Riceball
Master Member
You can thank Lindeloff and Orci for that since they were the ones who wrote the script, not JJ.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
You can thank Lindeloff and Orci for that since they were the ones who wrote the script, not JJ.
astroboy
Master Member
That's true. I pretty much hate those guys. (Mind you, I really liked transformers prime)
Sent from my SM-N910W8 using Tapatalk
Well to be fair, it's up to the director to steer the ship on that... but I know little of Star Trek and from what I've seen of the old Trek, I only remember her either sitting at a console in a skirt, kissing Kirk, or doing a feather dance or something to distract guys...
But really, 6 seasons of Felicity coming to her own in New York or however many seasons of "Felicity as a Spy", I think he can get a little credit.
I mean what's with the witch hunt... Joss Whedon got dragged over the coals about being anti women for Age of Ultron... Whedon is so pro women protagonist it's crazy that there was ever a word uttered against him.
Now JJ is getting it from people here on an unreleased film and over a poster with the female DEAD IN THE CENTER LOOKING BAD-ASS.
But really, 6 seasons of Felicity coming to her own in New York or however many seasons of "Felicity as a Spy", I think he can get a little credit.
I mean what's with the witch hunt... Joss Whedon got dragged over the coals about being anti women for Age of Ultron... Whedon is so pro women protagonist it's crazy that there was ever a word uttered against him.
Now JJ is getting it from people here on an unreleased film and over a poster with the female DEAD IN THE CENTER LOOKING BAD-ASS.
Last edited:
Don't forget Alex Kirtzman. He put the Enterprise underwater.
Regarding the Prequels in general -- not just for female representation... The whole endeavor suffered from... shall I say, a lack of vision. Goerge had his notes from the late '60s/early '70s where Obi-Wan was he hero. By 1980 he'd decided there was only enough story potential in his story for three films, not six. First failure. As the Clone Wars series and all the novels and comics show, there's a lot of story potential there.
Then, when he finally got round to them, he ignored all the data points he'd dropped in the OT about when everything took place, and made everyone young, for audience relatability -- but skewed it too far. Luke and Leia were 19 in ANH and got older. Starting Anakin at 10 and Padme at 16 gave Lucas a lot of ground to cover to get them through the Clone Wars and up to the birth of their son. It could have all been handled well, if good scripters had sat down and hammered out a timeline of events and then picked where along that timeline to focus. There actually was one, an official one, back in the '90s, derived from the OT's data points, that placed the Clone Wars longer ago, and Anakin's fall and the birth of the twins well after the last of the Clone Wars (a plural George seems to have utterly forgotten). But for storytelling expediency, the end of the wars, the fall of Anakin, the Jedi Purge, the birth of the twins, and the declaration of Empire all happen on the same day.
On top of the Benny Hill/Yakety Sax pacing, he had lost track of who it was supposed to be about, so ended up spending time focusing on too many people, and not enough time focusing on the right people. And way, way too much time showing the political process -- people standing or sitting in semicircles talking -- rather than just the effects of the political process. "The Imperial Senate will no longer be any concern. I have just received word the Emperor has dissolved that body permanently. [...] The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories." There. A thirty second scene established the threat of the Rebellion, the fact that many in the power structure dismissed that threat, and what was going on in galactic politics. No need to show the Emperor dissolving the Senate, the hue and cry of outrage, and many minutes spent derailed from the main plot thread.
That is why I'm most hopeful for the new films. They've got peopel who care deeply about things like character and story, who understand the dramatic needs of the audience, who took the time to map out in advance what's going to happen where when and to whom, so the plot can be as unscattered as the original film. With very few intercuts to show what was happening on the Death Star, we follow a pretty straight line from the starship to Tatooine to Luke to Ben to Han to the Death Star to Yavin to the final battle. ESB was good despite having to split valuable screen time between Dagobah and the Falcon, up until those parallel threads were brought back together for the climax and conclusion. ROTJ, by contrast, started out with a single thread all the way through the first act, then split into three, which we follow in parallel right up to the end. They're brought back together after the climax. That kind of scattering is what happens when you deviate from your original plan and compress four films into one. I don't see that happening this time. One thing about JJ's Trek films... As much as I despise them, story-wise, I gotta give him credit for clear narrative throughline.
--Jonah
Then, when he finally got round to them, he ignored all the data points he'd dropped in the OT about when everything took place, and made everyone young, for audience relatability -- but skewed it too far. Luke and Leia were 19 in ANH and got older. Starting Anakin at 10 and Padme at 16 gave Lucas a lot of ground to cover to get them through the Clone Wars and up to the birth of their son. It could have all been handled well, if good scripters had sat down and hammered out a timeline of events and then picked where along that timeline to focus. There actually was one, an official one, back in the '90s, derived from the OT's data points, that placed the Clone Wars longer ago, and Anakin's fall and the birth of the twins well after the last of the Clone Wars (a plural George seems to have utterly forgotten). But for storytelling expediency, the end of the wars, the fall of Anakin, the Jedi Purge, the birth of the twins, and the declaration of Empire all happen on the same day.
On top of the Benny Hill/Yakety Sax pacing, he had lost track of who it was supposed to be about, so ended up spending time focusing on too many people, and not enough time focusing on the right people. And way, way too much time showing the political process -- people standing or sitting in semicircles talking -- rather than just the effects of the political process. "The Imperial Senate will no longer be any concern. I have just received word the Emperor has dissolved that body permanently. [...] The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories." There. A thirty second scene established the threat of the Rebellion, the fact that many in the power structure dismissed that threat, and what was going on in galactic politics. No need to show the Emperor dissolving the Senate, the hue and cry of outrage, and many minutes spent derailed from the main plot thread.
That is why I'm most hopeful for the new films. They've got peopel who care deeply about things like character and story, who understand the dramatic needs of the audience, who took the time to map out in advance what's going to happen where when and to whom, so the plot can be as unscattered as the original film. With very few intercuts to show what was happening on the Death Star, we follow a pretty straight line from the starship to Tatooine to Luke to Ben to Han to the Death Star to Yavin to the final battle. ESB was good despite having to split valuable screen time between Dagobah and the Falcon, up until those parallel threads were brought back together for the climax and conclusion. ROTJ, by contrast, started out with a single thread all the way through the first act, then split into three, which we follow in parallel right up to the end. They're brought back together after the climax. That kind of scattering is what happens when you deviate from your original plan and compress four films into one. I don't see that happening this time. One thing about JJ's Trek films... As much as I despise them, story-wise, I gotta give him credit for clear narrative throughline.
Have her stand toe-to-toe with armed and armored Klingons after trespassing on their planet and talk smack to them?
--Jonah
It wasn't a good scene. If you're going to give your non-main character a moment where their speciality comes in use, it's good if they actually 'succeed' in using it. Unfortunately, the scene devolved into another run of the mill action scene where she basically resorts to stabbing and shooting people. Scotty can still do awesome engineering related stuff, McCoy can find a way to cure death, but Uhura cannot use her skills to talk her way out of a conflict. She has to be another action girl with a gun.
And you SIr, are an utter fraud!!!
Brent M
Sr Member
Get over it and go watch the new Ghostbusters next year instead of Ep. VII if it's really such an issue for you. :rolleyes
astroboy
Master Member
Well that's it. We often confuse "well developed female character" with "strong female character"
Uhura may have a larger role in JJtrek, but it's been reduced to that of angry girlfriend of Spock.
A movie with one female character who's totally badass and kicks ass (against all the male co-stars) isn't the same thing as a movie with well developed male and female characters that are somewhat representative of society.
astroboy
Master Member
astroboy
Master Member
Same here. I wanna see a great movie too. And I would also like to see one that paves the way for women in action movies. I'm not saying that this needs to be thelma and louise or even kill bill. Just more women and better writing when it comes to women.
And Star wars is a great franchise to pave that way. If it were a good movie, then you'd never notice. No one was bothered by firefly. Or Galactica or Star trek.
Mind you, I have to say that I was a bit surprised at that backlash over Mad max. That was a kick ass movie
If it has more than two women with speaking roles, it's an improvement on the original film. 
They're outnumbered in Star Wars something like sixteen to one, not counting Stormtroopers and nonspeaking extras.
--Jonah
They're outnumbered in Star Wars something like sixteen to one, not counting Stormtroopers and nonspeaking extras.--Jonah
If it has more than two women with speaking roles, it's an improvement on the original film.
--Jonah
You dissing Aunt Beru?
Exactly the opposite. Unless you count cut scenes, she and Leia are the only women with dialogue in that film. A number that, annoyingly, remains the same in ESB. So yeah...
--Jonah
Riceball
Master Member
Yet in spite of that it didn't affect the quality of the films or their popularity.
Look, this debate about the inclusion of women in the OT is a complete and utter waste of time. The films were a product of their time and the singular vision of one man. The PT was also that one singular vision and left a lot to be desired from both a story standpoint and a diversification of cast standpoint. Fine. This is NOT GEORGE LUCAS STAR WARS anymore, this is about The Force Awakens with an entirely new and diverse creative team and vision for the future.
And Greg Grunberg as an X-wing Pilot... which if you've been following JJ's career since the beginning, is all kinds of awesome (them being childhood friends running around with a video camera)
Sorry, that was actually sort of my point. For all that the '70s were a time of attempted progress and egalitarianism, and that Lucas was part of the band trying to break away from the established Hollywood machine, the Star Wars movies were remarkably "establishment" -- mostly white, mostly male. One could argue that having more inclusiveness would further establish that this was happening in another galaxy and another time. But water under the bridge. I registered at the time, pre age 10, that there weren't many girls in Star Wars. I admired Leia, but unlike, apparently, a lot of my peers, I never had a crush on her. And then noticed that I didn't have much in the way of options.
Meanwhile, I'd heard my female friends arguing the relative merits of the various male characters they had crushes on.Things have gotten a lot more inclusive from ROTJ on, so it isn't really something to be carrying on about any more.
--Jonah
Sorry, that was actually sort of my point. For all that the '70s were a time of attempted progress and egalitarianism, and that Lucas was part of the band trying to break away from the established Hollywood machine, the Star Wars movies were remarkably "establishment" -- mostly white, mostly male. One could argue that having more inclusiveness would further establish that this was happening in another galaxy and another time. But water under the bridge. I registered at the time, pre age 10, that there weren't many girls in Star Wars. I admired Leia, but unlike, apparently, a lot of my peers, I never had a crush on her. And then noticed that I didn't have much in the way of options.
Things have gotten a lot more inclusive from ROTJ on, so it isn't really something to be carrying on about any more.
--Jonah
I did, I was 9. I was devastated when Han got the girl.
Similar threads
