I had no problem with OTHER Jedi being problematic. Kenobi lied. Yoda lied. Qui Gon was an a-hole. Most of the Jedi were arrogant and self-righteous. There's a lot of classical hubris-leads-to-tragedy in the history of the Jedi.
No, my problem was when they went after Luke Skywalker, who WAS a good and honorable Jedi in spite of all the manipulation. He walked dangerously close to the dark side but never fell.
And then they destroyed his essence.
Even Mark Hamill agreed it was horrible but, as a professional, he did his job and made the movie he was told to make.
They destroyed two of the three main HEROES that way.
And I'm going to be THAT guy for the next three sentences. The only main human character they did NOT do that to was the woman, Princess Leia. But the two men? Both fell into despair and died.
Watchmen was a one-off. Batman gets rebooted every few years. Don't like this one? Wait a few years. There is only one Star Wars canon. What's done is set in stone.
That was what killed "Star Wars" for me, to the point where I watched Episode 9 exactly once and never watched what came after. Because *MY* hero got turned into garbage for no good reason and THAT became canon ever after.
I won’t contest any of that. The fact that there are two well-articulated sides to the story is proof that they were trying to be provocative if not outright transgressive.
I do think that Luke had an off-camera, not shown in flashback, “come-to-Jesus meeting” with the whole of the Jedi order. That may just be head cannon for me.
Eh. Shades of Gray. I said it before: I like Star Wars, even when I don’t like Star Wars.
I guess I just don't see the point of taking heroes and being "transgressive" with them instead of building OTHER characters to transgress. It feels like a cheap trick by writers and filmmakers who can't write good characters.
There was room in 7, 8 and 9 for the younger characters to transgress (they could have had a Luke-trained Jedi be the disillusioned one) but the filmmakers wanted to turn what I loved to filth in order to show how preferable THEIR characters are, which is why my reaction was to reject the franchise. (It's also why I despised the first "Mission Impossible" movie and never watched any sequels.)
*deep breath* I guess this really struck a nerve with me.
Sorry! I didn't mean to drop fire on that gasoline.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about transgressive for the sake of being transgressive. It was novel, then cliche, and now it's just lazy.
OH, the first Mission: Impossible movie was validation that I've never liked Brian de Palma as a director. Man, that was SO unnecessary.
Okay, but, now, having said that, and with time being a great salve, you might like the more recent M:I movies. You KINDA need to watch the third one, because stuff in there comes back in later movies, but also for Phillip Seymour Hoffmann doing a turn as a villain...oh, man, it's worth the price of admission. Anything after the third movie, with Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames, makes for good popcorn flicks.
Now THAT's an idea: a DCU horror series, hosted in alternating episodes by Cain and Abel. (The first comic I ever bought with my own money was in that weird period in 1979 when DC jammed "Tales of the Unexpected," "House of Secrets," "The Witching Hour," and "Madame Xanadu," and I still remember reading, for the first time, the first DC story illustrated by Steve Bissette. Do weekly adaptations of those stories, along with "Tales of Mystery," animated or live-action, and you'd never get me away from the TV.)
"now they’re revising my beloved Jedi Knights"
I had no problem with OTHER Jedi being problematic. Kenobi lied. Yoda lied. Qui Gon was an a-hole. Most of the Jedi were arrogant and self-righteous. There's a lot of classical hubris-leads-to-tragedy in the history of the Jedi.
No, my problem was when they went after Luke Skywalker, who WAS a good and honorable Jedi in spite of all the manipulation. He walked dangerously close to the dark side but never fell.
And then they destroyed his essence.
Even Mark Hamill agreed it was horrible but, as a professional, he did his job and made the movie he was told to make.
They destroyed two of the three main HEROES that way.
And I'm going to be THAT guy for the next three sentences. The only main human character they did NOT do that to was the woman, Princess Leia. But the two men? Both fell into despair and died.
Watchmen was a one-off. Batman gets rebooted every few years. Don't like this one? Wait a few years. There is only one Star Wars canon. What's done is set in stone.
That was what killed "Star Wars" for me, to the point where I watched Episode 9 exactly once and never watched what came after. Because *MY* hero got turned into garbage for no good reason and THAT became canon ever after.
I won’t contest any of that. The fact that there are two well-articulated sides to the story is proof that they were trying to be provocative if not outright transgressive.
I do think that Luke had an off-camera, not shown in flashback, “come-to-Jesus meeting” with the whole of the Jedi order. That may just be head cannon for me.
Eh. Shades of Gray. I said it before: I like Star Wars, even when I don’t like Star Wars.
"transgressive"
I guess I just don't see the point of taking heroes and being "transgressive" with them instead of building OTHER characters to transgress. It feels like a cheap trick by writers and filmmakers who can't write good characters.
There was room in 7, 8 and 9 for the younger characters to transgress (they could have had a Luke-trained Jedi be the disillusioned one) but the filmmakers wanted to turn what I loved to filth in order to show how preferable THEIR characters are, which is why my reaction was to reject the franchise. (It's also why I despised the first "Mission Impossible" movie and never watched any sequels.)
*deep breath* I guess this really struck a nerve with me.
You did a good analysis.
Sorry! I didn't mean to drop fire on that gasoline.
For what it's worth, I agree with you about transgressive for the sake of being transgressive. It was novel, then cliche, and now it's just lazy.
OH, the first Mission: Impossible movie was validation that I've never liked Brian de Palma as a director. Man, that was SO unnecessary.
Okay, but, now, having said that, and with time being a great salve, you might like the more recent M:I movies. You KINDA need to watch the third one, because stuff in there comes back in later movies, but also for Phillip Seymour Hoffmann doing a turn as a villain...oh, man, it's worth the price of admission. Anything after the third movie, with Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames, makes for good popcorn flicks.
Now THAT's an idea: a DCU horror series, hosted in alternating episodes by Cain and Abel. (The first comic I ever bought with my own money was in that weird period in 1979 when DC jammed "Tales of the Unexpected," "House of Secrets," "The Witching Hour," and "Madame Xanadu," and I still remember reading, for the first time, the first DC story illustrated by Steve Bissette. Do weekly adaptations of those stories, along with "Tales of Mystery," animated or live-action, and you'd never get me away from the TV.)
I would watch the shit out of that.
Well, I'll try to make a proposal, and use it to get a contract for a St. Remedius miniseries. That was the plan all along.
Let them know we're willing to relocate.