A new Star Wars happened, and opinions are released upon us like nibbling hounds demanding biscuits

[Kyrian007]

And there it is. So it wouldn't be a problem "in the current Zeitgeist" if the character was Ray and male?

How exactly would they pander to Feminists with a male seemingly Super-Capable Rey?

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And there it is. So it wouldn't be a problem "in the current Zeitgeist" if the character was Ray and male?

How exactly would they pander to Feminists with a male seemingly Super-Capable Rey?

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

No dude, YOU are making it about gender. I didn't say that pandering in and of itself is bad. But it does make it easy to write badly and then have people such as yourself jump to the defense of said bad writing.

I'm saying it's not unreasonible to assume that Rey may be written the way she is to Pander. Which would be bad because we then lack a reasonible in-universe explanation for her awesomeness and are graced with people such as yourself that try to squash the criticism surrounding those poor choices in writing.

You are basically sitting here going "No, everyone stop being critical of this character. I don't want to think about how this character I like for reasons outside of the narrative doesn't seem thought out in context of the established narrative."

Your inability to handle the criticism is your problem. That's why you have to try and make it about misogyny.

And are you fucking kidding me? The main cast of these new Movies is a white Female, Asian Female, Black Male and a Latino Male. You'd have to be incredibly naive to think that no pandering to special interest groups is going on here and this just incidentally came about in the process of writing the story. Really really really naive.

Also Star Wars Rogue One's protaginist is a female. I remember seeing an Article that they guys running Disney's Star Wars know what they are doing, that they want to make every Star Wars movie have Female Protagnists.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

And there it is. So it wouldn't be a problem "in the current Zeitgeist" if the character was Ray and male? And suddenly we're back to it being a problem because of gender, and not because of how the character was written.

It would still be a problem, it's not like people don't complain about Jon Snows and Wesley Crushers when they infect the media they appear in.

Well, with Wesley Crusher it isn't the same at all. Wesley was used as a Deus Ex Machina several times... becoming a (admitted by the writers) writer's crutch before anyone started caring or complaining about it. But Rey has the audacity to be good at stuff... and a girl, and the second the movie is over the redpillers are crying all over the internet about how "mary sue" she is.

Jon Snow? I only read the books, and I don't see much parallel there. Of course in the books he's still dead, and has screwed up easily as much as lucked into a couple of wins.

What is entertaining in movie series devoted to character development in character that never struggles? Just has everything handed, always achieves etc.

Luke went from dumb redneck with golden heart and loving family, to force sensitive whiny ***** struggling with harsh reality (being son of fictional Hitler, becoming amputee and getting entangled in war, dealings of criminals and ancient religion), to grown man who makes respectful decisions, puts his life on the line for friends and family, is adept in warfare and shenanigans of said religion, reforms that religion adding something which both schizmatic sides of that religion seem to have lost or never had, human nature (he relies on his and sees it in others, even his father).

Luke is relatable to people who expect, that hard work and harsh beat ups that life serves may eventually give an amazing payout if someone maintains the course despite obstacles (unlike with entitled lill b&@tch Anakin). Rey is relatable if you expect to have everything just be handed to you, that you feel you're just that undiscovered prodigy like her. Never felt like working for it, because in your mind you don't have to. That you struggle, stranded like her but that's not your fault. Truth is such day never comes and even if it comes you will miss the opportunity anyway. That's why Rey is so dull and artificial as a character.

Trivial example, why would she 'rescue' BB8? It's a droid, piece of junk she's surrounded in daily. She collects and sells junk, she's nobody from nowhere, that has to think about her survival daily, not devise anthropomorphism of droids.
Luke the farm boy would help to catch it for few creds and move on with his life. Why she wouldn't? After 2nd part it's obvious, there's nothing to motivate such action but yet she did 'the right thing'. Luke did 'the right thing' by sheer coincidence. Sure he was written into it but not at expense of his character.

It's a blow doll equivalent of 'power fantasy', just like Amilyn Holdo is a blow doll of leadership and sacrifice. All the pretense none of substance. Neither of these 2 earned the payout they recieve. Unlike Luke and Leia, who prove themselves. They're not perfect but both work for their goals, both pay for their choices, both thread on despite problems. They could be just an unrelated, random shmuck from Tatooine and daughter of notable politician from Alderaan and their characters would still work.

