Speculation we need more women main characters.

Oh, absolutely there is a difference. The 'Episodes' have been a Skywalker story through and through. I never meant to suggest otherwise, though I maintain that the 'leads' have been shared among the ensemble (which may come off as my trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I think you take my meaning).

Generally speaking, I've no issue with seeing females in the role of main protagonist, of course. Given the choice for the Skywalker episodes, I'd prefer that the 'fathers and sons' dynamic continue to be upheld and explored through Luke and his son, though,.were it to prove feasible, I'd be all for a co-lead/two main protagonist approach which maintains that father/son tradition with a Ben-type son for Luke, while still offering us a Jaina-type character who is given equal treatment. Naturally, I've no idea where the story of the ST is headed, but I imagine it could be made to work.

 

"A character, usually female and nubile, is portrayed as helpless and in danger in order to put the cast in motion. In particular, the cast is unified, putting aside differences in pursuit of the rescue."

Luke fits that to a tee in Empire strikes back two times:

a)Han rescuing Luke on Hoth.

b)Leia and gang rescuing Luke on the Bespin on the weather vein.

Han fits that description, as well, in the first 20 minutes of Return of the Jedi.(the website in question uses it as an example).

I think what you are trying to argue is that there is no damsel in distress motif in Star Wars. I'm saying that there is, but it gets applied to everyone.

 

But they were not biologically/blood/genetically/famially related to each other!!!

 

It's awfully late here where I am so maybe I'm just too tired and I'm missing something obvious, but I'm afraid I don't take your meaning. Who isn't related?

 

Those two cool evil baddie guys up there!!!

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, unless you're just having a laugh. Are you saying there was no father/son dynamic in the PT? Anakin's lack of a biological father, and the influence it had on his life choices, plays into the theme of father/sons, too. Child is father of the man.

 

There was a father-son dynamic, in the sense of an older male role model who'd had a parent-like/a mentor like/a guidance like type kinda of sorta of role within the storyline, so yes, there was a father-son dynamic in the star wars PT!!!!

Say What????





Anakin Skywalker's/Darth Vader's father Darth plageuis had died in star wars episode one TPM!!!

 

Again, points of view, your definition, my definition.

a) I don't see that as a damsel in distress at all. Luke already fought his way out of the Wampa cave, he just needed a ride. Luke doesn't even ask for help, Han just shows up because he's a bro.
b) Same thing, Luke vs Vader was already over, Luke lost, he just needed a ride.

Han is a better example, I agree, though I still feel it is somewhat muted by Han being a literal statue.

This, imo, is a damsel in distress:


"Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope" is a damsel in distress.

Marion and Willie from Indy are damsels, Willie egregiously so.

Many of the Bond girls are nothing but damsels.

I think there's a difference in what you and I are talking about. To be more clear, I'm not just talking about someone in trouble needing help, I'm talking about gross examples of it, when someone exists solely for the purpose of being a damsel (or not much more).

I don't want a leading Star Wars female to turn into Mario's Princess Peach, or Westley's Princess Buttercup.

 

[/quote]

Was Leia Princess Peach or Buttercup?

Also, Leia wasn't asking to be rescued. She was asking for Ben to deliver the Death Star plans(they had no intention of rescuing her). In fact, her rescue is happen stance.

Remember this line: "I don't know who you are or where you came from. But from now on you do as I tell you, ok?"

If my two previous examples are not considered the Damsel in Distress motif then neither can Leia on the Death Star.

Also, your being disingenuous about Luke's peril on Hoth. It wasn't that he needed a ride, he was on the verge of death. Even on Bespin, Luke is seriously wounded and will eventually fall off the weather vein.

 

I'd say that Anakin's evolving relationship with Obi-Wan, the disastrous effect of Palpatine's influence and Anakin's reaction to finding out he was to be a father all play a significant role in the eventual outcome of events in the PT and each reflect the father/son dynamic.

Oh, and don't worry about CIFOTM - just background music to the father/son discussion. I'd love to hear John Williams' take on the theme, though.

 

No, ""Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope" is very obviously/it's is very clearly NOT a damsel in distress.

