ST Diversity in the Sequel Trilogy (see warning on page 11)

I think there's a hint of a past romance between Holdo and Leia in TLJ. That's how I read it anyway.

 

I still don't see where that is supposed to be the case. Rey was clearly the main character in TFA, with Finn probably coming in second. The same stays true in TLJ. There was no difference in terms of roles for Finn between the two movies. He certainly wasn't completely connected to Rey's storyline, but then again, neither where Han and Leia to Luke's in ESB. Doesn't somehow mean that they were relegated to a lesser role. Rey and Finn were already split at the end of TFA, it was only logical that they would be seperated for a large part of TLJ, especially with him being in some sort of coma early on.

The only difference is that this time around there were three plotlines to follow, because Rian Johnson opted to give Poe his own storyline as well, instead of having him being just a pilot with little depth. This is more similar to ROTJ than ESB, in that there ended up being three somewhat seperated parts. Back then it eventually split up into Luke's plot with Vader and the Emperor, Han and Leia's plot on Endor, and Lando's plot with Wedge and Ackbar in the space battle. It seems perfectly normal to do something similar with Rey, Finn and Poe.

 

I think there's plenty of diversity in the latest movies and the original trilogy. you have to think of the movies as "what is society like in another planetary system or galaxy? A lot of the denizens may not be human, that's diversity there,non human lifeforms, people need to stop putting Earth social standards in movies, just enjoy Star Wars as presented, no matter if it doesn't have 21 century social standards or not! were talking about other planets, galaxies etc. who's social systems may be way different from ours. accept the cast of characters as given, no politics or comparison to earth social ideas. Do you go see or enjoy Star Wars(as a series) just to see if the movies are diversity appropriate? Yes, the Star Wars universe is sci-fi. made up, a fantasy of sorts, lets just have fun with it like we use to!

 

I am not wholly unsympathetic to the "why can't we just enjoy the story" argument. SW is a fairy tale in outer space. And yet, we should recognize it is being told by humans living at a particular time and place. It actually does reflect a number of Earth social standards. It includes Earth style family relationships including marriage, children, siblings, aunts and uncles, male and female gender, the concept of going to see performances, racing, and let's not forget, "democracy" and "special sessions of Congress." It has intentionally reflected historical events like Vietnam and the War on Terror. Even aspects of spiritual traditions such as Buddhism. It incorporates narrative themes and issues that are part of our traditions, like wayward children, "dad issues," vows of celibacy, love triangles, immaculate conceptions, and more (even, I would argue, slavery, through certain ways droids are portrayed). It also (regrettably) has included racial/ethnic stereotypes--though the degree to which they are actually harmful or offensive is (I guess) open to debate. These are stories by and for people in our time and place.

Diversity allows SW to tell stories that speak to and reflect broader audiences, and give opportunities to a broader array of content creators. I see both of those as good things that we ought to promote and increase. And when we recognize just how much of 20th/21st Century Earth shows up in Star Wars, I would argue it begins to be somewhat unsettling that SW seemingly reflects a universe where LGBT+ folks (just an example close to my heart) don't appear to exist.

 

LucasFilm shouldn't be getting praise for doing bare minimum. Other creators within the franchise seem to understand what inclusion and diversity means for their works.

 

Where's the "bare minimum" coming from?

Arbitrary standards aren't a good way to operate with this stuff, it's never going to be enough for some people. We've got a female lead, a black supporting lead, an implied lesbian/bisexual character in Holdo (think it might have even been confirmed/substantiated in one of the books?), how far do you take it?

All of these characters are positives. But you don't want to approach it like you're ticking off a checklist with a bunch of quotas to fill simply to appease a certain group, that's not storytelling. At a certain point there could be three queer leads, a mentally-ill supporting lead and a gender-fluid villain, and you'd still have people demanding more.

