I didn't mean for this to be a sports blog. I just wanted it to be an opportunity to say what was on my mind, react to the world around me, comment on the things I read and watch and listen too, but sports seems to be dominating the news at the moment (that is, other than the insanity that surrounds our president) so a sports blog it is.
Let me preface this post by saying what happened yesterday was a tragedy and I feel horrible for the families that are left behind. Also, I in no way condone people who are saying on social media that Kobe got what he deserved. There are very few crimes where death is a fitting punishment and for any of us to wish what happened on another human being is disgusting.
But at the same time, I can't condone those who are calling him a hero or saying how proud they are of how he lived his life. Kobe Bryant raped a woman, viciously victim shamed her into not testifying at the trial (okay, he didn't personally do this but the media and his legal team did it in his name), and paid her to go away. These are pretty indisputable facts, especially in light of what we now know today about male abuse of fame and power, that the rest of the world seems to have forgotten. I'm not writing this to argue what happened, I'm more interested in discussing how, after all we have gone through the last few years, how "woke" we have supposedly become, we are still so willing to dismiss and forget vial indiscretions just because we like someone's public persona.
What would the reaction be if I decided to write a post about how great a father Matt Lauer is? Or Luis CK (wait... those exist!)? How about if I wrote about Garrison Keillor's contributions to promoting female writers? Did you know that Harvey Weinstein is responsible for the careers of many highly successful actresses? My guess is that people would be upset because all of these men were accused of treating women in awful ways. So, why are most people so quick to apologize for Kobe? Why is everything I read about what a great father he was and how supportive he was of women's basketball without mention of the fact that he raped someone?
To be fair, there are journalists questioning Kobe's legacy. Charles Pierce wrote this in Esquire. And Will Leitch wrote a scathing two sentences in New York Magazine and then moves on to other positive stuff. But, on the other hand, this happened!
I don't understand why it is okay to talk about him scoring 81 points in a game but not alright to talk about him being accused of sexual assault. I believe in a person's ability to repent and I would like to think that after having three daughters Kobe realized the atrociousness of his actions. I would like to think that his support of women's basketball was partially an amends for how he treated women in the past. But I also find it hard to comment on his fatherhood and support of women without mentioning that he raped a woman. It is all connected and should certainly affect our reactions to those comments.
In many ways, we are still trying to figure out as a society how we are going to treat celebrities that act in horrible ways. To what extent can we or should we separate a person from their art or accomplishments. Bill Cosby had an impact on stand-up comedy and pop culture that is almost impossible for people of my generation to forget. Michael Jackson probably had a bigger impact on music and live performance. But at the same time, I can't help but feel a little dirty when my immediate reaction to a friend tweeting about putting M&M's in his kid's pancakes is "Dad is great! Gave us the chocolate cake!" Or, wanting to sing out loud when "Rock With You" comes on the radio. Kobe was an amazing basketball player and inspired many to play the game themselves, just like Bill Cosby inspired many to be comedians and Michael Jackson inspired people to sing and dance. Matt Lauer made people want to go into broadcasting and Garrison Keillor made people want to write and tell stories. I'll even bet that Harvey Weinstein inspired people to get into the movie business. But nobody is calling them heroes right now.
Kobe Bryant did something that has cost many men their careers. Just because he died in a tragic way does not mean those actions should be removed from discussions of his legacy. Jen Chaney tweeted that "For right now, it's okay to just be sad. Because this undeniably sad" but it is also okay to not be sad. It is okay to think this man was not a hero or someone to look up too. It is okay to not be proud of his actions or accomplishments. It is okay to think that Kobe Bryant lived life in opposition to how a large portion of us feel one should live their life. And it isn't wrong or improper to express that.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
The Sports Media Gets It Wrong Again
Ever since the sign stealing "scandal" broke, I have seen a number of articles or comments about MLB needing Derek Jeter to wash away the game's sins. What baseball needs now is to focus on the crowning of a man of integrity into its Hall Of Fame. Make people remember how great and honorable the sport can be by letting Derek step back into the spotlight.
I can only hope that this is the last time I have to listen to the sports media wrongfully pushing Derek Jeter on the world, because I reached my limit of Jeter simonizing ten years ago.
There are two mistakes the media is making with their handling of Jeter's induction and how it relates to the current bad publicity the game finds itself in. Both mistakes stem from the fact that the media loves Derek Jeter more than any entity in the history of the world has loved a human being. It is beyond fathomable why this has happened, but love is never logical, is it?
Mistake #1: The media's insistence that Jeter is a man of integrity.
I'm not necessarily saying he isn't, but what proof do we have? The media has turned quiet into integrity. The man says nothing about anything. If you believe that Fiers is a villain for speaking up then I guess Jeter is a hero because I don't remember him talking a stand on any issue in baseball. The man has made a career out of avoiding controversy, which isn't a bad trait, I guess, but doesn't fit with my idea of integrity either.
I do think, however, someone could make a case that his silence is hiding the fact that he isn't as upstanding as his PR guy has convinced us of. Have we already forgotten about this? And this? Yes, getting fired or let go is part of baseball, but Mr. Class Act, Derek Jeter, told the president of the team to do it because he "didn't want to" and then fired that president after he did Jeter's dirty work. If Jeter truly had any respect for the game outside his own ego, why would he handle this situation in such a callus manner. This isn't the actions of a guy who should be admired or held up as a paragon. This is the actions of a guy who thinks he is better than those who work for him. He didn't treat Andre Dawson or Jeff Conine or Jack McKeon like members of his fraternal order, he treated them like under the line employees.
The argument for Jeter's character almost always includes the fact that he is a great leader and team player, but is he? One of the biggest bell weather moments in his career came in 2004 when the Yankees traded for the best shortstop in the game. At the time of the trade Alex Rodriguez had four All Star Game starts to Jeter's two, he had two Gold Gloves to Jeter's none, he had one MVP to Jeter's none. So, obviously Jeter did what was right for the team and moved to third base, right? Nope. When asked what was going to happen on the right side of the field owner George Stienbrenner said, "Jeter is the captain. He is the leader." The ball was in Jeter's court. If he said play me at third, the Yankees would have because he was the leader. But Jeter clearly had his own interests and ego in mind and refused to change positions. There is nobody in baseball who would have played Jeter at shortstop in 2004 over Alex Rodriguez if it would not have been a PR nightmare, yet that is exactly what happened. Funny, Cal Ripken had no problem moving to third. Which brings us to...
Mistake #2: The media forcing a hero down our throats.
One of the greatest moments in baseball history came when Cal Ripken Jr. finally surpassed Lou Gehrig for most consecutive games played.
Ripken is now widely lauded for bringing fans back to baseball after the disgrace of the 1994 strike that caused the first baseball season without a World Series since 1904. But the important thing to note here, like many events that mend and heal, nobody was looking for Ripken to fix things, it just happened. The right guy at the right time saved the game. Baseball is now in the midst of another black mark on its reputation (one, in my opinion that isn't even in the same breath as the strike or steroids, but people seem to be unreasonably upset all the same.), so what does the media do? Crown Jeter as the guy to fix things before they allow it to happen naturally. Our culture has reached a point where getting to the story first is the most important thing. This mentality prevents sometimes prevents events from occurring on their own. The baseball media wants Derek Jeter to save the day so bad that they are going to make it happen, but it's not working. Derek Jeter is no Cal Ripken, and I say that as a fan of neither of them. Cal Ripken has proven time and time again that he feels the game is more important than him. He moves to third base when it is best for his team. He creates and promotes youth baseball all over the country. I know this is speculation, but I bet he sits down with Andre Dawson and Jack McKeon and explains why he is going to have to let them go.
Derek Jeter is the most overrated baseball player in the history of the game. That isn't so much a comment on him as a ballplayer as it is a comment about how in love with Derek Jeter the media is. The guy put up HOF numbers and has a resume of winning and accomplishment that 99% of athletes can only dream of. And still, the media has blown him up as a figure of heroism so far beyond what that resume means, that I will stand by the opening sentence of this paragraph until the day I die. We are taking about a guy that had a game stopped for five minutes because he got his 2,722 hit. ESPN cut away from normal broadcasting to show the event, like they did when Barry Bonds broke the all time home run record, or Ripken did what he did, for a hit that has no meaning to anyone who isn't a Yankee fan. Jeter getting the most hits for a Yankee is not national news! Nobody is going to break into live broadcasts to show Mike Trout get the most hits for a Angel, but because its Derek Jeter, its national news.
