But It Was So Artistically Done: THE STAR WARS THREAD

[Bearon]

Gave your post a quick read Gibb. You're more reasonable then your fellows, I'll give you that. Maybe I'm being overly jaded, but it's hard not to associate most of the things we're seeing in modern Star Wars with the modern day feminist movement especially when their characters share traits and are made to express ideas and carry out actions that are so prominent with said movement. Personally, I think you're either being naive or overly optimistic when it comes to how our modern day media is being used to as a political platform to influence opinion and instigate social change.

As with galactic, I'll respond to the rest of your post in a bit as my grandparent's are visiting.

[Gibberan]

Gave your post a quick read Gibb. You're more reasonable then your fellows, I'll give you that. Maybe I'm being overly jaded, but it's hard not to associate most of the things we're seeing in modern Star Wars with the modern day feminist movement especially when their characters share traits and are made to express ideas and carry out actions that are so prominent with said movement. Personally, I think you're either being naive or overly optimistic when it comes to how our modern day media is being used to as a political platform to influence opinion and instigate social change.

That's fair; though I disagree with your assessment, I suppose its a matter of personal opinion at this point.

[Bearon]

How exactly is Leia pushed around?

I'm not sure how a female character being tortured is indicative of painting them a "weak" when 1. Male characters were also tortured and 2. The female character who was tortured never broke.

A damsel in distress? You mean being held as a prisoner like her own father was in TFU? Sorry, but anybody arguing that a character being imprisoned and unable to escape from their circumstances makes them weak is simply perpetuating the damsel in distress stereotype. Leia showed herself to be just as if not more effective then her rescuers once they freed her from her cell.

Yeah, it's not like said slavery was depicted as vile with Leia ultimately killing the being that enslaved her with noting but a chain and her bare-hands. Oh wait...

Sorry, but that's not how reality works. You can't separate what goes on in fiction with what's happening in real life. One influences the other. Even if the events depicted in previous SW films were attempting to place men over women ( which they weren't ) it wouldn't be right for TLJ to do the same. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Oscar Isaac is Guatemalan/Cuban. He's mixed with Latin ancestry so he likely meets SJW standards.

As a prisoner? As Jaba’s slave? What the hell? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

When did I say it painted a picture of her being weak? Do you read what you respond to?

“Calling out tropes makes you the real trope writer.” Uh huh... A female character being in distress like that to be rescued by male characters is a pretty basic example of that.

It was so wrong of any of us to assume you were a rational actor. Spouting bigotry like it’s a point being made. Straight up saying that people would only arrive at a different conclusion than you if they’re far left or some other buzzword. “Ironic” shitpost meltdowns at the lightest of criticisms. We’ve been dealing with a markov chain modeled after one dimensional Star Wars/Incel stereotypes.

You mean like Luke and Han were Vader's prisoner? Or how Jabba made R2D2 and C3PO his slaves? Yeah... If that's how you define being "pushed around" then that's not exactly a unique occurrence to a SW character from the OT.

Then what the hell are you trying to say?

I'm saying that accusing Leia of being a "damsel in distress" in order to make some vague point about how the OT treated its female characters when her male counterparts were put into the exact same position and, in Han's case, were actually more helpless upon being freed makes it a toothless argument.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't understand a word of what you said at the end there. Given the rest of your response, I'll assume it was irrelevant schlock predicated on false outrage.

[New haven america]

Should I watch the Clone Wars again?

Yes.

[Gibberan]

Should I watch the Clone Wars again?

Yes.

Tbh it was a silly question.

[Bearon]

1. They would if they cared more about profit then their agenda ( which they do ).

I'm saying that in conjunction with their other casting choices and their portrayal of these characters it's hard not to be suspicious of their motivations.

I don't think Jyn was a Mary Sue but I'm not sure what glaring flaws in her character you're referring to.

2. There's a difference between a tyrannical/genocidal galactic government that is oppressing the freedom of beings of every species, color and gender for the sole reason that it's ruler wants to create a galaxy of hate to further tilt the balance of the Force to the Darkside and... female characters self righteously ordering or physically impeding a male character that is justified in their concerns or actions. If you want to ignore those differences, be my guest.

3. BECAUSE LUKE HAS ACTUALLY HAD TRAINING. Even then I think it'd be stupid since other Force user's have been in similar situations ( even in new canon ) and were unable to accomplish a similar feat.

Regardless, people wouldn't think it was meant as "male empowerment" because there isn't a push in society by males for male characters to be represented as competent even when it doesn't make any sense for them to be while the same can't be said of women.

4. You're right, I should've clarified. The SJW's aren't just about race but ethnicity as well. Isaac probably gets a pass from them for his Latin ancestry.

I'm referring to things like your attempt to compare a tyrannical government oppressing people of all creeds with women specifically putting men in their place because "they know best" in a time when our society is split down the middle by extremists that want to make divisive ideas like those reality ( and no, I'm not just referring to far left ideologues here ).

1. You are basically saying that regardless of what Disney actually does or its context in the terms of both Disney movies and Star Wars movies in general, their intentions can either be chalked up to "profit" or "SJW agenda". This is a false dilemma in simplest terms. You can't handwave the argument against the existence of some liberal narrative just by pointing out they are (logically) looking after their own financial interests. You can't have it both ways: either Disney is producing its Star Wars movies with a concerted political stance or it isn't. The only people politicizing their casting choices and portrayals are fanboys. As an opponent of affirmative action in RL, I don't see the casting of minorities as affirmative action at all, because affirmative action is giving preference to one historically-wronged group over another; even if you don't like their performances there is nothing to suggest this cast won their roles because of racial or cultural preference instead of just being the better choices as actors for the story.

Jyn Erso has serious flaws in her character brought about by her developmental issues with her father, namely a bitter cynicism and overall lack of trust that she overcomes at the end of the movie. While I suppose this is not exactly what one would call a glaring flaw, her entire arc is essentially coming to terms with the disappearance and death of her father and learning to trust her comrades. That's what I pulled from it, at least.

2. I agree, yes there is a significant difference over how the protagonists and antagonists are treated and should be treated, particularly in movies such as these which make the difference between good and evil nearly black and white (or red and blue, if you prefer). My point, however, was that the treatment of the characters shouldn't matter based on their genders if it serves or makes sense in terms of the story. This goes back to the discussion over whether Poe was justified in blatantly disobeying orders from his superior and, through his good intentions, killing a good portion of the Resistance starfighter corps in the process. You seem to not feel this way, but I felt Leia and Holdo were both justified in their treatment of Poe Dameron. Reprimanding him for an error that was understandable to the audience and yet cost dozens of lives is not the same as belittling him with the implication that they are particularly doing so because of his sex.

3. Again, what I'm seeing is your complaint boiling down to bad writing. There is nothing specific about this scene to suggest that it is remotely about female empowerment. The point of the scene wasn't to suggest that Leia can do this because she is a woman, it was to suggest that she is a badass Force user; this is a suggestion that is poorly developed, but is not inherently political in any sense.

4. Just because SJWs like the fact that there is someone with Latin ancestry featured prominently in the movie doesn't mean it is inherently wrong. What I'm saying is his casting points to the fact that Disney is not intent on casting minorities at the expense of straight white male actors; if they were, they would have cast someone that is actually ethnically a minority rather than someone who merely "gets a pass" from SJWs.

1. I'm saying that I believe Disney puts profit first and the political agenda second. I believe that when you take the aggregate live action SW productions made after the Disney buyout, look at WHO they've cast and HOW they've written and portrayed the characters those actors have played, it is indicative that those actors were chosen on the merits of their race and ethnicity. Especially if you look at pool of actors that exists for them to draw on. It's too much of a coincidence for it to be otherwise imo.

And that's part of the point I made earlier. Any major issues with the character come about from events that were outside of their control. I don't think it's unreasonable for her to be cynical/mistrustful based on the life she's lead up to that point.

2. I know that's what you're saying but honestly I disagree with that. As I mentioned in the next section, even if something makes sense in context of the scene or the movie, that doesn't mean it's not being influenced by stuff irl. The scenes and even the movie might not have played out the way it did if those irl influencing factors didn't exist. And the way those scenes/movies play out DO have an impact on society as a whole. I don't think their actions in universe are motivated by Poe being a male but I think the way those scenes played out are influenced by that fact. Holdo refusing to share the plan with him was just stupidity that they handwaved to get their scene with a woman sacrificing herself to fix the mistakes caused by a man who questioned her. Because women are generous like that.

3. I agree that not taking into account broader society, the scene itself wouldn't be indicative of a social agenda. Given how feminists complain about how women are portrayed in media nowadays though, I can't help but think the scene was motivated to show that Leia can use the Force just as well as the MALE characters especially when the other aspects of the movie DO support there being one.

4. Why? If it's not a white male actor I honestly don't think they care about the casting as long as they get their token female and non white male in somewhere.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

-Oh, noes, these majority male films (majority, to the point of Smurfetting in R1) haz an icky lady-person in teh lead!!1! That means that a third of Star Wars films have a female lead, which is stupid, because we all know women don't make up anywhere near a third of the population.

-The complaint about Holdo is that a common character archetype (hardass mentor, effectively, who acts as a catalyst for protagonist's growth) is a woman. If you see a woman in a position of authority and immediately think someone's being pandered to...I can't help you. The complaint about Rose is...I guess that women are allowed to do anything? Since you don't like women being the leads (who have character arcs) and you don't like women influencing lead males' arcs. Unless you're just angry about that bit where she zaps Finn? Then what's the complaint? That women are allowed to be righteously angry with men sometimes?

-God forbid we show Anakin Skywalker's daughter using the Force. Doesn't she know doing things is for men?

-This is an incredibly specific complaint. It's not that there aren't white people among the good living. It's not that there aren't any men. It's that there aren't any white, good, living men by the end of the second film in the trilogy. Do you not see how fucking moronic that is? I mean, there are no black women or Asian men alive and good at the end (or in the film at all). Does that mean the film is simultaneously pandering to SJWs and racists? (And this is all assuming Oscar Isaac doesn't consider himself white, cuz the Americas are weird)

Seriously, if they're "pandering" to "SJWs" now (with these majority white and majority male and plurality white-male films), what was George Lucas doing to "misogynists and racists" with the OT and PT? Sucking their tiny flaccid cocks?

-Sorry, but affirmative action is not the answer to women not being represented equally in media. People who want to see whatever group their associated with portrayed in media MAKING that media is.

-The complaint I made wasn't about the characterization ( though I have issues with that too ), my complaint is that throughout the entire movie any interaction between men and women is the women scolding a male character for their behavior and then attempting to correct it. It's hard not to read into that given, as I mentioned, they've made every new female character strong and powerful without any inherent character flaws outside of stuff like being overly loyal or being influenced by events that are outside of their own control. Thanks for proving my point by strawmanning me at the end their though.

-Don't the writers know that having a character accomplish feats that even trained Jedi are unable to is bad writing? :/

-You're right, I should have clarified. I'm not saying that the casting of the movie alone implies this. I'm saying that the casting of every live action production made by Disney up to date seems to have made it its' job to meet some sort of diversity quota. There hasn't been a single new white male character in the main cast introduced into the films despite Hollywood being majority white male. A film that doesn't depend on their characters being a certain race, gender or ethnicity ( something like Star Wars ) is generally going to be representative of the pool of actors that they have to draw from unless they're attempting to meet some sort of diversity quota. You can see how the casting then would make one suspicious in this regard especially when you consider how these characters are being portrayed. I feel like Diego Luna is the only actor who's actually gotten to play a real character in Canon honestly.

>affirmative action
>33% of the cast is female

-Anyway, those people do seem to be making that media. You're complaining about it.

-I certainly didn't intend to straw man you (hence the question marks; I'm not actually sure what your position is, so I suggested several possibilities). Did you watch Rey's bits of the film? You know, the parts where she and Luke argued back and forth (it was very far from one-sided scolding). Or the numerous scenes with Kylo and Rey, or Snoke and Rey, or Honestly, Rose had a go at Finn when he was deserting, and that was really it. I suspect that what you mean by "all the interactions between men and women" is actually "most of the interactions between Poe and Holdo/Leia." So really you're just annoyed at Poe's character arc?

-Here I think you've hit on what I think is one of the big problems with the Star Wars fandom. This obsession with "feats" and trying to work out what a person can do with the Force, assigning power levels, as if Star Wars is a Brandon Sanderson novel. But the Force isn't fucking Allomancy; it's mysterious and weird and sometimes people do amazing stuff with little to no training (like blow up a Death Star or podrace with their Jedi reflexes), and sometimes they can barely pull a lightsaber, and sometimes they jump really high, and sometimes they don't jump all that high and get all their limbs cut off. Thus you get hung up on people doing a thing you reckon they shouldn't be able to when it really doesn't matter at all. Neither plot nor character are undermined by Leia using the Force/Kylo freezing blaster bolts/Rey using a mind trick/Luke doing a projection. And the only worldbuilding that's undermined is the obsessive but ultimately futile power-rankings of the fans.

-Hollywood is majority white male? Did all the women get killed in some horrible restroom disaster? Anyway, why should a film's cast reflect the pool of actors? Shouldn't it reflect the demographics of the setting? You probably wouldn't make a film set in Rwanda majority white. Not that TLJ even does this*: again, 66% of the major characters, by my count, are male, and most the characters are white. So if you want to be "suspicious", be suspicious of the over-abundance of men.

P.S. Graceling is bad and you should feel bad for liking it.

*Assuming the Star Wars Galaxy's demographics are broadly similar to Earth's

[Bearon]

P.S. Graceling is bad and you should feel bad for liking it.

I'm sorry you can't enjoy good media son, I have 99 problems but you're lack of taste ain't one.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Discount Jessica Jones ain't good media.

[The first Galactic Republic]

As a prisoner? As Jaba’s slave? What the hell? Are you being obtuse on purpose?

When did I say it painted a picture of her being weak? Do you read what you respond to?

“Calling out tropes makes you the real trope writer.” Uh huh... A female character being in distress like that to be rescued by male characters is a pretty basic example of that.

It was so wrong of any of us to assume you were a rational actor. Spouting bigotry like it’s a point being made. Straight up saying that people would only arrive at a different conclusion than you if they’re far left or some other buzzword. “Ironic” shitpost meltdowns at the lightest of criticisms. We’ve been dealing with a markov chain modeled after one dimensional Star Wars/Incel stereotypes.

You mean like Luke and Han were Vader's prisoner? Or how Jabba made R2D2 and C3PO his slaves? Yeah... If that's how you define being "pushed around" then that's not exactly a unique occurrence to a SW character from the OT.

Then what the hell are you trying to say?

I'm saying that accusing Leia of being a "damsel in distress" in order to make some vague point about how the OT treated its female characters when her male counterparts were put into the exact same position and, in Han's case, were actually more helpless upon being freed makes it a toothless argument.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't understand a word of what you said at the end there. Given the rest of your response, I'll assume it was irrelevant schlock predicated on false outrage.

Look the vast majority of this was started by you refuting points I never made. Quoting me on things never said. How do I talk to you if you’ll literally make up things? I’m not going to respond to any point you try to make if it’s completely irrelevant to what I say. It’s clear that you try to lop anyone who takes issue with your behavior into groups, so maybe you confuse who said what, but try to respond to what I write if you respond to me.

Your argument is predicated on the belief that women doing what they do in TLJ is a political statement. What makes this so? Was the way men and women interacted in any other Star Wars movie political? If not, what makes it political here?

Why do you think a multi billion dollar corporation is pursuing a feminist agenda? I really don’t think you understand corporations at all.

[Audioslavia]

Wow, you're just about one of the supidest people I've ever met.

The beautiful irony of that spelling is enough for me to downgrade what could have been a short ban (due to a very recent warning on this account) to merely a *** warning for flaming ***. Don't attack posters. Attack the posts.

[Bearon]

Wow, you're just about one of the supidest people I've ever met.

The beautiful irony of that spelling is enough for me to downgrade what could have been a short ban (due to a very recent warning on this account) to merely a *** warning for flaming ***. Don't attack posters. Attack the posts.

Yes, because I'm sure making a small grammatical error when 3 different people are posting wall o'texts for me to respond to constitutes stupidity. Oh wait, that'd be assuming that making said grammatical mistake was ironic.

[Bearon]

In case it's taking you a while to figure out, I called you stupid.

[Audioslavia]

In case it's taking you a while to figure out, I called you stupid.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh shots fired from Bearon!

The 'don't mod your own bullshit' rule prevents me from hitting you with a hammer. Stand by

[NERVUN]

In case it's taking you a while to figure out, I called you stupid.

Take three days off. If you're here to cause trouble again, we can go back to hanging the sword above your head.
*** Three day ban for flaming/failure to follow Moderator instructions ***

[Bearon]

In case it's taking you a while to figure out, I called you stupid.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh shots fired from Bearon!

The 'don't mod your own bullshit' rule prevents me from hitting you with a hammer. Stand by

[Alekseandrea]

PR normally stands for public relations, so I believe my misinterpretation is a normal occurrence.


And well, while I understand that there are some lines some people won’t cross, I believe they should consider the lives that crossing the line might save.

Here they demonstrate that they believe their principles are more important than the risk to the lives of their fellow rebels.
Actions speak louder than words after all.

they're led by a Jedi and his Padawan, and their second in command literally escaped a rebel leader for the exact reason that "they went too far", and their tech expert is an angsty teen... I don't think any of them, apart from maybe Zeb (and Chopper. definitely Chopper) would even consider using a weapon of high practicality that would make them uncomfortable. Hell, even Zeb wouldn't do that. He literally lost his planet to that reasoning "it might be fugly but it's fucking practical and we have no choice, let's use it", and even then the dude destroyed the very weapons he lost his family to instead of using them to fight the Empire.

Well, they did use the ion disruptors. (It were ion disruptors, no?) Only for their intended use.
And then they destroyed them all.

So apparently it’s ok to use the weapon once and then ditch it so the writers don’t have to worry about it.

If you can stomach to use it once, why not use it again?

In the ion disruptors case, they would have given the rebels a good weapon to deal with vehicles. They don’t need to use it on people.
And they still could have destroyed what they didn’t take.

The “duchess’s” case is similar.
Apparently it’s good enough to be used to get out of a sticky situation, but it’s not good for repeated use.

It’s rather odd that the principles are easily ditched in sticky situations, while being dogmatically held on to as soon the situation is over.

[Pilarcraft]

they're led by a Jedi and his Padawan, and their second in command literally escaped a rebel leader for the exact reason that "they went too far", and their tech expert is an angsty teen... I don't think any of them, apart from maybe Zeb (and Chopper. definitely Chopper) would even consider using a weapon of high practicality that would make them uncomfortable. Hell, even Zeb wouldn't do that. He literally lost his planet to that reasoning "it might be fugly but it's fucking practical and we have no choice, let's use it", and even then the dude destroyed the very weapons he lost his family to instead of using them to fight the Empire.

Well, they did use the ion disruptors. (It were ion disruptors, no?) Only for their intended use.
And then they destroyed them all.

So apparently it’s ok to use the weapon once and then ditch it so the writers don’t have to worry about it.

If you can stomach to use it once, why not use it again?

In the ion disruptors case, they would have given the rebels a good weapon to deal with vehicles. They don’t need to use it on people.
And they still could have destroyed what they didn’t take.

The “duchess’s” case is similar.
Apparently it’s good enough to be used to get out of a sticky situation, but it’s not good for repeated use.

It’s rather odd that the principles are easily ditched in sticky situations, while being dogmatically held on to as soon the situation is over.

They're led by, and extensively follow the rhetoric of, the Jedi.
We're talking about the same group of people who, after eons of their "peace good war bad we're negotiators" rhetoric literally accepted to lead 500,000 10 year old slaves and fight a bunch of secessionist robots, just because someone told them to.

[Alekseandrea]

In case it's taking you a while to figure out, I called you stupid.

...

You can’t resist digging yourself deeper can you?

[Alekseandrea]

Well, they did use the ion disruptors. (It were ion disruptors, no?) Only for their intended use.
And then they destroyed them all.

So apparently it’s ok to use the weapon once and then ditch it so the writers don’t have to worry about it.

If you can stomach to use it once, why not use it again?

In the ion disruptors case, they would have given the rebels a good weapon to deal with vehicles. They don’t need to use it on people.
And they still could have destroyed what they didn’t take.

The “duchess’s” case is similar.
Apparently it’s good enough to be used to get out of a sticky situation, but it’s not good for repeated use.

It’s rather odd that the principles are easily ditched in sticky situations, while being dogmatically held on to as soon the situation is over.

They're led by, and extensively follow the rhetoric of, the Jedi.
We're talking about the same group of people who, after eons of their "peace good war bad we're negotiators" rhetoric literally accepted to lead 500,000 10 year old slaves and fight a bunch of secessionist robots, just because someone told them to.

I think it’s more a case of the writers introducing something and then realising the potential applications.

But, well, you have a point.

[Pilarcraft]

They're led by, and extensively follow the rhetoric of, the Jedi.
We're talking about the same group of people who, after eons of their "peace good war bad we're negotiators" rhetoric literally accepted to lead 500,000 10 year old slaves and fight a bunch of secessionist robots, just because someone told them to.

I think it’s more a case of the writers introducing something and then realising the potential applications.

But, well, you have a point.

oh, the IRL reason is definitely the whole writers realizing the applications as they go on thing, I was talking about the In Story reason XD

[Alvecia]

Well, they did use the ion disruptors. (It were ion disruptors, no?) Only for their intended use.
And then they destroyed them all.

So apparently it’s ok to use the weapon once and then ditch it so the writers don’t have to worry about it.

If you can stomach to use it once, why not use it again?

In the ion disruptors case, they would have given the rebels a good weapon to deal with vehicles. They don’t need to use it on people.
And they still could have destroyed what they didn’t take.

The “duchess’s” case is similar.
Apparently it’s good enough to be used to get out of a sticky situation, but it’s not good for repeated use.

It’s rather odd that the principles are easily ditched in sticky situations, while being dogmatically held on to as soon the situation is over.

They're led by, and extensively follow the rhetoric of, the Jedi.
We're talking about the same group of people who, after eons of their "peace good war bad we're negotiators" rhetoric literally accepted to lead 500,000 10 year old slaves and fight a bunch of secessionist robots, just because someone told them to.

I suppose that leads in to their reason for falling. Their arrogance is arguably one of the major reasons that Palpatine could get away with what he did, makes sense that an order so steeped in arrogance thought they could play Generals and still maintain the image of "peacekeepers".

Interestingly in Yoda's appearance in Rebels, he talks to Ezra about how he regrets fighting the war in the first place. Which was a cool little moment.

[Bla Dood]

My ranking of the Star Wars films

1. Empire Strikes Back
2. A New Hope
3. The Force Awakens
4. The Last Jedi
5. Revenge of the Sith
6. Return of the Jedi
7. The Phantom Menace
8. Attack of the Clones

[Anywhere Else But Here]

I do think my opinion of TLJ will decline with subsequent viewings, but atm, mine is:

1. TLJ
2. ESB
3. ANH
4. TFA
5. RotJ
6. Rogue One
7. RotS
8. AotC
9. TPM

[Pax Nerdvana]

I can't decide which OT movie is my favorite. I love them all equally.