Speculation we need more women main characters.

I don't understand the "need" threads for characters of a specific gender, race, sexuality, etc.

I'm not opposed to a strong female character as the lead. In fact, I think it could be fantastic. But I always find it odd that a contingency jumps out and says that the saga needs more of "X characters" or has a responsibility because of its status to supply us with strong heroic "Y characters."

First and foremost should be the story. Lucasfilm, Disney, et al are under no social responsibility to help support the cause of a specific group of people. I find it offensive in some ways. Whenever I hear suggestions that the news media or entertainment media is responsible to support causes/traits/ideals for which I am in the minority I am quite turned off. No one owes us anything for our diversity, that is up to us to make strong.

If the next steps in the saga have female/alien/racial minority/etc protagonists with clever storytelling that is compelling then I'll be elated, but I in no way think anyone is obligated, or there is a responsibility, on the parts of the creators to fill those gaps.

 

I don't know. I mean, I've got nothing against Tano at all, but I'm honestly not all that interested in seeing an 80 year old Aksoka making a splash in Episode VII. TCW is her story. That is not to say she can't survive that series (though for story purposes, part of me prefers that she does not) and show up in some other medium one day, but the 'Episodes' features are the Skywalker saga. With that in mind, and after years of "Ahsoka's fate" threads, what purpose would be served by making Ahsoka Tano's long-awaited, next big appearance be as an ederly side character with little to do? I just don't see it myself, but if there was a good enough reason dictated by the needs of the plot, then I'm willing to forego all that.

As to the OP and Star Wars needing "more women main characters," I've always felt that from the very beginning, George Lucas has made a concerted effort to buck the trends of the times and put very strong female characters in main character roles vital to the story at-large. If this is true (and I believe most would agree it is), then what precisely is the point of "more"? Is it simply a numbers thing? Most would agree that each trilogy has featured three main characters, with each comprising one woman and two men. Women have always been among the main characters, so, I don't get it - is it important that we go to two women and one man? Three women to no men? I've heard the argument before and the facts tell me that it just doesn't hold water.

Now as to the question of the one overarching lead of each trilogy - Anakin and Luke - yes, there have been no women in these roles, but the Skywalker saga has been, in important ways, a story of fathers and sons. It's just that a big part of what this story is, at its heart, happens to hinge on that particular dynamic and changing this solely as a means of satisfying a quota doesn't sit very well with me, personally. There have been other Star Wars media where women have been featured as the "big" lead in the past and surely women will continue to have the chance to do so in the future.

 

Being somebody's father and&/or being somebody's son isn't defined by your/their biological gender!!!!

 

Haha Tyrannus.
Trebor I see what you are saying but Yoda wasnt a Skywalker either and he was a wise old sage for them.
Regarding the numbers thing, I dont think a quota type thing has ever been a part of the Star Wars story and I think it will continue to be told using whatever characters are needed. Man, Woman, Alien, etc.
Does anyone know where to find the actual Lucas quote on the bad mothers thing?

 

Google is your friend. At least you will get a laugh out of it.

 

You make some fine points, and I'll agree with the "obligation/responsibility" in a large sense. No one person or corporation "owes us."

But.

If it weren't for years of complaints and a corresponding change in culture, we'd still not see many minorities or women in "ordinary people" roles. Mom's once were pearl-wearing, apron over dresses stay-at-home mom's and when TV dared to show a single career woman (Mary Tyler Moore) - a segment of society was offended. Ellen offended a large segment of folks who didn't want to be exposed to "gays." Some folks all but crucified GL for having a woman heroine who wasn't your typical girl lead - she shot back both her mouth and a big gun; many of the same folks were offended at Billy Dee William's casting as Lando - "PC" casting and fulfilling a quota.

Sometimes the media has to take the lead to show PEOPLE in people role's - not just men in "man's roles," etc.

But you are right in that they are not obligated to do so and it may indeed be "safer" (especially to profits) to keep the status quo.

 

I agree and I'd hate to see that change, is all.

And you're sure right about Yoda, of course!

 

You said it (and proably far better than I). Thank you.

 

Racism is a far much more bigger/large/severe/much more common issue than sexism, in my opinion!!! For example, most superhero films/movies will contain a lot of female characters, but very few colored characters; and well, that means that anybody who is black, hispanic, asian, latino, middle eastern, central asian, chinese, japanese, native american, african american, and so and and so forth!!!

My extreme punctuation is just an obessive compulsive disorder. I am trying to gradually stop that, and that will start of by gradually reducing my punctuation to three exclamation points, by the way, by the way, dudes!!!

 

I hear you, I honestly do. I guess what I don't understand is that each and every one of the six Star Wars features already has had a female lead. To me, saying that a female lead is "something (you) would like to see" makes it sound as if this weren't true, but of course, the facts are the facts. Are you saying that you'd like to see this trend continue, or do you not consider Padme and Leia to be lead roles? Because along with Anakin and Obi-Wan, Luke and Han, they were the leads, with each receiving top billing.

Honestly, I'm not trying to come off as aggresssive and I fear my temperement may not be translating well to the written word here, so no offense intended. I guess I'm just confused.

 

I find it also interesting to point out that the damsel in distress in the OT was not Leia. It was Luke.

He gets rescued more than any other character in Star Wars, almost to the point of incompetence.

 

Why not???

 

I'll go ahead and say Padme and Leia aren't leading characters. Leia is tertiary to Luke and Han among the heroes, and behind Vader as well. Leia is the damsel (though a fierce one) in ANH, half of a romantic side plot in ESB and nothing more than eye candy in ROTJ.

Padme is behind Anakin and Obi-Wan among the heroes, and behind Palpatine as well. Padme is a fierce leader in TPM no doubt, but turns into a romantic possession to be won in AOTC and nothing more than a sobbing wife in ROTS.

There's a difference in the importance between characters like Luke and Anakin/Vader and characters like Leia and Padme.

 

And that brings up-my next main point/my next main idea-all of the racism in the star wars films/the movies!!!!

 

What I feel is going to happen logically for episode 7 is that the Skywalker character will most likley be Luke's son.

With that said Han/Leia will have a daughter, and both Skywalker/Solo will both have some sort of Jedi powers. Both having to work together to fight whatever foe they will face. I will be willing to bet that Leia's/Han daughter will be action orientated than previous female leads. That also works in regards to the original story dynamics of 7,8,9-the relationship of brother and sister.

That is the "safe" approach that I think the production will take. I'm sticking to that

 

Doesn't work. Its melodrama, all the lead characters have to be put in a position of peril and rescued by other characters.

All the characters in Star Wars, male or female, are defined by their relationship with others. Thats why that Breschel test(spelling whatever) would never work in something like Star Wars.

Unless they moved away from the ensemble format, and worked within a single character format. Something they may experiment with later.

 

When I write adventures stories and&/or fanfictions, I usually include that good, well, umm, a sorta of umm, balance, a balance between helplessness and bravery and strength!!!!

 

Its not true, it isn't even true in Return of the Jedi. Both Han and Leia get bailed out by the Ewoks when they are captured. Luke gets bailed out by Vader when he is at the mercy of the emperor.

If you don't make your characters vulnerable, the audience doesn't care.

Plus, another thing. Luke is not the most badass character of the three leads. Each character has their own strength and weaknesses. Luke may be gifted in the force but he is headstrong and often, due to his naivety, bites off more than he can chew. Han is easily the best pilot, but he is the most stuck up and arrogant. Leia is the best planner/leader, but she is not honest with herself at times or others.

But they all compliment one another. That is what an ensemble is or at least an interesting one.

 

I think we're getting into opinion/point of view/definition territory here.

I don't see Han and Leia being in trouble for about two seconds before the Ewoks show up as an example of damsels, nor do I find Vader saving Luke right after Luke put it on him and willingly gave up the fight as an example of Luke being a damsel.

But that's my opinion.

Damsel in distress is not just vulnerability, imo. There can be vulnerability without damsels.

Yes, but that's not even close to a damsel, imo.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DamselInDistress?from=Main.DistressedDamsel