Debate the Star Wars Sequels (And OT)

[False Epiphany]

Continued from the other thread.

The Star Wars sequels are bad movies and Rey is a Mary Sue.

We're treading new ground here, I know.

I already address this with the last cherry picked screen shot.

It's not "cherry picked" when we have such a big basket of cherries. More like cherry grabbed. ANH and ESB both depict a Rebel Alliance that's almost exclusively human, male, and white. Go look through other scenes in the movies. The Rebs are about as diverse as the Empire in two-thirds of the OT.

I think some more women, aliens, and varied skin palettes would've better illustrated the Alliance's good guy status and more inclusive mindset, but oh well. At least they did in RotJ.

The OT has the narrative subtlety of a brick being thrown through your window. The good guys are good, the bad guys are bad. Luke hero's journey's his way through the story like Campbell wrote the script for Lucas.

I love it. But it's a campy space opera, not high fucking art. It's intentionally on the nose in its morals, and not shy about it.

You're right, actually, "The OT doesn't bash you over the head with anything" is inaccurate of me.

The OT's head-bashed social message doesn't come at the expense of its quality.

(With the exception of ewoks defeating the Empire's finest troops, which Lucas thought sent a good message.)

But they're the genders they are because Lucas wanted to push that political agenda at you.

And since the movie does it well nobody cares. Mon Mothma and Palpatine are well-written characters cast by good actors (within their campy space opera that's not high fucking art).

Also, the story is schlock.

The good guy redeems the bad guy. The bad guy sacrifices himself to destroy the bigger bad guy. The other good guys turn a giant thing into a giant explosion.

It's not original but it's executed well, even if ANH and ESB execute stronger films.

Ewoks with sticks beat a trained army with guns.

Yeah, no argument there. Wookiees would have been more plausible and also could have given Chewie a bigger role in the film.

Palpatine completely forgets that Sith betray each other all the time,

An odd complaint, considering he remembers to betray Vader.

and that Vader wants to convert Luke to the Sith (which means Palpatine's gonna have to go....), and turns his back on Vader while torturing Luke

By RotJ, Vader has served Palpatine for 23 years, more than enough time to either overthrow his master or get killed in the attempt if he were really serious about it. (Sure, he tempts Luke in ESB to overthrow the emperor with him, but he doesn't even try in RotJ when his master is close by.) Palpatine assumed Vader was a broken dog who had nothing left but service to his master. What he forgot was that Anakin only turned to the dark side to save his family, and seeing them in peril again could also bring him back to the light.

Vader didn't try to strike Palpatine down to seize power. He didn't try to preserve his own life. He let Palpatine fry him to death with Force lightning if that meant he could chuck the emperor down a bottomless pit, because he didn't care about his own life next to saving his son. Palpatine didn't believe Vader would make that kind of sacrifice, never saw it coming, and his error in judgment was appropriate. Evil could not comprehend good.

because the Emperor needs to go down without Luke striking him down in anger.

That's precisely how he needed to go down. Luke never defeats the emperor through force of arms despite being the hero. The only way he wins is by reaching the goodness inside Vader rather than striking his father down, against the advice of Obi-Wan (but not Yoda, who tellingly only says Luke must "confront" Vader).

It's a hell of a better story than Rey using two lightsabers to shoot lightning back onto Palpy's head.

Ah yes the time honored, "I'm not a sexist, but there's not way my argument make sense unless you accept sexist logic," approach (sorry, but sexists have ruined the Mary Sue complaint, not that it was ever a good complaint anyway because they took the name of a female character to focus on instead of what was wrong with her as a character, which Rey is nothing like).

Ah yes, the time honored, "You think Rey is a badly written character, and you think Disney's social agenda caused them to write her badly, so you must be sexist," approach. Where it's impossible to think writers could've had a laudable agenda (female lead after two male leads), but that their preconceptions about strong female leads (the female lead must be flawless to be strong) caused them to execute their agenda badly and at the character's expense. You are either on the right side and do not believe Rey is a Mary Sue, or you believe she is a Mary Sue and are a sexist.

But let's see. The character demonstrates unrealistically powerful abilities relative to her role in the story, demonstrates no significant flaws, faces no significant setbacks, is liked and respected when she shouldn't be, lays the smackdown on her own Jedi master, undergoes no significant character arc because she doesn't need one... that fits a Mary Sue.

Rey's gender never matters to her whole story.

The writers made Rey a virtually flawless character because of her gender.

Luke's character arc is compelling because he makes real mistakes, suffers harsh consequences, and doesn't always get to be the big damn hero. ESB ends with him getting symbolically castrated and saved by the people he thought he was going to save.

Call me cynical, but that would not fly with a female lead in the Disney writers' room. It would make Rey look "weak." Disney would get accused of sexism. The Twitter mobs would howl in endless outrage if Kylo chopped off Rey's hand in the grand tradition of Star Wars de-limbing, and people had to wait two years for another movie before seeing the bad guy get comeuppance. Rey has to always be the best at everything, because Disney thinks that is the only (or most financially profitable?) way to write strong female protagonists.

The sequels are, despite Internet folks trying to make it sound otherwise, two hits and one divisive move that bombed with critics but did well with audiences (no stinkers like Solo). They're not bad movies, you just don't like them. It's OK not to like things that most people thing are good! Not liking something doesn't have to mean it's bad!

So because the sequels did well with audiences, they have to be good movies? The Force Awakens and The Phantom Menace raked in more dollars than ESB, even adjusted for inflation. Does that make them better films?

Objective quality exists. The sequels have some good elements but are predominately schlock.

And JJ Abrams, not Disney, wanted Rey to be female. His reason? Not to craft a feminist icon or any of your theorizing/YouTube binged ideas.

Source, please. That JJ Abrams wasn't just the first person in the room to pitch the idea, and that crafting a feminist icon wasn't part of Disney's agenda.

He just felt the Star Wars movies had all been focused on a male lead, and wanted to try out a female lead.

It's too bad he couldn't write a decent one. That tends to silence critics who aren't sexists.

[ArcaneArts]

Is there a point to this thread beyond wanting Heavy Arms to agree with you?

Cause I'm not sure a personal beef needs a public forum.

[False Epiphany]

Every story have a political facet, well written or not. Every author pushes a social agenda of some kind. The only thing you achieve by bashing the agenda instead of the story is to alienate ideas before ever really looking into the story.

"Every story is political" is a widely circulated talking point these days.

It's also a fallacious one. Some stories are more (or more obviously) political than others. Some stories push different politics than others. Some stories' writers push their politics in problematic ways. Like when they believe that the only way to advance a feminist agenda is to write flawless female protagonists.

When a story is well-written, the author cuts the ground out from beneath people opposed its politics. They can no longer bash the story by claiming to criticize it on its artistic merits. Well-written stories (and well-made movies) better promote their message, be it a good message or an evil message. The Birth of a Nation was a well-made movie and helped fuel the second rise of the KKK because it was so well-made. Conversely, Star Trek: TNG makes an excellent case against the use of torture through an episode that's well-written and well-acted.

Rey being a bad character harms the cause of feminism.

[Ragged Robin]

Political arguments aside I don't really consider rey a Mary sue. She's just badly written and uninteresting-like films she's in. Her powers isn a more coherent setting might be considered sueish but 7-9 is such a mess in terms of coherence she isn't that disruptive.
Interestingly if the Rey character had been male in the force awakens it would have obvious how generic a protagonist of the 10's he is (gruff tough brown haired loner) which a shame because daisy ridleys a solid actor and the early contrasts with luke could have worked if developed better.

The cast area fine if 7-9 fail its ultimatly an issue that they're just re treading the plot of 4-6 but with less efficiency and coherence.

[monteparnas]

Is there a point to this thread beyond wanting Heavy Arms to agree with you?

Something like that, it seems.

The Star Wars sequels are bad movies and Rey is a Mary Sue.

Not an objective fact, and you didn't gave a single argument to prove it is.

You only stated, repeatedly, that it is bad because it is political, but it could be political and not be bad, which is a contradiction that you don't extricate yourself because you don't want to prove that it is bad, you want to prove that political motivation is bad. And that's all, rinse and repeat.

Rey isn't flawless. At least in the first movie (didn't saw the others yet) she's barely likable. And she isn't more or less OP than any other action hero.

If you don't believe that every story is political, fine. Rebels vs Empire in Space and World of Punk Social Criticism definitely are. The second one is even self-described as such.

Also, stop reversing the burden of proof, you're the one making very pressing statements about quality and intent without presenting any proof outside saying political agenda caused it to be bad.

[CTPhipps]

I think this thread was warned against as a topic and is primarily about virtue signalling. It is not a topic welcome here.