Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Star Wars. Show all posts

Saturday, March 12, 2016

Star Wars Canteen and Cabin Fever

Halloween. Good times
Maybe you heard that we got a huge blizzard here on the east coast about a month ago. School was closed for a week, it was actually a nice break. I love when the kids are home and it's all of us just hanging out. The kids like it too. Even with all the love of being home we do end up looking for things to do. This blizzard gave us a chance to take on a project we'd been talking about for a few months, the kids' version of Eddie Izzard's "Death Star Canteen" bit.

If you haven't seen, then for crying out loud, click the link. It's brilliant. If you prefer there's also an animated version and a fantastic stop-motion Lego version.The problem for me as a parent is that there's some cursing, so I can't play it for the kids. The bigger problem is that I forgot about the cursing, played it for one kid, then had to play it for the other kid. Then they both started dropping casual f-bombs. So we had to clean it up. First, we found a transcript online, and I bowdlerized it. We had fun doing readings of that for a while, and then reciting it on weekend mornings while making breakfast. Once Buddy decided to be Darth Vader for Halloween we knew we'd end up doing a filmed version. The blizzard finally gave us the time.

Now look, I don't know how this goes for the Holderness family, but making a movie like this with a four year old kind of sucks. Also, Buddy is kind of a perfectionist so not getting it in one take was frustrating. The main problem for Lou was waiting for her part, and being quiet. But after a few dozen takes it finally came together. So below I present to you a clean, kid friendly version of Eddie Izzard's Death Star Canteen.


Thursday, January 28, 2016

Robocop: An Exploration of Reboots (A Fake Academic Paper Based on Pseudo-Scientific Techniques)

Abstract

I am Robert Cop
Are reboots really always worse then the originals? Do we only think that because they're now remaking movies we remember from our childhoods? Read on as I take you on a fake scientific journey into the mind of the modern American film viewer.

Introduction

It started as it always does, with an argument on Facebook. In March of last year I posted that I liked the Robocop reboot. This comment was met with great derision from friends and family alike. I often find myself alone when it comes to liking sci-fi movies and comedies. Not because my friends don't like sci-fi or comedies, but because my standards are pretty low sometimes. All I want is to be entertained for 90 minutes, usually while doing something else at the same time.
"DMJ: You can like it. You just can't claim that it was in any way A) necessary or B) better than the original
RS: Nothing ruins the original. If you like the original you can still watch that. I think both are interesting. I thought it was a different take on how they stripped him of his humanity, doing it over time instead of all at once. I don't think many remakes or reboots are necessary. And no, it's not better, it's different."
For a long time I maintained that the reason so many adults didn't like the Star Wars prequels was because they weren't eight-years-old when they saw them. My belief was that if you could control for nostalgia and age you would find that the second trilogy was just as good as the first. (My opinion on this has shifted with the release of Episode VII. I'm now just as bitter over the crappy prequels as the rest of you.) This logic led me to see if I could do just that.

Methodology


Like any worthwhile social scientist I decided to experiment on the people close to me. It turns out that my dear wife had not seen either Robocop movie before watching the reboot with me.
"RS: T is great because not only did she watch this with me last night (she hated it) but she's begrudgingly agreed to watch the original with me tonight. This is a great opportunity because she's never seen it, so she can determine if one or the other is better, worse, or just different, without the interference of expectation or childhood nostalgia.
AM: Yes!!!!! Best experiment ever. Please do a full write-up!"
Then T decided to taunt me by proving that having not seen Robocop in the 80s was perfectly normal (it's not). Instead she got me thinking that I could turn this into a full fledged (fake) scientific study. If you're not familiar, this is the kind of study I do as a linguist/general academic, but applied more haphazardly and without institutional review. So basically it's just like most of the crap research you read on Facebook. (I so FLS.)
"Science y'all!"

"RS: Dude, y'all. T inadvertently found me a pool of people who had never seen either movie. Some of them are agreeing to watch them both and then report back. Science y'all! Science!
T: OMG. This was supposed to be "See, I am not that unusual, plenty of people have never seen Robocop," not "Here you go, I found you some lab rats!"


 So in full pseudo-science style I asked a pool of willing friends who had not yet seen either movie to watch both the original and the reboot within 72 hours. I counterbalanced the order they should watch them in to negate ordering effects. I asked them to answer four questions:
1. Was either one a "good" movie?
2. Was one better than the other, or were they just different?
3. Any other comments?
4. Can you fly Bobby?
Results 

I had six respondents, five female, one male, all in their 30s. None of them had seen either Robocop movie prior to the experiment.

