yes, indeed, it is very much that Star Wars day thing today. well, if you are reading on the date it went live here, look you see, which would be the 4th day of May. every year, i suppose.
no, i had no particular inclination or wish to write anything on the subject. but, my hand feels forced by somewhat continuous bad, maybe lazy, journalism (of sorts) off of the bbc. whilst some might argue that such is very much the hallmark, if not exclusive preserve, of the bbc, it really should not be.
given the amount of material available, and the substantial audience interested in such things, it is not exactly difficult to either write something or other about Star Wars and have it become reasonably popular. one can elect to compose something widely accepted, say "Star Wars is quite good", and get a favourable response, or you could go with being a bit antagonistic - "Star Wars was not as good as the proper version of Battlestar Galactica", for instance - and get a lot of people reading, but also make them quite cross.
for some reason the bbc (bless them) have come up with a third way of gaining substantial reading off of the Star Wars audience. this is done by, or via, producing any number of articles on the subject, all whilst apparently being unaware of what a Star Wars is.
my first encounter with such was one of those standard, baiting, deliberately and for no good reason provoking and prodding articles some do. it is on the subject of The Empire Strikes Back, which was or is either the 2nd or 5th Star Wars film, or even 6th or 7th or 8th depending on how you could some other films in chronological order, and is normally well thought of. except for one person, who, and you can read this if you click here, believes that the film is "over rated".
well, ok. considering it is (thus far) the only film to feature all three of the greatest, the best and most important characters in the series - Lando, Lobot and Boba Fett - my initial reaction was "no, it is not over rated". but, always if not keen then at least open to different points of view or interpretations, i had a look. just maybe there were some parts of the film they had seen which i had overlooked, or seen in a different way. ha ha no, of course not. for a start, i had at least actually seen the film, and some other Star Wars things. it appears that the writer of that piece had not, or not recently.
a significant part of the article makes little sense. there is criticism of poor pacing and flimsy sets with poor effects. well, maybe for anyone of the current generation, where all is preferred as computer generated, and instant gratification is followed by swift disposal. but it was this line which sounded alarm bells, suggesting that the person writing it had no idea of what they spoke - But here’s where things get tricky. My grievance with The Empire Strikes Back isn’t that it sticks to the winning formula established by Star Wars: that’s what most sequels do, after all.
except, it does not do that? in no way does the film follow the structure, or "formula", of the first? for a start, this is one of the few Star Wars films not to have some sort of planet destroying device key to the plot. also, whereas the first film was a very enjoyable but overtly simplistic David vs Goliath, good vs evil and of course good always wins tale, here the lines between good and evil become murky and crossed, with the ostensibly good getting a right proper f*****g hiding. these are fairly obvious points or conclusions, and simply watching the film would have made them visible.
it is not for the bbc to be content with articles which lack coherency or otherwise fail to make any sense. why not go right ahead and get information is quizzes wrong, too?
the above is a question which, as you can see, asks if lightsabers were "turned on" more or less times in the first film than there are films in total. first off, there are somewhat more than nine films. they have for some reason not counted Rogue One, Solo and The Clone Wars, the latter which was an animated film that very much did get a cinema release before spawning a series. also, there are at least two "Ewoks" films, but i am uncertain if both got cinema.
still, the answer is correct, as them fancy lightsaber things were switched on less times than there are films. but, only three? well, let's have a look, shall we?
01 the nancy boy fake orphan farmer is given his (very much alive and well) father's lightsaber by an elderly religious zealot who is keen to brainwash the simple farmer into joining his jihad. he switches it on whilst his homosexual tin man has a snooze.
02 the nancy boy fake orphan farmer is in a pub and is about to get his f*****g head kicked in. as a way of winning his trust, the elderly religious zealot switches on his lightsaber to dismember the bloke at the bar.
03 so as to best prepare him for blowing himself up for the cause and to become a martyr of the jihad, the elderly religious zealot trains the nancy boy fake orphan farmer how to use the weapon of the holy war, which involves switching on a lightsaber.
04 as it happens, the nancy boy fake orphan farmer is rubbish with the weapon. fearing that it will not be possible to brainwash him as he has gotten bored, the elderly religious zealot encourages the nancy boy fake orphan farmer to try again, switching on the lightsaber but doing it blindfolded, so only faith, and not any hidden trickery, makes it work.
05 a former brainwash victim of the elderly religious zealot, who got cut up as punishment for disobeying the instructions and turning his back on the jihad and just so happens to be the father of the nancy boy fake orphan farmer, is understandably eager to get justice if not revenge against the dithering old conjurer. he switches on a lightsaber to dispense such.
06 showing an, in fairness, impressive level of commitment to the cause, the elderly religious zealot switches on his lightsaber so as to fight his former failed brainwash victim. an interesting twist is that this is purely for show. the elderly religious zealot was always planning on being a suicide bomber, sacrificing himself so as to mislead the nancy boy fake orphan farmer into thinking he was a martyr, thus totally convincing the nancy boy fake orphan farmer to pledge loyalty to the jihad.
even if one puts 03 and 04 together, despite how one clearly watches the item in question being switched off and then switched back on, that, i believe, comes in at a number north of three.
why does this matter? perhaps it does not. but, the bbc are supposed to be, and prides itself on, being a news source which is "impartial" and is as "objective" as possible, showing no bias. many, many people claim that this is nonsense, and they do not do this at all. usually, though, it would be those who happen to not like the news being broadcast that decry it.
if they are unable, or not prepared, to get basic facts about a series of light-hearted, entertaining family orientated and well known adventure films right, what does that say of the other "facts" which they present? or, if you are more accusatory, should they know, or be quite aware, of the information being published in their name is incorrect, what does that say about considerably more serious news stories? feet of clay, etc.
mostly, though, i would just say sit back, watch and enjoy the Star Wars films if they are your bag, or simply watch something else if they happen not to be your bag. dig what you dig.
right, let it not be said that i did not in some way mark or acknowledge all of this Star Wars thing on what is widely considered to be Star Wars day, thanks to the phonetics of a phrase and the proclivity of some ancient monks with the calendar we use.
live long and prosper!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment