Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Plus if Disney is really going to make this how the force works then how do you explain all of the previous training scenes in canon Star Wars?

Easy. Simply highlight that Rey is an exceptional individual with (for whatever reason) a uniquely strong connection to the Force that guides her more than it has anyone else. Previous (and indeed future) generations don't have that and thus still require at least some degree of training. It's clear Rey is no 'ordinary' Force user, so the rules that apply to others may not need to apply to her and vice versa.

I can definitely see why people wouldn't like that, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of Star Wars just because one person contravenes the 'rules' such as they are.

Not to mention that assuming there's a time jump to IX, she can receive plenty of additional training from the ghosts. The bigger question at that point is how Kylo also improves, unless he's self-teaching which is what so many people are objecting to Rey doing.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Plus if Disney is really going to make this how the force works then how do you explain all of the previous training scenes in canon Star Wars?

Easy. Simply highlight that Rey is an exceptional individual with (for whatever reason) a uniquely strong connection to the Force that guides her more than it has anyone else. Previous (and indeed future) generations don't have that and thus still require at least some degree of training. It's clear Rey is no 'ordinary' Force user, so the rules that apply to others may not need to apply to her and vice versa.

I can definitely see why people wouldn't like that, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of Star Wars just because one person contravenes the 'rules' such as they are.

Not to mention that assuming there's a time jump to IX, she can receive plenty of additional training from the ghosts. The bigger question at that point is how Kylo also improves, unless he's self-teaching which is what so many people are objecting to Rey doing.

You can also use the very canon explanation that thus far we have only really seen prequel era Jedi, who are very restrained. Even in the OT, Luke is being trained by Yoda, who still holds to the older teachings for the most part.
Anakin most likely could have shown us very powerful examples of what the Force could do, but because he had to be a "good Jedi" he couldn't exercise these powers and would have been unfamiliar with them even after renouncing the Jedi. Once he became Vader, his connection to the Force was diminished due to not having as much organic tissue to connect with.
And Palpatine was too saturated with the Dark side by the time we see his power in RotJ.

So yeah, plenty of potential canon reasons why a nobody with a strong Force connection can do things unseen in the films thus far.

-

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


On the other hand, more than one poster in this very thread have used the term SJW unironically, so yeah. I'm not in any way saying there aren't many justifiable complaints that can be lobbed at this movie (many good ones posted here), but if the diversity of the cast is one, then I tend to just ignore the rest of the complaints by that person.

Could you please point out a post as an example.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


On the other hand, more than one poster in this very thread have used the term SJW unironically, so yeah. I'm not in any way saying there aren't many justifiable complaints that can be lobbed at this movie (many good ones posted here), but if the diversity of the cast is one, then I tend to just ignore the rest of the complaints by that person.

Could you please point out a post as an example.

I don't recall is my post included the letters "S", "J", and "W" specifically, but I did accuse critics of rating the movie higher due to political bias.

Also, as for the SJW thing... judging by the fact that a lot of reviews I've read cited "Diversity" or "Strong Female Characters", linking SJW's to this movie's generally positive critical reception might not just be the usual "crazy guy on the internet" reaction. I rather suspect that no-one wanting to badmouth Carrie Fischer's last movie may also play a role,

Man, that was back on page 28. Good Times.

 Galef wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Plus if Disney is really going to make this how the force works then how do you explain all of the previous training scenes in canon Star Wars?

Easy. Simply highlight that Rey is an exceptional individual with (for whatever reason) a uniquely strong connection to the Force that guides her more than it has anyone else. Previous (and indeed future) generations don't have that and thus still require at least some degree of training. It's clear Rey is no 'ordinary' Force user, so the rules that apply to others may not need to apply to her and vice versa.

I can definitely see why people wouldn't like that, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of Star Wars just because one person contravenes the 'rules' such as they are.

Not to mention that assuming there's a time jump to IX, she can receive plenty of additional training from the ghosts. The bigger question at that point is how Kylo also improves, unless he's self-teaching which is what so many people are objecting to Rey doing.

You can also use the very canon explanation that thus far we have only really seen prequel era Jedi, who are very restrained. Even in the OT, Luke is being trained by Yoda, who still holds to the older teachings for the most part.
Anakin most likely could have shown us very powerful examples of what the Force could do, but because he had to be a "good Jedi" he couldn't exercise these powers and would have been unfamiliar with them even after renouncing the Jedi. Once he became Vader, his connection to the Force was diminished due to not having as much organic tissue to connect with.
And Palpatine was too saturated with the Dark side by the time we see his power in RotJ.

So yeah, plenty of potential canon reasons why a nobody with a strong Force connection can do things unseen in the films thus far.

-

Sure, but as a writer you still have to at least explain (preferably show) that. This is symbolic of the weakest part of the film for me (which I liked a bit more than I disliked): Johnson may be a great director but he's kind of a bad writer.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


On the other hand, more than one poster in this very thread have used the term SJW unironically, so yeah. I'm not in any way saying there aren't many justifiable complaints that can be lobbed at this movie (many good ones posted here), but if the diversity of the cast is one, then I tend to just ignore the rest of the complaints by that person.

Could you please point out a post as an example.

Page 26, for example. This thread has been pretty good overall, largely because we have actual discussions here, but take a look at some of the more general "popular" website comments section, like IGN or IO9, and every third post seems to allude to it.

Well finally got to see it today with a mate. Seeing Ade Edmondson on the bridge of a Star destroyer was definitely a unexpected highlight There was a lot of good stuff, but we both came away feeling unsure about the overall film. I think repeated viewings without the weight of all the expectations I had personally built up for the direction of the story and characters will be a good thing. That said I think a couple of things will always bug me about the film. Namely the total lack of a sense of speed and movement with the bombers at the start and the "chase" through the rest of the film, as well as the waste of Lorna Derns Admiral Holdo.

I think a lesser actress than Laura Dern wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near so much* with the character. Holds is the Captain Harris of the Rebellion, after all. That said, I would like to see Jane Lynch's take on the character.


*the way Jackson did what he could with Windu. Small victories, here. The rebellion is all about small victories.

 Galef wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


Plus if Disney is really going to make this how the force works then how do you explain all of the previous training scenes in canon Star Wars?

Easy. Simply highlight that Rey is an exceptional individual with (for whatever reason) a uniquely strong connection to the Force that guides her more than it has anyone else. Previous (and indeed future) generations don't have that and thus still require at least some degree of training. It's clear Rey is no 'ordinary' Force user, so the rules that apply to others may not need to apply to her and vice versa.

I can definitely see why people wouldn't like that, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of Star Wars just because one person contravenes the 'rules' such as they are.

Not to mention that assuming there's a time jump to IX, she can receive plenty of additional training from the ghosts. The bigger question at that point is how Kylo also improves, unless he's self-teaching which is what so many people are objecting to Rey doing.

You can also use the very canon explanation that thus far we have only really seen prequel era Jedi, who are very restrained. Even in the OT, Luke is being trained by Yoda, who still holds to the older teachings for the most part.
Anakin most likely could have shown us very powerful examples of what the Force could do, but because he had to be a "good Jedi" he couldn't exercise these powers and would have been unfamiliar with them even after renouncing the Jedi. Once he became Vader, his connection to the Force was diminished due to not having as much organic tissue to connect with.
And Palpatine was too saturated with the Dark side by the time we see his power in RotJ.

So yeah, plenty of potential canon reasons why a nobody with a strong Force connection can do things unseen in the films thus far.

-

Eh. That's a very fanon explanation, actually. Some of doesn't even make sense- palpatine being 'too saturated' with the force to do powerful things?
I'm not even sure that prequel Jedi were all that restrained, to be honest. It seems more a problem of cinematography- several of them (including Yoda and Mace) were quite ridiculous in the Clone Wars cartoon.

While child Anakin had an absurd number of unexplained skills (and a grotesquely positive portrayal of life as a slave), adult Anakin just seemed pretty average. No trace of the future sight others display, average swordsmanship, a good but not ridiculously silly pilot, ok with telekinesis and pretty on par with the other stuff. His most notable traits were arrogance and recklessness that were often indistinguishable from stupidity.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think a lesser actress than Laura Dern wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near so much* with the character. Holds is the Captain Harris of the Rebellion, after all. That said, I would like to see Jane Lynch's take on the character.


*the way Jackson did what he could with Windu. Small victories, here. The rebellion is all about small victories.

