|
Spoilers for the film are in this thread, read at your own peril if you have not seen the movie. No more spoiler tags from page 20 |
I liked most of Rose actually barring her glider scene. What Falling says about the B team becoming the A team is exactly that, the A team is dead, so the B team takes over, imo that was very clear. I think this movie did a really good job with actually developing enough side characters that the losses of the rebellion become painful. When they gather in the fortress I thought "wow, that's not a lot of people. They are finished either way."
I agree that Hux is just comedy relief and doesn't fit the tone of the movie at all. It's probably the one major character I really dislike. And I don't think it's the actors fault, Hux (character) is just too bad at his job.
I like Rivals becoming the BBE, so I guess I disagree with Tolkien there (despite loving his books), developing the bad guys is just a different way to tell a story. I really like Kylo in this movie.
I think we saw grandmaster Luke at the end of the movie, he saved the rebellion after all.
Also Phasma actually got her fight and almost won it 1v2, I'm fine with that. In difference to Ep.7 Phasma didn't look like a total pushover.
|
I have a few observations that actually are more like confusions (saw this movie about 24 hours ago) I'm going to post them in hopes that people explain things. .
1. Princess Leia apparently is the most incompetent leader of all time. She has gone from a New Galactic Republic to having a 20 person crew on a spaceship in about 20 years. How is this possible? Like, if she was George Washington, we would have been doomed. 2. Point 1 is further emphasized by her anointed #2 who's plan is "escape pods, but the enemies won't look for them." FFS lady, Star Destroyers not only can scan for escape pods, they know whether they have life forms on them! This was established in the first 5 minutes of the first star wars movie ever made. How is this a plan? How does the director/screenwriter pretend for even a second its not retarded?
3. Apparently Star Wars now has relativistic weapons, and/or people forgot how to defend against them? Both propositions are insane. First of all, this proposition invalidates not only all previous battles, but the concept of light speed itself. Your shields don't stop objects? Good luck son. Moreover, why didn't Leia's (retarded as we discussed above) number 2 engage her light speed ramming plan immediately? Why doesn't everyone just have designated robot-controlled light speed ramming ships? This is the most effective technique we have ever seen. If this is a known move, how does the 1st order not have a plan? Why are like 90% of their ships in a straight line for ramming? Plus, why didn't any of those ships use light speed to cut off the rebels during a weirdly unnecessary 20 hour chase?
4. Apparently the Force is now 5x as powerful as it was in the Original Trilogy and the Prequels. That is it. Leia has force powers akin to a Jedi, and Jedis have force powers that make Yoda look like a clown. At first, in The Force Awakens I thought Kylo Ren and Rey were supposed to be new, super OP, Jedis. Nope? Luke now has a previously unseen hologram power, Snoke (who is mostly lame) has a kind of spirit walking power + can instantly read the minds of other force users + can force throw things better than anyone in the first 6 movies.
5. What actually happened? How is Episode 9 different having had this happen? Im overall confused as to what actually happened.
|
After seeing TLJ, it doesn't feel like a trilogy anymore. It seems there isnt a single cohesive vision of what the SW needs to be, except that everything that came before needs to burn in order to differentiate itself from previous movies. I saw a quote somewhere saying that: if ep7 was a love letter to the original trilogy, then ep8 is most certainly a hate letter. I don't see it exactly like a hate letter, but imo it tried to defy expectations a bit too much and effectively killed the legacy of Luke. Now I understand why Mark Hamill had a few interviews in which he stated how much he disagrees with the director's vision of Luke. I guess in his mind the jaded Luke represent the jaded SW fans who are never happy with anything, but in my experience that's a very small portion of loud SW fans.
I mean I get it, the director wanted to defy expectations, sever the ties with the previous movies and set a new course for the SW universe, so in a sense I see ep8 as a soft reboot.
I liked how Kylo and Rey developed in this movie, I dont mind that Rey is a nobody, I actually like the idea and I also dont mind that she went from 0 to jedi master in a such a short time. But this fast track development leaves little room to connect with the character. I think 30 years from now when we look back at SW, she wont be a very memorable character, everybody's going to be talking about Kylo because he actually gets enough development and the actor does a great job portraying him.
All in all, a mediocre movie without a clear vision of what it wants to be. The only redeeming quality is the character of Kylo and the actor that portrays him. For all the shit the prequels took, take any 30 min sequence from any of the 3 movies, you'll hear more memorable quotes, see more memorable places and memorable characters than ep7 and ep8 combined. The new SW movies lack vision and imagination, they feel like they were shot in different places around our planet, it didn't feel like a galaxy far far away, in fact with all their blatant political statements it felt a bit too much like home.
|
[QUOTE]On December 24 2017 20:20 FreakyDroid wrote: I dont mind that Rey is a nobody, I actually like the idea and I also dont mind that she went from 0 to jedi master in a such a short time./QUOTE]
I generally agreed with the majority of points you made. I never quite saw it as her going from 0 to a Jedi Master. Even after the recent movie, I still don't see it that way. To me it was more or less portrayed as, 2 relative green horns who had an immense amount of potential, or inherent power that were undisciplined and untrained. The majority of instances in which they tapped into them were only in extreme emotionally taxing or stressful conditions. I.E., when Luke tries to half kill kylo and he realizes and freaks in retaliation with a force blast, before this he wasn't to what i recall, capable of such power. Comparing someone like snoke's ability to manipulate the force (Drag Rey over, lift Rey into the air, bound her, all the while simultaneously draw the information out of her mind) is vastly more powerful than what kylo has shown which was more or less on he same par of skill with Rey.
