Chefelf.com Night Life: The Ewoks - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Star Wars Fan Convention

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

The Ewoks in defense of the little bastards!!!!!

#1 User is offline   Mike Mac from NYU Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 472
  • Joined: 23-February 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:26 PM

Hello All.

First some apologies.

Apologies to JYAMG & civilian two for any profane comments or insults I may have levied against them a month back { Jesus, I sound like a lawyer for Jacoby & Meyers!!! dry.gif }

But I really appreciate the time and arguments and views we share on this site.

I was in a very depressed state a few months back with not only the loss of a not one but two people. but also a sort of a "professional disappointment" that made me question pursuing a career in film. Just made me doubt my insticts a little. It's difficult for me to talk about it . I guess I was just a litte to ambitious...... I dunno.... dry.gif

Well enoght of that. Good to be back. Although my appearances on this forum will be much more sparse as things get a little hectic as of late.

Now all that being said. My first topic as you can tell is gonna be a controversial one!!!!!!

The Ewoks!

Yes those fuzzy, cute little brown bastards you guys love to loathe. smile.gif

Upon thinking about whether you guys are right about the Ewoks.......it sorta dawned on me.

"The Ewoks are the "Star Wars" equivalents of dwarves"

I won;t explain this thought but I will rather give you guys some questions here.....

1. Why are there dwarves, hobbits, gnomes, and in literature at all?
2. What purpose do they serve?
3. Would Frodo, Samwise's characters in LOTR change if they were regular sized humans???





Please no punches pulled. Let me know what you guys think!!!!!!!!!!!!!
0

#2 User is offline   Chefelf Icon

  • LittleHorse Fan
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 4,528
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, NY
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:33 PM

Mike! Glad to see you back. Sorry about your loss and doubts. I hope it has all worked out for the best.

As for the Ewoks, I'm not so down on them as everyone else is. I think the original Wookie idea probably would have worked a tad better though.

I'm far too dumb right now to answer your three questions but I will get to them later! smile.gif
See Chefelf in a Movie! -> The People vs. George Lucas

Buy the New LittleHorse CD, Strangers in the Valley!
CD Baby | iTunes | LittleHorse - Flight of the Bumblebee Video

Chefelf on: Twitter | friendfeed | Jaiku | Bitstrips | Muxtape | Mento | MySpace | Flickr | YouTube | LibraryThing
0

#3 User is offline   Despondent Icon

  • Think for yourself
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,684
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:a long time ago
  • Interests:Laughter. Louis pups. Percussion. What binds us. Bicycling, Tennis.
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:45 PM

Hey Mike! Great to see you again. Missed your input.

I guess they all serve as comic relief in general.

If ewoks were Munchkins, they'd have been cute but threatening.
Some munchkins looked mean, but even the mean "Shaman Ewok" had a huggable quality.

just a quick thought.
0

#4 User is offline   littlejerryseinfeld Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 26-October 04
  • Location:newport beach, CA
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 October 2004 - 02:54 PM

good point, mike.

i'm definately with chef here. wookies would have been better - but then again, you couldn't make wookie bedsheets and have them sell.

as for having dwarves in these films: my guess is that by having them small, it conveys, on some subconscious level, some childlike qualities: innocence, vulnerability... and it sets up a 'david v. goliath' scenario - the undersized, underdog going against the forces of evil...
0

#5 User is offline   Mike Mac from NYU Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 472
  • Joined: 23-February 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 03:00 PM

QUOTE
good point, mike.

i'm definately with chef here. wookies would have been better - but then again, you couldn't make wookie bedsheets and have them sell.


Jerry as child of the 80s. I can personally tell you that I slept at night on a bed spread that had the pillow sheet where Chewbacca in heroic poise right where I laid my head to sleep at night. Truly!!!

I've seen your argument about the marketing of the Ewoks in ROTJ.

I like your arguments........but in truth you are half right!!!!

I'll explain in full in another topic.

But for now I'll say that

"everything in Star Wars, WAS, IS and is GOING TO BE marketed.


I think my sister has a vintage plush Yoda doll made back in 1982 somewhere..........which I am sure she sold on E-Bay for a cool 1,000!!! blink.gif
0

#6 User is offline   ernesttomlinson Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 342
  • Joined: 28-September 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 03:35 PM

"1. Why are there dwarves, hobbits, gnomes, and in literature at all?"

