About TLJ Criticisms.

Prev1
Tman
256 posts Member
There is a story going about online about an artist drawing a poster poking fun at the fan powered TLJ remake. Now I have no problem with either the poster or the remake fundamentally, but something in the post made me uneasy.

In the poster, off to the side is a drawing of Rey cooking. The problem I have with that is that the artist clearly thinks that all criticisms about the movie are rooted in social belief. That is just not the case.

I personally was ok with the movie, definitely not good but certainly not bad. There were flaws; such as the movie being way to long, shoehorned scenes at the Cantina, and the dialogue was flat; but none of my personal disappointments with the movie were socially provoked. I believe in gender equality (I’ll be the first to admit my younger sister is physically stronger than me). I want prejudice against people of other skin colors to be gone (it's not racism because we’re all part of the one race, the human race). But I did not care for the movie, and despite what I believe the artist believes, most of the fans trying to make this remake feel the same way.

Now, as per usual, the TL;DR:
Most anger at TLJ aren't due to social issues but instead story issues.
I am more powerful than the Chancellor- Anikan Skywalker and Tman

Replies

  • Nikoms565
    10808 posts Member
    Just to be clear, there is no real attempt to make a remake. The pledge website is a hoax, as no one actually has put up any money - just enter an amount and a made up email.

    It's a loud minority in the complaining echo chamber that is the internet/social media.
    In game name: Lucas Gregory - - - -"Whale blah grump poooop." - Ouchie

    In game guild: TNR Uprising
    I beat the REAL T7 Yoda (not the nerfed one) and did so before mods were there to help
    *This space left intentionally blank*
  • I get concerned with the media lumping the trolls and the fans together. It's like none of the "reputable" sources have any social media knowledge and they just consider all SW fans to be the ones harassing directors, cast etc..
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • Here's the thing, there are clearly.people who dislike this series of Star Wars movies because of diversity. It can be seen whenever somebody starts complaining about agendas and politics ruining the films. When you start trying to tell people this isn't a thing, or trying to minimize it, that is a problem regardless of how you feel about the movie.
  • Tman
    256 posts Member
    Here's the thing, there are clearly.people who dislike this series of Star Wars movies because of diversity. It can be seen whenever somebody starts complaining about agendas and politics ruining the films. When you start trying to tell people this isn't a thing, or trying to minimize it, that is a problem regardless of how you feel about the movie.

    I never said there wasn't. I just don't appreciate that people with sound arguments with the movie are considered to be against diversity and such.
    I get concerned with the media lumping the trolls and the fans together. It's like none of the "reputable" sources have any social media knowledge and they just consider all SW fans to be the ones harassing directors, cast etc..

    That should have been my TL;DR. Well said.
    Nikoms565 wrote: »
    Just to be clear, there is no real attempt to make a remake. The pledge website is a hoax, as no one actually has put up any money - just enter an amount and a made up email.

    It's a loud minority in the complaining echo chamber that is the internet/social media.

    I don't really care if it's real or not, I just felt uneasy about the poster and what the poster seemed to convey for me.
    I am more powerful than the Chancellor- Anikan Skywalker and Tman
  • The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.
  • I really wish GL hadn't sold it. It should have stayed in the past as a fond memory.
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • BubbaFett
    1998 posts Member
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....
  • I appreciated what Steven Moffat (Doctor Who) said about bringing back past companions. "I'd love to bring "X" back but it must be integral to the story, I'm not just going to stick someone in to have them return". (or words to that effect) They were of various genders, etc.. but he wouldn't cave to social pressures. I liked how the story was paramount not fan requests. I can't say I agreed with all his choices, but I respected that one. We as fans know that we want, and we have our wishes, and hopes. And the Director/Writers have theirs. Sometimes they gel. Sometimes they don't. Passions run deep in the Star Wars Universe. But the venom being posted by some, makes me really wish Star Wars would just end and stay gone.
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    But even still, there’s a big difference between subtle social/political commentary such as that, and what we see in TLJ. There’s nothing subtle about it. Followed by the entire “this is the new Star Wars, like it or leave it” stance taken by the directors, actors, etc. it creates an issue that divides a lot of people for reasons that no other Star Wars films have done before. Sure, the prequels had people upset too, but it wasn’t about social justice issues — it was about acting, plot, and storytelling (hint, just like it still is today in TLJ).
  • Followed by the entire “this is the new Star Wars, like it or leave it”

    Only a Sith speaks in absolutes. Obi-Wan

    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • DatBoi
    3572 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    I’m glad studios are being proactive about diversity and putting effort into representation. Cause for too long, nobody has. Especially in a universe like star wars which is supposed to be a diverse, interesting universe.

    For me, it only becomes a problem when it interferes with writing and character development. In the new sw films, nearly everyone who isn’t a white male is portrayed without any character flaws and therefore no potential for an arc. They have plenty of charisma, but they aren’t interesting in the long term because they have no potential for growth.
  • DatBoi
    3572 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    Lmao, Star Wars has nothing to do with Vietnam. If anything it’s WW2 because the morality is so unambiguous and cause you know... stormtroopers.
  • DatBoi wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    Lmao, Star Wars has nothing to do with Vietnam. If anything it’s WW2 because the morality is so unambiguous and cause you know... stormtroopers.

    Except the part where George Lucas straight up said it was based on the Vietnam War.
  • ScrawnyKid88
    72 posts Member
    edited July 2018
    DatBoi wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    Lmao, Star Wars has nothing to do with Vietnam. If anything it’s WW2 because the morality is so unambiguous and cause you know... stormtroopers.

    Except the part where George Lucas straight up said it was based on the Vietnam War.

    The Battle of Endor is modeled after Vietnam. The Empire itself is clearly the ****'s (the name of the German's during WW2)
  • Clearly the Empire represents a tyrannical dictatorship, and to represent this, Lucas take a lot of influence from 1933-1945 Germany both in names and visual appearances. But the struggle between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire is in fact an allegory on the Vietnam War, as said by Lucas himself.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-05-18/features/0505180309_1_star-wars-sith-palpatine
  • Link:

    He talks about it here..
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • DatBoi
    3572 posts Member
    DatBoi wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    Lmao, Star Wars has nothing to do with Vietnam. If anything it’s WW2 because the morality is so unambiguous and cause you know... stormtroopers.

    Except the part where George Lucas straight up said it was based on the Vietnam War.
    I don’t care what he said. There is nothing even remotely related to Vietnam in SW.

  • DatBoi wrote: »
    DatBoi wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    The problem is that the people complaining about this movie for social reasons are 1) few and far between and 2) quite possibly not even real people. To use those extreme examples to then lump the entire Star Wars fan base together and label it as bigoted, mysoginistic, racist, etc. is just a lame straw man/ad hominem argument designed to write off the legitimate grievances with the movie.

    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....

    100% agree. Some people will disagree with the original Star Wars being free from it all, seeing as Lucas fashioned the struggle between the Rebellion and the Empire based on the Vietnam War.

    Lmao, Star Wars has nothing to do with Vietnam. If anything it’s WW2 because the morality is so unambiguous and cause you know... stormtroopers.

    Except the part where George Lucas straight up said it was based on the Vietnam War.
    I don’t care what he said. There is nothing even remotely related to Vietnam in SW.

    Cool.
  • Lucas isn't known for being consistent on reliable on this sort of thing. After so many years people should be more cautious about just taking his word for it.
  • YaeVizsla
    2543 posts Member
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....
    Free of political and social nonsense? Innocence?

    The OT was a series of war movies made in the seventies that came down on the side of the terrorists, appropriating World War II imagery to frame the Viet Cong as the French Revolution and the United States as the Third Reich.

    Episodes II and III were war movies made in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the war in the middle east in which a powerful overlord uses panic over an external threat that he secretly had a hand in to convince the public to willingly forfeit its rights so that he can amass personal power.

    If framing the United States as **** Germany, or framing 9/11 as the Reichstag burning are mild and innocent political statements in your eyes, but casting a white woman and a black man as your leads in a movie are strong political statements, then I suggest some serious self-reflection.

    The OT was wall-to-wall white men, and Legends was overwhelmingly white and male. Hell, it took us eleven movies to get one black woman with a name on the big screen. Acknowledging a problem exists and taking steps to address it is not pandering. It's actually putting in some effort to fix a problem instead of standing by and letting it continue, to turn the property into a more inclusive space.

    What's more, by saying these actors are just being used, you're implying that white men would have done better. Which actor do you think would have been better replaced with a white man? Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Oscar Isaac? Kelly Marie Tran? Laura Dern? Even if you don't like their characters, they all put in fantastic performances, and you wouldn't get better by replacing them with White Man.

    And no. Giving someone a paycheck to play a space wizard, an absurdly overqualified janitor, a fly boy, an engineer, and grown up space Luna Lovegood is not exploitation. That's literally hiring actors to do their jobs.

    The mindset that "white man" is a default, and deviation from "normal" is a political statement is, itself, deeply problematic.
  • YaeVizsla wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....
    Free of political and social nonsense? Innocence?

    The OT was a series of war movies made in the seventies that came down on the side of the terrorists, appropriating World War II imagery to frame the Viet Cong as the French Revolution and the United States as the Third Reich.

    Episodes II and III were war movies made in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the war in the middle east in which a powerful overlord uses panic over an external threat that he secretly had a hand in to convince the public to willingly forfeit its rights so that he can amass personal power.

    If framing the United States as **** Germany, or framing 9/11 as the Reichstag burning are mild and innocent political statements in your eyes, but casting a white woman and a black man as your leads in a movie are strong political statements, then I suggest some serious self-reflection.

    The OT was wall-to-wall white men, and Legends was overwhelmingly white and male. Hell, it took us eleven movies to get one black woman with a name on the big screen. Acknowledging a problem exists and taking steps to address it is not pandering. It's actually putting in some effort to fix a problem instead of standing by and letting it continue, to turn the property into a more inclusive space.

    What's more, by saying these actors are just being used, you're implying that white men would have done better. Which actor do you think would have been better replaced with a white man? Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Oscar Isaac? Kelly Marie Tran? Laura Dern? Even if you don't like their characters, they all put in fantastic performances, and you wouldn't get better by replacing them with White Man.

    And no. Giving someone a paycheck to play a space wizard, an absurdly overqualified janitor, a fly boy, an engineer, and grown up space Luna Lovegood is not exploitation. That's literally hiring actors to do their jobs.

    The mindset that "white man" is a default, and deviation from "normal" is a political statement is, itself, deeply problematic.

    The way you talk is like you dislike white men, and they cause for all the problems in society
  • BubbaFett
    1998 posts Member
    YaeVizsla wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....
    Free of political and social nonsense? Innocence?

    The OT was a series of war movies made in the seventies that came down on the side of the terrorists, appropriating World War II imagery to frame the Viet Cong as the French Revolution and the United States as the Third Reich.

    Episodes II and III were war movies made in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the war in the middle east in which a powerful overlord uses panic over an external threat that he secretly had a hand in to convince the public to willingly forfeit its rights so that he can amass personal power.

    If framing the United States as **** Germany, or framing 9/11 as the Reichstag burning are mild and innocent political statements in your eyes, but casting a white woman and a black man as your leads in a movie are strong political statements, then I suggest some serious self-reflection.

    The OT was wall-to-wall white men, and Legends was overwhelmingly white and male. Hell, it took us eleven movies to get one black woman with a name on the big screen. Acknowledging a problem exists and taking steps to address it is not pandering. It's actually putting in some effort to fix a problem instead of standing by and letting it continue, to turn the property into a more inclusive space.

    What's more, by saying these actors are just being used, you're implying that white men would have done better. Which actor do you think would have been better replaced with a white man? Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Oscar Isaac? Kelly Marie Tran? Laura Dern? Even if you don't like their characters, they all put in fantastic performances, and you wouldn't get better by replacing them with White Man.

    And no. Giving someone a paycheck to play a space wizard, an absurdly overqualified janitor, a fly boy, an engineer, and grown up space Luna Lovegood is not exploitation. That's literally hiring actors to do their jobs.

    The mindset that "white man" is a default, and deviation from "normal" is a political statement is, itself, deeply problematic.

    I'm not going to get into some weird political argument over an innocent movie with an SJW..... You are reading way too much into the movie and putting words in my mouth....

    I wasn't implying anything, some people (myself included), are capable of speaking their minds without some strange hidden agenda....

    For the record, the original star wars was based off a samurai movie, The main "heroes" in the movies included two droids, Yoda, Chewie, Lando and Leia..... Only Luke, Kenobi and Han were white males....

    For someone so offended by star wars, you sure are active on the forums....
  • BubbaFett
    1998 posts Member
    Also, only the empire was "wall to wall white men" and they weren't exactly portrayed in a good light..... If anything, diversity won in the OT......
  • YaeVizsla wrote: »
    BubbaFett wrote: »
    I will be honest, I dislike the diversity.... And the reason I dislike it is because I consider it to be racist and sexist....

    When you go out of your way to put characters in a film just because they are of varying race, sex, sexual orientation etc, it isn't "doing justice" to these races, genders and orientations, it's exploiting them to broaden your audience....

    The original star wars was free of all of this political and social nonsense.... It had an innocence to it that these new movies don't capture.....
    Free of political and social nonsense? Innocence?

    The OT was a series of war movies made in the seventies that came down on the side of the terrorists, appropriating World War II imagery to frame the Viet Cong as the French Revolution and the United States as the Third Reich.

    Episodes II and III were war movies made in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the war in the middle east in which a powerful overlord uses panic over an external threat that he secretly had a hand in to convince the public to willingly forfeit its rights so that he can amass personal power.

    If framing the United States as **** Germany, or framing 9/11 as the Reichstag burning are mild and innocent political statements in your eyes, but casting a white woman and a black man as your leads in a movie are strong political statements, then I suggest some serious self-reflection.

    The OT was wall-to-wall white men, and Legends was overwhelmingly white and male. Hell, it took us eleven movies to get one black woman with a name on the big screen. Acknowledging a problem exists and taking steps to address it is not pandering. It's actually putting in some effort to fix a problem instead of standing by and letting it continue, to turn the property into a more inclusive space.

    What's more, by saying these actors are just being used, you're implying that white men would have done better. Which actor do you think would have been better replaced with a white man? Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Oscar Isaac? Kelly Marie Tran? Laura Dern? Even if you don't like their characters, they all put in fantastic performances, and you wouldn't get better by replacing them with White Man.

    And no. Giving someone a paycheck to play a space wizard, an absurdly overqualified janitor, a fly boy, an engineer, and grown up space Luna Lovegood is not exploitation. That's literally hiring actors to do their jobs.

    The mindset that "white man" is a default, and deviation from "normal" is a political statement is, itself, deeply problematic.

    Good lord. Why do you even Star Wars? At least you went a light year past proving OP's point.
  • DatBoi
    3572 posts Member
    I like how everyone is ok with studying the “vast historical allegories” of a 40 year old sci fi B-movie, but when someone calls out the lack of diversity in them, that person is “reading into it too much” and “aren’t worth discussing with”.

    @YaeVizsla I fully support your post (except for the whole Vietnam thing, but I digress)
  • DatBoi wrote: »
    I like how everyone is ok with studying the “vast historical allegories” of a 40 year old sci fi B-movie, but when someone calls out the lack of diversity in them, that person is “reading into it too much” and “aren’t worth discussing with”.

