Things advertised as having "diversity" and bad writing always seem to overlap. If it's all a creator or publisher can think of to sell their product, it's a sign of shallowness. Works created to be "diverse", as this was, are even worse since it shows this isn't remotely a natural part of writing.

Really, the interesting thing about this announcement is it comes the exact day before Bob Iger is canned (Yeah, sure, he just "retired" in the middle of the week and was replaced by an internal hire. That's how people normally leave companies on their own volition...).

1 hour ago, kaosoe said:

I would say lack of depth in a character has everything to do with the writing and nothing to do with box-checking. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former.

The latter can often be a symptom of the former.

46 minutes ago, kaosoe said:

I guess the question is, how do you know the character only exists for box-checking. It sounds like you dislike flat boring characters. But how the character be less so if they were a different gender, sexuality, race, etc? It all boils down to writing. Making a character a minority does not distract so much that it steals from character depth.

When they come out and say "We want to have diverse characters" it is a pretty good indication that they've got some box checking going on.

The issue is not diversity or having minority characters. The issue is the poor writing that is often linked through cause or effect to the box-checking diversity. For the sake of argument, let's agree that Rey (from TLJ) is, in fact, a Mary Sue (yeah, yeah, I know). First off, badly written character. Secondly, when the people behind it come out and say "the force is female" or "she's such a strong woman" it would seem to suggest that the character is a Mary Sue because of the forced diversity and the feminism pushed into the character.* The antithesis of this is Ahsoka Tano, who is one of my favorite characters. She came into the show arrogant and comparatively unskilled. She failed on many occasions and grew because of it, becoming competent and confident. There may have been some, but I don't think I ever heard anyone from the show pushing her as some feminist icon.

Something that has greatly frustrated me is when people use diversity as an excuse for poor writing. i.e. "This movie is diverse, therefore you must come see it or you are a bigot." A recent example of this is the Charlie's Angels movie (I've got some thoughts on the irony of using that show as a feminist film, but that's for a different place), where the director/producer whatever she was came out and was talking about how the movie failed because of sexist men.

To sum it up, I dislike movies with pushed diversity because it often either leads to poor writing or is a symptom of same, and if I dislike it or specific characters (yeah, looking at you Rey [mostly just TLJ]), I am inevitably painted as sexist/racist/etc.
All I want is a good story with interesting characters. And in a book, it matters even less what the characters look like. For me, diversity done right is when it's organic and they don't make a point of it.

*I really don't want to get into an argument over whether or not Rey is a Mary Sue. This was to prove the principle. I think that Rey from TLJ is a Mary Sue, but that wasn't the point. I feel the need to specify Rey from TLJ because I liked her in TFA, and she was pretty much okay in TRoS.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Agree. I have never had a problem with diversity. I have a problem with bad writing. But what I see happen a lot is writers in the quest to look inclusive will just include characters that are 2 dimensional cardboard cut outs. But when I point this out I get accused of being anti whatever thing that was added. Instead of recognizing my issue isn't the included thing but the poorly implemented inclusion.

This pretty much never happens. Those 2 dimensional cardboard cut outs are there for a reason, and 20 years ago they would just have been 2 white dimensional cardboard cut outs. Writers generally don't add pointless characters to a story just because.

6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

*I really don't want to get into an argument over whether or not Rey is a Mary Sue.

Then perhaps pick a different example.

10 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

This pretty much never happens. Those 2 dimensional cardboard cut outs are there for a reason, and 20 years ago they would just have been 2 white dimensional cardboard cut outs. Writers generally don't add pointless characters to a story just because.

Oh they do add pointless characters all the time. Jar Jar Binks didnt really add anything to the Phantom Menace. We didnt really need Tauriel in the Hobbit Movies. She was just added for diversity sake.

Jar Jar was added to appeal to kids. Not exactly a good counter example there...

32 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Oh they do add pointless characters all the time. Jar Jar Binks didnt really add anything to the Phantom Menace. We didnt really need Tauriel in the Hobbit Movies. She was just added for diversity sake.

Jar Jar was the very needed comic relief. Well, he was supposed to be funny, that it didn't work out that way is neither here not there. I heard kids liked him.

He also had an absolutely essential role in the greater plot: Senator Binks was the patsy that was manipulated into making Palpatine Supreme Chancelor.

