Problematic issues with iconic film stories

Watching the older Bond movies now, with modern sensibilities now makes me feel uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love a Bond movie, but seeing Roger Moore practically undressing a girl the moment he meets her makes a real sex pest. Yes, I know he was, but back in the day, it didn’t seem to matter as much as it does now
 
I rewatched Jason and the Argonauts the other day and that entire story is problematic. Jason and his team go to a city that is peaceful and prosperous just to steal the very thing that made the city peaceful and prosperous in the first place. There is never any mention that Colchis is run by evil wizards or warlords. The people aren't enslaved or anything. The wizard guy that brings up the skeletons is just trying to protect his city from Jason and his pirates.
 
I rewatched Jason and the Argonauts the other day and that entire story is problematic. Jason and his team go to a city that is peaceful and prosperous just to steal the very thing that made the city peaceful and prosperous in the first place. There is never any mention that Colchis is run by evil wizards or warlords. The people aren't enslaved or anything. The wizard guy that brings up the skeletons is just trying to protect his city from Jason and his pirates.

Seeing how I was named Jason after my mom saw that movie, I say do not listen to this man! Jason is a bad*ss! :lol:
 
This….

IMG_7005.jpeg


….is the most “problematic” item in the history of cinema.

There is no comparison.
 
Star Wars was inspired by old myths, where forbidden sibling love, both knowing and without knowing was a thing. So it tracks.

Furthermore... it's a bold move to have uncomfortable things in your story or movie - I dislike everything now having to play things safe... like the Disneyfication of stories, of watering things down.

I'd prefer writers got more bold and creative and just went for the crazy and unconventional and the world just gave offended people the finger. But again... at the same time... I'm of the opposite mind that being respectful and mindful is also good when writing stories. But the characters should still be able to be a-holes and making the reader/viewer uncomfortable.
 
Yeah, this one is pretty bad.

But it was the 80s, brothers and sisters making out was okay back then. You need to take historical context into account. ;)

My family is from Alabama. We have a saying: "First cousins, shame...shame. But second cousins... are fair game"
 
I'd prefer writers got more bold and creative and just went for the crazy and unconventional and the world just gave offended people the finger. But again... at the same time... I'm of the opposite mind that being respectful and mindful is also good when writing stories. But the characters should still be able to be a-holes and making the reader/viewer uncomfortable.

It all depends on the genre... PG movies or anything aiming 4 quadrant is gonna be watered down... in ways they maybe weren't back in the 80's...

But in the adult hard R genre? I'm watching some pretty weird stuff these days (JUST watched The Substance... eeeesh)

They definitely still take chances in more Indie style flicks as well... Even Dinner in America had its un PC moments... Anora as well.

Strange Darling pushed it so far my GF was ready to leave... as was I... JUST moments before the movie does a 180 and goes nuts in a GREAT way (highly recommended flick... but REALLY pushes the limits in one scene - you're warned)
 
Star Wars was inspired by old myths, where forbidden sibling love, both knowing and without knowing was a thing. So it tracks.

Furthermore... it's a bold move to have uncomfortable things in your story or movie - I dislike everything now having to play things safe... like the Disneyfication of stories, of watering things down.

I'd prefer writers got more bold and creative and just went for the crazy and unconventional and the world just gave offended people the finger. But again... at the same time... I'm of the opposite mind that being respectful and mindful is also good when writing stories. But the characters should still be able to be a-holes and making the reader/viewer uncomfortable.
Im pretty sure it was more George didnt have the story laid out fully then. If I recall correctly, a proposed draft was Luke and Leia were unrelated and a budding romance was forming between them but it would be broken due to both of their obligations to the war effort. Luke's sister is another character that we do not meet until episode 6. I feel think holds some weight since Marcia would have tried to stop it if it were the case. She is kind of a stickler for that stuff, also calling out the age difference between Anakin and Padme as well.
 
Yeah Leia being his sister was definitely retconned for ROTJ. That's widely accepted.

The script stage of ESB was being done soon after ANH. George was still enthused about continuing Star Wars. By ROTJ he wanted to close up the story and then dial back his work schedule & save his marriage (too late).

My guess is that during ESB George was at the stage of wanting to make Leia Force-sensitive. (Think of Luke reaching out to her while he's hanging on underneath Cloud City). Then when George was writing ROTJ, he decided to make Leia the lost twin-sister and dovetail the ideas.
 
That actually makes more sense that the bajillion Jedi running around the new Disney OT timeline. I could see brothers and sisters, but not another Jedi running around. I think George said around 100 Jedi survived Order 66, but I would think any that were still alive around the OT went to ground and decided to sit things out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: p51
A very complex subject indeed...but not the site for that discussion;):(
It is at the heart of Blade Runner and the core of the character. Which makes the joke relevant.

