if there’s one thing to be thankful for its that tumblr has no group chat function it’s either a one-on-one faceoff in an alleyway or you’re outside on ur porch w a megaphone
Ok but can we talk about how emo, as a genre, defied gender roles in a big way? Like, everything about the culture, from the guys wearing makeup and womens’ skinny jeans, to the way they got unabashedly emotional in spite of the “men aren’t supposed to cry” narrative they’d obviously been socialized with, was just this complete “fuck you” to the idea that there’s a certain way to be a “man”.
And a lot of their detractors called them “girly” or “gay”. And they didn’t give a fuck! Fall Out Boy has a whole song entitled “Gay Is Not A Synonym for Shitty”, which referenced a famous Pete Wentz quote, where he basically said that if you thought his band sucked, to just say it sucked, and not be a “homophobic asshole” about it.
And, then, geez, My Chemical Romance took it a step further, and Gerard Way outright kissed one of his bandmates at concerts purely to infuriate homophobes who were at his shows.
A lot of these bands were openly for LGBT rights, for womens’ rights. I remember one instance where some band MCR was touring with asked women to flash their tits in exchange for backstage passes. And Gerard was so horrified by this, and told his female fans to “spit in the faces” of misogynists in the rock scene.
Like, god, these bands were so progressive. And they still are. Right after the Pulse tragedy, Brendon Urie literally danced around in a pride flag and told his queer fans what they meant to him. Pete Wentz said that “Uma Thurman” was meant to show his female fans that they could be “badass”, too. And Gerard pretty much admitted in an interview to somewhat identifying with the label “nonbinary”.
That’s the most lasting impact that emo is going to have. Showing fans of all genders that there’s nothing wrong with being whoever the fuck you are, that there’s no specific way to be a man or woman. And, god, I just fucking love that.
“So every day during my set, when I’m playing my own shows, I talk about people that are transgender. I talk about it a lot because everyday basically I say: …”
I feel like disco and emo should team up and that should be the next big music thing, sort of a defiant apocalyptic dance party, because disco did this sort of thing too, the rejection of straight white male heteronormativity, and that was basically why it was killed, so, like, emo plus defiant zombie disco would be the perfect thing to play in the Mango Menace era.
I love meta posts like these bc now i understand why my diehard defiant teenage ass was in love with these bands and this culture
I was never into emo as a scene but I was always kneejerk defensive of them because of how much shit they got for enjoying their own aesthetic and music.
The most hilarious thing about the fact Buckbeak had a trial and lost is that later on JKR resolves the issue by having Hagrid take him in again and renaming him Witherwings. That’s literally all it took. What if in POA, Hagrid simply said, “Sorry, Buckbeak flew away.”
“There’s a hippogriff right there, Hagrid.”
“A different hipprogriff.”
“I’m… pretty sure that’s the same hipprogriff.”
“Prove it.”
no dna tests we die like scientifically underdeveloped societies
Prisoner of Azkaban continues to be the most frustrating book
Someone should have just adopted Sirius and started calling him Gerald.
Remus: Erm… this is our new order member, my… cousin Gerald. Gerald White.
“Mr. Lupin that is Sirius Black with glasses!” “Oh come now Minister, Sirius Black doesn’t wear glasses. That wouldn’t make sense.” “Well have Mr. White take off his glasses then!” “He can’t he needs them to see.”
a darkened auditorium with 264 silent people in the seats. on the stage, me, sitting on a stool, lit by a spotlight, the only light in the theatre. i hold up a photo of my cat, 10 people applaud, two or three hold up photocopies of the same photo, the rest do nothing, watching, waiting.
fred and george weasley on the top floor in hogwarts trying to get slinkies all the way down by predicting the pattern the stairs are gonna shift in
they actually figure it out, they calculate the exact pattern, and start distributing it
suddenly, students are barely ever late to classes any more and there are significantly fewer incidents of getting lost around the castle
everything goes wonderfully for a week, all the professors are baffled but pleased
until the end of the week when the true purpose for the pattern’s distribution becomes clear. schoolwide slinky race. a thousand conjured slinkies all let loose at the same time. the rustling of the swarm of springs echoes through the halls of hogwarts. the house elves refer to the dreaded Slinky Sunday for centuries
Okay, you know what? I just reblogged this but I wanna get geeky over it. ‘Cause this is some high-class humor right here, and if you don’t get that you need to be educated so here I am about to do the thing you’re not supposed to do and explain the joke, because I’m just really impressed by this joke’s construction, okay?
So back in Paris in the 1920s, the surrealist movement in art was just starting to take off. The surrealist movement was born from the dadaist movement, which was a response to strict societal ideas of what was “art” and what wasn’t. The dadaists made a lot of works to try and challenge society’s ideas of what art even was in the first place, and this continued on into the more sophisticated abstract works of surrealism.
One such artist, Rene Magritte (also known for his paintings of people with invisible heads, or with fruit for heads), painted a work called “The Treachery of Images,” depicting a pipe, and underneath the words (in french) “This is Not a Pipe.” The words were meant to refer to the fact that the painted pipe was literally not a real physical pipe that a viewer could smoke out of, it was just a painting of a pipe.
The painting was extremely meta, and really challenged the habit of allowing oneself to get so immersed in a work of art that one forgets it is a created representation of life, and not actual life. Understanding that alone takes a good deal of abstract thinking ability. And really appreciating and enjoying it requires a certain amount of one’s own frustration with society’s habit of trying to put limits on the definition of art; and being unable to think outside the box and really see something from all possible perspectives, including the perspective of being completely outside the thing.
Now what’s even more fascinating to me is that modern art movements (and I don’t mean “modern art,” I mean actual contemporary art movements that are being led by our peers) are kinda doing the same thing the dadaist movement was doing, but in reaction to the art that came out of the dadaist movement. Things have circled back around again, and abstract surrealist art is now what society has decided “art” is. And our generation doesn’t accept that. Comics, video games, TV shows and movies, graffiti art, web series, even flash mobs, all of these are our generation’s way of saying, “no, society, you don’t get to define art as strictly as ‘if it doesn’t make sense to me it must be brilliant.’ Art can be simple to understand, art can be accessible to all people, art can make you beg to find out what happens next!” And that’s really interesting to me.
Flash forwards to 2006, when rapper Gucci Mane writes a song called “Pillz” in which the phrase “bitch I might be” was coined and used several times. In the song, it’s used as a sarcastic, somewhat indignant but not wholly angry way to say “it’s none of your business,” in response to a beautiful woman in a club accusing the rapper of being high. The phrase became a meme in 2013, following Gucci Mane’s indictment for assaulting a soldier, when a redditor photoshopped a screencap of news coverage of the trial to reference the song. The photoshopped image changed the previous on-screen text to read “Rapper Gucci Mane responds with ‘bitch I might be’ when asked if guilty”. Again, the usage of the phrase is a sarcastic and indignant “none of your business.” The phrase then quickly gained popularity and was added to numerous other photoshopped images.
Now, memes are really cool as a concept anyways, when you think about them hard enough (I mean, the speed at which an entire world full of young people are able to latch onto something as simple as a phrase that they all mutually find funny, and within a matter of days explore every possible usage and implication of that phrase, including how it might relate to other complex systems of knowledge and understanding such as the rich character and plot developments of stories that generate fandoms), but lets put that aside for now and talk about sarcasm, instead.
Because sarcasm is a very sophisticated, complex, and subtle form of wit. It’s a difficult thing to be able to understand, through tone of voice alone, that what someone says, and what they mean, are two different things. And to be able to discern the actual meaning when the words were not said. As wikipedia says, “different parts of the brain must work together to understand sarcasm.“ It’s even harder when those words are typed and not spoken audibly, as the reader must imagine the tone in the first place. That’s a lot of brain work involved in even understanding the true meaning behind that simple little phrase.
And sarcasm is popular right now. More than popular, it’s a hallmark of our generation. People have been writing lengthy articles and psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies and musings on why we’re so sarcastic. As this article suggests, it’s because we’re so angry. We’re a generation that was promised a lot and the world didn’t deliver. We’re disenchanted, and jaded, and mad. And we vent that through sarcastic humor. We laugh at things older generations don’t think are funny. We have come to expect so much disappointment, that we no longer afford “serious” things the respect we’re told they deserve. Because we no longer believe they deserve it. As the article states, “We are a generation that believes nothing is sacred. And if nothing is sacred everything becomes profane.”
One could even go so far as to make the argument that the popularity of the statement on the above image is due partially to the attitude amongst today’s youth (especially on tumblr) that one’s own life and choices are one’s own, and not the business of anybody else. This attitude can be seen in everything as simple as the “be yourself” and “follow your dreams” statements many of us were raised on, to the more serious issues we deal with today of discrimination against the LGBTGA+ community, fat shaming, slut shaming, prejudice against muslim people, etc., to political issues like free speech and government invasion of privacy, and even into more subtle ideas present in social media of privacy settings, controlling who gets to see what posts, block and ignore features, and even the philosophy of “nobody can tell you what to post in your own space. If somebody doesn’t like it, they can unfollow.”
None of this would be happening consciously, of course, but we can’t help but be influenced by the world around us. And a phrase whose meaning is essentially “it’s none of your business” is very likely to resonate strongly with a group of people whose fundamental philosophies of polite interpersonal conduct revolve roughly around the same concept.
Taking all this into consideration, this joke is taking a lot of pre-knowledge and putting it all together to kind of say, in a funny way, “stop acting like you have it all figured out, because you don’t. And some things are just not for you to figure out anyway.”
So to sum up, to understand the above image, you must:
have a descent grasp on art history to recognize the original painting.
have good abstract and/or creative thinking skills to understand and appreciate the original painting.
have a good grasp on modern pop culture, internet culture, and current slang and memes (basically, be an active participant in the wider world).
have the complex emotional and interpersonal understanding necessary to understand the subtleties of sarcasm.
understand enough of what’s going on in the world around you that you are disenchanted enough to appreciate sarcastic humor.
participate in our generation’s general philosophy of life and how to interact with other human beings in the world at large.
So basically, if you laughed, you’re smart. :3
Reblogging for the A+ analysis.
Well, I think it’s cool analysis, anyway. I’ve been told by others that this is one of the most pretentious things on the site. So…what does that make me?
draw women in post-apocalyptic world settings with armpit hair, leg hair, bushy brows and pubic hair ya cowards,, draw brown women/women with dark thick hair with arm hair and happy trails and sideburns and mustaches i’m sick of seeing silky smooth soapy clean make up wearing post apocalyptic dolled up women next to stinky sweaty crusty men with dirty nails and sweaty clothes and sweaty greasy hair and 3m long ugly beards
THANK YOU
or, contrariwise, how about the men get dolled up too, in a low tech way? how about the men braid beads into their beards, shave their heads and paint designs on their scalps, paint wild colors around their eyes?
it’s not like hygiene was invented at the same time as electricity. you can shave with a flint or a clamshell. you can make makeup out of berries and clay. the thing that’s gone away isn’t the human drive to be clean and decorated, it’s the constant enforcement of a bland standard of beauty by magazines and television.
tell you what, i’m a guy and if i was kicking around some post-apocalyptic wasteland i’d have my hair and beard all braided up like a fantasy dwarf, eyeliner like the winter soldier, rings on every finger, and be wearing clothes dyed bright with red cabbage and indigo and madder root. and my fingernails would be clean, dammit.
I’m willing to follow dwarf king Madder into post-apocalyptic zombie battle, idk about u
Women have more power and agency in Shakespeare’s comedies than in his tragedies, and usually there are more of them with more speaking time, so I’m pretty sure what Shakespeare’s saying is “men ruin everything” because everyone fucking dies when men are in charge but when women are in charge you get married and live happily ever after
I think you’re reading too far into things, kiddo. Take a break from your women’s studies major and get some fresh air.
Right. Well, I’m a historian, so allow me to elaborate.
One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else.Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation.
The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.
And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.
In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives.
How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.
There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.
Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line – oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that is worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor – here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.
What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.
The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society.
As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:
To teach both sexes due equality
And as they stand bound, to love mutually.
The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.
So yes. The message we can take away from Shakespeare is that a world in which women are powerless and cannot or do not contribute positively to society and family is unsustainable. Men, given the power and left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. But if men and women can work together and live in harmony, then the whole community has a chance at salvation, renewal and happiness.
In the immortal words of the bard himself: fucking annihilated.
can we take a moment to just think about how incredibly scary magical healing is in-context?
You get your insides ripped open but your friend waves his hands and your flesh just pulls back together, agony and evisceration pulling back to a ‘kinda hurts’ level of pain and you’re physically whole, with the 100% expectation that you’ll get back up and keep fighting whatever it was that struck you down the first time.
You break your arm after falling somewhere and after you’re healed instead of looking for ‘another way around’ everybody just looks at you and goes “okay try again”.
You’ve been fighting for hours, you’re hungry, thirsty, bleeding, crying from exhaustion, and a hand-wave happens and only two of those things go away. you’re still hungry, you’re still weak from thirst, but the handwave means you have ‘no excuse’ to stop.
You act out aggressively maybe punch a wall or gnash your teeth or hit your head on something and it’s hand-waved because it’s ‘such a small injury you probably can’t even feel it anymore’ but the point was that you felt it at all?
Your pain literally means nothing because as long as you’re not bleeding you’re not injured, right? Here drink this potion and who cares about the emotional exhaustion of that butchered village, why are you so reserved in camp don’t you think it’s fun retelling that time you fell through a burning building and with a hand-wave you got back up again and ran out with those two kids and their dog?
Older warriors who get a shiver around magic-users not because of the whole ‘fireball’ thing but the ‘I don’t know what a normal pain tolerance is anymore’ effect of too much healing. Permanent paralysis and loss of sensation in limbs is pretty much a given in the later years of any fighter’s life. Did I have a stroke or did the mage just heal too hard and now this side of my face doesn’t work? No i’m not dead from the dragon’s claws but I can’t even bend my torso anymore because of how the scar tissue grew out of me like a vine.
Magical healing is great and keeps casualties down.
But man.