TL;DR, i don't think they're jedi masters, their powers are more or less only tapped in extreme scenarios, and they are not in full control of them. Very much like a human is capable of lifting a car in an extremely emotional state filled with adrenaline.
|
Canada10923 Posts
I like Rivals becoming the BBE, so I guess I disagree with Tolkien there (despite loving his books), developing the bad guys is just a different way to tell a story. I really like Kylo in this movie. What does BBE stand for?
Assuming you mean Rivals become enemies, that is not contradictory to Tolkien's contention, nor is developing the bad guys. The issue is do you have a competent enemy, a worthy foe, someone of significance worth beating. They don't need to have levels over 9000, in fact they can be all too human. But there needs to be something they are very good at that makes them difficult to defeat. Grand Admiral Thrawn in the EU is a great example- his martial ability and pilot abilities are completely untested and likely subpar. But his chief weapon his brilliant mind- he is a worthy foe because he is so difficult to out think.
Rivals becoming enemies is an awesome archetypal story- Walking Dead was great as long as it had Shane vs Rick. Once that ended (and it did need to; it couldn't go on forever), a lot of the power of the story disappeared for me and I stopped watching. Prince of Egypt (which I just rewatched recently) is another great example of friends becoming rivals- classic storytelling and brilliant. But Ramses is a significant threat with the power of the Egyptian empire behind him. That's not what this film does- it might try to go there, but it's a mess and doesn't really succeed.
What Falling says about the B team becoming the A team is exactly that, the A team is dead, so the B team takes over, imo that was very clear.
I don't mean the heroes are dying and so insignificant nobodies are rising up to take their place like the Hobbits of the Shire. I mean, it's like they grabbed an Extra or an NPC and thrust her into the spotlight. Like, who are you and what are you doing in this story? Maybe its her line delivery. Or maybe she comes across as a mediocre character with over-sized magical insight. The Ensign Wesley Crusher of the cast.
What the movie needs is a proper antagonist- someone that actively opposes what the protagonist is doing. Perhaps that is part of the problem- the protagonists aren't really trying to do anything. Well, Rey is, but the baddies aren't really trying to stop that. And the other protagonists are just trying to survive, and so I guess the antagonists are trying to stop that... by sitting on their butts and waiting for most of the film. Yay? Technically it's somewhat similar to the Empire Strikes Back Han-Leia plotline, but the execution is awful by comparison. It's "only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's flattery."
|
On December 24 2017 17:18 cLutZ wrote:
5. What actually happened? How is Episode 9 different having had this happen? Im overall confused as to what actually happened.
Snoke died. Luke "redeemed" himself and "died". Rose was introduced so Finn will have to choose between her and Rey.
|
On December 24 2017 17:18 cLutZ wrote: 2. Point 1 is further emphasized by her anointed #2 who's plan is "escape pods, but the enemies won't look for them." FFS lady, Star Destroyers not only can scan for escape pods, they know whether they have life forms on them! This was established in the first 5 minutes of the first star wars movie ever made. How is this a plan? How does the director/screenwriter pretend for even a second its not retarded?
I think that it's obvious that this was a desperation, last second plan. The rebels didn't know that the First order can track them, so they were caught by surprise. When they are caught with their pants down, it's reasonable to assume that they just hoped for the best. It's not reasonable to expect some kind of miracle escape. As we clearly saw, the First order detected the pods and many rebels died, but some of them made it.
|
I don't get the criticism that TLJ was too feminist or something along those lines.
While it is true that it has quite a large amount of female characters (phasma, leia, rey, rose, holdo) there are still more male characters (Hux, Luke, Finn, Poe, Kylo, and whatever Snoke is). There is one black dude, but Empire had Lando.
Moreover, the movie never makes these characters special just because of their gender - Leia's force powers don't come from a magical uterus or something. They are just characters that happen to be female.
On this front, the reason, I think, why some people might find TLJ jarring is because we are just so used to seeing movies which have main characters which are predominately male, with the one or two stereotype female extras (usually love interest or femme fatal).
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
It's the Rebellion leadership that has too much blatant womaning in it.
|
On December 25 2017 11:21 LegalLord wrote: It's the Rebellion leadership that has too much blatant womaning in it.
What's uh.. blatant womaning?
|
On December 25 2017 06:56 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +I like Rivals becoming the BBE, so I guess I disagree with Tolkien there (despite loving his books), developing the bad guys is just a different way to tell a story. I really like Kylo in this movie. What does BBE stand for? Assuming you mean Rivals become enemies, that is not contradictory to Tolkien's contention, nor is developing the bad guys. The issue is do you have a competent enemy, a worthy foe, someone of significance worth beating. They don't need to have levels over 9000, in fact they can be all too human. But there needs to be something they are very good at that makes them difficult to defeat. Grand Admiral Thrawn in the EU is a great example- his martial ability and pilot abilities are completely untested and likely subpar. But his chief weapon his brilliant mind- he is a worthy foe because he is so difficult to out think. Rivals becoming enemies is an awesome archetypal story- Walking Dead was great as long as it had Shane vs Rick. Once that ended (and it did need to; it couldn't go on forever), a lot of the power of the story disappeared for me and I stopped watching. Prince of Egypt (which I just rewatched recently) is another great example of friends becoming rivals- classic storytelling and brilliant. But Ramses is a significant threat with the power of the Egyptian empire behind him. That's not what this film does- it might try to go there, but it's a mess and doesn't really succeed. Show nested quote + What Falling says about the B team becoming the A team is exactly that, the A team is dead, so the B team takes over, imo that was very clear.
I don't mean the heroes are dying and so insignificant nobodies are rising up to take their place like the Hobbits of the Shire. I mean, it's like they grabbed an Extra or an NPC and thrust her into the spotlight. Like, who are you and what are you doing in this story? Maybe its her line delivery. Or maybe she comes across as a mediocre character with over-sized magical insight. The Ensign Wesley Crusher of the cast. What the movie needs is a proper antagonist- someone that actively opposes what the protagonist is doing. Perhaps that is part of the problem- the protagonists aren't really trying to do anything. Well, Rey is, but the baddies aren't really trying to stop that. And the other protagonists are just trying to survive, and so I guess the antagonists are trying to stop that... by sitting on their butts and waiting for most of the film. Yay? Technically it's somewhat similar to the Empire Strikes Back Han-Leia plotline, but the execution is awful by comparison. It's "only a little copy, a child's model or a slave's flattery." BBE is short for big bad evil (from TvTropes).
Idk, for me Kylo is constantly slightly above Rey's level, which is fairly normal for an evil Rival. I expect a powerboost for Kylo in the near future to make him a menacing threat and if I was JJA I'd probably use a Holocron. I agree that Kylo doesn't feel like an "Oh shit, he's here" character like Vader in the OT, but imo he's getting there as the movie progresses.
I think the main problem with the antagonists in this movie is that basic outlet of the story damns the FO to just sit around and wait for the fuel to expire. They've made their move and now can only wait. Ofc they could have just bombed them with small crafts, but are too dumb for that. And the protagonists don't have a lot of options either because their situation and equipment blows and it's space, so there's no terrain or interaction.
I would have liked that to develop into a cat and mouse game with multiple plans and counterplans, which somewhat happens in the second half of the movie. But they have 3 major plotlines running at the same time during the first half, so they don't really have time for that.
I'm not trying to argue that the basic plot isn't very well thought out. Imo the movie has enough strengths to redeem the weak plot and tonal changes, but I can totally see why people didn't like the movie.
I somewhat agree on the Rose part, her lines were prolly the worst in the movie. But I think that she resembles a nobody that can still tell a story and imo she does that well (despite all the heavy handed morale lessons from her). I agree that she isn't really a protagonist, but neither was purple hair admiral and you can somewhat argue about Poe, Finn, Leia and Luke, who all aren't really protagonists but definitely important for the story. I like that there are a bunch of characters I can tell a story about after the movie, gives me the feeling of an actual group, not just 2-3 protagonists and a bunch of extras.
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 25 2017 11:05 levelping wrote: I don't get the criticism that TLJ was too feminist or something along those lines.
While it is true that it has quite a large amount of female characters (phasma, leia, rey, rose, holdo) there are still more male characters (Hux, Luke, Finn, Poe, Kylo, and whatever Snoke is). There is one black dude, but Empire had Lando.
Moreover, the movie never makes these characters special just because of their gender - Leia's force powers don't come from a magical uterus or something. They are just characters that happen to be female.
On this front, the reason, I think, why some people might find TLJ jarring is because we are just so used to seeing movies which have main characters which are predominately male, with the one or two stereotype female extras (usually love interest or femme fatal).
Notice that all the male characters you listed are either given reproachable traits that were once considered stereotypically feminine, or are regularly upstaged by their women co-leads. Meanwhile, the female leads possess positive masculine traits and are given the lion's share of inspiration and praiseworthy scenes. This frequently leads to jarring juxtaposition when Johnson wants the women characters to do classically "heroic" things, but misunderstands the nature of those concepts (the first interaction between Holdo and Poe is a prime example).
|
On December 25 2017 13:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 11:05 levelping wrote: I don't get the criticism that TLJ was too feminist or something along those lines.
While it is true that it has quite a large amount of female characters (phasma, leia, rey, rose, holdo) there are still more male characters (Hux, Luke, Finn, Poe, Kylo, and whatever Snoke is). There is one black dude, but Empire had Lando.
Moreover, the movie never makes these characters special just because of their gender - Leia's force powers don't come from a magical uterus or something. They are just characters that happen to be female.
On this front, the reason, I think, why some people might find TLJ jarring is because we are just so used to seeing movies which have main characters which are predominately male, with the one or two stereotype female extras (usually love interest or femme fatal). Notice that all the male characters you listed are either given reproachable traits that were once considered stereotypically feminine, or are regularly upstaged by their women co-leads. Meanwhile, the female leads possess positive masculine traits and are given the lion's share of inspiration and praiseworthy scenes. This frequently leads to jarring juxtaposition when Johnson wants the women characters to do classically "heroic" things, but misunderstands the nature of those concepts (the first interaction between Holdo and Poe is a prime example).
Which traits in the male characters are things which were "once considered stereotypically feminine"? As for being upstaged, the upstaging happens as a result of a function of the plot, and not a function of their character's gender. Leia zaps Poe because he is literally committing mutiny, and not because Leia is a woman. Leia's position and authority comes from her position as a general, and again, not because she is woman too.
In any event, assuming what you are saying is true, are such "masculine/feminine" traits simply a function of the roles that the people play and the fact that they have often been played by a particular gender?
You mentioned Holdo and Poe's first interaction (if I am not wrong this is where Poe asks her what is her plan). In almost any military outfit, plans are on a need to know basis and there is no obligation for commanders to consult with their subordinates about plans. This would probably apply in a good deal of everyday life settings too, so long as there is a strict hierarchy in the organization.
In that context, I don't see Holdo's reaction as being either typically "masculine" or "feminine" - she's just doing what some authority figures would have done in that situation.
EDIT - if we really want to make the accusation that TLJ is feminist, then I guess the decisive question to ask is that if all the genders were reversed, would it make any different? I currently don't see how Holdo being male would change much about her interaction with Poe.
|
Canada10923 Posts
I wondered this- am I having a negative reaction because they are female. But the more I considered, the more I realized, no that is not the case. Battlestar Galactica had lots of female characters and I love it. Same with The Expanse. The problem is the most of the characters are badly realized outside of Rey- I'm not on the Rey hate train. I like her and her story. But give me a Starbuck. Give me a Helena Cain. Give me a Rosalin. Hell, give me a Dualla or a Cally- a plucky mechanic, who gets into a firefight way overhead, gets a form of shellshock, but remains a very sympathetic character.
I would certainly take an Avarsala over the purple-haired commander, and replace Rose with Naomi Nagata of The Expanse.
|
On December 25 2017 14:18 Falling wrote: I wondered this- am I having a negative reaction because they are female. But the more I considered, the more I realized, no that is not the case. Battlestar Galactica had lots of female characters and I love it. Same with The Expanse. The problem is the most of the characters are badly realized outside of Rey- I'm not on the Rey hate train. I like her and her story. But give me a Starbuck. Give me a Helena Cain. Give me a Rosalin. Hell, give me a Dualla or a Cally- a plucky mechanic, who gets into a firefight way overhead, gets a form of shellshock, but remains a very sympathetic character.
I would certainly take an Avarsala over the purple-haired commander, and replace Rose with Naomi Nagata of The Expanse.
Well unfortunately movie characters do not really get the same amount of space to grow as TV characters, so you observation that the female cast of Galactica are more fleshed out is probably true. The same thing would be the same for the male characters though. Poe is literally almost defined by his job - hot shot fighter pilot.
(I'm just mentioning this to point out that there could be a wider issue with all characters, as opposed to the criticism that TLJ is bad because of "feminists", which I think really has not much to go on)
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
It’s not so much about feminism as it is about the abundance of bad to mediocre female characters.
|
On December 25 2017 14:32 LegalLord wrote: It’s not so much about feminism as it is about the abundance of bad to mediocre female characters.
Save for Kylo being more fleshed out than Rey, I don't really think that the female characters any worse than the male characters. Both groups have their forgettables (Phasma, the hacker/gambler dude, Rose, even Snoke), their one dimensional tropes (rey "good jedi", Poe "fly boy"), and semi-effective leadership figures (holdo, Hux).
|
United States15275 Posts
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: Which traits in the male characters are things which were "once considered stereotypically feminine"?
- Throughout the film it is drilled into our heads that Poe is unfit for leadership because he is too solipsistic, one of the most common barbs used against women imaginable. Multiple instances of dialogue "confirm" he is impulsive. egotistic, lacking finesse and unable from distance himself from his instinctual reactions. Remember this isn't the standard criticism of the independent hotshot a la Han Solo: anti-heroes are primarily scrutinized for the lack of connection to any community, regardless of their expertise or reliability. Solo's redemption in RotJ is the common dramatic turn of a loner who elects to fight for a cause bigger than himself. But Poe is already committed to the Resistance, so his character flaws translate into personal failure. He destroys the Dreadnought at the cost of most of the bombing squadron; his hidden plan with Finn and Rose leads to the First Order targeting the escaping transport vessels; his coup is neatly nipped in the bud by Leia and company.
The problem is this requires the viewer to take the movie at face value instead of looking at the larger picture. It would take a long wall of text to elucidate but the short version is, Poe does nothing wrong. All his "bad judgments" assume platitudes completely unbefitting of the tone and locution Johnson is trying to establish, which is why the constant dressing-down becomes cloying and ridiculous by the end. It's quite telling that the conflict between Poe and Leia/Holdo is not about risk assessment or disagreement on what sacrifices are worthwhile in a guerilla war. Instead, it's that he needs to mollify his inclinations to fight and learn how to run away better. In short he has to become more like the previous leaders, who have high marks in sanctification and low marks in actual leadership and initiative.
