TheRPGSite

http://www.toplessrobot.com/2008/10/the_5_reasons_luke_skywalker_is_a_complete_idiot.php

QuoteWe all know Luke Skywalker as the main protagonist throughout the original Star Wars movies and onward into the novels of questionable quality. We all grew up wanting to be him—learning to use the Force, blowing up the Death Star, saving the galaxy. But the thing is, despite all his badass moments, he actually kind of sucks. Perhaps not as much as his father Anakin, but that could be due to Mark Hamill's acting ability, in that he can act. Sure with the emotional music and all the screen time Luke Skywalker seems to be the hero, but really he's an idiot who makes bad decisions and has a series of terrible ideas, and he's lucky it all kind of works out for him, his friends, and the Rebel Alliance in the end.

:respect:

I especially like:

3. His Insanely Stupid Plan To Rescue Han Solo from Jabba The Hutt

When you put it that way...

Yeah, #3 for certain. When I saw the ROTJ in 1983...:eek:...I remember ranting to my friends how stupid Luke's plan was: "Okay, we send in Lando, but we don't let him do anything, because I'll put my lightsaber in R2's head, and give the droids to Jabba. It's foolproof!"

Thanks for the link.

There is something like this about Luke where all Jedi want to die within sight of him, pretty damm funny as well. I'll have to see if I can find it.

Is there really anyone out there who saw Star Wars and thought, "Wow, Luke is such a badass"?

My son....but he is young and will soon learn the ways of the force.

*Waves hand*

"These are not the panty wastes you are looking for!"

When I first saw it, I thought luke was kind cool- right up until Han Solo showed up. All Luke had was a big glow stick, a couple of second hand appliances and a walking fossil.  Han had a sense of humor, a space ship, a gun and a giant ass kicking flunky. It was clear to me then who would be getting all the pussy.

Of course Luke is not cool. The closest he came to a love scene was sticking his tongue in his sister's mouth. He goes all "  Oh Noes" when confronted with the fact that his father is the baddest mofo in the universe. He gets sucker punched by what is essentially a wookie on steroids. And he can't even pass himself of as a Stormtrooper. Loser.

Regards,
David R

I always thought that Lando and Leia had made their own plan to rescue Han while Luke was off flipping around and whining on a swamp planet with a goblin. And only when that plan fucked up did Luke show up with his own half-arsed plan.

But he is a loser. Like his father before him. The apple never falls far from the tree, they say.

Yeah, Star Wars would have really benefited from more boring, rational decisions that are visually unexciting.

The idea had potential to be funny, but the article is garbage even by Star Wars fanboy standards.

"He's stoopid not to join the Dark Side because the Dark side is really kewl! Glorp blort furp."

Found it (http://www.brunching.com/lukeside.html).

QuoteSo last night I'm watching "Return of the Jedi: Now With Fakey-Looking Computerized Creatures Instead of Fakey-Looking Rubber Creatures," which I got for Christmas, and I noticed that Lucas hasn't fixed the main non-Ewok problem with the movie: the fact that the final battle between Luke and Vader makes no sense.

Here we have Luke "Badass" Skywalker, Jedi Extraordinaire. He's mown down Stormtroopers like bowling pins on bumper night, sliced open Imperial Walkers, and given the Death Star a photon colonic once already, not to mention all the womp rats he must have massacred. He's built his own lightsaber, raided Johnny Cash's closet, and watched his Jedi master snuff it. At long last he's brought before the Grand Imperial Old Guy himself, who's sitting there giving off smarm rays, and Luke decides, for no apparent reason, that killing the Emperor -- this one guy -- would tip him over the edge into the yawning abyss of Jedi perdition. I don't get it.

There's always the "defenseless" explanation, but that doesn't cut it. He could blow up everyone in the Death Star 1.0 in one force-guided shot, but he couldn't kill one guy in Death Star 2.0? If he had left, grabbed an X-Wing and blown up the whole damn battlestation that would have been Yoda-Kosher, but taking him one-on-one is bad juju? Not to mention the fact that when Darth offs the Emperor, that turns him into a good guy.

I have a better explanation. The fact is that, throughout the three films, everyone Luke meets is completely bullshitting him about the Force. They make up all this crap about Dark and Light and Good and Evil to disguise that there's only one rule to the Force: die in front of Luke.

Let's rewind to the first movie. Obi-Wan is facing it off with the Sith Lord. They play lightsaber pattycake for a while, and then Luke shows up. Obi-Wan looks over as if to say "Oh, good. Luke's here. Now I can die," and gives the fuck up. Darth, not having noticed Luke's presence, delivers the killing blow, and Obi-Wan gets a magical ghost body.

Then in "Empire," Obi's feeling pretty good about himself and decides to let his old friend Yoda in on some of this spirit-form action. He sends Luke to Dagobah, but how to keep him there until Yoda's ready to shuffle off this mortal sequel? No prob, just make Luke Yoda's "student" and provide him "training." A couple dumb levitation tricks will keep Luke wide-eyed while nature wracks Yoda's withered old latex body. You'll notice that when Luke decides to save his friends Yoda and Ben get all mystical and start making prophesies, none of which come true. They're not seeing the future, they're just trying to get Luke to stay put.

Now we're back to "Jedi." Luckily, Luke still hasn't seen through the plan, and he shows up just in time for Yoda to kick the Muppet bucket. Score one for Yoda, he gets a magical ghost body.

Then, there's the Final Battle. Emperor Palpatine doesn't have the subtlety of the rest of the Jedi gang, so he just says "Hey. Kill me." What he doesn't realize is that Luke is the goodwill ambassador for reverse psychology, and so Luke, just to be contrary, doesn't. Palpatine gets pissed off and decides that if he can't have a magical ghost body, nobody can. Darth, seeing his only chance for a cool afterlife being fried in front of his eyes, has a great plan. He grabs the wrinkled old Imperial coot and throws him down a convenient Tunnel O' Energy, out of Luke-death range. This has the double effect of ruining the Emperor's plans ("I was getting really tired of him anyway," thinks Darth) and putting Vader on this last legs. He plays on the maudlin "father" thing to get Luke to take off the helmet, and dies in front of him. Ta-da!

So there you go. Lucas tries to make you think that the Star Wars Trilogy is a re-telling of ancient tales dragged up from the collective unconscious, with lessons for us all about good and evil, hubris and loyalty, when it's really just a story about a bunch of guys who want to die in front of Luke.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;259973I always thought that Lando and Leia had made their own plan to rescue Han while Luke was off flipping around and whining on a swamp planet with a goblin. And only when that plan fucked up did Luke show up with his own half-arsed plan.

That has always been my assumption, and I'm pretty sure that's the canon explanation.

As for the rest:

5. Luke used the Force to target the photon torpedo.  A previous scene had established that the targeting computers could not hit the exhaust vent.  Only the Force could guide the torpedo with sufficient accuracy to destroy the Death Star.  Duh.

4. Yes.  The whole point of that entire sequence is that Luke has not developed the wisdom and detachment of a Jedi yet, and that his passion and desire to be heroic will be his undoing.  Which brings us too...

2. ...where Luke finally understands what Yoda meant when he said "Hmph.  Wars not make one great."  Luke finally understands that he can not desire to destroy the Emperor, as that only makes him more like his father, a helpless pawn of his own anger and passion.  So he does the one thing he the Emperor doesn't want: he gives up.

I also assume that Luke didn't know the emperor could shoot lightning from his fingertips.

1. Feh.  Not surprised by this, since the author clearly doesn't get the whole point of Star Wars.

And yeah, I think Luke is a total badass.  Sure, he starts as a callow youth, and he makes mistakes on the way, but he experiences far more growth than Han Solo (who, it should be mentioned, only grows because of his interaction with Luke and Leia).

I mean he's pretty much kickin' ass and talking names through the entirety of RotJ.  And his whole standing on a gangplank offering Jabba the chance to surrender bit is sooooooooo classic.

Eh, So what . Big Deal.

 They were were fun films to watch on the really Big Screen.

 A couple of them were worth seeing more than once on the Big Screen.


- Ed C.

Still, I were Ben and Yoda sending Luke off to kill Vadar and the Emperor because they couldn't I'd probably have the good faith to mention the force lightning and how you can block it with a lightsabre.

But then that's just the prequels messing up again.

Quote from: David Johansen;260025Still, I were Ben and Yoda sending Luke off to kill Vadar and the Emperor because they couldn't I'd probably have the good faith to mention the force lightning and how you can block it with a lightsabre.

But then that's just the prequels messing up again.

Actually, the whole movie series hinges on no one ever listening to a thing Yoda says. So he could have told them, but it would have made no difference.

Well Yoda is a bit like Lao-Tse saying : "If a man has done you wrong, do not seek revenge. Sit down by the river, and soon you will see his body being carried away by the water." Which quite a few of us would agree with, but makes for a poor story in an action movie :)

Quote from: David Johansen;260025Still, I were Ben and Yoda sending Luke off to kill Vadar and the Emperor because they couldn't I'd probably have the good faith to mention the force lightning and how you can block it with a lightsabre.

But then that's just the prequels messing up again.

You got to remember that these were the same guys who realized too late that the senator right under their noses - Palpatine - was a Sith Lord. I get the feeling that these two don't pay very much attention to details.

Regards,
David R

QuoteYou got to remember that these were the same guys who realized too late that the senator right under their noses - Palpatine - was a Sith Lord. I get the feeling that these two don't pay very much attention to details.

Democratic politicians of Europe had Hitler under their nose since 1933, his book was published even earlier, still nobody took any measure against Germany rebuilding their army, or annexing Austria.

And the dark force minion are supposed to be good at hide and seek.

Quote from: boulet;260096Democratic politicians of Europe had Hitler under their nose since 1933, his book was published even earlier, still nobody took any measure against Germany rebuilding their army, or annexing Austria.

Oh please, let's not drag something as complex as the politics of Europe pre WW2 into a SW discussion.

QuoteAnd the dark force minion are supposed to be good at hide and seek.

And Yoda representing the light side of the force was supposed to be good at discovering the truth.

Regards,
David R

Star Wars, Star Trek. It's all GHEY.

Quote from: Serious Paul;260106Star Wars, Star Trek. It's all GHEY.

I'd like to see you say that to Captain Kirk's face, motherfucker.


TGA

Quote from: Jackalope;260008I mean he's pretty much kickin' ass and talking names through the entirety of RotJ.

Hm, explains why I like RotJ much more than the others and may as well have been called a heathen for saying so.

I'd still say he spends more time being a whiny little punk than being a bad ass if you take all three films into account.

Quote from: boulet;260077Well Yoda is a bit like Lao-Tse saying : "If a man has done you wrong, do not seek revenge. Sit down by the river, and soon you will see his body being carried away by the water." Which quite a few of us would agree with, but makes for a poor story in an action movie :)

Oh, I totally agree, it just gets a little funny after awhile.

"Train Anakin you must not. Destroy us all he will."
"Eh, I'm gonna do it anyway."
"The Emperor I suspect. Do something about this we should."
"Bah."
"Fight Vader you must not. Totally choke and get maimed you will."
"Sure thing, see you around Yoda."
"Draw you a map with crayons, must I?"

This whole discussion is nerdragelicious.

Quote from: jeff37923;260350This whole discussion is nerdragelicious.

The thread is funny, the folks defending Luke are nerds. :p

Quote from: The Good Assyrian;260136I'd like to see you say that to Captain Kirk's face, motherfucker.

I've said worse to much scarier people. In fact I say worse to scarier people on a daily basis. The Kirk character has morals. The people I work with like to beat those kinds of people to death.

Quote from: CavScout;260362The thread is funny, the folks defending Luke are nerds. :p

We're posting on an RPG board. No one here is not a nerd, I'm afraid.

The fatal error of the Jedi wasn't training Anakin, it was the rigidity and arrogance of their philosophy.  If they'd trained him willingly.  If they'd made a point of seeing his mother freed and moved somewhere relatively comfortable and safe.  If they'd explained the birds and the bees and gave him a pack of condoms before assigning him to guard Padme.  If they'd taken a minute to wonder if brainwashed clone troops could be used against them.  If they'd let him sit on the council when he'd fought their war for them.  If they'd let him come when they confronted Palpatine.

Yeah I can't think of anything the Jedi could've done to save themselves.  And Yoda is pretty much the spokesman for the Jedi rigidity and arrogance.

If they'd turned him away Palpatine would have been able to train him in the ways of the Sith from a very young and impressionable age.  And he'd still have been the chosen one.

Quote from: Serious Paul;260403I've said worse to much scarier people. In fact I say worse to scarier people on a daily basis. The Kirk character has morals. The people I work with like to beat those kinds of people to death.

Fair enough, but don't underestimate the man's double karate neck chop and monkey flip.  That's all I'm sayin'...


TGA

I'll never be able to compete with Kirk, the writer's would sue me to oblivion if I actually won, and their lawyers would garnish my grand kids grand kids piggy banks. Plus that guy could pull way more ass then I ever could hope to. :)

(I like both Star Wars and Star Trek, but that really does make me a nerd.)(And I never tell convicts. It'd make my day twice as long.)

Damned double post.

Quote from: David Johansen;260439The fatal error of the Jedi wasn't training Anakin, it was the rigidity and arrogance of their philosophy.  If they'd trained him willingly.  If they'd made a point of seeing his mother freed and moved somewhere relatively comfortable and safe.  If they'd explained the birds and the bees and gave him a pack of condoms before assigning him to guard Padme.  If they'd taken a minute to wonder if brainwashed clone troops could be used against them.  If they'd let him sit on the council when he'd fought their war for them.  If they'd let him come when they confronted Palpatine.

Yeah I can't think of anything the Jedi could've done to save themselves.  And Yoda is pretty much the spokesman for the Jedi rigidity and arrogance.

If they'd turned him away Palpatine would have been able to train him in the ways of the Sith from a very young and impressionable age.  And he'd still have been the chosen one.

Hey look, someone actually got the point of the prequels!

Yeah, the Jedi had grown too powerful, too certain of themselves, too set in their ways.  And they lacked imagination.  I love it when Obi Wan screams "You were the Chosen One!  You were supposed to restore balance to the force!"

Seems like that's exactly what he did.  Also seems like the Force is decidedly True Neutral.

Quote from: Jackalope;260497Hey look, someone actually got the point of the prequels!

Yeah, the Jedi had grown too powerful, too certain of themselves, too set in their ways.  And they lacked imagination.  I love it when Obi Wan screams "You were the Chosen One!  You were supposed to restore balance to the force!"

Seems like that's exactly what he did.  Also seems like the Force is decidedly True Neutral.

The Word of God (George) states that Anakin didn't bring balance to the Force until he destroyed the Sith, that the imbalance was the very presence of the Dark Side, and that the Force--in D&D terms--is Lawful Good.  The ROTS DVD commentaries and documentaries make this plain as day.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;260509The Word of God (George) states that Anakin didn't bring balance to the Force until he destroyed the Sith, that the imbalance was the very presence of the Dark Side, and that the Force--in D&D terms--is Lawful Good.  The ROTS DVD commentaries and documentaries make this plain as day.

Yeah, whatever, the Word of Story Dynamics says otherwise.

Lucas lost his own plot, and is in total denial of what he wrote.  Now that he's an old man in a position of power, and the dynamic that underlies Star Wars has become his reality, he is unwilling to acknowledge the truth of his own earlier writing.

This much was obvious when he decided to neuter Han's character growth by having Greedo shoot first.  That Han is a guy who kills in cold blood before he meets Luke and Ben is of huge significance to understanding who Han Solo is.

(I am such a geek.)

Ah yes, the old "the writer doesn't understand his own plot" routine. It always comes up in Star Wars discussions sooner or later.

One of the prime tragedies of Star Wars is that so many fans think it's much more complicated and nuanced a universe than it actually is.

Quote from: Serious Paul;260495(And I never tell convicts. It'd make my day twice as long.)

Someone at the home office decided I was doing a Good Job and now I'm working shifts at a Methadone Clinic. I feel your pain.

William Shatner seems like the kind of guy who won't take shit from anybody.  Captain Kirk was a true bad ass.

Quote from: ticopelp;260416We're posting on an RPG board. No one here is not a nerd, I'm afraid.

I'm a geek.  I'm just generally intelligent, I can't claim to be a genius or anything like that.  A true nerd is about as intellectual as they come, or at least tries to be.  There's a thin line between the two but it's a line all the same.  :D

Quote from: Idinsinuation;260550I'm a geek.  I'm just generally intelligent, I can't claim to be a genius or anything like that.  A true nerd is about as intellectual as they come, or at least tries to be.  There's a thin line between the two but it's a line all the same.  :D

Don't try to smokescreen this. I just saw you praise Captain Kirk!

(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/ticopelp/body-snatchers.jpg)

Quote from: ticopelp;260534One of the prime tragedies of Star Wars is that so many fans think it's much more complicated and nuanced a universe than it actually is.

Because otherwise we must admit that in the end the whole thing is just fucking lame and stupid.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;260587Because otherwise we must admit that in the end the whole thing is just fucking lame and stupid.

...and we can't do that.

Because at the heart of it they were meant to be watched and enjoyed as fun entertainment ....not term papers on philosophy.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;260587Because otherwise we must admit that in the end the whole thing is just fucking lame and stupid.

The really frustrating part for me is that, Empire is a really great movie. It's like for a brief moment, everyone involved in the trilogy realized....whatever.

Fans always like to point to their favourite scene and attach a significance to it, that maybe only they see. I'm no different. To me what Han was "about" was really not the Greedo shooting scene but rather the scene in Empire in Bespin, where the door opens, Vader stands up and greets him, and he instinctively fast draws his blaster and starts firing away. After when his weapon is unceremoniously taken away from him , he takes Leia by the hand and calmly walks in. Betrayed by a another scoundrel, in danger and in love with a woman....you just know he's been in this type of situation before.

So yeah, I didn't really enjoy the prequels.

Regards,
David R

I'm cool with it all being lame and stupid, really. I've never thought that Lucas didn't understand his own story. I just think he sucks.

Quote from: ticopelp;260534Ah yes, the old "the writer doesn't understand his own plot" routine. It always comes up in Star Wars discussions sooner or later.

One of the prime tragedies of Star Wars is that so many fans think it's much more complicated and nuanced a universe than it actually is.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  I have no delusions about the universe that Star Wars exists in.  I'm talking about story, the structure of the narrative and the archtypes it deals in.

The universe of Star Wars is totally gonzo anything-goes place where fantasy, science-fiction and Asian cult cinema collide.  It's complicated, for sure, because it's massive and full of contradictions, and that makes anything complicated (and not in a good way).  But nuanced?  Fuck no.  Star Wars is all about broad strokes, blatant stereotypes and obvious archetypes.

Quote from: David R;260592The really frustrating part for me is that, Empire is a really great movie. It's like for a brief moment, everyone involved in the trilogy realized....whatever.

It's because Irvin Kershner is a much better director than George Lucas.

QuoteFans always like to point to their favourite scene and attach a significance to it, that maybe only they see. I'm no different. To me what Han was "about" was really not the Greedo shooting scene but rather the scene in Empire in Bespin, where the door opens, Vader stands up and greets him, and he instinctively fast draws his blaster and starts firing away. After when his weapon is unceremoniously taken away from him , he takes Leia by the hand and calmly walks in. Betrayed by a another scoundrel, in danger and in love with a woman....you just know he's been in this type of situation before.

That's one of my favorites as well.  My absolute favorite Han moment though is when he totally blows his Bluff check, shoots the comlink, and tells Luke "Kid, we're gonna have company!"  I've been there.

QuoteSo yeah, I didn't really enjoy the prequels.

They're pretty bad.  Lucas took too much creative control.  His writing needs serious polish to be bearable, and it's better if other people direct his stuff.  Each of them has stuff in it that I really like, but the dialog is total crap, and Hayden Christensen is a very bad actor.  Very, very bad.  I can't tell if Natalie Portman was simply unable to act against him, or was so repulsed she just phoned it in.  Ewan MacGregor basically saves Attack of the Clones, but most of The Phantom Menance is painful to watch.

Revenge of the Sith is a pretty badass movie if you turn it off right after the scene where Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru look off into the Tattoonine sunset holding baby Luke, perfectly mirroring Luke's introduction in Star Wars.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;260587Because otherwise we must admit that in the end the whole thing is just fucking lame and stupid.

Compared to what?  Citizen Kane?  Logan's Run?

Quote from: Jackalope;260606It's because Irvin Kershner is a much better director than George Lucas.

Well, yeah....

Here's an interesting interview with the director:

http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/05/13/kershner/

Edit: Actually I don't think Kershner is a much better director than Lucas. I think Lucas's passion for the work showed in films like THX , American Graffitti and yes even Star Wars. From what I have read, the process of making those movies were not exactly what Lucas had imagined they would be. The rest of the "kids" of that era, Coppola, Speilberg etc seemed more in tune with the movie making process than Lucas ever was. I suppose it's also a people thing. Lucas apparently never knew how to deal with actors. Later on I suppose he concentrated more on the business aspect of Show Business which is evident in his later movies. I think he was very aware that maybe the subject matter of Empire was too big for him. That's why he hired Kershner. *shrug* A good business move....

Regards,
David R

I'll propose that the best film is actually the first one. Empire works very well on its own terms, but I think it's important that you have to have seen SW first to have the full context so far.

Star Wars/A New Hope is the only film of the lot that actually stands up as a fun frolic of a film in its own right; presumably because Lucas didn't know if he was ever going to make a sequel.

Well I think you're right droog. But don't stand too close to me in a group talking about the original SW trilogy. I'm of the lynch worthy opinion that the series should have ended with Empire. Apparently for most, closure is important.....

Regards,
David R

When Lucas dies I'll be interested to see what treatment the property gets. There's no way they can resist making money off of it, and as long as Nerds like me will pay, guess what? Bombs away!

I think I've said this here, before, but I think we'll see remakes not long after he dies, maybe before.

Quote from: Koltar;260591...and we can't do that.

Because at the heart of it they were meant to be watched and enjoyed as fun entertainment ....not term papers on philosophy.

Quite so. I love Star Wars dearly, and have for going on thirty years, but it doesn't hold up to the kind of scrutiny that regularly gets leveled at it.

I think Kirshner is overrated and a convenient excuse people use to bash on and give credit to anyone else besides Lucas. If you look at Kirshner's other body of work, it's anything but impressive.

Quote from: David RApparently for most, closure is important.....

Closure? RotJ was more like seizure.

Quote from: ticopelpI love Star Wars dearly, and have for going on thirty years, but it doesn't hold up to the kind of scrutiny that regularly gets leveled at it.

It's at least partly Lucas's fault for making such grandiose claims for it when it was really just a cut-up of old pulp and war flicks. Hero's Journey my hairy anus!

Quote from: droog;260648Closure? RotJ was more like seizure.

There was a parody once on the Modern Humorist website (back when the site actually put out material) where they described the process for making the movies.  For the third one, they had the Lucas-character getting a case of writer's block then in a moment of drunkenness yell out "Get me a copy of the first movie's script and a fucking sharpie!" (or something like that).

I felt that summed up my feelings about RotJ pretty closely.

Quote from: droog;260648It's at least partly Lucas's fault for making such grandiose claims for it when it was really just a cut-up of old pulp and war flicks. Hero's Journey my hairy anus!

Here, here.  Lucas is the one constantly re-inventing history and making bullshit claims about underlying meanings and how he planned things all along.  The only real plan in the beginning was he wanted to make a movie that crossed Buck Rogers type pulp movies with Japanese samurai type movies (he didn't even think to steal from war movies until much later in the process, lol).

And that's pretty much all he did.  There's no deep meaning.  No philosophy or strong narrative structure behind it all.  He made up shit as he went along, taking bits and peices of material from other people's movies to make something original.  That still takes a lot of imagination and is commendable, but its not like there's anything deep there.

Quote from: droog;260648It's at least partly Lucas's fault for making such grandiose claims for it when it was really just a cut-up of old pulp and war flicks. Hero's Journey my hairy anus!

Actually, the first person to really make grandiose claims about it was Joseph Campbell, in the multi-part documentary The Heroes Journey, in which Campbell is interviewed by Bill Moyers.  Campbell claimed that the movie was a near perfect expression of the monomyth.  Moyers then interviews Lucas, who tries to be humble about it.  Campbell is the one who really put the movie up on a pedestal.  Lucas later lost his humility, and began bragging about it, but that's within his rights.

And seriously, you want to argue with the guy who came up with the idea of the Hero's Journey as the core of the monomyth that Star Wars isn't one of the perfect examples of it, after he's already cited it?  That's pretty much no-win argument.

Unless, of course, you think the idea of the Monomyth is shit.

Quote from: Aos;260699Unless, of course, you think the idea of the Monomyth is shit.

Does anyone outside Hollywood take Joseph Campbell seriously anymore?

My understanding was that he's considered pretty much completey irrelvant to both anthropology and psychology.

Quote from: Aos;260699Unless, of course, you think the idea of the Monomyth is shit.

Cynicism is hardly an argument.

Quote from: Vulgarian;260785Does anyone outside Hollywood take Joseph Campbell seriously anymore?

Nope.

Hollywood has an excited audience of billions of people. Anthropology and psychology in academia, a rather smaller audience.

So for rpgs, for a fun game session and campaign, I think Campbell's monomyth is more useful than all those anthropological and psychological theories. :) "Zero to hero, with whinging along the way."

Quote from: Jackalope;260867Cynicism is hardly an argument.

Good thing I was expressing an opinion as opposed to making an argument then, eh? I make arguments for a living, it's not what I come here for. Beyond that, we are, after all, talking about Star Wars. Constructing long winded rational arguments would seem to be a bit of overkill, in this case, really. Before you get excited- that's another opinion, there.


However, if you would like to see my senior thesis, which just happens to be on this very topic (myth analysis) please provide me with your email address and I will be happy to forward you a copy. The paper does not address Campbell, though. It does something else entirely, but you might find it somewhat informative, and I would be happy to point you to a couple of key sources on the bibliography if you wish to see other things done in a similar vein.

As a rule Campbell is more likely to be engaged in a liberal arts context (which is where I had my second encounter with his work) and is, as someone stated above, rarely engaged by Anthropologists. I could hazard any number of reasons why, for instance his ideas slant towards unicultural evolution, and there is no real evidence to back any of them up. They may indeed fit the facts- but lots of ideas can be formulated to fit the facts (aquatic ape any one?) My own paper actually suffers from the same problem, as does all myth analysis, really. An important distinction is that I'm only looking at a couple of Myths and my analysis is culturally specific. However, I make no further claims as to its scholarly value, nor do I claim any kind of insight into the universal truths of humankind.

Just because I post like a dumbass, don't assume that I am one. This provides us with another example of a case where a supposition fits the facts but exist in reality only as an unconfirmed possibility.
Fatty.

shit, I should be reading, but I will provide you a brief reason why I don't engage much with Campbell.
I won't provide full citations- because I'm lazy. If anyone wants cites I will happily provide them with a copy of the thesis I mention above

To be brief- one of the fundimental problems with campbell is he presents myths as discrete intentional and whole narratives. This is a fallacious view. myths are products of human activity, and they are subject to process of reduction and addition. They are a occasionally re-purposed entirely.
Genesis 1 of the Hebrew Bible provides a good example of both the additive and subtractive processes of myth generation at work. Consider the excerpt below:
“In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep…” (Coogan 1989: 11, Hebrew Bible)
   This is the opening of the Hebrew bible, but it is also a retelling of the Babylonian creation myth, which is itself part of a larger middle-eastern tradition. Several elements of the original narrative have been removed, however, and a different cultural perspective (monotheism) has been added. In the Babylonian version, creation takes place after the god Marduk slays Tiamat, a seven headed dragon. Marduk uses this act to leverage himself in a position of superiority over the other gods (Gabel 2000: 47).
   The Hebrew version was written down sometime in the sixth or fifth century BC. Monotheistic bias necessitated the removal of all references to gods other than the creator. Tiamat was recast as “the deep” and all the remaining gods simply vanished from the narrative (Gabel 2000: 48)
   This retelling accomplishes at least two separate goals. Monotheism was emphasized, and the traditional middle-eastern creation story is preserved- albeit in altered form (Gabel 2000: 48).


Thus any analysis of myth we undertake has to take such additive and subtractive processes into account. To my knowledge Campbell does not do this.
I am, of course, happy to be wrong.

That's right I worked a dragon into my thesis. Feel my power.

Quote from: Aos;260910However, if you would like to see my senior thesis, which just happens to be on this very topic (myth analysis) please provide me with your email address and I will be happy to forward you a copy. The paper does not address Campbell, though. It does something else entirely, but you might find it somewhat informative, and I would be happy to point you to a couple of key sources on the bibliography if you wish to see other things done in a similar vein.

I'd probably enjoy reading it. I had an 18 credit coordinated studies class that was based entirely on Campbell. I'll PM you my email address.

I don't want to argue Campbell with you because it's not remotely in my area of expertise, and it seems to be in yours, so I'd probably end up looking like a schmuck.

But I have read Campbell, and I did not think he was writing from an anthropological viewpoint.  I thought he was doing literary analysis from a liberal arts perspective, and thus I would expect him to be most referenced by literary types.  I find the perspective "Pish, he's only important in Hollywood." somewhat amusing, if only because Hollywood has such tremendous impact on how people see the world.

You're right that he discusses myths as discrete intentional and whole narratives, and perhaps you're right that they do not get formed this way -- he doesn't make that claim though.  He discusses them that way because they are told that way, and if he approaches anthropology or psychology it is in discussion of the role of storytellers in a society.

I personally find Campbell deeply engaging and powerfully influential on my own writing.  Christopher Vogel's The Writer's Journey, which applies Campbell's theories to screenplay structure in very technical manner, is probably the second best book on screenwriting I've read (the best is Syd Field's How To Write A Screenplay).

Quote from: Aos;260913Just because I post like a dumbass, don't assume that I am one.

Almost siggable.

Quote from: Jackalope;260936But I have read Campbell, and I did not think he was writing from an anthropological viewpoint.  I thought he was doing literary analysis from a liberal arts perspective, and thus I would expect him to be most referenced by literary types.  I find the perspective "Pish, he's only important in Hollywood." somewhat amusing, if only because Hollywood has such tremendous impact on how people see the world.

You're right that he discusses myths as discrete intentional and whole narratives, and perhaps you're right that they do not get formed this way -- he doesn't make that claim though.  He discusses them that way because they are told that way, and if he approaches anthropology or psychology it is in discussion of the role of storytellers in a society.

I personally find Campbell deeply engaging and powerfully influential on my own writing.  Christopher Vogel's The Writer's Journey, which applies Campbell's theories to screenplay structure in very technical manner, is probably the second best book on screenwriting I've read (the best is Syd Field's How To Write A Screenplay).

The point was to puncture the whole ridiculous myth of Star Wars that it has some kind of mythic power that explains it's success because it retells the monomyth.  Campbell does make explicit Jungian claims about the nature of the human unconscious and the role of the Hero's Journey in human psychological growth.  If he is not taken seriously by anthropologists or psychologists then I think it rather diminishes from the whole point of his writing.

Understanding the hero's journey is certainly useful in understanding modern Hollywood films, as the structure has become so dogmatic with Hollywood.  However following the mono-myth won't tell you anything about how to distinguish a good film from a bad film as even the biggest and most ridiculous Hollywood flops tend to follow the structure.

Quote from: Jackalope;260936I personally find Campbell deeply engaging and powerfully influential on my own writing.  Christopher Vogel's The Writer's Journey, which applies Campbell's theories to screenplay structure in very technical manner, is probably the second best book on screenwriting I've read (the best is Syd Field's How To Write A Screenplay).

I am in full agreement with you on those two books, which are really practical, helpful and focused.

From the psychology's point of view, OTOH, Campbell isn't even a blip.

Quote from: Jackalope;260936I don't want to argue Campbell with you because it's not remotely in my area of expertise, and it seems to be in yours, so I'd probably end up looking like a schmuck.

But I have read Campbell, and I did not think he was writing from an anthropological viewpoint.  I thought he was doing literary analysis from a liberal arts perspective, and thus I would expect him to be most referenced by literary types.  I find the perspective "Pish, he's only important in Hollywood." somewhat amusing, if only because Hollywood has such tremendous impact on how people see the world.

You're right that he discusses myths as discrete intentional and whole narratives, and perhaps you're right that they do not get formed this way -- he doesn't make that claim though.  He discusses them that way because they are told that way, and if he approaches anthropology or psychology it is in discussion of the role of storytellers in a society.

I personally find Campbell deeply engaging and powerfully influential on my own writing.  Christopher Vogel's The Writer's Journey, which applies Campbell's theories to screenplay structure in very technical manner, is probably the second best book on screenwriting I've read (the best is Syd Field's How To Write A Screenplay).

Well, I didn't mean to be such a dick anyway.
I read Campbell on my own before I returned to school. I read him again at school.
Myth analysis is interesting, but it is actually not my primary area of expertise. It is just something I got into while looking at human disaster response- another fascinating area of study. Anyway, I claim no ultimate knowledge about anything, except, of course, for the Victoria's Secret Catalogs from 1994-2006*.



*This sentence dedicated to Koltar.

Quote from: Vulgarian;260953The point was to puncture the whole ridiculous myth of Star Wars that it has some kind of mythic power that explains it's success because it retells the monomyth.

So then what's the explanation then?  I mean, if Star Wars is this incredibly lame, stupid movie that doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?

Quote from: Jackalope;261020So then what's the explanation then?  I mean, if Star Wars is this incredibly lame, stupid movie that doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?

Does this imply that if a movie is popular that it must use "Campbell's theories"?

Quote from: Jackalope;261020So then what's the explanation then?  I mean, if Star Wars is this incredibly lame, stupid movie that doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?

Clever Marketing?  It happens all the time, most often with pop music but I'll use one of my own favorite bands as an example in fairness.

The Misfits have quite the cult following (including myself) but if you look at the history of that band you'll find a lot of imperfection.

The early Danzig material had arguably most of the best songs they've ever written, but the recording quality was so piss poor.  Then Danzig left and Jerry Only realized he could slap a Misfits logo on anything and make a buck.  Move on to modern day and you can now buy Crimson Ghost hoodies at Wal-mart and I saw a necklace for sale at Claires.  Unfortunately they haven't made in a good album in years.

Misfits the music is quite dead (pun intended) but Misfits the merchandising seems to be showing no signs of stopping.

So yes the Star Wars films may be imperfect but with the right (or wrong) fan service you can keep anything alive.

Quote from: CavScout;261031Does this imply that if a movie is popular that it must use "Campbell's theories"?

No, but if you had even the most feeble grasp of logic, you'd know that.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;261033Clever Marketing?  It happens all the time, most often with pop music but I'll use one of my own favorite bands as an example in fairness.

Sorry, that hardly explains the enduring popularity of Star Wars.  A lot of things benefit from clever marketing, but few are as popular as Star Wars.  The Misfits, as an example, don't even come close to achieving Star Wars popularity.

Quote from: Jackalope;261020So then what's the explanation then?  I mean, if Star Wars is this incredibly lame, stupid movie that doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?

Who knows for sure.  Why is any movie popular?  FYI I never said Star Wars was lame or stupid.  I just don't buy the idea that it has some kind of deep mythic resonance.

At a guess I would say that it's a combination of a simple adventure story (there's your monomyth as a very basic structural device if you like) with a pastiche of tropes from a whole host of different genres its initial audience was familiar with: samurai films, swords and sorcery, westerns, WW2 fighter plane movies and Saturday afternoon matinees.  I think the inclusion and combination of all these surface details in the context of one film probably explains its success without our having to look for something else below the surface.

In other words I would suggest pastiche, rather than mythic resonance.  But in the end it's just a suggestion - it's not like I've carried out detailed research.

Quote from: Jackalope;261037No, but if you had even the most feeble grasp of logic, you'd know that.

Your statement was "[If Star Wars] doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?"

Your argument seems to be "if it's not Campell's theories then how can it be so popular?"

If I am wrong, can you clarify what you actually mean?

Quote from: Vulgarian;261043Who knows for sure.  Why is any movie popular?  FYI I never said Star Wars was lame or stupid.  I just don't buy the idea that it has some kind of deep mythic resonance.

At a guess I would say that it's a combination of a simple adventure story (there's your monomyth as a very basic structural device if you like) with a pastiche of tropes from a whole host of different genres its initially audience was familiar with.  samurai films, swords and sorcery, westerns, WW2 fighter plane movies and Saturday afternoon matinees.  I think the inclusion and combination of all these surface details in the context of one film probably explains its success without our having to look for something else below the surface.

In other words I would suggest pastiche, rather than mythic resonance.  But in the end it's just a suggestion - it's not like I've carried out detailed research.

I'm with Vulgarian.  They are popular, fun films that mashed up a bunch of genres in a fun, over-the-top way that was completely different from the rather somber tone of most late 70's movies (particularly late 70's sci-fi).  But, like Rifts, that doesn't mean there's anything deep going on there - just wild fun.

You certainly don't need Campbell's monomyth to have a successful movie.  There was no monomyth present in a great many successful movies.  For example, the most successful single film of all time, Titanic, has no monomyth to it.

I think there is also something to be said for the marketing angle- kids know about Star Wars long before they see it. The toys are everywhere. Another thing that helps is that they do keep making new product, all of which sucsk, but it serves to keep the property in mind. As in, "Wow Colan Wars sucked. I really wish they'd make something as good as the first film." To discount marketing, is imo silly. Star Wars has perhaps the most robust and in your face marketing of any movie ,ever- not to mention being the first movie to really tap into this revenue stream.

I think people like Jack also forget that there's a difference between the people who've just seen the movies, and the people who are fans of the books and comic books. Most of the people I work with wouldn't even know that the "extended" Star Wars universe exists at all.

Quote from: Aos;261062I think there is also something to be said for the marketing angle- kids know about Star Wars long before they see it. The toys are everywhere. Another thing that helps is that they do keep making new product, all of which sucsk, but it serves to keep the property in mind. As in, "Wow Colan Wars sucked. I really wish they'd make something as good as the first film." To discount marketing, is imo silly. Star Wars has perhaps the most robust and in your face marketing of any movie ,ever- not to mention being the first movie to really tap into this revenue stream.

Most of the Kids I've taught who have started secondary school over the last few years have been completely unfamiliar with Star Wars.  

They know Harry Potter instead.

Quote from: CavScout;261046Your statement was "[If Star Wars] doesn't tap into universal themes through it's clever use of Campbell's theories, then why is it so freaking popular?"

Your argument seems to be "if it's not Campell's theories then how can it be so popular?"

If I am wrong, can you clarify what you actually mean?

Wow.  You're dumb on whole new levels of dumb.

Quote from: Jackalope;261041Sorry, that hardly explains the enduring popularity of Star Wars.  A lot of things benefit from clever marketing, but few are as popular as Star Wars.  The Misfits, as an example, don't even come close to achieving Star Wars popularity.

Yeah they also don't go to quite the same level of marketing that George Lucas does.  Saying they're not equally popular doesn't change the fact that marketing and merchandising goes a long way to keeping these two things viable.

I'm not bashing Star Wars but it's the biggest merchandising whore in the entertainment industry and anyone who can't see that is blind.

Quote from: Vulgarian;261069Most of the Kids I've taught who have started secondary school over the last few years have been completely unfamiliar with Star Wars.  

They know Harry Potter instead.

Well yeah, but if George Lucas gets hard up for cash we'll see a resurgence.  You could have said the same thing years ago prior to the prequels.

Quote from: jgants;261058For example, the most successful single film of all time, Titanic, has no monomyth to it.

Actually, Titanic is a pretty straightforward example of the monomyth.

You have Kate Winslets character.  You see her in her Ordinary World.  She meets DiCaprio's character, both a Threshold Guardian and a Mentor.  She overcomes several challenges, retrieves the holy grail (love), and then returns to the Ordinary World a changed woman.

Almost all love stories follow the monomyth, and all "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" stories do.

There's also the fact that the people who grew up loving Star Wars are now a good portion of the people who have had or are even having kids now.  As more kids grow up without Star Wars crammed down their throats we'll see it's popularity level off much like the Harry Potter generation now.

Unless of course George Lucas pulls his merchandising magic and breath's new life (money) into the franchise.

Quote from: Vulgarian;261069Most of the Kids I've taught who have started secondary school over the last few years have been completely unfamiliar with Star Wars.  

They know Harry Potter instead.

I have a five and a seven year old. My oldest knew about star wars long before i ever mentioned it. When I drop them off at school, there are always a few SW backpacks in the mix. Star wars still owns a huge section of the toy isle, as well.

Quote from: Jackalope;261070Wow.  You're dumb on whole new levels of dumb.

I guess that means you can't answer....

Quote from: Idinsinuation;261073I'm not bashing Star Wars but it's the biggest merchandising whore in the entertainment industry and anyone who can't see that is blind.

If it weren't for merchandising, Star Wars likely wouldn't exist or be remembered. Merchandising is what's kept Star Wars from taking studio money. A bit of a two-edged sword, granted, but I look at the bland sci-fi offerings most studios put out and I'm glad that Lucas was such a whore.

Quote from: Idinsinuation;261073Well yeah, but if George Lucas gets hard up for cash we'll see a resurgence.  You could have said the same thing years ago prior to the prequels.

I very much doubt he'll be "hard up for cash," but Star Wars is way bigger than one person. It isn't going to disappear -- there's too much money to be made, and it's not like there's no demand for it.

Quote from: ticopelp;261094If it weren't for merchandising, Star Wars likely wouldn't exist or be remembered. Merchandising is what's kept Star Wars from taking studio money. A bit of a two-edged sword, granted, but I look at the bland sci-fi offerings most studios put out and I'm glad that Lucas was such a whore.

True enough.

Quote from: ticopelp;261094I very much doubt he'll be "hard up for cash," but Star Wars is way bigger than one person. It isn't going to disappear -- there's too much money to be made, and it's not like there's no demand for it.

Yeah, I was just teasing.  Although I will point out that some people just can't get enough cash and will do anything for more even if they don't need it.  Like make *Ahem* Prequels. *Ahem*

Quote from: Idinsinuation;261107Yeah, I was just teasing.  Although I will point out that some people just can't get enough cash and will do anything for more even if they don't need it.  Like make *Ahem* Prequels. *Ahem*

LucasArts and Star Wars merchandising were going strong when the prequels came out. I doubt he needed the money then either. I don't agree with a lot of the decisions Lucas made in the prequels, but I do think he made them because he genuinely wanted to, most likely for his kids -- which is why I think the prequels are generally far more kid-focused.

Ironically, I think if he had gone for a naked cash and hired someone else to do a knock-off Star Wars series that pandered to the fans, he might be a lot more popular with the fans than he is.

Quote from: Aos;261083I have a five and a seven year old. My oldest knew about star wars long before i ever mentioned it. When I drop them off at school, there are always a few SW backpacks in the mix. Star wars still owns a huge section of the toy isle, as well.

I'm not saying it's universal.  But there was a time when I could make a reference to a Star Wars as an example to illustrate a point and rely on my students to follow it.  I find that slowly but increasingly, I can't do so.  

Edit: I find this to sometimes be the case even if the kid is carrying around Star Wars pencil case or backpack. They know what Stars Wars is, of course, but they may never have seen any of the films.

Quote from: Vulgarian;261113I
They know what Stars Wars is, of course, but they may never have seen any of the films.

That is my point, really. They'll see them first chance they get, because they've been prepped.

Quote from: Jackalope;261074Actually, Titanic is a pretty straightforward example of the monomyth.

You have Kate Winslets character.  You see her in her Ordinary World.  She meets DiCaprio's character, both a Threshold Guardian and a Mentor.  She overcomes several challenges, retrieves the holy grail (love), and then returns to the Ordinary World a changed woman.

Almost all love stories follow the monomyth, and all "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" stories do.

Only if you're stretching the term "monomyth" to just mean any kind of story that contains character development.  But that's not what the term means, as I understand it.

Love stories may involve some manner of personal growth, as do "coming of age" stories (my least favorite genre), but they are not a monomyth.  Some key pillars are "entering a strange world of supernatural powers and events", a "supernatural mentor", and finishing up with "hero gains powers to help mankind".  It also generally requires a single, decisive protagonist (and an argument can be made for Leo as the main protagonist).  It also somewhat presupposes a male hero.

Kate may be slumming it with Leo, but that's hardly entering a world of strange supernatural powers and events (there's a dualism with Leo entering her world as well).  Leo may encourage Kate to try new things, but she equally does so with him, so he's certainly not a supernatural mentor.  She may end up a happier person in the end, but she's hardly a savior of mankind (if anything, there's a stronger case for Leo being the savior since he at least saves her).

To me, the monomyth thing is a load of BS.  It's like cold calling with psychics - it gets as much wrong with any given example as it does right.  The fact that Campbell basically says "there's 16 stages but they can be in any order and any given story will contain only certain stages" makes it a meaningless concept.  It's so vague that all it really does is confirm that most stories are based on a few universal themes - something that people discovered hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago.

I've distilled the secrets of storytelling down to this core thing:

All successful stories are entertaining.  Except the ones that are not really entertaining, but instead hold meaningful truths. Or the ones that resonate with the ages but are actually sort of dull.


Yeah. So if you keep that in mind, you too can write hugely successful stories.

Quote from: jgants;261160Only if you're stretching the term "monomyth" to just mean any kind of story that contains character development.  But that's not what the term means, as I understand it.

Love stories may involve some manner of personal growth, as do "coming of age" stories (my least favorite genre), but they are not a monomyth.  Some key pillars are "entering a strange world of supernatural powers and events", a "supernatural mentor", and finishing up with "hero gains powers to help mankind".  It also generally requires a single, decisive protagonist (and an argument can be made for Leo as the main protagonist).  It also somewhat presupposes a male hero.

Kate may be slumming it with Leo, but that's hardly entering a world of strange supernatural powers and events (there's a dualism with Leo entering her world as well).  Leo may encourage Kate to try new things, but she equally does so with him, so he's certainly not a supernatural mentor.  She may end up a happier person in the end, but she's hardly a savior of mankind (if anything, there's a stronger case for Leo being the savior since he at least saves her).

To me, the monomyth thing is a load of BS.  It's like cold calling with psychics - it gets as much wrong with any given example as it does right.  The fact that Campbell basically says "there's 16 stages but they can be in any order and any given story will contain only certain stages" makes it a meaningless concept.  It's so vague that all it really does is confirm that most stories are based on a few universal themes - something that people discovered hundreds (if not thousands) of years ago.

Okay.  Not going to argue it with you.

Just think you're full of shit.

Edit to Add: Requiring overt supernaturalism in post-magical realism fiction is ludicrous.

Quote from: Spike;261177All successful stories are entertaining.  Except the ones that are not really entertaining, but instead hold meaningful truths. Or the ones that resonate with the ages but are actually sort of dull.

Indeed, a profound truth. Shall we call it the Spikist Principle?

Works for me! :)