12 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Tropes are in and of themselves are generally cyclical, coming into and going out of fashion as tastes change. Now the cycle for some might be pretty short and others fairly lengthy, but there's still a cycle.

The "Blind Badass" is something of a perennial fave as it shows someone with what us sighted folk would deem a crippling disability being able to not only function in the world on their own but to also thrive and exceed the expectations that society generally has for those with a disability. And for actors, it's easier to play someone that's blind and has generally overcome it than any other physical disability since at most it requires a set of contacts or constant use of shades to hide the actor's eyes.

Is it currently being overused? Perhaps, but it's far less egregious a trope to overuse than something like "Mighty Whitey" (something Iron Fist got blasted for even though said trope is part of the comic book character's very DNA) or the villainous femme fatale sexpot whose really only there for the male audience's viewing pleasure and either gets killed off while regretting her life of sin or has a heel-face turn after getting bouncy with the handsome male lead.

Ugh, don't get me started on the femme fatale one. I momentarily forgot about that one's ever present nature

Just now, KungFuFerret said:

Ugh, don't get me started on the femme fatale one. I momentarily forgot about that one's ever present nature

Right there with you, as that's a trope I'd be glad to see fade away and never return. As a heterosexual male I can appreciate eye candy as much as the next bloke, but there is such a thing as too much and overly gratuitous.

I've got nothing against female villains, but I think said villains work better when they're doing more than just being eye candy for the male audiences and a source of temptation for the dashing/rugged male hero. Much as I had fun watching the Roger Moore era Bond films when I was a lot younger (and even the Pierce Brosnan ones), the way that women got treated in those films just makes older me cringe.

1 hour ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Right there with you, as that's a trope I'd be glad to see fade away and never return. As a heterosexual male I can appreciate eye candy as much as the next bloke, but there is such a thing as too much and overly gratuitous.

I've got nothing against female villains, but I think said villains work better when they're doing more than just being eye candy for the male audiences and a source of temptation for the dashing/rugged male hero. Much as I had fun watching the Roger Moore era Bond films when I was a lot younger (and even the Pierce Brosnan ones), the way that women got treated in those films just makes older me cringe.

Same here, my personal issue with it, is the sexualization of their villainy. I don't mean that they are dressed sexy, and happen to be a sexy woman, I'm talking about how they always end up seeming to gain sexual gratification from the pain/death they inflict. Sometimes seeming to actually climax on top of the corpse they just made. Since you brought up Bond films, that one character in...I think Golden Eye(?). The Bond villainess that was played by the same actress to later play Jean Grey in the XMEN films. She literally got gratification when she'd kill people. That aspect of the femme fatale is what bothers me the most personally. I too enjoy eye candy, and don't mind it if it's in a film, but when that's ALL there is, and you couple it with a sexual fetish for death, that really REALLY turns me off from enjoying seeing that character onscreen.

21 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I don't understand why it would be different to have prosthetic eyes to fix a problem (and yes it is a problem), but prosthetic limbs are perfectly fine. There is objective functionality differences for people with disabilities, and developing technology to offset/remove that issue isn't bad, and it's not stigmatizing them.

There is nothing wrong with being blind, but if there is tech to fix that problem, and someone just chooses not to use it because of "I'm just as capable as you!" pride, that's an issue with them, not the society that made the tech to fix the problem.

No, one gave Geordi La Forge, **** for being blind with a prosthetic. In his case blindness was an interesting character trait.

A Star Wars example would be Commander Wolfe, who had one prosthetic eye.

22 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

In fiction, the problem is that it's very common to do just that, handwave away the disability, in a way that might as well not have the character have the disability. Whether it's technology, or magic (Force Users still fighting like Kannan), or science (like Daredevil), it annoys me in most cases. Because it's basically just an excuse to not actually have to address the problems someone with that disability would have to actually deal with, in the script. The only blind character I can think of, from random pop culture films and such, that was actually presented accurately, was an elderly character in the film Krull. Who was blind, and had to be lead around by his young charge. I mean there probably are some others, but I'm sitting here, actively trying to think of an example from popular film/tv, that was just straight up blind, that didn't also act in a way that was almost "super-human" in it's nature. And I can't think of one. Maybe Pacino's character in Scent of a Woman, but he still did a lot of things that just aren't realistic.

What about Blinkin ?

22 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I mean there probably are some others, but I'm sitting here, actively trying to think of an example from popular film/tv, that was just straight up blind, that didn't also act in a way that was almost "super-human" in it's nature. And I can't think of one.

Did you watch the Hannibal tv show? There's a blind supporting character in the last season.

21 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

What about Blinkin ?

Considering that was a parody, it doesn't really count. Also, he caught an arrow before it would kill Robin, so that would still qualify as supernatural abilities to my reckoning.

13 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Did you watch the Hannibal tv show? There's a blind supporting character in the last season.

Nope, never watched that show.

Interesting to read this as someone who is legally blind. Only one eye.

If someone offered me a bionic eye, I would probably turn it down. All of my muscle memory and coordination are already based around having no depth perception and a severe problem with peripheral vision. I'd have to relearn that all from scratch. No, thanks.

2 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

Did you watch the Hannibal tv show? There's a blind supporting character in the last season.

The character is Reba McClane. Originated in the book "Red Dragon" and variously portrayed in all three filmed adaptations in ranges from victim to tough-as-nails. The scene where she gets to pet a sedated tiger is one of my favorite parts of all four versions.

11 hours ago, Mindless Philosopher said:

Interesting to read this as someone who is legally blind. Only one eye.

If someone offered me a bionic eye, I would probably turn it down. All of my muscle memory and coordination are already based around having no depth perception and a severe problem with peripheral vision. I'd have to relearn that all from scratch. No, thanks.

That raises an interesting point about Chirrut.

Do we know if he was blind from birth? If so, there may have been zero inclination on his part to get cybernetic eyes to provide something he's never had his entire life. It's not too different from asking a person if they'd like a second set of cybernetic arms attached to their torso; most people are probably going to say no as there's not a great many instances where having that second set of arms is always useful, and may in fact get in the way, especially if you've grown up and gotten very much used to having just the one set of arms.

16 hours ago, Mindless Philosopher said:

Interesting to read this as someone who is legally blind. Only one eye.

If someone offered me a bionic eye, I would probably turn it down. All of my muscle memory and coordination are already based around having no depth perception and a severe problem with peripheral vision. I'd have to relearn that all from scratch. No, thanks.

Which is fine, I'm certainly not suggesting mandatory implementation of prosthetics. I was mostly annoyed with the idea that simply introducing forms of technology to help alleviate/remove disabilities, was somehow inherently "shaming" the disabled, which was kind of implied above. That just sounds silly to me. And while I do understand there is some ability bias in our culture, that can be insulting to those with disabilities, it doesn't mean every instance of assistant equipment in the media is a slight to those with disabilities.

Sorry, not trying to rant, .....and I wrote out an entire paragraph about why this subject irks me, but that's a HUGE thread derail, so I'll refrain.

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

That raises an interesting point about Chirrut.

Do we know if he was blind from birth? If so, there may have been zero inclination on his part to get cybernetic eyes to provide something he's never had his entire life. It's not too different from asking a person if they'd like a second set of cybernetic arms attached to their torso; most people are probably going to say no as there's not a great many instances where having that second set of arms is always useful, and may in fact get in the way, especially if you've grown up and gotten very much used to having just the one set of arms.

True, while not everyone would elect to do that, many people do. There are a lot of videos online that you can see, of people who were without a certain sensory input, sometimes from birth, getting access to it. The most common I see is hearing implants. And the ones who elect to do it, are very excited to have the new aspect to their life, and frequently overwhelmed when they do get that first moment of hearing.

I do think it is different from asking someone to get an extra set of arms though. Your comparison is a bit off, as it would be more accurate to ask if someone who didn't have arms in the first place, if they would like to have a set of arms.

But again, many people do indeed elect to have those bits of technology installed, and find their lives enriched due to it.

As to if we know if he was blind from birth? Dunno, that would require outside data other than the film, and I've never felt compelled to look into Rogue One that deeply. The directors and writers didn't seem compelled to, so why should I?

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

I was mostly annoyed with the idea that simply introducing forms of technology to help alleviate/remove disabilities, was somehow inherently "shaming" the disabled, which was kind of implied above.

If you are referring to my post, then you terribly misunderstood my point. I even clarified that what I was saying was that in a fictional setting where technology can completely eliminate a disability, not simply removing the disabled via such tech and keeping their struggles* as stories worth telling has positive elements. Saying that one thing is positive does not mean that an alternative is negative.

Now, if you aren't referring to my posts then I apologize profusely for MY misunderstanding.

* Again, not that Imwe really struggles, but alternatively SW has occasionally used prosthesis as symbols of declining humanity so there is THAT...

Just my two cents, but I feel Chirrut is an untrained force sensitive.

Narratively, I like the idea that the Jedi send willing force sensitives, who come to them too late to be trained as Jedi, to these types of monasteries where they can learn Jedi philosophies but not instruction in the use of the force. Keeps them away from the dark side and finds a use for them. I see this as why Chirrut’s belief in the force is rock solid, while Baze, once the most pious amongst them, has all but lost his faith. Chirrut feels it, Baze doesn’t.

In game mechanics, I’d say Chirrut has some small amount of XP invested in the sense force power and I don’t think that takes anything away from his character, it enhances it in my mind. It establishes that not all force sensatives are lightsaber wielding demigods, and I like that idea. Adds some depth to the setting.

Just to add, but I’m not a huge fan of the blind king fu master trope. I don’t mind Daredevil, because it’s actually a super power in his case.

23 hours ago, ghatt said:

Just to add, but I’m not a huge fan of the blind king fu master trope. I don’t mind Daredevil, because it’s actually a super power in his case.

I don't mind the trope in itself, I just think it gets used way too much. It's almost synonymous with a blind character, in any kind of action/adventure story. So much so that it's like that is the "normal" kind of blind person there is. If it's justified in the setting, like in Avatar: The Last Airbender, or in Star Wars, etc, where there is a mechanical reason to get around it, fine. But it's just sort of...meh, for me these days. They basically introduce a handicap for a character, and then completely negate it.....so...why bother introducing it at all? Daredevil the series at least illustrated some of the issues he would suffer from, due to the blindness. Like the insomnia (because apparently not being able to see the day/night cycle can really throw off your sleep centers in your brain). Most of the other issues though, he actually doesn't have, because he can "see" for all practical purposes. And Toph (in The Last Airbender) had serious issues if she wasn't in touch with a solid surface. So whenever they were flying on Appa, or in the desert, she was out of her element, and had to deal with serious limitations.

I'm fine with Chirrut's abilities either way personally, either due to Force sensitivity, or due to a very useful device that allows him to basically pull a Daredevil, and echo-locate his way through combat. I'd still rather they just didn't bother using it as much as they do though. I think Chirrut's character would've been just as impressive if he had been sighted, and doing that stuff.

5 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

They basically introduce a handicap for a character, and then completely negate it.....so...why bother introducing it at all?

Idealized characters and/or wish-fulfillment are staples of heroic fiction. To quote my friend again, "why should sighted people have all the fun?"

46 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

Idealized characters and/or wish-fulfillment are staples of heroic fiction. To quote my friend again, "why should sighted people have all the fun?"

Well if you're not really worried about making an interesting, and non-tropey character, fine. My point is mostly that since it's almost always that way, it becomes fairly dull for people who are interested in story structure and design. Anything that is so commonplace it becomes cliche, gets tiresome, regardless of what it is.

I mean, they aren't really showing us a "blind" character, not really. For all practical purposes, these Blind Warriors are acting just as if they can see. I mean come on, Chirrut could even shoot a freaking fighter out of the sky When ranged combat isn't even a liability for you, are you even a true representation of that thing? I mean I'm sighted and I can't one shot a plane out of the sky.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Well if you're not really worried about making an interesting, and non-tropey character, fine. My point is mostly that since it's almost always that way, it becomes fairly dull for people who are interested in story structure and design. Anything that is so commonplace it becomes cliche, gets tiresome, regardless of what it is.

I mean, they aren't really showing us a "blind" character, not really. For all practical purposes, these Blind Warriors are acting just as if they can see. I mean come on, Chirrut could even shoot a freaking fighter out of the sky When ranged combat isn't even a liability for you, are you even a true representation of that thing? I mean I'm sighted and I can't one shot a plane out of the sky.

It's hard not to read this repeated refrain as "I don't like it, so do away with it" or ( and I hope/expect I am wrong) "I am more comfortable with the blind in roles X, Y and Z so keep them there" which is not something I want to put on you if I can avoid it. You have been quite reasonable.
All I am saying is people find heroes in personal places. To use the example pertaining to this thread, the blind should have more options than to only be heroic when given a fancy technological or supernatural crutch. Same as anyone. The sighted have a plethora of archetypes by default whereas if a blind person wants to enjoy a blind hero the archetypes dwindle.

Ultimately, I think our only point of divergence really is the level of fanciful we each prefer in our "Star Wars". The blind badass, outrageous as it sometimes can be, is just another cool thing in a franchise built on layering cool things upon cool things. You don't find the blind badass cool so it's more discordant for you. Neither of us is wrong.

3 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

It's hard not to read this repeated refrain as "I don't like it, so do away with it" or ( and I hope/expect I am wrong)

Seeing as that's not what I was saying, you are wrong.

3 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

"I am more comfortable with the blind in roles X, Y and Z so keep them there" which is not something I want to put on you if I can avoid it. You have been quite reasonable.

....it has nothing to do with comfort. If you notice above, I was equally annoyed with the femme fatale trope as I am with the Blind Warrior trope, because it's the only one you ever see. If it's an action flick, and there is a female antagonist, she's going to be sexed up to the gills, and will likely actually fetishize and sexualize her acts of violence and murder. If there is a blind guy in an action flick, he's almost without fail, going to be a blind bad***** . As I stated, I don't have a problem with the trope itself, my problem is with the over-utilization of the tropes. When the ONLY examples you ever see are this one type, it's too much, and it would be nice (to me anyway) to see someone actually break the trope tradition, and do something different, if only for the freaking novelty of it.

6 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

All I am saying is people find heroes in personal places. To use the example pertaining to this thread, the blind should have more options than to only be heroic when given a fancy technological or supernatural crutch. Same as anyone. The sighted have a plethora of archetypes by default whereas if a blind person wants to enjoy a blind hero the archetypes dwindle.

Bolded for emphasis for my reply:

That's exactly my point, so I'm doubly confused why you think I was saying otherwise. Again, I don't care about tropes themselves. And I don't have a problem with people being inspired by a character. Millions of blind people could find great motivation because of Chirrut, that's great! He's still a bad character, that was poorly written.

Tropes are just tools to tell a good story, and to help people craft good characters. But often they are used as crutches to make a cookie cutter archetype, and then they don't bother to actually flesh out the character beyond the most bare-bones aspects of their character. Like pretty much every protagonist in Rogue One. You have the Action Girl, the Rugged Hero, The Pilot, The Blind Bad*****, The Tank. And in the context of the film itself, that's pretty much all they give us. Tell me a single point about Baze's character other than the 2 lines we are told by Chirrut. You can't, because there weren't any. Heck the guy barely even spoke at all, to actually give his character...you know, character.

Now, in and of themselves, each of those tropes, can, and have been used to great effectiveness in tons of stories, but that's because more was put in to make the characters more than their single trait. It still will irk me on a personal level, when the same tropes are used over and over, simply because I don't like being able to predict films when I'm watching them. When they are that formulaic, I get annoyed, and doing things like "the blind guy is always a blind warrior", or "the female badguy is always a sexy succubus murder fetishist", are really great ways to be formulaic, and annoy me. I'd be WAY more interested, and happily surprised, to see someone make characters who act against the trope, simply because it's something new and different.

Again, I get that people like having heroic characters that they can "hero insert" into, I do it myself all the time with stories. But again, that doesn't mean that a character, depending on how they are structured, is automatically a good character, simply because people loved him/her. Which is why I never once said anything about people who like those type characters are fools, or dumb, or anything. All I spoke about, was the quality of the character, based on the tropes used, and my personal dislike for the overuse of certain ones.

49 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Seeing as that's not what I was saying, you are wrong.

*snipped*

But again, that doesn't mean that a character, depending on how they are structured, is automatically a good character, simply because people loved him/her.

Clarification appreciated. As i said at the start, I preferred that you not actually be saying what I was (incorrectly) hearing.

Neither does it automatically make it bad. It exists in neutral space.

I think (and this is on me) that your regular and (seemingly) strong responses against it put your arguments (incorrectly it seems) in an adversarial, negative or "con" position. It has created the impression of an attack on something worth defending... and again that is on me . You don't like it (and you do seem to like to go on about things you don't like ? ) and that is totally cool. As much as I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas, I think have each landed at our respective points.

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Well if you're not really worried about making an interesting, and non-tropey character, fine  . My point is mostly that since it's almost always that way, it becomes fairly dull for people who are interested in story structure and design.

(bold mine)
And as a friendly bit of critique: The above line undermines your assertion of not judging folks who do enjoy such tropes.
Lacking vocal tone, body language etc. it is very easy to read that as judgmental rather than opinion.

You made several good points over various posts and your thoughts deserve to be clearly understood.

7 hours ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

Clarification appreciated. As i said at the start, I preferred that you not actually be saying what I was (incorrectly) hearing.

Neither does it automatically make it bad. It exists in neutral space.

I think (and this is on me) that your regular and (seemingly) strong responses against it put your arguments (incorrectly it seems) in an adversarial, negative or "con" position. It has created the impression of an attack on something worth defending... and again that is on me . You don't like it (and you do seem to like to go on about things you don't like ? ) and that is totally cool. As much as I have enjoyed the exchange of ideas, I think have each landed at our respective points.

I've done nothing but state my point about tropes. If you are taking that as "strong" or as "attacks", despite me using non of the common types of online indicators of that. all caps, excessive punctuation, profanity, etc, then there isn't really anything else I can do at this point. I wasn't "going on" about a thing I don't like, as I stated I don't have a problem with the tropes themselves, I have an issue with how they are the only trope used. I'm not angry about any of this, or confrontational. I'm stating points, nothing more. If that's "adversarial" well...*shrugs* nothing else I say will convince you to the contrary, so I'm just going to stop commenting at this point.

7 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm just going to stop commenting at this point.

Which is too bad.

It was precisely because you didn't resort to all caps or profanity that your points felt worth addressing. I certainly think someone can hold a strong opinion and argue passionately for it and have no trace of malice or vitriol in intent or action.

All this has ever been is an exchange of differing points of view. However, the assumption that the end game is to convince someone to change their mind is a common one. So much so that it's on me for not making that assumption.

Regardless, this is no longer of value to you and I can respect that.

May the Force be with you.

6 minutes ago, Aluminium Falcon said:

Regardless, this is no longer of value to you and I can respect that.

It's not that it's no longer of value to me, it's that after multiple posts, stating my thoughts as clearly as I can make them, people are still thinking I'm saying something I'm not, and now every follow up post is simply me trying to clarify a previous clarification of a previous clarification, it's simply tiresome and ultimately futile. I only know how to word things so many ways before I feel like I'm hearing my own echo. And after several decades of trying to have such conversations on the internet, I find it's just a better use of my time and energy to move on to a more productive conversation.

But I don't wish to derail the thread any further, so have a nice day metal bird person.