I don't remember a lot from the plot of the Hobbit films, but I do recall Tauriel was the best part of them that didn't star in Sherlock or Doctor Who.

And when you say "we didn't really need"... did we really need Hobbit films, period? Do we really need any films? But on a more serious note: what exactly is wrong with adding "diversity" (as in a female character) to a movie with a 100% male cast? (also odd that you don't call out Galadriel being in it as just added for diversity's sake, as she's not in the book).

1 hour ago, micheldebruyn said:

Jar Jar was the very needed comic relief. Well, he was supposed to be funny, that it didn't work out that way is neither here not there. I heard kids liked him.

He also had an absolutely essential role in the greater plot: Senator Binks was the patsy that was manipulated into making Palpatine Supreme Chancelor.

I don't remember a lot from the plot of the Hobbit films, but I do recall Tauriel was the best part of them that didn't star in Sherlock or Doctor Who.

And when you say "we didn't really need"... did we really need Hobbit films, period? Do we really need any films? But on a more serious note: what exactly is wrong with adding "diversity" (as in a female character) to a movie with a 100% male cast? (also odd that you don't call out Galadriel being in it as just added for diversity's sake, as she's not in the book).

Adding someone to JUST be comic relief is poor writing. You can literally edit him out of the movie and it doesnt change anything. And that is the problem. You could have made a comic relief character that also served other purposes. The problem with the Phantom Menace it it is really bad writing. Who is the protagonist? What purpose aside from comic relief did Jar Jar serve? and so on. And you could have written Jar Jar such that he was funny and served a purpose and is set up to be a patsy in the later films...

There is nothing wrong with adding diversity. but to do so for diversities sake tends to end up with bad implementations. And Galadriel was not added for diversities sake she was in the Book and served an important purpose. She showed how dangerous the One Ring is and provided a lot of aid to the Fellowship. So yeah not added just for diversity. Also that part of the book sets up the Elves from there helping at Helms Deep.

P47's example of Asokha is a great example of adding a strong character that happens to be diverse. If you want to add diversity start by focusing on good characters that make the story better and happen to be diverse.

2 hours ago, NanashiAnon said:

Jar Jar was added to appeal to kids. Not exactly a good counter example there...

actually it is a great example. his only reason to be there is to appeal to kids. the box they were checking was appeals to kids. Not making a great character that is appealing to kids. the issue is putting the check box first. It makes for tacked on characters that you can effectively edit out of a movie and not notice.

2 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

(also odd that you don't call out Galadriel being in it as just added for diversity's sake, as she's not in the book).

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

And Galadriel was not added for diversities sake she was in the Book and served an important purpose. She showed how dangerous the One Ring is and provided a lot of aid to the Fellowship. So yeah not added just for diversity. Also that part of the book sets up the Elves from there helping at Helms Deep.

He was actually talking about The Hobbit, not the LotR trilogy. To address his point, Galadriel was part of an entire storyline that wasn't part of the book, whereas Tauriel was tacked onto an existing storyline in a kinda weird way. Don't know if that's what Daeglan thinks, but that's one reason to not mention her.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Adding someone to JUST be comic relief is poor writing. You can literally edit him out of the movie and it doesnt change anything. And that is the problem. You could have made a comic relief character that also served other purposes. The problem with the Phantom Menace it it is really bad writing. Who is the protagonist? What purpose aside from comic relief did Jar Jar serve? and so on. And you could have written Jar Jar such that he was funny and served a purpose and is set up to be a patsy in the later films...

All right.

If you remove Jar Jar, the Gungans don't fight the Trade Federation and the bad guys win. If Jar Jar is remived Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan never make it to Padme in time, Nute Gunray kills her, and Luke and Leia don't exist. And I was misremembering before: Jar Jar is the patsy that gets duped into giving Palpatine his emergency powers that he needs to trigger Order 66 and set himself up as emperor..

He's annoying, and I wish he wasn't in the films, but you can't honestly say the character isn't important.

Apart from the actual dialogue, The Phantom Menace is actually very well written. It's more an ensemble film, but if it has a protagonist then that would be Palpatine. The entire plot of the film is basically just him making a power bid in the Senate and ousting Terence Stamp (I forgot the character's name). All that business with the Jedi and the Trade Federation is just a smoke screen.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

All right.

If you remove Jar Jar, the Gungans don't fight the Trade Federation and the bad guys win. If Jar Jar is remived Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan never make it to Padme in time, Nute Gunray kills her, and Luke and Leia don't exist. And I was misremembering before: Jar Jar is the patsy that gets duped into giving Palpatine his emergency powers that he needs to trigger Order 66 and set himself up as emperor..

He's annoying, and I wish he wasn't in the films, but you can't honestly say the character isn't important.

Apart from the actual dialogue, The Phantom Menace is actually very well written. It's more an ensemble film, but if it has a protagonist then that would be Palpatine. The entire plot of the film is basically just him making a power bid in the Senate and ousting Terence Stamp (I forgot the character's name). All that business with the Jedi and the Trade Federation is just a smoke screen.

All things that can be done with other characters that could have been better written all the things Jar Jar did could be shifted to other characters that are already there with little effort...

#JarJardidnothingwrong.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

actually it is a great example. his only reason to be there is to appeal to kids. the box they were checking was appeals to kids. Not making a great character that is appealing to kids. the issue is putting the check box first. It makes for tacked on characters that you can effectively edit out of a movie and not notice.

I think you can't possibly prove a word of this. Only Lucas knows that.

But if this really were about box-checking, the box checked here would be "100% cgi character", not "appeal to kids". They had the kids at "lightsaber". Pushing the technology forward has always been at least 50% of what Star Wars was all about for Lucas. It's why he like The Mandalorian.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

#JarJardidnothingwrong.

he didnt. George did all the wrong

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

All things that can be done with other characters that could have been better written all the things Jar Jar did could be shifted to other characters that are already there with little effort...

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

No. My point is Jar Jar did not do anything critical to the story that only Jar Jar could accomplish. your not getting mmy point is not moving goal posts. The story did not need Jar Jar.

Just now, Daeglan said:

No. My point is Jar Jar did not do anything critical to the story that only Jar Jar could accomplish. your not getting mmy point is not moving goal posts. The story did not need Jar Jar.

Pretty much no character does something that only that character could accomplish, but he isn't wrong when he says that Jar-Jar was instrumental in bringing the Gungans to their side.

Pretty much any character can be written out of a story if you try.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Pretty much no character does something that only that character could accomplish, but he isn't wrong when he says that Jar-Jar was instrumental in bringing the Gungans to their side.

Pretty much any character can be written out of a story if you try.

the more integrated the character is the harder it is to just write them out. Jar Jar is not all that vital the couple things Jar Jar actually did are easy to shift to another character. my point is Jar Jar is a really poorly written character

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

No. My point is Jar Jar did not do anything critical to the story that only Jar Jar could accomplish. your not getting mmy point is not moving goal posts. The story did not need Jar Jar.

The story needed Jar Jar to exist way more than that it needed Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Jar Jar is not there to check a box. He's there to fill several a plot-critical roles. Could there have been another character instead? Sure. Would this character have been better written? No, it would still have been written by George Lucas.

Lucas may not know the first thing about writing dialogue or directing actors, but he **** well knows how to structure a script and write a plot and keep things tight. He understands story stucture really well.

Sad thing is Jar Jar didnt need to be poorly written

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

The story needed Jar Jar to exist way more than that it needed Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Jar Jar is not there to check a box. He's there to fill several a plot-critical roles. Could there have been another character instead? Sure. Would this character have been better written? No, it would still have been written by George Lucas.

Lucas may not know the first thing about writing dialogue or directing actors, but he **** well knows how to structure a script and write a plot and keep things tight. He understands story stucture really well.

Not really. he is a far better producer than script writer or directer. Forn example he did not write Empire. Laurance Kasden did,

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Not really. he is a far better producer than script writer or directer. Forn example he did not write Empire. Laurance Kasden did,

And it shows. Empire is a meandering mess, structurally speaking.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

And it shows. Empire is a meandering mess, structurally speaking.

I did not find it meandering at all.

Just now, Daeglan said:

I did not find it meandering at all.

Well, it was.

And now that I think about it, going from Jar Jar being easily edited out of the story to Jar Jar being easily replaced by another character is very much moving the goal posts.