My first, instinctive answer is that they follow an immense European tradition that goes back centuries. I'm not sure how long exactly; I was about to launch into a wordy attempt to explain the tradition (mostly taken from C. S. Lewis's introduction to mediaeval thought and writing, The Discarded Image, peppered with citations of literary works that mostly I've never heard of.) But that's a cop-out answer, perhaps, and says nothing really about why.

I should say also that you're mixing traditions up a bit. Goblins, pixies, boggarts, and so forth, while little, aren't pleasant to be around; they're at best mischievous and tricksy, at worst plainly malevolent. Also there's an air of the supernatural about them; they can cast glamours and so forth.

Hobbits and Ewoks, though, are plainly ordinary (indeed, ordinariness is the hobbits' chief characteristic.) Whatever tradition gave us hobbits--I don't know what it is--is different from the tradition that gave us goblins and pixies; whatever tradition gave us the Ewoks (Lucas may be going back no further than to H. Beam Piper's fuzzies) is different from both.

And, yeah, they're not threatening at all. They wave spears about, tie up our heroes, and supposedly intend to dine on them, but it's all played for laughs. The notion of little people who are nevertheless killers may work in writing but maybe it could never work on screen.

Would Frodo and Sam and the other hobbits have succeeded as characters were they not small? Hm. I think mostly they still would have worked. They were underestimated not merely because they were small but because they were rustic and ignorant of the world outside their little country. But contempt for their size is definitely there; when (for example) Denethor attacks Gandalf and Boromir because "[sending the Ring] in the hands of a witless halfling into the land of the Enemy himself, as you have done, and this son of mine, that is madness," a good deal of Denethor's contempt is in that "halfling".

But I'm straying far off topic, I guess.
0

#7 User is offline   Mike Mac from NYU Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 472
  • Joined: 23-February 04

Posted 27 October 2004 - 04:38 PM

To ernesttomlinson

QUOTE
"1. Why are there dwarves, hobbits, gnomes, and in literature at all?"

My first, instinctive answer is that they follow an immense European tradition that goes back centuries. I'm not sure how long exactly; I was about to launch into a wordy attempt to explain the tradition (mostly taken from C. S. Lewis's introduction to mediaeval thought and writing, The Discarded Image, peppered with citations of literary works that mostly I've never heard of.) But that's a cop-out answer, perhaps, and says nothing really about why.

I should say also that you're mixing traditions up a bit. Goblins, pixies, boggarts, and so forth, while little, aren't pleasant to be around; they're at best mischievous and tricksy, at worst plainly malevolent. Also there's an air of the supernatural about them; they can cast glamours and so forth.



I am aware that goblins, pixies etc are each individual "legends" and "mythological" with their own origins.

The bastardization of goblins, gnomes, dwarves..etc. into one general category is something that has been a by-product of 19th-20th century literature.

I do wish that those distinctions would be more clarified in literature, more.


QUOTE
Would Frodo and Sam and the other hobbits have succeeded as characters were they not small? Hm. I think mostly they still would have worked. They were underestimated not merely because they were small but because they were rustic and ignorant of the world outside their little country. But contempt for their size is definitely there; when (for example) Denethor attacks Gandalf and Boromir because "[sending the Ring] in the hands of a witless halfling into the land of the Enemy himself, as you have done, and this son of mine, that is madness," a good deal of Denethor's contempt is in that "halfling".


So would you say that being "underestimated" because of their diminutive size is a key aspect of Frodo & Sam's characterizations?
0

#8 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 27 October 2004 - 07:10 PM

ernesttomlinson, you are right about The Fuzzies.

Everything in OT STAR WARS has a sci-fi origin. Discussing the series in terms of world mythology and the generally more acceptable genre of fantasy is to do sci-fi a disservice. Lucas owes a lot to FLASH GORDON and BUCK ROGERS, and he refuses to acknowledge it, instead pretending he spent his time between takes on the set of AMERICAN GRAFITTI reading Joseph Campbell and pursuing the idea of a new mythology. No, the guy who worked to create a new mythology was Tolkien, and he openly admitted it had never been his intention when he wrote The Hobbit.

The Ewoks are NOT dwarves, or Hobbits; at best they are bushmen from a Tarzan movie, reinvented as little teddy bears because that's cute.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#9 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 27 October 2004 - 08:14 PM

QUOTE
The Ewoks are NOT dwarves, or Hobbits; at best they are bushmen from a Tarzan movie, reinvented as little teddy bears because that's cute.


You said it best a while back "stupid ooga booga tribes".

Ewoks are a spawn of Lucas' ideal war scenario. Sticks and Stones vrs. tanks and guns. Not only are their means pathetic but they themselves are even more so. The odds of an ewok inflicating pain on a Storm Trooper are not very good (more like impossible).

He slapped us in the face with this BS during TPM as well. The Gun Gun's.

George probably thought that all the self proclaimed loners, losers, and failures in the audience would stand up and cheer as the underdogs kicked some butt.
Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#10 User is offline   Vwing Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 657
  • Joined: 31-October 03

Posted 27 October 2004 - 08:54 PM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Oct 27 2004, 07:10 PM)
Lucas owes a lot to FLASH GORDON and BUCK ROGERS, and he refuses to acknowledge it

Since when? He said he originally made Star Wars as an homage to the Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon serials that he loved. And I'm sure he followed the Campbell stuff to a degree, but he has never denied, in fact, he has always said that his major influences were the old serials.
0

#11 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 27 October 2004 - 10:08 PM

Not lately. Now all he talks about is that damned Campbell stuff. He never mentions the old serials and the rayguns and DUNE. Now it's all "my original vision this" and "Hero w/1000 faces that."

Lucas's insistence on Fantasy origins for his works is a hit to any ego.

Here is a pretty good page summarizing the probable origins of the ideas. Note that all sci-fi origin ideas sound perfectly credible, while the one or two that stray from that field sound a bit far-fetched. Know too that I don't have any problem with borrowing ideas from pop culture; I love PULP FICTION. But if you were to press Tarantino on the origin of "God damn; I saiy God Damn!" or "Bitch be cool," he'd tell you. He wouldn't go on about literary traditions or some other such neo-narcissism.

PS: You will have to create an ID and log in to follow that link. I took their word for it that they wouldn't spam me by giving them a dead email address.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#12 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 October 2004 - 12:48 AM

A big warm welcome back to Mike Mac. Mike, I was worried about you, mate. And I'm glad to see you've got through what must have been a really terrible time for you.

Now... a debate about the Ewoks? That sounds like fun.

I'll put in my five cents on why I have a problem with them.


- The screentime they take up. I mean, they take up A LOT. Over half the movie is dedicated to them and I feel as if the characters we love are being pushed into the background because of it.

- They are too damn cute to be taken seriously. On one hand, we're supposed to believe that these are fierce warriors capable of fighting stormtroopers with just primitive weapons, as if they're Gerkers or Papua New Gunea natives (no idea on the spelling for 'gerkers'... you know, those amazing people who helped the allies during WWII). Yet on the other hand, they're talking teddy bears.

- They are arboral, yet they have stumpy short limbs and they waddle when they run. On this note, how the hell are they capable of fighting stormtroopers?

- They capture our heroes. This makes our heroes come across as looking rather stupid. I mean, when one Ewok pointed his spear at Han, Han just held it off and the Ewok couldn't do shit about it. So why the hell did our heroes end up nearly being roasted alive for a feast in Threepio's honour?

- They constantly engage in slapstick comedy and other annoying antics... the Tarzan swing (with the Tarzan yell), Wicket (Warrick Davis' character) knocking himself out with a slingshot and then a heap of them shouting "Yee-hah!" and doing cowboy impersonations. No matter how hard to try to imagine that Return of the Jedi is the epic conclusion of a story set in a galaxy far, far away... the Ewoks try to crush that illusion. For instance, you'd be getting into the middle of the space battle but suddenly you're jerked back to Endor to see all those convenient Ewok traps taking out the Emperors "best troops" (bullshit). It also gives Return of the Jedi that inconsistent feel to it that damages the film so much.

- I'd just like to add that some people say that the Ewoks are no different from the Jawas. That's wrong. The Jawas weren't cute. They were described as 'disgusting creatures'. They're pushy merchants, like obnoxious little used-cars salesmen and I think the fact that they all end up being butchered by the Imperials pretty much destroys any possible argument that they were there to appeal to the kids.

- As for the comparison of Ewoks to dwarves... well dwarves may be small but they are serious warriors. Not only that, but they are convincing serious warriors too. When we see Gimli landing his ax into one Urak-hai, while smashing another in the head with his free hand, it doesn't seem strange in the slightest. Gimli looks damn strong and capable in a fight. Ewoks on the otherhand do not. And even though the movie shows Ewoks taking down stormtroopers, it never seems as though they are capable of doing it. Instead, what it feels like is that some higher power (ie. the writers and the director) are intervening, hindering the stormtroopers, turning them into idiots who make slapstick screams before they crash into trees... and allowing the underdogs to walk all over them.


smile.gif


Thanks, Mike. That was fun.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 28 October 2004 - 12:49 AM

0

#13 User is offline   Xombie Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 147
  • Joined: 10-June 04

Posted 28 October 2004 - 07:18 AM

I take issue with Movie Goer's assessment of the ewoks. They are not cute. I do not find them cute and neither does anyone else. Their noncuteness is proven by the ewok death scene in RotJ.
Kittens are genuinely cute. You put a kitten on film, even in the background and the audience will take an immediate interest in it. Put the kitten in jeapordy, even a kitten they've never seen before, and the audience will be concerned. Kill the kitten and the audience will be bummed.Kids may have been horrified when Bambi's mother was killed but they would have needed therapy if Thumper had been killed instead. Pikachu is invincible in Pokemon because, among other reasons, he is too cute to ever be killable.
Yet when the ewok dies in the battle, no one in the audience is moved. Because...EWOKS AREN'T CUTE!
They are faux cute. They share some elements with genuine cuteness without possessing the actual quality. They are like Garfield or Billy from Family Circus. We understand that they might supposed be cute. But cute either is or it isn't. Audience indifference to ewok tragedy proves that in this case it isn't.
0

#14 User is offline   HK 47 Icon

  • Level Boss
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 20-April 04

Posted 28 October 2004 - 07:44 AM

Imagine the possibilities of what Lucas could have built on the premise "nature vs. technology". There could have been wookies (they are technologically advanced though) so why not some kind of really fierce primitive beasts (Rancors or worse) that the Empire somehow pisses off with their shield generator, or maybe even a sentient world. Literally anything would have been better than the Ewoks. As almost everyone points out here, it stretches the suspension of disbelief way too far. The comparison to Frodo and co. is plain wrong, Civs comparison to Tarzan movies however is quite accurate, they even included the yell.
0

#15 User is offline   Just your average movie goer Icon

  • -
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,140
  • Joined: 10-April 04
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 October 2004 - 08:08 AM

Xombie, I was being a bit sarcastic with the Ewok cuteness thing there.

My point is that Lucas made them with the intention of being cute. He thinks they're cute. And he expects us to think that they're cute too.

But as you said, they're NOT cute. Irritating, yes. But not cute.


QUOTE
Imagine the possibilities of what Lucas could have built on the premise "nature vs. technology". There could have been wookies (they are technologically advanced though) so why not some kind of really fierce primitive beasts (Rancors or worse) that the Empire somehow pisses off with their shield generator, or maybe even a sentient world.


A good point, HK-47. It raises another issue. There was no reason for the Ewoks to help fight the Empire. Why should they care? It's not as if the Empire was poaching them to make money off the Ewok-Rug trade.

I like the idea of wookies so much more because if we're to believe Timothy Zahn's novels, and I think they've got far more claim to be canon than the last three Star Wars movies, the Empire enslaved wookies. Now, THIS is a reason for a group of creatures to join the rebel cause and risk their life in battle.

Also, as this was the end of the Star Wars saga, I think we should have had an epic ground battle. Look at the battle of Hoth. THAT was an incredible ground battle. That was in the second film. Now the third film should have been raising the bar, not lowering it.

That battle outside the bunker is not even a battle. It's a minor skermish. It's also almost entirely void of human participants on the rebel side. I would have liked to have seen serious rebel commandos giving it their all in a really desperate fight.

That's what I wanted. Unfortunately, Lucas just wanted to expand the range of Kenner action toys.
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size