MovieChat Forums > Recognizer > Replies
Recognizer's Replies
There’s plenty of reason for women in Star Wars, just like any other story. If a character works better being female, then the character should be female. If the character works better as a male, then it should be male. But the decision should be driven by the story. If the choice of gender doesn’t affect the story, then it’s purely at the discretion of the writer.
Therefore, I’m not suggesting for a moment that Rey *should* have been male, only that it probably wouldn’t have made a difference either way.
I dare say that Disney only cares about business reasons
It’s a classic case of self-insertion
In early drafts of ANH, Luke was going to be a female character. So maybe Disney picked up on that and chose to realise that original concept in Rey?
Unfortunately, the most probable explanation is that Rey is female in order to push a gender politics agenda. I certainly can’t see any particular story reason. The character could have just as easily been male.
Throne room scene is the best part of the movie.
Yes, that’s the crux of it - TFA and TLJ don’t really connect and flow together like parts of a trilogy should. Far too little of TFA is picked up on and expanded on in this film, in favour of cheap jokes, superfluous characters and subplots, and basically either ignoring or demolishing the plot threads set up in TFA.
Out of the two, TFA feels more like a SW movie to me. It follows the SW narrative structure a lot more closely.
I think he should have continued controlling the story at a high level by writing the story treatments and plot outlines, but leave the finer details and directing to others. He actually wrote treatments for this sequel trilogy, but Disney/Abrams/Johnson largely ignored them.
Did you not see the prequels? It’s all about how Palpatine caused the war so he could take power and overthrow the Republic to start a new Sith Empire.
Indeed. The casino was the perfect place to introduce him. He could have had Lobot with him, the latter being the slicer. Would have been a good way for Lando to join the fight.
These serve to illustrate the general perception of Star Wars on the part of RJ and quite possibly Disney. It’s devolved to a kind of self-parody.
What would be cool is if Lando got the Falcon back.
Denis Lawson (actor who played Wedge) was approached to appear in TFA, but wasn’t interested. The source I read (haven’t got it to hand right now) said that he said that “it would bore me”
Well, I could tell you why, but the PC crowd would lynch me ;)
On a related note, I see there's a Maz Kanata action figure, even though she appeared superfluously for 30 seconds in a video communication. If I were a cynical man, I'd say it's almost as if they put her in the film just to sell the action figure ...
Hover over the thumbnails on the left. Sik dance moves, bro!
First Contact. Probably the best Trek film overall, certainly the best TNG one. Had a great story, the Borg are always good value (particularly here since significant time is spent on how Picard has been affected by his Locutus experience), and we finally get to see a (if not the) pivotal moment in human history: the first warp flight (along with it's all-too-human creator/pilot) and subsequent first contact with an alien species. It just worked as a Trek movie. It's the second highest rated Trek film on IMDB, not counting the reboot films (7.6, just pipped by Wrath of Khan at 7.7). It is an excellent film, even more so given that it's the 8th in the series.
I have no wish for your face to be pummeled, but you show a lack of empathy in that you can’t seem to understand that to some people, real life is way less than ideal and contains things that are legitimate sources of anger. I’m not saying a movie necessarily is, but you suggest that wanting escapism is a cause for therapy. I simply disagree.
Maybe he’s invested because modern real life kinda sucks? That’s the whole point of film - escapism. Films are meant to be fairytales that offer an idealised escape from the real. Ralph has no need of a therapist, but perhaps you need one to discuss your lack of empathy.
I don't think that was the point. The point (as I saw it) was that IF you grant that Rey is a Mary Sue, then you must also grant, by the same logic, that Luke is a Gary Stu. That's all. It's not about confirming or denying whether Rey is a Mary Sue. Either both are a Mary Sue/Gary Stu, or neither are. I've seen some arguments that attempt to show how they are different, but I don't buy them.
I think the reason it's never been raised with regard to Luke before is that there was no Mary Sue character before now to compare and contrast with. Before Rey, the question of Luke being a Gary Stu was literally a non-issue, because it never occured to anyone to consider it. It's only since Rey that the Mary Sue idea in relation to Star Wars has entered the fan consciousness, and therefore why nobody considered it vis a vis Luke before now.
So, where’s the Mary Sue brigade with their counter-argument? *crickets*
This is spot on, and cleanly destroys the Mary Sue argument. If Rey can be argued to be a Mary Sue, then Luke can be argued to be a Marty Stu by the same logic.