Obi wan Kenobi was basically the new chosen one left for the galaxy at that point, before Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa were discovered as young Jedi-Force-Sensitive twins of the lightside of the force/the goodside of the Force!!!
The destruction of the Jedi plunged the galaxy into darkness, with the Dark Lords of the Sith in control. Obi-Wan Kenobi, during his confrontation with Vader on Mustafar, stated that he believed Anakin was indeed the Chosen One, but that his destiny had been altered, and the prophecy left unfulfilled. Yoda and Obi-Wan then looked towards the offspring of Anakin to one day overthrow the Sith, possibly hoping they would fulfill the prophecy instead.[6]

 

Firstly, I generally like and agree with your posts.

Secondly, I diagree with your line of thinking/reasoning in this thread. I think there will be two female leads -- Solo girl and Skywalker girl -- and I don't even sniff glue. For you to think that you're somehow more "logical" or "reasonable" because you think Disney will "play it safe" is ludicrously laughable. No offense, btw, because I take none. I just think you're wrong.

Thirdly, I think Disney will play it smart and safe by bringing back the BIG 3; the droids and Chewie are givens as well IMO. I think it's sad and absurd to think that Disney can't do a Star Wars movie with two strong female leads. As though -- and I do know HW has a thing about the ratio of girls in flicks -- that will taint SW fans or offend them in such a way as to make them not want to see SW. Ridiculous. Barring some really bad casting choices, IE Justice Beaver, Lindsey Lowdown, Paris Hilton, Britney Queers and the like, I plan on seeing this movie even if the world ends on the same day. I will see this movie, as will 99% of the other SW fans. The 1% that won't, apparently, are the ones offended by having more than two female leads.

Lastly, I also find it ridiculous that we get threads about "Don't be predictable," yet we also get some people saying, essentially, do the same thing as before as you are suggesting with the dynamic of two guys and a girl. I honestly think you'd be much better served if you said "I think" or "This is my opinion" rather than saying people are "sniffing glue" or making a definite bold statement such as, "But it ain't happening immediately" as though you know for sure, when you obviously don't. You just don't think it should and that's sad that you're so close-minded. SW is about forward thinking.

 

Am I? I'll pose the question I did earlier what franchise has two female leads(out of a potential of three) that is largely marketed and consumed by boys? Tell me one. I'll make it even easier, what established franchise branched out to have two female leads from a largely male cast? I can't. Maybe "The Last Airbender" but that has always been a large ensemble(not even sure if it was marketed largely for boys to begin with).

Also, I think its kinda humorous that you think that its "ludicrous" to think that Disney wouldn't dare stay status quo with a newly acquired billion dollar franchise that's merchandise is largely consumed by 7-10 year old boys. You may think I am wrong, but I think my rational of thinking is a ton more plausible.

Considering that Hollywood very rarely takes any chances with established franchises, not to mention to see a female action star(let alone TWO)in the same movie. I would say, statistically speaking, I'm probably right.

If you just said that the Skywalker lead was female. I would be skeptical, but its not crazy. It still works in the established trinity. Considering from what we have seen from the last six movies, Lucas loves narrative/structural symmetry between trilogies. Since these script are based on his treatments, I don't think its crazy to say he will apply the same trinity to the next trilogy. The leads are similar to opera leads: you have a tenor, a soprano, and a baritone.

Putting two females leads into the trinity, at this point, that is delusional to me. Not to mention, if they were doing something like that(they won't), that all but guarantee's that the Skywalker lead will be a male.

Now, your putting words into my mouth. I never said it would taint Star Wars or that I would never see whatever hypothetical film.
I am looking at this pragmatic standpoint on how movies are largely decided, marketed and geared toward demographics.

Especially with the comments made by Bob Iger made to investors. To be honest, I don't really care as long as the story is of a certain quality. I think that its FAR more plausible than a tweet, from a random blogging movie website, is being used as some sort of confirmation. Now that is laughable. Or that pre-existing EU characters are going to make their way into these new Star Wars movies. When the production people have CLEARLY said that they would be completely new stories.

I'll take the "close minded" remark, because you took offense to the "sniffing glue" comment(don't pretend you weren't offended). Thats fair. It was not my intent to offend you.

But Star Wars is "forward thinking" is silly as can be. The only "forward thinking" in Star Wars are the technological achievements. Star Wars is all about taking stories/themes from antiquity and putting them in space. Its as far from "forward thinking" as you are going to get. Star Wars is rooted in mythology. Its very conception was riffing off of old Flash Gordon TV serials for God sakes.

 

I should also add there isn't even two female leads in properties pandering to women like Twilight.

 

I don't think two female leads is in the cards. There's likely going to be a love interest who plays as the second lead.

I do think that a female lead is all but certain at this point. Between Lucas' old drafts and current box office trends, it's a no-brainer, and will be the least surprising part of the new trilogy. I hope they pick a capable actor. Casting and directing were two major weaknesses of the PT.

 

I agree with CT-867-5309 - a damsel means perpetual weakness/helplessness. The character whose entire point of being is to be rescued, which starts the hero(es) on their adventure.

Leia is such a memorable character because in ANH she turns the trope on its head. Luke and Han believe that they're rescuing a frightened, helpless, potentially very grateful princess, only to find out that she's at least as capable and brave and sarcastic as them. That's why everything from the detention cell rescue to the escape on the Falcon works so well - she shatters their (and our) assumptions.

 

Are we talking young boys or can we expand it to include teenagers and young men?

Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles started with 2 female and 1 male leads. They only added the 2nd male lead after a few episodes. Firefly and BSG had an even split of male and female main characters as does Game of Thrones/Song of Ice and Fire.

If we're only talking about kids, all I can think of off the top of my head is Power Rangers and a few different X-Men cartoons. Maybe Dragons: Riders of Berk depending how you define lead characters.

As for your comment about Twilight being for women yet only having one female lead, I would argue that's because 1)Twilight is a horrible franchise, and 2) the whole plot is a romance. The only reason there are two male leads is so that they can have a stupid love triangle. There are plenty of female marketed franchises with more than one female lead. Some of which (Buffy, Xena, Batwoman,) are even good.

 

Every single example given were TV ensembles. Firefly or BSG(the new one) isn't marketed towards young audiences and they work in large ensembles with 8-9 different characters. That goes for Game of Thrones as well.

Terminator is a good example. But:

a)that always had a female lead.

b)That TV show was a flop.

Power Rangers is probably the best example. But its large ensemble with 6 main characters? I don't know, I never watch it.

 

I dn't think anyone is taking this as gospel truth. The speculation existed before the guy ever tweeted. The only difference is the tweeter in question acts as though he has some insider info which would confirm our suspcions.

You're absolutely wrong here. Star Wars isn't marketed to 7-10 yo boys and you know it. The mass consumer of SW is 20 something and beyond adults. You think 7-10 yo boys are buying all that merchandise? You think 7-10 yo boys are playing The Old Republic online or buying all the video games? You think 7-10 yo boys are running websites that have kept SW alive when TCW is all that they had? Absurd. You're trying to force people into beleiving the demographic you set just to try to prove yourself correct, which fails because you're making assumptions that you cannot backup.

I didn't disagree with you about HW's "secret ratio" formula (you could say) of women to men in movies. I posted that after all:

I can think of tons that use the standard two guys and a girl team -- Harry Potter, Twilight, Terminator 2, Hunger Games probably although I didn't see it, and the first two SW Trilogies. I don't disagree with the dynamic. However, GL and SW have always been forward thinking. Taking mythology and placing it into the future is forward thinking whether you like it. or think so. or not. And one step further GL has always been an innovator in his movies with technology and such.

I think you're wrong that they will use the same tired formula "just to appease an imaginary 7-10 age range of boys to sell action figures." SW transcends and will be supported no matter what Disney does really. That can be taken as both good and bad, but I foresee a very bright future for the franchise with two female leads. Jaicen and Jaina Solo and Nomi Skywalker. No one, except for you, will bat an eyelash. And yes, there will still be plenty of male heroes as well.

