I have a problem with L337, but it's not that she is a female (which she isn't, not matter what Jon Kasdan thinks) but how she is being presented. I blame the writer, though, not women in general. I'm not saying Kathleen Kennedy doesn't have some serious attitude problems with men that bleed over into the films, because she does. Still, I don't entirely accept your point about women, or that they somehow automatically "ruin" a Star Wars film by their very presence. I liked Jyn Erso, in Rogue One, and I mostly liked two of the three ACTUAL women in Solo. That's actually only one more women than Star Wars, which only had two women, Leia (major role) and Aunt Beru (minor role) . Are you saying adding one or two more women per film ruins them? Empty Nest (whatever) wasn't great casting, I'll grant you that, but it could just have easily been a scrawny dude under the helmet. Would that have been equally as problematic? See we have a problem here, if Star Wars is saying there is only one plucky and brave woman in the entire galaxy (Leia) that seems unbelievable because the population sample is simply too big for that to be true in any galaxy. It would also be unbelievable if there were no evil female characters in Star Wars, which we haven't really gotten so far in the movies, but we did somewhat in the Clone Wars show. All I can really think of as far as evil women are Zam Wessel the assassin from Attack of the Clones and Captain Phasma from TFA. Both barely have screen time. Zam Wessel is interesting enough but Phasma is made to be an incredibly weak character, but is that the fault of women in general or the male writers who created her? I get what people are saying about artificially inflated female representation. It was a huge mistake to show the Resistance being led almost exclusively by women in TLJ. For the most part, though, the problem seems more how specific characters are presented (especially Rey and Holdo) than the actual number of females per film.
reply
share