I've recently been watching these very interesting Star Wars video essays on YouTube (yeah I know, a rare breed) and it brings up these comments Lucas has made about how he views Star Wars as almost like a silent film in terms of how important the visuals are to him in comparison to the dialogue. But this essay also points out how important Lucas finds all of the "rhyming" moments in his trilogies and the way he utilizes them to remind you of something else for emotional or thematic reasons. And there's so many of them, both in visuals and in dialogue, and it's interesting to consider how important this is to him, the repetition for a purpose as well as the storytelling through visuals above everything else and then to look at Star Wars since the Prequels came out and realize how little has really been able to match up to those ideals since then.
The ONLY thing that's come out since the Prequels that I think really hits these two things the same way is, in fact, Andor. One of the things I noticed about the way people discussed Andor as it was airing in a way I haven't really seen for any of the other shows or films was the visual SYMBOLOGY. So many times I saw people noticing the Imperial cog everywhere, from the aerial shot of Narkina 5 as the prisoners escape to the architecture of Mon Mothma's house. There were people picking up on the use of items in Luthen's shop that are familiar from other things to give this idea that Luthen is from another time, he's attempting to preserve this world he lost, that if you're not looking closely enough you won't notice what he's really saying or doing with this shop. The color choices for the different locations and people got analyzed because the people involved spoke about how they intentionally utilized color to SEND A MESSAGE about the characters and the world. We know that the people who made the costumes and sets really worked hard to treat Star Wars almost like a period drama and study the history of the franchise as if it were a real place so that the things they came up with felt like they belonged in this world everyone knows so well even if it's completely new. And of course there were all of the myriad references to things from Rogue One, the constant repetition of "climb", the sunset on the beach, etc.
Nearly EVERY SHOT in this show was created with so much intention behind it in order to say something meaningful about the characters, the world, this specific story they're in, and the overall saga of Star Wars itself. It's insane how much greater impact this show was able to achieve through the incredibly careful usage of visual symbols and thematic repetitions, much like Lucas did before them. It feels like they didn't just study the history of the galaxy far far away, but they studied the history of STAR WARS and what Lucas was trying to do and say with this story. They peeled back his onion a bit more and were able to create something that really has that same visual feel even when it's not created for a child audience. It also is experimenting with its narrative style through its structure and through Cassian's character being allowed to be somewhat more reactive than proactive, and while that didn't work for everyone, it does feel like it's following in Lucas's footsteps of experimentation through Star Wars. Push the boundaries of what Star Wars is and can be and what you can say with it.
But this only works because they peeled the onion back enough to TRULY understand all of the messages Lucas was sending with it. They got the heart of Star Wars and despite its lack of space wizards, despite the lack of most major characters in the Saga, this was a show that honestly got the message more than just about anything else Star Wars has put out since the Prequels. The choices between selflessness and selfishness, the themes about how you always HAVE to make a choice even when it feels like you don't have any (sometimes ESPECIALLY when it feels like you don't have any), and how important it is to make sure to choose the path of compassion above everything else. The themes of connection to others, the symbiotic circle and the impact even the smallest person can have on world around them, it's RIGHT THERE and it's CENTRAL to Andor's storyline.
So yes, it experiments a little with narrative structure, but it's possibly the most Star Wars thing to exist Revenge of the Sith because it honestly truly GETS what Star Wars was about, both in its themes and in its filmmaking. A lot of people said that Andor didn't feel like Star Wars to them, usually because of the lack of space wizards and the fact that it's not a story aimed at children. But to me, Andor is EXACTLY what Star Wars is and has always been. They're stretching the boundaries of what Star Wars can be, but it's saying the exact same things Star Wars has always said, it's just saying it slightly differently. This doesn't feel like fanfiction to me, not really. Unlike things like the Mandoverse or the books, Andor isn't just taking some of the toys out of the sandbox and going to play with them somewhere else. Andor is IN that sandbox. It's building a slightly different sandcastle, but it's still within the sandbox, using the same sand that Lucas did.
79 notes
·
View notes
I'm coming out of the woodwork because I can't handle it. My chest has been tight with anger since I read that Ruibo was supposed to be more prominent in season 3. I am shaking as I write this. I've had to hold it in until I got off work and could write properly.
I volunteer in fandom. I work the Alternate and Historical Fiction track at DragonCon. (Yeah, if you've been and you like our diversity and our women-focused content of the last five or so years? That's ME. Me and my director. WE have been CURATING THAT CONTENT for yall) Our Flag Means Death falls under my track and I watched it with complete glee and would gladly make sure you all had content to talk about this year.
But to tell us (here's talking to you Casey Bloys) that we should amp up The Gilded Age when your DEI content is right there and you just cancelled it? You cannot tell me that you and Max deserve to have fan retention when you don't even understand what Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is and why it matters. You don't throw a show at the wall and then take it down and give yourself a pat on the back going "yup we did it good for us guys, don't need another gay show for a few years take a break." You fight, every single day, for your content to feature anyone OTHER than white men.
Every single year I comb through our DragonCon content and decide "What can we do better? Where did we falter? Where do we need to improve?" (you can discuss those with me later, this is about OFMD) You DO NOT give yourself a show with this much diversity and then claim something like The Gilded Age can even compare. You cannot use that as your substitute. It does not work like that. I do this as volunteer work and not as my job and I am furious that he is treating it like a fucking joke. Like Ruibo and Nathan didn't deserve to be showcased in their own season now that the third season would feature them more and we would take a step back from the middle aged men (allegedly).
63 notes
·
View notes
saw these tags from @the-piper-and-the-lion and I want to give my two cents, but I also suspected it would get long.
I think you've hit the nail on the head for Robin, and my theory is there is a very similar explanation for Andrew. Robin was spoiled growing up, the golden child, very young and relatively sheltered, and had someone who catered to her every need and want. This is what she brings in with her to her marriage.
So, what about Andrew? Well, I think the answer is in a line from Aunt Irene: "I've always been more like a mother to him than a sister." As others have pointed out, we get very little insight into Andrew and Irene's life, but what is made repeatedly clear is that Irene is to Andrew what the Grandmother is to Robin. It manifests in a different yet (almost) equally insidious form.
Andrew is selfish, has been petted over his entire life, has also had his every need and wanted catered to, and really could also be seen as the golden child as well. This is what he brings in with him to his marriage. As you indicate, the war trauma also plays a huge role here in my opinion. I don't think Andrew was exaggerating when he talked about his first impression of Robin, despite the flowery language. He was desperately grasping onto anything that was not the war, specifically anything that was the opposite of blood and filth of the war, and one of the first people he sees? Robin.
Andrew's deal is that he did not understand that he was marrying a person in her own right. He was marrying an escape route. This is not to say that Andrew was not actually in love with Robin; it's more to say he saw all the shiny parts of her - and that was it.
So you take that, and you combine it with what Andrew is bringing to the marriage - selfishness and unreasonable expectations - and you combine it with what Robin is bringing to the marriage - naivety and unreasonable expectations - and you get one hot mess. Both Andrew and Robin were taught what love is like by Aunt Irene and the grandmother, respectively. Andrew seems to be more well-rounded in his views because he wasn't as sheltered as Robin, but at heart that influence is there.
Robin is described as spoiled, but what's unstated is that Andrew was too. It's implied in almost everything he does. He expects his marriage to be about him. He expects Robin to focus on him. Of course he's going to be mad about a baby; it means he's not the center of attention anymore. On top of that, if we want to leap into more speculative territory, we also have his reaction by seeing the medal from the war over a decade later; I can only imagine what living with him must have been like when he was fresh off the battlefield and beginning to really grapple with what he'd seen.
And, very importantly, in the midst of this hot mess, in the midst of everything crashing down, you have Aunt Irene. She's picking apart Robin - and she's definitely affirming Andrew. Yes, Robin is being unreasonable. Yes, she's being hysterical about Jane's health. Yes, she's spending too much time with her baby; good thing I was there to help get supper on the table. She's fanning the flames of Andrew's pride and driving every wedge she can find between him and his family.
This is not at all to excuse Andrew's behavior here. He should have been capable of taking that millimeter step of recognizing Irene's toxicity, but he likes that Irene affirms him and pets over him, and his self-centeredness blinds him. It blinds him, and in the end, it costs him everything.
As for who Andrew is...I think Andrew was the cocky, confident man in uniform who was charming and knew it. He also wasn't just a blowhard; he was intelligent and sharp. He writes political commentary and gets along well with everyone. He's shown to be a pretty outgoing, hotheaded, arrogant dude who is more than a little stubborn (he did stay up arguing with his friend until the wee hours of the morning). He's seen things he can't forget and that he'll always carry with him. He's spoiled. His ego is massive. He's friends with everyone from fellow political commentators to the Jimmy Johns.
You're right in that we only ever see Andrew through Jane's perspective, but we do get the bare threads of who he is outside of "dad." Someone struggling with PTSD, someone so arrogant he can't-or won't- see what's in front of his face, someone who spends time advocating for international peace, someone who snaps savagely at his friends in arguments, someone willing to stay up all night for those arguments, someone who is a keen learner, someone who seems so ashamed of his behavior he doesn't want to be called father, someone so arrogant and ashamed at the same time he thinks Jane hates him even after he has met her and doesn't expect her to want to return - it's barely there, but it's there. I'll end this long post by saying i would have killed for an andrew/robin perspective or prequel or sequel lol.
29 notes
·
View notes
Missing 411 guy?
David Paulides, the guy who is the creator of "Missing 411" which is basically a conspiracy about suspicious clusters of people going missing in National Parks in the United States. He is also the bane of my existence for the past year as someone who is researching a story about someone who goes missing in a National Forest.
To start with, if you've ever been even on the fringes of "irl spooky stuff" videos on YouTube, you might have encountered this. There are a lot of youtubers and podcasters who cover this guy's content without understanding What and Who they are giving platform to. Sometimes, people don't even mention him but will relate the cases that he covers in his books or use the same conspiracy points as him. I would not be suprised if you watched a Buzzfeed Unsolved/Watcher video (which are fine btw) and then got recommended something related to Missing 411 in the sidebar since it's a similar genre. It's super popular to the point where its outgrown its creator. I can't stress enough that many of you have probably encountered this content, at least in passing, without knowing what it was.
So to recap, Missing 411 documents cases of real-life people who have disappeared or been found dead in national parks, national forests, etc and claims that these cases are unusual and mysterious. It frequently talks about missing person "clusters" and things like that. There is often an overt, if not outrightly stated, implication that something supernatural, crpytid, or UFO/alien related was involved. For starters, David Paulides has written a ton of books trying to prove the existence of bigfoot. Now, I have no issues with people believing in bigfoot, or cryptids, or aliens, but I do have an issue with people co-opting real life tragedies and twisting information to push this as conspiracy. I simply do not think it is helpful or respectful to talk about missing and dead people (and children!) like this. Also, with the high prices of his books ($100-200) he just reeks of grifter to me.
To me, Missing 411 "criteria" is a stretch at best. You will see cases "mysteriously" connected because both of these people wore red when they went missing. Both these people's bodies were found near water (as if many National Park do not have water features.) Both these people's bodies were found near granite rocks (like, the most common rock type in mountains lol.) All these cases involve the weather turning bad! (um, yeah, that's a big reason why people get in trouble?) He frequently claims that bodies being undressed is highly unusual, without ever acknowledging paradoxical undressing. Or he claims laughably weak connections between people like "these two women who went missing in different years are connected because they both had three letter names that started with A." I haven't personally listened to this talk but there is a data scientist mentioned in his Wikipedia page who examined the case data and found nothing out of the ordinary in them. If you don't want to watch a video (I don't either right now) then he also wrote this article. From a different person, this article from a podcast is also good.
David Paulides does not present Missing 411 cases with accuracy. He has been known to cherry-pick data and purposefully omit data to make them seem more unusual. Many cases he covers are either already solved, or have extensive information available. He does not retract information or admit when he is wrong. Even if he does present a particular case accurately, he has such a bad track record with reliable research that he cannot be trusted as a source. There used to be someone on reddit who would deconstruct cases he covered. In this post they found several instances of cases of Paulides missing sources and coming to incorrect conclusions.
Note there's a few differences in the sources I just linked. The data scientist and podcast skeptic both said they found the data to be accurate, while the redditors have found evidence to the contrary. The data scientist also says he found Paulides' presentation of information respectful, but I personally find all of this highly disrespectful. But despite these differences I think we can all agree....the claims of Missing 411 are pretty ridiculous.
Also, let's talk about David Paulides himself. Before becoming a writer, he was a cop in California. He was a cop who was fired for corruption (well that's hard to do), because he was caught soliciting donations for a fake charity he set up. That's straight from his Wikipedia page. He continues to use his past as a "dectective" to attempt to make his claims sound more reliable. There was also a redditor who pulled up some other career highlights from when he was a cop in the 80s, by looking at court transcripts and news articles. His job used to be entrap gay men by pretending to be gay, getting them to invite him home with them, and then arresting then. He and his unit were also accused of police brutality many times in the 80s, with Paulides testifying in defense of his unit. And he has not changed btw, he's a Qanon stolen election covid denier type of nut right now on his YouTube channel (according to reddit. I am not watching this man's videos.) So yeah, I think his character speaks for itself.
Anyway, I'm tired of hearing about this guy and seeing 411 related content pop up around YouTube, Reddit, Tiktok, etc. Pay attention if you watch things related to "creepy and unexplained real life disappearnaces." I do not think he is a good person, I do not think he can be trusted, and I do not think that his work actually benefits the families of the missing persons in question. These are real people. He turns them into spectacles to push ~unusual~ circumstances and paranormal activity.
17 notes
·
View notes