Tag: movies

The evil of the Rebel Alliance

Or, as Milo calls it, Space ISIS:

There’s so much wrong with Star Wars that it deserves a book-length treatise to cover properly. After all, the famous Red Letter Media takedown of The Phantom Menace is longer than the film itself. For that reason I will focus on three of the worst mischaracterisations: the Rebel Alliance as good guys, the tragically misunderstood Jabba the Hutt, and Palpatine’s supposedly evil Empire.

This is going to upset some diehard fans, but who do you trust more? Milo, who always tells you the truth while being witty, charming, handsome and having great hair, or the filmmakers who tried to tell you that Jar Jar Binks is a hero?

THE REBEL ALLIANCE
The Alliance is a ragtag band of fighters from many different cultures bonded together by a hatred of the Empire, fighting an asymmetric war resulting in massive collateral damage and loss of civilian life. They take their lead from mystics hiding in caves and swamps, and want to return the galaxy to a primitive religion that hasn’t changed for 600 years. That’s right nerds: the Rebel Alliance is ISIS.

The Jedi are a typical wishy-washy Mother Gaia-style progressive cult. Their most obvious failing is not using the real Force powers. Force lightning is actually quite humane; it’s like hitting a bad guy with a taser instead of cutting him in half with a lightsabre.

Same thing with force choke: do we really need to shoot a criminal resisting the will of the Emperor? Why not subdue him with a choke–or the term we use in the Sith community, enhanced persuasion techniques? Besides, in the far-flung future of Star Wars, SJWs have ensured force-sensitive individuals get affirmative consent every 10 seconds while using their powers so there’s really no big deal.

The Jedi are sick bastards. They use the Force to cloud the minds of others. The movies show this being done to stormtroopers, but you just know Luke uses it on dates at the cantina.

You can argue about the details. But the core thesis that the Star Wars film franchise is garbage? As much as it pains me, a former fan who once successfully collected the entire blue-card set, who saw the original film seven times in the theater as a child, to say it, he’s right.

You see, I saw The Phantom Menace. “Garbage” is too kind.

Professional note: Milo is a master, no, he is THE master of social media PR. This is perhaps the most epic large-scale trolling in the history of social media. You can’t imitate him. Unlike Mike, you can’t even learn anything from him; it would be like trying to take lifestyle advice from an exploding supernova or trying to pick up a few composition tips from Mozart.

Sorry, make that Wagner. As we are reliably informed, Mozart, too, is garbage.

Sometimes, all you can do is sit back and admire the incandescent artistry.

Star Wars justice convergence

The LucasFilm president explains her vision for Star Wars:

They are really, really making a huge effort across the company to put more focus around casting women and putting women in positions of responsibility, with directing and various other positions inside, different lines of business in the company. It’s not just about casting female protagonists. It’s gotta be across the board throughout the industry.

I think Hasbro, who’s making toys for a while, they were perhaps a little reluctant to move too quickly with something that’s been such a successful boys line. I think they’re recognizing that selling to girls is just as effective as selling to boys. More and more the lines are being blurred as to deciding ahead of time that some things are for boys and some things are for girls. I think that’s a big part of the conversation. It’s all of these areas that are contributing to change really happening.

Over the last several years that I’ve been in the business it seems to me that this has been a topic of conversation every few years. Then everybody thinks it’s a trend or that it’s a significant change. And then it doesn’t really move the needle. I think that’s — hopefully— what’s going to begin to happen now. It’s going to be real change. And not just perceived change.

Among those “real changes” are going to be declining sales, frantic PR spin to explain away the declining sales, and eventually some bitter diatribes about how the market is not worthy of their brilliant, progressive, and socially just products.

It’s at times like these that I am very, very happy that I was able to convince myself that Star Wars ended with The Empire Strikes Back. (I put Return of the Jedi in the same category as The Star Wars Christmas Special, which I also saw and was rather confused by, what with the Wookies living in trees and all. In retrospect, that should have been our first sign that George Lucas just go lucky, he didn’t actually know what he was doing.) I did give the Phantom Menace a go on opening night; I remember how we all felt almost as if we’d gone back in time, we were so excited that the future we’d imagined when we were kids was actually upon us!

And then, after about five minutes, we all realized that our imaginations were now rather preferable to George Lucas’s. I walked out of there and never again gave any subsequent Star Wars-named product another thought.

Anyhow, as Jeffro observes, this is classic SJW entryism at work. They’re essentially cargo cultists, they have no understanding of what made Star Wars valuable in the first place, and so they will further destroy what has already gone far, far past tragedy and is now well into self-parody.

