Star Wars The Force Awakens

It would be wise to stay out of arguments but if I could just help put some perspective on the matter...

Firefish quote of "Star Wars has always been that special set of Old movies with relatable subjects for boys and men while being very far away from realty as a whole."

My understanding of this quote is that Star War's characters and their progression is heavily focused on the premise of a young men dealing with their Journey to manhood. Tarnsman, honestly I wouldn't think too deep into it or take assumption that his quote suggests that he is unhappy that a woman plays a lead role. Rather he is disappointed how the key structure that he enjoyed dearly has now changed. Be it because of a female potentially taking the role instead or because the movie structure in general has taking a different path. There is no indication that Firefish thinks females as lesser, incapable human beings. And even if he said "Woman can't take the journey to Manhood like a man" well fuck... any reasonable person is inclined to agree with him!

Now listen, enjoying a story about Manhood or just take the preference of Masculine characters and situations doesn't render a person sexist. If a guy says "I prefer to play as a male character in video games, being a guy I can relate better to my character" that's most definitely not sexist, similar to his opinion on the story structure.

I understand where you are coming from Tarnsman, but I think things just got a little out of hand over what I believe to be an innocent opinion.

Chezza said:

Stuff

Luke could have been a woman in Star Wars and literally nothing would have changed. It's about as important as what color his hair is. Most movie characters can completely change. James Bond could be a black gay transwoman and as long as the actor had the charisma to pull it off, it'd still be a James Bond film, bond has had so many variations and character changes that he's basically just a name and some broad standard traits at this point.

The notion that you can enjoy a work of art less because of worthless traits to the protagonist is a toxic mentality that should be called out on both sides. I'm not just harping on Firefish for being "CISHET WHITE SCUM". When I see a black person say they can't watch Breaking Bad because it's only "white people problems", that's just as wrong. You should be able to identify with characters of all creed because the human condition is universal. The hero's journey is not uniquely a male thing. If you're going to say that people shouldn't care if James Bond or Spiderman stay white (which they fucking shouldn't) then you should also say people shouldn't care if they don't or Thor turns into a woman or whatever. They're both equally ridiculous to get upset about and I'm going to call you dumb for being upset about them just as I would if you said your enjoyment of Star Wars hinged on Han Solo's hair cut.

If you want your characters to have certain traits like say "be masculine" fine but just because a character is a woman doesn't mean she's not "masculine". Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 or Ripley in Aliens are basically just men with tits.

Edit: Here is a video of every non-leia line of dialogue spoken by a woman in the original trilogy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODgwL7DJ9dY. If you have a problem with Rey in TFA but don't have a problem with this and think people who do have a problem with this are "too sensitive" or are "trying to push political correctness". You are the zombies. (The correct answer is you should have a problem with neither that video nor Rey being a woman).

Tarnsman said:

The reality of what you wrote was this.

"Star Wars has always been that special set of Old movies with relatable subjects for boys and men while being very far away from realty as a whole."

Explain what the fuck this means then bro. Especially regarding a film that's biggest most soul-crushing flaw is that it is derivative as shit. So how does a film that takes whole sections of the first film, lose the "appeal to men and boys"? It's the vagina isn't it?

I have no need to explain myself to some stranger who knows nothing about me (not in the slightest), or vice versa. But i will be so kind to repeat myself.

I clearly wrote that it never was about her being a woman. i think that is more than enough to make it clear. I know men who refuse to watch Tom Cruise movies. Does that make them man-haters ? no, they do not like how he looks or acts. end of non-offending story.

If you are so offended (or fake being offended) by something as the words boy, men, girls, or woman... or in my case a few innocent concerns relating to the content, then listen to mark hamil using the word manhood. PS. Dont punch a hole in your screen.

The official documentary :
When he placed it on screen in starwars in 1977 he asked us to see it trough the eyes of a restless and idealistic young man. Luke Skywalker. trough three films he would travel trough the furthest reaches of the galaxy seeking adventure, wisdom, and manhood.
...
But finally a man must face his destiny alone.
...

As you can see, i can play the game if i want to (with ease), but I have no need for a circus on a forum.

Chezza said:

My understanding of this quote is that Star War's characters and their progression is heavily focused on the premise of a young men dealing with their Journey to manhood. Tarnsman, honestly I wouldn't think too deep into it or take assumption that his quote suggests that he is unhappy that a woman plays a lead role. Rather he is disappointed how the key structure that he enjoyed dearly has now changed. Be it because of a female potentially taking the role instead or because the movie structure in general has taking a different path. There is no indication that Firefish thinks females as lesser, incapable human beings. And even if he said "Woman can't take the journey to Manhood like a man" well fuck... any reasonable person is inclined to agree with him!

I understand where you are coming from Tarnsman, but I think things just got a little out of hand over what I believe to be an innocent opinion.

Point in case.

Chezza said:

Now listen, enjoying a story about Manhood or just take the preference of Masculine characters and situations doesn't render a person sexist. If a guy says "I prefer to play as a male character in video games, being a guy I can relate better to my character" that's most definitely not sexist, similar to his opinion on the story structure.

That is the exact reason why many Woman want Woman to play with in video games. They cant relate to the game when they are playing as a male. This does not turn into sexims when you turn it around to Men playing as men.

Doesn't matter what Hamill said, Tarnsman is still making very valid points.

Firefish, put down that spade before someone smacks you with it.

Sodaholic said:

Doesn't matter what Hamill said, Tarnsman is still correct here.

he is not as he completely missed every point and claimed that i wrote and thought shit which i did not. You also missed the point of the video quotes.

Chezza is the one with the reality based common sense here.

But i will repeat for one last time ;
it was not about her being a woman. I just cant stand this one single actress her looks and feel, While my second concern has been adressed by Chezza who was willing to spend more (and wise) words on it than i can muster for something as irrelevant as a Star Wars topic on DoomWorld. that is all.

You know, Tarnsman the whole "Woman playing as a masculine character" in movies or any media can be a sexist issue in itself. Instead of seeing it as a positive aspect suggesting females can be rugged and tough just like men you may look deeper and identify the darker side of it. You instead may come to the realization that woman must become more like a man and possess their traits in order to be a strong, heroic character capable of handling such extreme situations. In a way, our society as a whole are almost hard-wired to believe it regardless of your conscious stance on the matter. But that's a whole new topic on its own.

I still have to take the stance that Firefish only prefers the new set of movies to follow the traditional structure and characters if it can be pulled off or none whatsoever. Nothing he said was worthy of creating a heated argument or witch-hunting for sexism.

Tarnsman, again I think every reasonable person here wholeheartedly agrees about gender and race equality etc. But there must be some tolerance for individual opinions, even if ignorant without things getting fiery. I implore you to be a little more relaxed on this matter and tolerant of others.

FireFish said:

That is the exact reason why many Woman want Woman to play with in video games. They cant relate to the game when they are playing as a male. This does not turn into sexims when you turn it around to Men playing as men.

A man should have no problem playing as a female character and a woman should have no problem playing as a male character. If either do, they're part of the problem. The human condition is universal. Luke's story is about his journey to manhood, if Luke was swapped with Leia it would be her journey to womanhood, both are THE SAME THING. There is zero difference between the two. The hero's journey is a universal story. There are very few stories (all of which require the context of society to exist) in which a character has to be a certain thing for a story to work and even those at their core could remain the same film if set in a different setting away from that society.

Chezza says "to follow the traditional structure and characters" but The Force Awakened literally did this (to its detriment). The second half of the film basically becomes A New Hope and the first half follows a pretty standard traditional heroic ascension arc that is as traditional as it comes. Literally the only difference is the subtraction of a penis.

The man with a vagina scenario comes up because while most men tend to be "manly" and most women tend to be "womanly" they're not hard defining traits and have a huge degree of molecularity and when you get to the traits desired in a "hero" they're pretty universal to the point where it's impossible to have a hero character who is inherently a man or a woman instead of merely "a hero who happens to be a boy/girl".

Like what makes a male hero? Is it that they're stoic? Women pull that off just as well. Let's go to maybe a negative trait and say primal strength and agresssion. Is it that they beat the crap out of things with their fists in blind rage? I've been hit by enough women with an inability to work out their emotions (and according to most domestic abuse statistics so have many men) in my life to say that women are no strangers to primal rage. Is it they're brave and daring? Again so are women. What makes an inherently female hero? Is it they're compassion? No men are just as capable of that. Intellectual? Men are too. Scrappy? Still universal so no. Motherly urge? Paternal urge is just as strong.

It doesn't matter if a character is white/black/male/female/gay/straight/trans/cis/disabled/a criminal/whatever on a basic level that character is still fundamentally similar enough to you that you should be able to identify and empathize with. Unless they're a shitty character who's poorly written but that has nothing to do with what they look like.

It's funny because I also agree with a lot of stuff Tarnsman said, but I don't think FireFish of all people is the one who needs to hear this. There are plenty of actual sexists out there but from his last post he's made it pretty clear he isn't one of them.

I've yet to see this movie so I don't even know what's prompted all this. I probably should go to the cinema, it's been years and this might be worthwhile.

Tarnsman said:

A man should have no problem playing as a female character and a woman should have no problem playing as a male character. If either do, they're part of the problem. The human condition is universal.

The thing here is, some characters may not be portrayed to certain people's tastes quite as well by one gender as another, especially if it's a character people already know as a particular gender (which seems to be the case here.) Desiring consistency throughout a series does not make a person sexist, nor does it mean they don't equally appreciate and empathize with female actresses playing different roles. Someone's opinion on one particular character does not equal their opinion of all characters in all films - That's the big difference I'm seeing here, anyway.

"I preferred when character X was played by male actor Y" does not equal "I cannot relate as well with female characters as I can with male ones".

Doomkid said:

Desiring consistency throughout a series does not make a person sexist

Okay how about we don't "desire consistency" from a film that plays it way too safe to the point of flatout copying the original film. If you want consistency, The Force Awakens is consistency. So now explain to me how it's not traditional Star Wars other than Luke has a penis and Rey doesn't. If you want to argue that Luke Skywalker was a better hero than Rey, I will agree with you because of some very questionable writing in the second part of TFA that ruins the tension of the heroic journey. But don't try to pretend there is some fundamental difference in the story, progression, and end goal of both character arcs. There isn't. Star Wars is about going from inexperience to experience and so is TFA.

Tarnsman said:

Luke has a penis and Rey doesn't.

Luke is a man and rey is not. that is all you yourself are able to focus on while projecting it onto the forum. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that 3 different people have already (and clearly) noted that it is not about her being a woman, as you keep projecting your own problems with it... onto them, us, me.

Your explicit and continued usage of the words Penis and Vagina clearly make your "troll-ish" nature shine trough. All you are after is a fake sense of recognition as a white knight. I have seen you do it multiple times on the forum.

You even remind me of the stereotypical, generic, 90's know-it-all man in his 30's who has closed his mind to the world and only radiates his own narrow world view onto others while he himself is no longer open to different views. The fictional All Bundy perhaps.


The fear of starwars no longer being starwars. Not liking "one certain" actress. You explode.

https://twitter.com/VeryLonelyLuke

https://twitter.com/KyloR3n

FireFish said:

The fear of starwars no longer being starwars. Not liking "one certain" actress. You explode.

You've completely ruined this thread, because you have all of the opinions and defend all of your rights to hold them while having none of the knowledge, because you're afraid that a movie widely criticized for being copycat of the original movie might be deviating from the original movie you love so dearly too much, because the main hero is a girl you don't like.

So let me pop the question:

HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE FUCKING MOVIE YET?

DooM_RO said:

https://twitter.com/VeryLonelyLuke

https://twitter.com/KyloR3n

It's one thing to read the tweets but it's another thing to hear them. Absolutely beautiful.

dew said:

You've completely ruined this thread, because you have all of the opinions and defend all of your rights to hold them

Congratulations. You completed this ordeal and confirmed that this place has gone BATSHIT INSANE.

Do you retarded fools even realize that i never even once wrote about sexism, racism, or anything closely related to that... It was Tarnsman who came in with that shit in a clear and pre-meditated atempt at destroying this thread by manipulating his shit abour sexism, penisses and vaginas into this very same thread.

There even where two fucking people trying to make that very same point clear to Tarnsman.

Batshit Insane.

Now that i have written that at a level that you could understand without having a care in the world. Sayonara. :)

Can we all forget about FireFish's post and get back to shitposting about Emo Kylo Ren and whatnot? This is fucking Star Wars after all.

FireFish said:

Congratulations. You completed this ordeal and confirmed that this place has gone BATSHIT INSANE.

Do you retarded fools even realize that i never even once wrote about sexism, racism, or anything closely related to that... It was Tarnsman who came in with that shit in a clear and pre-meditated atempt at destroying this thread by manipulating his shit abour sexism, penisses and vaginas into this very same thread.

There even where two fucking people trying to make that very same point clear to Tarnsman.

Batshit Insane.

Now that i have written that at a level that you could understand without having a care in the world. Sayonara. :)

I like turtles too.

Luke Skywalker was supposed to be a girl originally, though the character had no name.

Also, while Sarah Conner in T2 is a Man with Tits, Aliens Ripley was never a man with tits. Ripley was a Mother Bear figure, whereas T2 Sarah was simply taking names.

Alien 3 Ripley might have been a man with tits.

A:R Ripley does not exist.

Clonehunter said:

Luke Skywalker was supposed to be a girl originally, though the character had no name.

I'm sure she was called "Starkiller" in an early draft. A name they recycled for Knights of the Old Republic.

I almost said that, but I wasn't sure if the Starkiller name went that far back. I do know it lasted up until shooting. They recycled that name for a lot of things.

FireFish said:

Now that i have written that at a level that you could understand without having a care in the world. Sayonara. :)

https://www.doomworld.com/vb/avatar.php?userid=581

Clonehunter said:

That means we need a last minute girlfriend for Kenobi to pork

Do we? If the deceased Obi-Wan is a super powerful Jedi, what's to stop him doing a bit of holy ghosting? ;)

Tarnsman said:

James Bond could be a black gay transwoman and as long as the actor had the charisma to pull it off, it'd still be a James Bond film, bond has had so many variations and character changes that he's basically just a name and some broad standard traits at this point.

There's only one James Bond, and his name's Sean Connery.

FireFish said:

Luke is a man and rey is not. that is all you yourself are able to focus on while projecting it onto the forum. You seem to be ignorant of the fact that 3 different people have already (and clearly) noted that it is not about her being a woman

Still waiting on that explanation for how The Force Awakens is different than Star Wars or has a different target audience/doesn't appeal to boys using an explanation beyond "the main character isn't a man". Also I never called you sexist, you decided I was calling you sexist, probably because you know deep down it is entirely about you not wanting a woman to be the main character. I called you dumb for saying you weren't sure if you could watch the film because Star Wars has always been about "a boy's journey" and "holds a special place for men and boys". In the same way I would call you dumb if you were bitching about Ben Afleck being Batman ruining Batman. I didn't even call you a general bigot until you went totally apeshit and starting throwing around shit like Obama and the plight of the white man.

Clonehunter said:

Aliens Ripley was never a man with tits. Ripley was a Mother Bear figure

Papa bear, mama bear, same thing. Ripley could be a guy and nothing would change.

GreyGhost said:

There's only one James Bond, and his name's Sean Connery.

Get Hollywood to stop making Bond films and I'll be right there with you retroactively deleting every non-Connery Bond not named Goldeneye.

GreyGhost said:

There's only one James Bond, and his name's Sean Connery.

Sean Connery is an excellent actor, but he only does one character: Sean Connery.
Timothy Dalton is James Bond and License To Kill is the best Bond movie.

Clonehunter said:

A:R Ripley does not exist.

In a perfect world..

Tarnsman said:

Ripley could be a guy and nothing would change.

I would definitely have found the character a bit less sexually attractive.

hardcore_gamer said:

The more time I spend thinking about the movie, the more negative I feel about it.

I am going to make a very bold statement: I think the force awakens is almost as bad as the star wars prequels. I would argue that episode 1 is worse, but I honestly think episode 2 and 3 (or at least 3) are actually better movies.

There are just so many distracting and stupid moments in the film that I can't see how it's a good movie. I think people are just saying it's good only because it's star wars and only because it's not the prequels. Once enough time has passed and people look back the film I think they won't think anywhere near as highly of it.

I'm not sure you haven't actually talked yourself in to having this opinion, maybe as a reaction to all the praise it's been getting. Sit back and watch all 7 in a few years (if you can bear it) and accept that it is just a Star Wars movie, and one of three at that, and I think it will hold up well - but I would concede the next two films are important in how it's ultimately considered.

Tarnsman said:

Papa bear, mama bear, same thing. Ripley could be a guy and nothing would change.

Actually, I'd have a hard time believing this. Now, if Ripley was a man in Alien, then it would have made no difference, seeing that the characters in the original script/casting call didn't even have assigned genders.

But once they had Weaver to play Ripley, Aliens was very deliberate in it's use of a female character. It really couldn't be the same. Maybe on the surface, sure. But dig in it and it's vastly different. A lot of the film revolves around the explicit mother relationship between Ripley and Newt, which mirrors slightly (ANd in a rather twisted way) with the Alien Queen and its spawn.

However, I may have discerned the angle here incorrectly. With Sarah Connor, she had to be a woman as far as the first film is concerned, though I suppose you could still switch the roles and have a similar ending (Woman from the future comes to man and they still bang and man still dies), but if T2 was its own film, Connor could have just been a man and it would have made little difference between the relationship of that character and John Connor. Connor or Conner?).

Doomkid said:

In a perfect world..

Undoubtedly true.

I though The Force Awakens was pretty entertaining; I liked it. Though, it certainly felt like they were tracing over the lines a bit, from previous movies.

3.5 out 5 stars IMO.

Finally saw this yesterday at Imax after I had managed to avoid all spoilers. There's not much for me to add that hasn't been said except that this is Star Wars in the way episodes 4-6 were and episodes 1-3 were not. Bring on the next one!