Disney's Next strong female lead
Face_Palm said:What agenda are they pushing?
IndyBuff said:It's more of the same: forced diversity, female characters who have no flaws, bizarre sexual traits (making Lando pansexual) and cramming anti-capitalist junk in when they can (like the Canto Bight bit from TLJ). Star Wars has gone from something that was fun for everyone to being a divisive vehicle for people like Kennedy and Johnson to shove their politics into. We've had two films to explain why Rey is so powerful and we still know nothing. Luke, one of the strongest Jedi in history, is reducing to a bitter old man who does next to nothing. Nearly every male in The Last Jedi is shown to be impulsive, clueless, or weak. It's clear that Disney isn't interested in writing great stories or compelling characters, but rather preaching to their audience and shoving SJW politics into their narratives. Why can't they just write compelling characters without it having to boil down to race and gender? It's baffling.
I liked The Force Awakens and loved Rogue One, so I'm not just some hater jumping on a bandwagon. However, after The Last Jedi my enthusiasm is completely gone. Fans are pissed off about the hijacking of their franchise and the condescending replies from Lucasfilm and Disney aren't helping. I'm at the point where I don't want Indy V. I'm scared of what it will become and what lengths they'll go to in order to "update" that character as well.
Face_Palm said:Hollywood literally can’t do anything right. First they are white washing, now that films are more diverse people complain about forced diversity.
Disney pumped out 17 MCU movies in a row with a white male lead. Nobody claimed they had an agenda. 17!! Then one comes along - Black Panther and now they have an “agenda”. Get freaking real. Same with star wars. Did the first 6 films have a white male agenda with lead characters? These complaints are literally ridiculous.
Lambonius said:The complaints say far more about the people doing the complaining than about Disney. People see what they want to see in these things. If you go into these movies suspicious about Disney's "agenda," then you will find things to prove your fears. It is one of the clearest examples of confirmation bias that I've seen in a while.
Face_Palm said:Hollywood literally can’t do anything right. First they are white washing, now that films are more diverse people complain about forced diversity.
Disney pumped out 17 MCU movies in a row with a white male lead. Nobody claimed they had an agenda. 17!! Then one comes along - Black Panther and now they have an “agenda”. Get freaking real. Same with star wars. Did the first 6 films have a white male agenda with lead characters? These complaints are literally rediculous.
Lambonius said:I don't disagree that the newer characters are weaker than the originals, but they're not weak BECAUSE they're diverse. They're weak because the writing in general is generated from a corporate machine as opposed to a young visionary filmmaker trying to prove his art. Literally every new character, males included, is weaker. We are mostly on the same page in terms of opinions of the new versus the originals, but singling out the women as the root of the problems is silly.
Lambonius said:I don't disagree that the newer characters are weaker than the originals, but they're not weak BECAUSE they're diverse. They're weak because the writing in general is generated from a corporate machine as opposed to a young visionary filmmaker trying to prove his art. Literally every new character, males included, is weaker. We are mostly on the same page in terms of opinions of the new versus the originals, but singling out the women as the root of the problems is silly.
Raiders112390 said:Amen. Excellently said.
Face_Palm said:Exactly this. Honestly diversity in Star Wars has been a long time coming. It?s not anymore ?forced? than the first 6 films ?forced? male white characters.
Lambonius said:I don't disagree that the newer characters are weaker than the originals, but they're not weak BECAUSE they're diverse. They're weak because the writing in general is generated from a corporate machine as opposed to a young visionary filmmaker trying to prove his art. Literally every new character, males included, is weaker. We are mostly on the same page in terms of opinions of the new versus the originals, but singling out the women as the root of the problems is silly.
IndyBuff said:I'm not just singling out the women. Kennedy and the other producers have made a concerted effort to point out that they're putting women at the forefront. I just want great characters, regardless of gender or ethnicity. Having diversity just for the sake of it isn't enough to get a free pass. We've had better in the past and should have better writing now.
I agree. One of the most memorable villains against James Bond was a Korean called Oddjob who was played by a Japanese-American wrestler.Lambonius said:I don't disagree that the newer characters are weaker than the originals, but they're not weak BECAUSE they're diverse. They're weak because the writing in general is generated from a corporate machine as opposed to a young visionary filmmaker trying to prove his art.
Raiders112390 said:Or "Tiger" Tanaka in You Only Live Twice, who is supposed to be the Japanese equivalent of M but lives it up in style with his own private train and pretty much a harem of women, with gadgets that could match anything coming out of Q Branch. That's a character who is "diverse" but not for diversity's sake, who is played well, without any political agenda being rammed down the audience's throat.
9/11 was 17 years ago, and that still feels recent to me.Raiders112390 said:Considering the period, especially the fact that WWII was only twenty years prior, I consider Tanaka to be a strong character. It's him and his men who ultimately save the day even more than Bond. It's the training Bond receives from Tanaka that allows him to survive.