And how about this play
Everyone has this in their list of Top 5 Derek Jeter plays. Look at how willing he is to risk is body to make the catch! This is what makes Jeter a leader! Nobody seems to remember that this happened a few innings earlier
Notice how Reese tumbles into the camera well instead of diving into the stands. Notice how he got to the ball quicker and took a better route. Notice how it is the exact same play in the exact game with the exact same stakes but nobody remembers how great Reese's play was. When Derek Jeter does it, and breaks his face to get it done because he's not a good shortstop, its proof of his greatness.
Now the media thinks that they can make Derek Jeter the savior of baseball. They are going to tell us that we should pay attention to Jeter and not all that sign stealing that has been going on. They are going to give us the next generation's Cal Ripken. But that isn't how this works. The fans chose Ripken, its the media that is choosing Jeter.
Should Derek Jeter have been unanimously voted into the HOF?
It's not an easy question for me to answer. My initial reaction is, yes, he should have. As much as I hate him as a player and can't stand the attention he gets, there is no question that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I don't buy that "Ruth didn't get all the votes so nobody should" logic. If we all know that someone is a HOFer then give them the vote... unless you are making a point, like Jeter is overrated and I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of getting all the votes. In that case, maybe one member of the media got it right.
I can only hope that this is the last time I have to listen to the sports media wrongfully pushing Derek Jeter on the world, because I reached my limit of Jeter simonizing ten years ago.
There are two mistakes the media is making with their handling of Jeter's induction and how it relates to the current bad publicity the game finds itself in. Both mistakes stem from the fact that the media loves Derek Jeter more than any entity in the history of the world has loved a human being. It is beyond fathomable why this has happened, but love is never logical, is it?
Mistake #1: The media's insistence that Jeter is a man of integrity.
I'm not necessarily saying he isn't, but what proof do we have? The media has turned quiet into integrity. The man says nothing about anything. If you believe that Fiers is a villain for speaking up then I guess Jeter is a hero because I don't remember him talking a stand on any issue in baseball. The man has made a career out of avoiding controversy, which isn't a bad trait, I guess, but doesn't fit with my idea of integrity either.
I do think, however, someone could make a case that his silence is hiding the fact that he isn't as upstanding as his PR guy has convinced us of. Have we already forgotten about this? And this? Yes, getting fired or let go is part of baseball, but Mr. Class Act, Derek Jeter, told the president of the team to do it because he "didn't want to" and then fired that president after he did Jeter's dirty work. If Jeter truly had any respect for the game outside his own ego, why would he handle this situation in such a callus manner. This isn't the actions of a guy who should be admired or held up as a paragon. This is the actions of a guy who thinks he is better than those who work for him. He didn't treat Andre Dawson or Jeff Conine or Jack McKeon like members of his fraternal order, he treated them like under the line employees.
The argument for Jeter's character almost always includes the fact that he is a great leader and team player, but is he? One of the biggest bell weather moments in his career came in 2004 when the Yankees traded for the best shortstop in the game. At the time of the trade Alex Rodriguez had four All Star Game starts to Jeter's two, he had two Gold Gloves to Jeter's none, he had one MVP to Jeter's none. So, obviously Jeter did what was right for the team and moved to third base, right? Nope. When asked what was going to happen on the right side of the field owner George Stienbrenner said, "Jeter is the captain. He is the leader." The ball was in Jeter's court. If he said play me at third, the Yankees would have because he was the leader. But Jeter clearly had his own interests and ego in mind and refused to change positions. There is nobody in baseball who would have played Jeter at shortstop in 2004 over Alex Rodriguez if it would not have been a PR nightmare, yet that is exactly what happened. Funny, Cal Ripken had no problem moving to third. Which brings us to...
Mistake #2: The media forcing a hero down our throats.
One of the greatest moments in baseball history came when Cal Ripken Jr. finally surpassed Lou Gehrig for most consecutive games played.
