I don't want him to become powerful, I wanted him to become active. To have him take charge, sieze his destiny, become one with it, rather than just have it hand-hold him through everything.
I felt that he did take charge of his destiny. In Empire, when he defied Yoda and Obi-wan to rescue his friends. And again in Jedi, when defied Yoda and Obi-wan to save his dad rather than just killing him.
I guess this is where we run into a fundamental problem that occurs when trying to apply such a philosophy within a western media stronghold like Hollywood.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Is it still a problem when applying said philosophy to a character and a fictional belief system? Jedi are clearly 道士, more so than they are say, Buddhist monks, what with the connective views of the universe, superhuman powers, and swordplay.
What I'm saying here is that the expectations a Western audience has of a protagonist runs contrary some of the philosophies Lucas was drawing on when originally creating Star Wars. That was dealt with, initially, by contrasting Luke's insistence on immediate action against the patience of Obi-Wan and Yoda, I suppose.
And, as you point out, we're dealing with a fictional belief system. Influenced by real ones, but that they're fiction means we're not required to undergo the cognitive dissonance that would result from applying the real thing.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
I guess my own personal dissonances are just totally different from everyone else's, because not a day goes by where I don't really want to ask certain individuals; "But why do you fight so hard, why do you cling so fiercely, though?"
George Lucas was pretty much a hippy at the time—or at least operating under the same philosophical stew as the hippies. Namely, borrowing liberally from any number of "Eastern philosophies" (Buddhism and Daoism in Lucas's case) without fully understanding any of them.
The whole "Rey is a Mary Sue" thing is just a bunch of cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that is so visibly, obviously cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that it OFFENDS ME that it has been allowed any position in The Discourse around this movie, let alone on a website where I was really *hoping* I could expect better, like, for fuck's sake. We should be better than this.
The whole "Rey is a Mary Sue" thing is just a bunch of cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that is so visibly, obviously cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that it OFFENDS ME that it has been allowed any position in The Discourse around this movie, let alone on a website where I was really *hoping* I could expect better, like, for fuck's sake. We should be better than this.
People resort to calling her a "Mary Sue" because it's an easy shorthand and if they took the time to dissect her role in the film they'd understand that the problem isn't that she's a character meant to indulge the author/reader's fantasies uncritically (the sexist origins of the trope's name aside, it is a legitimate phenomenon and this is what it actually describes) but that she's a woman who is capable of, like, anything.
Perhaps a protagonist being capable of anything, irrespective of their gender, is sufficiently harmful towards tension and drama enough that this doesn't have to be a political discussion?: It's not as though Rey is the first female protagonist or anything, and many before her have been handled more effectively. A great example is Disney's take on Mulan. She spends the bulk of the movie getting her act together, like an actual human person of any gender or none, so she can bring it all together in the final act and beat the bad guys.
What I'm trying to clarify here is that there's a definite case for criticising Rey's power based on how early and conveniently it appears in the story, dissipating tension, rather than by existing at all. "Mary Sue" or not, she is pointlessly powerful before her time. There is a reason "character development" is a term, and movies are usually not context-light strings of action sequences. Rey isn't a poor character because she's a woman; she's a poor character because she appears in a confused movie that that's too busy paying homage to know what it wants to do with itself.
I was hoping this could be kept to a discussion about storytelling, rather than having moral and political accusation being involved. Defensiveness concerning beloved characters isn't uncommon, of course, but questioning a person's moral qualities in the process is completely unnecessary.
The whole "Rey is a Mary Sue" thing is just a bunch of cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that is so visibly, obviously cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that it OFFENDS ME that it has been allowed any position in The Discourse around this movie, let alone on a website where I was really *hoping* I could expect better, like, for fuck's sake. We should be better than this.
As I haven't seen the movie, I'm going to stay out of this, but maybe we could just use Overpowered as the term instead of something as semantically tenuous as Mary Sue?
Usually, throughout the course of a movie, the protagonist will have what's called a character arc. A character arc describes the conflicts (internal and external) a character faces, why they face them, and how/why they succeed or fail. Not all movies use this mechanism, but simple blockbusters tend to stick to the book pretty closely. Particularly in genres like fantasy, sci-fi, and action, a character's progress throughout their arc will be represented by an increase in their effectiveness in action sequences and during other problem-solving events.
Or, more concisely: A character strengthens as they come closer to dealing with the conflicts that drive their actions.
Rey's motivation is her desire for familial belonging. For this reason, she wants to stay on Jakku, waiting for whichever ill-remembered relative placed her there in the first place. And she never moves from that emotional position until the end of the film, largely by chance and not at all by her own will, because Luke is presumably that aforementioned family member. She wants to stay on Jakku to wait -- sure, that could provide conflict, as Finn and BB-8 just want to get out. Before she knows it, however, her craft is captured and reclaimed by Han Solo, who takes her to meet Not Yoda, so can reject the Force vision and become captured. She then escapes, defeats the bad guy, and events have conveniently conspired to provide her with the means to resolve her character's central motivation.
Just consider how much of what Rey does and goes through is entirely unrelated to her central motivation, and that a character's central motivation is usually their drive towards success and self-empowerment. We're reminded of Rey's motivations a few times throughout the film, but once she's off Jakku, she never acts upon those motivations -- she's a purely reactive force against the circumstances thrown against her. Then she gets Luke in a bow and ribbon, just in time for Christmas.
I've examined my reasoning and considered why I've come to my conclusions, and thought about why they were easy to come to. It's storytelling 101. I would appreciate moral implications not being made against me in the future over disagreements in character analysis. There's no call for it, particularly given that I intend nothing malicious against anyone -- I was simply hoping for the best Star Wars movie we could have seen within reason. The whole movie is sloppily written and structured, and as the central protagonist, Rey makes an excellent avatar for its failures. For what it's worth, I find similar errors to have been made in the execution of Finn, Poe, and in fact pretty much every character that wasn't returning.
Perhaps a protagonist being capable of anything, irrespective of their gender, is sufficiently harmful towards tension and drama enough that this doesn't have to be a political discussion?: It's not as though Rey is the first female protagonist or anything, and many before her have been handled more effectively. A great example is Disney's take on Mulan. She spends the bulk of the movie getting her act together, like an actual human person of any gender or none, so she can bring it all together in the final act and beat the bad guys.
What I'm trying to clarify here is that there's a definite case for criticising Rey's power based on how early and conveniently it appears in the story, dissipating tension, rather than by existing at all. "Mary Sue" or not, she is pointlessly powerful before her time. There is a reason "character development" is a term, and movies are usually not context-light strings of action sequences. Rey isn't a poor character because she's a woman; she's a poor character because she appears in a confused movie that that's too busy paying homage to know what it wants to do with itself.
I was hoping this could be kept to a discussion about storytelling, rather than having moral and political accusation being involved. Defensiveness concerning beloved characters isn't uncommon, of course, but questioning a person's moral qualities in the process is completely unnecessary.
Haven't seen this movie yet so can't really take sides here but if i may make a couple remarks here:
A powerful character may still undergo development. For that matter, a character's personality need not have anything to do with their power level. Merely improving a character's Jedi abilities probably wouldn't constitute character development in itself - not if unaccompanied by some transformation in the character's attitudes, values, outlook on life or something of that nature.
You're sounding pretty defensive there yourself, don't you think? i appreciate that this might make you uncomfortable, but some arguments *are* sexist, or founded on sexist assumptions, and it ought to be possible to discuss that possibility. To outlaw such discussions altogether on the basis that the subject is 'political' or somehow not civil is to demand the right to be sexist with impunity; this is not a reasonable request.
Please do not type up a multi-paragraph response I assure you you would be better off discussing virtually any other problem with the film
Is this addressed to me? Because I'm not sure what you're expecting. You literally asked me to question my logical reasoning while making implications on my moral position. If it was a joke post, then disregard this post.
And I was saying that you should save the energy because you're expending it on a false premise that is REALLY PROBABLY rooted in sexist base assumptions and I say this with confidence because I've seen this argument a million times and it always goes like this
At any rate this is the first time I've ever really interacted with you and I guess this qualifies as starting off on the wrong foot, my apologies
And shit if not sexist it's also just kind of... the wrong way to go about criticizing the film? I just find your reasoning, like, entirely problematic here. I don't see anything worth engaging with.
Perhaps a protagonist being capable of anything, irrespective of their gender, is sufficiently harmful towards tension and drama enough that this doesn't have to be a political discussion?: It's not as though Rey is the first female protagonist or anything, and many before her have been handled more effectively. A great example is Disney's take on Mulan. She spends the bulk of the movie getting her act together, like an actual human person of any gender or none, so she can bring it all together in the final act and beat the bad guys.
What I'm trying to clarify here is that there's a definite case for criticising Rey's power based on how early and conveniently it appears in the story, dissipating tension, rather than by existing at all. "Mary Sue" or not, she is pointlessly powerful before her time. There is a reason "character development" is a term, and movies are usually not context-light strings of action sequences. Rey isn't a poor character because she's a woman; she's a poor character because she appears in a confused movie that that's too busy paying homage to know what it wants to do with itself.
I was hoping this could be kept to a discussion about storytelling, rather than having moral and political accusation being involved. Defensiveness concerning beloved characters isn't uncommon, of course, but questioning a person's moral qualities in the process is completely unnecessary.
Haven't seen this movie yet so can't really take sides here but if i may make a couple remarks here:
A powerful character may still undergo development. For that matter, a character's personality need not have anything to do with their power level. Merely improving a character's Jedi abilities probably wouldn't constitute character development in itself - not if unaccompanied by some transformation in the character's attitudes, values, outlook on life or something of that nature.
You're sounding pretty defensive there yourself, don't you think? i appreciate that this might make you uncomfortable, but some arguments *are* sexist, or founded on sexist assumptions, and it ought to be possible to discuss that possibility. To outlaw such discussions altogether on the basis that the subject is 'political' or somehow not civil is to demand the right to be sexist with impunity; this is not a reasonable request.
1. "Power level" is too literal; a character's capacity to deal with the situations in front of them should grow with their development, whether those situations deal with physical obstacles or abstract problems. I'm not talking about RPG character levels, but the continuum of human progression.
2. I think it's pretty normal to be defensive when implicit moral accusations are made. I'm in a position where I feel uncomfortable, because my viewpoints aren't being considered on their merits, but are being considered as gendered moral and political attacks. That's not at all what they're meant to be. I think Rey is a mediocre character, irrespective of gender, and it would be really lovely if discussing that point of view were possible without a motive being read into my reasoning.
I'd be happy to view this statement as apolitical if 1. I hadn't seen it a million times for other characters 2. I wasn't seeing this character complained about by people who are demonstrably sexist
I definitely understand being wary wrt Alex's comments because of other people coming at it from a sexist angle, and it is definitely the kind of argument that attracted people of that bent, but he doesnt strike me as that sort of guy.
but, taken on its own merits, I still find " a character's capacity to deal with the situations in front of them should grow with their development, whether those situations deal with physical obstacles or abstract problems. " to be a pretty eeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh statement.
Yeah, with Today Is Tomorrow here: i don't think a character having the ability to overcome physical obstacles should be considered a strike against a film, nor that it should be any obstacle to that character undergoing interesting personal developments in subsequent films.
Though as i said, i haven't seen this one, so i may be missing something here, i dunno.
"Power level" was me being kinda flippant, sorry about that.
While I might have been a bit defensive here myself, I've done my best to avoid imposing my frustrations during this conversations onto anyone else. I haven't asked anyone else here to qualify their opinions except by straightforward reasoning, and for my part, I've tried to use straightforward reasoning myself. No politics, and certainly no personal implications about individuals. Just what I thought of the film and the content therein.
I simply want the same relative neutrality extended towards me. I don't see why that has to be conditional, or why anyone here should feel they have the authority to make it conditional. Certainly, this should just be basic, respectful human interaction, even over matters we disagree upon.
As someone who has seen the movie twice I just really absolutely do not see anything worth engaging with past you (**unintentionally**) possibly using sexist reasoning
Because it's just a bunch of false premises stacked on top or each other and I'm urging you to reconsider from like the ground up
Because I assure you, the movie had plenty of other problems
Though as i said, i haven't seen this one, so i may be missing something here, i dunno.
Yeah.
And honestly, I definitely think I wont at this juncture.
I honestly got more of a kick out of this film than I did out of any of the others (even if I feel that objectively this is only better than Return), but you do you.
As someone who has seen the movie twice I just really absolutely do not see anything worth engaging with past you (**unintentionally**) possibly using sexist reasoning
Because it's just a bunch of false premises stacked on top or each other and I'm urging you to reconsider from like the ground up
Because I assure you, the movie had plenty of other problems
That being said, if Alex's premises are false, maybe it'd be more productive to actually demonstrate this, or else terminate this discussion here? Just a thought.
