I saw ANH in my country a few weeks ago, and it was the bluray version with the Fox intro. The orchestra was awesome though, and despite it being the bluray it was an amazing experience. I’ve already booked tickets for TESB, which will be shown next summer.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.
By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.
Correct.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.
Not when they do this:
I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.
When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.
Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.
I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.
As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.
When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.
There was no threat of a ban - please direct me to where there was a threat of a ban made. I believe I said…
As stated above:
I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.
…is a pretty clear threat of a ban. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.
Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.
That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.
Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.
Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.
I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.
Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.
No mate, it wasn’t.
I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.
It’s not this first time you’ve twisted my words recently to try and make them into something else - and I think it’s the 3rd time of late I’ve had to asked you (along with others) to stay on topic / not derail a thread. This time was you introducing the fairly toxic and incendiary subject of caricatures of Mohammad and then a statement on the evils of communism, later passed off ‘analogies’ - which would have very likely taken the thread further away from the thread subject.
Likely? So this was preemptive mod action, just in case the thread got further away from the thread subject? This does not seem to adhere to the policy of not modding a thread’s content unless requested by the OP. Only two people responded to the Mohammed/communism analogies, which were you and Frink. The debate still centered on toxic fandom. As such, I don’t see how these few posts constitute derailing a thread outside of you personally not liking my analogies to the point of calling them toxic, thus using your own personal point of view and your mod status to forcably shut down the discussion on this matter.
As for disagreeing with you… you seemed to take issue with what I posted, not the other way around.
No, I took issue with the latter part of Kittythatsit’s post, which you endorsed. I argued why I disagreed, feeling some fans are using the label “toxic” to smear their opponents, which led to the communism analogy. Frink chimed in on how a caricature of Rey was not acceptable, after which I used the Mohammed caricature as an analogy. You then claimed Mohammed caricatures are toxic, and apparently so are my posts by association.
On more than one occasion I said it’s okay that you disagree, yes? Disdain for your opinion…? Doesn’t seem that’s the case at all.
Calling someone toxic for his opinion seems pretty consistent with disdain to me, and ironically consistent with my argument, that some fans are using the term “toxic” to smear their opponents.
I’ve stated it before, but there’s a highly intolerant atmosphere here towards critics of the new canon. People and sites are painted with the same brush, and labeled sexist, misogynist, toxic, and what not. I take issue with that, and with the people that perpetuate, or endorse such behaviour.
Over time many critics have been bullied out of this site, where biased mod action in these people’s view and my own has been a factor, with specifically you coming down hard on anyone with a strongly negative opinion, where it is often not clear whether you’re expressing your personal opinion, or acting as a mod of the site. Jay’s politics thread has been a breath of fresh air, in what is sadly becoming an echo chamber of extremely negative opinions towards a large section of the fandom.
I tried to get things back to civil discourse with an apology, but it seems, it sadly was to no avail.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.
By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.
Correct.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.
Not when they do this:
I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.
When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.
Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.
I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.
As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.
When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.
Which is exactly why I think we should put a policy in place to help maintain the boundaries between participating and moderating. We often do consult one another before taking any action, and oojason has been particularly careful to ask for our opinions on things before moving forward.
Well, I suppose we shouldn’t allways try to see the worst in people, and bias works both ways. So, I apologize to oojason for acting like a dick, and casting doubt on his intentions.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site.
By content, you mean opinions and such, not “Let’s get back on topic”? Obvious question is obvious, but I’d like a little more clarification on this point if possible.
Correct.
I’ll also take this opportunity to remind everyone that when moderators post content, they’re posting as themselves and not as representatives of the site. We’re individuals with our own thoughts and views.
Not when they do this:
I won’t ask again. Get back on topic - or feel free to PM me - or continue your thoughts and views in the ‘Culture’ section of ‘Off Topic’.
When they do the above, they are posting as a moderator.
Right. Given recent activity regarding threads being driven off the rails, we’ve been a bit more sensitive regarding threads staying on track. Maybe in this case it got a bit blurred because oojason was expressing his opinion as a member who disagrees with DrDre, but also providing direction as a moderator for the sake of the thread. When those two things seem to be working in concert (which I don’t think was oojason’s intent), it creates the impression of using moderator authority to “win” a debate. I’ve been accused of the same thing in other threads.
I’ll discuss it with the mods, but perhaps we need a policy whereby any moderator involved in a discussion should recuse themselves from moderator duties within that discussion and leave it to another moderator.
As always, OP sets the tone, and we usually won’t act on off topic discussion without their request unless it’s getting out of control.
When a mod directs me, threatens with a ban, and calls me toxic in the same post, it becomes very hard not to percieve this as personal animosity and bias in mod action, especially considering oojason vehemently disagreed with me, whilst expressing his disdain for my opinion, and also considering the fact that the OP had at that point not chimed in, whilst the discussion was still on the topic of toxicity in the fanbase in my humble opinion. So, the claim that I was derailing the thread seems a bit excessive in this context.
Apparently the analogies I used, are too far out there, so I’ll leave those for another time, and place.
However, in the vein of my original argument, is toxicity a one way street? Are only those that harshly criticize LFM, Disney, the films, and the characters toxic? Is “toxic” the new “sexist”, to be labeled on anyone with a strong negative opinion of the current canon? In my view any form of intolerence or animosity within the fandom is toxic, whether it is perpetuated by critics or fans of the new films.
They can sit on logs and railings though. 😉
Touché! 😉
In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.
Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.
That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.
Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.
Like I said above - it’s okay that you do disagree. Nice one.
I have empathy with anyone who’d offended by a caricature of the Prophet Mohammad - and can see why such a picture would be toxic. Hey, I live in a free democratic society and accept it’s foundations too - as do many who may think it toxic too - or even those who don’t.
Now let’s get back on topic re taking a stand against toxic fandom - not re the Prophet Muhammad and communism being aligned with evil, degraded and blasphemy - your words.
It was on topic, since I specifically criticized those that abuse the term toxic for their own agenda, perpetuating toxicity within the fandom. Toxicity ends with respecting different, sometimes more outspoken points of view. Labeling people toxic for having an opinion does not.
In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.
Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.
That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.
Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, or any other term used to label people or put them in a box for having a different or controversial opinion.
I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Calling out someone for being shitty is not the same as shutting down free speech and democratic society.
The use of “communist” here is a weird thing as well. It has no bearing on the topic at hand.
I think I’m done here.
Good for you. Toxic is a label originally meant for those that harrass people, that is too easily applied by those that would like to use it as a weapon against those they disagree with, and so now even those with more outspoken opinions against LFM or the recent films, and their characters are labeled toxic. The label communist was applied to liberals by their opponents to attack their political views, or to demonize them. There’s your connnection. It is an apt analogy.
In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.
Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.
That’s free speech - not toxicity. For many people they would consider a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad to be toxic, and in my view rightly so.
Well, I disagree. The only toxicity I see is in those that cannot accept the foundations of a free, and democratic society. As such, any point of view that is too foreign relative to someone’s own, is considered to be toxic, evil, communist, degraded, blasphemy, or any other term used to label people, or put them in a box for having a different, or controversial opinion.
In my view Photoshopping her head on a hulk body is not fair game.
Is creating a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad fair game? In my view it is. That’s the way free speech works, and that right should be defended in my view, even if you disagree with what is depicted. If creating a caricature of a Prophet is fair game, then so is creating a caricature of the Star Wars character Rey. If it was a caricature of Daisy Ridley, that attempts to ridicule her personally, then I would agree with you.
These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.
It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.
Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.
Well said mate ✊
I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.
That’s ok that you don’t agree. For many they aren’t considered critical platforms - they are considered toxic. Some may think they are a little of both or varying degrees of. That people enjoy them and like them is up to them - personally I think they’re toxic.
I also like to think many of the people on here, and SW fandom in large, can differentiate between genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticisms of a film(s) - and alternative views therein - and the type of toxic content often found on those and similar platforms (as well as a lack of genuine, balanced, legitimate, or informative criticism on them). Though again, if people like them, or believe they do the find above in those platforms, or aren’t interested in those things… then fair play - it’s up to them.
If I want to see shite like this…
(^ the cover used by Geeks and Gamers for their ‘The Last Jedi - Disney Basically Admits That Rey is a Mary Sue’ video (Disney didn’t ‘admit’ anything))
… and numerous articles on Kathleen Kennedy perceivingly ‘failing’, or doing something ‘wrong’, or not to their liking, or have words put in her mouth… I’ll know where to go. Until then I stay away from the toxic shite like that - and can get what I consider to more quality, balanced insight and actual factual-based criticism elsewhere.
Just my two-penneth.