1. Was either one a "good" movie?

None of the respondents asserted firmly that either movie was good. Five of the six stated that the original was not good with just one saying, "I found both movies relatively entertaining." This respondent did not state relative to what standard. Other reviews of the original included,
1. "The 1987 version was decidedly bad."
2. "The original was so bad that pretty much anything would have been better."
3. "I give it an "F." How's that?"
A few respondents had positive comments about the reboot, though it still fell short of being a "good" movie. One respondent did give it a B while saying, "I was surprised by how much I actually liked the 2014 version. I wouldn't purchase it or anything crazy like that, but I would probably watch it again." Others noted:
1. "I would say 2014 was approaching good."
2. "The second one was actually pretty good but that could also be that watching it right after the first one skewed how good it seemed."
3. "I didn't think either movie was particularly good, but the remake was certainly more complex and was clearly trying harder."
2. Was one better than the other, or were they just different?

As noted above all of the respondents agreed that the 2014 version of the film was better. The reasons mostly dealt with issues of plot, gore, and character development. Respondents did not like the amount of blood in the original, and found the character development weaker. While many respondents noted that both films tried to address problems with mass media and sociopolitical issues of their times, they felt that the reboot did a better job connecting those issues with the plot of the film.
1. "2014 was better. The story was far more developed and cohesive; the emotional thru-line was existent, for one, and it had a more clear (though not totally clear) political POV. " 
2. "The reboot was better. The original? I hated it. Hated it so much that I was a little bitter over the time I spent watching it when I could have been doing absolutely anything else. It was unnecessarily gory, had no discernible plot. It just...stopped. It just stopped at the end. I wasn't sad, but it was still pretty abrupt, like they ran out of red corn syrup and had to stop filming."
3. "Another big factor in why 2014 was better was Joel Kinnaman -- he's a solid actor and that makes a huge difference when you're dealing with cyborg characters. I liked that there was romance and a little sex in it, which, unlike the gore in 1987, wasn't gratuitous -- the bedroom scene served to underscore what Murphy lost when he became a cyborg."
4. "I didn't think one was much better than the other; I don't think the original has passed the test of time very well, but I don't think the reboot will either. They're both basically moral panic time capsules."
There was one fantastic deconstruction of how the films are just different that is shared below in its entirety.

3. Any other comments?

This section primarily explored the themes of the two films and how they related to the sociopolitical issues of times in which they were made. Respondents also explored the differences between the films that related to aspects other than which was better, or whether either was "good."

1. "Several things popped up about race and culture, like how the reboot stated with middle eastern suicide bombing. I couldn't tell if the point was these were "good" guys standing against invasion by foreign rule via the robots or if they were just stereotyped middle eastern suicide bombers thrown in an American film. All the people of color were bad or secondary in the reboot. So there were more Black people in the reboot, but the one "good" guy, Alex's partner, is still just the partner and of course he gets shot. Then the Black female chief turns out corrupt. Still seems, in both films, it's the "strong white male" who saves the day. I feel like, in Detroit especially, it would have been more than believable to have Alex Murphy be an African American police officer. The original did have the female partner and there were no real strong female characters in the reboot, the wife just plays the wife. I even thought that Dr Norton could have been female or a person of color, but nope, still a white guy. It just struck me that both films were "white guys have all the power and money" kind of movies. I am glad I have seen them and see why the original was so popular even though the blood was a bit much for me."
2. "The original relied on a fairly simple plot structure and more gratuitous violence, while the remake presented itself as a more serious drama. It seemed to be sort of drinking from the same cup as the Manchurian Candidate remake, but with less to work with.
Other differences I noticed: The reboot was overall much more heavy-handed and delved into more explicit detail on issues that were only touched on in the original (like unethical experimentation on human subjects). The reboot relied much more heavily on the family, on the importance of emotion, and on neuro-chemical determinism (although with some degree of not quite knowing what to do with neuro-chemical determinism). The emphasis is on the limits of technology and the importance of human relationships and neuro-chemistry (to what end, I'm not sure), while the original more straightforwardly depicts technology as an improvement on human abilities. Conversely, the original was much more heavy-handed about the soulless villainy of both street criminals and weapon manufacturers, so it might even out. 
Actually the reboot seemed to scrap all of the criminal-gang plot and replace it with family drama and science angst, which seems like a wise choice, since when watching the original, all of the criminals' scenes had me thinking "Why am I supposed to care about this? Oh, right, because it's an "80s Street Crime Moral Panic Movie." The use of news show intervals in both movies was also somewhat different; in the reboot they were a sort of expositional device, while in the original they were some sort of meta-commentary thing that's very of its time and wouldn't carry over to a current audience that well."
 4. Can you fly Bobby?

