Step 1: Go through the projects you're already working on and change a bunch of the characters' first names to women's names. With one stroke you've created some colorful unstereotypical female characters that might turn out to be even more interesting now that they've had a gender switch. What if the plumber or pilot or construction foreman is a woman? What if the taxi driver or the scheming politician is a woman? What if both police officers that arrive on the scene are women — and it's not a big deal?

Step 2: When describing a crowd scene, write in the script, "A crowd gathers, which is half female." That may seem weird, but I promise you, somehow or other on the set that day the crowd will turn out to be 17 percent female otherwise. Maybe first ADs think women don't gather, I don't know.

And there you have it. You have just quickly and easily boosted the female presence in your project without changing a line of dialogue.

I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. Firstly, when someone suggests to me and anyone else I can think of that a "crowd gathers", it's a pretty mixed bag: young, old, male, female, alone, in a group.

Secondly, as 2P51 said, men and women do not engage in the same activities in equal proportions. When you think of a battle, you think of a bunch of young men making war - because that's who makes war. When you think of an elegant ball, you think of women, because elegance and gentle Victorian-esque occasions are considered feminine. There's no evil in this, it's a natural selection of activities; it's normal.

The reason saying "A crowd gathers, half of which is female" sounds ridiculous is because it is ridiculous; it's a forced display of hyper-feminism and political correction that anyone with a functioning brain doesn't need as a supplement. Further, the authors of the adventures chose to make a story that primarily consists of males; it's their story and their artistic value. If they wanted to make a universe of only men that breed out of their buttholes that's their right. Nobody can stop you from changing characters in your playthrough, but stop decrying and slandering their work as it is.

My final word on this as I absolutely loathe when people bring this sort of crap to these forums is based on US military numbers, it would be completely acceptable if 15% of the pilots in the room were women, make it 50/50 and it's a contrived PC statement. However the producers of the movie would choose to proceed is completely fine with me either way, as they are private citizens using this nebulous concept called freedom.

The reason saying "A crowd gathers, half of which is female" sounds ridiculous is because it is ridiculous; it's a forced display of hyper-feminism and political correction that anyone with a functioning brain doesn't need as a supplement. Further, the authors of the adventures chose to make a story that primarily consists of males; it's their story and their artistic value. If they wanted to make a universe of only men that breed out of their buttholes that's their right. Nobody can stop you from changing characters in your playthrough, but stop decrying and slandering their work as it is.

And you completely missed the point. You said, when you picture a crowd, you picture a mix of people. That's all well and good, but that generally doesn't happen when it comes down to casting the actors or extras for one of those crowd scenes. That's the point Geena Davis is trying to make. If it's not spelled out explicitly that half the crowd is male and half is female, that crowd that you pictured in your script suddenly becomes about 83% male on screen.

Star Wars doesn't have the same historical background as Earth. There's no reason to assume that only a small number of women chose crime or military service as a career; not all women choose to be mothers. Hell, even if they do, they could leave their child with their fully-capable Nanny Droid during the day and still have a career. Because it's Star Wars. But apparently you think that Victorian balls and pretty dresses are an inherent part of universal female psychology and that men are violent at their core, and you're fine with that.

as they are private citizens using this nebulous concept called freedom.

This whole line of thought is nonsensical. The government is not taking away Star Wars screenwriters' ability to write plots and cast as they choose. People on a forum who can affect precisely 0% of the finished product aren't somehow tyrannical for suggesting that the info they've seen is not quite what they had hoped for in the ideal Star Wars inside their minds.

There's no freedom being infringed on. Invoking the concept of freedom just raises the implication that freedom is being infringed when choices by private citizens are criticized by other private citizens. That frequently seems to happen whenever someone says "they're expressing their freedom." Freedom has nothing to do with this discussion.

And you completely missed the point. You said, when you picture a crowd, you picture a mix of people. That's all well and good, but that generally doesn't happen when it comes down to casting the actors or extras for one of those crowd scenes. That's the point Geena Davis is trying to make. If it's not spelled out explicitly that half the crowd is male and half is female, that crowd that you pictured in your script suddenly becomes about 83% male on screen.

Star Wars doesn't have the same historical background as Earth. There's no reason to assume that only a small number of women chose crime or military service as a career; not all women choose to be mothers. Hell, even if they do, they could leave their child with their fully-capable Nanny Droid during the day and still have a career. Because it's Star Wars. But apparently you think that Victorian balls and pretty dresses are an inherent part of universal female psychology and that men are violent at their core, and you're fine with that.

So the general calls for extras are met with even 50/50 of men and women showing up? I doubt that.

Secondly, while Star Wars may not have the same background as Earth, it's a fair guess to assume that it still has Testosterone and Estrogen, which produce the natural behaviors, mannerisms, and methods of thought that we associate with masculinity and femininity. Females of all species that we can possibly conceive have a maternal value; they want to raise the young that they carry and birth and as an extension, "nest"; keep the home tidy and produce for the family by producing meals and other forms of nurture.