Just do it naturally - if it fits, it fits, go for it and never take any criticism crap from people who have a problem with more types of people in the movies. They're not worth listening to. But by the same token, there's another extreme of patronizing quotas that basically do a disservice to any minority group once they start realizing they're being put in simply to pass some arbitrary metric test.

 

The bare minimum is exactly what you’re describing and exactly what Disney did, fill a quota and call it a day. They did it to draw certain groups and sell tickets to them.

Those characters aren’t positives, imo. A female lead who has the story stolen from her isn’t a positive, imo. A black male lead turned into embarrassing comedy relief and shuttled off on a pointless side quest isn’t a positive, imo. Holdo is a feminist caricature to a lot of people.

They did do it “naturally” in that they told the story they wanted, and look what happened. Rey and Finn marginalized by the angsty white male villain, who LFL clearly loves more than Rey and Finn. They created these characters for diversity, to draw people in and sell tickets, they sold the hell out of them to their respective demographics, but they weren’t particularly interested in doing anything of substance with them. Maybe they would have benefitted from forcing themselves to care about their diverse characters. Maybe they would have benefitted from more “forced diversity”, not less.

The bare minimum is inclusion, which Disney just barely managed. They don’t deserve credit for it, considering how poorly they handled that inclusion.

 

Don't worry guys, the LGBT+ thing has now been definitively and conclusively addressed! Two non-human supporting characters in a cartoon on cable that's ending forever this spring are gay--we're told.

(Give me a break. I'm glad that Justin and Brandon made the comments they did, but come on. I happen to think Star Wars' LGBT+ fans, and fans in general, deserve a bit more than this in 2019.)

 

How was it a quota with what Disney did here, though?

It was a female lead intended by George, they ran with it. Rey's a girl because they and George alike wanted a female protagonist, they didn't go that way just to be good little progressives and make the liberal-arts students happy or whatever.

Finn was written non-specifically, a black guy got the gig because he was the best/most impressive guy for the job. That's not a quota approach.

And Finn's not "comic relief" any more than Han ever was, c'mon.

I'm just not seeing how one could make an argument the Disney era hasn't been "inclusive". Clearly they have no aversion to including people of different backgrounds, sexualities, whatever. They seem to be in this weird middle-of-the-road position where they're a) annoying the "why can't they all me white dudes?!" peeps by actually including various types of people, and b) annoying the progressives because it's basically never going to be enough representation for them.

In that sense they can't win, but I don't think you could make an argument they've been dragging their feet here. Compare it to most other big running blockbuster situations out there, they're at least on par with everyone else, probably more.

EDIT: But BKiddo, what are you wanting? Them to set out to intentionally do a gay-lead movie, and that be the point? That's pretty cynical, I don't think LGBT people are going to appreciate that as a whole mission statement either. A Star Wars movie happening to feature a primary front-and-center gay protagonist is a good thing. Doing it because people are demanding it, in and of itself, isn't, this shouldn't be some recipe situation where you're starting at "we need someone from _____, add two parts _____, huzzah."

We have a gay character in Star Wars, and some sort of roundabout inferrals maybe on Poe. There are bound to be more in future, and probably more primary/lead in function. Which is a great thing. But doing it for "look how forward-thinking I am, that was my starting point!" means isn't respectful to anyone, gay or straight alike, it feels phoney.

 

Lol comparing Finn to Han again. Finn is an embarassing sidekick played for laughs. Han had a cool ship, a cool sidekick and got the princess. Finn is completely outside the main Rey-Kylo-Luke-Leia plot. Han was a part of the main plot Luke-Han-Leia.

The ST doesn't have a trio of heroes. Finn is not as popular or iconic as Han was and will never be. Kill him off and nobody would care. Saying Finn is equal to Han is just ridiculous.

 

*Double take* I don't even know where you're getting this stuff.

What, Finn was separated from Rey in TLJ? So was Han in Empire, if I recall. Finn's instrumental in the first movie, is in a way in the second, and will be here too. This is kind of what I mean: if it were a white guy nobody would be complaining that he cracks a few jokes along the way. Somehow with Finn though be becomes "comic relief" for doing the same? That's...pretty odd.

He's outside the Luke-Leia plot? How involved was Han with Luke's force-journey with Obi & Yoda, short of helping him get on his way off-Tatooine with Ben?

Finn's been portrayed bravely & nobly along the way for the most part too, but guess we're just gonna focus on a few jokes and try to say they're painting him as some fool there for the chuckles.

 

Han was with Leia in ESB. Finn was...with some new random character called Rose who nobody gives a **** about. Great comparison.

Han, Leia and Luke were the established trio of heroes in ANH and continued their relationship to the next two movies. Finn was completely away from Rey in TLJ.

Since he's black it's a huge step back for representation.

 

That's intepretation, though. I don't see anything from the company themselves positioning Ben as their "favored child" here, clearly Rey's the intended reading for who we're meant to be throwing our support and admiration behind (along with the obvious secondaries, Finn/Poe/BB8/Rose etc).

And if Rey's arc is developing Ben's, is there a problem with that, given his does hers too and they're presented a mirror-image dynamic? That's sort of how yin-yangs and dyads work. Pretty evidently he's still the "don't be like this guy" of the equation.

 

Secondary characters get developed/furthered along the way by the leads all the time, both heroes and villains alike, it's no different here.

It's only a problem when that's a one-way street, it's clearly not.

 

I just...I dunno, personally I'm kind of flabbergasted that anyone could come away from either of these movies thinking Rey has "no place in the story". As the main character in the story.

But that's me.

Also, awful people play a role in other people's lives all the same. Nobody would come away from either TFA or TLJ saying Ben's been a positive impact in Rey's life - that's neither the intended reading from the authors nor supported by the movies. A negative impact on her? Err, sure. A negative impact/development is still an impact & development. That's not reflective on Rey being weak or "regressive" or anything, she rejects the ****er once her benefit-of-the-doubt proves unwise.

Let's maybe stop trying to paint Rey as some battered woman running back to some abusive bastard husband, it's real chip-on-shoulder stuff at a certain point. She tried to get through to him for Leia and to end the war, once, and in part fueled by having just had a personal experience with Luke lying/twisting the facts to her. Ben ended up showing her his lightside turnaround wasn't possible (at the time), she kicked his ass and went to help save the Rebellion. Nothing "regressive" there.

 

Couple days ago had conversation about diversity and one of my favorite examples of how Lucas was more progressive than current LF course are Mace Windu and Finn.

Mace Windu was a secondary character. Yet he was very important and relevant character for SW.
Lucas never had unnecessarry characters in his story, so every character had a purpsoe. And Mace, as many others, felt like an actual character, not some token for black guy. This is even more surprising given he was played by Samuel L Jackson, such a unique actor with very specific and grandeur method of acting.
What was so progressive in it, is that Lucas never intended to bring our reality into his own galaxy. George always had that clear vision and udnerstanding what our things dont belong to GFFA.
Mace was one of the best examples. There was nothing in him that made me think of our dire reality. The tone of skin never ever defined him, his manners, the way he talk and so on. He never felt like caricature black guy.

Here goes the Finn from supposedly progressive Disney SW.
The very first look at him in TFA made me scratch my head. Wait - moccasins, leather jacket and jeans? What is that, 90s guy and Bryan Adams fan?
Okay, ill close my eyes on this. Lets go and see his behaviour.
What we saw and heard? Typical caricature bla-blah funny black guy from ghetto.
Then, he turned out to be janitor.
Then he was mostly used as funny sidekick rather than the character with pretty dramatic backstory. Him walking in that water costume in TLJ was cringy attempt to be humorous.

In the end, Mace Windu, secondary character, was way more interesting character who direcly influenced the lot, while Finn feels like token black guy from our world who somehow trapped into GFFA.