OP-ED

Did Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker Meet Its Expectations?

On December 20th, 2019, Disney released Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker by J.J. Abrams. This is the ninth installment in a franchise beloved to many and has made approximately $1 billion in the global box office. Its rise to a billion was the slowest of all the other movies in the franchise, taking the movie a whopping 26 days whereas The Force Awakens took 16 days. It also possesses the lowest Rotten Tomatoes rating of all the movies, a shocking 52% (critics score). Upon watching this movie, fans are divided as to whether the movie was a welcome addition to the franchise or a disastrous way to end it. The most popular opinion is that Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker did not meet its expectations.

Based on the statistics, it can reasonably be inferred that Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker did not meet its expectations. For one thing, the director of the preceding movie, The Last Jedi , was different. This explains why most of the plot did not fit well in the latest movie. The director, Abrams, worked to undo everything that he deemed wrong from the previous movies and alter them in his movie. This uprooted everything and lead to confusing results.

An article on The Observer mentions: “Some choices made by Abrams and screenwriter Chris Terrio feel like unnecessary course corrections from Rian Johnson’s The Last Jedi , which drew the ire of a small but vocal contingent of viewers despite being the highest-grossing film of 2017.” This can be seen in the main character, Rey’s, identity. In The Last Jedi , it was discovered that her parents were nobodies, simple junk collectors who wanted to escape the spotlight. The new movie undoes this idea by suddenly revealing that she is actually the granddaughter of the film’s main villain Palpatine. Another problem with the movie was its pacing.

The hype for this movie proved to be the main cause of its backlash. Characters that were pivotal to the plot of The Last Jedi were mere plot devices, such as Rose Tico. Another problem with the film is the lack of relationship building. The movie’s plot leaves little development for the character’s friendships with each other. Friendships from previous movies were not shown to their full potential in Rise of Skywalker . A major villain’s redemption arc was also pushed aside by his sudden death in battle.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker was greatly anticipated by fans all over the world. It was viewed as mostly a disappointing way to end a franchise so revered. The loss of characters that people had grown fond of and tossed aside story lines really contributed to this opinion. The effort to mimic the success of the first movie while undoing the failures of the movie before it, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker falls short.

Should Iran be held accountable for Mistakenly Downing the Ukrainian plane?

Earlier this month, Ukrainian Airlines Flight PS752 crashed less than two minutes after taking off from Imam Khomeini International Airport in Tehran. All 176 passengers and crew members died, which included 82 Iranians, 63 Canadians, 11 Ukrainians, 10 Swedes, four Afghans, three Germans and three British nationals. The incident occurred during a time of already heightened tensions between the Middle East and the US.

From the time of the incident to the present day, officials in Iran have made many contradicting statements on the country’s involvement in the plane crash. Initially, Iran was adamant that that they had no involvement in the crashing of the plane. However, the New York Times secured camera footage later that week showing that two Iranian missiles did in fact hit the plane, causing it to crash. Following the release of the footage, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps’ airspace unit, confirmed in an official statement from the Iranian military that they did indeed shoot down the passenger plane by mistake. Initially, it was stated that the flight had taken an unexpected turn towards an Iranian military base. However, Gen. Hajizadeh contradicted that statement in a televised conference, stating that the plane was on its expected trajectory and “If there was a mistake, it was made by one of our members.” Shortly after, Prime Minister Javad Zarif tweeted that “Human error at time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster.” Though not offering an explanation, President Hassan Rouhani released a statement saying that "The Islamic Republic of Iran deeply regrets this disastrous mistake. My thoughts and prayers go to all the mourning families."

In this horrific incident, Iran must assume full accountability. Even though they have admitted responsibility for the plane crash, the different explanations offered by different Iranian officials are an indicator that complete transparency about their involvement in the plane crash is not being offered to the public. In the midst of fighting due to tensions and disputes between nations and world leaders, innocent civilians have become caught in the cross fires and are being harmed and killed as collateral damage. It is imperative that the Iranian government hold themselves accountable by conducting a full investigation to find out who was responsible for the accident, and deliver justice and retribution to the families affected.

Affirmative action should not play a role in college admissions

The debates surrounding the question of whether or not affirmative action should play a role in college admissions have been ongoing for many years. For decades, American society has been struggling to determine how we can truly embrace diversity, and embracing the policy of affirmative action is regarded as a solution to this conundrum by some people. However, this viewpoint is inherently incorrect. Affirmative action is not the right way for Americans to ensure that diversity is achieved in schools and workplaces. In fact, affirmative action is actually reverse discrimination. People argue that since many groups were oppressed in previous years, they “started late in the race,” and therefore need affirmative action to help level the playing field. This is a wrong way of thinking because past discrimination against minorities cannot justify present discrimination against non-minorities. All Americans should be treated equally, with no regard to race. Affirmative action is undermining the idea of meritocracy. A student’s merits should be looked at during college admissions procedures- not race. If a student has earned their college acceptance through hard work that can be easily seen in their college applications, their race will not matter.

Many will argue that affirmative action helps disadvantaged people advance and get more opportunities. They believe that without affirmative action, these people cannot be expected to catch up and be seen on the same level as other applicants. However, if a student is accepted into a college for this reason, he or she will not be ready for the task. This will not be good for the student. His or her self-esteem will be lowered, and the college itself will have a difficult situation on their hands. Unfortunately, this will most likely lead to the heightening of racist views and reinforcement of stereotypes. There will be more students under-qualified for the college, and they will be from minority groups. Other students, and professors, will come to view all people- not just the students- from these minority groups as “less intelligent.” Therefore, affirmative action in college admissions would go against the very things which Americans have been working on all these years- ending discrimination, and increasing diversity.

Affirmative Action should be allowed in college admissions decisions

Recently, the topic of affirmative action has been at the forefront of many discussions and debates regarding college admissions. Affirmative action is the policy of favoring certain groups of people who are known to have been discriminated against in the past. It ensures that everyone has an equal chance at economic and social progress. Critics of affirmative action claim that it hurts white or Asian-American students. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Affirmative action is extremely beneficial in college admissions, not only to people of color and minorities, but to society as a whole.

Contrary to popular belief, students of color still suffer from a lack of representation on college campuses. This is especially the case for black and Latino students. In fact, black and Latino students have less representation on college campuses today then they did in the 1980s. Banning affirmative action would further worsen this problem. According to a study conducted by the University of Washington, students of color are 23% less likely to get into highly selective universities if affirmative action is banned. This is extremely problematic because as it is, more than half of university students are white, while less than a third are students of color.

Affirmative action is highly beneficial, not only to students of color, but all students. A diverse classroom also means diverse ideas and experiences. Furthermore, a study conducted by Century Foundation suggests that a diverse classroom setting can reduce students’ preconceived notions about certain races, even if these thoughts occur on a subconscious level. Diverse classrooms have also been shown to advance students’ leadership skills and prepare students to work in a diverse society and global economy.

A common misconception about affirmative action is that it hurts white and Asian-American students. However, as mentioned earlier, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Even when applicants have the same exact test scores or GPA, race and ethnicity aren’t major factors taken into account when deciding which students should get accepted. Each individual student is evaluated as a whole as there is more to an applicant than just their test scores or their race. Currently, the majority of university students are white, and it is statistically impossible for other underrepresented minority students to be taking spots from Asian-Americans, as they make up such a small percentage of the student body. For instance, a 2016 study found that removing all black and Latino applicants from Harvard’s admission pool would only increase other applicants’ chances of acceptance by 1%.

Throughout history, students of color have received the short end of the stick. They’ve suffered from exclusion, segregation, and lack of resources, and anyone who thinks that these factors don’t impact students of color today are horribly mistaken. If anything, affirmative action is a way to combat forms of legal segregation and institutionalized racism that still exist today. If affirmative action is banned, it will only result in a never-ending cycle of inequality.

One of the greatest technological advancements of this decade has been the incorporation of facial recognition technology into everyday life. However, this technology should be used with caution, despite its enticing nature. The extreme accuracy of the facial recognition technology even on a standard iPhone is alarming in and of itself. Apple has set the highest standard for facial recognition with the relatively new introduction of Face ID in their smartphones, which uses a second camera that they call the “True Depth Camera.” This camera maps the face of the smartphone’s owner. In the scan, it takes special 3D pictures of the face that are used to authenticate the owner with built-in infrared cameras, flood illuminators, and high tech dot projectors. Tech companies use appealing advancements, like being able to unlock your phone by looking at it, and having an animated emoji copy you to mask the real threats of the software. According to a study done by researchers at the University of Toronto, shifting a few pixels at the corners of someone’s eyes or mouth would render them unrecognizable to Face ID. This eerily invasive technology is a breach of privacy and leaves people more vulnerable than ever before in regards to threats of hacking and other compromises on privacy.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency between tech companies and the general public when it comes to the incorporation of facial recognition into society is alarming. The attempts to introduce facial recognition technology into the mainstream have already been troubling. Most notably, Amazon has recently pushed its new, state-of-the-art facial recognition product, Rekognition, to police departments in municipalities across the nation. Because of the complexity of the technology, little is known about how it works. What is known: ReKognition uses artificial intelligence to scan faces and matches them with a database of convicted criminals set by the police force it is being used by. In short, ReKognition has absolutely no regulation. Based on tests done by the ACLU and MIT, ReKognition scans are largely inaccurate and have racial biases. For both men and women across all races, the number of misidentifications were high, and people of color accounted for 40% of those misidentifications. 28 members of the US Congress were wrongly identified as convicted criminals. ReKognition software has been approved by the FBI and Amazon has pushed for its use in Immigration and Customs. A software as faulty and biased as this one cannot possibly be used in the public. Not only is it a privacy infringement on the part of the US government, but it has the possibility to greatly encroach upon civil liberties and cause great harm.