It all spins around idea, that if you work hard, fate (or the foooorceee) may toss you a bone from time to time. If you're good, that will be all that you need to pull yourself to greatness.

Trying to deprecate this obvious disparity down to set of genitalias on character is a nonsense.

 

[Sonmi]

And there it is. So it wouldn't be a problem "in the current Zeitgeist" if the character was Ray and male? And suddenly we're back to it being a problem because of gender, and not because of how the character was written.

It would still be a problem, it's not like people don't complain about Jon Snows and Wesley Crushers when they infect the media they appear in.

Well, with Wesley Crusher it isn't the same at all. Wesley was used as a Deus Ex Machina several times... becoming a (admitted by the writers) writer's crutch before anyone started caring or complaining about it. But Rey has the audacity to be good at stuff... and a girl, and the second the movie is over the redpillers are crying all over the internet about how "mary sue" she is.

Jon Snow? I only read the books, and I don't see much parallel there. Of course in the books he's still dead, and has screwed up easily as much as lucked into a couple of wins.

Wesley was always an obnoxiously talented at everything Gary Stu, him becoming a crutch later on is more further proof that Roddenberry was losing his touch more than anything. One could argue that Hermione, by comparison, is also often used a crutch by Rowling in HP, but despite being hypercompetent, she's no Sue, she has her vulnerabilities of her own, things Sues/Stus don't tend to have. Wesley, Rey, and Jon Snow sure as hell don't for one.

The complaints about Rey being a Sue are worse this time around because people trusted that her hypercompetence would be explained by the second movie, that all of the mystery surrounding her was simply one of the classic Abrams ploy. Johnson took over though, and scrapped pretty much everything Abrams had set-up... Rey's backstory, the Knights of Ren, Captain Phasma, Supreme Leader Snoke, they've all been thrashed, leaving no proper explanation for Rey being... well, Rey.

Jon Snow is in a similar situation as Rey as far as being unbelievable goes. He has the same problem of being automatically trusted and cherished by every "good" character around him, be that Mormont, the Halfhand, Stannis, Mance, Tyrion (though "good" is shoddily applied here), or Ygritte, without ever having to prove himself or to actually endearing himself to them. Add to that the fact both of them also obtain a "magic sword" in a poorly written way (Mormont giving Jon his family heirloom for no reason, Luke's lightsabre "choosing" Rey), poorly explained magical powers (Rey's force sensitivity/Jon's warging abilities), or inherit gratuitously other characters' sidekicks only adds to that. They're poorly written YA protagonists that the creator desperately want you to root for, and Sues/Stus.

The fact that "redpilled" morons are acting like "redpilled" morons and ridiculously blaming a feminist conspiracy behind Rey being a Sue does not make her any less of a Sue.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

I think all this Rey debate can be ended with one sentnce:

Rey is not a good and well written character.

This character will not be as fondly remembered and iconic as Luke Skywalker, Kylo Ren will not be as rememebered and iconic as Darth Vader.

No kid will buy a Kylo Ren action figure over a Darth Vader one.

 

[Random Gamer]

Also Star Wars Rogue One's protaginist is a female. I remember seeing an Article that they guys running Disney's Star Wars know what they are doing, that they want to make every Star Wars movie have Female Protagnists.

And - as just said above me - she wasn't exactly a Mary Sue either. More balanced character than Rey, definitely. Not due to the actresses but to the writing. Odds are, those writers could write a terrible Gary Sue under the "right" circumstances.

 

[cathou]

The complaints about Rey being a Sue are worse this time around because people trusted that her hypercompetence would be explained by the second movie, that all of the mystery surrounding her was simply one of the classic Abrams ploy. Johnson took over though, and scrapped pretty much everything Abrams had set-up... Rey's backstory, the Knights of Ren, Captain Phasma, Supreme Leader Snoke, they've all been thrashed, leaving no proper explanation for Rey being... well, Rey.

Seriously, i would be more pissed if Rey was a Skywalker, a Solo or a Kenobi. She a nobody, the force activate her power to balance Kylo Ren, i like that explanation actually. I think i said it before, but Jedi are not suppose to have kids, so why everyone have decided that to be powerfull she needed to be a Skywalker.

