Man, someone’s dad is hella cringe.
I noticed in the first movie they cut out most of the Muslim imagery, as well as the Fremen guy who kamikazes a ship (iirc). Guessing there’s more of the same in part 2?
Nope Americans are just so deeply misinformed they miss the obvious and think all the good guys and resistance fighters are them. Movie has plenty of Arab and Berber allusions.
Second movie is much better about it, though they still refuse to use “jihad” as a term probably for burger reasons (it would send 80-90% of an american audience into a berserk state)
though they still refuse to use “jihad”
The Butlerian Kerfuffle.
The Butlerian Struggle Session…
The Outdoorian Cat Crusade
To be fair they don’t refrain from calling it a religious war. Though using the term “holy war” instead of jihad is most definitely to dumb it down for Americans who don’t know “jihad” is not just a term for islamic terrorism
For sure - the message is the same and the plot isn’t harmed in any measurable way, just a kinda pointless/funny concession to the American audience
I mean, they also changed the “Long live the fighters” from the books where it is “Ya Hya Chouhada!”.
“Excuse me, but why are they called ‘Fremen’ then? Don’t you get it? Fremen=>Free Men=>Land of the Free=>Americans! And you better believe I’m going to salute Da’ Troops! [various barking/grunting noises]”I’d like to see this guy doing the same thing at the title card about the rocky movie being dedicated to the Mujahideen.
I think they included as much as the average American can handle tbh https://youtu.be/QNuymYYj1Ko
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I see no problem here I think he nailed the allegiance in his own special way
dudes rock
Burgers when the Fremen disrupt intergalactic trade:
Burgers when the Yemen disrupt international trade:
GOOD POST! Tagline material
Yeah I respect the troops (the Fremen Feydakin)
This is why I don’t go to the theaters anymore.
Every film in America needs to have a disclaimer at the beginning where the main character faces the camera and says “I am the protagonist of this film. This does not mean I’m a good guy. This film is simply centered around my perspective. Protagonists can be bad guys.” And then the movie proceeds as normal except every 15 minutes the protagonist faces the camera again and reminds the audience about the disclaimer at the beginning
At the end of the movie the protagonist will then explain all the bad things they did and why they’re bad.
In the 8th grade my fucking ENGLISH teacher corrected my answer for what a protagonist is saying the point of view character in the story with an addition of *the character the reader roots for
I went to them after, pointed out a few examples of protagonists being bad people, which even at age 14 was pretty easy. I think I just listed a bunch of Scorsese movies and Trainspotting. They still wouldn’t give me the point so I got a dictionary and showed him the definition. In his credit, he did back down and fully eat crow after. Apparently this character the reader routs for xrap was part of the curriculum answer and I’d noticed other lessons used this incorrect definition before and he was a long term substitute who didn’t want to rock the boat.
i had something similar told to me, that the lead character is the one who the audience should identify and sympathize with. I was also told that determining the theme of story involves a math equation of how many times certain sentences are said relating to the theme. My teacher did like in Dead Poets Society and made an X-Y graph on the board of “theme intensity” versus number of times a theme is explicitly stated.
I tried like you did, saying that maybe a story’s themes aren’t always explicit or even internal to the text. I got a little intense and the teacher told me to sit down (i was an annoying teenager)
so wait, literary analysis is just doing those cinema sin counters? or a drinking game?
Reminds me of all the dumb liberals who said Blade Runner 2049 (2017) was sexist.
It takes place in a sexist society if that’s what they meant. Every female character except the police chief is some kind of servant, prostitute, or both. One of the female characters isn’t even a person, she’s a commercial product simulating a domestic servant
And critics completely miss the point—that incredibly sexist future exists as a critique of our incredibly sexist present day.
East is a Podcast has a great episode on how Dune is orientalist btw. I can’t help liking Dune (the book and the Syfy miniseries) but still.
LotR, as much as I love it, is definitely orientalist too.
“Why won’t you commies let me enjoy my slop???” Actually I can enjoy it while understanding that it is politically problematic. The orcs in LOTR are basically the Nazi vision of Judeo-Bolsheviks and it’s no surprise that the Ukrainians were calling Russians orcs during the SMO.
How are orcs supposed to be Judeo-Bolsheviks?
I assumed he meant the Orcs are the spitting image of the Nazi portrayal of “Judeo-Bolsheviks” as ugly, corrupt, soulless, scheming subhuman hordes, not that Tolkien himself wrote them to be stand ins for Jews or Communists
I hope not anyway.
But love your username, very appropriate. Haha
Uhhh don’t look up what Tolkien thought about communism. The Scouring of the Shire is basically his mini-1984. The guy was a libertarian monarchist so his views of “easterners” were uhhh less than kosher. The Orc language is also Anatolian, Tolkien clearly expresses bizarre views about racial miscegenation, it just goes on and on. But yeah I still like it although I’m not sure I’ll ever bother to watch or read it again.
I don’t think your depiction of the Scouring of the Shire is wrong, I just don’t want to believe it’s true and I think the allusions to communism are bare enough I am able to let myself believe that.
I mean thats a fair reaction, I’m just not 100% sure he consciously decided fo portray the orcs as communists per se, rather than the societal trend towards industrialization and despoiling of nature (though with the depiction of orcs, tropes associated with “collectivist” stereotypes are pretty prevalent…😬).
That said, the link between the orcs and turkish/mongol portrayals is not up for debate lol, that aspect of the depiction is a huge L for JRR.
As for the Jewish part of “Judeo-Bolshevik”, weren’t the dwarves at least in part influenced by Tolkien’s views on jewish culture & language?
Anyway I’m not gonna defend this dead racist nerd any more lol
I don’t actually have much of a problem with orcs, it’s the depiction of the “evil men” allied with Sauron as almost exclusively having darker skin and with oriental-coded equipment like scimitars and other descriptors. Especially in contrast to the exclusively euro-coded “good guys”. And then there’s Ghan-Buri-Ghan…
60s orientalism seems almost quaint considering what’s going on now
It definitely is, but I still enjoy it.
I do not want to live on a planet where this is real
Good news! It isn’t.
I’m sure this meat head would have the same response if the image was Muqtada al-Sadr hyping up the Mahdi Army
THIS MOTION PICTURE IS DEDICATED TO THE BRAVE FREMEN FEDAYKIN OF ARRAKIS
I’m going to a massive sound and visual sensory paid event that requires subtitles not for the hard of hearing, but because the director’s Oscar worthy genius* only allows those on the Spice Melange to actually hear the actors.
Timunitus -
* Latest fado7
