Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Not Woke. Just. Awake.

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1

    Default Not Woke. Just. Awake.

    I just read something about George Lucas' representation of Darth Vader. While it's common knowledge that Vader has Dutch and German translations as "father", it's also widely known that George Lucas did not know Vader was Luke's father until he scripted the second film. So then why tell people he deliberately named the villain "Dark Father"? George Lucas was essentially building his own myths. It could be argued he's what you'd call an unreliable narrator.

    This made me look back at the prequels. While the general sense of the stories may touch on truths within the history of the Star Wars universe, there's no law to state we must hold them sacred. The reason the prequels seem so weird when compared to the OT is because they are just stories recounted to an interested listener by another unreliable narrator (possibly even Obi-Wan to Luke... or maybe it's the voice of Yoda). What we as an audience have to accept is that there is no such thing as a reliable narrator. Sentient narrators will insert bias while mechanical narrators cannot properly convey emotion. Multiple narrators worsen the problem rather than versa.

    So if the prequels are relayed via unreliable narrator, how many other stories are being misrepresented by an unknown voice within said universe? The sequel trilogy may feel like a betrayal to some fans due to its handling of Han, Leia, and Luke. However, as Luke himself has stated, the truth about the Jedi, the rebellion, and everything is far less "shiny" than what we wish to remember. So then in watching the ST, we must accept the OT was itself told in the voice of an unreliable narrator.

    Moving past Star Wars, I took this concept into other territory. Namely, Captain Marvel. I had problems with this film for a number of reasons. Poor storytelling, uninteresting protagonist, plotholes, and the sense of being left with weirdly uncomfortable questions (why are Skrull's good? Why the cat scratched Nick's eye?)

    But from another perspective, if I watch this movie as narrated by a witness who lived through the 90s (maybe even Rambeau's daughter), it would explain some of the misleading concepts that occurred. A cat scratching out Fury's eye? Just completely non-canon. Danvers emotionless, arrogant melodrama? Just an exaggeration. As to the Skrulls. Don't even need an explanation. Cultures change. Good guys become bad guys. Even biblical angels have committed atrocities, why should mortals be any better?

    So, I'm basically saying, while I will never laud them as brilliant, I no longer laugh at the idea of these films.

    EDIT: mislabeled questions as plotholes. Fixed.
    Last edited by Mercen-X; 09-16-2019 at 06:55 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •