1 minute ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

The reason I think it it's not a valid criticism is that it is a term invented to title a problem that was invented. It was used as the name of the main character in a fan fiction for Star trek. There character wooed Kirk, impressed Spock, showed Scotty a thing or two about engineering, etc. The problem is that being a knowledgeable or successful character is not a valid criticism. As long as the story deals with that in an interesting way. If you have read the name of the wind by Patrick Rothfuss you can see what I mean. Kvothe learns things almost instantly and becomes more and more capable as the story goes on but the story deals with it in ways that are engaging and interesting. Kvothe is not a Mary Sue. Rey is not a Mary Sue.

Well said. Most people don't realize how the characters follow Joseph Campbell's Hero of 1000 Faces journey, which is representing in legends and stories throughout history. The Hero's Journey is about going from step to step growing a long the way.

Plus as Rian Johnson said perfectly, every Force power added from ANH on was added to serve as a plot device. I can think of three in ESB alone: Luke learned telekinesis to show his growth in the Force, Luke learned to see far away places to know to rush off to try and save Han and Leia, and he learned to communicate to Leia so he wouldn't have been left hanging on an pole.

2 hours ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

The term Mary Sue is the dumbest and laziest criticism a person can give. It means nothing concrete and is usually only used against female characters.

If a male character meets the Mary Sue definition they are called a "Marty Stu".

The "definition" of a Mary Sue or Marty Stu is a "self insert" character that can do everything practically instantly.

By this definition, Luke Skywalker is a borderline Marty Stu.

I liked the trailer, looking forward to the movie but am not yet sold on the actor portraying Solo. Hopefully it’ll be okey in the movie itself.?

33 minutes ago, Indy_com said:

If a male character meets the Mary Sue definition they are called a "Marty Stu".

The "definition" of a Mary Sue or Marty Stu is a "self insert" character that can do everything practically instantly.

By this definition, Luke Skywalker is a borderline Marty Stu.

I know that. There is a reason though that you almost never see the term Marty Stu used. When you have a male character who is perfect at everything, he is "an action hero" or "it's just dumb fun" but a female character gets to be a Mary Sue because heaven forbid that there be a female wish fulfillment character along with all the John Carters, Luke Skywalkers, Batmans, Count of Monte Cristos and Kvothes.

I prefer an explained "can do anything" hero to a flawless with no reason one.

If the main character doesn't F-up at least once they're just not "real" enough.

43 minutes ago, VAYASAN said:

I again respectfully disagree. I dont care if its 4 women in Ghostbusters....what I care is they say there are 4 women so they can show how strong women can be(what utter nonsense).

I care that Disney Creative director goes and does promotional work for TLJ wearing 'The force is Female'. I wouldnt expect them to wear 'its male' either (or black...or white).

Just get on with it and make great films, leave pushing male or female issues out of it.....regardless of whoever leads a film.

I have no problem with women in films whatsoever, Jyn Urso and Rogue 1 were amazing, they just got on with it and let the film speak for itself.

Are there any movies or tv shows you like that have been made in the last ten years? I’m trying to think of any that don’t push a particular agenda and can’t think of any.

42 minutes ago, VAYASAN said:

I again respectfully disagree. I dont care if its 4 women in Ghostbusters....what I care is they say there are 4 women so they can show how strong women can be(what utter nonsense).

I care that Disney Creative director goes and does promotional work for TLJ wearing 'The force is Female'. I wouldnt expect them to wear 'its male' either (or black...or white).

Just get on with it and make great films, leave pushing male or female issues out of it.....regardless of whoever leads a film.

I have no problem with women in films whatsoever, Jyn Urso and Rogue 1 were amazing, they just got on with it and let the film speak for itself.

I understand what you're saying. I don't believe in identity politics as it tends to inflame debate more than actually helps. At the same time representation in Hollywood has been an issue and with good cause since "fans" attack movies for any efforts to have diversity. I have a daughter and I want her to identify with a strong heroine which is sadly lacking in most movies today.

Movies and actors should be praised for the strength of their stories and the quality of the acting, regardless of sex, color or whatever. Everyone should have their moment of being a kid and wanting to be Luke Skywalker or Jyn Erso or Rey Needsalastname.

I see it bothers you a lot and I ask you to ask yourself why? If someone says a movie is about strong female empowerment, why does it affect you so deeply to have an emotional response? I ask you to take a look at responses people were making about Kellie Marie Tran when the official Star Wars site or Mark Hamill wished her a happy birthday. I ask you to read the story about the Latino child who watched Rogue One and was so happy to see a character that sounded like him. Everyone has an opinion. You'll disagree with some, agree with others. You might see Kathleen Kennedy (I'm assuming) wearing a pro-female shirt, but ask yourself, why does she have to? The best thing anyone can do in life is a make an informed opinion and you can only do that by looking at all sides of the equation and it starts with you asking yourself some tough questions.

...and another thread goes off the rails

2 hours ago, Indy_com said:

If a male character meets the Mary Sue definition they are called a "Marty Stu".

The "definition" of a Mary Sue or Marty Stu is a "self insert" character that can do everything practically instantly.

By this definition, Luke Skywalker is a borderline Marty Stu.

Never heard of Marty Stu before. Actually I always used Mary Sue for both genders.

Personally I don’t think Luke is a Mary Sue. All the Powers he gets is through training/instructions by/with the most powerful Jedi. He fails several times during the original Triology (Dark Side cave, being impatient costs him his hand, overconfidence almost gets him (and most likely Leia) killed in Jabba’s Palace).

Rey doesn’t train in E7 and only basically trains herself in E8. Even the Dark Side cannot really tempt her. That - so far, missing one further movie - qualifies her as a flawless, boring character.

I liked the Trailer and have a better feeling about Solo than I had when I watched the first trailer for E8 (which I really disliked at the end). The visuals remind me of Rogue One (which I really liked )!

All art is political. The author is dead.

46 minutes ago, Rentner65 said:

Rey doesn’t train in E7 and only basically trains herself in E8. Even the Dark Side cannot really tempt her. That - so far, missing one further movie - qualifies her as a flawless, boring character.

She already knew how to fight and her aptitude for the force scares Luke. It's addressed in the story.

7 hours ago, VictoryLeo said:

Well said. Most people don't realize how the characters follow Joseph Campbell's Hero of 1000 Faces journey, which is representing in legends and stories throughout history. The Hero's Journey is about going from step to step growing a long the way.

Plus as Rian Johnson said perfectly, every Force power added from ANH on was added to serve as a plot device. I can think of three in ESB alone: Luke learned telekinesis to show his growth in the Force, Luke learned to see far away places to know to rush off to try and save Han and Leia, and he learned to communicate to Leia so he wouldn't have been left hanging on an pole.

To be fair, the idea that force users can communicate or sense long distance in ESB was itself already present in ANH, ESB just recycled it.

That quibble aside, TFA and TLJ were great movies, and the newer cast members (and their characters) are all fun to watch.

Looking at the trailers, I think the movie is set at least 5-10 years before ANH. I think closer to 10

First, the falcon is CLEAN. SPOTLESS. Its going to take some time for hans neglect of her to yellow all that white that much. and loose all those panels on her hull.

The actor is clearly younger than Ford was (27ish), and he seems much less jaded and at ease in his own self (so young adult still finding his way)

In ANH Solo boasts about the Falcons noteriety and the Kessel run. Indicating she has been in other antics that apprently cause some level of (in)famy thorughout the galaxy or at least the outer rim

Lando clearly needs some time to get over his loss of the falcon, then build up his capitol to aquire Cloud City.

Chewie needs to develop a relationship with Han (and the Falcon) to reach the familiar rapore we see in ANH

Actually, thinking about it..... This movie should be called "Falcon". thats the real origin story everyone cares about

6 hours ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

She already knew how to fight and her aptitude for the force scares Luke. It's addressed in the story.

Well then this all leads back to the main complain I have about E8 ( with which I’m not alone, I know): I don’t like the story and I don’t like how they treated the characters from the old movies.

I don’t need Luke to completely destroy the First Order Army but I really didn’t like what he had become: a old, grumpy scared man that even tries to strike down his own nephew. In my eyes he would have deserved a more meaningful death (like Han) and not be the reason of the end of the Jedi.

Chewie is not allowed to tell close friends about Hans death, that’s always done by a stranger (Rey).

Lando doesn’t even appear. Is not even mentioned.

New roles are introduced, to die 30 min later (the Rebel Admiral) while Old Veterans die as Side notes. (Akbar, Mothma, Dodonna).

Poe Damaron takes several poor decisions after another, people die because of him, but in the end is promoted to the Leader of the Resistance.

The Resitance is basically done at the end of E8: 10-15 people escape from Krayt, Fleet is destroyed, nobody answered the cry for help, yet we hear that this is just the start of it. I made no sense to me.

I also thought that the whole starship chasing story was boring /too long.

Also: does a flawless, boring character becomes better if his flawlessness is explained? I’m not sure I’m general for Rey I personally think it would have been better to give her a different story. Star Wars already had a super flawless character: Anakin. Anakin at least had this change to and back to/from the dark side that Rey does not (yet) have.

While I don't want to get into arguing about TLJ, I do want to say a few things about this idea of Mary Sues/Flawless characters. First of all a "perfect" character, even a main protagonist, is not in of itself a bad thing.

There are plenty of great stories with characters that could easily be called a Mary Sue.

Batman: While he does appear to have flaws these flaws only drive him towards being more excellent at what he does. The death of his parents and his obsession with crime drive his perfection. In that light they are not really flaws as they are flaws chosen specifically to complement his strength. There are many wonderful Batman stories and, as the most popular superhero of all time, you can agree that he is a successful character.

The Count of Monte Cristo: Again, driven by a flaw, but essentially perfect in every other way. Unlimited wealth, speaks multiple languages, advanced knowledge of chemistry... He really is the early 19th century Batman.

Every Edgar Rice Burroughs character: John Carter, Tarzan, Carson Napier... These chiseled hunks of manmeat don't even know what the word flaw means.

My point is that it is not the flaws that make these characters interesting. It is how they apply their strengths to their problems. Nobody really cares how batman or the count learned everything they know, they care about how they use their superhuman abilities in the context of the story.

Let's talk about Rey. What are her strengths? Hand to hand combat, piloting and using the force. Not exactly Edmond Dantes here. And her flaws? She is naive, abrasive, idealistic, emotionally damaged and tied to a failing insurgency. But the point is that it does not matter what her strengths or flaws or lack thereof are. What matters is how they interact in the context of the story. Again, I don't want to get into a huge TLJ discussion but the character of Rey is solid.

4 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:

This is so good! Such a great looking villain!

2 hours ago, devin.pike.1989 said:

While I don't want to get into arguing about TLJ, I do want to say a few things about this idea of Mary Sues/Flawless characters. First of all a "perfect" character, even a main protagonist, is not in of itself a bad thing.

There are plenty of great stories with characters that could easily be called a Mary Sue.

Batman: While he does appear to have flaws these flaws only drive him towards being more excellent at what he does. The death of his parents and his obsession with crime drive his perfection. In that light they are not really flaws as they are flaws chosen specifically to complement his strength. There are many wonderful Batman stories and, as the most popular superhero of all time, you can agree that he is a successful character.

The Count of Monte Cristo: Again, driven by a flaw, but essentially perfect in every other way. Unlimited wealth, speaks multiple languages, advanced knowledge of chemistry... He really is the early 19th century Batman.

Every Edgar Rice Burroughs character: John Carter, Tarzan, Carson Napier... These chiseled hunks of manmeat don't even know what the word flaw means.

My point is that it is not the flaws that make these characters interesting. It is how they apply their strengths to their problems. Nobody really cares how batman or the count learned everything they know, they care about how they use their superhuman abilities in the context of the story.

Let's talk about Rey. What are her strengths? Hand to hand combat, piloting and using the force. Not exactly Edmond Dantes here. And her flaws? She is naive, abrasive, idealistic, emotionally damaged and tied to a failing insurgency. But the point is that it does not matter what her strengths or flaws or lack thereof are. What matters is how they interact in the context of the story. Again, I don't want to get into a huge TLJ discussion but the character of Rey is solid.

Well I guess it’s just a matter of personal taste then... I still believe that they should have given her a different, more genuine story. It might have lead to less discussion and created something new.

For that they would have needed a different situation /start point of course. I’m still sad that they haven’t chosen a more ambitious approach regarding this triology. They played it save and reused / retold story elements from the original triology. In that logic it makes sense to reintroduce similar characters (Rey -Anakin). Maybe the new Triology that is not connected to the original one will deliver something better.

Anywho.... solo.....

On 2/6/2018 at 2:53 AM, Jabby said:

Same. I like this new track

Going to admit this was the one thing I really didn't like in the trailer. Well, at least when it broke into the Star Wars theme towards the end. Just something that didn't gel with me.

23 hours ago, VAYASAN said:

Thats kinda my point, he looks and sounds nothing like him...which if there were a decent amount of time between the films it might seem ok, but this is just before...and its a different bloke with different voice etc?

Just seems odd.

Well... it was kind of inevitable? They couldn't have Harrison Ford playing him (obviously), so it was going to be someone different, and unless they did a flawless impression of Ford's Han Solo it was going to be different.

Now, I personally was not looking for this film. I have seen enough of the characters I know. I really liked Rogue One, and would have liked to have more films like that, with new characters we haven't heard mentioned before (and the fact that this next film is a Boba Fett one irritates me... unless they turn him into the hired mercenary thug that even Vader has to tell to "Cool it", rather than the "Villain with a code" that various EU presentations have shown him as). I also have my doubts of the lead, based on some of the comments that have leaked out, and I will admit also his appearance in the trailer... something doesn't quite sit with me as him being Han Solo. A little too generic "roguish action hero". Ok, that is what Han Solo is, but he is also has his unique elements. However, the rest of the trailer... looks good. Genuinely surprised by how much I felt "I now want to see this film."

21 hours ago, Jabby said:

The thing is, not everyone who watches the movie reads the books watches rebels etc, so they need a strong female lead who they can use to keep feminists off their backs. I dont like that Rey was a mary sue, but at least it was explained where her force power comes from (balance). Im fine with female lead ( Rogue one is my fav star wars movie, Jyn Erso was a bada**) but i really dont want politics getting into movies

Not having politics in movies is a political position. What is defined as "unpolitical" is an act of politics. It states that "This is all normal and how it should be and not examined and questioned." There have always been overtly political films since the days of silent film, but even those that aren't overtly political are a demonstration of the political norm at the time they were made. Note that the only reason it is noticeable that several films have recently been emphasising strong female leads in action roles is because until recently it wasn't common, and it still isn't the norm. I actually look at the current Star Wars films... and don't see much overt politics in the whole thing. It is actually quite subtle, the First Order aside.

And frankly, if they were having a "strong female lead" to avoid criticism, it seems to me that the criticism of those that have not liked the current direction of Star Wars has been much louder and more likely to hit profits than the criticism you might have got by some feminist academics for not having any strong female characters. OK, and maybe some dissapointed lines in some reviews which would have had no impact on the film's commercial success. Something along the lines of "Yet again we don't have many strong female characters, but the film is entertaining and well paced. Enjoyable entertainment if dissapointingly unadventurous and unwilling to move with the times."

13 hours ago, Indy_com said:

If a male character meets the Mary Sue definition they are called a "Marty Stu".

The "definition" of a Mary Sue or Marty Stu is a "self insert" character that can do everything practically instantly.

By this definition, Luke Skywalker is a borderline Marty Stu.

Well, if Rey is a Mary Sue, Luke is as well.

10 hours ago, Rentner65 said:

Personally I don’t think Luke is a Mary Sue. All the Powers he gets is through training/instructions by/with the most powerful Jedi. He fails several times during the original Triology (Dark Side cave, being impatient costs him his hand, overconfidence almost gets him (and most likely Leia) killed in Jabba’s Palace).

Rey doesn’t train in E7 and only basically trains herself in E8. Even the Dark Side cannot really tempt her. That - so far, missing one further movie - qualifies her as a flawless, boring character.

Trained by the most powerful Jedi? He gets shown how to use a lightsaber in the briefest period on the Millenium Falcon in a New Hope. Ok, maybe there is some additional training off screen during the earlier flight, or during their travels from his home to Mos Eisley... but nothing else on screen. And in that period he goes from "never handled a lightsaber before" (and we don't exactly have any evidence he is much of a fighter before the film starts) to "I can deflect bolts if a i concentrate very hard" and then (with what amounts to barely any more instruction from Obi Wan than "Do It.") to "I can deflect bolts without even seeing the target". By the time of Empire Strikes Back he pulls telekinesis out of nowhere (no one available to train him). He then gets some training (what, a couple days?) with Yoda, but he doesn't even really get any more abilities. In fact the training seems to be more... spiritual in nature, getting to connect better with himself, lose his limitations that his limited thinking create ("Size matters not!" Though of course Yoda is clearly lying there. Apparently Yoda lies... a lot). Then he comes back in RotJ (not having returned to Yoda for further training), able to use the Jedi Mind Trick (with all the training he received in it being seeing Obi-Wan doing it once back in New Hope), and as a bloody bad *** able to take a whole pirate crew pretty much by himself. He also is able then able to beat Darth Vader in a fight (when Vader had been easily beating aside his attacks in Empire).

This compares to Rey, who is implied to be a fighter already, though principly with a staff. Ok, she quite quickly learns how to use the "Mind Trick", but no faster than Luke learns how to use a lightsaber. Then she beats Kylo Ren in a fight. Ok, he is meant to be pretty serious foe, but he has been injured twice already (bowcaster, which has been shown to be pretty deadly, and Finn, just before he was knocked out), and Rey has existing skills to fall back on, unlike Luke. Given how much the Force seems to rely on a belief and openess to it, and given Rey's more open and believing nature... it isn't even surprising. As to the Dark Side not tempting her... were you watching a different film from me?

Ok, yes, this contradicts the prequels quite heavily, with years of training required to become skillful with the Force... but then they already contradicted their own origin material, so which do you go with?

3 hours ago, Rentner65 said:

I don’t need Luke to completely destroy the First Order Army but I really didn’t like what he had become: a old, grumpy scared man that even tries to strike down his own nephew. In my eyes he would have deserved a more meaningful death (like Han) and not be the reason of the end of the Jedi.

Chewie is not allowed to tell close friends about Hans death, that’s always done by a stranger (Rey).

Lando doesn’t even appear. Is not even mentioned.

New roles are introduced, to die 30 min later (the Rebel Admiral) while Old Veterans die as Side notes. (Akbar, Mothma, Dodonna).

Poe Damaron takes several poor decisions after another, people die because of him, but in the end is promoted to the Leader of the Resistance.

...

Also: does a flawless, boring character becomes better if his flawlessness is explained? I’m not sure I’m general for Rey I personally think it would have been better to give her a different story. Star Wars already had a super flawless character: Anakin. Anakin at least had this change to and back to/from the dark side that Rey does not (yet) have.

Anakin is a super flawless character?

Luke never tried to strike down his own nephew. What horrified him, and so haunted him, was that he even considered doing it. Am I personally convinced by that storytelling decision? Not necessarily, but I am happy that this would shake Luke down to his core? Yes.

Chewie doesn' tell his friends about Han's death... ok, true. However, I suspect this has more to do with the audience, as 1) Chewie is a secondary character and always has been, so less audience focus and 2) he doesn't talk in English. Yes, they could have had the scene where Chewie barks sorrowfully to his friends, and we only get one half of the conversation. Not the easiest scene to get emotionally invested in.

Lando doesn't appear... yes? He hasn't appeared in all the new films so far. Why would you expect him to feature in this one?

Old Veterans die as side notes: You do realise that for most of the audience these characters are side notes? Yes, Akbar is famous for "it's a trap!" but that is pretty much it for the films. You only get them as more significant characters if you started reading the books etc... and most of those aren't even canon anymore.

Poe Dameron does indeed make terrible choice after terrible choice. I don't think this was the best handled bit of the film. However, it was in part meant to be a story of him learning what he needed in order to be a proper leader of the resistance, so narratively it makes sense him then becoming the leader... though I will agree it could have been better handled. Particularly amusing seeing as originally the character was going to die in the first film.

Pretty excited for this. Looks a lot like Rogue One, which is definitely my favorite of the new movies.

I don't care if Rey is a Mary Sue or Marty Stu or whatever. She is simply a bad actress. Her charisma is just bottom barrel. She just seems so uncomfortable in any scene. Add to that the plot holes, disjointed scenes/settings, horrible joke insertions, etc. And at this point I'm ready for any Star Wars film that isn't part of the new trilogy. I don't dislike them because they do anything wrong or unique in the SW universe (gravity bombs, hyperspace sword, meh, whatever), I dislike them because if you took them out of the SW universe they're just be bad... Poor Leia and Finn. 2 good characters that could have rounded themselves out with character depth through their death and sacrifice, and we get Marry Poppins and a failure + cute kiss (and somehow jog back to friendly lines despite crashing right in front if the entire first order army). Rey's parents lived in a trailer park. Phasma is a walking trash can. Luke and Poe are comedy basement openers. These are all issues that would make any film goer cringe if you removed the SW gloss.

Give me a Solo movie with a good but simple plot, character progression, struggle, success, and some actually funny comedic relief (chromedome and prank phone calls... Sigh...), and I'm all on board. Rogue One hit all of these movie 101s pretty well.

its interesting seeing so many different opinions. Just taking the last post for example (Zeelobbys in case i get ninja'd....), i really disagree on so much.

- I love Reys parents being nobodies. Why does everybody have to be the child of somebody import? It's nice to see someone who is just "normal" actually do something important. None of this Chose One rubbish.

- I think Finn is awful in both movies, and Rey is far better as a character, actress and for fitting in the movies in general.

Nobody is wrong ultimately, i just always find it interesting how different things appeal or "work" for some people and not others. Though we do definitely agree with Phasma....

Too get back to the actual topic:

I don't want to get the Han Solo we see at the beginning of ANH. A (good) story needs character development so we need the protagonist BECOME the egoistic, professional and self observed personality all of us know and love.

Based on what we see in the trailer it might go this way: Han initially is a somewhat idealistic, empathic and caring character who enlisted to make a difference. After getting kicked out of the academy he keeps his attitude and becomes a criminal with a heart. Qi'ra (and/or Harrelsons character) then uses those traits to get close to him for an eventual betrayal which emotionally hits Han. This could make him getting disillusioned, not getting attached, only watch the profit and shoot first with his "good traits" being hidden deep in his core until partly resurfaced by the Rebellion and Leia.

Haha. It's fine. It's all just opinion in the end. I think for me it's that Rey constantly switches back and forth from completely lost, to "I got this". Her progression, or lack there of, isn't just missing in the timeline, but in her reactions/actions as well imo.

As for Finn, I agree he wasn't a great character in either. That said, he had an epic out which in retrospect would have added a lot to his character weight, and then they fumbled it.

The real shocker for me isn't the occasional issue with one character, but the minor-medium issues with all characters. Can't tell if that's lack of chemistry or just poor writing. I mean the writing doesn't help. I mean Finn and Rose literally sabotaged their whole mission by parking illegally on the beach, on a planet she'd been to before (or had knowledge of). A whole side quest that could have been avoided if someone had simply said "well we can take this ship and cut them all in half with one pilot's sacrifice". It all just seemed so unnecessary.

Compare this to rogue one which has a clear necessary progression. They have to find the defector, to get the message, to find her father, to get the plans to win the war. Cassians internal struggle, Jyn's loyalty to no one transfer to the cause, etc. Great character developments.

Excited for Solo. I feel like not being tied to 3 movie archs (which seemed poorly planned) can only help.

Don't get me wrong, Rogue One was by far a better movie than either Sequel one IMO, no argument from me.

If Solo is good (and it looks good, though i'm very far from sold on Alden Ehrenreich from the snippets so far) then i think it can only be a good thing for more "one off" movies, which in all honesty can quite easily be made stronger individually.

Also, on another note, i want Solo to end with him just starting to work for Jabba.....that would set up things nicely to lead into ANH, much like Rogue One did for Leia (if not quite as immediately).