Star Trek vs. Star Wars (and a collection of memes)

Judge, jury and executioner!

 

I will try...

Spoiler: Political in nature (you have been warned)

• Brie Larson is a feminist (she has admitted as much), and promotes its most toxic iteration, intersectional feminism
• Brie Larson has made some very stupid statements against men on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS (she doesn't care about the opinions of white men, she thinks there too many white males in the movie critics industry)
• Brie Larson has said the movie is a platform for her activism
• The trailers have exposed the movie’s massive political agenda
• The marketing has been driven by identity politics
• The director said it is a feminist film
• Disney has already demonstrated that they care more for political messaging than storytelling
• The SJWs and NPCs are on high alert trying to defend the movie and attack its critics (calling them the usual… sexist, trolls, etc.)
• The Captain Marvel comics have been completely infested with SJW politics, and have proven to be so unpopular that they have been cancelled and restarted multiple times within the last decade

On top of that, the trailers have looked dull and early reviews are not all that great. And you also have the fact that Rotten Tomatoes removed the "Not interested" voting function as Captain Marvel went from 96% want to see it to 26% want to see it. They deny that is was the reason for the site-wide change, but the timing lines up absolutely perfectly.

I've probably left quite a bit out, but you did ask for "short"

 

There isn’t anything intrinsically wrong with being a feminist - when you criticise things for being feminist, it makes you come across as a bit sexist (which I know you aren’t and know you don’t intend to) as feminism in it elf is the desire for gender equality. The intersectional feminism I think you are referring to is what I know as Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminism, which while I agree that is bad, both for the male and transgender community, I haven’t seen any evidence of her promoting it.

That’s definitely not how I interpreted the statements. The opinion one is based on her tweet from a wrinkle in time, and the inference behind it which certainly seemed clear to me is that ‘this is a children’s film, with characters designed to give role models and allow people to see themselves in it for people in underrepresented communities. As a 40 year old white man, this wasn’t really aimed at you, so a more telling review would come from someone in the target audience. Would you expect an accurate review of Citizen Kane from a five year old, or a YouTuber from an eighty year old?’. Admittedly, using the phrase ‘white man’ wasn’t a very good idea given the nature of the internet and how people like to blow things out of proportion, but I think the fault there still lies with the Twitter community. As for the too many men in movie critics industry, was it not obvious she was instead saying that there aren’t enough of everyone else, and that’s she likes to give them opportunities as they don’t otherwise get as many?

The Her/Hero is a bit of an awful pun, but is trying to appeal to women in a franchise that has previously has most of its appeal with men really that much of a bad things? It might well just be a cynical marketing ploy, but frankly, it’s not exactly new to do that sort of thing, and if it has a positive impact, then it can probably be forgiven.

See my above point.

I hope I haven’t called you any of those things! In some cases I think they may be justified, but with people like that they will likely also end up criticising people who don’t want to see the movie for perfectly valid reasons, which brings me to my last point. There intentions are mostly in the right place, but they definitely need to improve their approach.

This is a perfectly valid reason not to see the film even by itself and I wholeheartedly respect that you think that. It doesn’t exactly seem like anything special to me either, although I’m still seeing it on Friday as I’m sure it will still be a fun romp. As evidenced, we disagree slightly more on the other points, but I see no reason for that to drive a wedge between us. You’ve stated your opinion, and now I’ve stated mine

PS:
A funny video that is sadly probably an accurate representation of how things are

 

Spoiler: more political ramblings

Feminism today is not what it used to be. I most definitely believe that there should be equality of the sexes (which is what old school feminism was about), but I am smart enough to recognize that the agenda of modern day third wave feminism is a far cry from that. If someone wants to misconstrue that and accuse me of being sexist (and I am not claiming that you are doing so), they can kiss my scaly #$#. For example, they polled women in the UK and less than 10% self-identified as feminists. So does that mean that the other 90+% don't believe they are equal to men, or that they recognize that equality is no longer the goal of feminism? (it's just a convenient go-to defense when feminists are questioned, a simple attack to be used in place of formulating a well thought out argument)

She has made to many questionable statements for it to be coincidence.

Of course a 5 year old can't review Citizen Kane. Then again a 5 year old can't review anything much beyond I like it or I don't like it. You could create a piece of media that is harmful for a child and they might still like it and review it positively. An intelligent adult on the other hand, can review many different types of movies, including children's movies.

Here is a quick smell test for her statement. Replace "white men" with "black men" and see if it is still okay. If you honestly do that, you'll find that her statement was wrong.

As for the movie critic demographic, just let the best make it. Simple as that. If that happens to be all white men, fine, if it is all black women, fine, if it is all Mexican transgender women with a gimpy foot and a lazy eye... also fine. I don't care what the mix is, so long as it is derived from ability. Understand, when you unfairly give someone a chance, you are doing it at the expense of another person who was more qualified/deserving. There are a finite number of such opportunities, so let the best rise to the top, independent of race, gender or any other identity marker. Judge on the basis of merit, period! I wonder why nobody is concerned that the roofing industry, coal mining industry and garbage removal industry is predominantly male?

See my point above. And when I want to go watch a comic book movie, I just want to go watch a comic book movie. Not a feminist movie. An MCU movie should be a form of escape not another channel through which to indoctrinate people.

It has nothing to do with you my friend, you have not said or done those things.

 

Feminism hasn’t changed, what’s changed is the perception of it. People now view feminism as being this TERF point of view, one that is definitely very wrong and arguably goes against the idea of feminism in the first place. However, this means that when any feminism is present in media, the association makes people immediately think it’s the TERF version, even if it is just the normal positive version. Feminism has become a bad word, so if something is feminism of any sort, it immediately becomes horrible and evil even when it’s nothing of the sort. No wonder 90% of women don’t want to identify with it,

Saying ‘white’ was definitely a bad idea of hers. It turned an otherwise valid argument into an excuse for the worst parts of the online community to get offended and start ranting about feminist nazi commie hippy rubbish. It’s still pretty clear what she meant, and the point she was trying to make is still valid, but she either should have thought through what she was saying or is too naive to be posting those sorts of things on social media. The most vocal participants of either side of the debate though, or at least the angriest, are a fantastic example of the worst of online culture. I don’t think you can seriously believe that anyone is truly that offended, it’s just nice to play the victim.

As for the reviewing, replace 5 with 10 year old, and the fact still remains, they aren’t the target audience and likely won’t enjoy it or rate it highly despite being old enough to coherently review it. I’d hazard that there are plenty of films that you dislike because you don’t have an interest in what they are about - it doesn’t make them bad films. Arguably film critics should have a bit more of an interest, but they aren’t what the films are made for and won’t have the same views as the actual target audience children. And if you do make a film that is designed to appeal to them, you aren’t making it right and your children’s film will suffer as a result.

This is definitely how it should be. However, while there may be cases where people are given jobs to fill a checklist, there are also plenty of cases where people are denied jobs based on things such as disabilities. When you unfairly give someone a chance, you are doing it at the expense of another, but when you unfairly take away a chance from someone for reasons such as disabilities, you are acting at their expense. Don’t try and pretend we live in a world where that doesn’t happen - I can almost guarantee that it occurs far, far more than the other way round. And particularly in industries such as film, it robs others of the same background role models and the ability to see themselves in characters. For a lot of forum members, I’d doubt that’s something we’ve ever really experienced.

There will hopefully be a point where there is enough representation for all, and people will not be biased towards things like that and instead choose truly based on merit. At that point, screw diversity checklists and all of that - it’s definitely not needed. However, we are not at that point yet! Look at all the massive franchises like Star Wars and Marvel - where are the Asian people, the disabled people, the LGBT+ community, the female leads for goodness sake?! What few of them there are almost entirely what you’d probably say a result of diversity checklists. Are you saying that these people aren’t any good or that they don’t deserve to be in the film? I’m pretty damn sure that there are plenty of them that are far better than their ‘non diversity checklist’ counterparts, and a greater portion of the world’s population that fit into these groups than there is representation in the media. Yet these ‘diversity checklists’ seem to be the only way they are getting in. I think we can all agree that that isn’t fair. Like it or not, these ‘diversity checklists’ are definitely the lesser of the two evils, and until we learn otherwise, are likely to be necessary in the near future.

There’s nothing to say it can’t be both. Feminism should not be considered a political agenda, instead something we should all strive for, and a part of everything

 

I disagree. I can only judge feminism based on the writings and ideas that they produce. Many of the ideas put forth have deviated massively from traditional feminism. Ideas and groups change overtime, why would feminism be any different? It's simply that the change they have undergone has been a negative one.

I have a very close friend of mine who took a Women's study course at an accredited university in Canada; probably about 10-15 years ago. Upon completion of the course, I asked her what she thought of it. She was absolutely appalled by the course, its teaching and its professor. SHE described it as nothing more than man-hating. She could not believe how such a person could be hired by the university and continue to spread such nonsense. I assure you that her experience is not unique. Since that time, feminism has only gotten more radical... not every feminist of course, but the movement as whole.

