Speculation we need more women main characters.

I think above he argues that it should still be 3 leads, 2 female to 1 male. I think that is possible. I think it's quite likely that we could see the primary protagonist be female. I think that could be good and work well. I hope they don't try to force this out of some sense obligation to support more female leads though. I want a good story, ulterior motives be damned.

 

Star Wars is mythology. IF you're trying to dispute that then you really went off the reservation.

I'm not ashamed to be a SW fan -- life long since the OT -- and proud of it!

Also, I'm not clinging to the EU as you suggest errantly:

Since you haven't read all my posts I'll give you the short take -- I don't care if they scrap everything after ROTJ. I've said all along i expect Chewie to be alive etc.... And since when did Luke ever have a daughter as I've been suggesting? It's really sad how little reading comprehension people have these days.

No. There will be three leads IMO as I said here:

I suspect that we'll see two Solo children, be they twins or not -- one male and one female. AND I suspect George recycled the old Nomi Starkiller concept into Nomi Skywalker because I read something after the D-Day news announcement that he had always planned on a female Skywalker protagonist. Luke will be an important figure in 7 I believe as he mentors the new Jedi but will be killed off eventually, thus passing the torch.

 

Yeah, i don't care about demographics, toys or IF this tunres into Hunger Games/Twilight so much as I want a great story to feed my voracious appetite for SW. If they don't use two female leads I'm fine with as well. I think it could be done to GREAT effect and think its sad and myopic that trivial matters whould suppress the potential.

 

Hey, I hear 'ya, brother and we all have things we'd like to see. The thing is, the folks who are actually making these movies do care about demographics and as disagreeable as it may seem, when we start speculating on the things we actually expect to happen, it's probably wise to keep that in mind. After all, as they are in the business of maximizing their ROI, to Disney, it's no trivial matter at all. That's their bottom line. The good news, of course, is that Star Wars has always delivered the goods, while still raking in the dough, so I'm hopeful that a balance can be struck.

And boy, oh boy, are you ever right when you say "I want a great story to feed my voracious appetite for SW!" That is our bottom line.

 

I never said it wasn't mythology. When did I ever say otherwise? You kept throwing around terms like "forward thinking." because Star Wars took mythology in the future. Star Wars is NOT set in the future, its set in the past in antiquity. Plus, its not unique in that regard because there is an entire pulpy genre that did the same thing.

Your saying I have reading comprehension problems?!

Plus, when you are bringing up characters for this new Star Wars movie you keep bringing up character concepts like the Solo twins from the EU. Not to mention, their EXACT NAMES!! You may be combining it with stuff that may be new, but your clinging to those ideas.

First off this is what I was talking about not putting things into context. The original idea of the "female skywalker" or Starkiller was in the first draft of Star Wars. At the time Star Wars was a DIRECT re-imaging of Kursowa's "Hidden Fortress." set in space. The main character was NOT skywalker/starkiller at all and had little resemblence to Luke. She was more akin to Princess Leia, who carried a lightsword. She was NOT the main character, the General was. Also, the third main character was some sort of lizard man but whatever.

Lucas could not get the rights to "Hidden Fortress" so he completely rewrote the thing in the theme of "coming of age." A new central character was created in Luke, and the General(now old man Kenobi)became a support character. The only thing that was left was the two droid characters that were carry over of the peasants from "Hidden Fortress."

The first iteration of starkiller had little or nothing to do with Luke other than minor asthetics.

The other treatments that Gary Kurtz talked about which was the original idea of 7,8,9 dealt with the concept that Luke and Leia were not brother and sister. But Luke's sister existed out somewhere in the galaxy. In the original concept of Revenge of the Jedi, Han dies, and Leia becomes the Queen on New Alderaan.

Luke kills Vader and sets out to find his sister. 7,8,9, deal with spirtual themes as well Luke's life as a Jedi. It also, this is important, dealt with the realtionship between BROTHER AND SISTER(male/female leads). This would all go into 10, 11, 12 where Luke, and his sister, would face off against the emperor.

That was the original treatments that everyone is talking about. Lucas didn't really want to make more Star Wars movies after Return of the Jedi after he went through a messy divorce with his first wife. So he wrapped the whole thing up by lazily making Luke and Leia, brother and sister, and killing the emperor.

That is why I keep up bringing up the concept of cousins. It fits the same general motif of those original treatments. Another possibility is that Luke has TWO children(boy and a girl) which would directly tie into the brother and sister motif.

Han and Leia's kid could be the third character. Although I'm not sure how I feel about all the characters being related by bloodlines. I also felt Star Wars needs one person, in the trinity, to be unrelated. But I'm speculating.

 

Trebor - I know demographics do play an important part. My statement was based on what clueless people like Zuckuss ignorantly declare the demographics to be. In his myopic opinion he states that the target is Boys aged 7-10, which is utterly stupid. SW has never been marketed solely to a 4 year span of boys. SW is predominantly consumed by adult males. And even today women consume SW on a larger scale than ever before -- guessing the ratio to be around 3 or 4 to 1 -- and if you don't believe me play The Old Republic. I know demographics are important just not Zuckuss' ridiculously skewed ones. LOL

Zuckuss -- You're a hot mess my friend. Now, you're having trouble comprhending your own posts. LOL

You clearly stated it wasn't mythology right here:

 

What, you mean the pubescent fan-fiction featuring a young, just entering sexual awareness Anakin Skywalker getting captured and seduced by a hot female Sith didn't turn out to be true? Shock. Horror.

---

I remember being here back in those days (under a different name as I forgot my old credentials). Man, it was sad that so many bought into that tripe. Like a series that had, to that point, four tame kisses was suddenly going to become Red Shoe Diaries in space.

