Discussion Diversity In the New Saga [See OP Warning]

Aren't you from Brisbane?

 

Call me conspiracy theorist (as I've been called many times before) but honestly? I've seen quite a lot of it. Government, media, education system, you name it. Don't deny that it's there, man. I know it's popular to act like it's just a bunch of SJWs or what not, but I've seen it with my own eyes and heard and read from other people on the topic. It's there. Hell, look at the Native Americans. My indigenous friends talk about neo-Nazis harassing and attacking them on their reservations and most of the police departments do nothing. One friend all the way up in Canada was talking about how nobody gives a damn about Natives in Canada either. It's wack, y'all, no question, but the objective truth is that class and race pretty much determines how hard it is for you.

Just thought I had to get that out there. Now let's try to get this back on track, eh?

What do people think of the guy that played Hanzee Dent in Fargo? He's got a great pedigree when it comes to acting, yeah? He could easily do the work for a Star Wars film or TV show, no problem. I hope that the High Republic comment at least has characters that are racially indigenous or what have you.

 

I'm worried about the High Republic because of the focus on diversity and inclusion. Here's why: the problem we have now days is with "virtue signaling". It doesn't matter one iota what the physical traits are for a character. At all. What bothers me though is when the author/film maker/artist makes a point to focus on diversity before even thinking about story and then they virtue signal it. More often than not, the virtue signaling makes the diversity the topic of discussion rather than the character themselves. Without the virtue signaling, I honestly think the vast majority of fans wouldn't even give the physical traits of the character a second thought.

For example, Leia was absolutely loved by the fandom as a feminine/strong female protagonist. I don't recall GL screaming it from the heavens about how diverse the movies were going to be because Leia was going to be a "strong woman". He simply wrote her that way and the fans loved it. The same can be said of Lando, Ashoka, Mara Jade, Mace Windu, Jaina Solo, or any other number of characters that don't fit the "white male" category. They were all simply well written, awesome characters and the fans loved them because of how they were written, not because of any physical characteristic they may have.

It became different with Disney Star Wars because the virtue signaling started appearing even before the movie would come out and it seemed like diversity was taking a front seat to good story telling. IMO, story should never take a back seat to anything else. Let the story be the focus point of discussion and promotion and let the diversity speak for itself through the characters and their portrayal. If the characters are written well, then people won't even give the physical traits a second thought.

I still love MLK's dream, where people are judged by the content of their character and not by physical characteristics. I'm afraid we're losing that vision by not focusing on character enough these days.

 

Not to continue a tangent, but I can't get over how people act like institutional racism is some abstract idea- it really isn't. There are endless examples that can be demonstrated with hard numbers- for example, the criminal justice system, and disproportionate sentencing and convictions. The problem is, in a time of culture war, people want to stick to their own tribe no matter how overwhelming the evidence against them; actual logic and numbers don't figure into their conclusions in any meaningful way.

 

Or you could judge the content for what's actually in the content, rather than what people say while promoting it, which is going to be filtered and exaggerated.

MLKs vision is about diversity and not sitting on our hands lest including diversity may set off people that it's trying to 'send a message'.

 

And do you know why the European right of centre political parties are gaining ground? I'm guessing that there's some underlying reason for all these groups coming to prominence?

 

Yeah. People are racists when push comes to shove.

 

Because the leadership of these parties have scapegoated all of their respective government’s problems on immigrants? Because they’ve stopped using restraint when promoting their racist views, and this has worked with enough segments of society to give them non-trivial political power, which has in turn further legitimized their racist views, which in turn increases their power further?

Yup, that’s the main reason, and there’s a lot of evidence to back that up.

And I’m talking far right of center, ethnonationalist parties, not your typical center-right.

 

I would say that it has much to do with classism and racism in much of the West. And I do consider class to be apart of it. That, and neoliberalism has created a crisis in which economic conditions are stagnant and even declining. It is much the same in America and Canada to a degree under the Trudeau and previously the Harper administrations. Neoliberalism allows politicians to say "Your declining standard of living? It's because those immigrants are stealing your jobs!" or "Those people you see that just entered our domain are the reason why, as if by coincidence, your wages haven't risen even when things have gotten more expensive!"

When the economic conditions of people worsens, the worst aspects of their character comes out in the open. Politicians like Trump in America, Victor Orban in Poland, and the Vox in Spain have used their populist rhetoric laced with racist insinuations in order to mask the economic decline of their land and then doing more of the same neoliberal policies that Republicans and Democrats in America have done for decades now. That they don't point out that neoliberal capitalism is the reason why their plight as appeared in recent years... is incredibly dishonest and they are leading their followers tragically off a cliff.