Only a number of years ago, facial recognition seemed to be a concept from a science fiction novel, a technological capability that humans weren’t quite ready to acquire. Yet now, the technology seems to be at our very fingertips and has been practically applied to amplify the efficiency of security systems and safety mechanisms. Therefore, the question arises as to whether facial recognition technology serves its perceived benefit or whether its harms actually outweigh the good.

Those who claim that the harms of such a technological advancement outweigh its associated benefits generally claim that facial recognition is a breach of privacy. However, it must be considered that an individual who is not doing anything “wrong” does not have anything to hide. In addition, facial recognition can provide incriminating evidence against criminals, thereby expediting the process of prosecution. As if this isn’t enough, many would be criminals wouldn’t think about breaking the law in the first place when they could be so easily caught.

One monumental benefit provided by facial recognition technology is the ability to better protect personal devices and online accounts. Unlike the conventional “password”, which can be figured out or manipulated to a certain extent, there isn’t a way to bypass facial recognition. When it comes to pure statistical probability, a thief would have a 1/10,000 chance of randomly guessing the 4 digit “standard” passcode on devices such as an Iphone. Compare that to the 1/1,000,000 chance that an individual other than the owner can unlock a device with face ID. In addition, this new technology is a lot more convenient than traditional security measures such as passwords. For one, face ID instantly unlocks the device and is a lot faster than having to type the password to the device you want to unlock. Furthermore, passwords can become a burden to remember, and the more you keep, the more you are likely to forget them. Facial recognition, on the other hand, relies on one’s facial features which aren’t likely to change drastically unless purposefully altered. Therefore, because of convenience and reliability many have turned to facial recognition as the primary mode of identification for their devices and their technology systems. This, in addition to the role facial recognition technology plays in catching lawbreakers and criminals is why it is so sought after in the modern day.

Directed by Todd Phillips, "Joker" has become the top R-rated movie in just a few weeks since its initial release on October 4th, 2019.

The film tells the story of a man with mental illness named Arthur Fleck. He is often misunderstood and bullied to the extreme. However, on one lonely night on the subway, he takes matters into his own hands. A group of drunk men harass him and, with a gun his coworker lent him, Arthur takes their lives. As the plot thickens, he proceeds to kill others who have wronged him. When he realizes how much he enjoys it, Arthur starts killing for fun. At the end of the movie, he is seen as a leader for other men who agree with him while they all wreak havoc in the streets of Gotham.

Gun violence is a prominent theme in Joker . Almost all of Arthur’s victims are shot, and he doesn’t start to kill until he is gifted a gun. Before the film was released, Warner Brothers stated, “Gun violence in our society is a critical issue, and we extend our deepest sympathy to all victims and families impacted by these tragedies… At the same time, Warner Bros. believes that one of the functions of storytelling is to provoke difficult conversations around complex issues.” Warner Brothers also mentioned the Aurora shooting, in which twelve people were killed at a screening of The Dark Night Rises.

Today, the US Army and police departments say they are on alert for anything similar. So far, most threats have been made online. Although no one has taken action yet, that doesn’t make the threats any less real. There is a person or group of people behind each one. If their intentions are to kill, there’s no saying why they wouldn’t.

Another dangerous part about Joker is how it twists a villain into a hero. At the end of the film, Arthur is seen standing on top of a car with a blood-drawn smile on his face as his “followers,” a group of predominantly white men who feel cheated by the system, cheer him on.

Whether Arthur intended it or not, he started a movement grounded in a violent and vengeful attack on the rich and powerful elite, who he believes are responsible for his troubles. Warner Brothers had previously said, “It is not the intention of the film, the filmmakers or the studio to hold this character up as a hero." Although it is not anyone’s intention to hold him up as a hero, Arthur is still portrayed as one for standing up against society’s wealthiest and most politically corrupt decision-makers. We are subtly encouraged to show sympathy for him based on the emotional backstory we are given about his life. Sympathizing for the anti-hero is dangerous. By justifying harmful behavior, we make more room for it. And slowly, we become immune.

