Star Wars means a lot of things to a lot of people. There are the movies of course, books, games, music, costumes, etc. The existence of all of this external material means that people really enjoyed the world that was created in the original trilogy. At this point, the Extended Universe has A LOT of content some of it good and a lot of it bad.

The prequel movies were bad movies. Its sad as I really wanted the movies to be enjoyable. I am a child of the 80's and grew up loving the Original Movies. Ep 5 was the hotness and was on TV the most when growing up (arguably the best out of the original trilogy). We didn't have on-demand or even DVDs. We actually had to go to a store and 'rent' VHS tapes and REWIND them. What that means is that most kids in the 80's just watched what was on the tv b/c it was easy.

The original trilogy movies (Ep 4, 5, 6) are considered classics and still hold up today. That is such an amazing feat as so many of the movies made in the 70's and early 80's do not hold up and are pretty unwatchable today. The special effects were ground breaking, the musical scores amazing, the story was good. It made you 'feel' for the main characters especially Luke Skywalker. I do not think its controversial to say the Original Trilogy were 'good' movies; but perhaps not for everyone (my parents certainly do not care about Star Wars at all).

With Disney purchasing the Star Wars franchise, there was 'new hope'. The main problem with the prequels was that George Lucas had complete control. George had creative vision for the original trilogy but it was the rest of the crew that made the movies good. The prequels are the direct evidence that George is terrible at actually writing screen plays and should have left that up to professionals like he was forced to in Ep 5. Also, George is a terrible director which again he should have left up to the professionals.

With Disney, we got yet another George Lucas but this time her name is Kathleen Kennedy. Kathleen Kennedy is a dictator who doesn't allow the people she hires to do their job. She has a feminist agenda and that is to make the ' force is female '. The stories we have been getting from Disney are not only feminist leaning, but just poorly written.

Star Wars has always been an inclusive franchise. SW had strong lead female characters such as Princes Lea!!! Not to mention many different Alien Races. Meaning, there was no problems with diversity in the star wars universe. There is no need to force feminism into Star Wars movies or political agendas. But it seems that Star Wars is being used as a personal tool by Kathleen Kennedy. She wants to push an agenda and use the most profitable franchise in the history of film making.

This agenda has really hurt the Star Wars branding. Personally, I care less and less about the star wars movies as they come out. I didn't go to the theatre to watch Rouge Wan (which was good b/c that is a terrible movie). I went to the theatre to see Ep 7 and 8 and was thoroughly disappointed. At this stage, I won't be going to the theatre again for a SW movie. I will just wait for it to be available online and then probably just skip through it to see the space ships.

For me, there is nothing enjoyable about watching the Disney Star Wars movies. That sparkle of excitement, hope, and 'feeling' that I have for the original trilogy just doesn't exist in the new movies. The new movies are just as boring as the prequels. The story of the Disney Movies doesn't make any sense.

There are MANY MANY youtube videos that breakdown the problems with the Disney Star Wars Movies (as well as the prequels). But I recently found the following 2 videos. These videos are relatively short and don't get into to much detail. These videos capture the essence of the problems of the Disney Star Wars movies and do it with a comedic style. I highly recommend watching these 2 YT videos.

• Star Wars: The Farce Engorges - NSFW
• Rouge Wan: Another Star Wars Prequel - Take 2 - NSFW

If you love the prequels and/or the Disney Star Wars movies - GOOD FOR YOU. I wish I could enjoy them too. But I am older now, I have a graduate degree, and have watched many many movies. I generally dislike movies with huge plot holes because its my opinion that the writer and director don't respect the intelligence of the audience (my intelligence primarily). Basically, if the story doesn't make sense, I lose interest and stop watching the film. I forced myself to continue with Ep 8; if Ep 8 was not a star wars movie, I would have turned it off in the first 5 minutes.

Let me just clarify that I enjoy science fiction and am able to suspend my disbelief. So x-wing's and tie fighters having atmospheric physics in vacuum/no gravity is fine with me as long as its consistent. For instance, if all of a sudden, x-wings started having real physics in the middle of the battle without explanation, that would be very jarring, poor writing, and would cause me to lose interest.

Basically, I cannot enjoy Disney Star Wars movies because the writing is bad.

While I agree with a lot of what you're saying, I thought Rogue One was pretty good.

I liked it a lot more becauase of the cameos during Scarif, tbh. Without those it wouldn't have been as cool, I think. If only they'd had some extra footage of Pops, Tiree, and/or Jek...

You should really tag that post as NSFW @Rexler Brath , as while E:R makes many valid comments his videos also contain some extremely offensive and racist content.

