Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-29 05:12pm

Patroklos wrote:
2017-09-29 02:24am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-28 08:38pm
Patroklos, I tried to get through that extremely long-winded piece of bull shit but... fuck it.

You started this discussion out by asking that I treat you civilly (followed immediately by an accusatory implication of dishonesty on my part). I have tried to converse with you in a reasonable manner and treat you like an adult.

You have responded by, among other things, repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments, misrepresenting or outright ignoring/contradicting canon evidence to laughable extents (the Death Star shot wasn't supposed to be hard? Really? :lol: ), broken-record debating, nitpicking, absurd standards of evidence (Rey is only shown flying a speeder twice on-screen, so we must assume that she rarely flew it :lol: :lol: ), and repeated accusations of dishonesty against me. You have also insinuated that I am myself a misogynist because I am putting Luke on a pedestal, and implied that my arguments in defence of Rey's characterization are based on masturbatory fantasies (because a man could never like a female character for reasons other than her body, am I right?- I'd say that implication says more about you than it does about me).

I could repeat all my points, go through your argument line by line, but I have no reason to believe that you would do anything other than continue to ignore and distort my arguments.

As to the accusation of dishonest, I'll say what I always say when someone falsely tries that line against me: either put your money where your mouth is and report me, or retract the accusation.

As to your argument that the writing of TFA is inferior to A New Hope's: I agree. But it does not follow from that that Rey is a "Mary Sue", by any definition*. Her actions and abilities are all explicable within the established rules of the Star Wars universe, and you more or less acknowledged this yourself. The film's failing in depicting her abilities is that it requires the audience to fill in some of the blanks themselves (if failing that is), but its not hard to do if you're at all familiar with the franchise.

Rey is neither an author insert, nor is she an implausible character or one who bends the setting around her (at least no more than other high-end Force users). Ergo, not a Mary Sue.


*Well, other than "capable female character who makes Alt-Reich man-children uncomfortable, anyway.
Blah Blah Blah, you cowardly whiny concession is noted.
Not a concession. Just saying that I'm not going to waste my time repeating points you refuse to debate honestly.

But what the hell... since I'm already replying to this drivel, and I have a few hours to spare, I'll give it one more shot.
You just don't or can't address the arguements so we are back to outraged petulant TRR, a defense mechanism as predictable and effective as a rolled armadillo on a highway.
Trying to redirect this thread from a debate on my arguments to another "let's bash TRR" circle-jerk. I've never seen that before. :roll:

And what arguments? That making the Death Star shot wasn't supposed to be hard, so you can claim that Rey is a "Mary Sue" while Luke isn't? That my views on Rey are potentially motivated by masturbatory fantasies? That Rey's performance as a pilot is "objectively better" (your words) than any other person in Star Wars (with no statistical evidence to back this bold assertion up), and that if I disagree with you, I'm a liar? That "I'm a nine year old who failed to finish some pod races" is a better qualification for a fighter pilot than anything Rey had? That because I'm an admitted Luke fan, my arguments regarding Luke are invalid due to bias, and I'm a sexist who's placing Luke on a pedestal over Rey? That I think the sole point of A New Hope's ending is that Luke is awesome, because I acknowledge that he made a difficult shot? Claiming that I have failed to address your points when I have done so at length, and that I have therefore conceded (only not really, so that you can also imply that I am violating board rules)? Persistently telling me what I am saying or thinking, rather than addressing my actual statements? Etc., etc. Those brilliant arguments?

And hey, I mean that sincerely. They really are brilliant comedy. :D

You've also persistently downplayed Rey's experiences, demanding an unreasonable standard of evidence for her ability (to the point of attacking me for saying she routinely piloted a speeder because we only saw her doing it once or twice on-screen). While also downplaying Luke's achievements, in contradiction to canon, so that you can hold him to a different standard than Rey.

You have likewise contradicted yourself on weather working with space craft is significant, both noting that it is a potentially useful qualification if you have piloting experience as well, and then saying that it means nothing. You also misconstrued (deliberately or accidentally) my point in stating that Anakin's feats are canon. Its not because I thought that the canonicity of Rey's accomplishments are in doubt (though given that you apparently miss major plot points like "the Death Star shot was hard", I suppose I may have given you too much credit), nor is it because I think "canon=good writing". Its because the cornerstone of my entire argument is that Rey's abilities are not out of synch with the established norms of what high-end Force users are capable of, so citing canon examples of similar feats is highly relevant to establishing that. I thought that was how we were supposed to debate here? By citing canon evidence that supported our claims?

Of course, your response is to basically say "If you're using Episode One as evidence, you lose." :lol:

You also dismissed Anakin's feats as "slapstick" and "he was on autopilot", ignoring that it wasn't just the computer doing everything and it was still pretty damn impressive (not to mention ridiculous) for a nine year old who'd never flown anything but a pod racer before. And that "it was slapstick" doesn't change the fact that its a canon precedent for this kind of use of the Force.

Now, you're right that TMP had a less serious tone. And you're right that its badly written, and if I was arguing for the literary merits of TFA's script, comparing it to TPM would indeed be doing my argument no favors. Again, I'm not saying TPM or TFA were brilliantly written. But I am saying that their is ample precedent that this is how the Force works, and so you can't treat Rey as a ridiculous outlier, or "Mary Sue", by the standards of her fictional universe, without employing a double-standard.

Their are also at least a couple of points in this debate that are still somewhat ambiguous for lack of evidence:

First, weather or not Rey had prior piloting experience beyond flying a land speeder. I vaguely recall some dialog to that effect, and you seemed to acknowledge this (though perhaps their was a misunderstanding), so I didn't think that this point was in dispute until you reversed course and started mocking me for equating piloting a speeder to piloting a space craft (of course, if Anakin flies a pod racer, that apparently does qualify as suitable experience for flying a star fighter). :roll: An exact quote would be helpful, I think, though I don't have a copy of TFA on hand.