Derek Jeter is the most overrated baseball player in the history of the game. That isn't so much a comment on him as a ballplayer as it is a comment about how in love with Derek Jeter the media is. The guy put up HOF numbers and has a resume of winning and accomplishment that 99% of athletes can only dream of. And still, the media has blown him up as a figure of heroism so far beyond what that resume means, that I will stand by the opening sentence of this paragraph until the day I die. We are taking about a guy that had a game stopped for five minutes because he got his 2,722 hit. ESPN cut away from normal broadcasting to show the event, like they did when Barry Bonds broke the all time home run record, or Ripken did what he did, for a hit that has no meaning to anyone who isn't a Yankee fan. Jeter getting the most hits for a Yankee is not national news! Nobody is going to break into live broadcasts to show Mike Trout get the most hits for a Angel, but because its Derek Jeter, its national news.
And how about this play
Now the media thinks that they can make Derek Jeter the savior of baseball. They are going to tell us that we should pay attention to Jeter and not all that sign stealing that has been going on. They are going to give us the next generation's Cal Ripken. But that isn't how this works. The fans chose Ripken, its the media that is choosing Jeter.
Should Derek Jeter have been unanimously voted into the HOF?
It's not an easy question for me to answer. My initial reaction is, yes, he should have. As much as I hate him as a player and can't stand the attention he gets, there is no question that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. And I don't buy that "Ruth didn't get all the votes so nobody should" logic. If we all know that someone is a HOFer then give them the vote... unless you are making a point, like Jeter is overrated and I'm not going to give him the satisfaction of getting all the votes. In that case, maybe one member of the media got it right.
Friday, January 17, 2020
The Problem Is The Technology or Why Rob Manford Is Wrong
I teach high school English in a district that has a "No Cell Phone" policy. It's not a popular policy with a large portion of the district's faculty. The argument being that this generation is attached to their technology and if we want them to stay engaged with learning we have to allow them to use their phones in class. The world is becoming more technological advanced, so you either jump on the wave or be crushed by it. Which sounds compelling, but is ignoring the reality of human nature. If you allow students to have their phones in class they aren't going to be using them for school work. This isn't really an opinion, it's kind of a fact. Whatever engagement you think you are creating is going to be lost to Snapchat, Instagram, and TikTok. And even worse, the kids screwing around end up hurting those around them as well. Teachers that attack those who explain this, saying "if your lessons are strong enough there isn't a problem" are just fooling themselves with their self-righteousness. No lesson is so good or so engaging that every student with their cell phone on will stick to the task at hand.
The argument doesn't end up mattering though because the policy has no effect on the student's use of phones. Kids brazenly walk through the halls on their phones, some teachers allow them in their class and some don't and when a student gets caught with a phone they might get a warning or they might have the phone taken away. If the student has the phone taken away multiple times, it leads to possible detentions. Maybe things escalate to an in-school suspension, but that is always for not letting the adult have the phone you were caught with, not for having it in the first place. Those who punish students for using phones only cause them to find more creative ways to check their phones during class time. The only way to truly prevent the students from using phones and maintaining a "No Cell Phone" policy is to have them turn in the phones before school or class.
How can we deprive students of the opportunity to learn by removing technology from the classroom? The fact of the matter is the ways we have been learning for centuries are more effective than any technology you bring into the classroom. We learn and retain information by taking notes that reinforce lessons and help with recall. And guess what? Taking notes on a laptop or phone is not as effective as writing things down. Technology is everywhere and today's kids have no problem learning and working it, so why can't we give them a few hours of the day where they need to learn without technology?
All this is leading up to my thoughts on the recent baseball cheating scandal. I know it's not a popular take, but the whole thing is being handled all wrong, and it all stems from the fact that we can't make a stand and just say that technology doesn't belong in our sports. What did MLB think was going to happen when they started putting cameras in center field and monitors in the clubhouse? Just like the kids who use lessons that allow phones as an opportunity to check Facebook, of course someone was going to find a way to use replay monitors to steal signs.
Baseball players have been coming up with creative ways to steal signs since the game began. We aren't just talking guys on second seeing the catcher's fingers either. We're talking binoculars in the stands, mascots, and Walkie-Talkies. Heck, one of the most famous moments in the history of the game happened because a coach set up beyond center field with a telescope and an electric buzzer to relay catchers signs to the Giants bullpen. Sound familiar? {Side note: This has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make here but does factor into my thoughts on this whole thing. Read all the articles that I linked too and what do you notice about the tone? As much as people are getting upset about this now, baseball created a culture where sign stealing was a joke; it's a list of funny stories about the lengths people went to get a small advantage. I used to get books when I was a kid with titles like "Weird Tales From Baseball" or "50 Funniest Baseball Stories" and these were the stories inside. Manford says that there is no history of punishment for sign stealing. Yes, Rob, that's because the sport has determined that it isn't a serious crime. It is part of the game. It's not fair to end the careers of four men over something that has not been taken seriously up until this point.} This is who professional athletes are. They would never have gotten to the level of competition they have reached without a desire to be on top, without a need to win at any cost, without looking for every competitive edge they could find. Drugs, mind games, video taped practice, cameras on the catchers, it doesn't matter. It might not be right or ethical, but many of them are going to try.
So, why are we feeding the drug addicts more drugs? Why would we introduce technology into the game when we don't want it to be used to cheat? Manfred put the drugs in the house of an addict, told the addict not to use the drugs or else, and then punished the addict when he did exactly what everyone expected him to do. The players were being set up to fail. If I say take out your phones and research this author, I know that at least one of my students is going right to Snapchat. If I don't want that to happen, I don't tell them to use their phones. I could come up with a way to punish anyone who I find using social media, but its not going to stop the behavior from happening the next time I ask them to take out the phones.
We don't need video replay in our sports, just like we don't need phones in the classroom. We played the games for a century without it and the games went on. They started and ended without replay's help. And when there was a bad call people got upset, complained, and came back to watch more. I don't know one person who stopped watching baseball because Don Denkinger blew a call that cost a team a championship.
Or because Rich Garcia can't tell fan interference from a home run.
But, I do know people who have stopped watching football because it is no longer the same game as it was before they put in replay. Manfred told his students to take out their phones and then lost his mind when they did exactly what history and human nature tells us they were going to do.
An effective self-help mantra tells us we can only change the things we have control of. I don't have control over what my students do with their phones once I have allowed them into a lesson. If Manfred really wants to remove sign stealing from the game (which he can't, it's part of the game, it will always be there) he needs to remove the things that he has control of. Don't punish the players and managers and end people's careers. Get rid of the replay monitors in the clubhouse. Get rid of replay. It doesn't make the game better. And if those things aren't there, no one will be using them to steal signs.
The argument doesn't end up mattering though because the policy has no effect on the student's use of phones. Kids brazenly walk through the halls on their phones, some teachers allow them in their class and some don't and when a student gets caught with a phone they might get a warning or they might have the phone taken away. If the student has the phone taken away multiple times, it leads to possible detentions. Maybe things escalate to an in-school suspension, but that is always for not letting the adult have the phone you were caught with, not for having it in the first place. Those who punish students for using phones only cause them to find more creative ways to check their phones during class time. The only way to truly prevent the students from using phones and maintaining a "No Cell Phone" policy is to have them turn in the phones before school or class.
How can we deprive students of the opportunity to learn by removing technology from the classroom? The fact of the matter is the ways we have been learning for centuries are more effective than any technology you bring into the classroom. We learn and retain information by taking notes that reinforce lessons and help with recall. And guess what? Taking notes on a laptop or phone is not as effective as writing things down. Technology is everywhere and today's kids have no problem learning and working it, so why can't we give them a few hours of the day where they need to learn without technology?
All this is leading up to my thoughts on the recent baseball cheating scandal. I know it's not a popular take, but the whole thing is being handled all wrong, and it all stems from the fact that we can't make a stand and just say that technology doesn't belong in our sports. What did MLB think was going to happen when they started putting cameras in center field and monitors in the clubhouse? Just like the kids who use lessons that allow phones as an opportunity to check Facebook, of course someone was going to find a way to use replay monitors to steal signs.