The main issue with Joker has to do with the people behind the scenes, and the message they leave their viewers. Arthur is a psychopathic killer who operates as a fictional character in a fictional world, but it is those who created this film, the director, writers, and producers, who are to blame. They are responsible for the messages and themes that they have sent out into the world, that is, a real-life world with real-life people who may suddenly realize that their experiences resemble Arthur’s. Perhaps they feel that the world hasn’t been kind enough to them and that they are deserving of something better. This is what makes the movie potentially dangerous. People who feel as though their emotions mirror Arthur’s pain may also use attacks of brutality as a means for obtaining justice. In a time when mass violence permeates our homes, schools, and places of worship, one must be more mindful of the kinds of messages their movie promotes and held accountable for the potential response it may provoke.

On October 4th, 2019, the movie "Joker" by Todd Philips was released in theaters all over the world. It made $938,046,890 in the global box office and became the top R-rated movie of all time. It is one of many movies depicting the DC Comics super-villain, Joker. Philips took a different take on his Joker; this Joker’s real identity is that of a man named Arthur Fleck, portrayed by actor Joaquin Phoenix. Fleck has mental issues and is being looked down upon by society. He is described as having two masks: one that is the clown mask he wears for work and the other is the one trying to find his place in society. The movie touches upon mental illness and how deeply it can affect a person suffering from it if there is no one to support him/her. However, there is an argument as to whether or not the movie sends the message that people with mental illnesses should turn to violence as a solution. The movie does not encourage unstable people to commit crimes as a result of their condition.

Fleck is not portrayed as the protagonist of the film, but his backstory allows viewers to sympathize with his unfortunate situation. Fleck longs to become a stand-up comedian but is met with defeat after defeat. These losses cause Fleck to transform into the well-known antagonist Joker. Seeing Fleck suffer the results of his failures with no real help is disheartening. This is the main point of the argument that the movie does indeed promote violence as the most feasible solution for coping with mental illness. In an interview with Vox, journalist Robert Evans explores the idea of why Joker will not inspire violence among the unstable. A key topic touched upon in this interview was the 2012 Aurora, Colorado mass shooting. This shooting had taken place at a theater showing The Dark Knight Rises , the final movie of director Christopher Nolan’s own Batman -inspired trilogy. The movie before, The Dark Knight , had featured the Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger, and also brought the character much fame. The Colorado shooting rumored to have been inspired by the Joker. Thus, many people became frustrated by the violence these movies portrayed.

Evans stated that there are two reasons that people latch on movies like Joker as a paradigm for how media inspires either violence or vigilante justice. Evans said the primary, but also unwarranted reason for this is the shooting in Aurora, Colorado. He also mentions that further investigation into the shooting proved that it was not inspired by Joker. Evans also made the point that the majority of mass shooters do not have mental illnesses. The Aurora shooter was a rare version that had an illness which caused him to believe that by taking the lives of others, he could somehow add value to his own unimportant life. The second reason is the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. His shooter, John Hinckley, Jr. was a man who was seriously ill and was influenced by the 1976 movie, Taxi Driver . He strongly believed that by shooting Reagan, he would be able to impress the actress Jodie Foster, who starred in the movie and start a romantic relationship with her. It is unfair to suggest that simple ideas depicted in movies are the cause of horrific events such as mass shootings. The directors do not have it in their minds to purposefully suggest to the general public that how the main character is handling certain situations is advisable to all people with similar qualities. The same can be said about Batman, he can inspire people to carry out justice in their own hands, using their own methods, completely outside that of the law. He is not intended to have that effect, but people can be inspired to do so. Most people see Batman as a superhero fighting in the crime-ridden city of Gotham. Upstanding members of society today do not follow in his footsteps because the world of today is not anything like Gotham City. Gotham City is a corrupt place where only the rich thrive while unfortunate members take out the anger of their position on the entire city.

In other words, the movie is not the strongest proponent of the idea that unstable people should turn to violence in order to resolve their problems. Fleck was neglected throughout the movie, but in this day and age, unstable people have more opportunities to grow from their illnesses. There is also something to be said about the amount of love and support these people get from both their friends and their families. In fact, there are days dedicated to the awareness of mental illness such as October 10th to show support for people all over the world suffering from them. Unlike the character of Arthur Fleck in Joker, those mentally challenged are not alone in today’s world.