Easton Ellis on Foster Wallace

Brett Easton Ellis kind of likes the movie about David Foster Wallace, he just doesn’t recognize the character in the movie:

For many of us who couldn’t get through the David Foster Wallace novel Infinite Jest
(and tried a few times), and found the journalism bloated and minor-key
condescending and thought the puling Kenyon commencement speech was
pure BS, and resisted the coronation of Wallace since his suicide in
2008 as St. David, based on a particular and very American brand of
sentimental narrative, the new film about Wallace, The End of the Tour, is surprisingly easy to take even though it’s reverential to a fault….

Wallace is presented as a guy who was just too sensitive for this world —
and that strikes a certain emotional chord, especially with younger
viewers and actors. The movie portrays Wallace as an angelic Pop
Tart-sharing schlub, a lovable populist, a tortured everyman and
ex-addict who loves dogs, loves kids, loves McDonalds, exudes “realness”
and “humanity,” and the movie completely ignores referencing the other
Wallace: the contemptuous man, the sometime-contrarian, the asshole with
an abusive side, the cruel critic — all the things some of us find
interesting about him. This is the movie that prefers the Wallace who
was knighted into sainthood with his Kenyon commencement speech called —
deep breath — “This Is Water: Some Thoughts Delivered on a Significant
Occasion About Living a Compassionate Life,” which even his staunchest
defenders and former editors have a hard time stomaching, arguing it’s
the worst thing he ever wrote, but which became a viral sensation as
well as a soggy self-help guide for lost souls.

And the David in this movie is the voice of reason, a sage, and the movie succumbs to the cult of stressing likability. But the real David scolded people and probably craved fame — what writer isn’t both suspicious of literary fame and yet curious in seeing how that game is played out? It’s not that rare and — hey — it sells books. He was cranky and could be very mean and caustic and opportunistic, but this David Foster Wallace is completely erased.

I never bought into the cult of DFW. Unlike Ellis, I actually read Infinite Jest, and it struck me as one part genuine literary talent, one part imitation Irving, two parts literary posturing, and three parts unrealized ambition. He was hailed as great when he did nothing more than show potential, and I suspect that had more than a little to do with his self-inflicted demise.

Media as weapon

We’ve certainly seen this with both #GamerGate and Sad Puppies. But given how resorting to it has failed against us, I very much doubt it will work against Google.

If you talk to the reporters who work for various big media companies, they insist that they have true editorial independence from the business side of their companies. They insist that the news coverage isn’t designed to reflect the business interests of their owners. Of course, most people have always suspected this was bullshit — and you could see evidence of this in things like the fact that the big TV networks refused to cover the SOPA protests. But — until now — there’s never necessarily been a smoking gun with evidence of how such business interests influences the editorial side.

Earlier this month, we noted that the Hollywood studios were all resisting subpoenas from Google concerning their super cozy relationship with Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, whose highly questionable “investigation” of Google appeared to actually be run by the MPAA and the studios themselves. The entire “investigation” seemed to clearly be an attempt to mislead the public into believing that it was somehow illegal for Google’s search engine to find stuff that people didn’t like online. A court has already ruled that Hood pretty clearly acted in bad faith to deprive Google of its First Amendment rights. As the case has continued, Google has sought much more detail on just how much of the investigation was run by the MPAA and the studios — and Hollywood has vigorously resisted, claiming that they really had nothing to do with all of this, which was a laughable assertion.

However, in a filing on Thursday, Google revealed one of the few emails that they have been able to get access to so far, and it’s stunning. It’s an email between the MPAA and two of Jim Hood’s top lawyers in the Mississippi AG’s office, discussing the big plan to “hurt” Google. Beyond influencing other Attorneys General (using misleading fake “setups” of searches for “bad” material) and paying for fake anti-Google research, the lawyers from Hood’s office flat out admit that they’re expecting the MPAA and the major studios to have its media arms run a coordinated propaganda campaign of bogus anti-Google stories:

    Media: We want to make sure that the media is at the NAAG meeting. We propose working with MPAA (Vans), Comcast, and NewsCorp (Bill Guidera) to see about working with a PR firm to create an attack on Google (and others who are resisting AG efforts to address online piracy). This PR firm can be funded through a nonprofit dedicated to IP issues. The “live buys” should be available for the media to see, followed by a segment the next day on the Today Show (David green can help with this). After the Today Show segment, you want to have a large investor of Google (George can help us determine that) come forward and say that Google needs to change its behavior/demand reform. Next, you want NewsCorp to develop and place an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs and noting some of the possible causes of action we have developed.

In other words, Jim Hood and the MPAA were out and out planning a coordinated media attack on Google using the editorial properties that supposedly claim to have editorial independence from the business side.

I don’t know anyone who still takes the media at face value. If you do, you’re obviously either a) not very bright, or, b) not paying attention.

Mailvox: favorites in A GAME OF THRONES

AL is curious about the characters in A GAME OF THRONES:

Who is your favorite character? Would you be interested at all in a discussion on that on your blog? Maybe you discussed it before but after searching through your posts I couldn’t find who you thought your favorite character is.

