Legends doesn’t count for shit. There’s nothing in the films that contradicts this development. So why is it an issue?
(Hint: it’s not)
I don’t see what’s wrong with it at all. I’m hard pressed to think of why it’s a problem in anyway. It literally isn’t at all.
As for the cynical side, from what I understand this is one of the screenwriter’s opinions that was brought up in an interview and it’s been blown into a big thing by media outlets. Disney hasn’t mentioned it so it’s not really a Beauty and the Beast or Star Trek Beyond situation where it’s a pandering marketing tactic and I’m not sure it’s even canon.
Who knows if there’s any sign of it in the movie but I will say if there isn’t, that’s lazy to say he is that then. In that case calling it pandering makes sense. Otherwise bullshit. Every time a story includes a non straight character, nerds complain loudly about “pandering.” Yet of course no one cries “pandering” when they’re straight. It’s bullshit and you’re part of the problem if you feed into that.
I know George Takei was upset, but it doesn’t mean Prime universe Sulu can’t still be straight. Showing a gay couple in Trek was long overdue. A big improvement over casually mentioning (but not onscreen) that a minor character in First Contact was gay and they end up the major redshirt in the movie.
Even if Takei was upset (which is totally fair for him to be), he’s not the arbiter of everything that can be done with that character, especially, as you mention, that it’s not even in the same universe.
I should clarify the reason I bring it up is they definitely overdid the hoopla on that one, considering how small it was in the film. Not that it needed to be bigger, but don’t go patting yourself on the back for a blink and you miss it moment. To Jon Kasdan’s credit, it just seems like someone asked him a question and he answered it. Would be interesting to hear Lawrence’s perspective considering he is one of the character’s creators - but again, that wouldn’t mean he should necessarily have the final judgement.
It’s absolutely lazy and ties into my last post about how I think Disney has not really committed fully to diversity. Which makes it funnier to me when people complain about the SJW agenda of Lucasfilm. Literally look at most of their casting and creative assignments and then it becomes apparent that they like to just barely add in some diversity, while not getting too crazy.
I think final judgements are premature. Let’s look at how the film handles it first. (if anyone knows already from reading spoilery things online from those who’ve seen it, let’s not go there).
There is potentially an argument to be made that this is an area where Disney is doing some push back. At this point we’ve heard SW writers, directors, and actors all express interest in non straight characters. So far nothing in the films.
I don’t see what’s wrong with it at all. I’m hard pressed to think of why it’s a problem in anyway. It literally isn’t at all.
As for the cynical side, from what I understand this is one of the screenwriter’s opinions that was brought up in an interview and it’s been blown into a big thing by media outlets. Disney hasn’t mentioned it so it’s not really a Beauty and the Beast or Star Trek Beyond situation where it’s a pandering marketing tactic and I’m not sure it’s even canon.
Who knows if there’s any sign of it in the movie but I will say if there isn’t, that’s lazy to say he is that then. In that case calling it pandering makes sense. Otherwise bullshit. Every time a story includes a non straight character, nerds complain loudly about “pandering.” Yet of course no one cries “pandering” when they’re straight. It’s bullshit and you’re part of the problem if you feed into that.
I wouldn’t say it’s a shitty thing to say (it is mostly true after all), but it’s a silly reason to not watch a movie that has basically nothing to do with that.
Also it is a pretty massive generalization too I guess.
In response to your post Mrebo, I would say that women should be able to wear makeup for whatever reason they see fit, without a fear of being harassed. Let women choose how they want to express themselves and put the pressure upon us as a society to change, not the makeup choices of a women.
Exactly.
I absolutely agree with suspifciouscoffee (which also is exactly in line with my previous post). And I really don’t think it’s a “crazy idea” or that anyone reasonable would disagree with that.
At least I hope not.
And that’s the whole point of my last post. I basically agree to a certain extent with what you guys are both saying (not Peterson).
I’m with you. I’m not sure why anyone would feel the need to point it out. There are many things that could be the “cause.” Being nice to someone, smiling, being mean to someone, ignoring someone, etc. Pointing out “causes” seems fruitless and only serves to shift at least some of the blame on the victims.
Seems unwise to let Han drive at that point. And Chewie isn’t in great shape either after the barge battle.
Yeah I don’t think they’d let Han “behind the wheel,” considering.
Han never pilots the Falcon in ROTJ.
Let me guess. Is there
female nudity
in the film?
Not that I remember. That’s not why.
I really need Netflix to release it already.
50% chance you hate it.
I just mean that focusing on the hyperbolizers does nothing to further intelligent discussion. People shouldn’t swear off certain ideas just because some people are bad at expressing them.
Pushing back against these loud and harmful types seems like a separate issue to me.
There are stupid people on both sides and don’t think focusing in on them is terribly helpful in general; if anything it just makes things worse.
Glad to hear you are happy with your work! I think you really nailed a great balance for your edit and it serves as a perfect edit for people who don’t want something too radical. The only remaining flaw is the repeating music in the Luke deleted scene and the tree scene. I think replacing the music in the Luke scene is probably the best idea.
Debatably, repeating music is not that big a deal. Nearly every other Star Wars movie has done it.
That happens pretty rarely. Repeating motifs, yes. Extended use of the exact same material that has already appeared in the movie, not so much; unless it’s for a very specific reason.
That’s a lot less true than you may realize.
It wouldn’t be an issue if the two uses of the same piece were an hour apart, but in this edit it’s only six minutes apart. It was pretty noticeable to me.
In that case, possibly. I haven’t seen the edit so I can’t comment, was more speaking generally.
Glad to hear you are happy with your work! I think you really nailed a great balance for your edit and it serves as a perfect edit for people who don’t want something too radical. The only remaining flaw is the repeating music in the Luke deleted scene and the tree scene. I think replacing the music in the Luke scene is probably the best idea.
Debatably, repeating music is not that big a deal. Nearly every other Star Wars movie has done it.
There will probably be a lot of unnecessary exploitation of walls.
I hope you appreciate the Bowie bulge at least.
I just put Labyrinth in my queue and moved it to the top.
Frink movie review that makes people mad incoming soon.
I wouldn’t go that far (flirting).
Yeah I’ve heard that interpretation before, but never really thought the movie totally supported it. At worst she has a “aw look at this cute lil boy” reaction to him, which I wouldn’t classify as flirting.
Him, on the other hand… but that’s less weird. The weirder thing is that they become a couple ten years later.
Some gay people at my school constantly brag about how gay they are (mostly to eachother), and it’s extremely annoying. It’s like they think people like me actually care that they’re gay.
If I were gay and I heard someone talking like this, I’d certainly brag more, because I’d find it extremely annoying to listen to how annoyed that person was that I was talking about being gay.
It comes off as “you can be gay, just don’t bother me with your gayness.” Similar to how chyron is bothered by “flamboyant men.”
So I’m unreasonable for being annoyed by people ramble on with eachother about “I’m more gay than you” “No I’m more gay because this” “No I’m so gay I did this.” Okay.
I’m not going to be rude to these people and tell them to shut up, but I won’t start caring about how gay they are. Because I honestly don’t care.
They aren’t talking out of liberation. They just think they’re funny/interesting, but they’re not.
Don’t know what this has anything to do with the conversation.
I get she’s that bummed out about Anakin, but how about finding the will to live if only for your kids?
Yeah that’s essentially character assassination. If nothing else he’s portrayed as extremely strong willed in TPM and AOTC. I’d actually argue too that she’s pretty good in AOTC except for falling in love with Anakin (big exception, but still). Those movies would have been better if they focused on her POV more, honestly (TPM especially).
It has nothing to do with “being offended on someone’s behalf.” That’s a ridiculous argument that ignores the actual issue.
Artists aren’t obligated to do anything. If it’s an obligation then it isn’t art.
They aren’t obligated, but many leave out diversity almost by accident or out of habit. I think we should be careful about forcing an artist to do something they don’t feel is right for their story, but there should be someone there to check and ask the questions that need asking. Does this character really need to be a white man? Is there a good reason why 90% of the speaker characters are dudes?
Again, it’s not a matter of forcing, it’s a matter of looking long and hard at the work and asking why it isn’t diverse. The truth is, most of the time, there isn’t a good reason.
This is the part of your post I have a problem with:
but there should be someone there to check and ask the questions that need asking
Unless by “someone”, you mean “the audience”, no. Just no.
Who is this “someone”? How did they get the job of policing content for appropriate diversity? What are their own biases that might influence their objectivity? Must this person be a minority? Or perhaps a committee that’s fully representative of the population? Do we put hard rules in place, i.e. 13% of the population is black, so 13% of your characters must be black? Do we use the U.S. population as the benchmark?
That all sounds absurd, of course, but that’s what happens when you make this sort of thing official and place the responsibility on someone in a corporation to do it. Lots of rules and regulations and HR people.
I don’t know why it has to be extremely bureaucratic in that way. It could be anyone, an editor, another writer they trust, a friend, the audience, whoever. Again it’s not about forcing, it’s not about quotas. It’s about making sure things aren’t always completely white and male with no reason.
Artists aren’t obligated to do anything. If it’s an obligation then it isn’t art.
They aren’t obligated, but many leave out diversity almost by accident or out of habit. I think we should be careful about forcing an artist to do something they don’t feel is right for their story, but there should be someone there to check and ask the questions that need asking. Does this character really need to be a white man? Is there a good reason why 90% of the speaker characters are dudes?
Again, it’s not a matter of forcing, it’s a matter of looking long and hard at the work and asking why it isn’t diverse. The truth is, most of the time, there isn’t a good reason.
I suspect the reason is that people write about what they know and most writers old and experienced enough to be writing big movies or TV shows probably don’t “know” diversity so they don’t naturally write about it. Since most writers are men, they write men more. That’s my assumption.
If it’s a story about being black for example, I’d get why a white writer might not want to go there. But if they’re skin color isn’t that important to their story, there’s not a great reason why not.
You’re arguing semantics which I’m not really interested in because I don’t know what negative adjective to use to describe guns that you wouldn’t call emotional or subjective.
And at that point, you’re saying there isn’t an “objective” way to declare something as good or bad. But then what’s the point of arguing something is good or bad at all, if you’re just going to dismiss it.
Anyway, whether the “disgust” is an emotional reaction or not, my point was that it is in no way my knee jerk reaction to guns, as Tyr said. It’s not an “emotion” based on impulsive feelings (again, my natural instinct is to think that they’re cool). It’s an “emotional” descriptor based on my rational observations. Again, there’s a distinction, and what Tyr was describing was a mischaracterization.
Artists aren’t obligated to do anything. If it’s an obligation then it isn’t art.
They aren’t obligated, but many leave out diversity almost by accident or out of habit. I think we should be careful about forcing an artist to do something they don’t feel is right for their story, but there should be someone there to check and ask the questions that need asking. Does this character really need to be a white man? Is there a good reason why 90% of the speaker characters are dudes?
Again, it’s not a matter of forcing, it’s a matter of looking long and hard at the work and asking why it isn’t diverse. The truth is, most of the time, there isn’t a good reason.