Yes, I do think that elegance and pretty clothing are generally associated with women and daring aggressiveness - like a desire to be a warrior - is generally associated with men and I am 100% fine with that reality.

Star Wars doesn't have the same historical background as Earth <snip>

Yet all these aliens from long ago, in a galaxy far, far away somehow still speak English...

All stories we enjoy and relate to (including Star Wars) are appreciated though an Earthly filter.

Wait wait... So we're looking at females yay or nay in the war room.

Won't somebody please think of the children!? It's a kids movie. No historical accuracy, let's show little girls that they can become Rebel/New Republic pilots if they want to be.

Wait wait... So we're looking at females yay or nay in the war room.

Won't somebody please think of the children!? It's a kids movie. No historical accuracy, let's show little girls that they can become Rebel/New Republic pilots if they want to be.

That's really one of the important points to me. I loved playing as Luke or Han or Boba Fett as a kid. Why shouldn't little girls have some role models, anti-heroes, or villains in Star Wars movies that they can identify with a little better? Not to mention the more relevant role models of the actresses who actually play these characters. Even Kenny Baker, Anthony Daniels, and Peter Mayhew are revered by fans, and we don't see their faces on-screen. How many actresses can fans name from the OT/PT other than Fisher and Portman?

I'd be okay with the Yuuzahn Vong, though. They're pretty neat.

I've never really understood all the hate for that part of the EU, personally.

I couldn't get past the basic premise of the Vong, that they were not part of the Force, couldn't be affected, etc. Kind of destroyed my metaphysical interest. It made the whole galaxy shallow. Once you quantify something like the Force, there's always somebody who comes along and can imagine something bigger or some monster that can chew it from the outside. Lame.

Plus, if the only way to deal with Superman is with kryptonite, and that's the trope you resort to, the story always takes a dive. This is what they did with the NJO. The brilliant thing about the way TCW handles Jedi is that despite having "superpowers", they aren't immune from folly, either physical or emotional or metaphysical. The basic premise of the Vong ripped all that away.

Just MHO, but you asked where the hate came from.

...oh, that, and they killed Chewie in the most ridiculous way (crushed by a moon) for the most ridiculous and artificial reason (somebody has to die). The authors can write (by that I mean they can type endless words onto paper), but they don't seem to know what makes a story.

Wait wait... So we're looking at females yay or nay in the war room.

Won't somebody please think of the children!? It's a kids movie. No historical accuracy, let's show little girls that they can become Rebel/New Republic pilots if they want to be.

Wait wait... So we're looking at females yay or nay in the war room.

Won't somebody please think of the children!? It's a kids movie. No historical accuracy, let's show little girls that they can become Rebel/New Republic pilots if they want to be.

That's really one of the important points to me. I loved playing as Luke or Han or Boba Fett as a kid. Why shouldn't little girls have some role models, anti-heroes, or villains in Star Wars movies that they can identify with a little better? Not to mention the more relevant role models of the actresses who actually play these characters. Even Kenny Baker, Anthony Daniels, and Peter Mayhew are revered by fans, and we don't see their faces on-screen. How many actresses can fans name from the OT/PT other than Fisher and Portman?

Pretty much this. Star Wars is a family thing, and it should be something that can be shared by the whole family. This isn't about anything other than wanting a few more good female role models out there. When there are a total of 2 female main characters in each of the Trilogies it's pretty sad, considering the EU and Cartoons have done such a better job of this.

If I have a daughter I want her to have strong female examples in her entertainment, eventually I'll raise her to be like Lagertha from Vikings, but she'll have to get a little older for that.

But I'm sure I'll be called a mentally ill liberal, despite being a conservative from Texas who owns a gun and hates taxes. *rolls eyes*

I'd be okay with the Yuuzahn Vong, though. They're pretty neat.

I've never really understood all the hate for that part of the EU, personally. I liked that it kind of took the series to a darker place with the deaths of long-running characters, turning personalities on their heads with the fallout and setting up a hero to fall and pursue the power of the Dark Side "for the greater good" as he saw it. To each their own I guess?

For me I felt the Vong were a little bit trite. They were set up to be all of these things the rest of the SW universe was not, this unstoppable force, that we all knew in the end would eventually get stopped one way or another. It was like setting up the biggest baddest villain one could think of just to get knocked down. While they killed Chewie, it felt like the galaxy eventually went back to "normal" after the invasion, they felt like they had little impact in the overall story.

Why doesn't Ahsoka count? She has many hours of screen time - across a six year long series - as a strong, young, female character.

Then there are all the other female characters present throughout the TCW run. And from the stills showing the new Rebels characters, aren't there female leads there as well?

it would be completely acceptable if 15% of the pilots in the room were women, make it 50/50 and it's a contrived PC statement.

Figuring out how many female pilots you can add to the back of a starfighter pilot briefing scene before it starts to look odd is one of a number of esoteric subjects I'd like to see researched.

Why doesn't Ahsoka count? She has many hours of screen time - across a six year long series - as a strong, young, female character.

Then there are all the other female characters present throughout the TCW run. And from the stills showing the new Rebels characters, aren't there female leads there as well?

She does, and hopefully so will the women in Rebels. As I said it is simply disappointing that they can't seem to be as creative with the films. Why do the films have to have only 1 female main character at a time? I simply don't get it. It's not like adding more women to the cast would some how hurt the franchise and if it does, than maybe it needs to be hurt. The EU is full of great female characters, even if they don't use Mara Jade, a character like hers would be great to include, same with Jania Solo. Mirta Gev was certainly an interesting and flawed character, a character like that would great to see as well.

I don't think the OT should be held to the same modern PC standard, being from the 70's-80's.

The PT, I'm not saying is chock full o' chicks. But I also don't think they are devoid of them either.

Why doesn't Ahsoka count? She has many hours of screen time - across a six year long series - as a strong, young, female character.

Then there are all the other female characters present throughout the TCW run. And from the stills showing the new Rebels characters, aren't there female leads there as well?

Absolutely. The Clone Wars did a fantastic job of introducing or fleshing out a number of male and female characters. Being animated also allowed them to use more alien characters without having to rely on expensive movie CGI or bulky, limiting costumes. Ahsoka definitely counts. And, as I mentioned, the novels and the Old Republic video games also do a good job of this. My concern here is with the films, not the Star Wars franchise.

I don't think the OT should be held to the same modern PC standard, being from the 70's-80's.

The PT, I'm not saying is chock full o' chicks. But I also don't think they are devoid of them either.

Agreed, the OT is what it is. There are a lot of things we have to remember and not just the time period, but how Sci Fi was viewed by the general public at the time.

Honestly I hate Padme, and if any daughter I had wanted to be like Padme, I'd be disappointed. I'd much rather my daughter be a Leia than a Padme, well of all Star Wars females, Bo-Katan or Ashoka, but if we use movies Leia is the better choice.

I still hope the new movies can present women in a better way than Lucas did, he just can't seem to write for female characters (in many cases not for males either, but that's another story). My comments are simply based on the fact that they announced 7 new actors to the franchise and only 1 was a woman.

I don't think the OT should be held to the same modern PC standard, being from the 70's-80's.

The PT, I'm not saying is chock full o' chicks. But I also don't think they are devoid of them either.

Totally. I understand the various reasons for the lack of females in the OT, but the lack in the PT does surprise me. They do introduce Shaak-ti and Aayla, two kickass female Jedi, but they only have personalities and development in their animated versions. There was also the Kaminoan scientist, and I think an older Jedi librarian, in Episode II.

Edit: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Taun_We and http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jocasta_Nu

Everyone can stop panicking now!!!

Whew...

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/04/30/breaking-star-wars-episode-vii-cast-still-not-complete-1388819?utm_source=fb-channel-scifi-movie-channel&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=breaking-star-wars-episode-vii-cast-still-not-complete&subscribe_to=1388819#!G5Q7m

Everyone can stop panicking now!!!

Whew...

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/04/30/breaking-star-wars-episode-vii-cast-still-not-complete-1388819?utm_source=fb-channel-scifi-movie-channel&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=breaking-star-wars-episode-vii-cast-still-not-complete&subscribe_to=1388819#!G5Q7m

Lol well I'll be happy if the rumors are true. To be honest I'd like to see more cast in general, I think one of the problems of the PT was dependence on too few characters to drive the plot. There were a lot of characters but only a handful who meant anything.

So how does everyone feel about that little "Disney's" logo above STAR WARS?

So how does everyone feel about that little "Disney's" logo above STAR WARS?

Didn't even notice it on my own to be honest.

That's not an official poster, just a fanmade thing.

So how does everyone feel about that little "Disney's" logo above STAR WARS?

Well, they do own the intellectual property, so.

And even if it were real, it's accurate. Ep 7-9 will be Disney's Star Wars, with Disney able to exert creative control if they want to. Even if you don't like that fact, that doesn't make it less of a fact.

as they are private citizens using this nebulous concept called freedom.

This whole line of thought is nonsensical. The government is not taking away Star Wars screenwriters' ability to write plots and cast as they choose. People on a forum who can affect precisely 0% of the finished product aren't somehow tyrannical for suggesting that the info they've seen is not quite what they had hoped for in the ideal Star Wars inside their minds.

There's no freedom being infringed on. Invoking the concept of freedom just raises the implication that freedom is being infringed when choices by private citizens are criticized by other private citizens. That frequently seems to happen whenever someone says "they're expressing their freedom." Freedom has nothing to do with this discussion.

If you are trying to ram your opinion down someone else's throat as superior you are infringing on their freedom. I said nothing about unconstitutional which would make it a government vs. the people issue. People insisting on imposing artificial % breakdowns on society are not about freedom, they are about imposing their perspective on others which is tyranny.