Sign In

Best Explanation Of Mary Sue Issue — Page 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)

OutboundFlight said:

I think the difference between Star Wars and Alien is all in the tone.

Alien is established, from the outset, as a dark film. It’s horror! The characters make bad choices and we fear with them. Darker films like this often critique social issues as it fits the tone. So Alien’s critique on capitalism works.

Star Wars, on the other hand, is not a dark film. It’s fun escapism. This is why so many call Canto Bight “not my Star Wars” because they want an timeless story separate from the real world.

That is not to demean either approach. Critiques on our society are often well called for while timeless tales are a lot of fun to watch.

The interesting thing about the Last Jedi is it tries to renounce it’s escapist nature. I don’t really think doing this on the 8th episode of a 9 part saga is a good idea, but Rian certainly tried to make TLJ into a “dark film”- Canto Bight and Luke are some examples. You know, I’d be willing to see how a Dark TLJ turned out.

Unfortunately Rian opened the film with a yo mamma joke, instantly eliminating any chance of a darker tone. What we have now is a confused tonal mess.

It’s funny that you say Canto Bight takes away from the “timelessness” of it all, because that’s a part that to me feels very much timeless - it feels equal parts Hitchcock and Dickens, amongst many other disparate ageless things. I don’t think political there’s anything going on in that sequence that’s explicitly modern (though I guess many do?). As to “separate from the real world” in general, I’d argue SW has never been that.

Anyway, a darker tone is not a new SW thing that TLJ introduced. Johnson included humor throughout to keep it fun and escapist (i.e. to make sure it didn’t renounce its escapism). Opinions on execution aside, a film can be dark and fun/funny at the same time - ESB is a good example but, on the former topic, I think Aliens has some good humor too.

Otherwise though this is a better point than the others I’ve read. Rather than basically just saying no comparison exists when I can clearly see one, you’re saying maybe it’s more a matter of it fits SW less. I disagree of course, but it’s more reasonable (and reminds me of the arguments against the PT’s over inclusion of politics impeding the escapism which I think is a bit more valid but for different reasons).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

The argument is absurd. There’s nothing about TLJ that is overtly political. Everything you mention is as “subtle” in TLJ as it is in Aliens.

No it’s not, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that either, if the goal is to have it immediately resonate with audiences now, rather than them discovering these themes years later.

There’s nothing in TLJ that’s has anything to do with “gender inequality” (literally only one reference to gender I can think of). There’s not a single instance of “mansplaining” or the calling out of such. There’s not a single instance of any male having trouble with a female in charge (Poe’s problems with Holdo have nothing to do with that).

Forget that Poe ignored General Organa’s orders, and then creates a mutiny against Holdo, both women.

And about “mansplaining”:
Vanity Fair: “Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017”

The Washington Post: “…Leia is flanked by an unflinching vice admiral in the lavender-tressed Amilyn Holdo (Laura Dern), who, when called upon, has a deep sense of mission and knows well the painful wages of war. When challenged by a “mansplaining” flyboy like Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), she gives no quarter.”

TheMarySue.com: “his first conversation with her is to mansplain how they only have so much fuel left (something she would already have been briefed on) and let us not forget the first thing he does this movie is disobeying Leia’s orders, which leads to the destruction of all the current Rebel Bombers and the death of Rose’s sister.”

The “animal rights” message is barely anything (animal abuse being wrong is not a controversial or even liberal opinion, not to mention no one in the film even talks about it being wrong we just see it, and on top of that the Fathiers seem to be intelligent which makes this abuse specifically extra bad).

Considering how prominent it was in the film, with Rose and Finn saying “it was worth it” even if the Resistance is doomed, in conjunction with all the other themes, gives the film a more left-leaning tilt than Aliens. Which is fine.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

Isn’t there a part where Rose says something like “Only one business in the galaxy gets you this rich.”
Seems to be a criticism of the 1% percent, especially considering that we see all the rich elite drinking space wine while wearing tuxedos and gowns during a time of conflict. I immediately thought of video footage during Occupy Wall Street, of the rich drinking champagne from their balconies and looking down at the people on the streets protesting.

The arguments of TLJ being “shove in your face” political are some of the most annoying bullshit I’ve had to put up with talking Star Wars in this past year.

I never said TLJ “shoved” anything in anyone’s face. I agreed with someone else that it was more on the nose compared to something like Aliens. Disney obviously wanted to make Star Wars more relevant to today’s modern audiences, I think they succeeded in their approach.

How have you had to put up with it? Participating on message forums is voluntary. If it’s getting you that stressed out, take a break from certain topics.

I’m tired of the parroting of clunky, poorly thought out talking points. I try not to argue about this movie anymore but the Aliens comparison is particularly apt and really points out the extremely ridiculous double standard some guys apply to their analyses.

There was some nice arguments for and against Aliens handling a female action lead better.
You seem to the be the only one letting this discussion get under your skin while resorting to insults.

Author
Time

I only hope that James Cameron made it plain that anyone who had issues with the political/social overtones in Aliens was a toxic manbaby that couldn’t handle strong motherhood figures…

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

joefavs said:

RogueLeader said:

At least they actually have fun watching these movies, and their conversations are generally positive.

This. When your relationship with Star Wars consists largely of railing against Star Wars, you’re doing Star Wars wrong.

Amen man. There are many films I’ve seen that I’ve strongly disliked or hated, some within franchises I love. But I usually just say “it sucked” and move on with my life. I can’t imagine expending the amount of energy some people do hating on things. If for no other reason than when something disappoints me, I try not to think about! But there’s a weird mentality these days were if someone hates something and sees someone else liking it, they have to yell at them. I don’t get it (though I won’t pretend I’m immune to the same impulses even if I consciously try to avoid them). When it comes to being something like Star Wars, if you spend half your time talking about what you hate about it, I have to wonder if you’re really a fan at all. Not that you can’t hate things about it, but if you consider yourself a fan, why aren’t you talking more about what you like?

Cheers & Applause!
You guys got it right.

Ray’s Lounge
Biggs in ANH edit idea
ROTJ opening edit idea

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Voss Caltrez said:

DominicCobb said:

The argument is absurd. There’s nothing about TLJ that is overtly political. Everything you mention is as “subtle” in TLJ as it is in Aliens.

No it’s not, but there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that either, if the goal is to have it immediately resonate with audiences now, rather than them discovering these themes years later.

First thing I think you should understand, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it. Quite on the contrary, if you ask me, TLJ should have been as explicitly political as many are complaining it is. But it’s not, which is what makes the reactionary commentary so ridiculous.

There’s nothing in TLJ that’s has anything to do with “gender inequality” (literally only one reference to gender I can think of). There’s not a single instance of “mansplaining” or the calling out of such. There’s not a single instance of any male having trouble with a female in charge (Poe’s problems with Holdo have nothing to do with that).

Forget that Poe ignored General Organa’s orders, and then creates a mutiny against Holdo, both women.

And about “mansplaining”:
Vanity Fair: “Star Wars: The Last Jedi Offers the Harsh Condemnation of Mansplaining We Need in 2017”

The Washington Post: “…Leia is flanked by an unflinching vice admiral in the lavender-tressed Amilyn Holdo (Laura Dern), who, when called upon, has a deep sense of mission and knows well the painful wages of war. When challenged by a “mansplaining” flyboy like Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac), she gives no quarter.”

TheMarySue.com: “his first conversation with her is to mansplain how they only have so much fuel left (something she would already have been briefed on) and let us not forget the first thing he does this movie is disobeying Leia’s orders, which leads to the destruction of all the current Rebel Bombers and the death of Rose’s sister.”

Just because others have interpreted it that way doesn’t make it the only “obvious” interpretation. Seems to me more Poe having an issue with authority in general. That they’re both women seems to be interpreting something that may or may not be there. At the very least, you have to agree it’s not in the text of the film, which by definition makes it subtext.

The “animal rights” message is barely anything (animal abuse being wrong is not a controversial or even liberal opinion, not to mention no one in the film even talks about it being wrong we just see it, and on top of that the Fathiers seem to be intelligent which makes this abuse specifically extra bad).

Considering how prominent it was in the film, with Rose and Finn saying “it was worth it” even if the Resistance is doomed, in conjunction with all the other themes, gives the film a more left-leaning tilt than Aliens. Which is fine.

“Now it’s worth it” has to do with the theme of “saving what you love.” I don’t see how that is an exclusively left-leaning message, or even all that political a message to begin with.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

Isn’t there a part where Rose says something like “Only one business in the galaxy gets you this rich.”
Seems to be a criticism of the 1% percent, especially considering that we see all the rich elite drinking space wine while wearing tuxedos and gowns during a time of conflict. I immediately thought of video footage during Occupy Wall Street, of the rich drinking champagne from their balconies and looking down at the people on the streets protesting.

I didn’t say there was nothing there that could be interpreted that way, just that complaints overstated them. Don’t forget they went there to find the code breaker, who seems to be a good enough guy (Maz lauds him). And Rose’s line is really, like I said before, condemning war profiteers. She’s not saying all rich people suck, just these.

The arguments of TLJ being “shove in your face” political are some of the most annoying bullshit I’ve had to put up with talking Star Wars in this past year.

I never said TLJ “shoved” anything in anyone’s face. I agreed with someone else that it was more on the nose compared to something like Aliens. Disney obviously wanted to make Star Wars more relevant to today’s modern audiences, I think they succeeded in their approach.

I didn’t say you did, and I wasn’t speaking directly to you, more just in general about those complaints. I also very very strongly doubt Disney had anything to do with it. If anything Disney would be the ones asking for it to be less political.

How have you had to put up with it? Participating on message forums is voluntary. If it’s getting you that stressed out, take a break from certain topics.

There aren’t many things that gets me stressed out and I can promise you this isn’t one. I love Star Wars and I love talking about Star Wars. This site has been where I’ve done that for years. But the discourse around this film specifically has been exhausting.

I’m tired of the parroting of clunky, poorly thought out talking points. I try not to argue about this movie anymore but the Aliens comparison is particularly apt and really points out the extremely ridiculous double standard some guys apply to their analyses.

There was some nice arguments for and against Aliens handling a female action lead better.
You seem to the be the only one letting this discussion get under your skin while resorting to insults.

