Those who disliked TLJ, are you still buying toys from it?

[SilverStar17]

The priority should be quality storytelling. Not political propaganda.

This is a big reason why Wonder Woman was such a successful film. A strong, kick *** heroic female character who still stopped to coo at babies and fell in love with an equally strong (albeit not physically of course), heroic male character.

Ugh, I share your frustration. Are other white men really this fragile and easily threatened by the idea of other genders or races having the spotlight for a change?? I just don't get it. We've been the center of everything for centuries, and the second some other group makes the slightest inroad people freak out and suggest there's some insidious anti-white, anti-men agenda at work, get very serious about "reverse racism", and use the term "SJW" a lot.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Vault Boy]

This is a big reason why Wonder Woman was such a successful film.

You're just reinforcing my point about quality female leads.

 

[SilverStar17]

You're just reinforcing my about quality female leads.

And without feeling the need to propagandize the film with a minority opinion.

 

[Vault Boy]

Sexism goes both ways. What the defenders need to understand is real simple. I like Luke Skywalker. Been a fan all of my life. So of course I'm offended by what KK & co did to him. That's it.

 

[ShadowX81]

This is a big reason why Wonder Woman was such a successful film. A strong, kick *** heroic female character who still stopped to coo at babies and fell in love with an equally strong (albeit not physically of course), heroic male character.

Not to mention never once used her femininity to belittle or demasculate her male companions.

She was strong and awesome because she had spent her whole life training to be that way and had earned it. Not because she trampled all over their dignity to elevate herself. This film could have easily been a feminism propaganda piece and instead they just chose to make a great movie and let her stand on her own. Her gender was almost irrelevant to why she was a great character.

 

[SilverStar17]

Not to mention never once used her femininity to belittle or demasculate her male companions.

She was strong and awesome because and spent her whole life training to be that way and had earned it. Not because she trampled all over their dignity to elevate herself. Her gender was almost irrelevant to why she was a great character.

 

[Spark Extractor]

So in a nutshell:

As long as these female roles fit into characteristics and actions that you (as men) have defined, then it's acceptable to you. If it doesn't adhere to that, then it's some sort of propaganda and somehow anti male. I wonder if you guys realize the absurdity of that.

 

[SilverStar17]

So in a nutshell:

As long as these female roles fit into characteristics and actions that you (as men) have defined, then it's acceptable to you. If it doesn't adhere to that, then it's some sort of propaganda and somehow anti male. I wonder if you guys realize the absurdity of that.

No. In other words we see them as characters with qualities beyond just the "woman first" label that you seemingly impute to them, just to simply fill a quota and nothing more.

 

[davejames]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm still not so sure what is so "wrong" here. Wanting to include more women or minorities in something doesn't automatically mean there is some "anti-white men agenda". And the fact it's being perceived that way by some is just baffling to me.

Although hell, even if there was an agenda, big deal. I don't feel remotely threatened by it anyway. They could have a woman as the lead in the next 20 SW movies for all I care.

 

[SilverStar17]

I'm still not so sure what is so "wrong" here. Wanting to include more women or minorities in something doesn't automatically mean there is some "anti-white men agenda". And the fact it's being perceived that way by some is just baffling to me.

Although hell, even if there was an agenda, big deal. I don't feel remotely threatened by it anyway. They could have a woman as the lead in the next 20 SW movies for all I care.

How are you being "inclusive" when you're essentially intentionally not including someone based on their skin color and gender because it's their turn to sit down so to speak?

A character's gender or race means nothing to me, never has, as long as it's a good character. However, I just don't see how you're being more inclusive when you're actively excluding someone based on nothing more than their physical appearance in order to do it. Kind of seems like a zero sum game to me, in the sense that one has to lose in order for someone else to win. +1, -1.

 

[Spark Extractor]

No. In other words we see them as characters with qualities beyond just the "woman" box that you seemingly put them in, just to simply fill a quota and nothing more.

I put no one in a box. If you read it that way, that's on you.

The point is that you have made rules and definitions of what is allowed as acceptable qualities for these characters. The very act of you being in charge of the rules undercuts your attempts at seeming to favor equality. Simply put: You are my equal as long as I get to define you and judge you according to my definitions because I'm in charge. That's what you guys are saying. The fact that you can't see that is no surprise.

Who says 'quota' anymore?

 

[davejames]

Sexism goes both ways. What the defenders need to understand is real simple. I like Luke Skywalker. Been a fan all of my life. So of course I'm offended by what KK & co did to him. That's it.

So.... Luke was written the way he was in this movie... because of sexism??

 

[RandomHero]

By that logic, Lucas is a woman hating racist that is pushing a 'white male power' agenda from the 6 movies he's made.

Right, because Princess Leia, Padme Naberrie, Mon Mothma, Mace Windu, Lando Calrissian, etc means he's a woman hating racist. Those are only the leaders of the Rebellion and the second strongest Jedi in the entire film series.

Nice try.

 

[SilverStar17]

I put no one in a box. If you read it that way, that's on you.

The point is that you have made rules and definitions of what is allowed as acceptable qualities for these characters. The very act of you being in charge of the rules undercuts your attempts at seeming to favor equality. Simply put: You are my equal as long as I get to define you and judge you according to my definitions because I'm in charge. That's what you guys are saying. The fact that you can't see that is no surprise.

Who says 'quota' anymore?

Are they good characters first to you, or women first?

 

[ShadowX81]

I put no one in a box. If you read it that way, that's on you.

The point is that you have made rules and definitions of what is allowed as acceptable qualities for these characters. The very act of you being in charge of the rules undercuts your attempts at seeming to favor equality. Simply put: You are my equal as long as I get to define you and judge you according to my definitions because I'm in charge. That's what you guys are saying. The fact that you can't see that is no surprise.

Who says 'quota' anymore?

You are basically saying that because men were in charge through most of cinematic history, that means that the characteristics people find likeable in a well written lead character are automatically sexist?

 

[davejames]

How are you being "inclusive" when you're essentially intentionally not including someone based on their skin color and gender because it's their turn to sit down so to speak?

A character's gender or race means nothing to me, never has, as long as it's a good character. However, I just don't see how one is being more inclusive when you're actively excluding someone based on their physical appearance, as mentioned.

Well if you include one person, someone else is naturally going to be excluded. And white men are still getting plenty of roles in Hollywood, so I'm not sure that's something we need to be overly concerned about.

 

[Mr.Tanker]

Sexism goes both ways. What the defenders need to understand is real simple. I like Luke Skywalker. Been a fan all of my life. So of course I'm offended by what KK & co did to him. That's it.

And what did Kathleen Kennedy (who was not the writer of this movie) do to him?

And no, you have not made any "points," other than "I liked these movies with female leads, but didn't like these other movies with female leads because of feminism."

 

[SilverStar17]

Well if you include one person, someone else is naturally going to be excluded.

Not by their physical appearance, the way you feel we need to be more "diverse" and "inclusive" by actively excluding someone based on nothing more than their physical appearance.

 

[sithlord13]

I'm still not so sure what is so "wrong" here. Wanting to include more women or minorities in something doesn't automatically mean there is some "anti-white men agenda". And the fact it's being perceived that way by some is just baffling to me.

Although hell, even if there was an agenda, big deal. I don't feel remotely threatened by it anyway. They could have a woman as the lead in the next 20 SW movies for all I care.

But surely that’s the point. Include more women and minorities. Not replace or force then in. I don’t care about gender or race but when organisations openly talk about these being the main story considerations that’s where it goes wrong.
Ripley, buffy, leia, Wonder Woman, great characters that happen to be women. Rather than woman who happen to be great characters.
Look at the bbc and the whole dr who thing and again this week people talking about a female ot black bond after Daniel Craig leaves. You wouldn’t recast buffy as a man would you ?

Anyway no issue with jyn cause the story worked. Rey I don’t really lie because her story doesn’t work.

 

[TonTon]

https://youtu.be/ODgwL7DJ9dY