I mean it's just predicated on the most basic-ass Save the Cat approach to interpreting a character
And ignoring the fact that the film centers around her developing her Force abilities from scratch
You can argue that this doesn't count as "character development" or "growth" because the character is just learning to express strengths she's always possessed but like... that isn't inherently a problem? Certainly not in this case.
If I have erred so significantly that my argument is based entirely upon false premises, would you point just two or three out, and what makes them false? What is "Save the Cat"?
And yes, the movie has plenty of problems past Rey. I just find Rey particularly worth noting because she's the central protagonist. I could say a few things about Finn, there's a comment about Poe, and some other miscellaneous things, but Rey stands out as the central protagonist. And I was disappointed in the story that was written around the character, because it asked a great deal of her without giving the audience time to navigate her conflicts.
i'm kinda irritated by the suggestion that it's somehow impolite or bad form to consider politics in a critical discussion.
As though it's a given that apolitical discussion of the movie is desirable or even entirely possible.
It's not, inherently. It is impolite to make implications about a person's character in the process, though, and this has been my problem. If someone wants to insult me, then I'd encourage them to slam it on the table plainly rather than harass me while I try to make honest conversation and analysis. But I'd prefer it if they put their competing interpretation forward plainly, so it could be discussed openly.
'Save the Cat is sort of like...I'm not sure if you know music, but have you ever heard chord analysis? That's Save the Cat: a way of quantifying film scripts by using pseudo-ubiquitous film tropes to organize everything.
I understand now, but TFA is hardly some kind of genrebending experimental piece. The original trilogy as a whole was an excellent execution of "Save the Cat" concepts and worked perfectly well. Star Wars films, and the setting's stories across mediums in general, are usually like this. They are simple and straightforward. They are about cowboy samurai knight wizards. In space. Following fairy tale plots and premises.
Bring straightforward and formulaic is fine. Execution is what counts.
If Finn or Poe were as ridiculously powerful as Rey I'd be saying the same thing about them.
Honestly, I liked the movie, and I liked Rey as a character and as a strong female lead (the part where she yells at Finn for holding her hand? Awesome! Getting herself out of trouble? Awesome, if she did it without pulling powers she's never heard of out of her ass). But as a plot device she's kind of cheap because she's just too good at everything she looks at.
Hell, I really liked how they did her lightsaber fight. It really looks like she's extending staff techniques. Of all the stuff she's freaky good at, that's the one that makes the most sense.
Comments
The whole "Rey is a Mary Sue" thing is just a bunch of cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that is so visibly, obviously cockamanie baby-ass nerd bullshit of the lowest variety that it OFFENDS ME that it has been allowed any position in The Discourse around this movie, let alone on a website where I was really *hoping* I could expect better, like, for fuck's sake. We should be better than this.
And ask yourself why you've come to that conclusion and why it was such an easy one to come to
Because honestly there's nothing really worth engaging with here; the notion that she's "overpowered" is just, like, not... true?
You could easily call Han Solo a Gary Stu, and a lot of the justifications one could make for Luke don't really exist for him.
How do you answer that?
If we're forced to have this conversation, I'm at least going to try to point out how dumb it is.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
And I was saying that you should save the energy because you're expending it on a false premise that is REALLY PROBABLY rooted in sexist base assumptions and I say this with confidence because I've seen this argument a million times and it always goes like this
At any rate this is the first time I've ever really interacted with you and I guess this qualifies as starting off on the wrong foot, my apologies
1. I hadn't seen it a million times for other characters
2. I wasn't seeing this character complained about by people who are demonstrably sexist
Though as i said, i haven't seen this one, so i may be missing something here, i dunno.
"Power level" was me being kinda flippant, sorry about that.
Because it's just a bunch of false premises stacked on top or each other and I'm urging you to reconsider from like the ground up
Because I assure you, the movie had plenty of other problems
As though it's a given that apolitical discussion of the movie is desirable or even entirely possible.
That being said, if Alex's premises are false, maybe it'd be more productive to actually demonstrate this, or else terminate this discussion here? Just a thought.
That was probably obvious, but I like being thorough.
And ignoring the fact that the film centers around her developing her Force abilities from scratch
You can argue that this doesn't count as "character development" or "growth" because the character is just learning to express strengths she's always possessed but like... that isn't inherently a problem? Certainly not in this case.
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead