MovieChat Forums > Martoto > Replies
Martoto's Replies
Oh why didn't you say so before.....
Being angry at something for almost a full two years in the knowledge that it will never change is a rather massive flaw.
Perhaps you would have been a better lead in TFA on that basis.
But characters usually need to be at least partially sympathetic. So no luck there.
Their not your points so I don't get your ire and anxiety over the value I place in them.
And you have ignored all the qualifying adjectives ("quick" etc), then split sentences up to challenge things out of context so this clearly isn't an authentic argument/discussion.
"When the character is already great at everything for seemingly no reason,"
This, though, is entirely your point and your issue. So it has nothing to do with my genuine anticipation.
caio
No I referred to the overwhelmingly most popular topic that accompanies the criticism that the character receives. If you have an original perspective, fine.
No. Because the depiction of Rey successfully pulled that off. I wasn't anticipating or expecting it. But that;s what happened and I found I liked it a lot.
You need to take a wee break from feeling accuse and persecuted. It doesn't matter to me what and how you think, so why would I have to accuse you. Just using a recognizable (unless you've been in total seclusion for the best part of two years) point of reference. I assumed that you were posting this thread in the context of the general positive and negative reactions, rather than your own specific issues.
Your later comments confirm to me that you have peculiar way of determining "the worst lead ever". So be it. It's entirely up to you. Nothing to do with me, or anyone else for that matter, who and how you define the "best" "worst", "good" , "bad" for your own purposes.
Bye for now.
???
I thought you were asking why I liked it. Not why I think you should like it.
Since assumed agendas are invoked, virtually without fail, whenever identifying where the characterisation went "wrong", it is clear that virtually all those criticisms are carrying that presumption in with them.
You can't have seen many big budget films if you call Rey the worst lead you've ever seen.
As for faults, Rey's quasi self imposed exile. Waiting in vain following her abandonment. Unable to motivate herself to get off her butt and exploit her gifts. Quickness to anger at injustice. Fearful of a potentially greater destiny.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with her origin and destiny bring an "enigma" (unknown, mysterious, ambiguous etc) in the first movie of a minimum of three.
Lor San Tekka is an even bigger Marty Stu.
1. Old and so automatically sympathetic
2. Inexplicably has crucial information without any justification as to why he should have it or know about balance of the force. Who is he, Yoda? He's not even a Jedi.
3. Says all the right things about Royalty and stuff just to show that he's better than Poe in that respect.
4. Unrealistically says defiant things to the bad guy though he knows he'll be killed for it
5. Gets killed in state of grace therefore being nothing but an appealing character with no flaws or an arc or redemption in his story.
tut, tut, tut
Because she was the focus of a renewed sense of wonder about the mysteries of the force.
Her faults and her virtues were both relateable and appealing.
Plus her origin and her destiny are enigmas ripe for expanding on in the next two movies, at least.
Because I'm not baggaged with an agenda or feel the need to promote a counter-agenda, I can have an authentic experience while watching Rey and her new friend's trials and exploits.
This is about as trite as film criticism gets. In short, fuck your "grit" and "depth".
It's not the way I reason. It's their words. Not my fault if they cannot form their opinion into something coherent.
You're saying it doesn't deserve existence.
But if it didn't exist you wouldn't be able to say it's bad. Ergo, you don't deserve to say that.
Is that what you mean? Because that's what you are saying
If it didn't exist you wouldn't know if it was good or not.
Try again. There is a definitely a combination of words out there that says what it is that you're trying to say.
So Ghostbusters didn't deserve a remake?
Are those shows used as a platform to minimize men? Not the last time I checked.
Why is that a show that hadn't cast a woman as the main character but, thanks to the nature of the character, can and has been cast with a female actor is presumed to be for the purpose of minimising men?
"What I'm referring to in my example...."
Your referring to your [b]hypothetical[/b] example of repetitive, hypothetically dual purposed use of conventionally accepted banter from an inferred anti-male agenda.
Hypothetically, every utterance that the doctor says to anyone can be inferred as having a dual purpose of being anti- whatever the addressee is that the doctor is not. Not the Doctor's height, not the doctor's weight, age, accent etc, etc.
Hypothetically speaking, everything potentially has an anti- purpose.
Until the Doctor stops aiming for what the Doctor has always aimed at, helping those in need, then there is no need to infer that the character is now anti anything she wasn't anti- before or out to minimise something that was not minimal before she showed up as a woman.
Except perhaps minimising prejudices that she may not have faced as much when she appeared to humans as a man.
Neither does any remake, for that matter.
What a twit.
The doctor has called all humans idiots on a regular basis. If it becomes an attempt to control male behavior that we need to be wary of because it's now a female doctor then we're inviting a double standard. Which is the opposite intent of having a female doctor.
I came across this kind of anxiety recently on a radio programme where someone was calling for children's television shows to put an end to depictions of toddlers being amused by their father's (not their parent's) misfortune or just by their father, period. That the child's natural delight at the subversion of the person who is presented to them as the authority figure plants notions of the wretchedness of adult males in children's minds (including the children who will grow up to be wretched adult males, presumably). The words "silly daddy, hee-hee-hee" should be struck from every child cartoon character's lips. It doesn't matter that daddy slipped on a banana skin, stepped in too muddy a puddle, or burned his sausage on the barbecue. Children should not be allowed to perceive or remark upon the humour of that situation.
Demented.
Not everyone becomes an old grandfather. You cannot identify with one until your are one.
Hair and personality are important to some people. They carefully maintain a certain appearance and attitude because how they project is important to how they identify themselves.
Some people like to change. An important part of how they see themselves is their ability not to be pigeonholed in their appearance or demeanor.
... and to show how people had little respect for toon lives.
Its rating has come down quite a bit. Must be from voters who have actually seen the movie and weren't prepared to loved it already.
I imagine there is also a broader audience for this, particularly in the UK, than Nolan's previous films. So the kind of votes it's getting are more diverse also.