I’m not upset, just disappointed. For once we were having an intelligent discussion about the movie and then on cue it devolved into the same old tired and silly talking points. Me being insulting has nothing to do with these things - which I’ve read thousands of times at this point - “getting under my skin”. It’s just me being too tired to spend more of my time trying explain to people who don’t want to listen (not talking about you).

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

I only hope that James Cameron made it plain that anyone who had issues with the political/social overtones in Aliens was a toxic manbaby that couldn’t handle strong motherhood figures…

That actually does sounds like something he would do… but why do assume you’re making a sarcastic comment? I’m not aware of anyone behind TLJ doing that.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RogueLeader said:

joefavs said:

This. When your relationship with Star Wars consists largely of railing against Star Wars, you’re doing Star Wars wrong.

… Sorry for the rant. Just get tired of this stuff man. I know this has little to do with the point of your post, Muffy. I think Rey could’ve been written a little better, but I just think the whole Mary Sue argument is a tool haters use to justify their disdain for these new movies.

I hear you RogueLeader I was in two minds posting it as I really do enjoy the new films and looking forward to the next irrespective of the extreme views some have of the franchise now. My original point was the issue is not just with Starwars but the industy as a whole.

I guess having no real Starwars movies for so long after original trilogy and then so much so soon its hard for some people to except change eg. “fans” like the Geeks and Gamers guy.

“We Are What They Grow Beyond” - Yoda


My Prefered Saga Viewing Preference:
Ep. III - Revenge of the Sith Special Edition (StankPac Edit) * Rogue One - A Star Wars Story (Gareth Edwards Original Version)
Ep. IV - A New Hope Despecialized Edition (Harmy Edit) * Ep. V - Empire Strikes Back Revisited (Adywan Edit)
Ep. VI - Return of The Jedi Despecialized Edition (Harmy Edit) * Ep. VII - The Force Awakens Restructured (Hal 9000 Edit)
Ep. VIII - The Last Jedi Legendary (Hal 9000 Edit)

💡 Save confusion & express your comments with Markdown Emojis here 💡

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

First thing I think you should understand, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

I didn’t say you did.
I worded it that way to underline to you, and other people, that I myself don’t think having political leanings in a film, Star Wars or otherwise, is a bad thing.

Just because others have interpreted it that way doesn’t make it the only “obvious” interpretation. Seems to me more Poe having an issue with authority in general. That they’re both women seems to be interpreting something that may or may not be there. At the very least, you have to agree it’s not in the text of the film, which by definition makes it subtext.

The point is you were saying these interpretations were absurd, when they don’t appear to be.
Everything is up for interpretation, and just because the term “mansplaining” is not used, and other characters don’t actually say, “Hey Poe, you’re ‘mansplaining’ to General Holdo because she’s a woman,” doesn’t mean the films lacks subtlety. Again, you’re isolating individual things, while I’m saying that taken as a whole, the political leanings of the film is very apparent, at least more so than Aliens.

“Now it’s worth it” has to do with the theme of “saving what you love.” I don’t see how that is an exclusively left-leaning message, or even all that political a message to begin with.

Again, on it’s own, it wouldn’t. Taken as a whole with everything else in the film, that’s a different story.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

I don’t think I said TLJ was anti-capitalist. Maybe I did, but I thought I was specifically mentioning the “one percent.”

I didn’t say there was nothing there that could be interpreted that way, just that complaints overstated them.

Except I wasn’t complaining about it. I specifically said that I believe that Disney wanted to make the film relevant to modern film audiences, and was successful in doing so.

Don’t forget they went there to find the code breaker, who seems to be a good enough guy (Maz lauds him). And Rose’s line is really, like I said before, condemning war profiteers. She’s not saying all rich people suck, just these.

She says “Only one thing gets you THIS rich. War.” The implication is that the extreme rich only get that way through immoral means.
We have different ideas of what constitutes “on the nose” or lack of subtlety.
For example, if Rose screamed out “Die capitalist pigs,” and her and Finn were plotting to overthrow the “capitalist system,” I wouldn’t merely being saying that the message lacked subtlety or was too on-the-nose.

You previously want examples of people explicitly stating things, yet Rose never says “only war profiteers are evil.” She’s goes out of her way to mention the rich elite, which would probably be the Star Wars equivalent of the “one percent.”

I didn’t say you did, and I wasn’t speaking directly to you, more just in general about those complaints.

Well then why mention it? Don’t lump me in with others, since I don’t have a problem with the themes in TLJ.

There aren’t many things that gets me stressed out and I can promise you this isn’t one. I love Star Wars and I love talking about Star Wars. This site has been where I’ve done that for years. But the discourse around this film specifically has been exhausting. I’m not upset, just disappointed. For once we were having an intelligent discussion about the movie and then on cue it devolved into the same old tired and silly talking points.

Everyone else seemed pretty cordial until one particular poster came in insulting others.
Right now, this particular discussion with you seems pretty chill and productive.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Shopping Maul said:

I only hope that James Cameron made it plain that anyone who had issues with the political/social overtones in Aliens was a toxic manbaby that couldn’t handle strong motherhood figures…

That actually does sounds like something he would do… but why do assume you’re making a sarcastic comment? I’m not aware of anyone behind TLJ doing that.

