Discussion The Heroine of the Sequel Trilogy

I went to check out your analysis, because I find it interesting and have the exact opposite opinion. I don't think that stories differ if you change the gender of main characters and even character interactions outside romance can remain the same. For example, before Leia was introduced, there was concept art of the main character being female. Even with this change on the table, there was no indication that they would be changing up the empire or the central conflict. Source: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Adventures_of_the_Starkiller,_Episode_I:_The_Star_Wars

I don't see too many aspects of the OT story influenced by Luke's gender one way or another (Aside from the obvious awkwardness with Leia). As for the Freudian references/Oedipus complex, I see that more with Anakin's behavior, like his unhealthy attachment to his mother and Padme. However, I think that all references to that theme in the OT are unintentional.

From your analysis, a female protag can only fight a male villain under these qualifications.

If Luke was a girl, or if Leia assumed his role, this could easily have described Vader and the Emperor. Especially the extremely old part. Similarly Grievous doesn't come of as too much of a creeper when battling Ahsoka, or whichever opposite-gender Jedi. I'm going to say that by default, almost all Sith and darksiders don't have 'pick up chicks' on their agenda.

Maybe I'll grant you that the likes of Xizor vs Leia, and Tarkin vs Ahsoka, definitely off as more creepy than they would be if their opponents were men. I like both those villians though, and I don't think those characters go overboard, it's very subtle.

 

The concept art that often gets confused with that Starkiller stuff is actually not even really related. That concept art is correlated with the first drafts of Star Wars when it was a direct remake of "Hidden Fortress." The female character in question was not the main character(she was basically the replacement for the princess in "Hidden Fortress") . The character of the General was the main character.

The only relationship between Luke Skywalker and that early female character was essentially hair color. She had much more in common with Leia.

Lucas turned around the story on its head. He decided to age the general who became Ben Kenobi(no longer the main character but a supporting one). Luke was than created and Star Wars became a "coming of age" story.

 

I guess I should also say Luke Skywalker doesn't even really start to materialize as a character until Lucas decided to put himself directly into the story. Hence, Luke=Lucas. Luke is essentially how GL viewed himself growing up in Modesto. So, GL tinkering in his family garage became Luke Skywalker tinkering his landspeeder and whining about power converters.

 

Of course! It explains why Lucas named his character "Luke!"

Luke
Lucas

MIND=BLOWN.

 

Oh come on, that's not mind-blowing. Mind-blowing is realizing that both of Superman's dads in "Man of Steel" are Robin Hood.

 

I am hoping Cammy is the heroine of the ST! We first see her in the opening scene when old-man Jedi Master Luke Skywalker returns to Tosche Station to pick up his Power Converters after all those years and so much water under the bridge. Cammy and Fixer are still there at Anchorhead, but now they are a little more impressed with Luke; Fixer is just a beer-bellied loser at this point, but Cammy will develop into the ST heroine. How, I have no idea, that is why I am not the filmmaker; but man am I excited about finding out she becomes the heroine of the ST!

 

OK I thought about this and I think here's a reason why I didn't list Toph, Lin or Korra as the lesser female role models compared to Katara.

Toph, Lin and Korra represent the characters that girls want to be. They're tough, they're strong, they don't give a crap about certain things, they speak their mind, they're unafraid of anything. And that can be hard for girls to emulate.

In a way I see it similar to Daria in...well, Daria. Daria represents the snarky high schooler we all wanted to be but couldn't because of our own personal issues or we didn't have the courage to try and be like her. It's the same in this case. Katara is the more relatable female role model for girls IMO because while she is tough, she has her own issues that girls can relate to. Not to say Toph and Korra don't have them, but they're not ones that everyday girls probably have.

I feel our heroine should be along the same thing. Even if Star Wars doesn't market towards girls, they should have a well rounded female protagonist; not delicate and dainty to the point of uselessness, but not overly strong and tough to the point that she might as well be a guy with female parts.

 

If the hero is indeed a woman they need to be respectable like Padme and Leia.

 

That I think is the crux of the issue.

There seem to be as many people who want a female action hero that's getting along with the guys as those who want the heroine to stay on the sidelines and be strong in her own way. But what should it really be?

Make her too actiony and people will see her as a guy with female parts
Make her too sidelined and people will see her as a weak female character
Make her too good on both ends and there will be Mary Sue accusations up the wazoo

 

Its pretty easy to deal with these problem in an ensemble. You give the female lead character strengths that the other lead characters lack. Meanwhile, you give her weaknesses that the other characters compliment.

This is done with all characters in an ensemble. It makes it interesting. What you don't want is the uber hero, because it makes the other leads worthless.

 

I'm sick of the phrase "Mary Sue."
It's just a poor excuse to bash something while trying to represent personal dislike as "argumented fact" or something. Speaking of which, Mary Sue - kindly defined by Wikipedia - is "an idealized character representing the author."
An author who happens to be called Lucas and whose main character is called Luke.

Hm.

 

Its nothing to do with women carrying the action. That trope is more like a female character acting overly masculent. For the mere sake of acting overly masculine. Personally, I find it demeaning to women. I interpret it as saying a women can't be feminine and handle herself.

 

I just don't know if making female characters "relatable" or "role models" is all that important in Star Wars now. Yeah, sure. The first batch of moves had Luke, but it's been 40 years since then and media is choking on "coming of age" stories. Will it be so great a loss if we just have interesting characters doing interesting stuff who don't have to be ciphers for the audience?

Also that, when dudes try to do female "coming of age" stories, they might often just end up reinforcing gender stereotypes and social roles. It's a tightrope writers (especially male) have to walk and is it really worth risking annoying women with social conditioning they get all their lives just for the sake of that bildungsroman?

??

If people have a problem with column A and column C then screw 'em1. The man with boobs argument is incredibly questionable too, it's erasing to women who actually aren't that conventionally feminine.

Sidelining is the most likely thing to happen like with Uhura in Abram's Star Trek, I don't think we're talking about the most clueful creative team in the world here, to be honest.

1. Not to say the mary sue thing ain't a concern, but two often female characters are hit for that label for reason that dude characters aren't. Alot of audiences would probably sling the label if Batman was a woman.

 

Thats not exactly what a mary sue/marty stu(take your pick). These characters are essentially one dimensional characters who have almost no flaws and are better than every other character in the story. Luke is not really a good example but he has character flaws and failures.

mary sue/marty stu characters are never good or interesting at all.

 

I never got that one either.

It always sound like they're saying women have to have more sensitivity or vulnerability than a man to be a convincing female action hero otherwise they're just being written as a guy with a vagina. I think the good traits/attitude/demeanor of an excellent soldier/warrior are universal. I don't think women who are trained to be disciplined fighters should have to carry themselves in a different manner than their male counterparts if they're in service to a cause that trains and treats them as equals.

 

Just as long as she's not like Milla Jovovich's Resident Evil character.

 

First off, lets get something straight: Misogyny is specifically (the dictionary definition) an active hatred for women. You can say something is sexist or perhaps bigoted in your mind. But Misogyny is literally hating all women. Its misusing the word or an extreme variance. Chauvinism, is where a lot of this stuff comes into place. None of this stuff is good mind you. I am saying misogyny gets thrown around, in a cavalier sense, which often stunts discourse in conversations like this.

Anyway, a character that falls into a "man with boobs" trope becomes problematic when it specifically devalues being feminine. When the character has no real personality of their own(bordering on stock)other than masculine broad strokes.

Now, that isn't to say a women can't act or be masculine . They certainly can. Its when it completely devalues any type of characteristic that would perceive her as being a women. Its an extreme characterization.