New Star Wars Movie – Huge problem

[Dez82Participant 107]

I love Star Wars, so I think I’ll watch this movie anyway.
However due to the direction that Hollywood is taking I think Star Wars will be one of the last colossal movie I’ll ever watch.

Hollywood is raping the old classics, so screw that. I’m calling out.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Skeptisk wrote:

Well, first Star Wars-movie I won’t see…. And I’m a Star Wars-fan.

This will be #3 for me. They lost me at midichlorians. They were already on thin ice thanks to the Ewoks, but that was the final straw.

[Anonymous 3]

Star Wars was always feminist.

In the OT Leiah was a “Princess” and rebel leader that could fight and command much older men. Why? One because she had a vagina and two because she was raised as royalty.

Her brother Luke didn’t have the vagina so he doesn’t get to be a leader or respected by birth. He has to earn it. Of course since Luke was a male who was dropped off as some poor farmer, while Leiah was raised as royalty.

Leiah mouthed off constantly to Han Solo too.

Probably you guys just didn’t care because you were much younger when you watched it. Same way young boys will just be conditioned to not care and accept this new white chick with her black sidekick running around.

Han Solo wasn’t black but he was also a thug criminal.

This cultural rot didn’t just start a decade ago, it’s been there for decades, certainly for the first Star Wars. I wasn’t that impressed with Star Wars even as a kid, although I didn’t really watch it probably until my teens or something, when I eventually got around to it. I mostly didn’t even have any real interest in Star Wars until playing the KOTOR games, especially KOTOR2 with TSLRCM. The rest of it is all childish nonsense. Lightsabers are kind of cool to watch but not enough to obsess over.

I think this will be easy to skip. The only reason to watch is if you really, really feel you have to in order to talk about it or something. But really if you’re ghosting what does that matter. Anyway we should have members write reviews and give summaries when it does come out. Only a couple of months now.

As for me I’ll probably be playing Fallout 4 instead.

[TheBardParticipant 974]

Anonymous wrote:

I have no problems with women and minorities being in movies. Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman, and Billy Dee Williams played excellent and very relevant characters in the other Star Wars movies. There were no PC agendas being shoved down anyone’s throat unlike today.

That is the biggest problem. A woman, black guy, and Mexican guy may have very well been the best actors that auditioned for the role. Perhaps the writers did envision a woman as the main hero. Maybe the producers saw the audition for Rey and were amazed so they made the main character a woman. Thank to PC culture and SJW’s people will always think pandering and PC instead of an actor got the part for their skills.

RoyDal wrote:

Disney has been running a “boys bad, girls good” shtick since the 1930s. Now that they have Star Wars and Marvel under their collective thumb, that is the party line from these two as well.

Luckily they don’t have and probably will never have DC comics.

[Anonymous 11]

TheBard wrote:

Thank to PC culture and SJW’s people will always think pandering and PC instead of an actor got the part for their skills.

Concur, Bard. PC actually destroys the very credibility of those whom it proclaims to protect. I won’t go to a woman doctor for that very same reason. She could possibly be the best doctor on the Planet, but I have to assume she was allowed to be there by the forces of PC.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

In the OT Leiah was a “Princess” and rebel leader that could fight and command much older men.

Actually, no. She was not a rebel leader, she was just a rebel spy and courier. Think Harriet Tubman… in space. Once that cover was blown her role was mostly as a source of information and advice. Someone else was always making the actual decisions. As such she was only ever a “princess” because Lucas cribber her from Princess Yuki in The Hidden Fortress.

[Cap285Participant 6007]

Anonymous wrote:

I have no problems with women and minorities being in movies. Carrie Fisher, Natalie Portman, and Billy Dee Williams played excellent and very relevant characters in the other Star Wars movies. There were no PC agendas being shoved down anyone’s throat unlike today.

Exactly! Bill Dee was perfect for Lando. No white guy could pull that off. Not in 1,000 years. Not many black actors could pull that off. He was tailor made for Lando.

Anonymous wrote:

Looking forward for your analysis on this @cap285.

Thanks. I’ll give my initial shock response after the first viewing. Then probably see it again for a more level headed viewing once John Williams score is out of my head.

Fuck this planet.

[Anonymous 3]

sidecar wrote:

phoenix wrote:

In the OT Leiah was a “Princess” and rebel leader that could fight and command much older men.

Actually, no. She was not a rebel leader, she was just a rebel spy and courier. Think Harriet Tubman… in space. Once that cover was blown her role was mostly as a source of information and advice. Someone else was always making the actual decisions. As such she was only ever a “princess” because Lucas cribber her from Princess Yuki in The Hidden Fortress.

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that entirely. She was most certainly a leader, and she most certainly was a “princess.” Star Wars always had monarchies, Padme was also a Queen herself.

A lot of Star Wars is a mindless mish mash of stuff that doesn’t really work if you look at it closely. TBH, I think very poorly of people that obsess over it and insist it is some high water mark of storytelling and logical consistency.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that entirely. She was most certainly a leader,

But not in the rebellion. As part of the rebellion she was at best middle management, and if you’ve looked into any of the off camera canon she was mostly a loose cannon pain in the ass to the rebel leadership, being all too knowledgeable of their activities, and yet also all too eager to pull stupid stunts putting herself at risk of capture, thereby risking the empire learning the secrets she held. The “diplomatic mission” wherein she was captured at the beginning of Star Wars was one such stunt.

and she most certainly was a “princess.”

Which is just a title. How much political power does “Prince” Charles really have? Hell, the poor bastard couldn’t even marry who he wanted.

Star Wars always had monarchies, Padme was also a Queen herself.

Who?

But seriously, yeah, the rot had definitely set in by the time of the prequels, but not so in the first films (at least before Lucas went back and f~~~ed them). You could see stuff starting to go to hell in Jedi.

[Anonymous 3]

sidecar wrote:

phoenix wrote:

I’m going to have to disagree with you on that entirely. She was most certainly a leader,

But not in the rebellion. As part of the rebellion she was at best middle management, and if you’ve looked into any of the off camera canon she was mostly a loose cannon pain in the ass to the rebel leadership, being all too knowledgeable of their activities, and yet also all too eager to pull stupid stunts putting herself at risk of capture, thereby risking the empire learning the secrets she held. The “diplomatic mission” wherein she was captured at the beginning of Star Wars was one such stunt.

and she most certainly was a “princess.”

Which is just a title. How much political power does “Prince” Charles really have? Hell, the poor bastard couldn’t even marry who he wanted.

Star Wars always had monarchies, Padme was also a Queen herself.

Who?
But seriously, yeah, the rot had definitely set in by the time of the prequels, but not so in the first films (at least before Lucas went back and f~~~ed them). You could see stuff starting to go to hell in Jedi.

The rot was already there for the OT. Feminism was very strong from the 70s onwards. If you really want to find stuff that isn’t feminist influenced, at the least you have to go back to before that, maybe around Twilight Zone time.

Leah mouthed off constantly and had a very high level position and role in the OT films. If anything her role got lessened in the latter two films just because it was obvious Luke was more popular. I think the goal was to make Leah the main character but at the time the public wasn’t quite ready to accept it. Now they’re going full ahead with it with this new chick.

There are levels of MGTOW and just how much liberalism people are willing to accept, I’m on the least accepting scale of it. You’re probably a bit more accepting so you’re willing to justify some of it and overlook it. But we’re not going to agree on this. I will agree it’s most certainly WORSE in the PT, but by no means do I think the OT is completely free of it either.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Anonymous wrote:

The rot was already there for the OT. Feminism was very strong from the 70s onwards. If you really want to find stuff that isn’t feminist influenced, at the least you have to go back to before that, maybe around Twilight Zone time.

But here’s the thing about that: when Lucas made Star Wars he basically mish-mashed together a bunch of films made in the ’50s and earlier from before the feminist taint had hit hollywood. That’s one of the reasons for the tremendous success of Star Wars: it was very much an old time movie, with very traditional themes, but in a futuristic setting. The same is true of Empire. Lucas only succumbed to the Dark Side really with Jedi.

Anonymous wrote:

Leah mouthed off constantly and had a very high level position and role in the OT films.

Because the Leia character was a direct rip-off of the Princess Yuki character from The Hidden Fortress. Princess Yuki was an mouthy, obnoxious bitch, and so Leia was also a mouthy, obnoxious bitch. If anything Leia was toned down from Yuki.

It’s entirely possible for a woman to be an obnoxious, mouthy bitch without being feminist.

Anonymous wrote:

If anything her role got lessened in the latter two films just because it was obvious Luke was more popular. I think the goal was to make Leah the main character but at the time the public wasn’t quite ready to accept it.

Nah. Luke was always supposed to be the main character, even back in the rough drafts when he was Luke Starkiller. Because he’s basically an author self insert of George Lucas himself. Think about it: Luke … Lucas.

If anything it’s Han Solo who was the unexpected break-out character.

Anonymous wrote:

But we’re not going to agree on this.

Well you’re perfectly welcome to persist in being wrong if that’s your thing.

I will agree it’s most certainly WORSE in the PT, but by no means do I think the OT is completely free of it either.

Again, the very reason for the massive success of Star Wars and Empire was because they WERE free of progressive and feminist bulls~~~. They were old school stories in a futurist setting. Just look at the way Han gunned down Greedo under the table in cold blood. That’s something you’d only see in a hardcore cowboy flick from the ’40s or ’50s. When I saw that in the theater people f~~~ing cheered. There is no way in hell that scene has any place in a liberal feminist movie, which is exactly why post Jedi progressive Lucas went back and f~~~ed with it.

[Author]

Posts