I was just making a joke (however lame) about the style of conversation around movies these days. But even as I wrote it, it did occur to me that someone here would probably dig up such a quote and subvert my attempt at humour!

Author
Time

The entire idea of what Poe did being mansplaining is nonsense and idiotic. It really shows a lack of depth to a person’s education in film and fiction. What he did was question authority. I can’t even count the number of times that has appeared in movies, books, TV shows, etc. where both parties are men. It shows a lack of understanding of what mansplaining is. Because that ain’t it.

I think that pretty much all of the complaints about these new movies that seek to apply a political or social motive to one element or another are off the mark. Who cares what gender any character is or what race. We need to look at them objectively as a genderless and raceless character and when you do that there is nothing but good fiction in the ST. The other motives are just imagination.

And quit blaming Disney. In modern movies the Director and the writer (sometimes the same person as in TLJ) controls the film. Lucasfilm is a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, but Kathleen Kennedy is running it the way Lucas wanted (and if you look at her resume she has some pretty awesome films to her credit). Blame the director because that is where the success or failure of a film (in terms of quality) lies.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I also think the “topical” messages people perceive in the film are the product of our times too, where any kind of political discussion has become even more toxic than it has been (possibly heightened by social media?), has made people more sensitive to things that can be perceived as pro-this or anti-that messaging.

I never felt real-world themes were new to the franchise. I mean come on, the prequels literally had the Trade Federation and other industries start a war to profit off it. The Trade Federation and other companies even had seats in the Senate.

And another thing I always think about was Lucas openly comparing the Emperor in the OT to Nixon, and then comparing Darth Vader and Sidious to Bush and Cheney.
Imagine how people’s reaction would be if Rian or Kennedy said something so blatant.

So if George got away with those comments, what has changed since then that would make then so controversial now? Do you think if George had made the Sequel Trilogy, and had compared Snoke to Trump, or the First Order to the Republican Party, that he would’ve gotten a pass? If George’s 7 and 8 had been basically the same as what we’ve gotten so far, do you think the criticisms would be different or the same?

Author
Time

I think the difference here is the actual intentions of the filmmakers. For example if I have a problem with the Ewoks, a quick online search will show that Lucas was referencing the Vietnam war. Okay, that might not change my mind, but I can at least see where he was coming from and get a sense of the intention.

So with Rey I might be perplexed at her power levels and how that might clash with my sense of SW canon. If I hit Google what I’ll find is Kathleen Kennedy banging on about ‘strong female characters’. Ewoks as a Vietnam allegory makes sense to me. Palpatine as Nixon makes sense to me. Rey being superwoman because ‘strong female characters’ is nonsense. That’s not storytelling being inspired by politics. That’s politics subsuming storytelling.

Author
Time

So we all agree then that we need James Cameron as producer for Episode X 😎

Also to anyone who thinks Aliens has just a single female charactor in a sea of dumb male soldiers…

not so dumb

“We Are What They Grow Beyond” - Yoda


My Prefered Saga Viewing Preference:
Ep. III - Revenge of the Sith Special Edition (StankPac Edit) * Rogue One - A Star Wars Story (Gareth Edwards Original Version)
Ep. IV - A New Hope Despecialized Edition (Harmy Edit) * Ep. V - Empire Strikes Back Revisited (Adywan Edit)
Ep. VI - Return of The Jedi Despecialized Edition (Harmy Edit) * Ep. VII - The Force Awakens Restructured (Hal 9000 Edit)
Ep. VIII - The Last Jedi Legendary (Hal 9000 Edit)

💡 Save confusion & express your comments with Markdown Emojis here 💡

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I understand you but it is just weird to me how, generally, guys seem to complain that she is a Mary Sue much more than female fans of the movies. Like I said, generally. I’m sure someone could pull up some YouTube videos of women saying she is a Mary Sue to try to refute my opinion, but even then if you were to flip it around, you would probably have more men saying she isn’t a Mary Sue than women saying she is a Mary Sue.

The Mary Sue claims just seem strangely disproportionate. Yeah, there might be more male Star Wars fan than women, but even if you were to take that into account it still seems like it would be disproportionate on average.

Like I’ve already said, that’s not saying that men who think that are sexist. I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I just think it is worth exploring why a lot of guys seem hung up on it when more female fans seem to accept/enjoy her character without this issue.

If Rey was such a badly written female character, you would think there would be a more vocal concern from the female fan communities who might want better representation, so you would assume you would hear more female fans complaining about it than male fans. But it seems like it is predominantly male fans that are the most vocal regarding this issue, does it not?

I dunno. Just curious to me. I just feel like men and women do have unconscious biases regarding the opposite sex that affect the way we perceive characters of one gender compared to the other (and by extension people in real life). It is just might not be immediately clear to us, and difficult for us to articulate.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

Generally trying not to reply to you Dom as most of the time what you say is so at odds with how I see, interpret or understand something that it’s not worth trying to discuss it with you as it will only result in an argument that goes no where.

In this case I actually have no idea what you’re on about to start with.

Val

Fair enough and there have been many posts of yours I’ve made a point to just ignore (read: basically all of them).

Touché.

DominicCobb said:
What I’m on about is your lack of self awareness in that post was frankly hilarious. Don’t mind me.