I was looking forward to the sequel trilogy when it was announced. The trailers ("Chewie... we're home" were literally breathtaking. But it's clear Disney had little in the way of concrete plans for the story of the sequel trilogy. I gave The Force Awakens a pass at the time, but following the atrocity that was The Least Jedi, I've all but written off the sequels now as a wasted opportunity.

Rogue One, on the other hand... I'm 100% happy with Rogue One, and for me at least it's definitely the best Star Wars film since Return of the Jedi. It nails the style of the original films and adds to their story rather than taking away (something the other numbered episodes were guilty of). It's not flawless, but it does it's job well. The Star Wars universe is definitely better for having Director Krennic around.

13 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

You should really tag that post as NSFW @ Rexler Brath , as while E:R makes many valid comments his videos also contain some extremely offensive and racist content.

I have added NSFW to the text in the links. Sorry if that has caused any problems.

As for racist content, I think he was pointing out that in Hollywood, there is a disproportionate amount of Jewish People compared to the population but agree the term 'gem' is racist.

15 minutes ago, FTS Gecko said:

Rogue One, on the other hand... I'm 100% happy with Rogue One

I watched R1 at home. It took me about 3 nights to go through it as I was so bored. Rouge One is the Worst Movie of all Time does an excellent job of dissecting the vast problems with the movie. I am just curious if you are happy with the large and vast number of plot holes in R1?

17 minutes ago, Rexler Brath said:

I watched R1 at home. It took me about 3 nights to go through it as I was so bored. Rouge One is the Worst Movie of all Time does an excellent job of dissecting the vast problems with the movie. I am just curious if you are happy with the large and vast number of plot holes in R1?

I watched it at the cinema, and at home at least four times now. Still love it.

Putting aside the pathetically hyperbolic clickbait title, that video has an almost two hour running time. All that tells me is the author is a tryhard YouTuber who really loves the sound of his own voice.

Wow, I can't even begin to unpack everything in the OP. OTOH, in retort to the "feminist" agenda:

The OT feature Leia, Luke, Han.

The Sequels feature Rey, Poe, and Finn.

While RO features Jyn as the character the story is propelled by, it also features Cassian as a very main character, and K-2SO with masculine programming.

If Star Wars fails to be diverse, it is because it remains Humanocentric. I would really love a movie with an alien as the lead character and not a sidekick (sorry, Chewie).

An Ahsoka movie would be amazing.

1 minute ago, FTS Gecko said:

Putting aside the pathetically hyperbolic clickbait title, that video has an almost two hour running time. All that tells me is the author is a tryhard YouTuber who really loves the sound of his own voice.

I agree that title isn't very good. However, it takes about 2 hours to go through all of the plot holes. Hence why I put the more enjoyable and funny Rouge Wan in the OP. I can understand why you might not want to watch it though.

I personally think the first 5 minutes of Rouge One doesn't make any sense and to me, its the undertone of the entire film. What do you think about the various plot holes in the first 5 minutes of the film? What do you think of the military Planning around the Empire's Capture Mission of the Erso Family? What do you think of the Erso + Saw's plan when discovered by the Empire? Do you think those plans make any sense?

4 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

Wow, I can't even begin to unpack everything in the OP. OTOH, in retort to the "feminist" agenda:

The OT feature Leia, Luke, Han.

The Sequels feature Rey, Poe, and Finn.

While RO features Jyn as the character the story is propelled by, it also features Cassian as a very main character, and K-2SO with masculine programming.

If Star Wars fails to be diverse, it is because it remains Humanocentric. I would really love a movie with an alien as the lead character and not a sidekick (sorry, Chewie).

An Ahsoka movie would be amazing.

I make the very point that the Original Trilogy is diverse and has a strong female lead (LEI). Did you miss my point there?

If you don't believe Kathleen Kennedy has a faminist agenda for Star Wars, why does she wear a T-Shirt that says 'The Force is Female'?

Quote

Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/movies/star-wars-last-jedi-women-run-universe.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts

Why make the entire story group female if there isn't a feminist agenda?

1 hour ago, Rexler Brath said:

I make the very point that the Original Trilogy is diverse and has a strong female lead (LEI). Did you miss my point there?

If you don't believe Kathleen Kennedy has a faminist agenda for Star Wars, why does she wear a T-Shirt that says 'The Force is Female'?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/movies/star-wars-last-jedi-women-run-universe.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts

Why make the entire story group female if there isn't a feminist agenda?

No, I didn't. My point was that the male to female ratios are about the same.

I think RO is the best SW movie ever.

I hated VIII, but I liked VII.

So mostly, I don't have a problem with what's going on, with the exception that I think the baton was very poorly passed btn VII and VIII.

I will reserve judgement on Kennedy until I see Solo. If her "dictatorship" is really affecting movie production, Solo is probably the movie that will have the most issues.

