Did you mean Starship Troopers? What do people disagree on with Star Wars?
And I'm generally of the opinion getting people to think for themselves by evoking radically different interpretations is one of the main purposes of art. If it can only ever be seen through a single lens you're not making good art - you're making boring propaganda.
The subtlety of the bugs throwing a rock from across the galaxy that would be impossible to aim and take millions of years to even reach earth was lost on people. You have to have a basic understanding of just how absurdly big the galaxy is to catch the satire of it being a false flag. The nazi uniforms and child soldiers went right over peoples heads too.
The subtlety of the bugs throwing a rock from across the galaxy that would be impossible to aim and take millions of years to even reach earth was lost on people.
I thought the false-flag fan theory was put to rest, when the director (??) stated the bugs did throw the rock - they (director/writers/whoever) just didn't account for the physics involved.
Not that I mind - the movie is hardly subtle with its fascist symbolism and language.
IIRC, it doesn't make the bugs the bad guys even if they did launch the rock, because they were retaliating against humans encroaching on their territory and building settlements there in the first place. They have no other reason to launch a pinpoint-accurate attack on a planet at the opposite side of the galaxy, other than to send a very clear message to the home-world of the settlers invading them.
Nah, the bugs are still the bad guys because the said encroaching humans were religious separatists that A) went against Federation orders to keep away from the sector, and B) were unaware the habitable planet was already occupied given bugs live underground.
And regardless of whatever propaganda was fed to the crayon eating marines it's also revealed at the end that their actual objective was simply to capture a brain bug to establish first diplomatic contact.
It's science FICTION, my guy. If the good guys can break physics with faster than light travel the bad guys can as well. And it's both explained, as well as shown that what humans can achieve through technology the bugs can through mutation. Ie, they discovered Earth's location through eating Mormon settler brains, and focused it down by concentrating bio energy into Zerg style worm holes.
The Nazi style uniforms and child soldiers made it obvious to everyone what Verhoeven's INTENT was, however he results were mixed because it was an adaptation of a completely earnest work that still showed Earth as an otherwise perfect utopia without racism or sexism where everyone is rich and hot.
The movie is intended to be anti-fascism. I don't think such a broad intent necessarily makes a movie boring. Most great movies have some kind of point they are trying to make.
I mean Star Wars fans of a certain group actually think unironically the Empire did nothing wrong. And I guess Starship Troopers I know about has some folks still think the bugs are meant to be the real villains instead of the human faction
If you want to see some really unhinged loony, borderline fascist apologists head to the Robert Heinlein subreddit. All they do is bitch about the movie and extoll the virtues of how a society where only people that serve in the military being allowed to vote is actually a good idea. Some real whackadoodles over there.
Aww, I love that book as well. What introvert doesn't want to host a weekly canasta night with their spouse for the only other only other couple that exists?
Unironically? I always took them as a "flat earth society" movement that deliberately tries to argue for the wrong viewpoint as an exercise in argumentation.
I used to feel that way, too, but the problem with those groups is that they always end up being overrun by true believers. Flat earthers used to be tongue in cheek, now they are mostly true believers.
I think they mean the old flat earthers who were so tongue-in-cheek that they didn't notice when the real crazies found a comforting home, thinking the crazies were even better at the joke.
Sort of why I'm worried about the current "Bird are government drones" obvious-joke-for-now argument.
There will always be some people satire simply doesn't work on because they're extreme enough that there's no satirical version of their world view you could show them that goes too far. They'll just nod along and say, "Hell yeah."
The Empire is clearly based on the Nazi's but that doesn't mean they are always a Nazi stand in. The Rebels fighting on Endor is a clear nod to the Viet Cong (confirmed directly by Lucas) and the Empire patrolling Jedha in Rogue One is a clear nod to America in the Middle East.
Ive seen that quote but will note that Lucas is frequently a liar about how he wrote Star Wars , pretending what ended up on screen is what he wrote, that various plot points were always intended...
Death of the artist has to the lamest movement that has ever graced the philospical space when it comes to media
It wouldnt even be remembered if it wasn’t for fanfic writers wanting to have legitimacy so in turn putting out video essays about how important death of the artist is and how actually your own interpretation of the art is actually what matters
If instead people realized that the creator was actually the God of their world and unless they specifically said they meant for you to interpret however you want it, then it has a specific meaning. We wouldn’t be inundated with a generation/s that has zero media literacy thanks to further video essays telling people their theories should actually be canon or having people get upset when their theories don’t come true
Death of the author has been an influential philosophy in literary criticism since the 70s. It's also not about how the author's intent is meaningless, or that you should separate the art from the artist. Those are pop culture simplifications of the theory. Instead, death of the author is better summed up as, "What the author was thinking or feeling when they wrote something is less important than what they actually wrote."
Since you mentioned fanfic, take 50 Shades of Grey as an example. The author felt, and has repeatedly stated, that she was writing a normal, healthy relationship between the main characters. Of course, thousands upon thousands of readers disagreed and saw the relationship as toxic and abusive.
By your logic, how E. L. James feels about the story she wrote is the only true interpretation of the text, and everyone that disagrees with her is wrong.
No, not how she feels, but what she intended. She can feel whatever she wants, that's not an objective thing. Let's use Birth of a Nation as an easy example. It is a movie about how the KKK are good and pure and how they're important to American identity. That's the intent. How you feel about that intent is for each to decide, but nobody gets to redefine the intent.
Whether a particular Star Wars media is good, especially anything post-Disney. You got some simply enjoying parts of new stuff that came out, and others (at worst) screeching as if they would be happier if Star Wars disappeared completely tomorrow. Just look at online discourse for the Last Jedi. You'd be forgiven to think TLJ slept with took people's lunch money, slept with moms, and kicked their dads down stairs.
Every minutia or interpretation of the lore is also fair game. To this day, there's still argument what "Balance in the Force" means, who is or is not a "Grey Jedi" (it's a fan interpretation) and if/how superior it is to regular Jedi/Sith, and plenty of other things.
It seems the only thing "fans" of Star Wars can agree on most recently was "Andor was good."
...but that then devolves into arguments of whether Jedi/Sith/the Force should henceforth be completely cut out from future Star Wars media because one show without the Force was good.
47
u/BlindingDart 23d ago
Did you mean Starship Troopers? What do people disagree on with Star Wars?
And I'm generally of the opinion getting people to think for themselves by evoking radically different interpretations is one of the main purposes of art. If it can only ever be seen through a single lens you're not making good art - you're making boring propaganda.