played it.
"'She has a social conscience, which is really great to play,' says Waller-Bridge, 32. 'There’s a fire in her belly and something she cares about.'"People will probably say this all a big, unwarranted fuss, over an improvised joke that made it into the movie. And that may very well true. I haven't seen the movie, but it occurred to me. But those people would also be missing the point. And what is that point? That leftists don't, and can't elevate art, but are invariably compelled to inject their own prejudices and predilections (via the actress's pursuit of "social justice" in this instance) into it, and render art a reflection of their vices and a vehicle to combat the perceived injustices of the real world in their eyes. I don't want droids with a "social conscience." I want droids that entertain me. But Phoebe Waller-Bridge couldn't let L3-37, be L3-37, in galaxy far, far away. She imbrued the character, and therefore the film, with her own real world political agenda (as all leftists do anything with which they come into proximity).
This is only further illustrated with Lando Calrissian, whom writer Jonathan Kasdan felt compelled to make "pansexual."
I think my favorite part of this article, from that leftist rag and den of reprobates known as the Huffington Post, is this gem.
"Since the beginning of the 'Star Wars' saga, we’ve wondered whether LGBTQ characters exist in George Lucas’ galaxy far, far away. Up until 2018, there had been little to no queer representation in his decades-old franchise. And then 'Solo: A Star Wars Story' happened.'"My immediate thought upon reading this (after laughing that is) is who's "we?" Who the hell watched The Empire Strikes Back in 1980, and sat in the theater thinking to themselves, "I sure wish Lando was a homosexual?" Not me. Lando's "sexuality" never even crossed my mind frankly, much less did I have any desire to have it conveyed to me in any depth. Star Wars movies were never about "sexuality." But now they are. Because with leftists everything is about sexuality, because leftists are hyper-sexualized degenerates, who seek to inject their deviant predilections and proclivities into every aspect of their own life, and everyone else's life too. And this is why I am at this juncture done with Star Wars. Sure, if it turns it self around at some point, I may come back. But my days of buying a ticket with no reservations, no questions asked, are over.
As much as I would like to blame that exclusively on Solo, I can't. The farce that was TLJ had already driven me away. I offered my thoughts on that film on my social media (from which much of my blog is taken nigh verbatim) when it came out. The people responsible for that film were obviously leftists; the film is ostentatiously permeated with the taint of leftist sentiment (as are all things they touch). Its mediocrity is no surprise when this is taken into account, because that's what the leftist worldview produces, mediocrity. Any time a psychotic leftist gets their hands on a thing the outcome is invariably vitiation. Never sublimation. Quixotic, agenda driven, platform affirming excrement always becomes the priority, and pragmatism invariably falls to the wayside. For example, has government been purified or degraded by leftist involvement? Is government more focused on pragmatic concerns when leftists are in charge, or frivolities like "feelings," promoting "diversity," and pursuing Utopian fantasies? TLJ only further served to illustrate this existential truth. And even were that not the case, the writing was simply terrible.
What stood out to me, almost immediately, was that the entire premise of the film was erected upon a fallacious supposition; that fuel is needed to maintain speed in space. The entire film literally revolved around this notion. An object traveling through space will remain at a constant speed, forever, unless some opposing force acts upon that object. Once the Rebels reached the desired velocity, they could have literally shut off the engines completely, and drifted through space at that speed forever. But that obviously creates no tension, so an absurd fuel depletion narrative was devised, that completely disregards how objects operate in space in a movie ostensibly about space battles. Except they're not actually space battles, because ships do things like run out of fuel trying to stay out of range of weapons, the projectiles of which arc downward for some inexplicable reason, as they would in a naval battle occurring in water, under the constraints of an atmosphere and gravity, as opposed to the vacuum of space. I didn't know whether to scoff or guffaw. Inside, I was kind of doing both.
I questioned the utility and practicality of "bombers" in a space battle from the outset of the movie and throughout its duration. One would think any object worth dropping on someone in a fight, is worth shooting at them from a distance, in the vacuum of space; particularly large lumbering Star Destroyers. If the ships could penetrate their shields, then in theory so could the bombs. Bombs which, by the way, illustrate the concept above; i.e., an object in motion stays in motion; seen in how the bombs, after leaving the bomb bays, continued to travel through the vacuum of space at the same speed. The bombers were merely one of numerous blatant contrivances on display in the indolent mess we got in TLJ. I mean, without "bombers" the Rebels wouldn't have had to commit mass suicide by literally parking directly on top of an enemy with superior firepower. And if they wouldn't have done that, how could Rose Tico's sister we don't care about die, in some vain attempt to establish a rapport between the viewer and Rose Tico? (Oh, and to make us care about Asian people in space. You know, because space is a really "diverse" place, in case you didn't know.) The film felt like one extemporaneous contrivance after another moving a lazy story from one ill conceived scenario to the next.
I also loved it when Rose Tico admonished Finn for trying to sacrifice himself to save others, when the only reason they're still alive, is because vice admiral purple hair had just sacrificed herself to save all of them. But none of that matters, because "diversity." Did you know that Rose Tico was the first Asian American in Star Wars? Because the media sure knew; it was gushing over her historical achievement. I mean, never mind that we saw Veronica Ngo, who played Paige Tico, long before we saw Rose. I guess the Vietnamese Veronica wasn't Asian enough or something. And Rogue One's Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang? Apparently they don't count either.
I went into TLJ having spent a year anxiously waiting to learn more about this new villain, Supreme Leader Snoke, who was by far the most interesting new character in the new installments. As the film progressed, and the minutes slipped away, I began to get more and more anxious waiting for his development. Only to have him unceremoniously killed off after having been in the film for mere minutes. I was almost livid when I saw his body, cleaved in twain, slump onto the floor. I muttered a slew of profanities under my breath, almost in disbelief, that this was actually happening. They really just killed off the most interesting new character in the film, and ultimately would do the same to Luke, consequently killing off the two most interesting characters in the film, in some botched attempt to hand the franchise over to these two non-entities, Rey and Kylo Ren.
Or as I call him.
Kylo Ren is easily the worst antagonist in Star Wars history. He contains none of the terror inducing malice of Darth Vader, nor the insidious cunning of the aptly named Darth Sidious. He just gets triggered a lot, shouts at people, and commits acts of vandalism. And that's when it dawned on me. His character, if you look beyond his Star Wars accouterments, is an SJW with a light saber. It's no surprise as such that SJW's are so enamored with him, and portray him as some deep, complex character. They unconsciously see themselves in him. A shockingly superficial and simplistic entity, veiled in illusory depth, just as they are. I mean, Kylo Ren's lightsaber has more personality than he does for Pete's sake. I never cared about Darth Vader or Luke's lightsaber more than I did the characters themselves. But that's how I feel about Kylo Ren.
Just look at The Rolling Stone cover promoting the film.
The same recurring motif. Men take a backseat. Both Kylo and Luke are by their placement subordinated to the superior, "strong" and independent" woman in their lives, Rey. Kylo Ren's supposed to be the new "dark" villain of the SW universe, but he looks like an emasculated, pouting 10 year old who just got spanked by the schoolmarm (after being dominated by female Rey in TFA).
I could go on and on about this, about how I couldn't tell if I was watching Star Wars or The Hunger Games, during their ultimately pointless excursion to the casino planet. A portion of the film that existed purely to subconsciously convey to the audience Rian Johnson and Kathleen Kennedy's nigh palpable loathing of capitalism. They way they butchered the character of Luke Skywalker. This is a guy who preferred to die, rather than strike down his sith lord father in whom he could sense only the most diminutive vestigial remnants of the light, yet tries to murder his nephew in his sleep because he could sense some nascent element of the dark side in him. That probably offended me more than anything else about TLJ; this brazen perversion of virtually every male American sci-fi fan's childhood hero. And don't even get me started on Rey.
I said it then and I'll say it again now. The caliber of writing on display in TLJ, is comparable to what you'd get from me, who's never written a film script in my entire life, if you put a gun to my head and said "write me a Star Wars film in 2 hours."
I'll just conclude here. The internet is now utterly replete with criticism of TLJ. And if current reviews are any indicator, it will be again in regard to Solo.
No comments:
Post a Comment