The black guy is correct, don't use non-white characters if you're not going to do anything with them. If you are just going to use them as token characters. They threw him and the Vietnamese girl under bus, the black guy was right to speak out.
share[deleted]
The Madalorian did things right. I didn't get the sense the non-white characters were there to tick diversity boxes. They really did the Vietnamese girl foul. She wasn't as outspoken as the black guy, but she should have. They really threw her under bus. I am not saying they should have elaborated her character. I am saying they shouldn't have given her an elevated cameo if it didn't serve the story. Don't give non-white characters elevated roles just because they are non-white. Yeah... we know, the star of the show is the feminist Caucasian Rey. We get it. They even threw Luke Skywalker's legendary character away, and didn't proper use him, or give him the respect and gravitas his character deserved all being he was a Straight White Male. The f'king Fem-Nazi, Kathleen Kennedy. The Force is definitely not feminism, crazy bitch ruined Star Wars by bring her SJW woke politics into it.
share being he was a Straight White Male. The f'king Fem-Nazi, Kathleen Kennedy. The Force is definitely not feminism, crazy bitch ruined Star Wars by bring her SJW woke politics into it.
wow angry woman hating, star wars hating, star wars fan verbal diahorrhea overload right there!
would you like a glass of water?
Slut hating* more like it.
shareagreed
shareBetter to not use any characters if you're not going to do anything with them.
...Right?
There's a reason Chekhov's Gun is such a well-known and highly-regarded writing principle; hell, Aristotle argued for the same in his Poetics, over a millenium before that.
I can't for the life of me see where race comes into it at all.
But what about red herrings? Aren't they a contradiction to Chekhov's Gun?
sharePossibly; but then again, by their very definition red herrings depend on the assumption that any element a story goes out of its way to present to its audience will be significant later.
shareA red herring is a false clue, something that will lead the (often detective) lead character astray, but red herrings are not intrinsically non-sequitors. The best ones will still have something to do with the plot or characters.
If we stick with Chekov and consider a literal gun, for instance, perhaps there is a red herring where one character is suspected to be the murderer because they own a firearm that matches the murder weapon. Heck, let's stick with Chekov and say that it's right there on the mantelpiece. The character who owns it is reputedly a crack shot with it and brags about his hunting prowess. Later on, the hero discovers that the gun is a replica - a fake which won't fire. He confronts the braggart, who then breaks down and begs the hero not to reveal his cowardice. Then, the explanation of where the hunting trophies really came from (since this wimp didn't do it) leads the detective onto some other clue.
In that scenario, the red herring is misleading, but not inconsequential to the plot. Chekov would likely be satisfied because his point wasn't that elements must be used a certain way, but just that everything in the story must have a point, and if you make a promise (there is a gun in this house) it must pay off (the gun gets fired (or discovered to be a fake)).