Once again, how is it trouble? Are you troubled by seeing a woman in a leading role? Does seeing an Asian rebel make you feel weird? Why are their presence anything different, their characters are what matters not the race or gender. You said that aiming for diversity is funding problems where there is none but I can easily say your obvious problem with it is just as unfounded. I can say that your problem with it is the exact reason they are doing it. To make people aware that the world is diverse, that women and races are equal and that white males are not always the heroes. To give little kids a array of different people to look up to.

You're right. I never saw a woman before. I'm glad Disney is showing me how diverse the world is.

There is no problem having a female leading role. The problem comes from the characterization. Disney isn't doing this to serve the story, but to serve an agenda. It comes through in the writing, acting, and feel of the movie. Granted, this is just a trailer, but already we know that this 5'3" pretty girl is going to be sassy, chafe at authority, be a weapons expert, and apparently able to take out a squad of soldiers in hand to hand combat. Just feels forced to me.

Would it have been that much better if that exact same scene had happened with the exact same character except now they had a *****?

I for one am glad to see more female characters in Star Wars. None of the movies had that many women compared to men. The OT pretty much had just Leia character-wise, every other woman was little more than a prop and had to have the EU explain them to us. The only women 'actual' characters the prequel trilogy had was Anakin's mom, Padme' and her decoy. All of which died by the end. And even in TFA Rey didn't do much... she even got captured and tossed into the damsel in distress cliche'.

Love the look of this, despite the theme being around the first Death Star, it almost looks like we might see a different side to the Star Wars universe. One of military strategy, scum and little focus if any on the rather stiff Jedi characters we have seen in the past.

Once again, how is it trouble? Are you troubled by seeing a woman in a leading role? Does seeing an Asian rebel make you feel weird? Why are their presence anything different, their characters are what matters not the race or gender. You said that aiming for diversity is funding problems where there is none but I can easily say your obvious problem with it is just as unfounded. I can say that your problem with it is the exact reason they are doing it. To make people aware that the world is diverse, that women and races are equal and that white males are not always the heroes. To give little kids a array of different people to look up to.

Agenda first, story after.

I dont expect they agonized at all over the casting of General Hux, but Abrams was concerned enough about the agenda to cast Cumberbach as Khan. Hiddleston gets to be Loki, but were going to make Thor a woman. Baron Mordo can be made black, but only because he's not really the bad guy, and Tilda Swinton is perfectly cast as a 100 year old Asian man.

But what of Star Wars? How does the agenda address existing white male heroes? Here's the hint, it involves a lightsaber the chest and falling off a bridge.

I was confused by your argument until I googled it. The marvel branch of Disney and the Star Wars branch have two different executive directors, they do not share the same anything other then a financial tie. What Star Wars shows and what marvel shows is different. But say they have an agenda as you call it. What does it matter if a person who is key in retrieving the Death Star plans happens to be female? How does that change the story or effect it in any way? It gives a woman a great role to play and children everywhere a really good role model that is female kicking ass instead of being helpless. (As they were often in the 70s - 90s media). There's also 3 men on the team of Rogue one, two who are Asian, which all will be great role models for kids.

As for Han? He should have died in Return of the Jedi, they fixed that mistake. All your favourite men are still alive, don't worry. And Han gets his own story coming soon and Rebels has a bunch of male characters for you to get your male fix with.

so, how is "the agenda" Coming before story in this case?

A friend and I have already begun debating this movie. He argues that it is a chick-flick and does not feel like Star Wars. As for chick-flick, I don't know where he's getting that, but I think the reason people don't think this feels like Star Wars is that it's not centered around the Force. Why does everyone think that's all this universe is about?

If you can't see how casting a man or a woman in the same role changes things, I really don't know how to explain things to you.

Lets go back to basics. You do know men and women are different, right? Both mentally any physically they have different characteristics?

And this crap is prevalent in *all branches of Disney media, from ABC broadcasting, to Marvel, to ESPN, to Lifetime, to the Muppets. You have a massive kraken-like entity hell bent on tearing down and rewriting Western civilization to mimic its own progressive vision of utopia. And the screwed up thing is, once they own you, the *own you. You tow the party line or you are out of a job. Even recent acquisitions like Mark Hamill are making public statements denouncing American values.

I've seen men who are muscle bound and love cars. I've seen men who really enjoy gardening and are thin as twigs, I've met big men who talk about their emotions and do tai chi, I've met men who seem to be without emotion and are complete straight face most of their life.

I've met women who love pink and clothes, women who are wrestlers and think dinosaurs are awesome, I've met military trained pilots who are women and could kick my ass and kill a person if needed, I've met rational and emotional and some great variety.

So yes, men and women can be different mentally and physically from each other. From what I see there is a character in this movie that seems to take charge, have a problem with authority, be physically capable, and not easily scared. This character I just described, I used all character traits. So, now that it comes to describing them physically, does it change the character as a part of the story to say "they have a *****" or "they have a ******"

Oh my god! The filter takes out the female sexual organ, the exact term for it, but not *****. What is that?!? That's so stupid.

For those wondering, my above post, the word censored is va-gi-na

Which is a female sexual organ used in reproduction.

Oh my god! The filter takes out the female sexual organ, the exact term for it, but not *****. What is that?!? That's so stupid.

For those wondering, my above post, the word censored is va-gi-na

Which is a female sexual organ used in reproduction.

Regardless, this has strayed from simple star wars to a discussion about cultural Marxism, censorship, and the destruction of American values. I'm not sure this is the right place to have this discussion.

I will say your broad application of the anecdotal fallacy doesn't change the basics of the argument. You cannot boil the differences in genders to nothing but sexual organs.

Sorry Sam, but I'm with CheapCreep on this one. I don't see the problem with having 'another' female lead. Women are just as capable of being strong as men are.

Besides, I doubt there is any ulterior motive... its most likely just coincidental timing that we have 2 new female leads in 2 new Star Wars movies back to back.

"Many Bothans died to bring us this information," Mon Montha softly spoke, her heart heavy with sorrow. She turns away from the assembled combatants for a moment, and thought, "To bad little precocious little street urchin we used to steal the first Death Star plans wasn't available."

So should I pick up my guitar and play taps for the Kyle Katarn. Is this the official notification that he's been wiped away by the mouse?

He's been renamed to Kanan, he got a bit of a change in character though, won't spoil it.

Sorry Sam, but I'm with CheapCreep on this one. I don't see the problem with having 'another' female lead. Women are just as capable of being strong as men are.

Besides, I doubt there is any ulterior motive... its most likely just coincidental timing that we have 2 new female leads in 2 new Star Wars movies back to back.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous assertion if your definition of strong = physical strength. They are biologically incapable "of being strong as men are." I'm sure it will be taken as such, but this is not an attack against women. Simply an acknowledgement of biological fact. It isn't insulting to say a leopard doesn't swim as well as a shark.

Sorry Sam, but I'm with CheapCreep on this one. I don't see the problem with having 'another' female lead. Women are just as capable of being strong as men are.

Besides, I doubt there is any ulterior motive... its most likely just coincidental timing that we have 2 new female leads in 2 new Star Wars movies back to back.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous assertion if your definition of strong = physical strength. They are biologically incapable "of being strong as men are." I'm sure it will be taken as such, but this is not an attack against women. Simply an acknowledgement of biological fact. It isn't insulting to say a leopard doesn't swim as well as a shark.

Are you a man? I bet there is a woman out there in the world that could beat you up.

I rest my case.

Sorry Sam, but I'm with CheapCreep on this one. I don't see the problem with having 'another' female lead. Women are just as capable of being strong as men are.

Besides, I doubt there is any ulterior motive... its most likely just coincidental timing that we have 2 new female leads in 2 new Star Wars movies back to back.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous assertion if your definition of strong = physical strength. They are biologically incapable "of being strong as men are." I'm sure it will be taken as such, but this is not an attack against women. Simply an acknowledgement of biological fact. It isn't insulting to say a leopard doesn't swim as well as a shark.

Are you a man? I bet there is a woman out there in the world that could beat you up.

I rest my case.

I know a few. Ronda Rousey could be me up. Ronda spends every waking moment training to fight. I do not. Ronda could not beat up Jon Jones. If fact, the most elite female fighters in the world would be hard pressed to beat even the lowest ranked professional male fighters. There are a lot of woman that play hockey better than me too, but that doesn't mean they could compete in the NHL. Your argument is fallacious. Of the 29 hand-selected women of elite fitness who attempted to pass the Marine Infantry Officers course, not one of them made it. This is a course with about a 25% attrition rate among men. If you get into the more elite units like SEAL, there is a 75% attrition rate. As a BUDS candidate in 1990 who developed bronchopneumonia, as a result of hypothermia, and was rendered medically disqualified from diving due to scar tissue in my lungs, I can assure you that no woman will every pass BUDs without it being severely gimped in their favor.

Women handle pain differently. Women handle emotions differently. Women think differently and approach problems differently.

NONE of these differences are "bad" or "worse". The *are, however, less suited to warfare and armed conflict. So why does Disney insist on casting women in roles where they have to be good at being men, rather than casting women in roles where they can be good at being women?

As I said, I'm not trying to insult women. I dated a woman Marine for a bit. I've met plenty of women in my 2 years of Army and 20 years of Navy that I thought were dutiful professionals I was proud to serve with, but as Sam said, there are things women are better suited too, and combat arms is not among them. For all this talk about giving women bigger roles, the only thing that filmmakers ever make is action gurl movies. Not very creative.

The "men are more physically capable" argument is unfounded. Men in North American culture are raised to be physical by the societal rolls the culture puts them into. In cultures where women share the physical work with the men (Somoan) the women are just as physically capable, strong, and muscular as the men because they are raised to be equal.

Now, The role of genders in Westetn society are seeing a shift and media is showing that fact. I'm not American, but in my country women are on their way to being able to do whatever a man can do. I'm sorry if in America it's still an uncomfortable notion.

I know a few. Ronda Rousey could be me up. Ronda spends every waking moment training to fight. I do not. Ronda could not beat up Jon Jones. If fact, the most elite female fighters in the world would be hard pressed to beat even the lowest ranked professional male fighters. There are a lot of woman that play hockey better than me too, but that doesn't mean they could compete in the NHL. Your argument is fallacious. Of the 29 hand-selected women of elite fitness who attempted to pass the Marine Infantry Officers course, not one of them made it. This is a course with about a 25% attrition rate among men. If you get into the more elite units like SEAL, there is a 75% attrition rate. As a BUDS candidate in 1990 who developed bronchopneumonia, as a result of hypothermia, and was rendered medically disqualified from diving due to scar tissue in my lungs, I can assure you that no woman will every pass BUDs without it being severely gimped in their favor.

As said on the page before by Sam, these are abnormal circumstances. If Disney makes a movie about a woman who is the strongest wrestler in the world or the best marine in the army, I'll say they are putting diversity before story. Right now, it's a woman as a fighter/soldier in a rebel faction and a girl scavenger who turns into a space wizard. So, I think they are equally as capable as men for these roles and it effects the story in no way.

Women handle pain differently. Women handle emotions differently. Women think differently and approach problems differently.

NONE of these differences are "bad" or "worse". The *are, however, less suited to warfare and armed conflict. So why does Disney insist on casting women in roles where they have to be good at being men, rather than casting women in roles where they can be good at being women?

How can it NOT be 'bad' or 'worse' yet also be less suited to the main premise of the movie(s)? Also pretty sure the Rebellion can't be choosy when it comes to deciding to what gender can and can't do whatever. They'll take anyone.

I lived in Hawaii for four and a half years. Somoan women are in no way as strong as Somoan men. I hate to keep laboring the point, but it is biology. Once men hit puberty they develop 40% more upper body muscle mass and 30% more lower body mass. If a man and a woman train for an equal amount of time in anything that requires muscular output, men will increase faster than women. Again I go back to my previous post. The women of the most elite fitness in the world could not compete against males who have trained equally as much. If you look at the Bench Press records for certified life-time drug free competitors, the top woman, weighing 198 lbs, is 363 lbs. The top man at her weight class is 595 lbs. The top man period was 699 lbs.

I'll return to my point yet again. Of 29 hand-selected for the purpose of passing, women of elite fitness levels, who attempted to pass the Marine Infantry Officers Course, not one of them made it. That is a course that is a 25% attrition rate for men. So clearly, women cannot do "whatever a man can do".