Second: Weather there is such a thing as "latent Force ability". I think that this is at the least highly implied by various pieces of canon, most notably young Anakin's feats, but I will acknowledge that I can't prove off-hand that it is inarguably canon. More evidence is needed on this point as well.

I will also accept two points that you made in this debate without qualification:

First, that training on civilian aircraft (like Luke did) is a useful way of training a fighter pilot. But it doesn't much effect my estimate of weather Rey was qualified, nor would I say that that is sufficient explanation for Luke's demonstrated ability at Yavin (since he'd presumably never flown an X-wing or flown in combat before). Thus, it doesn't really affect the validity of my argument.

Second, that other films, such as A New Hope or The Matrix, do put more time into setting up their protagonists' abilities. That said, just because TFA's script is a bit thin doesn't mean that Rey is a Mary Sue. Their are, to the best of my recollections, basically two serious definition of "Mary Sue" that have been offered in this thread: an author self-insert, or an idealized/over-powered character. Rey is clearly not the latter (or at least there is zero evidence presented for her being so), and the latter is disproven by demonstrating that Rey's abilities are not out of step with the established standards for her universe, which is why that is the cornerstone of my argument.

Is the script very well constructed? No. And if I were defending the merits of TFA's script relative to the OT, that would be a problem for me. But I'm not. What I am saying is "the script was poorly written" doesn't equal "Rey is a Mary Sue." Her abilities generally have reasonably consistent explanations if you are familiar with the Star Wars universe, even based on the limited evidence available in TFA. The audience has to work a little harder to fill in the blanks, which at some point would become a failing on the part of the writers, but that doesn't make her a Mary Sue.

In short, I think that part of the problem is that we're operating from different definitions of what constitutes a "Mary Sue".

I'd also point out, however, that The Matrix and A New Hope were both the first film in their franchise, and thus had a greater need to establish how their universe worked and lay the ground work for audience suspension of disbelief. Holding TFA, the seventh Star Wars film, to the same standard in terms of the amount of set-up needed, is unfair.

As for the personal insults and attacks... attacking my personality because its an easier way to score points on this board than attacking my arguments. I've never seen that before. :roll:
That's not how this board works, however. By the rules of this board you have to say it. Whithout all of the meally mouthed self congratulatory virtue signally woe is me I'm so oppressed self indulgent quibbling to caveat your way out of losing the argument.
I'm not conceding. I never intended to concede. I simply refuse to waste time endlessly repeating arguments I've already made, which you have not refuted with anything other than dishonest nitpicking and ignoring of canon evidence. I'm not going to spend another hour trying to convince you that, yes, the Death Star shot was supposed to be difficult. :wanker:

But again, if you feel that I am violating board rules, put your money where your mouth is and report me, instead of playing mod.
What, you think someone's going to report you for your transparent mysogony misdirect, and that pathetic alt-right smoke screen in the last one? You are trying to distract wolves by throwing apples here, nobody gives a fuck about you lame attempts to identity politic your way out of the argument other than to note how pathetically ineffective it is. You think THAT is what you will get reported here? Seriously? :lol:
I brought up sexist double-standards because it is one of the reasons, ONE of the reasons, why I feel that Rey is held to a different standard than Luke or Anakin. It was never an attempt to "misdirect" from anything, it was not my only or even the bulk of my argument. You have misrepresented it as such, because it is you, not I, who is trying to derail this thread into a debate on "identity politics".

I think that there are two main problems, after one cuts through all the meandering bullshit and personal sniping, which are keeping this from being a productive debate.

The first is that you and I are using different definitions of what constitutes a Mary Sue. You are arguing, more or less, that Rey is a Mary Sue because her abilities are not set-up in-depth throughout the film (using a ridiculous double-standard of what constitutes reasonable set-up, but that's another matter). I am arguing that regardless of the thinly-developed script and plot holes, her abilities are generally consistent with what has been previously established in the Star Wars franchise, rather than her being an overpowered outlier, and that therefore she is not a Mary Sue.

You even basically acknowledged this distinction, when you posted "The problem isn't that Rey performed something amazing, its that it was not set up correctly in a dramatic enterprise."

I think the other problem, frankly, is that you came here primed to fight me personally, with a personal hostility toward me, and seeing this as a political values debate against "TRR the nasty SJW". That has colored your approach to this entire debate.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-29 05:25pm

Khaat wrote:
2017-09-26 07:43pm
I have been clear that this is the whole issue: Rey has been poorly expressed as a character. Her "known skills" have to be hand-waved because JJA does "show and not tell" to such extremes as to be detrimental to her quality. We didn't hear about her skills in dialog, we didn't see or hear of routine use of skills she would exhibit later at great proficiency. This has the effect of removing her agency: she is a puppet to the will of the Force, if that's what ensures she succeeds at everything. Shine-up the plot's railroad tracks, she's got the cheat codes enabled.
Okay then.

My counter-argument would be that:

a) A poorly-written script does not make Rey a Mary Sue. You have to provide a definition of "Mary Sue" (since the term has multiple definitions to the point of being largely meaningless), then demonstrate how her abilities/actions/characterization fit that definition.

I've provided two definitions at least, and argued that Rey does not match either of them. She's not a self-insert, nor is she a particularly overpowered or idealized character by the standards of her universe. Certainly not if, as I suspect, she turns out to be a Skywalker.

b) Rey is not a puppet of the Will of the Force. The Force (both latently and, later, consciously) assists her, but it is ultimately her choice how she reacts to the circumstances she finds herself in. She is, to some extent, caught up in events against her will, rather than through her own choices, and I suppose you could argue that that is a weakness of the film, and of her characterization. But it is ultimately she who takes control of her destiny- the decisive turning point being aboard Starkiller Base, where she takes the initiative in carrying out her own escape, after accepting and for the first time consciously using her new-found abilities with the Force. Followed up by her choosing to go find and train with Luke, unless we assume that Leia held a gun to her head off-screen or something.