Point out and explain what you find mockingly hilarious and I’ll see if I agree or respond in kind as to why I don’t.

Otherwise don’t post just to have a go at me, you were doing so well up to that point.

Val

I think I already did? There’s no discernible difference in the way Aliens and TLJ treats “politics” but you seem to be able to pretend that in one it’s only obvious when you go back and look really hard but in the other it’s “in your face.”

Claiming I am “pretending” is enough for me to not care to bother dealing with you again. So until the such time as there is a remote chance of reasonable discussion, take care.

Val

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think we should compare General Leia with Rey. And for fun and games mesa want to add Jar Jar to the mix.

General Leia
Unlike Luke or Han, Leia is a rebel leader from the outset. So while Leia’s successes and failures may not be as immediately obvious as Luke or Han, in many ways the rebellion’s victories and losses strategically rest of Leia’s shoulders.

Leia first significant scene sees her arrested by Vader. Instantly we see one person standing up for a righteous cause and now being punished and another choking the captain and reprimanding the underdog. In this scene we have established an emotional connection to Leia’s plight-save the rebellion- and grown a dislike for Vader. Fast forward and we see her resisting torture, another reason for the audience to like her. Then her planet blows up.

Once she is “rescued” Leia proves herself by going down the garbage shoot. But does this make her a Mary Sue? No. We have seen Leia suffer and now like that she is finally able to take action and eventually defeat the bad guys. And yet even then it is still a team effort- Leia’s plan is fine until the garbage begin to compress and now its up to R2 to save the day. This is called “teamwork” and it helps create dynamic groups where everyone gets their moment to both shine and fail- so that they still feel real. The Yavin battle is just as emotionally engaging from Leia’s POV.

I’m not going to do the rest of the trilogy because it’s more or less the same (albeit less a focus on Leia in favor of Han beyond 4). From what is implied between OT and ST Leia succeeds a bit and fails a lot, but she is on the right path during 7 and 8. We don’t see much of her though. I don’t have a problem with “Leia Poppins” from a canon POV, although I do dislike how it deflates the storytelling tension.

Overall, we can conclude Leia is a great character. Not a great female character. A great character. I don’t hear many people calling Leia a Mary Sue.

Jar Jar Binks
Now let’s take a look at a poorly written character. Jar Jar. From the moment we see Jar Jar we dislike him. He annoys our heroes. Qui-Gon then asks him to show them to Gungan City, but it shouldn’t have been that hard to find. He screams his way through the planet core. Messes with the pod racer and pit droid. Steps in poo doo. Keeps annoying everyone.

What can we conclude about this character? Well, he fails a lot. And he’s annoying. So we don’t like him. The fail : win ratio is off balance. By the end of the story Jar Jar is promoted to general because the script said so. Then he continues to fail in the battle and is saved at the last second by Anakin destroying the ship. Had TPM given Jar Jar some likable aspects- maybe his people had to flee their homeland and go into the ocean because of the droids, we would have a motivation from which Jar Jar can help out the Jedi and eventually free his people from the droids. But he never gets a chance to prove himself.

Rey
At first glance Rey is a likable character. She is in a tough situation but working through it. Unkar Plutt uses her by lowering the profits. Then she meets BB8 and she wants him to leave, but by the next scene she doesn’t want to sell him? It’d be stronger if we saw this arc on the way to Nima Outpost but ok. So far Rey is well-written with lots of potential.

Rey successfully escapes the First Order, but presses the wrong button and lets the squids out. Again this is a good win/loss ratio. They establish a weakness- fear of letting go of her past. It’s good. Then Rey beats Kylo Ren.

Prior to the TLJ, I didn’t think Rey was a Mary Sue. I thought the mystery set up would explain why Rey suddenly got her powers, and that next time Rey faced Kylo it wouldn’t go so good for her- Kylo wouldn’t have been wounded anymore. Instead, we got a film more interested in Luke than Rey.

I don’t have a problem with the concept Luke turning emo. The problem comes when so much screentime is focused on Luke, Canto Bight, and Poe’s mutiny; all of which ultimately lead to what would have happened had they not been there in the first place (Luke’s return, Finn and Rose doing nothing, the transports launching anyway). These distract from Rey, who does very little in TLJ. She is sad that her parents are nobodies, but didn’t we already address this in TFA? If not, shouldn’t there have been a couple scenes to set this up, maybe a conversation with Luke about his daddy issues?

When Rey and Kylo face off for a round two of TLJ, Rey wins off-screen. We have one character effortlessly beating the other twice, and another desperately seeking what they consider to be the right path but faced with great struggle. That’s Luke and Vader, only swapped. By the end of TLJ, Rey is projected to win despite having no clear motivation anymore (besides good guys are good) and a lopsided ratio favoring wins (the opposite of Jar Jar). Kylo on the other hand has a valid motive, several victories (Han, Snoke) and several losses (Rey, Luke).

So yeah, that’s why I’m routing for Kylo Ren in Episode 9. Had they been gender swapped same would apply.

Vader, a 7 in 1 edit of the entire Star Wars Saga

Maul, a clone wars edit

Author
Time

Voss Caltrez said:

DominicCobb said:

First thing I think you should understand, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.