I think one has to distinguish between the characters as written in the books and the characters in the TV show. For example, I think Roose Bolton is creepy and disgusting in the books, but I rather like him on the show. The former is The Leech, the latter is not.

On the show, easily my favorite figure is Littlefinger, Lord Peter Baelish. He might occasionally overreach himself, but I like his ambition, his ruthlessness, his confidence, and his style. I don’t like the Littlefinger of the books as much, as that Littlefinger is more of a self-conscious social-climber who tends to lack the confidence and style of the TV Littlefinger.

In the books, I liked the two Starks, Ned and Robb, although I found their cluelessness about the nature and behavior of evil, untrustworthy men to be as frustrating as it is realistic. I see them in many a conservative who is determined to lose as nobly and graciously as possible. I liked Tywin Lannister of the books and absolutely loved Charles Dance in that role – how could you not – although I found his hatred for Tyrion to be somewhat inexplicable given that he has no other heirs. I also found it highly implausible that he didn’t free Jaime from his Kingsguard oath; these are not people who respect oaths, priests, or gods.

The female character I find most attractive is Myranda, the psycho little daughter of the kennelmaster. The female character I most disliked was Caitlyn Stark, in the books and on TV. She was nasty to Jon Snow and kept trying to interfere, ineptly, in things of which she knew nothing. The showrunners were wise to leave her undead version out of the TV show. And the Sansa of the TV show is much more interesting and complex than Martin’s Sansa, who appears to exist mostly to absorb Martin’s Gamma hate for female innocence and hope.

Second-best ending ever

I have never watched Mad Men, never had any interest in it, but after reading about the final episode, that has to be the second-best ending of a television show ever, only surpassed by the epic end of Newhart. Third, in my opinion, would be the end of The Sopranos.

I love the fact that the show’s creator absolutely must have had the ending in mind from the beginning. That’s a first-rate lesson in doing storytelling right.

Somehow, I tend to doubt that A Game of Thrones will end anywhere nearly as well. While Benioff and Weiss have generally shown themselves to have much better storytelling instincts than George Martin, I’m still trying to figure out what on Earth is going on with Danerys inexplicably deciding to marry a member of the Mereen aristocracy. Fails as drama, fails as logic, and fails as being interesting.

Skip Mad Max

I certainly have no desire to see it myself. In addition to all the Grrrl Power nonsense, the core plot obviously makes no sense:

The truth is I’m angry about the extents Hollywood and the director of Fury Road went to trick me and other men into seeing this movie. Everything VISUALLY looks amazing. It looks like that action guy flick we’ve desperately been waiting for where it is one man with principles, standing against many with none.

But let us be clear. This is the vehicle by which they are guaranteed to force a lecture on feminism down your throat. This is the Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things, including physique, strength, and logic. And this is the subterfuge they will use to blur the lines between masculinity and femininity, further ruining women for men, and men for women.

So do yourself and all men across the world a favor. Not only REFUSE to see the movie, but spread the word to as many men as possible. Not all of them have the keen eye we do here at ROK. And most will be taken in by fire tornadoes and explosions. Because if they sheepishly attend and Fury Road is a blockbuster, then you, me, and all the other men (and real women) in the world will never be able to see a real action movie ever again that doesn’t contain some damn political lecture or moray about feminism, SJW-ing, and socialism.

It’s a post-apocalyptic setting, right? That means survival is the absolute priority, which means K/selection, which means that having your women behave in a manner consistent with perhaps the ultimate r/selection environment means that you’ll be selected out of existence in short order no matter how awesome Charlize Theron pretends to be.

Kenneth Branagh is Martin Luther King, Jr.

The Apostle John may be black now, but I don’t think Hollywood can truly claim to be colorblind until Branagh plays Martin Luther King, Jr., Jet Li plays Nelson Mandela, and an Esquimaux plays Othello.

From Idris Elba’s gritty portrayal of London detective John Luther, to Dennis Haysbert’s calm, cool and collected President Palmer in “24″ (oh, to have a black president like THAT!), to Denzell Washington and Morgan Freeman in just about any role, black actors have enriched the big and small screens, adding richness, humor, depth and, well, color to our entertainment experience.

So why did I cringe a little when I first saw Gambian actor Babou Ceesay as the Apostle John and Chinese/Zimbabwean actress Chipo Chung as Mary Magdalene standing beside the mother of Jesus during Sunday’s NBC broadcast of the first episode of “A.D. The Bible Continues”? Did my inherent, inborn “racism” as a Southern white dude (go ahead, insert your favorite toothless, ignorant redneck joke here) finally subconsciously kick in, robbing me of the rich, diverse, multicultural experience the filmmakers were obviously trying to bring me with their forward-thinking casting?

Why must every historical movie these days, particularly those that deal with biblical topics, be subjected to a diversity “litmus test”? With apologies to Afrocentrists everywhere (OK, not really), while it’s possible there were black people in the vicinity of Judea during the time of Christ, there is no way, absolutely no way, John the Apostle was black. No serious historian believes this.

Of course, by then, the SJWs will be demanding that Whoopi Goldberg play Romeo. Because transist.

They really are THAT arrogant

I don’t think I’ll be working with Hollywood anytime soon:

We’re not gonna lie, after watching the cringe-worthy “Iliad” scene from J.Lo’s new movie “The Boy Next Door” we wept for humanity a bit. Then, like the rest of the world we wondered “How the heck did this happen? Is Hollywood really that stupid?”

In case you missed it, the awful scene shows J.Lo’s hunky love interest / psychotic neighbor giving her a “first edition” copy of Homer’s The Iliad. You know, that epic 3,000-year-old-ish poem he wrote. The one in which the oldest version, called the Venetus A, dates back to the 10th century? Yeah. The “first edition” seen in the movie is clearly not 3,000 years old.

We just couldn’t let it go (seriously, The Iliad? Pick ANY
other book), so we contacted the screenwriter, Barbara Curry, a former
Assistant U.S. Attorney, and asked her point blank: “WTF happened?”

Turns out writers aren’t that dumb. But Hollywood producers are.

“Much of my original script was rewritten by the producers and the
director. I was not given the opportunity to participate in the
production of this movie,” Curry told Fusion. “As for the first edition
‘Iliad’ reference in the movie, that was not something I wrote in my
original script,” she says.

As a publisher of other folks novels, I will have a responsibility to be polite if options of those novels are pursued. But if anyone EXCEPT the guys who produce A Game of Thrones contacts me again about my own books, I am going to tell them, as before, the answer is no. And if they make the mistake of asking me why, I I will absolutely tell them that I have zero interest in working with retards with no respect for the Western canon.

I watched a documentary on a day in the production of A Game of Thrones and it confirmed for me that I prefer the game industry. There is a LOT of carpentry involved, among other things; it is insane how many people and moving parts are required in order to produce a show of that quality. And then to think how readily they will throw all that sort of effort away because some arrogant executive philistine is uneducated really boggles the mind

Literary infidels

Scooter explains why movies so often part dramatic company from the story of the book upon which they are nominally based:

Poor Tolkien – he thought Hollywood just misperceived his intentions. What Hitchcock so frankly reveals is that filmmakers do not necessarily fail to apprehend ‘where the core of the original lies’; they aren’t even trying to apprehend it in the first place! By and large, they do not aim to be faithful. They are literary infidels – and they aren’t the only one.

Shakespeare famously borrowed plots — Hamlet was based on 12th century author Saxo Grammaticus’ Gesta Danorum (“Deeds of the Danes”). In Saxo’s version, Hamlet lives, and goes off to other adventures. Shakespeare, of course, opted for a slightly more downbeat ending.

‘Hey man’, an arrogant film director might say, ‘If Shakespeare borrowed plots and even changed them around too, what’s so wrong with that? Why can’t I add a little elf-dwarf romance to The Hobbit?’

First, because he is Shakespeare and you, Mr. Filmmaker, are not. Have a little humility. Yes, you can put your stamp on the material, just don’t stamp on it with your Orwellian boot; it’s not a face to be kicked in.

Second, because while in the process of adaptation you may end up borrowing plots, characters, and on rare occasions even the mysterious original ‘core’ of the material, what you are really wanting to borrow is the built-in fanbase of the book.

This is precisely why I have turned down multiple inquiries about acquiring the film options on my books. I have no interest in seeing Hollywood do its usual number on them. From Lloyd Alexander and Frank Herbert to Susan Cooper, CS Lewis, and JRR Tolkien, I have seen Hollywood repeatedly botch the translation and re-telling some of my most-cherished books. Whether it is small or large, I’m not going to let them borrow my base; if the visual editions are going to be made, then I will make them myself one day.

While I very much enjoyed seeing The Lord of the Rings and appreciated how Peter Jackson brought Middle Earth to visual life, I failed to place sufficient importance on was an observation of Spacebunny’s concerning the way in which Jackson insisted on showing what Tolkien had only implied. That minor element only expanded over time, until Jackson’s story entirely took over Tolkien’s.

The one exception that merits being pointed out is A Game of Thrones, which despite its occasional flaws bids fair to surpass the books of A Song of Ice and Fire, perhaps as soon as this coming season. Of course, there GRR Martin appears to have done Hollywood the service of ruining his books in advance with his own sequels, so it could be a matter of a better choice of medium – the miniseries rather than the movies – or perhaps it is merely a matter of lowered expectations.