Never mind that "the Force both controls and is controlled by you" is literally one of the first things we ever learn about the Force in Star Wars, right back in A New Hope.

In any case, claiming that my argument denies Rey's agency sounds an awful lot like you're taking the same tack Patroklos is, only more subtly- trying to reflect the allegation of sexism back onto me. I don't know if that was your intent, but I'd prefer that we avoid any more of that kind of argument by character assassination. I won't do it to you if you don't do it to me.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Khaat » 2017-09-29 08:04pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-29 05:25pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-26 07:43pm
I have been clear that this is the whole issue: Rey has been poorly expressed as a character. Her "known skills" have to be hand-waved because JJA does "show and not tell" to such extremes as to be detrimental to her quality. We didn't hear about her skills in dialog, we didn't see or hear of routine use of skills she would exhibit later at great proficiency. This has the effect of removing her agency: she is a puppet to the will of the Force, if that's what ensures she succeeds at everything. Shine-up the plot's railroad tracks, she's got the cheat codes enabled.
*snip*a) A poorly-written script does not make Rey a Mary Sue. You have to provide a definition of "Mary Sue" (since the term has multiple definitions to the point of being largely meaningless), then demonstrate how her abilities/actions/characterization fit that definition.
See the part you quoted? Here, let me pull it out, so you aren't confused:
Rey has been poorly expressed as a character. Her "known skills" have to be hand-waved because JJA does "show and not tell" to such extremes as to be detrimental to her quality.
That's what I've been using since you got your knickers in a twist, Oliver. I will hereafter (well, until I get bored of placating you) use [gender neutral as possible] "the character".

Honest query: will you accept that the character is poorly finished in the film, TFA (as a stand alone characterization; less all the other merchandising)? Seriously, if so, just stop here: we can agree on the substance of my claim and be done.

Otherwise, back to the teacup:
I've provided two definitions at least, and argued that Rey does not match either of them. She's not a self-insert, nor is she a particularly overpowered or idealized character by the standards of her universe. Certainly not if, as I suspect, she turns out to be a Skywalker.
One of your definitions, where you stopped short of this gem:
[is] exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. [*] also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or [*] "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing.
I was going to bold parts for emphasis, but it's the whole thing, and how that reflects poorly on the writer. But you want color-by-numbers:
Rare skill? Speak Wookiee with none evident on the planet where you've been stuck since age 4. Easy fix? Yep. Done? Nope.
Ace pilot? Not in evidence in the film. Easy fix? Yep. Done? Nope.
Nonexistent skill? A human who understands binary. Somewhat convoluted fix? Possible. Done? Nope. (Hey, Luke worked with binary 'vaporators, why did he/his family need a translator? Answer: story development; good writing.)
I have zero issue with the Force (since, duh, the character is "Force-sensitive" before actively using it - good [well, better] development at last!)
Even this source's definition is incomplete. It was a dig by a writer on other writers. You seem to be defending a fictional character, and not the bad writing. You're a writer! How can you not be irked by bad writing?!
b) Rey is not a puppet of the Will of the Force.*snip*

Never mind that "the Force both controls and is controlled by you" is literally one of the first things we ever learn about the Force in Star Wars, right back in A New Hope.
Well, here you're ignoring what everyone else is adding: this is my response to Civil War Man's suggestion that the Force is giving the character (in our agreed short-hand of it being an RPG) "untrained-skill bonuses". I took issue with it being a) multiple times within a scene, through multiple successive scenes and b) to a degree that removes agency and in fact defines the character. Oh, and my qualifier: "if that's what ensures she succeeds at everything." Because Luke failed. Anakin failed. They needed friends, and didn't merely "equip them" to a party slot. Writing.

I don't have issue with the character choosing or not choosing (duh, story protagonist!): I have issue with the character not being properly developed before the character WIN!s. A line or two of dialog with other characters (nope - the character's a loner!), a flight sim machine that only speaks binary, with subtitles on its screen (nope!), a wookie scrubbing parts with the character and the old lady, trying to shake the character down for "know where can I find a...?" - anything that gives reason without having to leave the theater scratching one's head and buying other merchandise to get the rest of the story of why the character can do these things. That can only be writing: the opportunity was there and was deliberately left out. I have zero issue with where she comes from being a mystery, but what she's done on Jakku that will matter in this film NEEDS TO BE ON THE SCREEN.
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-29 11:19pm

Khaat wrote:
2017-09-29 08:04pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-29 05:25pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-26 07:43pm
I have been clear that this is the whole issue: Rey has been poorly expressed as a character. Her "known skills" have to be hand-waved because JJA does "show and not tell" to such extremes as to be detrimental to her quality. We didn't hear about her skills in dialog, we didn't see or hear of routine use of skills she would exhibit later at great proficiency. This has the effect of removing her agency: she is a puppet to the will of the Force, if that's what ensures she succeeds at everything. Shine-up the plot's railroad tracks, she's got the cheat codes enabled.
*snip*a) A poorly-written script does not make Rey a Mary Sue. You have to provide a definition of "Mary Sue" (since the term has multiple definitions to the point of being largely meaningless), then demonstrate how her abilities/actions/characterization fit that definition.
See the part you quoted? Here, let me pull it out, so you aren't confused:
Rey has been poorly expressed as a character. Her "known skills" have to be hand-waved because JJA does "show and not tell" to such extremes as to be detrimental to her quality.
That's what I've been using since you got your knickers in a twist, Oliver. I will hereafter (well, until I get bored of placating you) use [gender neutral as possible] "the character".

Honest query: will you accept that the character is poorly finished in the film, TFA (as a stand alone characterization; less all the other merchandising)? Seriously, if so, just stop here: we can agree on the substance of my claim and be done.

Otherwise, back to the teacup:
I've provided two definitions at least, and argued that Rey does not match either of them. She's not a self-insert, nor is she a particularly overpowered or idealized character by the standards of her universe. Certainly not if, as I suspect, she turns out to be a Skywalker.
One of your definitions, where you stopped short of this gem:
[is] exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. [*] also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or [*] "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing.
I was going to bold parts for emphasis, but it's the whole thing, and how that reflects poorly on the writer. But you want color-by-numbers:
Rare skill? Speak Wookiee with none evident on the planet where you've been stuck since age 4. Easy fix? Yep. Done? Nope.
Ace pilot? Not in evidence in the film. Easy fix? Yep. Done? Nope.
Nonexistent skill? A human who understands binary. Somewhat convoluted fix? Possible. Done? Nope. (Hey, Luke worked with binary 'vaporators, why did he/his family need a translator? Answer: story development; good writing.)
I have zero issue with the Force (since, duh, the character is "Force-sensitive" before actively using it - good [well, better] development at last!)
Even this source's definition is incomplete. It was a dig by a writer on other writers. You seem to be defending a fictional character, and not the bad writing. You're a writer! How can you not be irked by bad writing?!
b) Rey is not a puppet of the Will of the Force.*snip*

Never mind that "the Force both controls and is controlled by you" is literally one of the first things we ever learn about the Force in Star Wars, right back in A New Hope.
Well, here you're ignoring what everyone else is adding: this is my response to Civil War Man's suggestion that the Force is giving the character (in our agreed short-hand of it being an RPG) "untrained-skill bonuses". I took issue with it being a) multiple times within a scene, through multiple successive scenes and b) to a degree that removes agency and in fact defines the character. Oh, and my qualifier: "if that's what ensures she succeeds at everything." Because Luke failed. Anakin failed. They needed friends, and didn't merely "equip them" to a party slot. Writing.

I don't have issue with the character choosing or not choosing (duh, story protagonist!): I have issue with the character not being properly developed before the character WIN!s. A line or two of dialog with other characters (nope - the character's a loner!), a flight sim machine that only speaks binary, with subtitles on its screen (nope!), a wookie scrubbing parts with the character and the old lady, trying to shake the character down for "know where can I find a...?" - anything that gives reason without having to leave the theater scratching one's head and buying other merchandise to get the rest of the story of why the character can do these things. That can only be writing: the opportunity was there and was deliberately left out. I have zero issue with where she comes from being a mystery, but what she's done on Jakku that will matter in this film NEEDS TO BE ON THE SCREEN.
See, this is what makes me want to just say "fuck it" and walk away.

I try to write a reasonable response to your arguments. You respond with condescension, personal abuse, and making an exaggerated show of "placating me" to make it clear to everyone that I'm just throwing a tantrum while you play the reasonable adult. Which isn't really accurate, but it won't stop you from saying it (or others from agreeing with you).

My problem is not that you didn't refer to Rey by gender-neutral pronouns, you disingenuous asshole. :wanker: That's pure theatre on your part, what I can only assume is an attempt to further paint this thread as "Khaat vs. the nasty extremist SJW TRR". To paint me as a ridiculous caricature of an "SJW" in order discredit my arguments by ad hominem.

Your tactics are essentially the same as Patroklos's in this regard, and demonstrate no interest in an honest debate.

But to address the definitions of Mary Sue that you provided: Nothing Rey does in the film is particularly inconsistent with her known background, combined with the established abilities of a high-level Force user.

Extraordinary intuitive piloting skill? Anakin is precedent, and Luke is likely so to a lesser extent.

Mechanical skill? She salvages crashed spacecraft for a living.

Linguistic skill? My, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with her growing up in a multi-species trading settlement, now could it? Plus, as I've said before, TFA takes a lot of cues from KotOR, and one of Revan's abilities was linguistic skill (no doubt to facilitate character interactions in the game).

Hand-to-hand combat skill? She grew up in a pretty rough place, alone. Probably had to learn how to fight dirty to keep from being mugged/raped/killed.

You could say that the fact that she's good at all of these things is stretching it, I suppose. And she certainly is near the high-end for the franchise. But protagonists, particularly Force-using ones, tend to be at the high end of the bell curve in Star Wars, obviously.

As to your comments regarding Rey's "untrained-skill bonuses"... I'm not ignoring anything. Maybe it was addressed to Civil War Man, but I wanted to give my own response to it as well? Is that not permissible?

In any case, I feel that the notion that it "removes her agency" is false, or at least over-simplistic, for all the reasons I previously listed and that you ignored. Nor do I see how the Force helping her removes her agency, because its still her choices in the end, particularly in the latter part of the film.

As to the notion that Anakin and Luke failed, and only succeeded because of their friends, while Rey did not- again, this ignores canon evidence. Rey initially rejected her newfound powers, and was then captured by Kylo Ren. She would have died on Starkiller Base without Finn, Han, and Chewbacca (unless we assume that she would have managed to successfully steal a ship and outfly all the planet's defences on her own).

In summary: is TFA's plot and world-building somewhat lacking? Yes. Is Rey's characterization even somewhat shallow and underdeveloped? Sure. If all you want is for me to concede that the film has writing problems, then I have nothing to concede, because I've never denied that. I simply disagree that it makes Rey a Mary Sue (for whatever meaning that term even has), or that her abilities are particularly rediculous or inexplicable by the standards of her fictional universe.

Again, I think that to some extent, we're simply using different definitions of Mary Sue here. Though I also feel that, while TFA could have foreshadowed things a bit more, its also unfair to demand the same level of explanation/set-up from the seventh film (eight if you count the Clone Wars cartoon) in a long-established, widely-known franchise, that you demand from a first film which has to introduce all the concepts from scratch.

I don't know. I just don't have that hard a time thinking of reasonable explanations within established canon (even if we limit it to just film canon) for Rey's abilities. Maybe you do. Her abilities are certainly high-end. Some even seem absurd, especially at first glance. But I think that there is enough precedent for them, and just enough explanation and justification for them, thin as it is, that I'm reluctant to apply the overused, overbroad term "Mary Sue".

Honestly, the biggest problem with her character is not her abilities as a pilot or whatever, but her lack of nuances to her personality. She's nice, she's a loner with a heart of gold, she's initially afraid to leave home and become a Jedi... that's pretty much it.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-30 12:35am

Bottom line, since I feel that my underlying point is getting somewhat lost in all the back-and-forth bullshit:

I don't deny that TFA has plot and world-building problems. I don't even disagree that Rey's character development could use some work. Some of the faults are exaggerated, in my opinion (for example, I think its questionable to demand the same level of establishing background info from the seventh film in a series as from a first), but their is certainly room for criticism.

My main contention, at this point, is simply that I don't feel that Rey fits (or at least she does not unambiguously fit) any of the definitions of a Mary Sue offered in this discussion. Their are many kinds of shitty writing, and shitty characterization, that do not make one a "Mary Sue" (to the extent that that term even means anything any more). Her abilities are explicable within the context of the established Star Wars universe, high-end but not unprecedented, and she actually does have a few failures in the film, or points where she needs someone else to bail her out. Its not very well-explained in the film, but it is mostly explicable if you think it through.

My opinion of Rey can be summed up as "A rather shallow character, but likeable as far as she's been developed, with some abilities that seem absurd, but aren't necessarily so absurd if you think it through in the context of established Star Wars canon."

My opinion of TFA can be summed up as "Some good characters and a few really well-crafted moments, strung together by an underdeveloped and contrived plot". Averaging out to a slightly above mediocre film. Basically my opinion of Batman v Superman, in other words.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 216
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2017-09-30 02:32am

:banghead: I wonder what other ships are going to post in the gout
Bullets always have the right away :kill:

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-30 02:34am

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2017-09-30 02:32am
:banghead: I wonder what other ships are going to post in the gout
I... have no idea what this means.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 216
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2017-09-30 02:37am

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2017-09-30 02:32am
:banghead: I wonder what other ships are going to post they are going to release
That needed to be corrected
Bullets always have the right away :kill:

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-09-30 02:40am

Ah, I see.

Was it intended for the Last Jedi vehicles thread? I'm not saying it doesn't fit here- just seems like it might fit better there.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 216
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2017-09-30 02:43am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-30 02:40am
Ah, I see.

Was it intended for the Last Jedi vehicles thread? I'm not saying it doesn't fit here- just seems like it might fit better there.
Oops yeah that was supposed to say the vehicle thread.
:x g
Bullets always have the right away :kill:

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 216
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2017-09-30 02:44am

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2017-09-30 02:43am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-30 02:40am
Ah, I see.

Was it intended for the Last Jedi vehicles thread? I'm not saying it doesn't fit here- just seems like it might fit better there.
Oops yeah that was supposed to say the vehicle thread.
:x g
It was supposed to go to the vehicle thread
Bullets always have the right away :kill:

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-09-30 07:39am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-30 12:35am
Bottom line, since I feel that my underlying point is getting somewhat lost in all the back-and-forth bullshit:

I don't deny that TFA has plot and world-building problems. I don't even disagree that Rey's character development could use some work. Some of the faults are exaggerated, in my opinion (for example, I think its questionable to demand the same level of establishing background info from the seventh film in a series as from a first), but their is certainly room for criticism.

My main contention, at this point, is simply that I don't feel that Rey fits (or at least she does not unambiguously fit) any of the definitions of a Mary Sue offered in this discussion. Their are many kinds of shitty writing, and shitty characterization, that do not make one a "Mary Sue" (to the extent that that term even means anything any more). Her abilities are explicable within the context of the established Star Wars universe, high-end but not unprecedented, and she actually does have a few failures in the film, or points where she needs someone else to bail her out. Its not very well-explained in the film, but it is mostly explicable if you think it through.

My opinion of Rey can be summed up as "A rather shallow character, but likeable as far as she's been developed, with some abilities that seem absurd, but aren't necessarily so absurd if you think it through in the context of established Star Wars canon."

My opinion of TFA can be summed up as "Some good characters and a few really well-crafted moments, strung together by an underdeveloped and contrived plot". Averaging out to a slightly above mediocre film. Basically my opinion of Batman v Superman, in other words.
Mary Sue is used when a character is seen to be essentially flawless in many ways. In terms of skillsets, such as piloting and lightsaber dueling, we've seen both Luke and Anakin fail and make mistakes on screen.

Luke almost died piloting the X-Wing. Anakin crashed into the Droid control ship by accident. Luke lost his duel to Vader in ESB. Anakin lost his duel to Dooku in Ep 2.

Rey? Well, she outflew New Order Pilots on her first dogfight, and she beat a more well-trained force-user by instinct. For people that enjoyed seeing both Luke and Anakin fail and grow as force users, seeing Rey doing all those things can feel very annoying to some viewers. Put it this way. Ep 7 Rey> both Luke and Anakin in their first movies.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Khaat » 2017-09-30 09:42am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-29 11:19pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-29 08:04pm
Honest query: will you accept that the character is poorly finished in the film, TFA (as a stand alone characterization; less all the other merchandising)? Seriously, if so, just stop here: we can agree on the substance of my claim and be done.
In summary: is TFA's plot and world-building somewhat lacking? Yes. Is Rey's characterization even somewhat shallow and underdeveloped? Sure. If all you want is for me to concede that the film has writing problems, then I have nothing to concede, because I've never denied that.
*snip*
Honestly, the biggest problem with her character is not her abilities as a pilot or whatever, but her lack of nuances to her personality. She's nice, she's a loner with a heart of gold, she's initially afraid to leave home and become a Jedi... that's pretty much it.
[*emphasis mine*]
Then we ARE agreed, and your pages of rant are your problem.
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-10-01 04:29pm

Khaat wrote:
2017-09-30 09:42am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-29 11:19pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-29 08:04pm
Honest query: will you accept that the character is poorly finished in the film, TFA (as a stand alone characterization; less all the other merchandising)? Seriously, if so, just stop here: we can agree on the substance of my claim and be done.
In summary: is TFA's plot and world-building somewhat lacking? Yes. Is Rey's characterization even somewhat shallow and underdeveloped? Sure. If all you want is for me to concede that the film has writing problems, then I have nothing to concede, because I've never denied that.
*snip*
Honestly, the biggest problem with her character is not her abilities as a pilot or whatever, but her lack of nuances to her personality. She's nice, she's a loner with a heart of gold, she's initially afraid to leave home and become a Jedi... that's pretty much it.
[*emphasis mine*]
Then we ARE agreed, and your pages of rant are your problem.
We are agreed that their are problems with Rey's characterization, although I expect we'd have slightly differing views on the specifics.

We are not agreed (unless I've misunderstood your position) that her abilities are inexplicable or unprecedented or particularly ridiculous by the standards of the Star Wars universe. Nor do I feel that "Mary Sue" is necessarily the right term for the problems with Rey.

Partly, I just don't like the term, because I think its overused, hard to define, and in at least some cases sexist.

A lot of the "pages of rant" are due to either needless personal sniping, misunderstanding/misrepresenting my arguments, or the discussion inevitably branching off into tangents.

But since so much of the disagreement here is simply that we disagree on what defines a "Mary Sue", and their is no single objective definition of the term, perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-10-01 06:08pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-10-01 04:29pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-30 09:42am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-09-29 11:19pm


In summary: is TFA's plot and world-building somewhat lacking? Yes. Is Rey's characterization even somewhat shallow and underdeveloped? Sure. If all you want is for me to concede that the film has writing problems, then I have nothing to concede, because I've never denied that.
*snip*
Honestly, the biggest problem with her character is not her abilities as a pilot or whatever, but her lack of nuances to her personality. She's nice, she's a loner with a heart of gold, she's initially afraid to leave home and become a Jedi... that's pretty much it.
[*emphasis mine*]
Then we ARE agreed, and your pages of rant are your problem.
We are agreed that their are problems with Rey's characterization, although I expect we'd have slightly differing views on the specifics.

We are not agreed (unless I've misunderstood your position) that her abilities are inexplicable or unprecedented or particularly ridiculous by the standards of the Star Wars universe. Nor do I feel that "Mary Sue" is necessarily the right term for the problems with Rey.

Partly, I just don't like the term, because I think its overused, hard to define, and in at least some cases sexist.

A lot of the "pages of rant" are due to either needless personal sniping, misunderstanding/misrepresenting my arguments, or the discussion inevitably branching off into tangents.

But since so much of the disagreement here is simply that we disagree on what defines a "Mary Sue", and their is no single objective definition of the term, perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
How is Mary Sue sexist? It has pretty much become a gender-neutral term even if there was an actual male alternative in the form of Gary Stu. I find it weird that gender is even needed to be brought up in this discussion because what's been discussed has little to do with Rey's gender. The exact same criticism was applied to Anakin back in Ep I, with him being a boy wonder being criticised by fans as some of the main reasons to hate the prequels. This isn't anything new.

Even then, with all the problems Anakin had as a character in EP 1, we still manage to see his failures being discussed and depicted on screen. We were told that he crashed quite often, and did not even finish any prior races. We saw Anakin lagging behind in the race, we saw him crashing his starfighter.

It feels like you've become automatically defensive for Rey and become biased just because she is a female main character. The force might help force users drive better, but it can't teach them how to drive. The force might make people less prone to making mistakes, but Jedi can make silly mistakes. Did the Force magically teach Luke to doge every TIE fighters on his back and shoot them down on his own?

It's quite clear you are biased towards Rey. She gets free pass from all those criticism just because you like the character.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14759
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2017-10-01 06:34pm

ray245 wrote:
2017-10-01 06:08pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-10-01 04:29pm
Khaat wrote:
2017-09-30 09:42am
[*emphasis mine*]
Then we ARE agreed, and your pages of rant are your problem.
We are agreed that their are problems with Rey's characterization, although I expect we'd have slightly differing views on the specifics.

We are not agreed (unless I've misunderstood your position) that her abilities are inexplicable or unprecedented or particularly ridiculous by the standards of the Star Wars universe. Nor do I feel that "Mary Sue" is necessarily the right term for the problems with Rey.

Partly, I just don't like the term, because I think its overused, hard to define, and in at least some cases sexist.

A lot of the "pages of rant" are due to either needless personal sniping, misunderstanding/misrepresenting my arguments, or the discussion inevitably branching off into tangents.

But since so much of the disagreement here is simply that we disagree on what defines a "Mary Sue", and their is no single objective definition of the term, perhaps its best if we simply agree to disagree and leave it at that.
How is Mary Sue sexist? It has pretty much become a gender-neutral term even if there was an actual male alternative in the form of Gary Stu. I find it weird that gender is even needed to be brought up in this discussion because what's been discussed has little to do with Rey's gender. The exact same criticism was applied to Anakin back in Ep I, with him being a boy wonder being criticised by fans as some of the main reasons to hate the prequels. This isn't anything new.
Read what I said: "in at least some cases sexist." I don't like the term, but I did not say that anyone using the term Mary Sue is sexist, so no need to get so outraged.

But you will, anyway. And then no doubt blame me for doing so.
Even then, with all the problems Anakin had as a character in EP 1, we still manage to see his failures being discussed and depicted on screen. We were told that he crashed quite often, and did not even finish any prior races. We saw Anakin lagging behind in the race, we saw him crashing his starfighter.
We also see Rey fail on-screen, repeatedly. First when she panicked at discovering her connection to the Force and the Jedi, which resulted in her running off and getting captured by Kylo Ren. And then, she may have won her duel, but would still have died on Starkiller Base if Chewie hadn't shown up to rescue her. Both points I believe I raised before in this thread.

This is, of course, ignored to perpetuate the "Rey is perfect and thus a Mary Sue" meme. Maybe its not necessarily motivated by sexism, but Rey sure as hell is being held to a harsher standard in this thread (by the same people who accuse me of going easy on her, and insinuate that I am sexist for doing so).
It feels like you've become automatically defensive for Rey and become biased just because she is a female main character.
Wrong. And I think that one of the problems in this thread is that the people arguing against me appear to have latched on to a couple of comments I've made, concluded that my argument is about "identity politics", and come charging in to do battle with those nasty SJWs. And are viewing everything I say through that lens.

Yes, I like that Rey is a capable female protagonist who is not overly-sexualized. And that the film simply allows her to be a capable female protagonist without making a big deal out of "Yes, we have a STRONG FEMALE LEAD". We could use more of that in film.

That doesn't mean that I give her characterization a pass on everything. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that their are problems with her characterization- which you have also ignored so that you can keep turning this into an anti-SJW thread, just like Khaat and Patroklos.

I can only conclude that you are either a) not reading my posts carefully before replying to them, or b) deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments.
The force might help force users drive better, but it can't teach them how to drive. The force might make people less prone to making mistakes, but Jedi can make silly mistakes. Did the Force magically teach Luke to doge every TIE fighters on his back and shoot them down on his own?
No. But you are presuming that Rey had zero knowledge of how to pilot a craft, and the film doesn't bear that out. This, too, is a point that I have gone over repeatedly.
It's quite clear you are biased towards Rey. She gets free pass from all those criticism just because you like the character.
That's a nice straw man you've got their. Would be a shame if someone burned it down.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-10-01 07:09pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2017-10-01 06:34pm
Read what I said: "in at least some cases sexist." I don't like the term, but I did not say that anyone using the term Mary Sue is sexist, so no need to get so outraged.

But you will, anyway. And then no doubt blame me for doing so.
Then why even bring the whole sexism issue up in the first place?
We also see Rey fail on-screen, repeatedly. First when she panicked at discovering her connection to the Force and the Jedi, which resulted in her running off and getting captured by Kylo Ren. And then, she may have won her duel, but would still have died on Starkiller Base if Chewie hadn't shown up to rescue her. Both points I believe I raised before in this thread.
Nope, this is different from what I've pointed out. My focus is not on what personality flaws she might have, but what is the limit of her technical skills.

With Anakin and Luke, we saw the limits of their skills. Has she made any major mistakes in her piloting? Her dueling? We've not seen any limit to her technical skills. Her beating a more well trained force user doesn't help things. You know what happens the first time Anakin and Luke fought a more well trained adversery? They got their arms chopped off.
This is, of course, ignored to perpetuate the "Rey is perfect and thus a Mary Sue" meme. Maybe its not necessarily motivated by sexism, but Rey sure as hell is being held to a harsher standard in this thread (by the same people who accuse me of going easy on her, and insinuate that I am sexist for doing so).
Have you forgotten the criticism directed at kid Anakin? And how long the fandom used to bash the prequels for depicting Anakin as a child prodigy? People were far harsher towards Anakin than Rey. This is selective bias at work here.

Wrong. And I think that one of the problems in this thread is that the people arguing against me appear to have latched on to a couple of comments I've made, concluded that my argument is about "identity politics", and come charging in to do battle with those nasty SJWs. And are viewing everything I say through that lens.

Yes, I like that Rey is a capable female protagonist who is not overly-sexualized. And that the film simply allows her to be a capable female protagonist without making a big deal out of "Yes, we have a STRONG FEMALE LEAD". We could use more of that in film.

That doesn't mean that I give her characterization a pass on everything. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that their are problems with her characterization- which you have also ignored so that you can keep turning this into an anti-SJW thread, just like Khaat and Patroklos.

I can only conclude that you are either a) not reading my posts carefully before replying to them, or b) deliberately mischaracterizing my arguments.
Nope, it's because you believe Rey is being held to a much harsher standard than others before Anakin. You seem to forget the sheer vitrol towards Anakin and by extension, the child actor playing him. Because of this, it makes you look like someone that gives Rey a free pass because you think others are being unfair, and potentially sexist.

The problem that annoys people about Rey will exist even if she is a male character. It's because she is a new character with no clear connection to the Skywalker clan that explains why she is so awesome. The problem is Rey as an untrained force user is somehow better than Luke and Anakin were as untrained force users.

She is this new awesome character that can do everything the previous character could do, but better. That's pretty much the textbook definition of Mary Sue.
No. But you are presuming that Rey had zero knowledge of how to pilot a craft, and the film doesn't bear that out. This, too, is a point that I have gone over repeatedly.
I never said she never flew before. She mentioned it in a line. That doesn't mean she has actually engaged in a dogfight. Both Luke and Anakin have flown a craft before, but that is clearly not enough to make them excellent in a dogfight. They survived via dumb luck ( aka the Force), making mistakes that weren't capitalised by the enemy, or simply saved by their squadron mates.

Lightsaber duel. What's her excuse? Because she fought with a staff? Nevermind the fact that Anakin with formal Jedi training cannot outpower Dooku just because he has better connection to the force.
That's a nice straw man you've got their. Would be a shame if someone burned it down.
The fact that you've not addressed the problem of Rey being better than Luke and Anakin were as untrained force users is not helping your case. People don't like Rey because they find her to be better than untrained Luke and untrained Anakin without any valid reasons. You kept talking about her character flaws, even when people are talking about her technical skills.

The question people are asking is why is Rey better than Anakin and Luke? I've not really seen a proper answer from you to this question.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14440
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Gandalf » 2017-10-01 08:37pm

ray245 wrote:
2017-10-01 06:08pm
The force might help force users drive better, but it can't teach them how to drive. The force might make people less prone to making mistakes, but Jedi can make silly mistakes. Did the Force magically teach Luke to doge every TIE fighters on his back and shoot them down on his own?
Separate the Force from the user.

The Force can apparently create people out of nothing. The Force can apparently allow blind guys to walk across battlefields without getting hit. The Force allows people to see and feel others from across space.

How much each individual does appears to be dependent on their own specific Force power and how much their "give themselves" to the Force. Anakin won his podrace by trying to tune in to the Force and allow it to work through him. Luke turned off his targeting computer and placed his faith in this higher power, thus blowing up the Death Star. Blind monk Donnie Yen was clearly a muggle who just trusted in the Force to get him out of jams. So if Rey is sufficiently faithful in the Force, I don't see why she couldn't (even unconsciously) commune with the spirits of pilots or whatever. While the people are fallible, the Force is a constant.

"The Force wills it!" Hehe.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-10-02 06:16pm

Gandalf wrote:
2017-10-01 08:37pm

Separate the Force from the user.

The Force can apparently create people out of nothing. The Force can apparently allow blind guys to walk across battlefields without getting hit. The Force allows people to see and feel others from across space.

How much each individual does appears to be dependent on their own specific Force power and how much their "give themselves" to the Force. Anakin won his podrace by trying to tune in to the Force and allow it to work through him. Luke turned off his targeting computer and placed his faith in this higher power, thus blowing up the Death Star. Blind monk Donnie Yen was clearly a muggle who just trusted in the Force to get him out of jams. So if Rey is sufficiently faithful in the Force, I don't see why she couldn't (even unconsciously) commune with the spirits of pilots or whatever. While the people are fallible, the Force is a constant.

"The Force wills it!" Hehe.
The problem is Rey is shown to be doing stuff that even trained Jedi Padawans struggle with. Jedi make mistakes even after spending years of training to give themselves completely to the force.

It undermines the struggle of most Jedi if it is so easy for untrained force users to use the force.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14440
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Gandalf » 2017-10-02 07:09pm

Perhaps the Force willed her to be awesome at stuff, and not so much the Padawans?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Knight
Posts: 883
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Khaat » 2017-10-03 04:13pm

The animated show Rebels has committed to canon actual entities as aspects of the Light, Dark and (middle-ground) of the Force. There's hint (in the gestalt) of an underlying (and under-developed for movies*) story that Big Players are moving behind the scenes to make the puppets dance: this removes agency of the "puppets". Telling me "the Force wants x, y, and z to happen" means the person used to do that is less relatable when the Force applies more leverage; there's an inversely-proportional relationship, IMO.

TL;DR - the more the Force makes happen, the less agency the character has.

*I would have much less issue if this were a TV-series story arc. I expect TV to take time to explain or explore lead characters, but not cool for a movie to say, "Buy the merch for what we left out of the film!" :banghead:
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-10-03 07:43pm

Gandalf wrote:
2017-10-02 07:09pm
Perhaps the Force willed her to be awesome at stuff, and not so much the Padawans?
So what's the point of having force training? And what's the point of being invested in Rey as a character since she is so naturally awesome?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14440
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Gandalf » 2017-10-03 07:59pm

ray245 wrote:
2017-10-03 07:43pm
So what's the point of having force training?
Force interaction is a two way street. So for example, the Jedi appear to serve the Force, while also using it for their own ends. Being sufficiently trained lets one use it better without relying on divine intervention.

"Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him."
"You mean it controls your actions?"
"Partially. But it also obeys your commands."

Luke had no Force training, aside from that bit with the lightsabre on the Falcon, and from there knew enough to trust his shot with the X-Wing to faith over technology.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6551
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by ray245 » 2017-10-03 08:27pm

Gandalf wrote:
2017-10-03 07:59pm
Force interaction is a two way street. So for example, the Jedi appear to serve the Force, while also using it for their own ends. Being sufficiently trained lets one use it better without relying on divine intervention.

"Remember, a Jedi can feel the Force flowing through him."
"You mean it controls your actions?"
"Partially. But it also obeys your commands."

Luke had no Force training, aside from that bit with the lightsabre on the Falcon, and from there knew enough to trust his shot with the X-Wing to faith over technology.
Again, this only serves to undermine the struggles of the characters. Why bother watching them learn anything if they can simply skip training and simply rely entirely on the force to help you? Need to pass an exam? Well, let the force guide my hand to the right answers. Why bother learning the controls of a ship if the force will give you instructions on which button to push at the right time?

Instead, what we got is basically Rey is super special, so she can do everything others can't with years of training. That pretty much defines what is a Mary Sue and why people detest such characters. Unless you are JJ Abrams who love this kind of character.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 14440
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Sydney, Australia

Re: Colin Trevorrow replaced with Abrams as 'Star Wars: Episode IX' Director

Post by Gandalf » 2017-10-03 08:38pm

ray245 wrote:
2017-10-03 08:27pm
Again, this only serves to undermine the struggles of the characters. Why bother watching them learn anything if they can simply skip training and simply rely entirely on the force to help you? Need to pass an exam? Well, let the force guide my hand to the right answers. Why bother learning the controls of a ship if the force will give you instructions on which button to push at the right time?
As we saw in the prequel trilogy, that didn't always work out for people. Evidently the Force helps those who help themselves to an extent.
Instead, what we got is basically Rey is super special, so she can do everything others can't with years of training. That pretty much defines what is a Mary Sue and why people detest such characters. Unless you are JJ Abrams who love this kind of character.
So like Luke or Anakin in their respective first appearances? As we saw in their second films, God's favour does not last forever.
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

Post Reply