I didn’t say you did.
I worded it that way to underline to you, and other people, that I myself don’t think having political leanings in a film, Star Wars or otherwise, is a bad thing.

Just because others have interpreted it that way doesn’t make it the only “obvious” interpretation. Seems to me more Poe having an issue with authority in general. That they’re both women seems to be interpreting something that may or may not be there. At the very least, you have to agree it’s not in the text of the film, which by definition makes it subtext.

The point is you were saying these interpretations were absurd, when they don’t appear to be.
Everything is up for interpretation, and just because the term “mansplaining” is not used, and other characters don’t actually say, “Hey Poe, you’re ‘mansplaining’ to General Holdo because she’s a woman,” doesn’t mean the films lacks subtlety. Again, you’re isolating individual things, while I’m saying that taken as a whole, the political leanings of the film is very apparent, at least more so than Aliens.

I didn’t say the interpretations were absurd, only the idea that they’re “in your face.” I still fail to see how it’s subtext in one and not the other. There’s more than just anti-capitalism in Aliens too.

“Now it’s worth it” has to do with the theme of “saving what you love.” I don’t see how that is an exclusively left-leaning message, or even all that political a message to begin with.

Again, on it’s own, it wouldn’t. Taken as a whole with everything else in the film, that’s a different story.

Any anti-capitalist sentiment is extremely overstated. Much like how you view Aliens, it’s really more critical about greed and people profiting off war, which is also not that controversial (please show me where anyone says money=bad).

I don’t think I said TLJ was anti-capitalist. Maybe I did, but I thought I was specifically mentioning the “one percent.”

It’s hard to keep track who’s saying what. I’m arguing against the idea that the film is anti-capitalist.

I didn’t say there was nothing there that could be interpreted that way, just that complaints overstated them.

Except I wasn’t complaining about it. I specifically said that I believe that Disney wanted to make the film relevant to modern film audiences, and was successful in doing so.

Again I apologize I guess, not trying to argue with you specifically.

Don’t forget they went there to find the code breaker, who seems to be a good enough guy (Maz lauds him). And Rose’s line is really, like I said before, condemning war profiteers. She’s not saying all rich people suck, just these.

She says “Only one thing gets you THIS rich. War.” The implication is that the extreme rich only get that way through immoral means.
We have different ideas of what constitutes “on the nose” or lack of subtlety.
For example, if Rose screamed out “Die capitalist pigs,” and her and Finn were plotting to overthrow the “capitalist system,” I wouldn’t merely being saying that the message lacked subtlety or was too on-the-nose.

You previously want examples of people explicitly stating things, yet Rose never says “only war profiteers are evil.” She’s goes out of her way to mention the rich elite, which would probably be the Star Wars equivalent of the “one percent.”

I think it’s more complicated than that.

There aren’t many things that gets me stressed out and I can promise you this isn’t one. I love Star Wars and I love talking about Star Wars. This site has been where I’ve done that for years. But the discourse around this film specifically has been exhausting. I’m not upset, just disappointed. For once we were having an intelligent discussion about the movie and then on cue it devolved into the same old tired and silly talking points.

Everyone else seemed pretty cordial until one particular poster came in insulting others.
Right now, this particular discussion with you seems pretty chill and productive.

Apologies, I have a history with one of the other posters that caused my intitial rancor. You just got the residual effects.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Shopping Maul said:

I think the difference here is the actual intentions of the filmmakers. For example if I have a problem with the Ewoks, a quick online search will show that Lucas was referencing the Vietnam war. Okay, that might not change my mind, but I can at least see where he was coming from and get a sense of the intention.

So with Rey I might be perplexed at her power levels and how that might clash with my sense of SW canon. If I hit Google what I’ll find is Kathleen Kennedy banging on about ‘strong female characters’. Ewoks as a Vietnam allegory makes sense to me. Palpatine as Nixon makes sense to me. Rey being superwoman because ‘strong female characters’ is nonsense. That’s not storytelling being inspired by politics. That’s politics subsuming storytelling.

I think you’re misunderstanding the phrase and what it means. I’d also be curious to see those Kennedy quotes as I’m not sure what you’re referring too.

OutboundFlight said:

When Rey and Kylo face off for a round two of TLJ, Rey wins off-screen. We have one character effortlessly beating the other twice,

I don’t have a problem with the rest of your post (some of it I agree, some agree to disagree), but this is just plain inaccurate. Rey does not win off screen. They come to a draw with the lightsaber and she runs away while Kylo’s knocked out. That’s not her “beating” him. As for the other win, it clearly was not “effortless,” as she was on the ropes before she used the force.

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

I understand you but it is just weird to me how, generally, guys seem to complain that she is a Mary Sue much more than female fans of the movies. Like I said, generally. I’m sure someone could pull up some YouTube videos of women saying she is a Mary Sue to try to refute my opinion, but even then if you were to flip it around, you would probably have more men saying she isn’t a Mary Sue than women saying she is a Mary Sue.

The Mary Sue claims just seem strangely disproportionate. Yeah, there might be more male Star Wars fan than women, but even if you were to take that into account it still seems like it would be disproportionate on average.

Like I’ve already said, that’s not saying that men who think that are sexist. I AM NOT SAYING THAT. I just think it is worth exploring why a lot of guys seem hung up on it when more female fans seem to accept/enjoy her character without this issue.