Only one respondent answered this question, which was disappointing. "No, but Kurtwood Smith's performance was one of the few decent things about the original."

Conclusion

 When controlling for nostalgia remakes can be held as being better than the original films. Remakes can achieve their goal of bringing an older story to a new audience by effectively updating the peripheral aspects of the narrative to better resonate with modern film goers. This study provides a small toe hold for the notion that the poo-pooing of remakes may well be the purview of nostalgic fanboys.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. The sample size was small. The participant pool was heavily skewed towards one gender. All of the respondents were in their thirties. This study used only one film and its remake as source material. This study could be expanded to include more, and more varied participants in order to give a more holistic picture of how movie goers juxtapose original works and their remakes.

Other valid questions brought up by reviewers of this project include, "If you're controlling for nostalgia, are you also doing anything to control for advances in film making technology in the last 20 years?" And, "

It's a fake academic paper. You have three children, right? How do you have this kind of time on your hands?"

To the first question the answer is, no. However, few of the comments from respondents included commentary on things like special effects or other aspects of film making that have advanced. One participant specifically noted that they were discounting those differences in their analysis.

To the second question, um...I don't really. But here we are.

 

Appendix: Participant's Deconstruction of How the Movies are Just Different

Overall I think they are very different films with different motivations as far as their place within the culture and era during which they were released. I felt like the reboot had more planned propaganda dealing with the USA and its global role and the problems many of us see with America playing "daddy" to the world with our troops in way too many places. The Pat Novak character was sort of the voice of this issue. There is also more of a sense of the issues presented in "1984" and the ethics of robotics and their role in a human world. I found the Novak scenes a little odd.

The original was very much an "80's" film to me with  the language (could they say "fuck" more? Called each other "buddy" and "mister" in a way that was comical) and gore/violence that was noticeably absent in the reboot. It didn't seem to have as big of an agenda, but more reminded me of a comic-book-turned-movie sort of film. The killing and shooting of people was gross to me - from the first time the ED 209 kills that office guy when it glitches near the beginning - bleck! And how Alex is injured is so much more gruesome in the original. The acting of the "bad guys" is almost comical with the forced laughs and loud declarations of much of what they say. It seemed more a film to just entertain with 80's language and violence, which seemed more prevalent in films then (Terminator, etc). I liked that as far as its seeming intent, but it was just so much shooting and blood. I did also like that Robocop didn't know he was Alex and part of the plot was him figuring that out. I suspect, if I had seen the original when I was young, I would have been irritated by how the reboot didn't do this.

There was the idea of corporate greed that I think was a part of 80's politics more than some of the global issues that are more focused on now. I missed Alex having someone that was "there" for him in the original - like Dr. Norton in the reboot. I didn't like nor dislike his female partner in the original. I just didn't buy their relationship so her being the one human that helped him at the end had kind of an "eh" factor to me. In both films, I didn't like how no one explained what was going on to Alex when he was first "turned on" as a robot. I felt, in the reboot, that scene was less than believable because they just turned him on and unlocked him and let him go without explaining what had happened. I did like in the original how the audience got to see from the robot's perspective as he was created and turned on.

So they were just really different to me. I liked less 80's gore in the reboot (and less of the word fuck to be honest). Novak's string of expletives at the end seems to show his zeal for using robotics and anger that it wasn't happening. But then he supports America even as Americans have denied what he obviously wants. So it seemed contradictory - his desire for robotics with his undying devotion to America

 

Monday, June 27, 2005

Belated Commentary “Everyone’s a little bit _____-ist, sometimes.”