The point is that Deckard is not by any measure a hero. He does get his electric sheep, (some might say he stole his precious) but he does it wrong and runs away.

Gaff becomes the most humane human in the story. Batty becomes the second most humane.

Every character is either broken or destroyed.

Sad story.
 
Last edited:
It is at the heart of Blade Runner and the core of the character. Which makes the joke relevant.

The point is that Deckard is not by any measure a hero. He does get his electric sheep, (some might say he stole his precious) but he does it wrong and runs away.

Gaff becomes the most humane human in the story. Batty becomes the second most humane.

Every character is either broken or destroyed.

Sad story.
A Greek Tragedy in my book: the "rape" of Rachael can be also interpreted as something else in terms of implanted memories and how "It" re-acts during that episode.

First: the concept of that Replicant being four years old (or less) is irrelevant into that discussion since, during the V.K. test, Deckard had to ask more than a hundred questions to discover that Rachael was, indeed, a Replicant. Her inception date has nothing to do with the child/adult memories she possess: for example, her as a child discovering the spider giving birth to a thousand baby spiders, or her answer to Deckard's question about not being a lesbian.

Second: certain memories have to be brought into the fore by "living the action". Deckard's words that Rachael repeats: "I want you", "kiss me"...those are acting like some sort of catalyst to bring those memories to the surface and the proper context (love-making). It shows that some memories, or innate tools, to understand a certain situation exist already in Rachael's mind...and, according to her life experiences these tools might or might not be used.

Third: is Deckard a hero? Well, the definition of a hero is someone who puts his life on the line to save someone else. So, in that case, Gaff is the one who could kill Deckard + Rachael. Kill Deckard for not respecting the law (kill all Replicants) and Rachael, of course.
So, Deckard saves Rachael from Gaff and the Blade Runner squad, even if Gaff spares Rachael in the end...

Fourth: Deckard needs Rachael and vice-versa: two lonely people finding each other in some sort of forbidden relationship. Fleeing the city to hide from the BR hunters.
 
Yeah Leia being his sister was definitely retconned for ROTJ. That's widely accepted.

The script stage of ESB was being done soon after ANH. George was still enthused about continuing Star Wars. By ROTJ he wanted to close up the story and then dial back his work schedule & save his marriage (too late).

My guess is that during ESB George was at the stage of wanting to make Leia Force-sensitive. (Think of Luke reaching out to her while he's hanging on underneath Cloud City). Then when George was writing ROTJ, he decided to make Leia the lost twin-sister and dovetail the ideas.
Definately makes sense. ESB really did a number on Lucas because he took a huge risk with that movie by funding most of it himself which meant that if the movie tanked, he was bankrupt. It didnt help that Kershner was really slow at shooting footage and Kurtz did not help move things along along with several issues that resulted in delays that increased production costs.

That actually makes more sense that the bajillion Jedi running around the new Disney OT timeline. I could see brothers and sisters, but not another Jedi running around. I think George said around 100 Jedi survived Order 66, but I would think any that were still alive around the OT went to ground and decided to sit things out.
I think the timeline was the jedi purge began with Order 66 which killed a ton of jedi knights and masters who were caught unaware and the assault on the temple which prevented them from regrouping as well as killing of the "next generation" of jedi with the youngling slayuer 3000. Yoda and Obi Wan go to the temple to send a message to any remaining jedi to stay away and go into hiding so I dont think even they know how many are left. Order 66 is then followed up by 19 years of Vader hunting down and killing jedi with a team of jedi killer stormtroopers.

Legends did also suffer from "actually this forgotten jedi survived the purge" to keep jedi in stories, especially post-RotJ with Luke's new order. I think what Legends did kind of well was to not have jedi who could actually take down vader still be alive.
 
I would guess that the EU was probably pretty accurate in that maybe ten Jedi or so survived. I don't think the majority of them would sit it out; that's just not in their nature. So I figure they would take action and then Vader would show up and kill them. I'm guessing the ones that did survive were just really lucky or smart like Yoda and Obi-Wan.
 
Im pretty sure it was more George didnt have the story laid out fully then. If I recall correctly, a proposed draft was Luke and Leia were unrelated and a budding romance was forming between them but it would be broken due to both of their obligations to the war effort. Luke's sister is another character that we do not meet until episode 6. I feel think holds some weight since Marcia would have tried to stop it if it were the case. She is kind of a stickler for that stuff, also calling out the age difference between Anakin and Padme as well.

I was looking at a 2008/9 SW Insider magazine and they were talking about a video on Youtube or somewhere from a 1980 Today Show interview with Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford. They mention that Hamill hinted at Luke's sister in that interview. That means Lucas was thinking about that during or before filming ESB. That would fit with him calling to Leia at the end.
 
Back
Top