Baseball players have been coming up with creative ways to steal signs since the game began. We aren't just talking guys on second seeing the catcher's fingers either. We're talking binoculars in the stands, mascots, and Walkie-Talkies. Heck, one of the most famous moments in the history of the game happened because a coach set up beyond center field with a telescope and an electric buzzer to relay catchers signs to the Giants bullpen. Sound familiar? {Side note: This has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make here but does factor into my thoughts on this whole thing. Read all the articles that I linked too and what do you notice about the tone? As much as people are getting upset about this now, baseball created a culture where sign stealing was a joke; it's a list of funny stories about the lengths people went to get a small advantage. I used to get books when I was a kid with titles like "Weird Tales From Baseball" or "50 Funniest Baseball Stories" and these were the stories inside. Manford says that there is no history of punishment for sign stealing. Yes, Rob, that's because the sport has determined that it isn't a serious crime. It is part of the game. It's not fair to end the careers of four men over something that has not been taken seriously up until this point.} This is who professional athletes are. They would never have gotten to the level of competition they have reached without a desire to be on top, without a need to win at any cost, without looking for every competitive edge they could find. Drugs, mind games, video taped practice, cameras on the catchers, it doesn't matter. It might not be right or ethical, but many of them are going to try.
So, why are we feeding the drug addicts more drugs? Why would we introduce technology into the game when we don't want it to be used to cheat? Manfred put the drugs in the house of an addict, told the addict not to use the drugs or else, and then punished the addict when he did exactly what everyone expected him to do. The players were being set up to fail. If I say take out your phones and research this author, I know that at least one of my students is going right to Snapchat. If I don't want that to happen, I don't tell them to use their phones. I could come up with a way to punish anyone who I find using social media, but its not going to stop the behavior from happening the next time I ask them to take out the phones.
We don't need video replay in our sports, just like we don't need phones in the classroom. We played the games for a century without it and the games went on. They started and ended without replay's help. And when there was a bad call people got upset, complained, and came back to watch more. I don't know one person who stopped watching baseball because Don Denkinger blew a call that cost a team a championship.
But, I do know people who have stopped watching football because it is no longer the same game as it was before they put in replay. Manfred told his students to take out their phones and then lost his mind when they did exactly what history and human nature tells us they were going to do.
An effective self-help mantra tells us we can only change the things we have control of. I don't have control over what my students do with their phones once I have allowed them into a lesson. If Manfred really wants to remove sign stealing from the game (which he can't, it's part of the game, it will always be there) he needs to remove the things that he has control of. Don't punish the players and managers and end people's careers. Get rid of the replay monitors in the clubhouse. Get rid of replay. It doesn't make the game better. And if those things aren't there, no one will be using them to steal signs.
Friday, January 3, 2020
Remember When Star Wars Was Cutting Edge?
I just saw The Rise of Skywalker and I was underwhelmed to say the least. I could go on about the various issue I have with plot and character, but I feel like most of those complaints have been made by other people already and I don't have much new to say. I'll admit there is a part of me that feels like my thoughts were swayed by the social media shit storm that led up to the release. But, there is something I haven't been hearing that really stands out to me about this new trilogy and the fighting that has been going on between different Star Wars camps. The Star Wars movie franchise is becoming a relic. The sad part is some people would rather it remain a relic instead of continuing on as the fresh exciting entity that made it so popular in the first place.
The biggest knock I had on The Force Awakens, and why it lands at the bottom of my Star Wars movie rankings, is because it was essentially a remake of A New Hope. It is almost plot point for plot point the same movie with J.J. Abrams stealing most of Lucas' visuals along the way. It was a new movie with mostly new characters in the same situations and settings as the first Star Wars movie. The favorite retort to my complaint is that Star Wars main drive is the hero's journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell, so of course if you are going to make a Star Wars movie it is going to be the same story. I call bullshit on that. Joseph Campbell used thousands of years of story telling to come up with his idea of the hero's journey. He boiled the stories down to their smallest essence to find what they had in common, but if you look at the surface of many of these stories they look completely different. The story of Theseus appears nothing like Beowulf or Lord Of The Rings, yet all three of these use the plot structure Campbell outlined.
What made Star Wars so special was at the same time it leaned on the structure that was as old as time, it introduced us to a world we had never seen before. Campbell may have analyzed the words, but George Lucas provided the images. Luke gazing over the Tatooine horizon with its three moons, the underbelly of an Empire battleship flying over the camera, Luke standing watching Darth Vader cut down Obi-Wan. These were images that others went on to steal. Try to watch Fellowship of the Ring without being constantly reminded of A New Hope. Frodo witnessing Gandolf's demise at the hands of the Balrog is certainly part of the hero's journey but did it have to look exactly like Star Wars? Frodo stopping to watch like Luke, screaming after his endangered mentor, Strider grabbing him like Han, the group getting to safety as Frodo/Luke sits in stunned disbelief. George Lucas and Star Wars painted the images the became the basis for our collective unconscious.