Carl Everett of the Chicago White Sox, who has previously stated that he doesn’t believe that dinosaurs existed because they’re not mentioned in the bible, has come out with his opinion on gay marriage. In this month’s issue of Maxim magazine Everett says something to the effect of, “I’ve had gay teammates and I’ve accepted them, but being gay isn’t right. I don’t believe in gay marriage, it isn’t right.” He goes on to reveal that two women cannot make a baby, nor can two men. This morning on Mike & Mike in the Morning on ESPN radio Mike Greenberg suggested that this comment by Everett will spark “a firestorm of controversy.” It shouldn’t. Everett’s comments should be taken up to the point of “I’ve accepted them” and end there. As far as his opinion of gay marriage, or the validity of homosexual romance he is entitled to his opinion; even if he’s wrong.

Listening to Greenberg read Everett’s statement on air I got the impression that Everett was clearly stating his belief rather than attempting to influence people or incite debate. I don’t agree with Everett’s remarks but the fact that he is willing to accept gay people regardless of his personal opinion is enough for me. After all, we all have our own prejudices (cue Avenue Q soundtrack here). I am not for illegal immigration. I’ll never vote for harsher immigration laws, or denial of services to immigrants regardless of their legal status. Equality and justice for all doesn’t mean we all have to like each other. There will always be groups of people that we have some dislike for. As long as we don’t allow our prejudice to inform our treatment of people, or God forbid our public policy, it doesn’t matter what we think behind our eyes.

Ewoks are not Ethiopian. They’re Iraqi.

OK, they’re neither. One of the lasting memories of childhood is an argument between my mom and her boyfriend a couple of years after Return of the Jedi. The argument was about whether or not Ewoks were derogatory African stereotypes. My mother took the position that they were simply annoying little teddy bears created to sell merchandise to eight-year-olds. This led to one of the more vicious political arguments I have ever witnessed including during my recent trip to the senate.

Now the Ewok argument is being played out on a larger scale as republican leaders attempt to get people to boycott "Revenge of the Sith" due to its alleged anti-Bush bias. Among other things republicans point to Darth Vader’s line “If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy.” As invoking Bush’s “You’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Republicans have also pointed to the films apparent criticism of the war in Iraq.

For crying out loud people get a grip! People have been trying to find hidden messages in Star Wars films for too long. Sure, Lucas borrowed from eastern philosophy and Christianity in order to shape his epic. Sure, there are allusions to other famous stories. Yes, the films depict an amalgam of classic themes on the human condition. We get it. That’s where it should end. When asked about the republican’s ire Lucas himself issued one of the greatest non-confirmations of my young life saying that the story was written during the Vietnam war, not the current war. This statement at once denies that the movie had any overt bias against the current administration while at the same time using the GOP’s accusations to compare the current war to Vietnam, something most republicans want to avoid. In a sly way Lucas is pointing out what should be obvious to all of us, if the GOP see caricatures of themselves in the behavior of the Sith, who are patterned after a xenophobic administration that perpetrated a failed war, maybe they should take a hint that this a clear case of life imitating art. People need to stop trying to find the hidden political messages in Star Wars. After all, how long has this movie been in post production? Wasn’t some form of “Yer either wi’us ‘r a’gin us” used in films as far back as the 1930s? Isn’t likely that it was written into Bush’s speech because it’s an iconic phrase? So did Lucas play on Bush, or did Bush play on John Wayne? Or did Lucas play on Wayne? Could the line have been written prior to Bush’s speech? Yes, yes, yes and yes. Besides, if Bush says something that childish shouldn’t he be lampooned for it? Or are world politics so simple that the entire issue can be as simple as disagreeing with the war equals wishing death upon American civilians? I for one am not against the war because I’m for the terrorists, but rather because I am for the soldiers, and I am for the people of Iraq.

If republicans are upset about Sith now, imagine if Return of the Jedi were released today. Instead of being worried about comparing Bush to Vader the GOP would be up in arms about how the Ewoks, with their guerrilla tactics, were a clear nod to the Iraqi insurgents. After all, the Ewoks used IEDs and other primitive weapons to attack checkpoints in an attempt to defeat the most technologically advanced army in the galaxy, a strategy that closely parallels the tactics of the Vietcong who preyed upon the over confidence the US put into it’s military might. If Jedi were released today Lucas might find himself at Gitmo while our boys kept on the look out for insurgents using big logs and hang-gliders armed with giant rocks. Again, if the GOP sees a parallel, in a film, about outer space, written during Vietnam, to the current political climate they might want to take that as a sign. From what I can tell Vietnam is now widely acknowledged as an abject failure. If we have reached the point where even those who are perpetrating this war, the same people who promised that Iraq would “not be another Vietnam,” are starting to see the similarities, maybe they should wake up and realize it’s not a case of liberal bias, it’s reality.