Oh she was great no doubt. That's why I wish she had survived the movie, especially with Carrie Fisher's death. Plus it really cramps any Holdo and Poe ships

Page 26 and 28. I see.
I already pointed out that is a stunt but Disney uses "equality" for advertisement. Vanity Fair and The Guardian (so low it fell) already wrote some piece about how much we need these movies in this period, that Holdo is an example about mansplaining.
I have contempt for the so called alt-right but these "journalists" are no better. And even worse the writers*.

I used to think that this was what I call a Madonna-Whore complex translated to the creation of female characters. The complex can see women only as saints or sexual object, denying their identity and freedom in sexual expression. These writers write female characters that are either damsel in distress or mary sues.
To the character is denied any progression/arc (and chance to fail, a very human thing) because they are either object(ive)s, or too perfect to elicit empathy from the viewer.

I used to think that these kind of characters, especially the Sues, were characters written by sexist men that wanted to show off their grasp on equality, and failed because their chauvinism would eventually come out, consciously or not. Then I discover that a good part of the writing staff is female and I shake my head. These people are only able to show men fail, and are unable to develop a proper female.

This, of course, does not show that women should not write sci-fi. Any of these chauvinistic idiots should be struck with an improvised weapon built with the bibliography of Ursula Le Guin. Just that these writers were hired for their views, and not their skill.

I think that if both the media circus and the writers politicize so heavily a children movie, and more importantly at huge expense of story and characters (and killing its "childish spirit, if you wish), we have a BIG problem, regardless that you can like the word "SJW" or not.

Dunno. After all garbage like Twilight and 50shades are written by women. I find this appalling. If I will have a daughter, I will have to pay a lot of attention to what she comes in contact with, if not to censor, at least to discuss.

Where is gone the Disney that could write a character like Mulan?


*in all honesty, Peregrine and others just answered with a sort of Hanlon's Razor - these writers are just stupid/incompetent, no malice. But I cannot help feeling contempt with for circus.

 Peregrine wrote:

You'd have a point, if lightsaber combat was anything but a side point compared to the real story. The battle is one of wills, not swords. Who will turn, who is stronger in the force, etc. The swords are just an expression of that battle, a pretty show to let the audience know what is going on.

All fight scenes are expressions of will, when the battle comes to swords it is a statement regarding its severity. This is stated outright by Dooku in his fight with Yoda; "It is obvious that this contest cannot be decided by our knowledge of the Force... but by our skills with a lightsaber."

Voss wrote:

I'm not even sure that prequel Jedi were all that restrained, to be honest. It seems more a problem of cinematography- several of them (including Yoda and Mace) were quite ridiculous in the Clone Wars cartoon.

And how does Mace even die? He never trusted Anakin, but does so in the midst of his fight with Palpatine?

It's really bizarre to me how people can defend some of the decisions made in this film. Even as a standalone film without the Star Wars moniker it's really quite bad. There is no character development, everything that has been set up by every film prior to this one is totally wasted and abandoned, and the plot is completely nonsensical.

Snoke is the most powerful force wielder ever. Who is he? Where did he come from and what are his motivations? Oh, he's dead, never mind.

The First Order are a band of cartoonish space Nazis, that also have absolutely no explanation for where they came from or what they're doing. Just that they wear all black, so they must be bad guys.

If Holdo or whatever had told Poe about her plan, they could have just executed it. Which makes basically the entire movie unnecessary, especially the whole casino sub-plot.

If you can use lightspeed jumps as a weapon, they could have destroyed the First Order fleet with one of their ships in the beginning (not to mention both Death Stars and the Star Killer Base).

Every single decision the Resistance leadership makes just gets more of their own fighters killed, for no reason, to the point where there are literally about 12 of them left at the end of the movie, but it's portrayed as a triumph because "we save the ones we love, feth the rest."

Nonsense.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


I used to think that this was what I call a Madonna-Whore complex translated to the creation of female characters. The complex can see women only as saints or sexual object, denying their identity and freedom in sexual expression. These writers write female characters that are either damsel in distress or mary sues.

There isn't a single Mary Sue in TFA or TSL.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

To the character is denied any progression/arc (and chance to fail, a very human thing) because they are either object(ive)s, or too perfect to elicit empathy from the viewer.

Is this even a sentence?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I used to think that these kind of characters, especially the Sues, were characters written by sexist men that wanted to show off their grasp on equality, and failed because their chauvinism would eventually come out, consciously or not. Then I discover that a good part of the writing staff is female and shake my head. These people are only able to show men fail, and are unable to develop a proper female.

You can't even write a proper sentence more often than not.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This, of course, does not show that females should not write sci-fi. Any of these chauvinistic idiots should be struck with an improvised weapon built with the bibliography of Ursula Le Guin. Just that these writers were hired for their views, and not their skill.

Well, I'm glad you're here to clarify that's okay for women to write scifi. Thanks. That really needed clarification.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I think that if both the media circus and the writers politicize so heavily a children movie, and more importantly at huge expense of story and characters (and killing its "childish spirit, if you wish), we have a BIG problem, regardless that you can like the word "SJW" or not.

No, you simply don't like the film and are making wild accusations with minimal basis in reality. I really feel to see how having more female characters is somehow an attack on your manhood or how Rose having a go at arms dealers is somehow an attack on capitalism. You are jumping at shadows.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Dunno. After all garbage like Twilight and 50shades are written by women. I find this appalling. If I will have a daughter, I will have to pay a lot of attention to what she comes in contact with, if not to censor, at least to discuss.

Could you paint in broader brush strokes? First you complain about writers creating female characters that are either too weak or too strong or too perfect. Then you complain about real women failing. Guess what? Women are actually humans too and it's perfectly acceptable for them to fail at things just like everyone else. The fact Twilight and 50 Shades were written by an individual woman has nothing to do with the gender as a whole and the fact you even interpret it in that way is honestly fething disturbing.

All of your comments are drenched in this venomous, poorly veiled misogyny.

 Luciferian wrote:
It's really bizarre to me how people can defend some of the decisions made in this film. Even as a standalone film without the Star Wars moniker it's really quite bad. There is no character development, everything that has been set up by every film prior to this one is totally wasted and abandoned, and the plot is completely nonsensical.

Snoke is the most powerful force wielder ever. Who is he? Where did he come from and what are his motivations? Oh, he's dead, never mind.

The First Order are a band of cartoonish space Nazis, that also have absolutely no explanation for where they came from or what they're doing. Just that they wear all black, so they must be bad guys.

If Holdo or whatever had told Poe about her plan, they could have just executed it. Which makes basically the entire movie unnecessary, especially the whole casino sub-plot.

If you can use lightspeed jumps as a weapon, they could have destroyed the First Order fleet with one of their ships in the beginning (not to mention both Death Stars and the Star Killer Base).

Every single decision the Resistance leadership makes just gets more of their own fighters killed, for no reason, to the point where there are literally about 12 of them left at the end of the movie, but it's portrayed as a triumph because "we save the ones we love, feth the rest."

Nonsense.

Yep - there's a lot more issues too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:


I used to think that this was what I call a Madonna-Whore complex translated to the creation of female characters. The complex can see women only as saints or sexual object, denying their identity and freedom in sexual expression. These writers write female characters that are either damsel in distress or mary sues.

There isn't a single Mary Sue in TFA or TSL.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

To the character is denied any progression/arc (and chance to fail, a very human thing) because they are either object(ive)s, or too perfect to elicit empathy from the viewer.

Is this even a sentence?

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I used to think that these kind of characters, especially the Sues, were characters written by sexist men that wanted to show off their grasp on equality, and failed because their chauvinism would eventually come out, consciously or not. Then I discover that a good part of the writing staff is female and shake my head. These people are only able to show men fail, and are unable to develop a proper female.

You can't even write a proper sentence more often than not.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

This, of course, does not show that females should not write sci-fi. Any of these chauvinistic idiots should be struck with an improvised weapon built with the bibliography of Ursula Le Guin. Just that these writers were hired for their views, and not their skill.

Well, I'm glad you're here to clarify that's okay for women to write scifi. Thanks. That really needed clarification.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

I think that if both the media circus and the writers politicize so heavily a children movie, and more importantly at huge expense of story and characters (and killing its "childish spirit, if you wish), we have a BIG problem, regardless that you can like the word "SJW" or not.