In my view as long as people criticize content, business decisions, or politics, and don’t personally attack people, it’s fair game. I don’t agree with everything these people advocate, but to me not liking someone’s (sometimes strong and outspoken) opinion should not be equated to toxicity. Saying Rey is a Mary Sue, and depicting this with a caricature is not toxicity in my view. Personally attacking or harrassing Daisy Ridley is. Saying Kathleen Kennedy is a crappy President of Lucasfilm, and advocating her removal isn’t toxicity. Personally attacking or harrassing Kathleen Kennedy is. Conflating harsh criticism with toxcity is in of itself toxic behaviour imo.
These people deserve to be called out as the abhorrent jerks they are. Seriously, this is a series of fictional films! People are sending death threats and behaving like absolute nobs just because someone made a star war they didn’t like, or wrote a story they felt was boring, or were a bit confused by all the long words they used.
It’s time these “fans” chilled the **** out and realised their sense of entitlement doesn’t give them the right to troll and abuse people whose only “crime” was to try to make something others would enjoy. It sickens me to see Daisy Ridley and Kelly Marie Tran forced to close down their Instagram accounts because idiots think it’s their right to post hateful dribble at them when they post a photo, just because they were in Star Wars.
Meanwhile shows like RFR and Geeks and Gamers pander their self important drivel to these dregs of the community in a wholly transparent attempt to get more subscriptions and likes.
Well said mate ✊
I disagree with the latter part. Once you start conflating critical platforms such as RFR and Geeks and Gamers with toxic fandom and the like, you’re on a very slippery slope. Similar tactics were used against many liberals in the cold war. Suddenly, everyone who’s on the opposite side is at best potentially a commie/toxic, or at worst guilty by association.
I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.
What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.
This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.
If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.
The problem of course is, that he didn’t really help Rey, and that she still succeeded despite this. She helped herself to some books, when she was fed up with him, after which Luke sort of rediscovered himself, and was able to create a diversion for the rebels. Ultimately though he wasn’t much of a mentor in this film, except to be an example of how not to be. Yoda told Luke how to be a better teacher, he got to stage an illusion, and then he died before he could pass on what he had learned.
This is Star Wars. Since when is dying a barrier to being a teacher and mentor?
Ehm, since ANH. Force Ghosts can provide guidance, but up until TLJ they couldn’t physically interact with their environment.
I liked Luke’s vibe in TLJ in theory, but the execution bugged me somewhat. Luke in exile was great. Luke reconsidering past events and pondering (as I have as a fan) the idea of Jedi hubris was great. Luke suggesting that the old Jedi orthodoxy had to die was great. All the stuff about the Force and ‘balance’ and how no-one has a particular claim to it was absolutely great.
What I didn’t like so much was the idea of Luke being on the back foot with all this. Having Yoda come back to give Luke a lecture on ‘failure’ annoyed me. Luke transcended his masters in RoTJ. Yoda and Obi Wan wanted Luke to simply kill the bad guys. Luke chose a more personal, Zen route. I’d prefer he’d been doing the grumpy hobo routine in TLJ as an act - similar to Yoda’s initial test in TESB. This could have been his way of forcing Rey to take her destiny into her own hands, a new and different path away from the usual formalised Jedi training routine. Once Rey had flown off to confront Kylo, Luke could have revealed his cunning duplicity to Yoda and they could’ve burned down the Jedi tree together. Then, after Luke’s great skype-battle with Kylo, Rey could’ve realised what he’d done and be like “you sly devil”.
This way he could’ve played the hobo but still been the Luke we all love and respect without being diminished.
If you didn’t notice, the scene with Yoda doesn’t alter the more Zen route he took in ROTJ. Yoda isn’t advising him on the force, he is advising him how to teach. Advising him as a fellow master. I think because Luke was so pivotal, Rian didn’t just have him fill the master/mentor role immediately. He brought back some of that negativity that characterized Luke in ANH and TESB. It created a nice character journey for Luke to take him where he needed to be to help Rey.
The problem of course is, that he didn’t really help Rey, and that she still succeeded despite this. She helped herself to some books, when she was fed up with him, after which Luke sort of rediscovered himself, and was able to create a diversion for the rebels. Ultimately though he wasn’t much of a mentor in this film, except to be an example of how not to be. Yoda told Luke how to be a better teacher, he got to stage an illusion, and then he died before he could pass on what he had learned.
A big thanks to Stotchy for his help, and Williarob, and the other collaborators for providing such an amazing source!
I don’t remember anyone saying that girls couldn’t relate to Luke.
I do know my daughters identify much more strongly with Rey.
“I think there was an assumption being made for quite a while that girls didn’t care about Star Wars or that girls weren’t identifying with characters like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo; they were only identifying with Princess Leia or characters in other movies along those lines. And you know I think that it is not just Star Wars that is making this change, I think culturally, I want to believe that there is real movement and momentum beginning to happen where those kinds of lines are being blurred and people are recognizing in the creative community that um little girls, and little boys, for that matter are crossing over into identifying with lots of different characters and lots of different stories; And we as filmmakers should not be the ones providing those boundaries we should just tell the stories and they should be open a wide variety of not only gender but ethnicity. and that is another thing we are really working to do is to make the casting reflect society in a much more equal basis.”
- Kathleen Kennedy, President of Lucasfilm (2012 to Present),
Star Wars Celebration 2016
As I interpret Kennedy’s words she’s literally saying, that in the past filmmakers were providing boundaries by not casting women or people of different ethnicity in certain roles making it harder for women and people of different ethnicity to identify with these characters. She seems to thus imply that these past filmmakers (among them Lucas) were delibirately catering to boys, and white people, because they didn’t believe these stories would appeal to anybody else, and that only recently these lines are beginning to be blurred. Filmmakers should facilitate this movement by casting on an equal basis.
While it is true that men and women were not given equal opportunity in the film industry, I think it is faulty and inherently sexist to assume that a character’s gender is in any way important in the way men and women relate to these characters. As such, the fact that Rey and Jyn are female protagonists is important, because it reflects equality in casting, not because their gender makes these characters more relatable to women. If the inherent assumption is, that by casting female protagonists in Star Wars the franchise will become more appealing to women, then I would consider such a notion higly superficial and sexist.
It seems like you are suggesting that casting should go back to being less inclusive. I mean sure, the first steps out of this might seem forced a few times, but that is often what it takes to break from the past.
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m suggesting casting should be equal, because men, women, and people of different ethnicity (or anybody else) deserve equal opportunity, and because films should reflect this equality in general. This however should not be taken to mean, that by casting a women or a person of color in a certain role, women or people of color automatically are more likely to identify with these characters, as if their gender, and or skin color are the most important qualities, that will determine who will or will not relate to certain characters. I’m a person of color, and I think it is pretty offensive to suggest a character should appeal to me more, because he or she is portrayed by Denzel Washington, or John Boyega, or any other non-white actor, or actress. I like Denzel Washington, and John Boyega, because they are charismatic actors, not because they are “black”, just like I like a ton of white actors, and actresses for their talent, not because they belong to a certain ethnicity or gender.
I care more that all children grow up seeing themselves represented in all types of roles, then I do about one or two casting decisions that I personally didn’t like. This is why Kelly Marie Tran is in my signature.
I’m absolutely fine with the casting decisions thusfar. These are all talented people. What I’m not fine with, is people like Kathleen Kennedy suggesting, that casting these people in these roles is supposed to make these characters more appealing to me, or anybody else, simply because of their gender or ethnicity.
I don’t remember anyone saying that girls couldn’t relate to Luke.
I do know my daughters identify much more strongly with Rey.
“I think there was an assumption being made for quite a while that girls didn’t care about Star Wars or that girls weren’t identifying with characters like Luke Skywalker or Han Solo; they were only identifying with Princess Leia or characters in other movies along those lines. And you know I think that it is not just Star Wars that is making this change, I think culturally, I want to believe that there is real movement and momentum beginning to happen where those kinds of lines are being blurred and people are recognizing in the creative community that um little girls, and little boys, for that matter are crossing over into identifying with lots of different characters and lots of different stories; And we as filmmakers should not be the ones providing those boundaries we should just tell the stories and they should be open a wide variety of not only gender but ethnicity. and that is another thing we are really working to do is to make the casting reflect society in a much more equal basis.”
As I interpret Kennedy’s words, she’s literally saying, that in the past filmmakers were providing boundaries by not casting women or people of different ethnicity in certain roles making it harder for women and people of different ethnicity to identify with these characters. She seems to thus imply that these past filmmakers (among them Lucas) were delibirately catering to boys, and white people, because they didn’t believe these stories would appeal to anybody else, and that only recently these lines are beginning to be blurred. Filmmakers should thus facilitate this movement by casting on an equal basis.
While it is true that men and women were not given equal opportunity in the film industry, I think it is faulty and inherently sexist to assume that a character’s gender is in any way important in the way men and women relate to these characters. As such, the fact that Rey and Jyn are female protagonists is important, because it reflects equality in casting, not because their gender makes these characters more relatable to women. If the inherent assumption is, that by casting women in gender neutral roles in Star Wars the franchise will become more appealing to women, then I would consider such a notion higly superficial and sexist.
With regards to Rey, whatever fanboy misgivings I may personally have about the writing, I do think its great that Kathleen K. and co. have given young girls their own Luke Skywalker to look up to and dress up as.
I’m in two minds about this, because to me it feels like putting the cart before the horse. I agree with the idea that these franchises could use a lot more female protagonists and antagonists, and that gender should not be a determining factor in casting a character in general. As such on average there should be about an equal number of male/female protagonists, and antagonists. However, I consider the statement, that young girls cannot relate to or identify with Luke Skywalker, because he’s male to be inherently sexist. The character of Luke Skywalker is an avatar for the desires and hopes of both men and women. As such, it shouldn’t matter, if the character is portrayed by a man or a woman. Lucas wasn’t trying to cater to a specific gender group when he created the character. Consequently, Luke could have been a girl, and the story would have played out in exactly the same way. The only time the gender of a character matters, is when that character, has specific traits, that are gender specific, or if you want to specifically relate to a specific gender group. In all other cases casting should be driven by having equal representation of men and women, not by the sexist notion, that men can only relate to men, and women only relate to women.
Honestly Dre, and I’m not being deliberately evasive here, I wasn’t thinking that deeply about what I was saying. Of course girls can relate to Luke Skywalker (there are angry female Youtubers doing just that as they admonish the Kennedy/RJ version of Luke) but I was talking in a basic cosplay sense of it ie now there’s a ‘girl’ Luke that gives little girls the option of dressing up as (and admiring at whatever level) a female Star Wars hero in the Skywalker mold.
I wasn’t criticizing you. I get where you’re coming from. I simply was putting your comments in the context of what Kathleen Kennedy said on the matter earlier. 😃
With regards to Rey, whatever fanboy misgivings I may personally have about the writing, I do think its great that Kathleen K. and co. have given young girls their own Luke Skywalker to look up to and dress up as.
I’m in two minds about this, because to me it feels like putting the cart before the horse. I agree with the idea that these franchises could use a lot more female protagonists and antagonists, and that gender should not be a determining factor in casting a character in general. As such on average there should be about an equal number of male/female protagonists, and antagonists. However, I consider the statement, that young girls cannot relate to or identify with Luke Skywalker, because he’s male to be inherently sexist. The character of Luke Skywalker is an avatar for the desires and hopes of both men and women. As such, it shouldn’t matter, if the character is portrayed by a man or a woman. Lucas wasn’t trying to cater to a specific gender group when he created the character. Consequently, Luke could have been a girl, and the story would have played out in exactly the same way. The only time the gender of a character matters, is when that character, has specific traits, that are gender specific, or if you want to specifically relate to a specific gender group. In all other cases casting should be driven by having equal representation of men and women, not by the sexist notion, that men can only relate to men, and women only relate to women.
DrDre said:
How about a third option, where you go with an unfamiliar plot, and just create an original story not driven by either satisfying or subverting expectations. Both your options rely heavily on what the audience knows, and in order to subvert expectations you still have to first follow the familiar trajectory. Consequently, the movie still feels very familiar, despite the barrage of twists.My two options were for if they began with the “familiar scenarios”, which they did in TFA. Once they did that, then it seems like those two options were really the only ways they could have gone.
But yeah, I like the idea of just starting with a new scenario altogether. No empire vs. rebels. No family member that has turned to the dark side. No old Jedi mentor on a remote planet. And so on. With the old ideas, the “subversion” feels like driving down a familiar road and making a left instead of the usual right. With new ideas, it’s like driving into a different town altogether where we have no idea what paths lie ahead; I would’ve liked that more, if executed well.
I agree, that TFA didn’t make it easy for RJ to come up with something original, but I also believe there were other options available, that would have resulted in a far more original story for TLJ.
For one both the New Republic, and the FO suffered a huge blow, and should have been severely weakened by TFA’s events. There’s absolutely no reason why we should arrive at the Empire vs rebels scenario again. In stead we could have had two factions struggling to survive in a level playing field.
Rey’s sudden Force powers have huge implications for the Star Wars universe with the Force balancing the scales in Luke’s absense. This could have been explored along with questions like “Is the Force sentient?”. Snoke could have played a part in this, since his sudden rise/awakening could have followed from the Sith’s destruction, rather than be incidental. In stead it’s glossed over, and Luke acts like it was always like this (powerful light, powerful darkness), when it wasn’t.
The Knights of Ren in TFA appeared to represent a clear break from the Sith’s rule of two, where Rey might actually have to square off against a dozen Force users, yet TLJ simply reverts back to the Sith master/apprentice dynamic.
So, in my view TLJ closed a lot of doors opened by TFA to more original story avenues in order to be clever with twists. While this kept the audience on their toes, it still resulted in a highly derivative narrative, where gimmicks are used to keep it interesting.
The audience may not have had as many expectations if there weren’t a lot of familiar scenarios. So when there’s a story with a lot of familiar elements, then the two options are to either go with the familiar plot and turn it into a rehash or try to subvert audience expectations but risk turning it into an unsatisfying story.
How about a third option, where you go with an unfamiliar plot, and just create an original story not driven by either satisfying or subverting expectations. Both your options rely heavily on what the audience knows, and in order to subvert expectations you still have to first follow the familiar trajectory. Consequently, the movie still feels very familiar, despite the barrage of twists.
I’m in the process of downloading the final version for a last minute check. So, a release is imminent. 😃
Stotchy and I are examining the possibility of doing a scene by scene regrade of the TESB bluray. Here’s a preliminary result for the scene where Vader is reintroduced:
Bluray:
Bluray regraded:
Comparison:
http://www.framecompare.com/image-compare/screenshotcomparison/F02JNNNU
My answer: no. Why? For me, most of the Disney era of films have been consistently above average quality in terms of writing, directing, and visuals when compared to most blockbusters. In this way they distuinguish themselves from the prequel era, which I would characterize as ranging from the stunningly creative to the absolutely abysmal (often in a single film). However, in my view most of what the Disney era has produced has been extremely derivative, and self-referential, particulary when it comes to the OT. Whether it is through rehashing plot threads from the OT era, or by using OT plot threads to subvert expectations (a quality I’ve since come to consider highly overrated), or by inserting copious amounts of fan service, the OT casts an enormous shadow over the Disney era as a whole, and its dna can be found in almost every element making up the new canon. For those that say Star Wars is better than ever, I would say it’s pretty easy to stand on the shoulders of the OT giant, and believe yourself to be tall. It’s much more difficult to be considered tall standing on your own two feet. The prequel era may be severely flawed in its execution, but it still tried to take Star Wars in new directions both in terms of its story and its visuals. While it certainly certainly didn’t reach the heights of the OT, at least it reached whatever heights it may have achieved in certain areas by mostly standing on its own two feet. When I judge the Disney era of Star Wars not including what it derives from the OT, but by what it adds to the Star Wars mythos on its own, its contributions are pretty small and insignificant to me. Until the powers that be develop a creative vision for the franchise’s future, that is not based on continually looking backwards, I will consider the Disney era the weakest thusfar.
I was speaking more towards the people who think the human body blows up like a water balloon in space.
In a movie universe where spaceships and explosions can be heard in a vacuum, and often defy physics, giant slugs live inside an apparently airless asteroid, people with magical powers formally fight with improbable laser swords when a blaster would end things quicker, (see Obi-Wan vs. Grevious) and overgrown teddy bears kicked Imperial ass, Leia in space was the one bridge too far? I give up.
It wasn’t the improbability of Leia flying—we all know that films rely on suspending disbelief, and it was required many times in the OT, but it was more the TONE that struck me as so odd. The tone of the flying Leia scene was totally off, totally un-Star Wars-like, and I think that’s why so many people were like “WTF”?!
I’ve heard a lot of complaints about this scene, but never this. I’m honestly curious why you think so, in my mind tonally it’s one of the scenes that feels the most like classic Star Wars.
I feel the scene is just looks weird. From her frozen face to the way she suddenly opens her eyes, to her expression, to the way she sort of flies back to the ship with her hand stretched out in an extended shot. The scene was obviously meant to resonate with the audience, but if such a scene falls flat, it sort of feels like a comedian telling an unfunny joke with that awkward silence in the room.
I’ve heard this complaint before though. You’re not describing a tonal issue as far as I can tell.
You could call it a tonal issue, if you don’t know how you’re supposed to feel about the scene. I think it can sort of feel out of place to some.
But I think how you’re supposed to feel is clear, no? The issue seems to be whether it’s effective in achieving that or not. Which is an issue of execution, not tone.
I guess, you’re right.