If Rey was such a badly written female character, you would think there would be a more vocal concern from the female fan communities who might want better representation, so you would assume you would hear more female fans complaining about it than male fans. But it seems like it is predominantly male fans that are the most vocal regarding this issue, does it not?

I dunno. Just curious to me. I just feel like men and women do have unconscious biases regarding the opposite sex that affect the way we perceive characters of one gender compared to the other (and by extension people in real life). It is just might not be immediately clear to us, and difficult for us to articulate.

This is such an interesting question. I’m only guessing here, but I wonder if a lot of it has to do with a large percentage of the older fanbase being male (given that Lucas was supposedly aiming the films at 12 year-old boys). I don’t have the stats obviously, but it would make sense that a long-term fanbase would be the ones most heavily invested in matters of canon and consistency. It logically follows that a new fanbase (with more females in it) would be more inclined to see the entire thing through fresh eyes and with less dogged adherence to what has gone before. Plus they (the newer female audience) might be inclined to simply enjoy the female representation in the films without being too concerned with the minutiae of Force abilities and such, while the old guard are more obsessed with what has been previously established (in their own minds as much as official canon).

I stress this is mere speculation!

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Shopping Maul said:

I think the difference here is the actual intentions of the filmmakers. For example if I have a problem with the Ewoks, a quick online search will show that Lucas was referencing the Vietnam war. Okay, that might not change my mind, but I can at least see where he was coming from and get a sense of the intention.

So with Rey I might be perplexed at her power levels and how that might clash with my sense of SW canon. If I hit Google what I’ll find is Kathleen Kennedy banging on about ‘strong female characters’. Ewoks as a Vietnam allegory makes sense to me. Palpatine as Nixon makes sense to me. Rey being superwoman because ‘strong female characters’ is nonsense. That’s not storytelling being inspired by politics. That’s politics subsuming storytelling.

I think you’re misunderstanding the phrase and what it means. I’d also be curious to see those Kennedy quotes as I’m not sure what you’re referring too.

OutboundFlight said:

When Rey and Kylo face off for a round two of TLJ, Rey wins off-screen. We have one character effortlessly beating the other twice,

I don’t have a problem with the rest of your post (some of it I agree, some agree to disagree), but this is just plain inaccurate. Rey does not win off screen. They come to a draw with the lightsaber and she runs away while Kylo’s knocked out. That’s not her “beating” him. As for the other win, it clearly was not “effortless,” as she was on the ropes before she used the force.

Although she may have not knocked Kylo out, she was the first one to wake up (or she never said awake the whole time). Regardless Rey was stronger and was awake where Kylo was knocked out. Had she wanted she could have killed him right then and there (and I wonder why the story didn’t lean in on this). That sounds to me like beating.

Vader, a 7 in 1 edit of the entire Star Wars Saga

Maul, a clone wars edit

Author
Time
 (Edited)

OutboundFlight said:

DominicCobb said:

Shopping Maul said:

I think the difference here is the actual intentions of the filmmakers. For example if I have a problem with the Ewoks, a quick online search will show that Lucas was referencing the Vietnam war. Okay, that might not change my mind, but I can at least see where he was coming from and get a sense of the intention.

So with Rey I might be perplexed at her power levels and how that might clash with my sense of SW canon. If I hit Google what I’ll find is Kathleen Kennedy banging on about ‘strong female characters’. Ewoks as a Vietnam allegory makes sense to me. Palpatine as Nixon makes sense to me. Rey being superwoman because ‘strong female characters’ is nonsense. That’s not storytelling being inspired by politics. That’s politics subsuming storytelling.

I think you’re misunderstanding the phrase and what it means. I’d also be curious to see those Kennedy quotes as I’m not sure what you’re referring too.

OutboundFlight said:

When Rey and Kylo face off for a round two of TLJ, Rey wins off-screen. We have one character effortlessly beating the other twice,

I don’t have a problem with the rest of your post (some of it I agree, some agree to disagree), but this is just plain inaccurate. Rey does not win off screen. They come to a draw with the lightsaber and she runs away while Kylo’s knocked out. That’s not her “beating” him. As for the other win, it clearly was not “effortless,” as she was on the ropes before she used the force.

Although she may have not knocked Kylo out, she was the first one to wake up (or she never said awake the whole time). Regardless Rey was stronger and was awake where Kylo was knocked out. Had she wanted she could have killed him right then and there (and I wonder why the story didn’t lean in on this). That sounds to me like beating.

That’s, frankly, insane. We’re now equating “waking up first” and “not murdering someone in cold blood” with “effortlessly beating someone in battle”? Just like Rey, Luke ran away from Vader in ESB - and he wasn’t even knocked out! Does that mean Luke beat him?

This really gets down to the meat of what we were talking about earlier, in regards to incorrectly evaluating Rey by mere action film standards. Rey’s goal in the throne room was not to kill Kylo. Her goal was to turn him to her side. She didn’t win at all, she literally lost.