So the end of the movie has him repeating the maxims originally utterly by Leia and Holdo, mixed with a "awww, aren't mutinous officers cute" between those two while his unconscious body is carried into an escape pod. The whole bit about "We are the spark that will light the fire that will burn the First Order down" is pure sentimental hokum. The Resistance has no identity beyond being the symbolic descendant of the Rebel Alliance. They don't stand for anything beyond not being the bad guy.
- Kylo's defining character flaw is his emotional instability. He is torn apart by the inability to choose an identity; he won't forgo his sentimental attachment to his blood relatives and he won't completely commit to the values of the Sith. Snoke mocks him for this during the first throne room sequence, insinuating he is a child aping Darth Vader's legacy. We see him lose control several times throughout the course of the film, erupting into outbursts of rage that cloud his judgment. We see this pop up once again on when. He does not consider the implausibility of the scenario (how is Luke even there?). Instead of using his affinity with the Dark Side to tease out that's a Force Projection, he challenges Luke in a 1v1 for no other reason than emotional resolution. He fails to prioritize the mission ahead of his personal feelings, which results in the FO's failure to end the Resistance.
Kylo is also notable for being emotionally manipulative, not in the sense of straightforward lying or offering power (Vader in ESB and RotJ, Sidious in RotJ) but feigning empathy and understanding while secretly harboring more sinister plans. His whole interaction with Rey is the equivalent of putting on a front, highlighting his vulnerability and suggesting he can help reconcile Rey's confusion and longing for her parents. This is a stark departure from the blunt transactional interactions of the Sith in the past, which Snoke carries on. The closest analog would be Palpatine in the prequels, which was necessary since he was literally pretending to be someone else.
- Luke is consumed by his failure to properly train and protect young Ben from the Dark Side. This one catastrophic event completely annihilates his former idealism and commitment to fighting the good fight. Notably a tumultuous past is a running theme is many movies with female leads (Maleficent, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc.) , but these work as anchors to empathize with the protagonist's (or antagonist's) plight. In Luke's case it is portrayed as personal weakness, giving into self-doubt and forgetting about his true responsibilities; Yoda turns this into literal text during his cameo. Considering his history in the OT, the rationalization used is patently ridiculous.
- Hux is a petty, sniveling, little shit entirely reliant on his rank to engender any respect. He doesn't have the decency to keep his insecurities behind closed doors either - TLJ makes it a running joke to mock his pretensions whenever he tries to do anything remotely respectable. He falls apart at the slightest hint of provocation, and he practically licks the floor Snoke walks on. It's unfathomable why Snoke would trust Hux with any responsibilities besides his insinuation that it's partially a joke, partially exploiting his validation-craving nature. He even considers backstabbing Kylo in the vain hope that he could take charge (as if anyone would respect him enough to obey the claim).
Again, huge departure from the OT's depiction of Empire leadership as cold, pragmatic, and mechanically efficient. The only meaningful conflict between Palpatine/Vader and the Empire's military elite is that some of the latter don't respect Vader due to their regard of the Force as pointless gibberish (and Vader ends that discussion in the first 15 minutes of ANH).
- Finn is a whole bunch of nothingburger. He implicitly betrays Leia by stealing the transponder beacon when she is critically injured, and is literally willing to abandon ship so his kinda-sortof-maybe friend won't get hurt. Rose catches him in the act, zaps him after a really terrible attempt to rhetorically handwave away his intentions, and rightfully proceeds to berate him on the point. Just like Poe and Luke, Finn is too focused on the small picture (save a girl with whom he has an ambiguous relationship at best) to see the big picture (his importance as a symbol of hope and not being a coward). He mansplains over Rose during their covert meeting with Poe - it's not really established as part of his character as much as a random sign of disrespect. On Canto Bight he becomes an ADHD baby, cooing over shiny stuff while responsible Rose drags him along for the real mission. In fact, Finn has no meaningful story arc within the film. That would require him to have actual characterization. In fact he's just a whole bunch of miscalibrated feelings that requires someone's strong guidance to be channeled in the right way. Gee, sounds like a familiar trope...
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: As for being upstaged, the upstaging happens as a result of a function of the plot, and not a function of their character's gender. Leia zaps Poe because he is literally committing mutiny, and not because Leia is a woman. Leia's position and authority comes from her position as a general, and again, not because she is woman too.
Is there some intense gunfight as Poe shows he's willing to die for his beliefs? Does this devolve into terrible tragedy, showing how the stresses of war and desperation can result in allies turning on each other? No. Leia blasts him in the most casual way imaginable, as if he was just an irritating little bug that thought he was something better. The moment is inexplicably played for humor, not catharsis.
And that's a prime example where the movie stumbles. Leia's position and authority comes from her being Leia (i.e. purely symbolic); she doesn't show the competence or leadership skills to warrant that respect. It's simply assumed because of the meta-legacy of the character. Anyone familiar with the military knows there's a distinction between the rank and the person, and respect for the former has nothing to do with the latter. This conflation is the same thing that hurts Holdo's portrayal in the movie.
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: In any event, assuming what you are saying is true, are such "masculine/feminine" traits simply a function of the roles that the people play and the fact that they have often been played by a particular gender?
If the first part is true, then the plot is simply semiotic masturbation and possesses no real characterization. Luckily, roles don't have "masculine/feminine" traits assigned to them by default. Real life and better media have proven this over and over again.
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: You mentioned Holdo and Poe's first interaction (if I am not wrong this is where Poe asks her what is her plan). In almost any military outfit, plans are on a need to know basis and there is no obligation for commanders to consult with their subordinates about plans. This would probably apply in a good deal of everyday life settings too, so long as there is a strict hierarchy in the organization.
In almost any military outfit, the commanding officer understands that an unified chain of command is essential for efficient communication and execution. This is especially critical in certain situations, such as...a full-scale retreat from a superior force with no clear escape plan. Therefore any competent military leader also understands that any conflict between leaders of different ranks must be minimized as quickly as possible. Either you instinctively pull rank, defer the conflict to be resolved at a later time, or inform the subordinate with as much information you can afford to give.
What you don't do is dress down the subordinate in public while simultaneously showing that you cannot address his concerns. That is the definition of a novice move, especially for someone who just assumed command, and it's what Holdo does by demand of the script.
Also, your comprehension of military hierarchy only works outside real combat. "Need-to-know basis" and "I don't need input from plebs" have been the causes of innumerable blunders and lost battles. You could demarcate the entire history of military combat along those two principles.
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: In that context, I don't see Holdo's reaction as being either typically "masculine" or "feminine" - she's just doing what some authority figures would have done in that situation.
Holdo's conversation with Poe is the well-worn paradigm of a dick-measuring contest. She ignores his concerns, questions his credentials, then personally insults him all with a snide, condescending tone. You might be mistaken for thinking it's a skit from a 40's noir movie with Humphrey Bogart. It is also a clear sign of incompetence on her part. The proper way to address the situation would be how Gene Hackman's character deals with Denzel's Washington's in the first third of Crimson Tide.
On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: EDIT - if we really want to make the accusation that TLJ is feminist, then I guess the decisive question to ask is that if all the genders were reversed, would it make any different? I currently don't see how Holdo being male would change much about her interaction with Poe.
If the genders were reversed, Twitter would be alight with complaints about how girl-Poe and girl-Luke and girl-Kylo are the oldest, most tiresome stereotypes imaginable. They're all weak women so consumed by their feelings and insecurities that they need strong men (boy-Rose, boy-Rey, boy-Holdo) to shake them out of their self-absorption and focus on what's important. And god, could you imagine the scorn girl-Hux would receive?
|
Canada10923 Posts
On December 25 2017 14:23 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 14:18 Falling wrote: I wondered this- am I having a negative reaction because they are female. But the more I considered, the more I realized, no that is not the case. Battlestar Galactica had lots of female characters and I love it. Same with The Expanse. The problem is the most of the characters are badly realized outside of Rey- I'm not on the Rey hate train. I like her and her story. But give me a Starbuck. Give me a Helena Cain. Give me a Rosalin. Hell, give me a Dualla or a Cally- a plucky mechanic, who gets into a firefight way overhead, gets a form of shellshock, but remains a very sympathetic character.
I would certainly take an Avarsala over the purple-haired commander, and replace Rose with Naomi Nagata of The Expanse. Well unfortunately movie characters do not really get the same amount of space to grow as TV characters, so you observation that the female cast of Galactica are more fleshed out is probably true. The same thing would be the same for the male characters though. Poe is literally almost defined by his job - hot shot fighter pilot. (I'm just mentioning this to point out that there could be a wider issue with all characters, as opposed to the criticism that TLJ is bad because of "feminists", which I think really has not much to go on) It's not more time that they need. In thirty seconds, the Dreadnought commander demonstrated more competence and military gravitas than Hux and purple-haired combined for their entire screen time. The first introduction of Helena Cain established her dominance. Movies have shorthand ways to portray good and bad commanders. The movie gives us all the signals of a bad commander with purple-hair- no protection of authority (listen to how Poe talks to her and she just lets him), no plan, and no communication and no showing of competence, just telling. "Need to know" with that sort of commander gives off all the signals of a classic incompetent commander. Then they turn around and expect us to think she is a great commander despite not showing any of her brilliance. Great job. You surprised me by not showing anything and then telling me what she is, which contradicts what my lying eyes see.
A proper military story that wanted to show that Poe had messed up, would have Poe upbraided for losing the fighter screen in a senseless attack... and there would be an onscreen demonstration of why that fighter screen would have been important (either for some brilliant escape plan that now won't work, or they are now vulnerable to attack.) We would physically see how he had dun goofed. But as it is, it seems to me he had the most successful plan. The fighters were useless anyways, he took out a really big ship and if they were thinking they could have used that as PR to spark the rebellion. 'Hey, look at us, even though we were outgunned and on the run, we can still blow up their biggest ships. Our pilots are the best. Join us the fight for freedom.' Instead we are just told things are bad because people died... it's freaking war: people die. It seems like it was a pretty good trade all things considered. Show me the consequences of his decisions. Show me he did a dumb thing, and show me that she is actually a competent commander. This is a visual medium, so show me the goods.
|
On December 25 2017 17:13 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: Which traits in the male characters are things which were "once considered stereotypically feminine"? - Throughout the film it is drilled into our heads that Poe is unfit for leadership because he is too solipsistic, one of the most common barbs used against women imaginable. Multiple instances of dialogue "confirm" he is impulsive. egotistic, lacking finesse and unable from distance himself from his instinctual reactions. Remember this isn't the standard criticism of the independent hotshot a la Han Solo: anti-heroes are primarily scrutinized for the lack of connection to any community, regardless of their expertise or reliability. Solo's redemption in RotJ is the common dramatic turn of a loner who elects to fight for a cause bigger than himself. But Poe is already committed to the Resistance, so his character flaws translate into personal failure. He destroys the Dreadnought at the cost of most of the bombing squadron; his hidden plan with Finn and Rose leads to the First Order targeting the escaping transport vessels; his coup is neatly nipped in the bud by Leia and company.
The problem is this requires the viewer to take the movie at face value instead of looking at the larger picture. It would take a long wall of text to elucidate but the short version is, Poe does nothing wrong. All his "bad judgments" assume platitudes completely unbefitting of the tone and locution Johnson is trying to establish, which is why the constant dressing-down becomes cloying and ridiculous by the end. It's quite telling that the conflict between Poe and Leia/Holdo is not about risk assessment or disagreement on what sacrifices are worthwhile in a guerilla war. Instead, it's that he needs to mollify his inclinations to fight and learn how to run away better. In short he has to become more like the previous leaders, who have high marks in sanctification and low marks in actual leadership and initiative.
So the end of the movie has him repeating the maxims originally utterly by Leia and Holdo, mixed with a "awww, aren't mutinous officers cute" between those two while his unconscious body is carried into an escape pod. The whole bit about "We are the spark that will light the fire that will burn the First Order down" is pure sentimental hokum. The Resistance has no identity beyond being the symbolic descendant of the Rebel Alliance. They don't stand for anything beyond not being the bad guy.
- Kylo's defining character flaw is his emotional instability. He is torn apart by the inability to choose an identity; he won't forgo his sentimental attachment to his blood relatives and he won't completely commit to the values of the Sith. Snoke mocks him for this during the first throne room sequence, insinuating he is a child aping Darth Vader's legacy. We see him lose control several times throughout the course of the film, erupting into outbursts of rage that cloud his judgment. We see this pop up once again on when. He does not consider the implausibility of the scenario (how is Luke even there?). Instead of using his affinity with the Dark Side to tease out that's a Force Projection, he challenges Luke in a 1v1 for no other reason than emotional resolution. He fails to prioritize the mission ahead of his personal feelings, which results in the FO's failure to end the Resistance.
Kylo is also notable for being emotionally manipulative, not in the sense of straightforward lying or offering power (Vader in ESB and RotJ, Sidious in RotJ) but feigning empathy and understanding while secretly harboring more sinister plans. His whole interaction with Rey is the equivalent of putting on a front, highlighting his vulnerability and suggesting he can help reconcile Rey's confusion and longing for her parents. This is a stark departure from the blunt transactional interactions of the Sith in the past, which Snoke carries on. The closest analog would be Palpatine in the prequels, which was necessary since he was literally pretending to be someone else.
- Luke is consumed by his failure to properly train and protect young Ben from the Dark Side. This one catastrophic event completely annihilates his former idealism and commitment to fighting the good fight. Notably a tumultuous past is a running theme is many movies with female leads (Maleficent, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc.) , but these work as anchors to empathize with the protagonist's (or antagonist's) plight. In Luke's case it is portrayed as personal weakness, giving into self-doubt and forgetting about his true responsibilities; Yoda turns this into literal text during his cameo. Considering his history in the OT, the rationalization used is patently ridiculous.
- Hux is a petty, sniveling, little shit entirely reliant on his rank to engender any respect. He doesn't have the decency to keep his insecurities behind closed doors either - TLJ makes it a running joke to mock his pretensions whenever he tries to do anything remotely respectable. He falls apart at the slightest hint of provocation, and he practically licks the floor Snoke walks on. It's unfathomable why Snoke would trust Hux with any responsibilities besides his insinuation that it's partially a joke, partially exploiting his validation-craving nature. He even considers backstabbing Kylo in the vain hope that he could take charge (as if anyone would respect him enough to obey the claim).
Again, huge departure from the OT's depiction of Empire leadership as cold, pragmatic, and mechanically efficient. The only meaningful conflict between Palpatine/Vader and the Empire's military elite is that some of the latter don't respect Vader due to their regard of the Force as pointless gibberish (and Vader ends that discussion in the first 15 minutes of ANH).
- Finn is a whole bunch of nothingburger. He implicitly betrays Leia by stealing the transponder beacon when she is critically injured, and is literally willing to abandon ship so his kinda-sortof-maybe friend won't get hurt. Rose catches him in the act, zaps him after a really terrible attempt to rhetorically handwave away his intentions, and rightfully proceeds to berate him on the point. Just like Poe and Luke, Finn is too focused on the small picture (save a girl with whom he has an ambiguous relationship at best) to see the big picture (his importance as a symbol of hope and not being a coward). He mansplains over Rose during their covert meeting with Poe - it's not really established as part of his character as much as a random sign of disrespect. On Canto Bight he becomes an ADHD baby, cooing over shiny stuff while responsible Rose drags him along for the real mission. In fact, Finn has no meaningful story arc within the film. That would require him to have actual characterization. In fact he's just a whole bunch of miscalibrated feelings that requires someone's strong guidance to be channeled in the right way. Gee, sounds like a familiar trope...
Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: As for being upstaged, the upstaging happens as a result of a function of the plot, and not a function of their character's gender. Leia zaps Poe because he is literally committing mutiny, and not because Leia is a woman. Leia's position and authority comes from her position as a general, and again, not because she is woman too. Is there some intense gunfight as Poe shows he's willing to die for his beliefs? Does this devolve into terrible tragedy, showing how the stresses of war and desperation can result in allies turning on each other? No. Leia blasts him in the most casual way imaginable, as if he was just an irritating little bug that thought he was something better. The moment is inexplicably played for humor, not catharsis. And that's a prime example where the movie stumbles. Leia's position and authority comes from her being Leia (i.e. purely symbolic); she doesn't show the competence or leadership skills to warrant that respect. It's simply assumed because of the meta-legacy of the character. Anyone familiar with the military knows there's a distinction between the rank and the person, and respect for the former has nothing to do with the latter. This conflation is the same thing that hurts Holdo's portrayal in the movie. Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: In any event, assuming what you are saying is true, are such "masculine/feminine" traits simply a function of the roles that the people play and the fact that they have often been played by a particular gender? If the first part is true, then the plot is simply semiotic masturbation and possesses no real characterization. Luckily, roles don't have "masculine/feminine" traits assigned to them by default. Real life and better media have proven this over and over again. Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: You mentioned Holdo and Poe's first interaction (if I am not wrong this is where Poe asks her what is her plan). In almost any military outfit, plans are on a need to know basis and there is no obligation for commanders to consult with their subordinates about plans. This would probably apply in a good deal of everyday life settings too, so long as there is a strict hierarchy in the organization. In almost any military outfit, the commanding officer understands that an unified chain of command is essential for efficient communication and execution. This is especially critical in certain situations, such as...a full-scale retreat from a superior force with no clear escape plan. Therefore any competent military leader also understands that any conflict between leaders of different ranks must be minimized as quickly as possible. Either you instinctively pull rank, defer the conflict to be resolved at a later time, or inform the subordinate with as much information you can afford to give. What you don't do is dress down the subordinate in public while simultaneously showing that you cannot address his concerns. That is the definition of a novice move, especially for someone who just assumed command, and it's what Holdo does by demand of the script. Also, your comprehension of military hierarchy only works outside real combat. "Need-to-know basis" and "I don't need input from plebs" have been the causes of innumerable blunders and lost battles. You could demarcate the entire history of military combat along those two principles. Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: In that context, I don't see Holdo's reaction as being either typically "masculine" or "feminine" - she's just doing what some authority figures would have done in that situation. Holdo's conversation with Poe is the well-worn paradigm of a dick-measuring contest. She ignores his concerns, questions his credentials, then personally insults him all with a snide, condescending tone. You might be mistaken for thinking it's a skit from a 40's noir movie with Humphrey Bogart. It is also a clear sign of incompetence on her part. The proper way to address the situation would be how Gene Hackman's character deals with Denzel's Washington's in the first third of Crimson Tide. Show nested quote +On December 25 2017 13:36 levelping wrote: EDIT - if we really want to make the accusation that TLJ is feminist, then I guess the decisive question to ask is that if all the genders were reversed, would it make any different? I currently don't see how Holdo being male would change much about her interaction with Poe. If the genders were reversed, Twitter would be alight with complaints about how girl-Poe and girl-Luke and girl-Kylo are the oldest, most tiresome stereotypes imaginable. They're all weak women so consumed by their feelings and insecurities that they need strong men (boy-Rose, boy-Rey, boy-Holdo) to shake them out of their self-absorption and focus on what's important. And god, could you imagine the scorn girl-Hux would receive?
Well, beyond your original comment about Poe, I don't think you have quite established that the male characters are associated with "feminine traits". Moreover, what you have viewed as "solipsistic" is merely hotheadedness (a very masculine trait) by another name. Same for Kylo, who struggles with emotions common associated with men (anger) - I also do not follow how being emotionally manipulative is a female trait either, since as you have yourself pointed out, Palatine has done all that too.
Your mentioning of Luke, I think, really stretches the limits of association when you state "Notably a tumultuous past is a running theme is many movies with female leads (Maleficent, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc.)", when this same troupe appears repeatedly with male characters too (Batman).
Hux is again, hardly feminine in nature, since having a grovelling and ultimately cowardly henchman does not require that character to be a woman either. Littlefinger basically set the gold standard for scheming coward.
I hope you don't mind but I feel like this makes my point (without needing to go on to deal with the rest of the examples you have raised).
As for Holdo and Poe, I have actually had the tragic honor of wasting two years of my life in the military, and maybe it's done differently else where but challenging the position of your commanding officer in public, in the middle of an engagement, is going to get you an immediate dressing down. In combat you follow orders first, and then if you want you can have a discussion after the orders are executed. In Holdo's case, she actually went pretty lightly on Poe. She humored him in public, and when the conversation then became private she told him to shut up. He refused to listen, committed mutiny, and then got shot.
|
|
|
|