****Star Wars: Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker - Official Thread****

I know it'll sound utterly silly, but I don't think those knights of Ren costumes look particularly "star wars universe" to me, and almost look more anime (massive swords, big axes/clubs) even if the helmets are a bit star warsy.
 
ianh said:
IMHO it's a weird situation where in older films (from a less "progressive" time) Lando is a good character 'who happens to be black' or Ripley is a good character 'who happens to be a woman' or Frank N Furter is a good character 'who happens to a transvestite' etc yet modern "progressive" film making seems to reversing that to base the most defining aspect of the character around 'what' they are rather than 'who' they are and the characters themselves and the stories they're trying to tell suffer for it.
Click to expand...
Because acknowledging a person's race within the film's canon informs their character. It's a step beyond mere colourblind casting to actually draw on the likely history of a character.

Ripley, in fact, is a pretty ****** example you picked, because her motivation is clearly reflecting a mothering instinct in all the movies. It's a key part of her character.

And I've never actually watched Rocky Horror, but I'd be pretty surprised if Frank N Furter's trans-ness is not a key part of the character.
 
I just wonder if episode 9 is going to play olut like it was originally planned, with Abrams having to try to undo all the damage Johnsons cluster-**** of movie done to things that were set out in TFA. Bound to be a lot of sticking plasters in place.
 
cheesyboy said:
And I've never actually watched Rocky Horror, but I'd be pretty surprised if Frank N Furter's trans-ness is not a key part of the character.
Click to expand...

It's part of the song lyrics when Frank n Furter first enters the film if I recall (can't remember how early this song appears):

Don't judge a book by its cover
I'm not much of a man by the light of day
But by night I'm one hell of a lover
I'm just a sweet transvestite
From Transexual, Transylvania
Click to expand...
 
cheesyboy said:
Because acknowledging a person's race within the film's canon informs their character. It's a step beyond mere colourblind casting to actually draw on the likely history of a character.

Ripley, in fact, is a pretty ****** example you picked, because her motivation is clearly reflecting a mothering instinct in all the movies. It's a key part of her character.

And I've never actually watched Rocky Horror, but I'd be pretty surprised if Frank N Furter's trans-ness is not a key part of the character.
Click to expand...

But nowadays, you'd probably get shouted down for your sexist, misogynist views that Ripley's motivation is all about motherhood.

The fact is that characters used to just "be". We can see Ripley is a woman. You don't need to outline it in big red arrows and then give her a pat on the head for saving Newt "despite/because being a woman". If you want gender and race to be acknowledged and accepted in all it's forms, then you can't single out the special interests and hold them up on some kind of pedestal. You don't make everyone accept humanity in all it's forms by holding some above others based on whatever agenda you want to progress.
 
Last edited:
cheesyboy said:
Because acknowledging a person's race within the film's canon informs their character................
Click to expand...

Sorry I don't understand that.

The OT never acknowledged that Lando is Black (his race is never mentioned once) so, if they had, what difference would acknowledging his skin colour make to his character?
Alien never showed Ripley having "maternal" instincts so how is it a key part of her character in the 1979 film, considering she's written as a male in the original story? (Her even having a child is never mentioned until 1986 Aliens).
Frank'n'Furter is a non-human Alien, who also happens to a bisexual transvestite mad scientist. His character isn't defined by the singular point that he is a "transvestite" instead he's a fleshed out character who, amongst everything else the character is, just happens to be Trans as well, which other than a few lines here or there is not really made a big deal of.

I stand by my comment when I said that they are good characters first and foremost ("who they are") and not one dimensional identities based on "what they are" and we can judge for ourselves how we feel about them without ever having to be told "how" to feel about them and I prefer that style of film making rather than the more modern take which seems to be more focused on the "What" & "How" rather than the "Who" which makes the characters very one dimensional.
 
_Jimlad_ said:
Is this thread just full of grown ups who have not grown up and sad star wars is not how they remembered as a kid ?

It's just a slagging fest, however I have no doubt anyone in this thread will watch the movie

I was disappointed with Johnson's take on Luke. And seeing as JJ ended up doing the 3rd one they should have let him do all 3 from the start so he had complete control.

Saying that I am excited for this so are my kids !