I think Disney plays it safe by casting the BIG 3 to pass the torch. Bringing back the BIG 3 will appease guys like you who are afraid of having women in movie franchises. Luke will be the mentor and will give you the male hero you need. Han will probably be in it to some extent. Leia will probably have a smallish role like Han. Then you'll have 2 guys and 2 girls until Uncle Luke gets killed off.

 

But a lot of this is not due to contemporary racism but the result of residual oversight/racism. Nearly all of the comic characters portrayed in large films now are characters who have been established for 45+ years. It's difficult to create a superhero who is a man of color and make him/her an "A-lister" when they weren't established until later. Marvel comics has actually done a brilliant job in attempting to do this with Luke Cage who is now one of the emotionally deeper characters in their comics so eventually we may see him hit the silver screen.

 

Impossible. Supershadow is a dork named Mickey Suttle who dates hot women, drives fast cars, and is George's best friend.

Search your feelings. You know this to be true.

NOOOOOOOO!!!

I feel dirty.

 

Star Wars has something everyone can enjoy. But the main consumer push with Star Wars has ALWAYS been young boys. Since you said I couldn't back it up here you go: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/02/162151736/how-star-wars-seduced-another-generation-of-kids.

Don't be ashamed that you like something thats mainly for children. I like it too.

Taking mythology and putting it in a future context(btw its NOT its a fairytale, "A Long time ago in a galaxy far far away.")is not forward thinking. In fact it had been done well before Star Wars. The entire space opera genre of the 1940's is a perfect example of this. What makes Star Wars unique is the quality of the universe and its impact on cinema. Not the methodology of it.

The 7-10 year old boy demographic is not imaginary even if you want to keep on saying it is. The fact that you keep on clinging to EU characters defiantly that they will make it the next trilogy is kinda sad dude. I get that your invested, but most likely those characters are gone. Lucas has shown time and again he doesn't care about continuity between the films and other media. If you don't believe me look what happened to the Marvel take on Star Wars or Splinter of a Minds Eye. Lucas(or Disney for that matter) isn't afraid to blow it all up.

Also, this isn't an you vs me dude. I'm going to see the movie irregardless. My point of this whole conversation has been people making wild claims based on silly twitter feeds, and EU material. Not to mention, grossly taking out of context the original treatments Gary Kurtz has talked about for Star Wars.

I'm responding with some common sense on what has actually been factually said by Bob Iger when he purchased the brand. Plus tendencies Lucas has already demonstrated with this franchise.

 

Echo, I generally like and agree with your posts, but if there are indeed to be only two leads in the ST (maybe you meant two female leads to one male? To me, it sounded like you expect two female leads alone), I really doubt we woundn't see a male in one of the two roles. George has absolutely used Star Wars as a vehicle for forward thinking (in any number of areas, at that), but a three-lead ensemble has been successfully utilized with the 'Episodes' from the start, and I'd be really quite surprised should Lucas/Arndt stray from this formula now. At a later date when more Star Wars features are made, free of the Skywalker/episode constraints? Absolutely! But I just don't see it happening for the re-introduction of Star Wars films to the public, brought to us for the first time under the Disney/LucasFilm banner. I honestly expect the ST to largely follow the things that LucasFilm feels have worked in the past.

Folks can argue all they want about Star Wars' target demographic (which I agree has evolved from young boys to include a much wider focus), but there's no denying that the majority of the present fanbase is male, yes? While it may be considered rather forward thinking to include two female leads at the expense of any male leads, the producers could, right or wrong, very well run the risk of alienating the bulk of its own base with a decision like that. I imagine a large percentage of the female fanbase would miss seeing a male lead, too. A big part of what makes Star Wars what it is, I feel, is its history of being inclusionary and I just don't see Episode VII as the vehicle for changes that defy expectations and start cutting away at the things which make the franchise tick. Again, two females to one male? Sure! If that's what you meant, then consider this a general message not aimed at anyone in particular. But no male leads at all? I just don't see it. Further, I don't care to see it, any more than I want to see no women in any lead roles.