But that is gone. J.J. Abrams has made Star Wars a follower, a reflection of what has already been done, or worse, of the latest trends, not a setter of these things. At least The Force Awakens stole from its parent movies, The Rise of Skywalker takes from the sci-fi, fantasy, comic book movies of today. The reveal that Lando has gathered a slew of ships from around the galaxy to help take down Palpatine's fleet was eerily recommencement of Avengers: End Game when everyone shows up through time holes to save the day. Granted, Lando's army appears as one big reveal where as the Avenger's help comes in multiple groups, but the imagery is the same and the moment felt stolen. There were also many moments that felt like they were out of Game of Thrones.
The part that is unfortunate to me is that this is what a huge faction of Star Wars fans wanted. Rian Johnson tried to make something that was in the true spirit of what Lucas created, a movie that felt like Star Wars but was creating story and images that were new, and he got killed by many fanatics, fanatics that just wanted to see A New Hope made over and over. If you want to relive the magic of the first trilogy, watch the first trilogy. The last thing I want is to see the same story and stolen images sold to me as something new. In that way J.J. Abrams, a man I was once a huge fan of, has let me down yet again.
The biggest knock I had on The Force Awakens, and why it lands at the bottom of my Star Wars movie rankings, is because it was essentially a remake of A New Hope. It is almost plot point for plot point the same movie with J.J. Abrams stealing most of Lucas' visuals along the way. It was a new movie with mostly new characters in the same situations and settings as the first Star Wars movie. The favorite retort to my complaint is that Star Wars main drive is the hero's journey as outlined by Joseph Campbell, so of course if you are going to make a Star Wars movie it is going to be the same story. I call bullshit on that. Joseph Campbell used thousands of years of story telling to come up with his idea of the hero's journey. He boiled the stories down to their smallest essence to find what they had in common, but if you look at the surface of many of these stories they look completely different. The story of Theseus appears nothing like Beowulf or Lord Of The Rings, yet all three of these use the plot structure Campbell outlined.
What made Star Wars so special was at the same time it leaned on the structure that was as old as time, it introduced us to a world we had never seen before. Campbell may have analyzed the words, but George Lucas provided the images. Luke gazing over the Tatooine horizon with its three moons, the underbelly of an Empire battleship flying over the camera, Luke standing watching Darth Vader cut down Obi-Wan. These were images that others went on to steal. Try to watch Fellowship of the Ring without being constantly reminded of A New Hope. Frodo witnessing Gandolf's demise at the hands of the Balrog is certainly part of the hero's journey but did it have to look exactly like Star Wars? Frodo stopping to watch like Luke, screaming after his endangered mentor, Strider grabbing him like Han, the group getting to safety as Frodo/Luke sits in stunned disbelief. George Lucas and Star Wars painted the images the became the basis for our collective unconscious.
But that is gone. J.J. Abrams has made Star Wars a follower, a reflection of what has already been done, or worse, of the latest trends, not a setter of these things. At least The Force Awakens stole from its parent movies, The Rise of Skywalker takes from the sci-fi, fantasy, comic book movies of today. The reveal that Lando has gathered a slew of ships from around the galaxy to help take down Palpatine's fleet was eerily recommencement of Avengers: End Game when everyone shows up through time holes to save the day. Granted, Lando's army appears as one big reveal where as the Avenger's help comes in multiple groups, but the imagery is the same and the moment felt stolen. There were also many moments that felt like they were out of Game of Thrones.
The part that is unfortunate to me is that this is what a huge faction of Star Wars fans wanted. Rian Johnson tried to make something that was in the true spirit of what Lucas created, a movie that felt like Star Wars but was creating story and images that were new, and he got killed by many fanatics, fanatics that just wanted to see A New Hope made over and over. If you want to relive the magic of the first trilogy, watch the first trilogy. The last thing I want is to see the same story and stolen images sold to me as something new. In that way J.J. Abrams, a man I was once a huge fan of, has let me down yet again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)