Next Star Wars Movie to be Rated R?

RUMOR WARNING: This post contains rumors! Almost any article that discusses something about a movie that has not been released yet seems to contain a spoiler warning. Isn't it about time that rumor warnings became a thing too? Anyway, consider yourself warned.

Now that the Force has awakened, most, if not all, sites featuring production news and rumors for upcoming Star Wars movies have shifted their attention to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which is scheduled to be released in theaters December 16th, 2016. (If you thought this post was going to be about Episode VIII, sorry to disappoint.)

I opened Facebook on my phone the other day to check the details of an activity and at the top of my feed was an article titled, "Darth Vader's Scenes in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, Described As Brutal". My curiosity was piqued so I decided to see what it had to say. (Click here to read the article for yourself)

I remember reading an article a few months back that said Rogue One would set itself apart from other Star Wars movies by not having any Force-using/lightsaber wielding characters. The original concept of this movie, as described in early reports after it was first announced, was for it to be a gritty, more militarized story set in the Star Wars universe. However, over the past month or two I have seen more and more articles popping up about the possibility of Darth Vader showing up in the new film. Since he has been considered one of the most formidable film villains of all time, I think it would be a great idea to work him into the movie!

What really intrigued me about the article I read was the possibility of Darth Vader being portrayed as ruthless in Rogue One, and the potential display of violence that would accompany any scenes with him. One possible example of his unyielding behavior could include using bodies on the battleground as human shields. According to the original report on this rumor, the concept art depicts possible scenes in the upcoming movie as "more violent than what we’ve seen Darth Vader do on screen before."

The original trilogy was released before my time, so I would love to see Darth Vader in action on the big screen! Sure, the iconic suit showed up at the end of Revenge of the Sith, but he did little more than stand around for a brief amount of screen time. I think it would be awesome to see a new portrayal that gives the character more gravitas as the ultimate bad guy (and potentially re-establishes him as the greatest movie villain).

At the end of the article I saw on Facebook, the author said if these rumors of a more violent version of Darth Vader turn out to be true and these scenes are included in Rogue One, "there's a good chance that the standalone film could get a Rated-R rating, but I highly doubt they'd show something violent enough to get that rating." I highly doubt this as well. Star Wars has always been a franchise made with kids in mind (just look up any of the plethora of the interviews available online where George Lucas makes this point). With that being said, Darth Vader can still show up as a force to be reckoned with while keeping the violence and gore to a minimum.

I consider the portrayal of The Joker (RIP, Heath Ledger) in The Dark Knight to be one of the greatest movie villain performances ever. The Joker was a rather violent character but a lot of his more disturbing actions happened off-screen (such as "Let's put a smile on that face"). Darth Vader could easily be portrayed as a merciless character in Rogue One by implying a lot of his cruel behavior rather than showing it explicitly on screen. 

In conclusion, a question for anyone who reads this post: Do you consider off-screen violence to be as bad as on-screen violence?

Injustice is Served

Infuriating. I can think of no better word to sum it up.

I finished watching Making a Murderer on Netflix last week, and my head was swimming in all of the thoughts that I had along the way as I was viewing the series. I decided to type up my initial thoughts/reactions and come back to them later after I was no longer so emotionally invested in what I would write. Even after revising what I wrote last week (and toning it down quite a bit), I am fully aware that much of what I am publishing in this post still comes across as emotionally charged. Here are my thoughts:

• This series really intrigued me for a number of reasons. For starters, I was interested because I enjoy a number of the crime dramas on TV (e.g., NCIS). Ironically enough, I watched an episode of NCIS last night that featured a conspiracy story and it reminded me of Making a Murderer while I was watching it. I would almost describe Making a Murderer as Forensic Files on steroids.
• Another reason I was fascinated with the show and wanted to watch it in its entirety was the realization I had quickly after I started viewing it, which was the importance of critical thinking outside of academia and in virtually all professions. Which leads me to my next point...
• Calling all critical thinkers! Honestly, I am still in awe that any rational person could convict Steve as guilty (at least guilty beyond a reasonable doubt). The defense attorneys did a magnificent job of exploiting the holes in the prosecution. As the series progressed I came back to the same thought over and over: "Guilty until proven innocent is the way it seems to go these days". In my opinion, there was more than enough questionable evidence to have reasonable doubt regarding Steven Avery's innocence. He was wrongfully imprisoned for 18 years the first time. Why should I assume anything less this time?
• Both of the judges were very lousy, in my opinion. Seriously, is there a way to impeach judges? Every decision they made during the course of the trial (and listening to them speak) gave me the impression that they considered Steve Avery & Brendan Dassey guilty from the get go and were never planning to let them off the hook. Judge Willis’ remark in the hearing for Steve's sentencing alone is a great example: "You're probably one of the most dangerous criminals to ever step foot in this courtroom." REALLY? If Steve was in fact guilty of murder (which I still doubt), then maybe that statement has some weight. However, I cannot help but think that Judge Willis went into Steve's trial with his own personal biases affecting his decisions the whole time. And what good is a judge that allows his prejudices to influence the way he oversees a trial? Neither Brendan nor Steve had any chance with Judge Fox and Judge Willis, respectively, in my opinion. Talk about an uphill battle...
• What in the world is wrong with the justice system in Wisconsin? This series leaves me thinking I never want to live there. Both of the investigations into Steve Avery's alleged crimes as highlighted in this series were really sloppy (as far as they were portrayed in the documentary at least). Whether the evidence used in the murder case was valid or not, the fact that the majority of it was discovered by the Manitowoc County Sheriff's department raises way too many red flags for me. They were supposed to remove themselves from the investigation, yet they were still involved the whole time...
• Brendan's original lawyer, Len Kachinsky, made me sick. He never seemed to even have the desire to defend Brendan's innocence. The final episode depicted how Len and the private investigator he had working with him conducted themselves during the case in a manner that almost made them appear to have been helping the prosecution strengthen its case! Mr. Kachinsky was caught in an obvious lie when he was questioned about it in court years later, and under oath to boot.
• In the end, as unfortunate as this is to say, I believe the jury was swayed to their guilty verdict almost entirely because of Mr. Kratz' appeals to emotion in his opening & closing arguments. He established a perception of Steve and Brendan in the minds of the respective jury members that I think would be hard for most people to overlook. The prosecution did a poor job of proving either Steve or Brendan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so I seriously have to wonder what persuaded the jury in each of the cases to reach the verdicts that they did.

This is honestly just the tip of the iceberg. A number of other things come to mind that I would like to point out (maybe in a future post!). I have left out a number of questions that I considered critical to proving Steven Avery guilty or innocent that were addressed in the show and my thoughts on them. The show explores a number of things only briefly and left me with many additional questions.

I recognize that this series was released with the intention to tell a story. The filmmakers combed through a vast amount of footage and edited it down to share their perspective on the case. Dean Strang, one of Steve’s defense attorneys, said in an interview that the trial lasted about 6 weeks. At 5 days a week, he estimated that to be 200-240 hours. He stated, "If you made a movie that was 240 hours long, nobody would watch it, and it would be torture to make them." (Listen to the full interview here) With that being said, we must realize that the show evokes a significant emotional response even though viewers have a limited perspective on the case as a whole.

WARNING: I hesitate to recommend that everyone should watch this series. I found it very intriguing, but I realize a number of people may be offended by some of the content. On Netflix it shows up as a TV-14 rating, but based on the profanity used throughout the series I sincerely wonder why it did not receive a TV-MA rating. I may have avoided it altogether if that had been the case. The profanity level varies from episode to episode. Also, some of the details of the case that are mentioned (whether or not they are 100% true) paint a rather graphic image. Otherwise it is pretty consistent with other “true crime” series. Consider yourself warned.