lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley (07/14/85)
From: lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley (1st Lt. RYN Leigh Ann Hussey)
I had an interesting correspondence recently regarding "cute", and why it
has become anathema. As example, I listed a variety of characters,
including the Ewoks. The recent blast at the ewoks prompted me to
reproduce, in brief, that correspondence here:
<me> What is wrong with "cute" these days? I'm sorry, but I LIKED the
Ewoks!
<friend>
I have spared myself the dubious delights of the Smurfs, along with most of
the other rubbish that advertisers think will appeal to kids (and God help
us, sometimes they're right). That is definitely excessive cuteness,
suited only to young adolescents, female I assume, who go to bed surrounded
in teddy-bears. But the cuteness of anything, even if it does resemble a
walking teddy-bear, is decidedly limited when it wakes you up, as it did
Leia, with a sharp spear at a sensitive spot. It is even more limited when
hoardes of them rig deadfalls, treeborne traps, and batallions of archers
to take out a legion of storm troopers. So I think labelling the Ewoks
"cute" is one of the oversimplifications that abound when people discuss
Star Wars -- or when certain self-appointed network critics discuss
anything having to do with sf. Likewise silly speculation on their names:
for instance, "it's Wookie spelled backward" (which of course, it isn't).
Guessing further, I'd say that the most vocal sf followers these days want
to project an image of "maturity", of following a literary form of serious
intent. Anybody who feels like that is bound to feel that "cuteness" is
souring his cause. Again, I think this is one for the self-appointed
critics, and not to be taken too seriously by most of us. It will have its
day and be forgotten.
<me> Friends of mine have complained about the various traps used to
trash the imperials, viz., how could they build them in such a
short time? I assumed, naturally enough, that there are large
predators on the planet, that we never see, on which they use
things like the swinging logs (that was a good one!)
<friend>
Ah, yes, the Ewoks and the old two-logs-in-the-trees-as-a-giant-nutcracker
trick. Considering the evidence, I am quite prepared to believe the thing
was already there, or didn't take them at all long to build. What
evidence? They were a martial tribe. The first encountered introduced
himself to Leia with a spear, and gloated when the Imperial who tried to
capture her was eliminated. Han's group, trying to find her, was captured
in one of their traps. The whole group except 3PO was bound hand and foot,
or more, and carried to the village, helpless. Anybody who proposes to me
that these are harmless, naive little teddy bears whose expression of bad
temper is throwing stones will have to defend himself vigorously. Whatever
the reason -- perhaps, as you suggest, large predators not seen in the
movie, where they would, after all, have been irrelevant -- the Ewoks were
well able to defend themselves. They made weapons and traps quickly, and
there were many of them -- certainly enough quickly to hoist two logs
into the trees and rig them for quick release.
(And they had avoided the stormtroopers when the moon was checked for
native life. Even acknowledging that the stormtroopers' brains and
helmets are probably made of the same stuff, that suggests that
the Ewoks are skilled at evasion).
Apologies to my friend for publishing the letters, but I think they would
never have been seen otherwise.
I think, especially in light of some of the recent digest material
(D. Tucker's sallies and whatnot), that we're all taking ourselves
and SF much too seriously. This dislike of "cuteness" (a subjective
term, at best) is evidence.
And c'mon, you Hoka and Fuzzy fans! Why take offense? I like them
too, and that's why I liked the Ewoks. There is nothing about them
to be ashamed of. And some of their methods were far more original
than the usual stage-swordplay and shoot-em-up horse-operas-to-the-
stars ("tin badge pinned to the space suit" says my fiance from the
other room...).
Comments? Flames?
Leigh Ann Militantfranka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (07/16/85)
In article <2706@topaz.ARPA> lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley writes: >From: lah%ucbmiro@Berkeley (1st Lt. RYN Leigh Ann Hussey) > > Friends of mine have complained about the various traps used to > trash the imperials, viz., how could they build them in such a > short time? I assumed, naturally enough, that there are large > predators on the planet, that we never see, on which they use > things like the swinging logs (that was a good one!) I assumed that the traps were already set up; they could not have been built in that short a time. But it takes very little imagination to believe that they were already set up. Given their background, the Imperials probably hunted the Ewoks for sport. If I were an Ewok, this would get me to build traps and defenses. What I find hard to believe is that the Imperials would build a fighting machine which walks on two legs, and when it trips and falls down, it blows up! Military equipment has to be sturdy, not fragile.
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (07/24/85)
Ewoks?, be serious. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that
this was a stupid descent into cutesieism to get the christmas toy
market. They were big overbloated teddy bears that made cute noises
walked funny and had adorable skittish mannerisms otherwise skywalker
an co. wouldn't have put up with them tying them up et al. Replace
the cute little fuzzy bears with imperial stormtrooper armed with spears
and I guarantee rather than being tied up we would have had a bunch
of quite deceased storm troopers. Obviously
constructed to evoke ("Oh aren't they CUTE") it was a stupid descent
into adolescent plotting, the movie would have been vastly improved
if it could have been taken seriously i.e. a real set of barbarian
tribes that commanded respect and trepidation rather than ("oh they
are so cute, we couldn't hurt a teddy bear") that we could have believed
would have given the imperials some trouble given the right direction.
Yes, I like fuzzies but only when treated as fuzzies not as a serious
character which is to give storm troopers any competition.
David Albrecht
General Electricchuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/28/85)
In article <522@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: >Ewoks?, be serious. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that >this was a stupid descent into cutesieism to get the christmas toy >market. They were big overbloated teddy bears that made cute noises Well, except for the basic fact that the Ewok doll didn't make it to the market until about July (I know, I have about 6 in my office at work) I have to agree with what is being said. All of it, in my opinion, is beside the point. They were exceptionally cute, and they probably were set up to some degree towards the cute and fuzzy doll market, but I like them DESPITE all of that. I think that they were making a point that most people seem to have missed -- that sometimes the most dangerous things out there simply don't LOOK dangerous. The Ewok was a great example of something that is easy to underestimate -- they look like cute little teddy bears, so they can't hurt anyone. This same mentality is what gets kids and other people maimed in places like Yellowstone every year. I think that ROTJ overdid it -- the attackes the Ewoks made on the imperial forces were just TOO primitive to be effective -- if the stormtroopers fall apart that easily they never would have gotten that far in the first place -- but the concept of the Ewok is quite valid, and I thought that they pulled a lot of personality out of those furry, funny looking teddy bears. -- :From the carousel of the autumn carnival: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Your fifteen minutes are up. Please step aside!
draughn@iitcs.UUCP (Mark Draughn) (08/01/85)
In article <3038@nsc.UUCP> chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >In article <522@edison.UUCP> dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes: >>Ewoks?, be serious. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that >>this was a stupid descent into cutesieism to get the christmas toy >>market. They were big overbloated teddy bears that made cute noises . . . skip to . . . > . . . I think that they >were making a point that most people seem to have missed -- that sometimes >the most dangerous things out there simply don't LOOK dangerous. The Ewok >was a great example of something that is easy to underestimate -- they look >like cute little teddy bears, so they can't hurt anyone. This same >mentality is what gets kids and other people maimed in places like >Yellowstone every year. It's still cutesieism. The point that they ended up making was not that dangerous things don't look dangerous, but that the cute guys are always the good guys. The point would have been made more effectively if the ewoks had turned out to be blood-thirsty, cunning villains who double-crossed our intrepid heroes or something like that. -- Mark T. Draughn