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.
2018/05/31 14:56:31
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
Its just more lazy weak writing
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Formosa wrote: Ahhh I get you now, you chose not to see these things, thats cool, no problem, it doesnt make you right though you know that? it also doesnt make you wrong, its just your opinion.
And you choose to put the film under a microscope looking for even the slightest hint of something that could be interpreted as "progressive", whether or not it actually aligns with any real-world political issue. I mean FFS, you're honestly trying to claim that a movie where all of the heroes are soldiers fighting a morally justified war, complete with scene after scene of glory and heroism in combat, is "telling the story that war is bad".
I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene, also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
Perhaps you should watch the film again with a different mind set and see if you agree, I have done and I found certain parts more acceptable because of it.
2018/05/31 15:02:08
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/31 15:02:43
Formosa wrote: its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.
It's a bad stereotype, and not one that is all that well known (outside of anti-SJWs). And it's a superficial one, even if you grant that the stereotype is true nothing else about Holdo has anything to do with feminism. You don't see a purple-haired feminist icon doing feminist things, or relating to any real-world feminist issues. They don't play the stereotype at all outside of the hair dye. It's debatable that this is a feminist statement at all, and it's certainly not a heavy-handed one when you have to explain how this one minor attribute is so symbolic.
The much more likely truth of the situation is that purple hair is just one more thing in a long list of Star Wars having fashion choices that would be weird in the real world. Having her hair and clothes be different makes her stand out visually from the crowd of officers in basic uniforms or dull work clothes. Any relation to a particular stereotype about feminists is almost certainly coincidence.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Formosa wrote: its a bad stereotype that connects SJW types and certain hair dyes, when you dig its a load of crap, most people dont dig though, thats why its a stereotype, given the quality of the writing of this movie, i think they just chose to play to the stereotype without actually thinking about how it would come across.
It's a bad stereotype, and not one that is all that well known (outside of anti-SJWs). And it's a superficial one, even if you grant that the stereotype is true nothing else about Holdo has anything to do with feminism. You don't see a purple-haired feminist icon doing feminist things, or relating to any real-world feminist issues. They don't play the stereotype at all outside of the hair dye. It's debatable that this is a feminist statement at all, and it's certainly not a heavy-handed one when you have to explain how this one minor attribute is so symbolic.
The much more likely truth of the situation is that purple hair is just one more thing in a long list of Star Wars having fashion choices that would be weird in the real world. Having her hair and clothes be different makes her stand out visually from the crowd of officers in basic uniforms or dull work clothes. Any relation to a particular stereotype about feminists is almost certainly coincidence.
Oh come on peregrine, you damn well know its a very well known stereotype... jesus mate
If thats the case it shows how out of touch they are with the current times, and would explain somewhat how bad the movie turned out to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/31 15:12:43
2018/05/31 15:10:20
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
Formosa wrote: I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene
Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Formosa wrote: I dont need to put the film under a microscope, I just noticed something you havent, and thats ok, if you wish to be insulted over that, thats your hang up, not mine.
1. You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct.
and Yep its saying war is bad, because that was one of the reason for the canto blight scene
2. Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
also that essentially war is futile, because even though the rebellion won the last war, none of it mattered and the empire... ahem... first order still came back and are winning again... bad storytelling that.
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
1. LOL
2. you need to watch the movie again, because that wasn't the hackers ship, they stole it from a merchant who was dealing to both sides. It's a metaphore for the current situation in the middle east, the soldiers do the dying so the military complex and arms dealers get rich.
You noticed something that doesn't exist. You don't have superior powers of observation compared to me, you just make too many assumptions that aren't correct
Yes I did, and Yes I have, thanks for noticing, and its an assumption in your opinion, thats all
Then you didn't watch the same movie as the rest of us. The message presented is that selling guns to Nazis is bad, not that war in general is bad. The character who says "both sides are equally bad" does so as a self-serving rationalization for being willing to betray anyone for the right price, and the protagonists go right back to their jobs as soldiers fighting for the noble cause without any hesitation or signs of doubt. And the movie goes right back to presenting the resistance soldiers as noble heroes fighting against the obvious evil of the space Nazis.
Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
That isn't an anti-war message, it's just milking the nostalgia cash cow and a lack of imagination in creating the villains for the new movies. Nobody in the resistance says "none of this matters", the war against the space Nazis is always presented as the heroic thing to do, and the movie ends on a note of "we lost the battle, but we will win the war".
Again trying to pass off your opinion as fact, you do know the difference dont you Peregrine?
