I think I must have found the Reavers scarier than some of you did because they were painted as aggressive non-humans, extremely horrific, the kind that would a man give up his life’s work when he sees what they do. Extreme monsters, like in horror stories. Not bad humans of another tribe.
Btw, you misquoted me there, but it’s not worth either of our time to continue this.
Would provide a cite, but the zombies ate the polling data. Also the pollsters.
I tend to find humans much more frightening than most monsters.
Of course that’s probably because the actual world you live in does not REALLY contain vampires or zombies or godzillas or cthulhu or reavers, but it DOES contain Hitler and Jeffrey Dahmer and Bin Laden…
But the point is, “Injuns” were often portrayed as aggressive non-humans that were extremely horrific and not merely humans with different motives. Historically, they were viewed as wild, uncontrollable savages that you could not reason with or placate. Different tribes in different locales and different times carried that label to one degree or another, with Apaches being favorites of the old West.
And I don’t think anyone here is discounting the horribleness and otherworldliness of the reavers - we’re actively comparing them to zombies. We’re just recognizing the historical lack of understanding for the Indians, especially as portrayed in certain fiction.
I still think the Reavers were supposed to be an Indian stereotype (which is an important point - nobody is comparing them to actual Indians) rather than zombies. It was noted that the Reavers tortured and raped their captives. Zombies are just mindless emotionless destruction - they’ll eat you but they are not deliberately cruel.
I think that the fact that there is so much disagreement about reavers vs indians indicates that it is NOT an “obvious thing”. If it was, we all would have slapped our foreheads and said “oh, yeah, of course!”.
For instance, if someone hadn’t noticed it was a western in space, and then it was pointed out to them…
I have probably mentioned it here on the Dope, but I love horror movies - though the pre 1990s stuff, I really don’t like torture porn stuff like Saw, and some of the newer type horror movies.
I really don’t find movies scary, monsters don’t scare me because I know that there is not a video tape that kills people, there is no giant lizard stomping around undiscovered, and zombies are victims of a drugging by a voodoo priest.
What does scare me is something like Misery, or to an extent those inbred apalachian hill people lurking off exits with no gas, and Ted Bundy-esque serial killers. People are real, people go insane, people kill people. I can see some poor author’s “greatest fan” going nuts and doing the shit from Misery. I know Ted Bundy existed. I know that Pol Pot created a living hell for his entire country. And napalm sticks to kids.
No it’s really a pretty horrible fit.
I almost find myself hoping that this was intentional on the part of George Lucas …
There’s a trope in movies (and in politics/government) where the “bad guys” are dehumanized, turned into faceless creatures that we don’t feel bad about killing/watching die. And indeed, in Star Wars, the soldiers of the Empire are mostly hidden behind full-face masks as they’re mowed down. Even Darth Vader is a faceless enemy. I recently read about this trope/technique in a Cracked.com article, which I now can’t find due to that site’s continuing failure to debug their site redesign which is causing the Search function to be invisible.
So tonight I finished watching Return of the Jedi. Near the end of the movie, after Darth Vader has killed the Emperor and Luke is trying to escape the soon-to-be-asploded Death Star with his father, Darth Vader says to Luke, “Help me remove this mask. Let me look on you with my own eyes.”
And it suddenly hit me: The Emperor had used this same trope/trick/bit of manipulation on Vader! As we learned in the prequels, Anakin Skywalker had severe “attachment” issues, and the Emperor knew this. So the Emperor locked him into a suit of armor and a helmet that had him seeing everybody as an image on a video screen (goggles). Those aren’t simply lenses on that helmet - they’re cameras. And that helped Anakin/Vader to casually kill anybody who annoyed him. He wasn’t killing “people”, he was killing images on a screen. Like a video game.
Interesting, but I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. For those who are killed at a distance (like blowing up Alderaan [actually ordered by Tarkin] or shooting Rebel fighters during the attack on the Death Star), he wouldn’t see their faces even with his eyes. He Force-chokes one captain on his star destroyer, but he’s only visible on a monitor and vision doesn’t seem to be the primary sense for Force attacks (“Your eyes can deceive you; don’t trust them.”). He strangles one guy on the blockade runner, but even if he can’t see him properly, he can clearly feel him. And he fights Obi Wan with his lightsaber, but again, vision isn’t necessary to use a saber.
Interesting interpretation, but I doubt that’s what was intended. But yes, there is an element of enclosure and isolation to the suit Vader wears.
Though to be fair to the concept, a vid screen presented close to they eyes might provide better field of view (depending on resolution) than the openings in a mask in front of the face.
I don’t think it’s either/or.
I always though that the cover of Pink Floyd’s Meddle was some distorted camel. Only just now did I find out that it’s an ear under water. A serious head-slap moment for me.
Never saw the ear before, either.
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread before, but it was a long time before I realized the joke about the names of the male characters in “Third Rock from the Sun” - Dick, Harry, and Tommy are the legendary “every Tom, Dick and Harry”
Buster’s prosthetic hand in Arrested Development is a spoof of Margot’s prosthetic finger in The Royal Tenenbaums.
I’m quite relieved to see that I’m not alone. It’s funny how obvious it is once you notice it.
Also, in the 10 years I’ve been a member/lurker on this forum, this is easily my favorite thread. Kudos to the OP.
Just watched part of Halloween 3 on AMC. Somehow before I missed that the main character was divorced, rather than just having problems with his wife. Makes the scene where he bones the way too young for him girl he just met a little less repugnant. I mean, he’s still kinda skeevy, but at least he’s not committing adultery.
Looking at the picture in the link I still can’t see an ear.