On a related note…

…I’m kind of glad it’s all over. I was born approximately 11 months before Star Wars was released. The films have been a constant for me, as they have been for most American males my age. Like a Red Sox fan under the age of 90 I don’t know life without gossip and speculation surrounding one of the passions of my generation. Still, I’m glad that I’ll never again have to leave a movie theater listening to a depressed, thirty-something, never-been-kissed Star Wars junkie complaining that “this one wasn’t (fill in the blank) compared to the originals.” Never again will I have to fight the urge to shake this person and scream, “Dude! When you saw the originals you were 12 years old!” Here’s the deal gang, these are movies made for kids. Adults loved the originals in part because there had, to that point, never been a movie like Start Wars. Heck, if you’re reading this chances are your parents were in their mid-twenties when Star warts came out which ain't exactly old. The special effects were unlike anything that had been done to that point. The story was different than anything that had been done to that point. Star Wars was different. Now it’s not. Now we get a few special effects vehicles every summer. Now we have an entire channel that does nothing but sci-fi. Not to mention that no matter what, there’s almost nothing Lucas could have made that would live up to the hype and anticipation that preceded Episode I. Nothing will ever live up to a beloved childhood experience it’s stupid to expect it.

That said Episode III was far and away the best of the recent trilogy. The interesting thing is that this film puts the entire series into a different perspective. The original three were about Luke’s journey from Tatooine farm boy to Jedi Knight. Anakin’s transition into Vader shifts the focus of the entire series to his rise, fall, and eventual redemption. Looking at the series as a whole Luke becomes a supporting character. Say what you want about the acting, the directing, the writing or whatever Episode III delivered exactly what Star Wars fans should have wanted. I think John Cloud said it well in a recent issue of Time magazine. Cloud wrtites, “True, Lucas’ beautiful but turgid prequal trilogy has disappointed. But then again I am no longer an awe struck boy secluded in a theater, trying to find himself in that place far far away.

Sunday, September 28, 2003

As-liens


    I wrote this for an Asian American Studies class back in 1999. Some interesting points, some stuff I don't know that I still believe but I got an A. 

    For years various groups have protested the way Asians are portrayed in the media. In 1985 pressure from Asian American advocacy groups led to a disclaimer being added to the film Year of the Dragon. The Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) attempted a similar action with the film Rising Sun in 1993. The issue in both cases was the fact that these films cast Asians and Asian Americans in a negative light. Both films used the same Asian stereotypes that people have seen a thousand times before. It is an old story, ever since Chinese Laborers began to come over in large numbers in 1852[1] anti-Asian propaganda has been an accepted part of the American landscape. By now the basic stereotypes are well known, and well documented. Asians occupy a conflicting role in American media, images and stereotypes that at times appear to be polar opposites serve to affirm the right of the west to dominate the east. Franklin Wong ties these contradictions together in his work On Visual Media Racism: Asians in the American Motion Pictures. He notes, fantasies of threatening Asian men, emasculated eunuchs, alluring Asian dragon ladies, and submissive female slaves all work to rationalize white male domination[2]. So, despite the fact that Asians can occupy any of these poles, they are not allowed the middle ground, and therefore, not allowed to be fully developed characters. The fact that Asians in American film have been perpetual second class characters is bad in and of itself; however there is an even more insidious element working in the mass media. This is subliminal Asian stereotyping through the use of characters that are not overtly Asian, yet embody all the same fears and prejudices usually applied to Asian people. Often, this tactic is used by white characters and entertainers who attempt to exoticize themselves through the use of Asian imagery. This covert stereotyping is even more dangerous than kind seen in such films as Gung Ho, or The World of Suzie Wong because one cannot point to it an obvious or overt denigration of Asian people. Yet these images are clearly focused on Asians and their effect is doubled because these anti-Asian stereotypes are often thrust upon those whom the audience finds most alien: extra-terrestrials. 