That stuff is scary.
shit just got creepy
Or maybe magical healing doesn’t leave scars or damage. It is magical, after all.
So after years of fighting, your skin is still perfect. Unmarred. In fact, you’re actually in better shape than regular people who don’t get magical healing when they fall out of trees or walk into doors or cut themselves while cooking dinner. You’re in such good shape that it’s unnatural.
And the really good healing magic takes away more than just the obvious injuries. You first start noticing it after about ten years when you go home and haha, you look the same age as your younger sibling, that’s funny.
Not so funny ten years later when they look older. Or forty years later, when you bury them still looking like you did at twenty. When do you retire from this gig anyway? How much damage is too much damage?
How many times do you glimpse the afterlife, or worse, how many times don’t you? What do you live through, get used to, show no outward sign of except a perfectly healthy body, too perfect for any person living a real life.
How many times are you sitting in a tavern with your friends and you hear the whispers, because the people around you know. How can they not know? Your weapons shine with enchantments and your armour is better than the best money can buy and there is not a damn scar on you. You hardly seem human to them.
How long before you hardly seem human to yourself?
And you find yourself struggling to remember the places where the scars should have been, phantom pains that wake you screaming, touching all the old injuries and finding nothing there. It’s all in your head. Was it ever anywhere else?
How long before you’re fighting a lich or a vampire or some other undead monster and you wonder…
“rogue one forces us to ask: are the rebels really the good guys?”
YES
THE BAD GUYS ARE SUPER INTO GENOCIDE
THE REBELS ARE /AGAINST/ GENOCIDE
IT’S NOT A DIFFICULT QUESTION
ALSO… HOW DID IT MAKE YOU ASK THIS???? IF ANYTHING RO MAKES IT CLEARER THAN EVER
SO MUCH GENOCIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FOR NO REASON! TARKIN JUST GETS OFF ON GENOCIDE! HIS OLD MAN CGI SPERM LOVES THAT GENOCIDE! GOD! WHAT IS /WRONG/ WITH MALE MOVIE CRITICS???? AND MOVIE-WATCHERS??? AND IN GENERAL????
I hate fucking Imperial apologists.
What the fuck movie were they watching?!
Sadly, we know exactly how this works. “This guy killed one person, this guy killed 4 million. Which is worse? Before you answer, let me point out we knew the name AND the actor of the victim of the certified hero first guy and the 4 million victims of the certified villain second guy were non-speakers all played by extras.”
It’s one of those god-damned “the movie is too smart for its audience” things.
The point of Saw Gerrera being a piece of shit and Cassian murdering that one dude in cold blood and General Not-Rieekan lying to a teenage girl to put a hit out on her enslaved father isn’t to make us question if the Alliance are not the good guys and the Imperials are not the bad guys. The Imperials are, clearly, the bad guys. It isn’t even try to make us think “maybe they’re BOTH bad guys.”
The point of it is to highlight how war dehumanizes and tarnishes us all, and that even the putative good guys end up doing evil shit in the name of peace and sanity, and that the true test of character is how people conduct themselves in those difficult circumstances.
There’s room for works of fiction where the regime is shit, and the resistance opposing them is simply a different kind of shit, and everything is shit. Those works can have value. Star Wars is not and has never been one of those works. The Alliance are both the good guys in principle and in action; the Empire are the bad guys in the same way.
(Sidebar: the Empire isn’t even very competent at being bad guys. Tarkin does, in fact, simply get off on genocide, and Krennic likes killing people for no good goddamn reason. This is not best practice even for a brutal fascist regime that places no value on individual human life, because competent fascists recognize that they need to provide the populace with a blueprint for survival that will work in a consistent fashion. “Obey or die” produces results. “Obey AND die” does not; it produces opponents. The Empire is actually clownishly evil, across all media types! THAT’S how committed the writers are to making sure we know that they’re evil!)
Thing is, it’s not NEW to Star Wars. There’s a point about it in ESB, where Leia closes the doors on Han and Luke int he freezing cold on Hoth. The point is Leia’s been dehumanized by her years in the war (which is also why she’s not outwardly grieving the loss of her homeworld like Luke outwardly grieved Obi-Wan), Han and Luke haven’t been. And her whole growth arc is finding that humanity again during the romance in ESB.
Cassian, Draven, all the Rebels who’ve done horrible things for the cause are like Leia. Jyn’s like Han or Luke, coming from the outside to revitalize their idealistic impulses.
And well, the Clone Wars CARTOON which is for children, is all about how the Jedi are being dehumanized by war. No way are the prequel Jedi Order meant to be villains, but fans still take away the idea that they are and argue it.
It’s NOT that the movie’s too smart for the audience. It’s that certain assholes in fandom are too dumb to realize that “Maybe the good guys… are the bad guys” is actually not a clever observation.
sparksoffandommagic 