Quote

Why make the entire story group female if there isn't a feminist agenda?

The story group is 63% male.

Making false claims like that just makes it look like you haven't done your research.

1 minute ago, Firespray-32 said:

The story group is 63% male.

Making false claims like that just makes it look like you haven't done your research.

Can you please explain the New York Times article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/movies/star-wars-last-jedi-women-run-universe.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Farts

Quote

Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female,

Quoted from said article:

"Today, the Lucasfilm story group is a diverse outlier in Hollywood: five of its members are people of color, and the team includes four women and seven men."

1 minute ago, Firespray-32 said:

Quoted from said article:

"Today, the Lucasfilm story group is a diverse outlier in Hollywood: five of its members are people of color, and the team includes four women and seven men."

The intention is clear though. She wanted the entire story group to be all women.

Quote

Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female,

8 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

Making false claims like that just makes it look like you haven't done your research.

Also, I have NOT made any false claims anywhere. My claim was

Quote

Why make the entire story group female if there isn't a feminist agenda?

So you are clearly strawmanning ME and are the only one here making false claims.

Because from the NYT, they clearly MADE the story group all women. And later on added the men into it.

Quote

Because from the NYT, they clearly MADE the story group all women. And later on added the men into it.

The full quote is this: "Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female, starting with Rayne Roberts and Carrie Beck."

So at this point the Story Group only has two people in it. Three if you include the founder.

If you strip this quote down to the facts all it says is that the first two people recruited into the story group were women. That's no more evidence of a sexist agenda than having the first two people you recruited be men.

4 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

The full quote is this: "Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female, starting with Rayne Roberts and Carrie Beck."

So at this point the Story Group only has two people in it. Three if you include the founder.

If you strip this quote down to the facts all it says is that the first two people recruited into the story group were women. That's no more evidence of a sexist agenda than having the first two people you recruited be men.

The article presents several FACTS in that sentence. If you strip out the fact you refuse to acknowledge, the sentence reads like this:
" Kathleen Kennedy founded the group in 2012 when she succeeded George Lucas as president of Lucasfilm, putting Kiri Hart, a former film and TV writer, in charge of the unit. Ms. Hart’s first move was to hire Rayne Roberts and Carrie Beck."
You see, removing 'to make the story group entirely female' removes the feminist FACT from the sentence. Because clearly, hiring a group based off of the gender of the members is sexist and fits the feminist 'agenda'. So who made that statement? Was it Ms Hart speaking to the author of the article or was it inserted by the author of the article? There is clearly an agenda there.

Quote

You see, removing 'to make the story group entirely female' removes the feminist FACT from the sentence. Because clearly, hiring a group based off of the gender of the members is sexist and fits the feminist 'agenda'. So who made that statement? Was it Ms Hart speaking to the author of the article or was it inserted by the author of the article? There is clearly an agenda there.

Where does it say that Rayne Roberts and Carrie Beck were hired because they were women?

It doesn't.

2 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

Where does it say that Rayne Roberts and Carrie Beck were hired because they were women?

It doesn't.

" Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female"

1 minute ago, Rexler Brath said:

" Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female"

A Story Group that previously had nobody in it.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned Elizabeth II he made the position of Monarch of England entirely female. Is there a sexist agenda there?

Just now, Firespray-32 said:

A Story Group that previously had nobody in it.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned Elizabeth II he made the position of Monarch of England entirely female. Is there a sexist agenda there?

Why is it so hard for you to admit that " Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female" is a feminist statement? I am clearly able to admit where I am incorrect or wrong; see my above replies in this very topic. If you do not accept that this statement is feminist, than we can just end our conversation here as there is no point going forward. You do not accept facts and choose to ignore them for ... 'reasons'.

I will give you that the story group is 'diverse' but that doesn't excuse the clearly feminist statement above.

You also do not want to address 'the force is female' shirt worn by Kennedy. I can understand why because that clearly is sexist and feminist.

Quote

Why is it so hard for you to admit that " Ms. Hart’s first move was to make the story group entirely female" is a feminist statement?

I don't see why it matters. How is it relevant to Kathleen Kennedy's management of LFL?

Quote

You also do not want to address 'the force is female' shirt worn by Kennedy. I can understand why because that clearly is sexist and feminist.

It's a shirt. There's nothing sexist about the words "The Force Is Female" themselves. There may be some deeper backstory to it but I suspect it's just a pun.

3 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

If I read that in isolation I'd have assumed it meant Ms. Hart removed all the men from the story group. If she did that because they were men then yes, that'd probably count as sexist.

However, as the context around the quote establishes, all Ms. Hart did was recruit two women into a previously empty story group. That's no more sexist than recruiting two men.