Still, I appreciate the work Supershadow put into his lies/trolling. Changing his website every time legitimate info came out, and working it into the rest of his story showed a lot of dedication.

 

I guess one man's "dedication" is another man's psychosis.

 

[/quote]



No, you don't understand genre's. Star Wars is NOT science fiction. Science Fiction deals with technology, usually in the future, and how it effects people. Star Wars doesn't deal with the relationship between technology and people. The technology just exists, not the moral problems behind them. Star Wars has sci-fi elements as a paint job, not the themes in that genre.

Star Wars themes/concepts is rooted in antiquity. Star Wars is not about humans in the future, its about our past with a space paint job.

My original quote though was in response to your the original concept that Star Wars was "forward thinking". Thats is why I was referring to Star Wars being about antiquity. For whatever reason, you have taken that into a completely different direction. But even in a literal sense, Star Wars is NOT set in the future. Its a fairytale.

I'm also getting annoyed that with every post your getting more antagonistic. Now your using direct insults. My original scoffing remark, which wasn't even really directed at you, I apologized for. But you have taken that as "care blanche" to be directing insulting to me. Thats getting annoying.

You can disagree with my opinions as you like, but reign in the insults.

 

I understand genres quite well. I also understand mythilogy quite well. You understand neither, clearly when you said SW wan't mythology but a fairytale, which are one and the same.

But I NEVER said Star Wars was science fiction. Quote me -- I know you can't. Again, reading comprehension problems.

Also, you're just trying to derail your main argument by claimning I'm insulting you. Show me what you think is an insult and I'll dtermine if it is or not.

Lastly, your so-called "opinions" were written as facts and everyone who didn't agree with them had to be "glue sniffers." So, as I said, we'll see who's right. I'm done with this discussion, so reply, don't reply. I won't read it.

 

Star Wars not based on mythology? Does not compute

 

You called me a "fool", and a "hot mess" in previous posts. Those are not insults? I'm not derailing anything you were being more antagonistic and dismissive with every post.

Your also framing and twisting my responses into a different context that I was responding too. I have written in two posts, in case it wasn't clear, that I was responding to your concept that Star Wars is "forward thinking." Hopefully, third time is a charm.

But, I agree its probably past the point we can have meaningful exchange. So I am done.

 

Zuckuss, I would be careful about getting into heated arguments here.

 

Can Luke give birth to a son through the force? I mean, do you think Luke should learn how to use the force to impregnate a random damsel in distress or random super woman who is not a damsel, or a random female or any kind of alien, or a Yoda alien, or even to impregnate Leia, just like how Darth Plagueis got Anakin's mother to give birth to Anakin without having sex with her, kind of like how the Holy Spirit impregnate the Virgin Mary with Jesus? Because then Luke could have a son and still remain not married at the same time.

 

can we start a poll?

who wants to see no luke in the next films

who wants to see luke with no kids

who wants luke to have a kid through the force like pagueis did to make anakin

who wants to see luke married and with at least one kid

who wants to see luke with a kid...... but then not married..... imagine seeing a guy that calls luke dad or father..... but then u do not see any potential mothers around for the new son..... and then in Episode eight Luke Junior can run into a girl or some random monster or yoda lai alien or something that says to him "Luke Junior, I am your Mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


Luke Junior screams while hoping off something,

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, my father said he conceived me through the force!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

 

being conceived by the force was a necessary prophecy

 

They shouldn't have female characters just for the sake of having female characters though.

 

Yeah, if they write the script and it turns out there's no females in it, there's nothing wrong with that. If the Star Wars galaxy is entirely male, then it's entirely male and no females should be shoe-horned in.

 

^
Yeah, if they've shipped all females off to another galaxy and rely on science to create the next generation...they need to be consistent.

~~

Seriously, though, I want the "no women in it that are merely shoe-horned in" crowd to answer this: other than a "son role" or "uncle role" or "dad role" what role is exclusively male? Or human, for that matter?

The point is when it comes to casting, most roles could be filled by a man or a woman, a white or a black or a Chinese or a Russian...so casting should be open to all who might successfully play that role.

Too often it seems casting/directors go "We're looking for a man to play X, Y and Z" and we "Want a woman for the woman's role."

No, no, no - unless there's a clear reason you need one gender for that role, broaden your horizon and cast your net widely.

 

It really depends on the character. For example, you could have black James Bond, and still remain relatively true to the character. But I don't see how a woman would work in the capacity. Considering the type of personality and character flaws that James Bond possesses.

However, you could easily do a movie about a lead female 00 agent. But, it would be a different character. But writing male and female characters are essentially two different things. I do not believe they are interchangeable(I'm not talking about gender roles btw).

Its a BIG reason why don't see a lot of high quality female characters to begin with, especially in action roles. A lot of times they write a "man with boobs." with maybe a cursory acknowledgment of her sex.

Ellen Ripley, imo, a good example of doing a believable female character in an action role.

 

? Sounds like you're contradicting yourself - you can't have a good female action character, but there was one good female action character. Would you mind clarifying?

As for your Bond example: Bond is written as a somewhat glamorous if stereotypical "male" role, I agree and it wouldn't be the same with a female (though it could be the opposite twist). But per your own example, a 007 female agent, while not Bond, might be perfectly okay.

But again, in a sequel in which we don't even yet know the story line, is there any defined "male role" that should therefore only have males up for? If the role is a Jedi master, or a villain, can't it be female? Alien?

In a way the argument comes across as: the sequel will be written in such a way that the roles will be written for males so therefore females should not compete for the roles because that is shoehorning them in.

Generic you would be right in the above case. But the vast majority of roles don't have to be written for a specific gender or skin color and could and should be open to anyone.