The knights of Ren, could very well still be in the story. all the movie was on Snoke's ship, maybe they are traiing elsewhere, maybe they are on missions elsewhere, maybe they stay in their capital...

Phasma, i admit, she is a let down. she could have more things to do. i think Hux should have stayed in space, and Kylo and Phasma directing the attack on the ground, keeping her alive for another movie.

Snoke, well, he had is role. he corrupted Kylo, he put in place the first order, and get killed. why i should need more ? i mean, take the OT. after return of the jedi, we know as much about the Emperor than we know about Snoke. all the Emperor or even the Empire backstory was never truly explain the the OT. and nobody got mad about it...

 

[Natemans]

I think all this Rey debate can be ended with one sentnce:

Rey is not a good and well written character.

This character will not be as fondly remembered and iconic as Luke Skywalker, Kylo Ren will not be as rememebered and iconic as Darth Vader.

No kid will buy a Kylo Ren action figure over a Darth Vader one.

I disagree with most of that. Most people I've talked to have pretty much liked both of those characters a lot.

 

[Sonmi]

Seriously, i would be more pissed if Rey was a Skywalker, a Solo or a Kenobi. She a nobody, the force activate her power to balance Kylo Ren, i like that explanation actually. I think i said it before, but Jedi are not suppose to have kids, so why everyone have decided that to be powerfull she needed to be a Skywalker.

She doesn't need to be a Solo, a Skywalker, or a Kennobi, practically anything explaining her extreme force sensibility would have been better than what we got, which is that she simply is. I'm seriously hoping the hand clone theory turns up to be true, that would give some small amount of sense to her character in the grand scheme of the series.

The whole "the Jedi are not supposed to have kids" mantra only applied to the Jedi Order, which was abolished by the end of Revenge of the Sith, it doesn't apply to force users in general.

The knights of Ren, could very well still be in the story. all the movie was on Snoke's ship, maybe they are traiing elsewhere, maybe they are on missions elsewhere, maybe they stay in their capital...

Considering Abrams is taking back the series for the next installment, I think that might be possible, but it's pretty apparent that Johnson simply didn't give a damn and completely ignored them for Episode 8 at least, which meshes poorly with the "grand scheme of things" aspect of Star Wars.

Phasma, i admit, she is a let down. she could have more things to do. i think Hux should have stayed in space, and Kylo and Phasma directing the attack on the ground, keeping her alive for another movie.

Hux should have been a one-off character, as far as I am concerned. To turn the Nazi analogue into a comic relief feels distasteful and tonally inconsistent, considering he's responsible for the death of billions.

Snoke, well, he had is role. he corrupted Kylo, he put in place the first order, and get killed. why i should need more ? i mean, take the OT. after return of the jedi, we know as much about the Emperor than we know about Snoke. all the Emperor or even the Empire backstory was never truly explain the the OT. and nobody got mad about it...

I don't think you can compare the Original Trilogy with the Sequel Trilogy here. For one, the Emperor existed in a complete vacuum, in a self-contained universe we were still exploring and not entirely knowledgeable about, we didn't really need to know more about him, because we relatively know as much about him as we know about the universe. We know the Empire is evil, we it's led by a powerful force user, we know there's a Rebellion, and that's pretty much it, it all works by itself. By comparison, we know an absurd amount about everything that surrounds the events that came before the Sequel Trilogy due to everything we learned in the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy, and even the extended universe. We still know nothing of how the First Order operates, or why the Rebellion became the Resistance, where Snoke comes from, or how he came into power, or what is relation with what came before is. He's too important in the grand scheme of things to be left a complete, ultimately pointless mystery. It could have worked within a new intellectual property, but it falls flat on its face in Star Wars.

Not only that, but they're treated differently narratively too, the Emperor is built up to be the ultimate evil throughout the OT, and his death is the climax of the whole series, leading to the redemption and death of Anakin Skywalker, it's poignant, and it has meaning narratively. Snoke on the other hand is killed unceremoniously and anti-climatically by the end of the second installment of the series, it doesn't bring closure, only confusion as to what is supposed to come next.

 

[Natemans]

The complaints about Rey being a Sue are worse this time around because people trusted that her hypercompetence would be explained by the second movie, that all of the mystery surrounding her was simply one of the classic Abrams ploy. Johnson took over though, and scrapped pretty much everything Abrams had set-up... Rey's backstory, the Knights of Ren, Captain Phasma, Supreme Leader Snoke, they've all been thrashed, leaving no proper explanation for Rey being... well, Rey.

Seriously, i would be more pissed if Rey was a Skywalker, a Solo or a Kenobi. She a nobody, the force activate her power to balance Kylo Ren, i like that explanation actually. I think i said it before, but Jedi are not suppose to have kids, so why everyone have decided that to be powerfull she needed to be a Skywalker.

The knights of Ren, could very well still be in the story. all the movie was on Snoke's ship, maybe they are traiing elsewhere, maybe they are on missions elsewhere, maybe they stay in their capital...

Phasma, i admit, she is a let down. she could have more things to do. i think Hux should have stayed in space, and Kylo and Phasma directing the attack on the ground, keeping her alive for another movie.

Snoke, well, he had is role. he corrupted Kylo, he put in place the first order, and get killed. why i should need more ? i mean, take the OT. after return of the jedi, we know as much about the Emperor than we know about Snoke. all the Emperor or even the Empire backstory was never truly explain the the OT. and nobody got mad about it...

I agree.

 

[Dalsyne]

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

I feel the need to interject - saying that a character's a mary sue is criticism, not sexism. And as far as I'm concerned it's never going to be sexism. Please stop coming here in bad faith and poisoning the well by morally condemning people with valid criticisms.

Also I guess I should share my opinion on the movie - it was better than TFA, and probably better than the prequels. I'm not sure at this point. The Finn subplot went nowhere and actively made things worse, and the fact that this didn't affect Finn at all, when he even says "it was all worth it" at some point, is even more off-putting.

And then there was the humor. Out of tone, too frequent, and actively made the experience worse. Disney pls.

There's plenty more flaws, but these two are the major ones and I won't nitpick.

 

[Bashfluff]

Great film.

Loved how they advanced Luke's character and Kylo's. Finn's arc is a little weak and he should have died at the end, but hey, maybe they want an excuse to have the death toll rise in the next film.

I've heard people say that it was packed with some of the worst Star Wars moments and some of the best Star Wars moments, and I think that's right on the money. But for me, there are two kinds of films. There are films where I'm constantly thinking of little things that bother me after I see them, and films where I'm constantly yammering about stuff I liked in the film.

The Last Jedi is the latter. I'm honestly impressed by how well Rian Johnson directed this one, and I'm eager to see his new trilogy.

 

[Dazzle Novak]

It still amazes me how people believe quarter-billion dollar, focus-grouped blockbusters are a medium in which to express a yen for unequivocal personal expression and radical social change.

"Fight the power by giving us more of your money! Yeah, you're really sticking it to us 1% fat cats! Isn't greed and capitalism the worst? BUYPORGSBUYPORGSBUYPORGSBUYPORGS"

I have a good feeling my new strip club Spread'em will really be appreciated as the premier venue for nuanced discourse on the commodification of women in modern society and I'm so glad to have been sponsored by Hummer in our mutual effort to raise awareness on responsible carbon emission!

How is this any less eye-roll-inducingly cynical than Pepsi equating fighting police brutality with sharing a cola?

 

[Hawki]

Spoiler

The only prediction I got right was that Ren and Rey would team up and fight the Knights of Ren. But I thought that would happen in Episode IX. It was a nice fight.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Elite_Praetorian_Guard

(They're not the Knights of Ren.)

 

[Kyrian007]

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

I feel the need to interject - saying that a character's a mary sue is criticism, not sexism. And as far as I'm concerned it's never going to be sexism. Please stop coming here in bad faith and poisoning the well by morally condemning people with valid criticisms.

Maybe there was a time when that was true, but it really isn't any more. Its a shield. Crying little manchildren screaming about mary sue and pandering just because someone dares to write a story about someone other than a man and makes them actually good at something. No gender, no nationality, no race is OWED any part. Any complaint based on gender is just the mewling of triggered morons.

 

[Jamcie Kerbizz]

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

I feel the need to interject - saying that a character's a mary sue is criticism, not sexism. And as far as I'm concerned it's never going to be sexism. Please stop coming here in bad faith and poisoning the well by morally condemning people with valid criticisms.

Maybe there was a time when that was true, but it really isn't any more. Its a shield. Crying little manchildren screaming about mary sue and pandering just because someone dares to write a story about someone other than a man and makes them actually good at something. No gender, no nationality, no race is OWED any part. Any complaint based on gender is just the mewling of triggered morons.

How did the obvious part that MS criticizm isn't about gender went over your head? Get it through your narrow mind that it's just collocation in English, language overwhemingly foreign to everyone discussing things on internet. Adequote synonyms in other languages describing mary sue criticism aren't gendered at all... ._.

In general meaning is that writer tried to put in so much pathos in character, so hard, that it made said creation unreal and grotesque, outlandish, out of place, irrationaly omnipotent - surprisingly out of character.
Would be easier to communicate it in other language. I personally would reframe it in English to much older denominatio - that being baroque style - concentrating too much on form and detail and falling flat when it comes to actual tenor.

Depicting and piling up amazing feats, abilities and achievements but when you start looking into it and asking core questions such as how? why? what for? it just falls apart. Its an old, discredited and already recognised centuries ago as essence of shoddiness/trashiness(?) form of art. In one of other languages I know it's called roughly translating 'deer on a rut'.
As I wrote before all the pretense and none of substance.

 

[Kyrian007]

That's EXACTLY my point. It wouldn't be a problem. They aren't making it a gender issue, they just wrote a story. The people crying about "mary sue" and "pandering to Feminists" are making it about gender.

I feel the need to interject - saying that a character's a mary sue is criticism, not sexism. And as far as I'm concerned it's never going to be sexism. Please stop coming here in bad faith and poisoning the well by morally condemning people with valid criticisms.

Maybe there was a time when that was true, but it really isn't any more. Its a shield. Crying little manchildren screaming about mary sue and pandering just because someone dares to write a story about someone other than a man and makes them actually good at something. No gender, no nationality, no race is OWED any part. Any complaint based on gender is just the mewling of triggered morons.

How did the obvious part that MS criticizm isn't about gender went over your head? Get it through your narrow mind that it's just collocation in English, language overwhemingly foreign to everyone discussing things on internet. Adequote synonyms in other languages describing mary sue criticism aren't gendered at all... ._.

In general meaning is that writer tried to put in so much pathos in character, so hard, that it made said creation unreal and grotesque, outlandish, out of place, irrationaly omnipotent - surprisingly out of character.
Would be easier to communicate it in other language. I personally would reframe it in English to much older denominatio - that being baroque style - concentrating too much on form and detail and falling flat when it comes to actual tenor.

Depicting and piling up amazing feats, abilities and achievements but when you start looking into it and asking core questions such as how? why? what for? it just falls apart. Its an old, discredited and already recognised centuries ago as essence of shoddiness/trashiness(?) form of art. In one of other languages I know it's called roughly translating 'deer on a rut'.
As I wrote before all the pretense and none of substance.

It didn't go over my head, its shield bs. If "mary sue" isn't about gender and its just a colloquialism... then why is it a gendered term AT ALL? "Wow, Rey's character ark is hackneyed, cliche, shoddy, trashy, deer on a rut" you're right, plenty of ways to describe it. Just based on the arguments I've seen online here and in other places... "mary sue" is a colloquialism/accusation ONLY used by the redpiller idiots or their ilk. Defense of the term is just deflection. "Oh, I'm not racist just because I call _____ people _____. That word goes back to yadda yadda whatever shield bs." I've never personally seen the term "mary sue" used by anyone who DIDN'T turn out to have a problem with the gender of the person in question. It may only have been a part of their issue with the character, it even may have accompanied legitimate arguments about character development... but its always a part.

I guess in summation, words have meaning and connotation. And some of that is unavoidable. A person can't call another a Nazi and then when called out on it come back and claim that what they meant was the "some other organization that called themselves Nazi's long before WW2" the deflection doesn't matter because everyone knows what the accusation was. "Mary sue" is just like that, I know what someone means when they use that accusation. I know what they are arguing about and why. And I tend to just dismiss it because of the inherent worthlessness of that worldview. Usually ignore, I just got kind of drawn into it here. I'm thinking I'll go back to ignore it.