     Asians have long been seen as the perpetual other. They cannot assimilate to the degree that most European immigrants can because their appearance always gives them away. Asian Americans, even those whose families have been in the US for several generations, are constantly faced with comments like, "You speak very good English," and "So, where are you from?" Since their citizenship cannot be determined by looks alone Asians are always seen as alien. Therefore, giving Asian attributes to an extra-terrestrial serves to re-enforce this feeling. To paraphrase Frederick Douglas, you cannot oppress a person with out first stripping them of their humanity[3]. There is no better way strip Asians of their humanity than to make them entirely not of this world. Also, many science fiction stories revolve around either a group of white male heroes setting out to conquer the universe or aliens invading Earth, usually by way of the US. These heroes see those aliens who are uncooperative as the enemy, so it is natural for these sci-fi Matthew Perrys to destroy and subjugate the offending alien worlds, often questing after their exotic alien women as well. Often these aliens are made up to look like old Asian stereotypes, many look as though they have just stepped right out of an old WWII propaganda poster. Much of science fiction as a genre is based in the ideas of manifest destiny and Yellow Peril. 

     The history of Asian extra-terrestrials can be traced to Sax Rohmers character Fu Manchu, who served to enhance the most negative images of Asians and Yellow Peril. (Fong, 175). Fu Manchu, an evil Asian man bent on world domination, found his extra-terrestrial counter part in the character of Ming the Merciless. Ming, the thinly veiled Asian villain first appeared on screen in 1936. With his Fu Manchu mustache and taped down eyes, Ming (Richard Alexander) wanted to take over the Universe, the ultimate embodiment of Yellow Peril. Of course he is thwarted in his plan by the dashing Polo player turned super hero[4] Flash Gordon (Buster Crabbe). Gordon of course is all that white America sees as ideal, tall, blonde, and good looking. Therefore, it is seen as natural that Ming's (Caucasian looking) daughter (Jean Rogers) rejects her father and falls in love with Gordon. Ming's daughter had to be white in order to get around Hollywood's anti-miscegenation laws. This film series exemplifies how America's attitudes and fears towards Asians could be placed upon a wholly foreign (extra-terrestrial) entity with great success. When the Japanese sprang forward as an economic power during the 1980s Flash Gordon was reborn to the silver screen, and once again Ming, unchanged from his previous incarnation, threatened the western world. 

     In 1966 Gene Roddenberry unveiled his creation to the world. Star Trek would become a sci-fi legend. In Roddenberry's universe the Earth has been unified into one government. Indeed much of the known universe has joined The Federation of Planets and dedicated itself to peace and scientific research. Roddenberrys story follows a multiracial cast as they attempt "to go where no man has gone before." Star Trek was meant to be a utopia, a time when all the people of Earth were united in a common cause, and, on the surface it succeeded. There they were, White American, African, Asian, Russian, and Alien working together to explore the unknown. However, a more critical evaluation of the show's dynamics reveals another message. The ship's overtly Asian character is Hikaru Itaka Sulu played by Japanese American actor George Takei. People have critiqued Sulu's role on the show, saying that it was the typical Asian sidekick role seen on earlier shows like, Have Gun Will Travel, and, The Green Hornet. Timothy Fong says that Sulu was an obviously sexless character. While all the primary male crew members "had intergalactic encounters with women --human and alien-- Lt. Sulu was always left alone." (Fong, 184). With just this superficial reading of the character it is clear that he is fulfilling the model minority stereotype; he is smart, subordinate. a good worker, and a-sexual. However, not only is Sulu is not the only Asian stereotype on the show, he is also the least stereotyped Asian type on the ship. There are two other far more harmful Asian stereotypes displayed through extra-terrestrial characters. 

     First there are the Klingons, people who follow the Star Trek world today know Klingons as made popular by African American actor Michael Dorn. Currently the Klingons resemble Humans with large bone structures on their foreheads. Like Humans, they come in a variety of colors. This version of the Klingons first came about in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, (1982). From here on the Klingons began to adopt an increasingly African American look, until the most recent episodes and movies which have made them more racially diverse. As Americans became afraid of new enemies, the Klingons ability to embody whoever we hated at the time evolved to them being portrayed with more Middle Eastern presentation after 2001. This is a far cry from 1966. Originally the Klingons were scotch tape Asians (Fong, 176); White actors given slanty eyes. The Klingon race incarnate all the characteristics that most scare White America. The Klingons are violent, ill tempered, lustful, and drunk. They are on a mission to destroy the peaceful Federation and take over the universe. Finally, they fight to the death preferring death to defeat or capture. One scene from an episode entitled The Trouble with Tribbles almost mirrors a scene from the 1944 film Dragon Seed. In both scenes the evil Asians show up at a restaurant and demand liquor, when they are denied they go on a violent rampage. Often, they are shown eating large hunks of meat off the bone Genghis Kahn style. The association with the Mongol Hordes is further intensified with the naming of the villain Kahn played by Ricardo Montelban. 

     Just as the Mongolians were related to the more civilized and refined Chinese, the Klingons have a corresponding race, the Vulcans. The Vulcans are an alien race that was at one time just like the Klingons, (with whom they share common ancestors), warlike and evil. However the Vulcans chose logic as their religion, and so, became smart calculating, and totally devoid of emotion. The most famous Vulcan is none other than Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) the first mate on the starship Enterprise. Mr. Spock personifies the ultimate model minority, he is smart, calm, reasonable, and he always obeys his boss Captain Kirk (William Shatner). Spock's most important characteristic though is his complete lack of sexuality. Spock's a-sexuality is even more pronounced than Sulu's, in one episode it is revealed that Vulcans only desire to mate once every ten yearsduring a time called Pon Far. During this brief mating period Spock becomes consumed by lust, he nearly rapes a female nurse, and almost kills Kirk. To top it all off Spock shows shades of Charlie Chan, in that he often spouts off old Vulcan proverbs in a "Confucius Say" manner. These depictions of Asian like extra-terrestrials clearly demonstrate the prevailing attitudes towards Asians, that is that they are fine as long as they stay in their place, and don't have normal libidos. 

     As time and social attitudes have changed it has become slightly less acceptable to throw around Asian stereotypes out in the open. While it still happens, the Political Correctness of the nineties has brought more attention to the issue. Writers like Gina Marchetti and Elaine Kim have turned a critical eye towards the media and its depiction of Asian people. Groups like MANNA, and the JACL try to educate both the public and film makers about Asian stereotypes. However, the Asian as alien imagery lives on. In fact one of the most successful movie franchises ever is one of the worst perpetrators of this kind of subliminal racism. George Lucas' Star Wars series is rife with racist images many of them associated with Asians. The first featured Asian like extra-terrestrial appeared in The Empire Strikes Back. The first and most prominent Asian extra-terrestrial is the wise old Yoda. Yoda represents the wise old shopkeeper stereotype, also found in movies like The Karate Kid. Yoda plays the Sensei to young Luke Skywalker and teaches him the ancient and mystical ways of The Force, just as Mr. Miagi takes Daniel under his wing in Kid. The story line draws influence from Asian ideas of Karma and Chi. The Force is both the living and spiritual energy of the universe that can be used to enhance the body and mind, and eventually right all wrongs. At the end of the film a pilot named Nim Num who speaks a Asian like language helps the heroes fight the evil Empire. Nim Num is short, has large round eyes with slanted lids, and an almost fish-like appearance reminiscent of old anti-Asian propaganda. Nim Num however, was only a glimpse of what was to come. 

     In 1999 Lucas released the long anticipated prequel to his Star Wars Trilogy. People crammed theaters to full capacity to get a look at this latest addition to the Star Wars series titled, The Phantom Menace. To the dismay of Asian audience members there are two Asian stereotypes represented, Yellow Peril, and the Geisha. First the audience is introduced to the sinister Viceroy Nute Gunray of the Trade Federation. The Federation is the precursor to what is in the later episodes the Empire. The Federation wants to control the economy of the galaxy and they will do anything to achieve their goal. This is a common fear of White America and is the theme in films like Rising Sun. As the film opens they are blockading the small planet Naboo in an attempt to take control of the planets trade and shipping rights. The Viceroy and his cohorts have caricatured Asian features and speak with thick imitation Asian accents. These characters caused great deal of controversy. For the first time, the Asian extra-terrestrial is being called into question. In one article Andrew Gumbel states "The noseless leaders of the Galactic Trade Federation are clearly a throwback to the Yellow Peril characters popular in Flash Gordon and other series, but risk being interpreted as a racial slur[5]." 

