Monday, December 12, 2016

Star Warz Rogue hu?

What in the friggen world is Hollywood thinking? Must they go out of their way to be "edgy", to "interweave a larger narrative into the prevailing context", to take a dump on anything that is considered traditional?

Apparently Hollywood did not learn their lesson with the flop that was the Ghost Busters remake. Nope. They want to try again with a new slant on Star Wars.

What? Like isn't that the entire point of Star Wars? You have the good guys (the light side of the Force) and the bad guys (the dark side of the force). Heck, the bad guys even call it "the dark side"! They blow up entire planets to make a point. You literally CAN'T get any more clear cut than that.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is different. The first film of the Star Wars Anthology Series, hitting theaters Dec. 16, sidesteps this Jedi Manichaeism almost entirely.

Um, isn't like the main point of the entire Star Wars franchise that you have this "stuff" called "the Force" and some use it for good and some use it for bad and that those that use it for good are called Jedi? So you have created a Star Wars movie that does not focus on those at the center of the Star Wars franchise? Isn't that like having a zombie movie but making it all about cats and not have any actual zombies in it?

But I think a more modern, realistic viewpoint is that no one's good, no one's evil, and the only real way we're going to stop wars is to understand each other better, come together and empathize with them.

That quote is from the film's director, Gareth Edwards. WOW. That is some nuclear grade stupid right there. Sorry to burst your lefty safe-space but there really is actual "good" and actual "evil" in this world. There is gray too but the fact that gray exists does not mean white and black don't also exist. As an example, it is never OK to strap a explosive vest on a kid and send him into a crowd to blow everyone up. It is never OK to stone a rape victim to death. It is never OK to toss a gay man off of a roof. It is never OK to fly a plane full of innocent people into tall buildings. There is NO possibility of mutual understanding in those cases unless the folks doing those things truly come to fully understand how very wrong they are AND stop. You don't compromise with evil. The best you can do is show it the error of its ways in whatever way it takes.

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and men's rights activists plan to boycott Rogue One on the grounds that the Empire is another casualty of the "liberal media."

I am sure that all 12 remaining Neo-Nazis and all 8 of the official white supremacists (I believe that figure includes David Duke) left in America  plan to boycott the film. I am also sure that a whole lot of "normal" Star Wars fans will also boycott this film because they might be a little tired of their "stuff" being messed with by some self-important, new-age, preachy liberal director that thinks he "has an important" message to share with the world versus telling a good story within the existing franchise framework that has been supported by the fans all these many years.

The reviewer (Lili Loofbourow) is also one very "special ray of sunshine, open-mindedness, and tolerance". You can tell when she gives us this little peek behind her mental curtain:

One can certainly see why: White supremacists — or the "alt-right," as it prefers to call itself these days — would prefer a return to the status quo.

So, conservatives, those that want a smaller Federal government ARE not only the "storm troopers" in the latest Star Wars film but are also white supremacists! Also, the "alt-right", who might be more accurately defined as a slightly more militant version of the older Tea Party movement are JUST LIKE white supremacists! Just like. No difference! So they must be Nazis too since we learned earlier that White supremacists and Nazis are the same so if the alt-right is the same, they must be Nazis too.

Not happy calling half the country white supremacists (a.k.a. Nazis), she goes on to completely get her main premise wrong by claiming:

"darkest, most nuanced Star Wars movie — the one that expressly aims to humanize the Empire even more radically than The Force Awakens, which makes John Boyega's character Finn, a former stormtrooper, a sympathetic figure - is being boycotted for not catering enough to neo-Nazis."

So this Mensa member thinks "white supremacists" don't want to see the new "darkest, most nuanced Star Wars movie" because the Neo-Nazis think the film goes too soft on the Nazi stand-in figures (the Empire) by making them too empathetic?


So who is Lili? Let us check her bio...

Lili Loofbourow is the culture critic at She's also a special correspondent for the Los Angeles Review of Books and an editor for Beyond Criticism, a Bloomsbury Academic series dedicated to formally experimental criticism. Her writing has appeared in a variety of venues including The Guardian, Salon, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and Slate.

A special correspondent for the Los Angeles Review of Books. What does that even mean? What is a "special correspondent" for book reviews? She is also editor for a series dedicated to formally experimental criticism. Do these people just string words together? What does that even mean? I tried googling that as I am not familiar with that phraseology. The only thing I could turn up is its use in an interview that hints that it has something to do with nonfiction. I gave up searching after reviewing three pages of results. Lili apparently writes for such literary greats as The Guardian, Salon, NYT, and Slate.

If her condescending article is in anyway representative of the attitude of the movie, I fully expect another critically acclaimed box office flop. Folks are getting fed up with being preached at by the ignorant elite. People are starting to push back. You are paid to entertain us, not preach or shove your politics down our throats. Not sorry if that means you get your feelz hurt.

No comments:

Post a Comment