I know a few. Ronda Rousey could be me up. Ronda spends every waking moment training to fight. I do not. Ronda could not beat up Jon Jones. If fact, the most elite female fighters in the world would be hard pressed to beat even the lowest ranked professional male fighters. There are a lot of woman that play hockey better than me too, but that doesn't mean they could compete in the NHL. Your argument is fallacious. Of the 29 hand-selected women of elite fitness who attempted to pass the Marine Infantry Officers course, not one of them made it. This is a course with about a 25% attrition rate among men. If you get into the more elite units like SEAL, there is a 75% attrition rate. As a BUDS candidate in 1990 who developed bronchopneumonia, as a result of hypothermia, and was rendered medically disqualified from diving due to scar tissue in my lungs, I can assure you that no woman will every pass BUDs without it being severely gimped in their favor.

As said on the page before by Sam, these are abnormal circumstances. If Disney makes a movie about a woman who is the strongest wrestler in the world or the best marine in the army, I'll say they are putting diversity before story. Right now, it's a woman as a fighter/soldier in a rebel faction and a girl scavenger who turns into a space wizard. So, I think they are equally as capable as men for these roles and it effects the story in no way.

The subject became a discussion on women being physically equal to men. I don't have a problem with women being soldiers in a combat unit in the movies. I very much like Vasquez in Aliens. What I have a problem with is that stealing the plans to the death star is left to some street urchin, petty criminal, and not professional commandos. If the woman was a professional commando, like one of my favorite characters, Kerrigan from StarCraft Lore, I wouldn't have been as annoyed with the trailer.

I know a few. Ronda Rousey could be me up. Ronda spends every waking moment training to fight. I do not. Ronda could not beat up Jon Jones. If fact, the most elite female fighters in the world would be hard pressed to beat even the lowest ranked professional male fighters. There are a lot of woman that play hockey better than me too, but that doesn't mean they could compete in the NHL. Your argument is fallacious. Of the 29 hand-selected women of elite fitness who attempted to pass the Marine Infantry Officers course, not one of them made it. This is a course with about a 25% attrition rate among men. If you get into the more elite units like SEAL, there is a 75% attrition rate. As a BUDS candidate in 1990 who developed bronchopneumonia, as a result of hypothermia, and was rendered medically disqualified from diving due to scar tissue in my lungs, I can assure you that no woman will every pass BUDs without it being severely gimped in their favor.

As said on the page before by Sam, these are abnormal circumstances. If Disney makes a movie about a woman who is the strongest wrestler in the world or the best marine in the army, I'll say they are putting diversity before story. Right now, it's a woman as a fighter/soldier in a rebel faction and a girl scavenger who turns into a space wizard. So, I think they are equally as capable as men for these roles and it effects the story in no way.

The subject became a discussion on women being physically equal to men. I don't have a problem with women being soldiers in a combat unit in the movies. I very much like Vasquez in Aliens. What I have a problem with is that stealing the plans to the death star is left to some street urchin, petty criminal, and not professional commandos. If the woman was a professional commando, like one of my favorite characters, Kerrigan from StarCraft Lore, I wouldn't have been as annoyed with the trailer.

Wow, I didn't know you saw the entire movie already or read the script!

The "men are more physically capable" argument is unfounded. Men in North American culture are raised to be physical by the societal rolls the culture puts them into. In cultures where women share the physical work with the men (Somoan) the women are just as physically capable, strong, and muscular as the men because they are raised to be equal.

Now, The role of genders in Westetn society are seeing a shift and media is showing that fact. I'm not American, but in my country women are on their way to being able to do whatever a man can do. I'm sorry if in America it's still an uncomfortable notion.

Media is not "showing that fact", media if *creating that myth*. Any shift you see in normal gender roles is artificially introduced by the same people. When you have as big and as pervasive a megaphone as Disney, you can fool a *lot of people.

I have no idea what country you come from, bub, but the science doesn't back it up. Men and women are not interchangeable and their differences go quite a bit further than sex organs.

Yes Patrick, the physical differences between men and women make a female protagonist less suited to gruntysweatyactionshooty. So, the question is, why do they insist on casting them there? I would lay more money than I own that the story is not going to be about her overcoming her weaknesses. No, she's going to be like Rey, a mystical "grrl power!" character who is better than to boys at hand to hand combat and machinery she's never seen before by virtue of no other quality than her bearing a uterus and the fact that if she is portrayed as having ANY WEAKNESSES WHATSOEVER then there is going to be a lot of nasty letters from angry feminists.

Only males are allowed to be portrayed as flawed.