     While it is refreshing to see Lucas and his extra-terrestrial Asians called to the mat, the press made little or no mention of another, more subtle Asian stereotype present in Phantom. Queen Amidala of the embattled Naboo people is depicted as a strong yet inexperienced leader. While holding court she is dressed in elaborate Kabuki like garments, a sort of Space Geisha. Conversely, when she is out adventuring through space she loses the kabuki make up dresses more like a soldier. In this swashbuckling persona she looks more White and can go around shooting bad guys and climbing up buildings. It is also while in her more western looking garb that she shows the most leadership and makes the best decisions. Interestingly, her mind seems to follow her image; while in her Space Geisha gear she is passive, indecisive, and weak, all traits associated with the geisha stereotype. While in this state she follows the advice of her mentor Senator Palpatine, who the audience knows, is the real man behind her people's predicament. Senator Palpatine is a privileged white man, so, it is no surprise that he is able to dominate Amidala when she adopts her Asian persona. The final trait associated with these Asian extra-terrestrials is the issue of homogenization. Already Asians and Asian Americans are faced with racist ideals that see all Asians as the same. Many people cannot tell the difference between different Asian ethnicities, or cultures. Fong acknowledges this problem when discussing Asian Americans working in the news media. He says, "This notion assumes that Asian Americans are just one homogenous entity, which they are not." (Fong, 198). It this general ignorance about the differences between different Asian groups that lead to incidents ranging from the Vincent Chin killing, to the casting of Japanese American actor Gedde Watanabe as a Chinese exchange student. This problem is compounded by the Asians as extra-terrestrials paradigm. By taking Asian stereotypes and assigning them to ambiguous Asian extra-terrestrials the lines between ethnicities are further blurred. 

     By taking a closer look at not just overt Asian characters but at characters that are given Asian characteristics it is clear that the problem of racial stereotyping is deeper and more subtle than previously reported. Even as America becomes more and more Politically Correct covert stereotypes continue, largly unchallenged. The same fears and hatreds that were seen in the past persist today, there are bad Asians and good model minority Asians. The difference between good and bad Asian aliens is the same as between good and bad Asian characters in other films. In her analysis of Year of the Dragon Marchetti says, "Only the rich are villainous among the Chinese. The Chinese workers may be ignorant, passive, and impotent, but...decidedly not villainous" (Marchetti, 295). The same idea of powerful or rich Asians is evident in the films Rising Sun, and Gung Ho. On the other side, good Asians are the quiet hard workers in The Good Earth, and Go For Broke who take their abuse without complaint. Gross Asian stereotypes are fading in favor of more indirect ones. Film makers who continue to use Asian extra-terrestrials can always claim, as George Lucas did, that critics are reading too much into a simple character. By hiding behind the veil of Science Fiction, Hollywood will continue to be able to set an anti-Asian agenda. It has been a long road from Fu Manchu and Ming the Merciless to the Viceroy Gunray and Queen Amidala but the attitudes behind the stereotypes have yet to change. Asians are still seen as a threat to America's economy, and there is still a desire to strip Asian men and women of their humanity in order to justify their domination by white male western society. White America sees these Asian extra-terrestrials the same way they see other Asian villains; as Marchetti says "they feel they have the moral right to eradicate the villain because the foreign represents a threat to the racial and ethnic status quo" (Marchetti, 287). 

[1] Fong, 11 
[2] As cited in Gina Marchettis Ethnicity and Cultural Studies. 
[3] From Martin, Waldo E. The Mind of Frederick Douglass, The University of North Carolina Press: 1984 [4] From Reel.com review. 
[5] from The Independant June 4 1999 

Sources:   
Books:
 Fong, Timothy P. The Contemporary Asian American Experience: Beyond the Model Minority, Prentice Hall Inc.: 1998 
 Friedman, Lester D. (Ed.) Unspeakable Images, University of Illinois Press: 1991 
 Martin, Waldo E. The Mind of Frederick Douglass, The University of North Carolina Press: 1984 

 On Line
 (http://) members.theglobe.com/treknut stinsv.com /TOS/640char thumb-1.image.altavista.com/image www.amazon.com www.english.wayne.edu/ ~calice/oh/images 
 www.freep.com/fun/ starwars/nstar4.htm www.geocities.com/Area51/3253/regular 
 www.iac.net/~twisty www.reel.com 
 www.scifi.com/startrek/cast/images 
 www.starwars.com/characters 

 Films 
Howard, Ron Gung Ho, 1985 
 Hughes, John Sixteen Candles, 1984 
 Lucas, George Star Wars: Episode 1, 1999 
 Lucas, George The Empire Strikes Back 
 McG Charlies Angels, 2000 
 Okazaki, Steve Living On Tokyo Time, 1987 
 Ping, Chu Yin Shanghai Noon, 1999 
 Tasun, Frank The Geisha Boy, 1958 
 Wang, Wayne Dim Sum, 1984 

 Television
 Star Trek, Amok Time 1967 
 Star Trek, The Trouble With Tribbles, 1967