Magazine Reviews: Star Wars, Arrowverse, and Carrier

Hey, a whole new wide open niche for Internet reviewing.  Why haven’t I ever done with before?  Probably because it’s way too obscure.  These three magazines should have pretty ubiquitous distribution and are sort of relevant to this blog (not entirely).     

Time Special Edition: Star Wars

This magazine was a Christmas gift, along with a hockey yearbook.  (I won’t be reviewing that one.  It looks interesting, but I’m not that desperate for blogging material.  I love hockey, but I don’t get to watch enough to comment on it for more than a couple of games.)  Is it just me or is there a subliminal American flag hanging out of Vader’s mouth on the cover?  Maybe it’s just me.  I have no idea what it would be signifying.  I may reedit this cover with Ewan McGregor’s Obi-Wan over What’s-her-name’s? picture. 

This magazine was produced to promote the latest film and Star Wars on Disney+ and the Star Wars attractions at their parks.  The sequel trilogy has already been de-canonized in the minds of many fans, especially after this current film.  I noticed that editorially the magazine takes shot after shot at the prequel trilogy, mostly to somehow enhance the sequel trilogy.  I saw a bit of a couple of prequel movies on Christmas Eve.  They’re still not good.  After the Phantom Menace, Star Wars fans would never again campout for the premiere of a Star Wars film.  That said, they are canonical Star Wars explaining what happened before the original trilogy.  You can disagree with the way they were made and certain elements in the films, but not really the story. 

The sequel films (of the two I’ve unfortunately seen) are derivative copies at best and cringey Agenda and toy marketing at worst.  They had no story other than, “Let’s make some Star Wars films to make money for Disney.”  Their mighty universal mythological theme was, “Let’s redo Star Wars, replacing the white males with flat tokens.”  I’ve heard it said that these films are for children, when you’re an adult, you don’t understand them.  I think adults understand them all too well and that’s why they don’t like them.   

The magazine starts with the facts about the franchise.  I thought this table of film details was interesting.  (Sorry I couldn’t get a great scan of it.)  This is followed by a brief synopsis of the films, except for Rogue One and Solo, which apparently don’t rate official treatment.  This section is less than insightful.

The commentary starts off innocently enough, but becomes slathering and spitting in SWJ rage.  An article on politics and Star Wars expresses sincere regret that Reagan and conservatives appropriated Star Wars terminology, when Lucas clearly meant for his films to be an indictment on non-democrats.  (In fact, I’ve read elsewhere, he saw the Empire as the US and the Rebellion as the Viet Cong.  Darth Vader was an honorable Green Beret-like warrior, who eventually figures out he’s fighting for the wrong side.)  This is followed by an embarrassing discussion about religion in Star Wars, not one of the franchises’ strong points.  Anything other than the vaguest concepts used in the movies tended to be way too on the nose. 

A discussion on feminism follows.  Carrie Fisher and all other feminists are still salty over the Slave Leia costume.  (Carrie had put on some weight after Empire and was angry as hell when Lucas handed her the bikini.  He was basically calling her “fat.”)  Fisher told Daisy Ridley to not let herself be, “Subjected to similar objectification.”  “Yes, and I shall also make sure my character never bathes and is completely flatchested to end all attractiveness.  My performance will shall only be judged by my acting ability.”  So much for that plan, Daisy.  How many women have voluntarily shown up at conventions in that Slave Leia outfit?  I don’t think those women are feeling oppressed.   

Then there’s an article on diversity, featuring Rogue One as the standard bearer.  There were no white male heroes at all in the movie.  (I’m surprised.  I didn’t know Cassian was Mexican.  I thought he was French.)  “The struggle modernize properties,” was the phrase used to explain their racism.  In other words, “How do we erase the presence of the people who made this stuff popular in the first place?”  “Disney had a problem on its hands with Star Wars, all of the heroes were white and male.  (Billy Dee Williams kicks back a Colt .45, “Whatever.”) 

“Audience expectations had changed: parents now demand diverse heroes for their kids.”  Said no one ever, even the article writer.  I was actually shocked by one throwaway line in an article where all criticism of the new Star Wars films was reduced to coming from racist, sexist Internet trolls.  It was as if these films are beyond being seriously criticized for their stories or direction.  Frankly, the meta-societal Agenda in these movies can also be questioned.   Woke is neither a shield nor an answer to criticism.    

There is an interesting excerpt from a book on how Lucas wrote Star Wars.  The creative process was painfully detailed.  Or should I say that the creative process was just painful?  (And I can say from experience, that’s how it’s been for me too.)  I nearly gagged to death reading the fawning interview with “Jar Jar” Abrams.  Before the first movie had even come out, they were saying how much better a job he was doing handling the franchise than everyone else, especially George Lucas.  Unfortunately, the article writer had to acknowledge, even without having seen the final product, how unoriginal everything was in The Force Awakens, my main criticism.

Then there’s this missive in the interview: “It’s entirely possible to read Star Wars as a movie about white men fighting to regain their rightful position as rulers of the universe, against a man who, if he’s not actually black, wears all black and has the voice of a black man.”  Take note that the article writer said, “Rightful position,” not me, but I appreciate the tacit acknowledgement.  Of course, Darth Vader was actually working with said white men to rule the universe, but don’t let that stop you from making such a strong point.      

There’s some unintentional comedy as the actress playing Captain Phasma was quoted for being so proud of playing female part that wouldn’t be judged by her looks (since she’s in a full Stormtrooper outfit), just her actions . . . such as being stuffed into a garbage chute and being a complete joke character.  She is every feminist.  We don’t know how she got her position, she made sure she looked good (with that shiny special feminist armor that deflects all criticism), but she failed horribly in the end without further comment.         

Worse than that interview was a puff piece on John Boyega from the sequel trilogy and what a piece of work he is.  For a middle class British actor pretending to be an American in the film, he’s sure taking the part to the next level by pretending to be oppressed as well.  Obviously, he couldn’t use his English accent in the movie, because that would mean he’s a villain, like Rey.  His “woke-ness” has even led him into conflict with other SWJ’s questioning his wokeness.  (That statement doesn’t make any sense to me either, but it’s the only way I can describe what I read.) 

I already said before, Donald Glover should have gotten that part.  (And I was right.  He ended up being cast as young Lando in Solo, where he ended up being a joke for having sex with droids.)  I’m glad my further idea for making a buddy picture with Finn and Poe didn’t happen.  Now that I know him a little better, I wouldn’t have wanted him to have been likeable on screen.

They reprint the magazine’s original reviews of the Star Wars films, which is sort of historically interesting.  To be honest though, Time is not known for their movie reviews.  After the first film, all the reviews explain how the last film wasn’t that great, but this current film is awesome.  The reviews for the two sequel films are positively hyperbolic in praise, especially compared to the prequels. 

There’s articles on Star Wars TV projects and Disneyland and Disneyworld attractions.  There’s a fairly arbitrary list of the top 40 moments in Star Wars.  (The sequel moments were lame.  The prequel moments were all given a backhand in passing.)  Finally, there’s some obscure Star Wars trivia. 

There’s lots of pictures in this, but it’s actually fairly meaty in prose.  Unfortunately, the words are all nonsense.  Needless to say, I do not recommend this $15 magazine for anything other than self-loathing regret for having purchased it.  (Thankfully, this was just a gift for me.  I only regretted the time lost reading it.)  Look, bottom line on the Agenda, the problem is that you’re doing what you’re doing for racist/sexist reasons.  What you’re criticizing from the past was not done for the same reasons.  We know this because those producers weren’t going out to the media and saying that that’s why we’re doing it and expecting a round of applause.  Your work will simply not stand on its own with that kind of foundation.

Entertainment Weekly: The Ultimate Guide to the Arrowverse

I have been enjoying CW’s Crisis on Infinite Earths.  (I’m writing this before I’ve seen the ending, so hopefully I won’t be eating those words.)  I found myself unable to resist picking up this promotional magazine.  The magazine has brief series recaps, brief recaps of the previous crossover specials, and interviews with the series’ stars. 

The recaps were really more of a tease than comprehensive.  This goes especially for Legends of Tomorrow.  Some of the past events they mentioned for that show, that I hadn’t seen, were truly enticingly bizarre.  Black Lightning was also mentioned, though given a short-shrift compared to the other shows.  While he’s an established DC character, BL usually does its own thing on TV and isn’t even entirely compatible with the other shows in tone.  He is in the crossover though.  I wonder if he’ll be integrated more after Crisis.   

Stephen Amell, Green Arrow, is a handsome fellow.  Unfortunately, his interview was chopped into inarticulateness.  Grant Gustin, the Flash, came off as a pretty enthusiastic comic book fanboy.  Neither interview was terribly insightful.  These two are the heart and soul of the Arrowverse.  They are good enough actors and charismatic enough to carry their shows, even when the story material is, at times, subpar.  It’s too bad Stephen is leaving after Crisis.  

Melissa Benoist, Supergirl, wanted pants for her costume.  It’s all about the Agenda on Supergirl.  Maybe Melissa could be up there with Stephen and Grant, but her character is almost inconsequential most of the time on her show.  Little wonder, I’ve seen her totally phone it in on some episodes too.  The cast interview with the Legends was reasonably interesting.  Some of them were wearing the Agenda in the cast pictures.

Lastly, Batwoman was promoted as the first gay character to headline a CW show and with an openly gay actor, though Ruby Rose is actually “nonbinary” and can’t technically be gay.  (Of course, this is all nonsense.)  There are already a multitude of gay characters on the other DC shows.  They going to run out of “firsts,” at some point.

Overall, I can’t recommend this for fans of the CW DC shows.  There’s just not enough detail on the shows or insight into the actors or production to satisfy a fan.  I feel like a sucker for having bought this fluff.  The content is slightly irritating, but I really expected more meat about the shows and actors.

Smithsonian Air & Space: Carrier-City at Sea

At last, here’s a magazine purchase I can recommend.  (Actually, the hockey yearbook seems pretty good, but I haven’t read most of it.  The latest issue of Baseball America features some interesting postseason awards.)  If you’re interested in aircraft carrier operations, this magazine will give you what you want.  If you want more, you’ll need a book on the subject or talk to some sailors who’ve been on the big boats. 

There’s quite a bit of detail.  It might even be a little too technical in places.  They explain the Ouija board (a model representation of the ship showing aircraft location), the Meatball (a visual track that puts pilots on the right path to land), and catapult operations, including the Boot Shoot (shooters firing their boots off the deck on the last day of their tour). 

There is a frightening description of a “Night in the barrel,” where a pilot has trouble landing.  A British correspondent wrote a book about being on a carrier, which is excerpted here.  There’s even a possibility of taking a “Tiger Cruise” yourself, if you know someone on board.  Family and friends can ride aboard the ship for a couple of days as it comes into port.  (And way cheaper than a commercial sea cruise, but accommodations are bit more primitive.)

I realize the pilots are the stars on the carrier and in Top Gun, but I dig the deck crew guys.  It is fascinating to watch them do their thing.  They’re dirty, grimy, dangerous jobs, but they look cool doing them.  The magazine lists the significance of the crew color scheme: yellow (shooters, air boss assistants), blue (moving planes), green (catapult), brown (aircraft maintenance), purple (fueling), black and white (inspectors), red (ordinance, firemen), and white (landing).

Here’s the money shot of the magazine, a cross-section of the carrier.

                                                     

OMG, sometimes planes land on the wrong carrier.  This may result in copious graffiti before the plane is ransomed back to its ship.

Doesn’t that deck look somewhat in climate?  There are articles on carrier planes going back to WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Tomcats, Hornets, and the newest F-35 Lightning.  Strangely, the longest article is on the C-2 transport plane that resupplies the carrier, but isn’t actually stationed on board.  The tilt-rotor Osprey is scheduled to replace it.  Finally, there are war stories in the back. 

Again, if you’re interested in the subject, you’ll be pleased with this purchase.  I wish the other two magazines had been more like this one.