I have spooned and forked many people, but never knifed anyone. Seems uncivilised.
Do you?
You sure?
Is Toxic "Star Wars" Fandom Imploding?
- Thread starter Locutus of Bored
- Start date
I have spooned and forked many people, but never knifed anyone. Seems uncivilised.
Do you?
You sure?
That's what it has always been.
No matter how many times it's repeated, some people just don't seem to get the message that Star Wars isn't Sci-fi and never was. It's a fantasy, fairy tale, adventure story with spacey/sci-fi trappings. Hell, the fairy tale thing isn't even subtle as literally the first thing the movies show you after the studio logos is the space equivalent of "Once upon a time, in a land far, far away..."
Indeed, it's primary source of inspiration and the genesis of the whole concept was the old Flash Gordon serials and Buck Rogers comics, both very much fantasy IP's that were in turn "inspired" by (read: practically ripped off) the Barsoom/John Carter and the Princess of Mars stories.
Indeed, it's primary source of inspiration and the genesis of the whole concept was the old Flash Gordon serials and Buck Rogers comics, both very much fantasy IP's that were in turn "inspired" by (read: practically ripped off) the Barsoom/John Carter and the Princess of Mars stories.
Harlan Ellison had a checklist detailing how good movies ‘work certain way.’
In 1977.
His ‘list’ is far more convincing, and much harder to argue against. Didn’t seem to have stopped anyone considering Star Wars ‘good’ though.
If what he said were true, if the human heart was never touched, if the movies were that empty and soulless, no one would have been astounded at Darth Vader's revelation that he was Luke's Father in The Empire Strikes Back.
See, not hard to argue against it at all.
See, not hard to argue against it at all.
Last edited:
Harlan Ellison had a checklist detailing how good movies ‘work certain way.’
In 1977.
His ‘list’ is far more convincing, and much harder to argue against. Didn’t seem to have stopped anyone considering Star Wars ‘good’ though.
Reading that critique of SW as soulless, a characterless vehicle for special effects, what strikes me is that his depiction is essentially what later came to be known as a blockbuster.
By modern standards I'm not sure I agree with him entirely, but that's functioning with the benefit of hindsight in a world where that formula has become so crystallised that ANH has much more depth and soul by contrast to what came later. At the time he was almost certainly pretty accurate in his assessment. What he failed to suggest in that piece at least was the idea that what he was describing would become the future, the template for mainstream entertainment.
It’s a review of the original movie. People didn’t give a flying shit when Vader ‘died’ in that one. Except maybe to go ‘whoot.’
And how does that address the complaint that its emotional impact is fleeting, and nobody walks away from a Star Wars movie in any way meaningfully changed from when they walked in? He never claimed people had no emotional response to it at all.
Also, your logic is just bad. People are ‘shocked’ and astounded when a random cat is thrown across the screen by stage hand in a bad slasher. Whether it’s the ‘twist’ in Day of the Triffids, to the one in War of the Worlds, the mere act of successfully blindsiding an audience is not what made those stories meaningful or deep.
For eg. Look at the twist at the pre-Star Wars blockbuster franchise: Planet of the Apes. The twist is a surprise, yes. People might get sad because Heston is an ugly crier, yes. People just didn’t see it coming, and it made them recontextualise what they do previously seen in the movie, yes.
But it also inspired a ‘oh shit’ reaction, because people saw that reveal and saw themselves. It’s not just a twist about the in-universe characters pasts, it’s a way too emotionally-believable glimpse of our future. You identify with it, and it hits all the harder for it.
Last edited:
And yet two of the six series were centrist if not conservative-leaning.
Perhaps it just inverted expectations.
Not any less than the three death stars look like that alien ship from the 1982 video game "Moon Patrol".
A lot of people griped how Luke was whiny in TLJ. Show 'em the masterpiece from 1977 and few will find anything as a rebuttal. Even then, the reasons for Luke's bitterness in both are not illegitimate. But TLJ had Luke feel more realistic. Luke77 felt like a cardboard stick figure, shooting rats within his speeder and then believing he has mystical powers after hearing voices - yay, a movie about a bloke who needed badly to move to the Seroquel Solar System - yeehaw, how interesting!
Most of the fuel for this mess comes from click bait websites and viewer bait "news" shows who love to "report on the controversy" because it gets them clicks and/or views.
Toxic fandom is limited in scope and numbers, capable of committing heinous acts but incapable of sustaining its strength without attention. I wish people would only give attention to these toxic fans when they are banning them or censuring them in some way for their harassment, misogyny, etc.
Toxic fandom is limited in scope and numbers, capable of committing heinous acts but incapable of sustaining its strength without attention. I wish people would only give attention to these toxic fans when they are banning them or censuring them in some way for their harassment, misogyny, etc.
Simon Pegg Feels Guilty For His 'Star Wars' Criticism
I've never understood this attitude, I don't need or want every piece of entertainment to be some deep examination of the human experience, sometimes I just want to sit back, turn off my brain, and have fun for 2 hours.Harlan Ellison had a checklist detailing how good movies ‘work certain way.’
In 1977.
His ‘list’ is far more convincing, and much harder to argue against. Didn’t seem to have stopped anyone considering Star Wars ‘good’ though.
Sometimes I'm in the mood for the Westworld HBO series or 2001, sometimes I'm in the mood for the 1980 Flash Gordon movie.
You probably shouldn’t turn off your brain. You need that.
Also, Ellison was a critic and an essayist. Dude was getting paid to think reasonably deeply about movies. Writing for the sort of person who is willing to devote time and money to reading basically an essay on movies. Once they reach that point, no one involved is probably the type to seriously argue for ‘passive entertainment.’
He also, you know...directly addresses why he has his ‘attitude.’
Even most fans will accidentally concede he had a point about ANH’s shallowness ultimately hurting it. After all, the consensus is that the more character-focused ESB is more enjoyable.
Last edited:
The man made A Boy and His Dog, which is pretty awful.
It's been ages since I saw 'A Boy and His Dog' but I don't remember it deviating too much from the source material. Was it more of a tonal difference, as in the movie people didn't get the memo that horrific things the story portrayed weren't supposed to be presented in a positive light?
I'll be honest, while his work is often imaginative, most of the time I have no clue where Ellison was coming from or what he was driving at. Mostly (and I'm just referring to his stories here) he just seemed to be pissed off, if not outright disgusted at the universe for existing.
I'll be honest, while his work is often imaginative, most of the time I have no clue where Ellison was coming from or what he was driving at. Mostly (and I'm just referring to his stories here) he just seemed to be pissed off, if not outright disgusted at the universe for existing.
Last edited:
That's the vibe I get from most of today's entertainment.
Hate to burst bubbles, however, BOTH Star Wars and Star Trek are space fantasies/space operas. BOTH use science and technology as magic. For whatever reason an individual can prefer one over the other, but they are far more alike than credited.