At the end of the day. Episode 7 and 8 are far better films than the trash that were the prequals
Click to expand...
I was never really into Star Wars, but my brother was, and so I tended to go along and watch them.

After TFA I wouldn't go see any more. What an awful pile of garbage that movie was. Even my bro hated it - a lifelong SW fan.

So nah, I haven't seen whatever came after and won't be watching any that I don't chance upon on TV one day. But... it is fun to pop into the thread and listen to people's opinions, regardless. Undoubtedly more fun than watching any more of these turds.

And I too am saddened by the PC brigade making movies a platform for their social agendas, and giving that greater priority than having natural, believable characters entwined in a gripping story.

In the 80s we had product placement. Now we've got agenda placement. They both just serve to distract and devalue the experience.

That's not to say that you can't have a great movie that tells a moral tale. But if you design your movie as a platform for your views, rather than as a movie first and foremost, you're going to produce a turd, every time.

ianh said:
Sorry I don't understand that.
Click to expand...
Moreover, is there a "black history" in Star Wars? I mean, was their black slavery in that universe?

Or is the "history" of black characters actually just Earth's history (slavery) transposed onto the film?
 
Yeah TFA was just as bad as TLJ from a star wars universe and overall plot and character perspective. It was slightly less clumsy overall than TLJ which make people think it was decent. It was garbage.
 
FoxEye said:
I was never really into Star Wars, but my brother was, and so I tended to go along and watch them.

After TFA I wouldn't go see any more. What an awful pile of garbage that movie was. Even my bro hated it - a lifelong SW fan.

So nah, I haven't seen whatever came after and won't be watching any that I don't chance upon on TV one day. But... it is fun to pop into the thread and listen to people's opinions, regardless. Undoubtedly more fun than watching any more of these turds.

And I too am saddened by the PC brigade making movies a platform for their social agendas, and giving that greater priority than having natural, believable characters entwined in a gripping story.

In the 80s we had product placement. Now we've got agenda placement. They both just serve to distract and devalue the experience.

That's not to say that you can't have a great movie that tells a moral tale. But if you design your movie as a platform for your views, rather than as a movie first and foremost, you're going to produce a turd, every time.


Moreover, is there a "black history" in Star Wars? I mean, was their black slavery in that universe?

Or is the "history" of black characters actually just Earth's history (slavery) transposed onto the film?
Click to expand...

You know all of Hollywood is infested and corrupt so all the movies look hyper real and suck with bad casting, Acting and bad camerawork. I will never rent a movie past 2019 unless it is a one off war film like Dunkirk. But forget the dumb PC brigade look at the quality of the writing and camerawork it is AWFUL!

Who educated these people in film work? The amount of shaky camera in Hollywood is unreal, I find almost every modern movie hard to watch because 24p being a low refresh rate plays havoc with constantly changing scenes like Michael Bay movies. I think Ironclad is the worst i saw but the battle scenes in Braveheart too are also pretty bad. The things people did with Cleopatra, Spartacus, Ben Hur now those are movies! What the current generation watch is just how music evolved from Meat Loaf to autotune trash.
 
Rofflay said:
Yea i said the guy was wood, But it is watchable and you know why i can watch it? Because the film was not cast with political quotas in mind. At least he somehow made it based on merit.

Ridley got her role because of feminism. Boyega got his role because they need a token black guy and to attract that black panther fanbase. And Tran got her role because there are a billion Chinese people who will be looking thier star wars fix. This is what globalism does to movies you have to divide up all the actors by race just to keep everyone buying the blurays.


It looks dumb, And it degrades the purpose of casting for the right role and once the painfully old original cast can no longer perform it will leave this sorry bunch as the future of star wars. And you will all see how B rate it will look.
Click to expand...

If the film was actually any good, you wouldn't have noticed any of the above. Poor writing, inconsistent characters, out of place humour and a shoddy plot killed the film for me. It was like it was written by a guy who'd only ever seen pictures of Star Wars and had to make up what it was all about for his own story.
 
ianh said:
Sorry I don't understand that.

The OT never acknowledged that Lando is Black (his race is never mentioned once) so, if they had, what difference would acknowledging his skin colour make to his character?
Alien never showed Ripley having "maternal" instincts so how is it a key part of her character in the 1979 film, considering she's written as a male in the original story? (Her even having a child is never mentioned until 1986 Aliens).
Frank'n'Furter is a non-human Alien, who also happens to a bisexual transvestite mad scientist. His character isn't defined by the singular point that he is a "transvestite" instead he's a fleshed out character who, amongst everything else the character is, just happens to be Trans as well, which other than a few lines here or there is not really made a big deal of.

I stand by my comment when I said that they are good characters first and foremost ("who they are") and not one dimensional identities based on "what they are" and we can judge for ourselves how we feel about them without ever having to be told "how" to feel about them and I prefer that style of film making rather than the more modern take which seems to be more focused on the "What" & "How" rather than the "Who" which makes the characters very one dimensional.
Click to expand...
The screenplay for Alien was written with non-gender-specific roles. Ripley wasn't originally a man, but neither was she a woman. They later set on her being female, and the whole film, and subsequent films, are rife with maternal themes. The onboard computer on the Nostromo was even called Mother! If you missed the themes, then you weren't watching properly!

Also worth noting how the other 'female' crew member was dealt with a little differently by the Alien, and how that crew member was actually trans - reassigned at birth.

And Ripley's femininity was explored more and more through subsequent movies - is she less of an all-time-great movie character because of it, or did it define and raise up her character? Aliens is a ******* masterpiece!

It's easy to say "great character first and foremost" as if that diminishes the idea that their identity should be informed by their race/sex/age - of course they should be a great character first! But having an actual background or world view that is informed by their differences is what often raises great characters above the rest.

The best action film (by a significant margin) of the past decade, Fury Road, is another that is carried by a story of womanhood - vs the patriarchy / extreme toxic masculinity, no less. Furiosa simply couldn't have been a man - it just wouldn't work.

One of the let-downs of Rey in SW is that her being a woman is utterly ignored. We get fanboys gnashing their teeth over the SJWs or whatever, ruing SW - to some extent they're right: why is she a woman? It informs nothing of her character. Then again, why should it have to, I guess.
 
They either try and undo the situation formulated in TLJ and thus admit it was garbage. Or they stick with it and upset the majority of fans.

If JJ can find a third way, to legitimise TLJ while creating a story the majority fans can actually unite around it will be a miracle. We need answers why Rey is so powerful, this is the one question that if they run from and just ignore this trilogy is rendered complete bunk.
 
Rofflay said:
What the current generation watch is just how music evolved from Meat Loaf to autotune trash.
Click to expand...

Not really a high bar to drop from if Meat Loaf is the starting point ;)

cheesyboy said:
Also worth noting how the other 'female' crew member was dealt with a little differently by the Alien, and how that crew member was actually trans - reassigned at birth.
Click to expand...

Say what? I'm a huge Alien fan and never heard that about Lambert before, how do I not know this? Can you add a bit more detail.
 
Considering it's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it retcon detail from the second movie and not something originally written as part of the character's background, I don't see how it has any bearing on the way the Alien killed her.

Alice Collins disagrees in this article, but then, Alice is trans M2F and demonstrates how easy it is read into things and make them suit your point of view.

Alice Collins said:
Near the end of the film, it’s only her and Ripley against the Xenomorph. Every male character has died and Lambert has helped to take out Ash, saving what’s left of the crew from a secondary threat. Even though she is killed, there is a SMALL amount of empowerment that can be found through not only her actions in the first movie but also a major retcon shown in Aliens.
Click to expand...
Does that sound right to you? Because I recall Lambert pretty much freaking out for the entire movie before she froze in absolute terror and got both herself and Parker killed.
Even Ripley had to give her a slap ffs :D
As for "helped to take out Ash"... LOL she did bugger all. Parker had to literally throw her out of the way. EDIT: Forgot she managed to use the cattle prod at the end, but still...
I don't see any empowering aspects of her character. In fact, she pretty much portrayed a terrified and basically useless female stereotype.
Making her trans after the fact changes nothing.

Alice Collins said:
The revelation that Lambert is intersex makes her already horrific death even worse. In a movie that heavily deals with rape as its subtext, this is even more shocking. Think about it the next time you watch Alien.
Click to expand...
Yeah?
I'd say getting an alien's tail shoved up your nethers is a bad way to go, regardless of whichever gender you identify with, or the genitals you happen to possess.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom