new star wars film boycott

[dragon]

Seems like for every movie, book, games etc there are a few people that just seem worng in their thinking

The Force is with the Internet as it (im)patiently awaits the release of the first trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Not everyone is looking forward to the chance to revisit a galaxy far, far away, however; a social media movement is asking fans to #BoycottStarWarsVII.

The hashtag, which started appearing on Twitter Sunday night, expresses objection to the fact that The Force Awakens features lead characters who aren't white males with its users accusing the movie of pushing a sinister multicultural agenda.

"#BoycottStarWarsVII because it is anti-white propaganda promoting #whitegenocide," ran one tweet from an account calling itself "End Cultural Marxism." (A subsequent tweet from the same account read "A friend in LA said #StarWarsVII is basically 'Deray in Space,' " referencing civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson. "Jewish activist JJ Abrams is an anti-white nut.")

Another Twitter account, calling itself "Captain Confederacy," similarly griped that "SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] complain about White artists 'misappropriating' culture created by blacks but then celebrate a non-White Star Wars." Yet another complaint read that the movie should be boycotted "because it's nothing more than a social justice propaganda piece that alienates it's core audience of young white males."

A Twitter account named after the hashtag has been set up to promote the hate-filled hashtag and retweet comments posted using it.

Ignoring the fact that, while hardly a bastion of cultural diversity, even the earliest Star Wars movies featured leads of color (James Earl Jones voiced Darth Vader through the entire original trilogy, and Billy Dee Williams's Lando Calrissian joined the series with the second installment, The Empire Strikes Back), it should be noted that this isn't the first time that the more closed-minded Star Wars fans have been vocal about increased representation of minorities in the franchise; author Chuck Wendig responded to some homophobic fans upset at his inclusion of an openly gay Imperial officer in the novel Star Wars: Aftermath by imploring them to "stop being the Empire." (Wendig has also responded to the current situation.)

On social media, other Star Wars fans have responded in defense of the new movie:

Lunatic #BoycottStarWarsVII racists, weren't you serving drinks in Mos Eisley cantina? ("We don't serve their kind here.")

—Darryn M. Briggs (@darryn_briggs) October 19, 2015

I'm going to #BoycottStarWarsVII because I am a babyman who's terrified of the world around me

—Vid Icarus (@vid_icarus) October 19, 2015

#BoycottStarWarsVII folks, Lemme get this straight: Wookies, Ewoks & Droids are fine but a BLACK PERSON is a problem? Go home.You're Drunk.

crazy people

[ray245]

Great. So now everyone who doesn't seem interested in the new Star Wars movie is going to be labelled as a white supremacist.

[Tribble]

Good to know the mindset of these people- they are more tolerant and inclusive of robots, walking carpets and giant slugs etc then they are to people with different skin tones.

And apparently they have forgotten the fact that Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford are in this movie as main characters...

[The Romulan Republic]

Great. So now everyone who doesn't seem interested in the new Star Wars movie is going to be labelled as a white supremacist.

Is that really the big issue here?

And frankly, its widely known that even a lot of Star Wars "fans" basically hate Star Wars. Its practically trendy.

[salm]

It´s like Mad Max, which pushed the femnazi agenda.

People who feel victimized by equality are funny.
Our current batch of "victims" here in Germany are the anti immigrant morons from PEGIDA. They claim they are treated like the Jews under Hitler. The amount of distortion governing such peoples brains is amazing.

[TheFeniX]

I'm sure this will have about as much impact as the "MW2 Boycott Group" did. It's a shame we won't have an instant hypocrisy reading on release day like we did then.

I don't really have anything productive to say, so I'll just post what I assume these people think the future of sci-fi is going to be:

Keeping the poor white-man down.

[The Romulan Republic]

It´s like Mad Max, which pushed the femnazi agenda.

People who feel victimized by equality are funny.
Our current batch of "victims" here in Germany are the anti immigrant morons from PEGIDA. They claim they are treated like the Jews under Hitler. The amount of distortion governing such peoples brains is amazing.

Really? Jesus Christ.

"Oh no, I might have to accept that immigrants are human beings! I'm being exterminated!"

As to Mad Max, I've suspected (and hoped) for a while that this year is going to be seen as a turning point for women in Hollywood films. First we had the lovely Mad Max: Fury Road. And now Star Wars. Granted, that's just two films, but momentum can build and Star Wars in particular is massive. It is the quintessential blockbuster, and a virtually assured hit. I'll probably be surprised if it pulls in less than a billion in theatres. No matter how sexist some of them might be, Hollywood executives are businessmen. If they see a movie with a female lead (as appears to be the case with Rey) explode the box office, they might just listen.

[Borgholio]

I know this may sound mildly sexist, but from a (somewhat) enlightened male perspective, I have nothing at all against a strong female character who can kick ass and look hot doing it too. I really don't see how anybody can be against that.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, there's nothing wrong with attractive women in films as long as a) less conventionally attractive women are not unable to get roles and b) it fits the character and story rather than being gratuitous.

I would, however, object to the implication that "strong female character"="can kick ass". Being a good fighter is a very shallow and narrow definition of strength, or of strong characterization. At most, it is only one facet of a well-written character (though I'm sure you know that).

Edit: An example I like to use is Sarah Connor from Terminator. While her status as a strong female character may be hurt by the fact that her primary source of significance is as the mother of a male hero and the lover of another male hero, I still think she qualifies not because she's a good fighter (she's not in the first film, for the most part, and even in the second one she's weaker than either of the Terminators) but because she is a believable person who has compelling growth and development as a character and, in my opinion, is well-acted. Her becoming a better fighter is a part of that, but only a part of it.

[Borgholio]

I would, however, object to the implication that "strong female character"="can kick ass". Being a good fighter is a very shallow and narrow definition of strength, or of strong characterization. At most, it is only one facet of a well-written character (though I'm sure you know that).

Oh indeed, I was being overly simplistic. A female can be physically weak but have a very forceful or dominant character. Princess Leia is a great example of that. While she does have her share of action, she is mainly a leader and in a command position, but I don't see how anybody could argue that she isn't a strong character.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ultimately what matters, for characters of any gender, is that they are complex, subtle, and believable, not stereotypes. And that you have a diverse range of characters, if possible (some stories have small casts) for each group, rather than putting all men or all women into one or two types of roles. That and I'm not a fan of gratuitous sexualization/objectification. I'm no hyper-prude or anything- if it works for the character and story, show all the nudity and sex you want (though a Star Wars film probably shouldn't go that route). Just don't do it pointlessly or exploitatively. If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn.

[Joun_Lord]

I know this may sound mildly sexist, but from a (somewhat) enlightened male perspective, I have nothing at all against a strong female character who can kick ass and look hot doing it too. I really don't see how anybody can be against that.

But.....but it takes away the power and strength from the big strong man and its unrealistic too! No woman could ever compete physically with a !!MAN!! and if they do its just because they hate men!

Seriously though, its just some shitbags who think any woman in a traditional male role (a action star in the case) is bad because penis. I can still see where some where coming from in Mad Max itself where the chick overshadowed the dude in his own movie (some people have the same complaint about Clara on Dr Who) but thats removed from her or his gender. People (not the whiny fedora wearing meninists) would be equally pissed pissed if say Nux was the lead instead.

On topic, haters gonna hate Star Wars no matter what. In this case its probably a small minority of douchebags whining about the racial shit further inflated by "SJWs" looking to criticize people and trolls looking to cause drama. Like the Aftermath novel where alot of people had legitimate complaints about the book but the response to the poor response was mostly to blame it on homophobes rather then addressing any legitimate complaints.

I don't see what people are even complaining about in regards to race or gender. Maybe if they recast all the roles as minorities, sure that would be worthy of being mad, but when most of the cast is white and there are only two women that bitching just fails.

This movie looks pretty meh but its casting is certainly not the reason, beyond yet another Andy Serkis mocap character.

[Kingmaker]

The best thing to do with trolls is ignore them. If we're really lucky, though, someone will feel the need to get publicly angry and condemn these clowns. Then the real show begins.

beyond yet another Andy Serkis mocap character

Andy Serkis deserves more live-action roles. He was among my favorites from both King Kong and Avengers 2, which are the only things I think I've seen him in where he got to use his own face.

[TheFeniX]

I don't know if "not stereotypes" is all that relevant to the average movie-goer. Say what you will about Avatar or Titantic, but the characters were anything but complex. Jake's brother died and he learns some things which culminates in him betraying "his own" and having hot alien sex.. Netyri (sp) is a Shaman that falls in love with an outsider. I mean, this is not groundbreaking storytelling. Jack meets a hot girl outside his social status. Rose resents her lot in life: they have hot sex.

If anything, complex can actually be bad, or at least confusing to the viewer. Since this is a SW thread, why not: Anakin Skywalker has simple motivations, but his choices are based on a complex weave of experiences and people. His mother's death, his slave upbringing, his best friend being a Sith Lord, Obi-Wan being way to young to act as a surrogate father, Mace being a dick and not trusting Anakin, same thing with the council, Padme not seeing the downward spiral of Anakian due to (I assume) love. While it's much easier to explain all this over 3 movies, I've seen very few people (outside Star Wars fans, and even Star Wars fans are hard on him) say Anakin is a great character, unlike the decidedly more simple Obi-Wan, Yoda, or Mace.

Complex, IMO, really has little to do with a character's popularity nor a movie's gross. Stereotyping pays dividends.

[Borgholio]

Ultimately what matters, for characters of any gender, is that they are complex, subtle, and believable, not stereotypes. And that you have a diverse range of characters, if possible (some stories have small casts) for each group, rather than putting all men or all women into one or two types of roles. That and I'm not a fan of gratuitous sexualization/objectification. I'm no hyper-prude or anything- if it works for the character and story, show all the nudity and sex you want (though a Star Wars film probably shouldn't go that route). Just don't do it pointlessly or exploitatively. If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn.

I think you and I agree fully here. I don't need to see Rey all "Slave-Girled" up to enjoy the movie. If there's any T&A there, it needs to somehow fit in with the story. Leia in ROTJ at Jabba's palace...actually made a bit of sense for her to be dressed like that, but the rest of the movie she wore more practical clothing.

[The Romulan Republic]

I don't know if "not stereotypes" is all that relevant to the average movie-goer. Say what you will about Avatar or Titantic, but the characters were anything but complex. Jake's brother died and he learns some things which culminates in him betraying "his own" and having hot alien sex.. Netyri (sp) is a Shaman that falls in love with an outsider. I mean, this is not groundbreaking storytelling. Jack meets a hot girl outside his social status. Rose resents her lot in life: they have hot sex.

If anything, complex can actually be bad, or at least confusing to the viewer. Since this is a SW thread, why not: Anakin Skywalker has simple motivations, but his choices are based on a complex weave of experiences and people. His mother's death, his slave upbringing, his best friend being a Sith Lord, Obi-Wan being way to young to act as a surrogate father, Mace being a dick and not trusting Anakin, same thing with the council, Padme not seeing the downward spiral of Anakian due to (I assume) love. While it's much easier to explain all this over 3 movies, I've seen very few people (outside Star Wars fans, and even Star Wars fans are hard on him) say Anakin is a great character, unlike the decidedly more simple Obi-Wan, Yoda, or Mace.

Complex, IMO, really has little to do with a character's popularity nor a movie's gross. Stereotyping pays dividends.

"Simple" and "stereotype" are not synonymous. And complex doesn't have to be confusing.

I also think that Avatar and Titanic are hardly the peak of characterization in film. Sure, they made loads of money, but while I haven't really watched Titanic, their are much better films than Avatar that have brought in a great profit (including Star Wars films, incidentally).

I do think, though, that television lends itself more to complex characterization than film (though it can end up as inconsistent characterization if you're not careful), since you can develop characters over multiple seasons.

Let's look at Star Wars, however. Few people would say Star Wars' characterization is complex or deep, I suspect, but it sometimes avoids being stereotypical or even simplistic without being terribly confusing. Let's look at three examples:

1. Yoda in the PT. He starts out as just the wise old master archetype, right? However, we see that the Jedi Order he has lead is arrogant and corrupt, and it falls. We see the failure of the old master. But Yoda comes to terms with that, he grows. One very subtle bit (so subtle I don't even know if it was intentional) is him saying that he will miss the Wookies when he leaves Kashyk. It seemed to me that that was a tacit admission that the Jedi were wrong to shun attachment. And we see that change reflected in Yoda's decision to let Luke and Leia be raised by families.

2. Vader as Luke's father. In one stroke, they turned the simple, derivative action movie narrative of "hero fights villain who killed his family, hero kills villain" on its head, made Vader and his motivations far more complex and sympathetic, and made the story about Luke's fight to redeem Vader rather than to kill him (while also driving home the question of weather Luke would fall too).

3. Luke in Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi. Luke started out as a very cliche character- the poor young farmer with a legendary parent who goes on a quest with a wise old wizard mentor, saves the princess, and becomes a hero, etc. Its basically textbook, aside from being set in space. What upends it more than anything else, however, is the discovery that Vader is his father. It hanges Luke's goal, and leads to one of the most simple yet beautifully atypical endings in film- Luke wins not by being a better fighter, or even by being more cunning, but by redeeming Vader. How many action movies end with the hero winning by throwing away his weapon and redeeming the villain? In doing so, in acting out of love and attachment, he also continues the transition of the Jedi Order described above.

That is the narrative brilliance of Star Wars at its best- it takes very simple archetypes and then puts a spin on them in just such a way as to completely upend them, so you see them in a whole new light. Without, in my opinion, complicating things unduly.

[Zaune]

*sigh* I was really hoping this would be a boycott by people upset they made the EU non-canon or something vaguely sane.

[The Romulan Republic]

*sigh* I was really hoping this would be a boycott by people upset they made the EU non-canon or something vaguely sane.

Has their ever been an organized boycott of a film over a continuity/canon issue? I'm not aware of one. No, it seems that its usually about a social/political/ideological agenda (and in the case of The Interview being pulled from theatres, craven surrender to terrorism/North Korea- yes, I'm still pissed about that).

[Zaune]

Heh. True, but we of all people know the depths of fanaticism the Star Wars fandom can plumb when it wants to.

[TheFeniX]

"Simple" and "stereotype" are not synonymous. And complex doesn't have to be confusing.

Granted, and neither do stereotypes have to be boring. Han Solo leans towards it heavily and is still a fun and interesting character. Luke is also pretty stereotypical. But even though those characters set a mold back then, and have been trod mercilessly for 40 years: those characters still feel as interesting today as they did back then. That's just good writing.

I find that stereotypes get a bad rap because they are constantly misused. They are meant to be jumping off points, but a lot of shit I see, in all media, is it being used as a "we're done here" stamp under the "Character Development" heading.

I also think that Avatar and Titanic are hardly the peak of characterization in film. Sure, they made loads of money, but while I haven't really watched Titanic, their are much better films than Avatar that have brought in a great profit (including Star Wars films, incidentally).

They kind of set a mold though. Leaning on stereotypes with "a few twists" sells. And it sells extremely well. Unless demographics change, it's probably not going to get much different.

I do think, though, that television lends itself more to complex characterization than film (though it can end up as inconsistent characterization if you're not careful), since you can develop characters over multiple seasons.

I've found the opposite generally. The first was something I noticed even before it became the namer of the phenomenon: Ned Flanders. Mostly, this happens in comedies (JD from Scrubs, Peter Griffin from Family Guy), but it's there in many drama shows as well. Hell, in Star Trek: it even happens to entire races.

3. Luke in Empire Strikes Back/Return of the Jedi. Luke started out as a very cliche character- the poor young farmer with a legendary parent who goes on a quest with a wise old wizard mentor, saves the princess, and becomes a hero, etc. Its basically textbook, aside from being set in space. What upends it more than anything else, however, is the discovery that Vader is his father. It hanges Luke's goal, and leads to one of the most simple yet beautifully atypical endings in film- Luke wins not by being a better fighter, or even by being more cunning, but by redeeming Vader. How many action movies end with the hero winning by throwing away his weapon and redeeming the villain? In doing so, in acting out of love and attachment, he also continues the transition of the Jedi Order described above.

Even in the first movie: Luke was an extremely popular character. Han Solo even more so. Changing Luke from someone who wanted to avenge his father to someone who wants to save his father didn't really add a lot of depth. He still wasn't all that complex. Luke is much more a character of large defining moments and while Anakin had those, he also had much more subtle and numerous in those that shaped who he was. We see little evidence that people influence Luke as much as he influences them.

For the most blatant example, he told a 1,000 year-old Jedi Master and his dead mentor "not killn' mah dad." He turned out to be right, but it really shows that Luke just had a better compass than pretty much everyone else. Anakin..... not so much.

Either way, Star Wars was kind of the "Avatar" of it's time anyways. Alec Guinness would make numerous comments to this effect and I've never thought he was especially wrong on that front. But Star Wars is still enjoyable.... and infinitely profitable. It's like how World of Warcraft players complain about how casual WoW has become. The irony is completely lost on them.

[Chardok]

Glad I'm on full-on media blackout re: Star Wars

[General Zod]

Nobody would be giving any fucks about these idiots if people weren't spending so much time being outraged about it.

[The Romulan Republic]

Nobody would be giving any fucks about these idiots if people weren't spending so much time being outraged about it.

Now see, I don't agree with that. It seems that what you're basically saying is "Ignore evil and ignorance and it will go away". I tend to think more along the lines of "Ignore it and that will be the only side being heard."

[General Zod]

Nobody would be giving any fucks about these idiots if people weren't spending so much time being outraged about it.

Now see, I don't agree with that. It seems that what you're basically saying is "Ignore evil and ignorance and it will go away". I tend to think more along the lines of "Ignore it and that will be the only side being heard."

By these idiots, I mean one idiot. Does one idiot making stupid comments on the internet deserve national media attention?

[The Romulan Republic]

The OP refers to multiple people attacking the film for such reasons. Sure, they're probably a fairly small percentage of the total, but white supremacism, racism, misogyny, etc. do still exist as ideologies with a significant support base.