    @YaeVizsla I fully support your post (except for the whole Vietnam thing, but I digress)

    But the discussion of the lack of diversity in a 40 year old Sci fi B-movie is totally cool.
  • DatBoi
    3572 posts Member
    DatBoi wrote: »
    I like how everyone is ok with studying the “vast historical allegories” of a 40 year old sci fi B-movie, but when someone calls out the lack of diversity in them, that person is “reading into it too much” and “aren’t worth discussing with”.

    @YaeVizsla I fully support your post (except for the whole Vietnam thing, but I digress)

    But the discussion of the lack of diversity in a 40 year old Sci fi B-movie is totally cool.

    Those who fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

    People like myself don’t dislike the OT for not being diverse. Of course they aren’t. But the topic gets raised to provide a higher standard for modern and future films.
  • Never have so few had so much to say about so many..
    Leader: Grey Area 51 - My Squads: https://swgoh.gg/p/716522998/
  • YaeVizsla wrote: »

    What's more, by saying these actors are just being used, you're implying that white men would have done better. Which actor do you think would have been better replaced with a white man? Daisey Ridley? John Boyega? Oscar Isaac? Kelly Marie Tran? Laura Dern? Even if you don't like their characters, they all put in fantastic performances, and you wouldn't get better by replacing them with White Man.

    The mindset that "white man" is a default, and deviation from "normal" is a political statement is, itself, deeply problematic.

    He’s not implying anything, you’re inferring that white men would do a better job. However, I haven’t seen this massive backlash screaming that we need more white men in Star Wars. Your failure in logic is equating criticism of Rey, Finn, Poe, Rose, and Holdo to criticism of the actors themselves. I think they are good actors, but great acting can’t make poorly written characters suddenly good characters. I don’t see anyone saying that the actors are bad, yet you listed the actors by name rather than the characters because you feel that this is an attack on them, and then you put their gender and race on a pedestal to demagogue to the rest of us why the movie and the poorly written characters are actually good and we are the bad ones for being intolerant.

    Replace every single actor you mentioned with a white male, and the characters are still lame, boring, characters. Anyone outside of this SJW agenda can see that that’s true. You could replace Daisy Ridley with a white male, and that doesn’t change the fact that Rey faces no adversity and has no meaningful struggle in the movie and just overcomes everything with ease. You could replace Rose with a white male, and it doesn’t change the fact that the character is pointless and only there to push an anti-war agenda on the audience. You can replace Holdo with a white male, and it doesn’t change the fact that the whole movie is spent in a mind numbingly boring chase where this character has a plan the entire time and doesn’t tell anyone.

    You also seem to coincidentally skip over how one of the biggest criticisms of TLJ is Luke Skywalker’s character, but since Mark Hamill is a white male and that doesn’t neatly fit your perceived notion of cultural intolerance, you leave it completely out of your narrative.

    But when you have all these bad characters that are overtly diverse, you aren’t being very subtle about the point you are trying to make. So all you get is a bad movie with lots of diversity, and we are supposed to like it because “look, diversity”.
  • BubbaFett
    1998 posts Member
    edited July 2018
    DatBoi wrote: »
    DatBoi wrote: »
    I like how everyone is ok with studying the “vast historical allegories” of a 40 year old sci fi B-movie, but when someone calls out the lack of diversity in them, that person is “reading into it too much” and “aren’t worth discussing with”.

    @YaeVizsla I fully support your post (except for the whole Vietnam thing, but I digress)

    But the discussion of the lack of diversity in a 40 year old Sci fi B-movie is totally cool.

    Those who fail to learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

    People like myself don’t dislike the OT for not being diverse. Of course they aren’t. But the topic gets raised to provide a higher standard for modern and future films.

    Only IMOP the standard has been lowered.... To not be racist, or intolerant we should be looking past race, gender, orientation etc.... The act of casting a movie to ensure "diversity" doesn't do that..... And going out of your way to not have a single white male hero (aside from emo Luke), takes it too far....
This discussion has been closed.