Author
Time

Shopping Maul said:

This is such an interesting question. I’m only guessing here, but I wonder if a lot of it has to do with a large percentage of the older fanbase being male (given that Lucas was supposedly aiming the films at 12 year-old boys). I don’t have the stats obviously, but it would make sense that a long-term fanbase would be the ones most heavily invested in matters of canon and consistency. It logically follows that a new fanbase (with more females in it) would be more inclined to see the entire thing through fresh eyes and with less dogged adherence to what has gone before. Plus they (the newer female audience) might be inclined to simply enjoy the female representation in the films without being too concerned with the minutiae of Force abilities and such, while the old guard are more obsessed with what has been previously established (in their own minds as much as official canon).

I stress this is mere speculation!

I could see it being something like this. Where a lot of the criticisms clearly aren’t coming from a place of malice, but a different perspective that is taking all of this other stuff into account.

It kind of goes with my opinion with how people view the Force depending on what all Star Wars content they consumed, whether it be just the OT, or grew up with the prequels, played the video games, read the books, or got introduced with the new movies. I think this can have a big affect on how they see Rey, especially too.

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

Shopping Maul said:

This is such an interesting question. I’m only guessing here, but I wonder if a lot of it has to do with a large percentage of the older fanbase being male (given that Lucas was supposedly aiming the films at 12 year-old boys). I don’t have the stats obviously, but it would make sense that a long-term fanbase would be the ones most heavily invested in matters of canon and consistency. It logically follows that a new fanbase (with more females in it) would be more inclined to see the entire thing through fresh eyes and with less dogged adherence to what has gone before. Plus they (the newer female audience) might be inclined to simply enjoy the female representation in the films without being too concerned with the minutiae of Force abilities and such, while the old guard are more obsessed with what has been previously established (in their own minds as much as official canon).

I stress this is mere speculation!

I could see it being something like this. Where a lot of the criticisms clearly aren’t coming from a place of malice, but a different perspective that is taking all of this other stuff into account.

It kind of goes with my opinion with how people view the Force depending on what all Star Wars content they consumed, whether it be just the OT, or grew up with the prequels, played the video games, read the books, or got introduced with the new movies. I think this can have a big affect on how they see Rey, especially too.

I think you’re both right. There’s a lot of factors at play here that may or may not apply to everyone.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

OutboundFlight said:

DominicCobb said:

Shopping Maul said:

I think the difference here is the actual intentions of the filmmakers. For example if I have a problem with the Ewoks, a quick online search will show that Lucas was referencing the Vietnam war. Okay, that might not change my mind, but I can at least see where he was coming from and get a sense of the intention.

So with Rey I might be perplexed at her power levels and how that might clash with my sense of SW canon. If I hit Google what I’ll find is Kathleen Kennedy banging on about ‘strong female characters’. Ewoks as a Vietnam allegory makes sense to me. Palpatine as Nixon makes sense to me. Rey being superwoman because ‘strong female characters’ is nonsense. That’s not storytelling being inspired by politics. That’s politics subsuming storytelling.

I think you’re misunderstanding the phrase and what it means. I’d also be curious to see those Kennedy quotes as I’m not sure what you’re referring too.

OutboundFlight said:

When Rey and Kylo face off for a round two of TLJ, Rey wins off-screen. We have one character effortlessly beating the other twice,

I don’t have a problem with the rest of your post (some of it I agree, some agree to disagree), but this is just plain inaccurate. Rey does not win off screen. They come to a draw with the lightsaber and she runs away while Kylo’s knocked out. That’s not her “beating” him. As for the other win, it clearly was not “effortless,” as she was on the ropes before she used the force.

Although she may have not knocked Kylo out, she was the first one to wake up (or she never said awake the whole time). Regardless Rey was stronger and was awake where Kylo was knocked out. Had she wanted she could have killed him right then and there (and I wonder why the story didn’t lean in on this). That sounds to me like beating.

That’s, frankly, insane. We’re now equating “waking up first” and “not murdering someone in cold blood” with “effortlessly beating someone in battle”? Just like Rey, Luke ran away from Vader in ESB - and he wasn’t even knocked out! Does that mean Luke beat him?

This really gets down to the meat of what we were talking about earlier, in regards to incorrectly evaluating Rey by mere action film standards. Rey’s goal in the throne room was not to kill Kylo. Her goal was to turn him to her side. She didn’t win at all, she literally lost.

You admit that the assumed genre of the movie has a lot to do with whether Rey has won or lost in this scene, yet in the same breath you say that the action genre interpretation is ‘insane’ - a genre that is heavily infused into Star Wars DNA.

From the pure drama or romantic drama interpretation, Rey has definitely lost this fight.
From the pure action interpretation, Rey has at least matched Kylo if not bested him in her recovery.

At the very least, you must admit that the scene sends mixed messages depending on interpretation.

BTW, there is no comparison to Luke in ESB. Luke was battered, literally disarmed, beaten, and emotionally shattered. He survived by the thinnest of margins and the scars of the battle, both literal and emotional, dominated the rest of the movie and beyond. Rey is back to her peppy self literally the next time we see her, lending credence to the pure action interpretation of the confrontation.

DuracellEnergizer: “^He’s embraced the absurd. Don’t expect to gain any conventional understanding from his posts.”
A New Hope Technicolor Recreation (Released!)
The Force Awakens Restructured (V2 Released!) and The Starlight Project