No, you simply don't like the film and are making wild accusations with minimal basis in reality. I really feel to see how having more female characters is somehow an attack on your manhood or how Rose having a go at arms dealers is somehow an attack on capitalism. You are jumping at shadows.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

Dunno. After all garbage like Twilight and 50shades are written by women. I find this appalling. If I will have a daughter, I will have to pay a lot of attention to what she comes in contact with, if not to censor, at least to discuss.

Could you paint in broader brush strokes? First you complain about writers creating female characters that are either too weak or too strong or too perfect. Then you complain about real women failing. Guess what? Women are actually humans too and it's perfectly acceptable for them to fail at things just like everyone else. The fact Twilight and 50 Shades were written by an individual woman has nothing to do with the gender as a whole and the fact you even interpret it in that way is honestly fething disturbing.

All of your comments are drenched in this venomous, poorly veiled misogyny.

SJW. LOL. These are all legitimate arguements and properly constructed sentences. We on the internet use parenthesis to make statements within statements - it's perfectly fine.

 Luciferian wrote:
It's really bizarre to me how people can defend some of the decisions made in this film. Even as a standalone film without the Star Wars moniker it's really quite bad. There is no character development, everything that has been set up by every film prior to this one is totally wasted and abandoned, and the plot is completely nonsensical.

Snoke is the most powerful force wielder ever. Who is he? Where did he come from and what are his motivations? Oh, he's dead, never mind.

The First Order are a band of cartoonish space Nazis, that also have absolutely no explanation for where they came from or what they're doing. Just that they wear all black, so they must be bad guys.

If Holdo or whatever had told Poe about her plan, they could have just executed it. Which makes basically the entire movie unnecessary, especially the whole casino sub-plot.

If you can use lightspeed jumps as a weapon, they could have destroyed the First Order fleet with one of their ships in the beginning (not to mention both Death Stars and the Star Killer Base).

Every single decision the Resistance leadership makes just gets more of their own fighters killed, for no reason, to the point where there are literally about 12 of them left at the end of the movie, but it's portrayed as a triumph because "we save the ones we love, feth the rest."

Nonsense.

All of this has been addressed, both here and elsewhere.

No character development? Just Luke alone goes from having abandoned the Force to using it to a never before seen degree to save Leia and the handful of Resistance fighters left.

Rey goes from struggling with her identity and place in the galaxy, and falling for Kylo/Snoke's deception, to embracing her role as a Jedi and member of the Resistance.

And that's just two characters. Saying there is no character development is a blatant falsehood. Whether or not you like it is all opinion.

Snoke is never stated to be the most powerful ever. This isn't really clarified at all outside of Luke saying Kylo and Rey have incredible raw strength, but even then it's not compared to how power Luke or Snoke may or may not be.


Yes, the First Order is poorly explained in the movie other than it's The Empire 2.0.

I honestly don't understand how people completely missed the point of the casino subplot. I understand if you think it's stupid, but it's not pointless. There is a clear reason.

An object the mass of an X-Wing moving at the speed of light would destroy/devastate a planet. This has been a criticism of Star Wars since ANH. Real world physics are not applicable.

I'm not sure how you perceive it as a triumph and that's a pretty egregious misquote as well.

So - a ship going into hyperspace delivers interia to an object it hits...but does not also rip itself apart from the interia of dropping out of hyperspace to normal speed. I always assumed that hyperspace was inter dimensional travel. You aren't actually moving at that speed - it's just while in hyperspace movement is expontentially multiplied and you aren't in real space. We basically have to assume that hyperspace is exponentially faster than light-speed because it doesn't take centuries to travel to distant star systems.

The entire scene with the suicide hyper-drive is crap. It looks amazing though. It's true that hyperspace and light-speed were used interchangeably in 4-5-6 but they actually don't mean light speed at all.

GoatboyBeta wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think a lesser actress than Laura Dern wouldn't have been able to do anywhere near so much* with the character. Holds is the Captain Harris of the Rebellion, after all. That said, I would like to see Jane Lynch's take on the character.


*the way Jackson did what he could with Windu. Small victories, here. The rebellion is all about small victories.

Oh she was great no doubt. That's why I wish she had survived the movie, especially with Carrie Fisher's death. Plus it really cramps any Holdo and Poe ships

Now there's an idea to warm the heart. Yes, the heart.

No the casino plot is pointless and unnecessary.

Holdo tells Poe about her evacuation plan. They use their small ships and pods to make a planetary landing and jump their large ships away. Movie over. Crises averted.

Also, no Mary Sues? what is Rey if not a Mary Sue? She is a random person from nowhere who has total command over the force and close combat fighting techniques, and according to Yoda, the full knowledge of the Jedi tradition, in spite of having no training. She not only has no character development, both her and Luke regress in terms of development. After her encounter with Kylo, Rey goes back to exactly where she was before.

And Luke's character arc has absolutely no consistency due to this movie. He's the guy who risks everything going to meet the Emperor and Darth Vader because he believes he can redeem his father, the second most evil person in the known universe, but he considers murdering his nephew and gives everything up because he was getting bad vibes? What is that? And then he just dies. Great character development.

Rose literally stops Finn from saving possibly hundreds or thousands of lives so she can kiss him in the middle of a battlefield, after knowing him for less than a day. So yeah, "save the ones we love, feth the rest."

And this:

All of your comments are drenched in this venomous, poorly veiled misogyny.

is bs.

He is absolutely correct. You don't do service to women by writing them as one-dimensional superbeings. You don't do service to people by pandering to them and treating them like children. And calling that out doesn't make you a misogynist.

 Xenomancers wrote:
So - a ship going into hyperspace delivers interia to an object it hits...but does not also rip itself apart from the interia of dropping out of hyperspace to normal speed. I always assumed that hyperspace was inter dimensional travel. You aren't actually moving at that speed - it's just while in hyperspace movement is expontentially multiplied and you aren't in real space. We basically have to assume that hyperspace is exponentially faster than light-speed because it doesn't take centuries to travel to distant star systems.

The entire scene with the suicide hyper-drive is crap. It looks amazing though. It's true that hyperspace and light-speed were used interchangeably in 4-5-6 but they actually don't mean light speed at all.

The formerly canonical explanation of hyperdrive is that the ship and everything in it transpose from matter into tachyons, particles than cannot exist below light speed. The jump "to light speed" just refers to achieving this alternate state of existence. However, it also canonically (at one point) was another dimension. It's all messed up. Ships in hyperspace travel through small bits matter without any interaction.

The scene doesn't work by the old rules. Still, pretty sweet if you just don't care.

That's the thing about this whole movie. It's pretty sweet - if you just don't care about internal logic, consistency, continuity or coherency.

What was it that Yoda told Luke? Something about failure being one of the greatest teachers? This does seem to be intended as one of the central themes of the movie. Nearly all the protagonists face failure and have to overcome it.

 Luciferian wrote:
There is no character development

I know there's like some standard ways to complain about films and hyperbole is all the rage, but this is the film in which Poe begins the moving pushing to take down a dreadnought regardless of how many lives it costs to ordering a retreat when he realizes that he's losing too much for it to even matter if they stop the battering ram. This movie spends more time developing characters (at times to a fault) than most of the franchise. I get maybe not liking the development or thinking there's not enough of it or that certain characters are underdeveloped, but none at all?

On a different note; the term Mary Sue needs to be burned to the ground. Its such an egregiously misappropriated term at this point almost entirely used to passive aggressively attack attempts to give women the kind of powerful hero fantasy characters that more or less define my childhood. It's such a pointlessly mean spirited attack; particularly from a culture that is more or less built on our mutual admiration for similar characters that can't hold up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny I see applied to "Mary Sues".

GoatboyBeta wrote:
What was it that Yoda told Luke? Something about failure being one of the greatest teachers? This does seem to be intended as one of the central themes of the movie. Nearly all the protagonists face failure and have to overcome it.

A little "Disney land" isn't it?

 LunarSol wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
There is no character development

I know there's like some standard ways to complain about films and hyperbole is all the rage, but this is the film in which Poe begins the moving pushing to take down a dreadnought regardless of how many lives it costs to ordering a retreat when he realizes that he's losing too much for it to even matter if they stop the battering ram. This movie spends more time developing characters (at times to a fault) than most of the franchise. I get maybe not liking the development or thinking there's not enough of it or that certain characters are underdeveloped, but none at all?

On a different note; the term Mary Sue needs to be burned to the ground. Its such an egregiously misappropriated term at this point almost entirely used to passive aggressively attack attempts to give women the kind of powerful hero fantasy characters that more or less define my childhood. It's such a pointlessly mean spirited attack; particularly from a culture that is more or less built on our mutual admiration for similar characters that can't hold up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny I see applied to "Mary Sues".

I apply Mary Sue to male and female characters equally, and both genders of Mary Sues are equally bad. A poorly written character doesn't become a well-written character when you change its gender in either direction. Change my mind.

 trexmeyer wrote:

All of this has been addressed, both here and elsewhere.

No character development? Just Luke alone goes from having abandoned the Force to using it to a never before seen degree to save Leia and the handful of Resistance fighters left.

That... isn't character development. Thats a 180 (from his stance in Return of the Jedi) then another 180 from his stance earlier in this movie. And powers never seen before with no explanation is unequivocally bad storytelling. It also raises all sorts of awkward questions why Ren can't use the same powers at a short range to kill the handful of people after Luke burns himself out. He's supposed to be really powerful, right? Or would that be narratively unsatisfying...?

Rey goes from struggling with her identity and place in the galaxy, and falling for Kylo/Snoke's deception, to embracing her role as a Jedi and member of the Resistance.

I really hope you're not using that as an example of character development. Who is Rey? <Film shrugs> Oh, tricked? <Well, that guy is dead> Oh, is jedi now. OK...

I'm not even clear why she'd join the Resistance. Rey's interactions with the Resistance consist entirely of:
running around with Finn for maybe... a day? Then he owns up to lying to her about being a Resistance member and tries to convince her to run away with him. Then she gets kidnapped.
He does come back to rescue her (after she escapes on her own), and gets planted into a coma. He doesn't wake up again until after she's gone.

She then briefly gets hugged by the Resistance commander after showing up to tell her her ex-husband has died.

Rey then leaves.
Yep. Awkwardly hugging a single resistance member out of sympathy for her personal loss, really deep reasons for becoming a member of the Resistance there.

And that's just two characters. Saying there is no character development is a blatant falsehood. Whether or not you like it is all opinion.

Actually, if that is sum total of your idea of character development, then it is completely true.

I honestly don't understand how people completely missed the point of the casino subplot. I understand if you think it's stupid, but it's not pointless. There is a clear reason.

Which is... what? To demonstrate that the resistance can just leave the ridiculous hyperspace chase at any time?

Xenomancers wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
What was it that Yoda told Luke? Something about failure being one of the greatest teachers? This does seem to be intended as one of the central themes of the movie. Nearly all the protagonists face failure and have to overcome it.

A little "Disney land" isn't it?

Well, not really. Learning from failure is a lot of Luke's ESB arc, and Han hits it repeatedly (particularly, repairing the falcon, breaking into the Imperial bunker, etc). In a lot of ways it is also Anakin's prequel arc, but he significantly fails to learn from his failures.

But I'm not convinced that the characters in this film overcome or learn from their failures either.

Xenomancer, my apologies. You defended me, I misread the quote. Post has been edited to address the appropriate poster.

 trexmeyer wrote:

There isn't a single Mary Sue in TFA or TSL.

Rey is a Sue. No matter how much in denial you are about her. She picks up abilities in an unbelievably fast way, she beats Luke and people trained by him in a stupidly easy way, and people had to come with explanations like memory wipes or heritage to make sense of this nonsense. Is a bullcrap character.

Is this even a sentence?

I meant that these character have are denied a personhood. They do not progress or fail. They are either like Rey, or just an object and the objective of a "quest".

You can't even write a proper sentence more often than not.

I apologize, when I write hastly my english is very bad. But this does not make my point less solid. These characters are not-characters, caricatures, and look like something written by someone that is unable to see a woman as a person. And yet, they are proposed as examples of new shining female heroes. I find just odd that a female author is involved - I could expect the inability of seeing a woman as a human from a misogynistic man.
Also, you are attacking my writing more than my content. And with such a venomous manner that makes me think I struck some nerve. What happened, man? I wish to remind you that this has only the effect of amusing me more.

Well, I'm glad you're here to clarify that's okay for women to write scifi. Thanks. That really needed clarification.

I am in no way attacking women as authors. I strongly believe that people should have roles because of their skill, not because of their chromosomes. I reiterate my points because I am sick of Disney's hypocrisy.

No, you simply don't like the film and are making wild accusations with minimal basis in reality. I really feel to see how having more female characters is somehow an attack on your manhood or how Rose having a go at arms dealers is somehow an attack on capitalism. You are jumping at shadows.

You are creating a strawman, and just reiterating points that many bloggers and other questionable sources are now repeating ad nauseam. That whose who don't like Rey feel threatened by her. I grew up with Ripley and Sarah Connor. But those were character well written, Rey is not and is absolutely maddening that you are unable to understand why.
I am perfectly fine with a SW female protagonist. If you ask me, I would have gone with Rey being a stormtrooper and the whole arc focused more on her. A redemption arc, first and indoctrinated soldier then a Jedi trained by luke. With all the faults and struggle, and the initial bigotry. And a mirror of the fall of Vader in I-III (redemption vs fall).
But hey, if you want to keep spitting bile on the strawman you created, go ahead.

Could you paint in broader brush strokes? First you complain about writers creating female characters that are either too weak or too strong or too perfect.

The characters are not too weak or strong. Is not a matter of strength, is a matter of humanity. A matter of risk to fail. Compare Rey with Luke of Mulan, since I brought this one up, too, and is a very good female character. What is the biggest difference you can notice (if able)?

Then you complain about real women failing. Guess what? Women are actually humans too and it's perfectly acceptable for them to fail at things just like everyone else.

So you recognize that these writers failed in every way. I mean, this is my main point. This stuff is written like crap.

The fact Twilight and 50 Shades were written by an individual woman has nothing to do with the gender as a whole and the fact you even interpret it in that way is honestly fething disturbing.

This is a valid point, actually. You are right here. These are individual women.
The point I wanted to make is that 50 shades or Twilight are very popular, and the women that wrote another popular story (as SW one) created female characters that are awful.
But I did not articulate that well so you are right in attacking me here. It did not come out well. I apologize about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:


On a different note; the term Mary Sue needs to be burned to the ground. Its such an egregiously misappropriated term at this point almost entirely used to passive aggressively attack attempts to give women the kind of powerful hero fantasy characters that more or less define my childhood. It's such a pointlessly mean spirited attack; particularly from a culture that is more or less built on our mutual admiration for similar characters that can't hold up to anywhere near the level of scrutiny I see applied to "Mary Sues".

This is absolute crap and another strawman. Sarah Connor or Ripley or Mulan are not Sues, and are women.
If Luke did not fail every now and then like he did, and was more like Rey, he would have been the analogous of Mary Sue, a Gary Stu (or Marty Stu).

Is not a matter of the gender of the character, is about its development, flaws and other elements. Anyone that wants to make you think differently is not being honest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Luciferian wrote:
=

is bs.

He is absolutely correct. You don't do service to women by writing them as one-dimensional superbeings. You don't do service to people by pandering to them and treating them like children. And calling that out doesn't make you a misogynist.

Thank you for this. You articulated it better than I could.

Funnily enough I and others who didn't like this film had a genuine SJW try to pull there usual crap, they even said and I quote "you only don't like the film because it challenges the male hierarchy" and "as a white male who has never had to deal with oppression"

It's laughable the length these parasites will go to virtue signal

Why do I have a bad feeling about where this thread is headed?

I wnated to like this film, three of us went and had the same opinions, 2 of us having really enjoyed TFA, the other - a big SW fan having not enjyed it much - so mixed anticpation.

Some good stuff amongst the steaming pile of dross that made up much of the films oh so very long run time - It reminded us strongly of geostorm - Occassional good bits, some fun and good effects but basically a crap film.

The ohh so long drawn out chase scene with the Imperials keeping all their fighters in their bays was just awful, was there anyone aboard the Star Destroyers? They certainly did nothing or even fire in the whole film. Plot holes were just everywhere - and becuase the film was so badly paced - they were made obvious - make it fast paced and soem can be overlooked, But not here - no chance.

The whole pop out to visit casino world was terrible filler for an overlong film. "Bring out the battering ram cannon" was hilarious.

Maybe 10 mins of good stuff - rest was terrible. we did like the Rey / Ben stuff though

Best described as somethng to endure rather than enjoy.

Sad :(