2018/05/31 15:22:53
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
Sigh. This is really what you're going to resort to? "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION MAN"? After you presented your interpretation of the movie as objective truth, that I'm just too oblivious to notice?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote: 2. you need to watch the movie again, because that wasn't the hackers ship, they stole it from a merchant who was dealing to both sides.
I never said it was the hacker's ship, I said it was the hacker making the argument that both sides are bad.
It's a metaphore for the current situation in the middle east, the soldiers do the dying so the military complex and arms dealers get rich.
It's a pretty clumsy metaphor then, given the fact that the issue with the wars in the middle east is that they're pointless wars. The objection to them is not that arms dealers make money, it's that we're throwing away lives and money trying to pick sides in a region where everyone is a bunch of s with grudges going back centuries, even our supposed allies are pretty awful, and there's no apparent plan for actually winning the war. The war in TLJ, on the other hand, is presented as a virtuous struggle against the space Nazis, much more like WWII than modern wars.
And, again, remember that the person presenting the metaphor is a villain using it as a self-serving rationalization. That's kind of the exact opposite of the movie endorsing the message.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/31 15:28:48
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2018/05/31 15:29:18
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
If it isn't realistic then it isn't plausible either. I accept that you're willing to allow a lack of realism because it's fiction, but you can't simultaneously accept the lack of realism in this case and insist on realism when it comes to Rey and the sequel-era movies.
Realism and plausibility are two entirely different things. Realism hinges on adherence to the way things are in the real world, while plausibility hinges on the way things are within a presented universe. The Star Wars universe is not, nor has it ever been, presented as realistic. However, the things that transpire in the OT are plausible.
I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth regarding Rey (please stop), but she is an implausible character; much like Anakin in TPM.
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Formosa wrote: Thats your opinion, not a fact, thanks for sharing it
Sigh. This is really what you're going to resort to? "WELL THATS JUST YOUR OPINION MAN"? After you presented your interpretation of the movie as objective truth, that I'm just too oblivious to notice?
Yep, Especilaly when I said as much a few pages back, you have interpreted it in one way, I have interpreted it in another way, while I may agree and disagree with some of what you said, I am not trying to convince you to see it My way, just expressing my opinion, it’s ok that you didn’t notice any of the things that I’ve brought up, not everyone is the same and you can’t expect everyone to see things the same way.
Like I said before if you find that an insult, that’s your own hang up, not anyone else’s.
2018/05/31 15:38:33
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
Again lazy writing - "oh looks we are deep and meaningful" - "but it doesn't make sense" "Yeah but its so subversive, just don't undermine the message man"
A more ambitious or comptetant director might have done something with this but not this one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/31 15:39:41
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
I know this is EU territory, but has anyone actually seen the description behind Holdo's planet?
Spoiler:
Gatalenta was a warm, uncommonly tranquil planet famed for its tea, lengthy, erudite poetry and meditative retreats. Natives of Gatalenta were renowned for their calmness and serenity, and rose each day to thank the planet's multiple suns for rising. Love and compassion were taught and practiced fondly by the people of Gatalenta, and crying openly was considered a virtue and proof of a caring heart. The Gatalentan people were also known for living austerely, with the only colorful parts of their attire being traditional red cloaks. They were ruled by the Council of Mothers. Slavery was illegal on the planet, and slaves were not allowed to be brought to the planet. If a slave was brought there, and their master was caught, the slave was set free.[
I have come to suspect that the major impetus for the prequels was toy licensing.
In 1976, none of the major companies wanted to make SW toys. Lucas got stuck with Kenner and ended up splitting a nickel with Fox for every dollar of toy profits. Kenner could keep the license indefinitely as long as it paid a $5,000 residual to LucasFilm annually. In 1987, Tonka acquired Kenner and, in 1991, both were acquired by Hasbro. Hasbro overlooked paying the $5,000 to LucasFilm such that the license reverted. At that point, Lucas started mentioning re-releasing the OT and possibly making new movies. The toy industry fell all over itself bidding for the license, which Hasbro eventually resecured under undisclosed terms.
@Zebio
Holy feth that is hilarious!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/31 16:06:17
This is a pretty good analysis of the effects of Holdo's general look. "Purple-haired" is probably less relevant than the fact that she's in nice frocks rather than Leia's practical combat clothing.
I simply mentioned the purple hair as its the most noticable stereotype with that line of politics, you make a good point on the military uniform, or lack there off, she should also have her hair in a bun dammit! hahaha
Did you read the article? I think it made some good discussion points, even if you might disagree with them (it would at least give you somethings solid to argue with, rather than just having a vague dislike of "feminism").
I think in a rebellion she shouldn't necessarily have her hair in a bun or be wearing a uniform. One of the points of the interaction between Holdo, Leia, and Poe is the recognition that the Resistance is for everyone; it has room for wild maverick flyboys and a careful, considered approach, for strokes of genius and long-term campaigns, for sacrifice and for careful management of resources. It certainly has room for funny hair.
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
Episode 7 was quite fun but nothing special
Episode 8 was a horrible train wreck
Episode 9 will probably just be Ok but won't see me wasting hours at the cinema again for a SW film.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
I thought the actress who played Rose was Vietnamese actress who was unknown in China. That is not the same thing as hiring a Chinese actress pandering purposes. I hope the actress was not chosen for her ethnicity at all, and her not being white is just a matter of demographics in whatever large city the film was cast in. The U.S. has a lot more diversity in its population than you ever see in Star Wars films, and it would be weird not to see more diversity on film.
(Although to be fair I believe her sister was played by a higher profile actress known in Chinese cinema, so I suppose that could be described as pandering.)
timetowaste85 wrote: Saw the information yesterday that JJ is directing 9. Thank God. Hopefully he can fix what Johnson wrecked. No offense to the Jurassic World director who left it (Jurassic World was fun, minus the heels and “respect” nod between Rex n Blue). JJ “gets” Star Wars. Is he doing earth-shattering things? No. Is he playing it safe? Yes. Be edgy in episodes outside of the CORE of Star Wars, which was fine up until Johnson took a big ol’ dump on the story. Star Wars is about family. It always has been. Johnson, and the people defending his gak-smeared “vision”, don’t understand that.
I don't feel like JJ does "get" Star Wars. Or scale. Or storytelling. Or directing. Or much of anything. He has to be one of the worst directors making big budget films today, and I have absolutely no hope for Episode 9. It would take a Herculean effort to convince me that JJ has the writing chops to put this shattered mess of a trilogy back together.
Episode 7 was quite fun but nothing special
Episode 8 was a horrible train wreck
Episode 9 will probably just be Ok but won't see me wasting hours at the cinema again for a SW film.
I found TFA to be worse than TLJ. It was dumb, dumb, dumb fun up until the Falcon left Jakku, but from that point on the film just gakked the bed again and again, except for some of the Kylo Ren scenes. A lot of the criticism for TLJ is how it treated established OT characters and the setting, but for me TFA was far worse in both regards. Also, JJ's mystery boxes really piss me off to no end, and RJ burning them actually bumped up my estimation of him quite a bit even if that was a poor choice for a trilogy film.
Has JJ ever stuck a landing in anything he's made? The best film of his I can think of is Super 8, and the ending of that film is all kinds of terribad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I know this is EU territory, but has anyone actually seen the description behind Holdo's planet?
Spoiler:
Gatalenta was a warm, uncommonly tranquil planet famed for its tea, lengthy, erudite poetry and meditative retreats. Natives of Gatalenta were renowned for their calmness and serenity, and rose each day to thank the planet's multiple suns for rising. Love and compassion were taught and practiced fondly by the people of Gatalenta, and crying openly was considered a virtue and proof of a caring heart. The Gatalentan people were also known for living austerely, with the only colorful parts of their attire being traditional red cloaks. They were ruled by the Council of Mothers. Slavery was illegal on the planet, and slaves were not allowed to be brought to the planet. If a slave was brought there, and their master was caught, the slave was set free.[
That's pretty funny. It reminds me of the old EU, where every character we see on screen comes from a species whose entire culture is focused around the profession of that character. It is the laziest writing, although I have to wonder if the Holdo planet description isn't a knowing self-parody with a sharp jab at the film's Canto Bight subplot.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/31 16:33:28
No, you're missing the idea of what tokenism is. Tokenism is having a character that exists solely to fill a race/gender/whatever quota. Like, giving the white main character a token black friend who appears in a couple of scenes and contributes nothing to the story. Or having a one-dimensional character who does little more than yell "LOOK HOW BLACK/GAY/ETC I AM" and then get talked about a bunch in PR material. And it's usually in the context of the other characters having little or no diversity (or even a message opposed to the token's identity) and the token being used as a way to deflect criticism from the rest of the characters.
Whether or not you like Rose and her part of the story she doesn't match that at all. She is the primary driving force in a major story element, and nothing about her character or story says "my race is important, pay attention to it". The person playing the character just happens to be Vietnamese-American. You can speculate about profit-focused reasons for choosing that particular person, but that's not the same as tokenism.
to start with:
tokenism: The practice of making only a perfunctory or symbolic effort to do a particular thing, especially by recruiting a small number of people from under-represented groups in order to give the appearance of sexual or racial equality within a workforce.
lucasarts has been tooting the diversity horn since the relaunch. The PR was all about how diverse the cast is, and look, here you are deflecting criticism away from the characters like lucas arts has been doing. If you hate rose, you're a sexists, it's like JJ tweeting those who hate the movie just hate strong women.
so in essence you're agreeing with it being tokenism, you just refuse to see it that way.
2018/05/31 16:34:18
Subject: Re:Star Wars: The Last Jedi - Reconsidered?
Star Wars: TFA - nothing special but good fun
Star Trek - Really enjoyed all of his ST films
Mission Impossibe is now a much better Bond series than Bond
First 2 seasons of Alias were great
on the negative
Lost - nuff said, terrible show.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Isn't it interesting that Ghost in the Shell is accused of being whitewashed because they put a blonde European into the role of a Japanese woman, and it's also apparently wrong to put an oriental actress into a role in Star Wars which doesn't any previous racial definition?
Perhaps it would be less tokenistic if all of the roles were played by white men.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I couldn't help but notice how Rose freed the animals but abandoned the child slaves to languish in slavery.
I noticed that too. It's...yeah.
They aren't there to free slaves, they are there to get away with the maguffin that is supposed to save the rebel fleet.
Giant alien horse thingies are a lot better for escaping pursuit.
Thats not entirely true. That sequence also had a moral message about slavery. Sure, freeing the animals wasn't their primary objective, but Rose took the time to moralise about the evils of slavery, the mistreatment of the animals and how she wanted to set them free.
...whilst leaving the human(oid?) slaves behind in slavery.
Do you not see how the film undermined itself there?
No, because that's just your opinion and you're presenting a false dichotomy that the only valid choice is to wreck the mission.
Would the film have undermined itself less if Rose has said feth the slaves, we don't care about the, let's get out of here? Of course not, it would have gone against the whole idea of the rebellion trying to free the galaxy from tyranny.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/31 16:41:55
And yes, it does equate to sexism when you assume that "poorly written" means "only there for tokenism". You wouldn't say the character was only there for tokenism if it was a white man, so why does changing the race/gender matter?
It is tokenism. China is a huge audience and brings in huge revenues, but they only do it if they are interested. Putting in a Chinese protagonist gives China another incentive to pay the ticket and watch the movie, because people can identify better with people of their race, because that's how people are. If you put a russian protagonist in a hollywood movie, it will sell more in Russia than the same movie without the Russian protagonist. a lot more.
So no, it is not sexism and it is not racism. Rose is there to sell cinema tickets to China. This is not a bad thing. Many movies did this the last years (the Martian, the Great Wall, X-Men: Days of future past, Looper changed the scenes from Paris to China, Doctor Strange changed the Mystic from a Thibetan monk to something generic, in IronMan 3 Mandarin is no longer a chinese villain as in the comics, World War Z changed from china zombies (book) to Jerusalem zombies (movie), Warcraft movie was saved solely because of getting a Chinese director - WoW was even banned in China for many years because of Daemons and Undead NPC's, the embargo was only lifted in Mists of Pandaria (an expansion that smelled 100% china) so there were no diehard fans, or at least no more diehard than USA where the movie flopped terribly etc).
Hollywood wants to attract China and they do it by showing more and more Chinese actors and scenes. And this is not bad. So it is not bad at all that Rose is Chinese. But also it is not sexist to denote this point. It is just what it is. If they put a "white male" in place of Rose, the role would be equally irrelevant, only it wouldn't sell to China as much. Rose's character is 100% a filler. She achieved nothing, she contributed nothing to the film, save for denying Finn a moment of self sacrifice. Oh and she saved the animals. And it is not a bad thing to say this.
Don't throw the sexism/racism bomb on the very first second of an argument, otherwise it loses its power when it is really needed.
I thought the actress who played Rose was Vietnamese actress who was unknown in China. That is not the same thing as hiring a Chinese actress pandering purposes. I hope the actress was not chosen for her ethnicity at all, and her not being white is just a matter of demographics in whatever large city the film was cast in. The U.S. has a lot more diversity in its population than you ever see in Star Wars films, and it would be weird not to see more diversity on film.
(Although to be fair I believe her sister was played by a higher profile actress known in Chinese cinema, so I suppose that could be described as pandering.)
She actually is American from Vietnamese parents:
Tran was born on January 17, 1989 in San Diego, California. Her parents are refugee migrants from Vietnam who fled the country following the Vietnam War.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Also, JJ's mystery boxes really piss me off to no end, and RJ burning them actually bumped up my estimation of him quite a bit even if that was a poor choice for a trilogy film.
I don't dislike Abrams as much as you, but I think this is a fair assessment of the situation. I know some people have characterized TLJ as a big 'FU' to Abrams, but really there was a fair amount of 'FU' in what Abrams did with TFA.
Loading a SW movie up with mystery boxes and a cliffhanger ending are questionable moves on their own, but real jackhole moves when another director is being given the next installment. It's no wonder they gave it back to Abrams...clearly he didn't want to give the other directors the room to tell their own stories.
While I enjoyed TFA overall, from a creative standpoint it was quite a turd sandwich that RJ was forced to take a big bite from. I hazard to guess that TLJ wouldn't have been such a subversive response piece had RJ not been boxed in on so many fronts. TFA wasn't how you start a trilogy that's going to be a group effort. Of course, RJ's installment probably torpedoed Abrams' ideas, and as a result we'll probably get a fairly straightforward action flick with ep. 9.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/31 16:58:37
So we're back to this nonsense about how Rian Johnson had no room for creative freedom and therefore had to lash out against everything TFA set up?
Again: No. Johnson was hired to direct the second episode in a series, where the first episode was a huge success. His job was to develop and deepen the points set up in TFA, not contain or retract them. Now we have no set up for a third film. Episode IX will basically be a soft reboot, a la Revenge of the Sith.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/31 17:05:36
I don't think TFA is as subversive as some people are claiming. It's a matter of perspective and the future audience.
For one thing, we've had 6 films about the Skywalker family and it's time to let someone else have a go at being the main interest.
For a second, all the actors from the original films are too old (and dead in Carrie Fisher's case) to be convincing action heroes for a young audience. Otherwise you turn SW into Red in Spaaace, with a bunch of retirees subverting convention in a comic way by being over the hill but still badaaaas. Does anyone want to see an 80-year-old Harrison Ford as Han Solo with a Zimmer frame?
From both these points, the flame has to pass to a new generation.
The third point is that the modern audience includes the Millenial generation and their children.These people actually are a lot more in favour of social justice than the average of several decades ago. They like having non-white actors in major roles. If there was any sex n Star Wars, it probably would have a bit of non-hetero flavour, but Disney are aiming for a 12 certificate.
For a fourth point, the Millenials also are a lot more media savvy than us older folks. They are far more comfortable with convoluted plots and story arcs, and "hidden" information. Their ability to read a visual "text" has been developed due to the many improvements (or at least, changes) in the way films and TV are written now compared to 40 years ago.
Re-considering TLJ, I think the writers put a lot of thought into addressing these factors.
You may not think it was done right. However, we should be honest with ourselves and recognise that, while a lot of people hated the film, a lot more people like it, hence the overall rating of just under 68%..
gorgon wrote: Loading a SW movie up with mystery boxes and a cliffhanger ending are questionable moves on their own, but real jackhole moves when another director is being given the next installment. It's no wonder they gave it back to Abrams...clearly he didn't want to give the other directors the room to tell their own stories.
A Star Wars trilogy is not an appropriate place for directors to tell their own story. That might work in the likes of Indiana Jones, where each movie is it's own separate self contained stand alone story. But Star Wars has always been a Saga. It tells a continuous story across a trilogy of movies.
Rian Johnson quite frankly was a poor choice for the middle act of a trilogy film. He should have been relegated to a stand alone Star Wars Story movie like Rogue One or Solo. Or at the very least, given the opening Part of a 3 Part trilogy, so his successor could work with and build on whatever he does, instead of having get the train back on rails after he deliberately and gleefully derailed it.
Instead he was given free reign to do whatever the feth he pleased with the middle act of a multi billion Franchise's sequel trilogy, and he made a bonfire out of everything that the previous director set up for him because Rian knows best and his Vision is paramount to the detriment of the overall trilogy.
Kilkrazy, you make it sound like TLJ was inevitable. But it was a reaction against an even more successful movie, TFA. TFA was not only more successful but a lot less polarizing. TLJ did not have to be the way that it was at all. That is the point of people who say Rian Johnson bravely and boldly turned away from JJ Abrams's lead.
Perhaps Disney will learn that a trilogy needs a unified vision. You can't have part 2 be a backlash against part 1, especially when part 1 was really well-received.
14000
15000
4000 
s with grudges going back centuries, even our supposed allies are pretty awful, and there's no apparent plan for actually winning the war. The war in TLJ, on the other hand, is presented as a virtuous struggle against the space Nazis, much more like WWII than modern wars.