The phrasing of the article may be misleading but author's choice of words has nothing to do with the running of the Story Group. Therefore, I struggle to see the relevance to this discussion.

What does an author's poor choice of words have to do with Kathleen Kennedy's management of LFL?

That's a good question. The setup in those 'poor choice of words' is an agenda. And that follows onto the T-Shirt. The Force is Female

7 minutes ago, Firespray-32 said:

I prefer to address one thing at a time. As for the shirt, it's a shirt. There's nothing sexist about the words "The Force Is Female" themselves. There may be some deeper backstory to it but I suspect it's just a pun.

Unfortunately, when testing to see if there is an agenda, you cannot just look at 1 source of information. You must look at many sources.

The T-Shirt is not just a pun. What if the shirt said, the force is hitler? One might think the person wearing the shirt is a Neo Nazi. Just like most people that see a women wearing a t-shirt that states 'the force is female' will think that its feminist. Maybe you do not 'see' it, but most will.

If you are a Star Wars fan, you KNOW the force is gender-less. Its not female nor male. The head of star wars should KNOW or understand what the force is. Certainly she worked for Lucas and should have a good understanding of it. By assigning a gender to the force, clearly expresses her agenda.

Quote

“It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.” Obi-Wan Kenobi

Quote

"For my ally is the Force. And a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere! Yes, even between the land and the ship." - Yoda

There are other problems like Kennedy explicitly stating she wants to hire a Female Director because of the gender of the person not because of the person's merits. Its a clearly sexist goal. She is female and wants to hire other females. What if she was Black and said she wanted to hire a black director? Maybe you don't have a problem with people making sexist statements and just ignore them. I can accept that, but please do not go around telling others these statements are not sexist.

Quote

Certainly she worked for Lucas and should have a good understanding of it. By assigning a gender to the force, clearly expresses her agenda.

I looked up where these shirts actually come from.

They're made by Nike. Nike launched a marketing campaign targeted towards women with the tagline "The Force Is Female." Nothing to do with Star Wars whatsoever. The font is identical to the font on the shirts in your picture.

It's not a politically motivated alteration to the Star Wars canon. It's a joke.

I think that TFA is okay, not great, and definitely hindered in hindsight with TLJ which I very much dislike. RO has an enjoyable second half, and K2 was mostly enjoyable throughout the entire thing, Jyn was less great.

In my mind the OT is a classic like a number of other 80s films, Back to the Future, Terminator, Better of Dead, etc, etc... The PT is poorly executed but has some good ideas there with memorable planets and mostly good battles but suffers from George being in complete control rather than an idea guy which he is good at. And the ST seem mostly like not thought-out films pushed out quickly for a quick return on their 4 Billion dollar investment. At least the OT had a logical progression with the films, and the PT had its arc planned out ahead of time. The ST suffers from being pushed too quickly and trying to match Marvel's rate at putting out films, it would have been better to give them an extra year in there each to help more finely craft their scripts and everything.

I think down the line it will be very interesting for someone to do an analysis of the Star Wars films and the time they were made in. The OT was made in a time with an Every Man lead who had to work to learn and understand his powers, that violence was ultimately not the answer but compassion was to redeem his father. The PT came out around the time it seemed that Chosen Ones as a narrative element were at their height with the likes of Harry Potter and Avatar: The Last Airbender. (Some year difference there but around the same time) Then with the ST we have a raise of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters in film, books, and oh so very much in modern anime and we have Star Wars competing against Super Hero films (*cough* MCU *cough*) so they feel the need to not to take themselves so seriously and to try and make their films bigger and badder than before to try and remain relevant.

In the 90s Mario was more well known by children than Mickey Mouse, will Marvel's string of films be the same? Will it be this generation's 'Star Wars' while the actual Star Wars films are just average movies in comparison? Good or bad, it should be interesting down the line to see how some of this stuff plays out.

Tldr: OT: Good, PT: Neat ideas if not executed well, ST: Meh. Luke = Everyman, Anakin = Chosen One, Rey = Mary Sue, what do these narrative elements and how the films are presented reflect the time they were made in? Should be interesting/thought provoking to see down the line, good or bad.

Quote

Rey = Mary Sue

This gets repeated a lot but I've yet to hear a convincing case for it. Someone who grows up a scavenger is going to good with tech. Upon flying the Falcon Rey proceeds to crash it then fails to outfly the pursuing TIE fighters. She defeats Kylo Ren only after Kylo Ren's been emotionally torn apart by killing his father and physically torn apart by being shot in the side by a weapon that the film repeatedly establishes hits hard enough to send people flying.

The sequel films are far from perfect but the Mary Sue accusation doesn't hold up.