Welcome to the Playpen, our space for ferrety banter and whimsical snippets of things that aren't quite long enough for articles (although they might be) but that caught your eye anyway.
No spoiler tags because if seeing Star Wars unspoiled was a big deal to you but you still haven't seen it yet then either you're being lazy as fuck or you've got enough higher-priority things going on in your life that Star Wars probably doesn't seem that important in context anyway.
I don't get the complaints about Rey's extensive skillset. She's been fending for herself in an outpost occupied by a baffling variety of aliens and scavenges starship parts for a living. Learning self-defence skills, a wide scattering of languages, and how starship engineering works are all perfectly appropriate things for her to pick up along the way. The only really mysterious "why is she that competent?" issue is her capability to resist and turn around Kylo Ren's force interrogation without formal training, but frankly trashing the idea of a formal Jedi Academy with organised classes in favour of Force use being something you discover within yourself, either by yourself or with the help of a guide, works just fine for me - and Force stuff works perfectly as a mysterious "there's something more going on here" thing.
Naughty fan theory: so, the lightsaber used by Anakin and Luke alike is almost a character in itself by this point. It literally summons Rey with the wails of a screaming child, and shows her glimpses of all sorts of things connected to its past bearers.
I like to imagine that the screaming child is one of the younglings massacred in Revenge of the Sith. And I especially like to imagine that Disney secretly got Michael Moorcock to consult on the movies, and the saber in question is this dimension's local incarnation of Stormbringer.
But I guess I chose to focus on the robot, because the new movie itself was amusing enough, but was just so much doing the same thing again and so blatantly, that it his hard to really grasp at anything more concrete. I'm happy the movie is doing well and its great that the protagonists are more diverse, but all in all it was just so flat. The new robot doesn't do anything. The stormtrooper guy does stuff, but for unknown reasons. The chosen one is the worst kind of chosen one, the kind that just knows stuff, because they're chosen. One of the strong points of the original trilogy was that it made its world building deeper by referencing the passing of time quite well also. So the wizardry is more credible, when it actually takes a significant amount of time to learn the magic. At first, he was clearly unskilled, doing the only trick with the help of the space monk ghost (destroying the death star). Next, he is training, but is clearly far from mastering anything. And finally he becomes a master after at least some years have passed.
So if someone just knows how to do stuff, it lessens the impact of the skill and is kin of nonsensical anyways. Same thing ruined Kung-Fu Panda for me. Yeah, so I guess some things did bug me about the new movie... but in the end, not really that much. It was alright, but nothing more. Which I don't really know why I expected it to be or why it even should be more.
@Daniel: Yeah, I'm not sure how that happened. I agree the Expanded Universe is too niche to be responsible, and that our Western obsession with Manichaean binaries is a more likely culprit, but maybe doesn't tell the whole story. It'd be an interesting topic for a bit of pop culture archeology. I do feel like the language use may be partly to blame as well, because to me, referring to "sides" implies two equal portions which are opposed in some fashion.
@Janne: Sorry I didn't get to you before, but I meant to say that even though it didn't bother me, I see where you're coming from with BB-8. Artoo was a very proactive character, but BB-8 is almost entirely reactive.
Anyway, the more I think about, the more I think I know who would have been a much better actor to play Kylo Ren and to bring out those qualities mentioned in the "Dorks Awaken" essay: Hayden Christensen. The biggest complaints about his portrayal of Anakin after all (whiny, petulant, emotionally unstable) are precisely the traits which define the Kylo Ren character. The key difference being that unlike Driver, Christensen could still pull off being legitimately threatening when he needed to (slaughtering Tusken Raiders in Attack of the Clones, slaughtering kids and battling Obi-Wan in Revenge of the Sith).
I've even joked in the past that casting Driver might have been a stealthy attempt on Abrahms' part to rehabilitate Christensen, but the more I think about it, the more it fits. And hey, as long as they were ripping off Darth Vader's character arc for him anyway ... (I think that's the one element of the movie which really, genuinely, and truly pissed me off.)
thank goodness they went with that stereotype, rather than "Middle Eastern terrorist" - what a trainwreck that would have been
Yeah, what would that have been like? A small group of young male insurgents who believe in a weird religion and who hate a vastly more powerful oppressive nation plot to blow up one of its giant symbolic installations. Though most of them die in the process they succeed against all odds, but immediately afterwards their leaders are forced to go deep into hiding as a galaxy-wide manhunt begins.
That would've been terrible! ;)
It's really quite bizarre. If you just go from the OT and PT, there is no such as the Light Side. There is only the Force, in a vaguely monistic way that waffles its way in between the Brahman and Abraham's God. Per the films only, Star Wars' morality is not actually dualistic. There is only the Force/life/goodness/whatever, and evil is to defect from it. The closest you get to any idea of a 'light side' is in the occasional somewhat confused quote from Luke, e.g. "How am I to tell the good side from the bad?"
Yet it has somehow become a pop culture truism that Star Wars is about a dualistic conflict between Light Side and Dark Side, which are epitomised by Jedi and Sith.
On the one hand, it's tempting to blame the EU for that, since everything from comics to video games embrace that framework, but that might be overstating the influence of materials that most of the public never looked at. My speculation would be that it's something to do with the way contemporary Western cultures think about morality, and that we've somehow applied a cheap Manichaean heuristic so deeply even to the point that we hold up Star Wars as an exemplar of something it doesn't really show. But that doesn't explain why Star Wars.
All pain is sympathetic, but many actions taken as the result of pain, and maybe even most of them, are not.
As for the main substance of the article: I remember there was a podcast discussion somewhere of how Darth Vader was the embodiment of "The Man," the biggest social fear of late 70s/early 80s in the US; and how Kylo Ren is the embodiment of the modern social fear: the frustrated, unstable, entitled young man with a gun on a killing spree (in which case, thank goodness they went with that stereotype, rather than "Middle Eastern terrorist" - what a trainwreck that would have been). This is a pretty good breakdown of how Kylo Ren works in that role.
Mind you, I do think Kylo Ren is one of the movie's weak points, but not precisely because he's uncool. Not even because he's utterly laughable when you see his face and hear his voice without the mask. In the right hands, you could make a character who is at times pathetic and even laughable scary and a serious threat: that's basically the spree killer profile as the author notes. The problem is that while Kylo Ren is obviously supposed to be menacing, whenever I see Adam Driver's face and hear his voice, I cannot take him at all seriously. Even when he's doing kind of dangerous things, he exudes this aura of wimpiness where I can't find him the least bit scary.
the concept of the Force and its Light and Dark Sides, a concept that has probably been the most important contribution to pop-culture ethics in living memory.
I took "pop-culture ethics" to refer to "how we use pop culture in discussions of ethics"; and in the sense of how we refer to people and organizations as "going to the Dark Side" as a shorthand for engaging in behavior which we view as reprehensible, I think it's probably an accurate observation.
Arthur: The way the guy goes on about how life just keeps sucking after high school feels to me as though he is taking his own personal experiences and trying to present them as a universal truth, which is a bad move in general but is particularly difficult to go along with in the context of what he's criticising in the article.
Throughout the piece, I felt like he was talking about a certain subgroup of white, straight, male nerds rather than the collective nerd experience, or even the collective white, straight, male nerd experience. I didn't see him as making a universal claim about the the kind of expectations straight white male nerds had coming out of high school, or feeling left out because there are no white guys among the new crop of protagonists, or a bunch of other items. I figured he was talking about the kind of white male nerd who's a high risk of becoming an internet troll, or, in extreme cases, a mass murderer. And I can believe those guys have had a difficult and disappointing time coming out of high school.
(My life experiences have hardly been typical, but yeah, suffice it to say it's gone through many improvements and transformations after what would've been high school if I'd ever gone. As with most people, I suspect, it's been a series of ups and downs, not things just generally sucking.)
I would think that the sort of dualism that Star Wars so incoherently puts out is actually not very significant in any sort of ethics. Talking philosophy wise, isn't Star Trek a much better take on ethics, pop-culture or otherwise. Of course it does raise a question of what the hell pop-culture ethics are supposed to be. I guess Matrix is the most important contribution to pop-culture ontology then. What of logic and epistemology?
My main peeve about the movie, BTW, which is not really that important,I guess, but is symptomatic of some shallowness in the new characters, is BB-8. One of the cool things about R2-D2 was that it was not a beeping puppy with a memory stick, just reacting to stuff like emojis, but it actually did all sorts of stuff. It started to crack Death Star immediately and both found the princess and saved them from the garbage crusher, but further on it also fixed the Millenium Falcon and did all sorts of important stuff. At times it seemed that it was the only thing who actually had a real idea about what was happening. But BB-8 is just a pet. I do not know why that disappoints me so.
Then again, the way he talks about how the positive attention parents promise you will get after you graduate high school never manifests suggests a slightly unfortunate personal history, so maybe I'm being a bit hard on the guy.
In my experience, the trick to having a much more positive time of it after leaving school is to recognise your new freedom to actively associate with people you like and get on with and avoid the company of people you don't really have anything in common with, and to grab that opportunity tightly and run with it. That's where the positive attention starts coming in.
The way the guy goes on about how life just keeps sucking after high school feels to me as though he is taking his own personal experiences and trying to present them as a universal truth, which is a bad move in general but is particularly difficult to go along with in the context of what he's criticising in the article.
Is this what you mean by indulging massively in nerd self-mythologizing? Because I had a hard time taking him seriously after that (although he does make some interesting arguments.)
Spoilers for The Force Awakens, though frankly if you were invested enough in the movie that spoilers would ruin your day you should really have seen it by now.
I think that there are studies to the effect that gaming, television, and other backlit screen activities tend to be antithetical to the kind of mindset most people need for healthy sleep, but that really doesn't change the fact that having some knowledge and involvement in such interests makes it far easier to say when things need to be put down in the first place. To whit, giving some leeway now and then can reinforce a mutual understanding regarding things like healthy sleep schedules.
Or such is my entirely secondhand experience in the matter. I am well-aware that I am nowhere near stable or mature enough at this juncture to handle having a child, let alone one anything like me, even if observation has given me some ideas about how I might be able to survive the ordeal.
Some bias comes from proximity, sure, but I don't think it's necessarily wrong that that is the case
@Arthur: I didn't really intend to suggest it was a problem, sorry for any ambiguity. I was just thinking about possible causes and explanations. "My neighbours will be ticked off, social harmony will decrease and I may experience uncomfortable interactions" isn't a bad reason for caring more about potentially disrupting an adult friend's game versus some stranger in another country.
Perhaps it is a sign that I would be a bad parent but my instinctive response to "I just need to finish this one thing" at bedtime would be "Well, you should have started it earlier then".
No, that sounds about right. But of course some parents, maybe even a substantial part, might well be clueless for a number of reasons. But parents who are gamers will of course realize what's what. And hopefully impart manners to their children for gaming and other online related activities as well. I don't play that much anymore myself, but I'm lookoing forward to playing with my children, when they get older. The older is quite good at Mario Kart and it adds a new mode to the game, guarding and helping another driver to finish as high as possible, which is pretty interesting. Having to snipe the other karts and push them off the road.