Having experienced racism against myself, I know that it exists. I have seen other people be the objects of racism as well. So I know that it was already there to begin with.

Which leads me back to the topic at hand in this thread: I feel that Luke Skwyalker was a good example of a lower-class character in fiction (he appeared at least to be in state of some poverty and a farmer at that) and I hope that Star Wars experiments with more people that aren't necessarily financially stable, so to speak. Basically, I hope that poverty is explored more in Star Wars. Obviously, class diversity, I would say, is just as important as racial, ethnic, sexual, and gender diversity.

@anakinfansince1983

@DarthPhilosopher

 

I agree. Rey wasn't a bad character because of her gender. She was just simply a very badly written character and that was true for pretty much all characters in the ST. What they did to Luke... ugh. What I wish is that they would have just gone with stories/characters inspired by the Legends books. For example, Jayson and Jaina Solo would have made a great characters for the ST. Considering what happened with Jayson, Jaina in particular could have been a perfect protagonist for the ST. Her character was so well written and anyone could relate to her because she wasn't just a good female character, she was a good character. Oh what could have been...

Sorry, my tangent soap box rant is over.

Unfortunately I've noticed that one tends to lead directly to the other. When I see virtue signaling going on, it's almost a guarantee that the actual product is going to suck.

 

This could easily be the case you you judging the film before you see it because of something you've read.

 

I agree. The problem I have is that those who complain about “virtue signaling” are usually interested in even less diversity than the token kind, not more. Create a brilliant character who is also a woman or black, and they’ll find a way to argue that it’s just virtue signaling, and not real diversity. Then when you ask them if they want real diversity, they ultimately say no, we just want good characters. And if most of those characters happen to be white males? So be it. Because characters, not diversity. It’s almost always a very disingenuous position, because they not only don’t want virtue signaling in their films, they simply don’t think diversity is a virtue. That’s core to their beliefs. The character of a person is the only thing that can be virtuous. A society of tolerance that includes a diversity of peoples is simply not virtuous to them, and so they find no value in it. And they therefore find no value in either signaling it superficially, or showing it with substance.

 

Except that's not the case at all. People are very capable of watching a movie and judging it for its own merits, despite the marketing done beforehand. All I'm saying is, in my experience at least, when a film creator goes out of their way to virtue signal, the final product tends to be awful. A couple of examples from recent years are: Terminator Dark Fate, The Star Wars ST, Birds of Prey, and Ghostbusters 2016. They each should have been awesome but ended up being badly written with horrible characters and they each had loads of virtue signaling being done before they were even released. Maybe it's a coincidence but I seriously doubt it.

 

Have you read any studies that back up the notion that many of those that complain about virtue signaling are being disingenuous and that not wanting diversity is core to their beliefs? Or that they believe there is no value held in having a society of diversity? I consider myself an independent that leans conservative and I know quite a few people on both sides of the political aisle. Besides a couple of people that I've known from the generations older than myself (usually born before the 70s, I'd say), I can't think of anyone that I know that has ever shown a bigoted attitude towards those that are different from themselves, either blatantly or subtly. I'm talking about interactions with people that I work with, live around, or hang out with as friends. Granted, my personal experience is not a scientific study but I would be willing to bet that I'm not alone in my experience. I firmly believe in MLK's dream of all people being judged by their character, not by skin color (and I add other non-character traits). To me, if you believe in that dream, you literally don't see people at all for their physical traits. So yes, I consider their character the ultimate test of virtue. Their physical traits shouldn't matter in the slightest. That's my entire point. Frankly, I think it's insulting when I see people continue to focus on physical traits and how "virtuous" they are for doing so. Isn't there more to a person than that?

 

I don't know how to respond to this. It just seems like potential confirmation bias, or the fact that when there are overt politics in a film you write the film off.

 

You are free to think what you want. All I can do is tell you how I feel about a subject. If you don't want to believe me, that's your right. Isn't freedom of speech and thought great?

 

Rose Tico and Canto Bight basically exist to voice Rian Johnson's virtue signals.

 

It certainly is virtue signalling when it has nothing to do with the story being told. Rose (Rian) is virtue signalling to us the viewers, not Finn. Virtue signaling can happen at the same time as inadvertently causing what you see as a bad stereotype.

 

Yeah but it wasn't a part of the story. It was a tacked on virtuous fact, along with slavery is evil, and animal cruelty is wrong. It is blatant virtue signalling.

That would be evil signalling lol, who would think that is a virtuous thing to say?

That message isn't virtue signalling. That is the story being a bad stereotype. Rian Johnson (and JJ Abrams) did not intend to specifically give you that message.