You would be correct that there are many films that I dislike because they aren't my particular taste. Which is why I would make an awful film critic (unless the scope was more limited to genres that I enjoy). However, more to the point, there are certain things that kids can't pickup on in a film. They can tell you if they liked it or not, and the older ones can even point out what aspects they liked and disliked, however they don't yet have the cognitive capacity to judge underlying messages, propaganda, or harmful ideas. This is the reason why I dislike advertisements that target kids, they are essentially defenseless against it. Even some adults fall into this category.

However, a competent film critic can still judge the merit of a children's film. They can compare it to other films of the same type. They can analyse and discuss underlying messaging. They can judge it against a set of criteria (pacing, story structure, moral lessons, etc.). A child can only judge it superficially, and they have no criteria with which to analyse the film other than their own personal whims.

In any event, the critics that poorly critiqued the movie (Wrinkle in Time) turned out to be correct. The movie did poorly in the box office...
https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Wrinkle-in-Time-A-(2018)#tab=summary



Factor in that the production budget does not include marketing costs and that the studio only gets about 60% of the box office. They lost some big money on it.

And the audience score abysmal...

What you are describing is equality of outcome and I couldn't possibly stand more opposed to something. I believe in equality of opportunity.



I agree with you that discrimination does exist out there, but it is far less prevalent than it is being made out to be. Also, it is individual discrimination, meaning it is being perpetrated at the level of the individual (independent bad apples). Systemically we already have equality (not worldwide, I'm talking about in Western cultures, some places in the world are horribly unequal). Everyone's rights and opportunities are protected by law. In my country (Canada), any one from any race or gender can succeed. The laws and institutions of the country are set up to ensure that.

Speaking specifically about women, at this point they outnumber men in terms of getting a university education. Does this mean that we should deny some of them entry into University in order to bring the balance back to 50/50?

I hope one day we reach that point, but it will likely never be 100%. There will always be a few bad apples in the barrel. However, what we have now is pretty damn good. I'm not sure how things are where you live, but in my neck of the woods gender or race rarely play a role in one's success. Ability, drive and hard work are the key determinants.

As for checklists, let's take a quick look at the NBA:

Estimates are that 75-80% of NBA players are black. If we apply the diversity checklist, should we not limit the number of black players to be a better fit the demographics of society?? OF COURSE NOT, we want to see the best play the best. I couldn't care less about the color of their skin. Let the best rise to the top.

Not every movie has to be representative of the population. I'm sure movies produced in China or Japan have greater representation of Asian people. What about the BET (Black Entertainment Television)? Should they change their casting?

People have the right to create whatever stories and movies they wish. If someone has the skill and drive they can make a movie comprised entirely of minorities. There are no laws to stop them and in fact the media would praise them for it. I wish people would stop forcing diversity. It is a free country, no one is preventing you from producing a film to feature whatever demographic that you like.

As for women, they have been in starring roles for the longest time. I don't see what the issue is here.

What do you base this on? Is this a personal opinion? Maybe there is or maybe there isn't; at this point that is nothing but conjecture. However, someone had a vision and they have a right to create that vision without outside interference.

Really? What if you and your family were flying on a plane, would you want to people who worked on your plane to have been hired based on a diversity checklist? I bet you would the absolute best people, no matter what identity group they fit into.

What about a firefighter? A few years back, I know that women had different standards of entry than the men did. Meaning their minimum fitness requirements (endurance, strength, etc.) were less than for the men. If your loved one is in a fire and needs saving, do you want the 150lbs female going into save them or the 235lbs male who is built like a brick shithouse? In my opinion, each should be tested evenly and the best would be selected, regardless of gender or race (based on whatever criteria is required to excel at the job).


Specially in terms of movie critic, the barriers of entry are pretty minimal today. With the proliferation of social media, anyone can set up a YouTube channel and become a critic. If you are good, you'll get followers and you will get noticed. I just don't like when it is forced artificially.

Also, you never answered my question about a diversity checklist for roofers? or garbage removal employees? or coal miners? or deep sea welders?

QUOTE="ravagekitteh, post: 267998, member: 15845"]There’s nothing to say it can’t be both. Feminism should not be considered a political agenda, instead something we should all strive for, and a part of everything[/QUOTE]

Ghostbusters 2016 is not in agreement with you. Apparently Dr. Who is tanking as well (although I haven't seen any of the new season, I'm going purely based on what I have heard and read). Star Wars lost money for the first time. The list goes on and on.

Get Woke. Go Broke!

 

I’m not saying the criticism was necessarily wrong, or the that the movie was good, but I still think that whether or not it achieved its purpose is probably better judged by the children it’s aimed at, or maybe their parents. Film critics can have a good idea about this, but ultimately they aren’t the ones being affected by it, so they are missing a key part. Perhaps she was just making a point about the subjective nature of films and how you don’t need to listen to a critic to decide if you like something. In that, while again it’s a fairly valid point, she definitely should have phrased it better or just kept it off Twitter - that post came across quite naive or at least not well thought through. I don’t think she deserved the shitstorm that followed, but it’s not exactly surprising.

I don’t believe in equality of outcome either - my previous post probably didn’t make that clear. Equality of opportunity should always be the aim - when it is provided, equality of outcome would likely come with it, and in a way that still means merit is the deciding factor. However, while in theory it should be the case what with all the laws in place to try to safeguard it, in practice it still isn’t. What I’m proposing is that equality of opportunity be put in at the very first level, not equality of outcome being shoved in at the end. However, this isn’t happening, so in order try and apply this, measures have to be taken further down the line. These can be messy, badly thought out, and end up fostering equality of outcome forcefully. Diversity quotas are an example of this, and can often be these things. However, we still need to try and put into place equality of opportunity for those who need it later on while we work on putting it in at the very beginning; we still need a stepping stone to reach that point. And when done right, diversity quotas can be this.

What they shouldn’t be doing is just picking people purely based on these things, but instead should be used to help grant underrepresented minorities opportunities that they would otherwise miss out on because of either discrimination at the point of choice, or discrimination earlier on through lack of prior opportunities. It’s never going to be perfect - at the end of the day, with them you are always going to end up with some form of forced equality of outcome - but as a temporary measure until we reach the point of equality of opportunity from the very beginning, they at least serve to tide things over until then. In the current state of affairs, if people who might be passed over are being done so purely on those measures, while yes it is somewhat unfair, it’s been like that for ages for those who are replacing them and gives them a chance to shine until the (hopefully very soon) point in which all become equal, and the people being passed should be able to find work elsewhere if their talent is that good. And by the end, everyone will be equal anyway. It’s by no means a perfect solution, and where it would be butchered it’s probably better just to go without it entirely. But if you can do it properly, it serves as a doable stepping stone to what we want to achieve.

Not every film should have to be an entirely proportioned representation of society, but if you take every film and look at them, it should broadly be such that there is enough proportional representation that people feel they are included.

Are you really suggesting that every person who wouldn’t fit onto a diversity checklist is better then everyone who would, because even if that is the case, it shows a massive inequality of opportunities to learn and improve from the very beginning. I know that’s not what you mean, but that was the point I was trying to get across from that, so that’s how you counterpoint comes across to me.

The roofer/rubbish removal/etc debate comes more down to society as a whole rather than anything else. These jobs are stereotyped as male so much it’s become ingrained in our culture. There isn’t diversity checklists for these jobs because there aren’t others who want the job who are being denied it, and there aren’t others who want the job because it’s portrayed as being a very male and not something to aim for. That’s the problem there, and once those things have been dealt with, things should naturally become more diverse.

These things are probably more important in the media because that’s the part of life that most influences people, providing role models and other things. That’s something many underrepresented people are missing out on, and one of the reasons why diversity checklists can be a good idea when done moderately as I’ve said above. These people lack people they can admire and see themselves in properly, and diversity checklists can help them with that by making sure that they have sufficient quantities of this to keep them going until we can reach that perfect point of equality. And once that starts happening in the media, if we apply the same thing to job attitudes, everything should become naturally more diverse whilst retaining merit as the deciding factor. At that point, diversity checklists? F*** ‘em. They should be a stepping stone - and even then only when done right - and nothing more.

Ghostbusters 2016 flopped because it was a bad movie for reasons that has nothing to do with feminism. Doctor Who I’ve been watching and I know I don’t see any of this in it. You can’t attribute diversity checklists to the new casting - it’s been a long time in the coming anyway and was done completely naturally. Star Wars lost out due to boycotting, not its own merits. Personally I’m not a massive fan of boycotting - especially when it means that others who are involved in the offending media but who has both to do with the damning act suffer. Solo did not have any supposedly damning ‘SJWness’ to it, and the people who are behind that aspect (Disney and such) aren’t really going to suffer that much, while those who poured their heart and soul into its production get to see their hard work ignored for crimes they didn’t commit. By all means make the perpetrators of the cause of the boycott suffer (although I personally still enjoyed TLJ and don’t think it deserved the hate), but make sure it’s definitely them that are suffering, and not innocents caught in the crossfire.

 

That is really reaching for a conclusion that isn't there. She in not way said that. I think her point was pretty clear and it was not nearly as idealistic as you make it out to be. She doesn't care about the opinions of 40 year old white men. Then she goes on talking about women and women of colour; those are the opinions she cares about. Fair enough, maybe those white men won't go pay to see her movie.

Did you watch the Jordan Peterson video I posted above? He completely disproves this. They ran extensive scientific studies that actually showed the opposite of this. In the Scandinavian countries, which are the most egalitarian (and thus best approximate pure equality of opportunity) they measured career outcomes. When they started the study they thought that they would find equality of outcome to be the product of the system. What they actually found, to their surprise, was that people slotted themselves into more traditional gendered roles/careers (he used the example of the nursing field being dominated by women and doctors by men). Not because the women weren't allowed to be doctors. Not because the women didn't have the ability to be doctors. Simply the women choose other fields that better suited their interests and goals. The conclusion was that when you eliminate the social/cultural factors, the biological ones become the main determinant. And there exist innate biological differences in what interests men and women (speaking on averages of course, at the individual level things can vary greatly). This isn't just some guy's opinion, this was born out of extensive research and data collection... and the people that conducted the study, actually disproved their own hypothesis.

This is one of the things that I dislike about leftist thinking. It seems that the left is always seeing racism, sexism or some other form of discrimination everywhere. North America is a pretty damn good place. It's not perfect, but it is perhaps one of the best places (there are some other countries as well, but since I don't live there I will just speak about America and Canada) to live. We all have it pretty damn good, and it is better now than at any other point in time, for everyone, including minorities and women.

This is not to say that it is perfect. There will always be bad actors, but the system itself is fair. It is a place where people from all races and genders can succeed if they have the drive and skill to do so. If someone acts in bad faith and is discriminatory, then we should call them out and try to make things better. But the media vilify the country to such a far extent, that people think it is this horrible place where racism and sexism run rampant and continually squash the hopes and aspirations of minorities.

I could not possibly fundamentally disagree with this more. You're literally saying that we should take away some opportunity that someone has earned [because they aren't part of a group that was previously passed over] and give to someone else based on what group they fall into. I believe that in itself is discrimination. At that point we would be giving out and taking away opportunities based on what race, gender or sexual orientation someone falls into. If someone's group was discriminated against in the past, that doesn't mean that we should discriminate against another group to make it better. Even you have admitted that it is unfair. You don't solve discrimination with more discrimination.

I understand that your heart is in the right place. I can see that you are coming from a caring point of view, but I disagree with the proposition you are putting forth to make things better. I admit that some really terrible things have been done to people in the past (sexism, racisim, homophobia, etc.). But unless we actively took part in that discrimination, we are not responsible for it and should not feel personally guilty about it. Furthermore, we should not have opportunities unfairly shifted towards that group at the expense of the other group. Take slavery as an example, of course it was terrible and wrong. Of course it is great that it has been abolished. But who in the USA today has owned a slave? Who it the USA today has been a slave? No person or group is responsible for the wrongdoings of the generations that came before them. If you trace back any ancestry far enough, someone in that line did something terrible to someone else. However, that is in the past and we have to focus on the present.

If I understand your proposition correctly (and correct me if I am wrong) you have stated the following:

• you believe in equality of opportunity and consider it to be the ideal (we are in agreement here)
• you believe that currently we don't even come close to approximating equality of opportunity (I believe that for the most part, systemically, we do have a just and fair system)
• you propose that we temporarily employ equality of outcome to bridge us to a time where we have achieved equality of opportunity (I massively disagree)

My viewpoint is that Equality of Outcome does not lead to Equality of Opportunity. When you unfairly take things away from one group, that they have earned them [via hard work, skill, merit, etc.] and give it to an oppressed group, you create several problems:

• You piss off the group from whom your unfairly taking away opportunities. That group will recognize what is happening and will grow to dislike the group that is being favoured. To fix things we need to close the racial/gender/etc. divide, not expand it.
• The group that is being given extra opportunities will come to understand that they don't need to work as hard to obtain something, so they won't push themselves as hard. When you continually tell some group they are oppressed, they become victims looking for handouts. Instead, empower people with the knowledge that they can achieve their goals based on their skills, drive and merit. That creates a positive change in a person.
• You incentivize a victim hood-culture. This is fully prevalent today, where victim status is a type of social currency. This is why you have Jussie Smollett fake his MAGA attack, if he had gotten away with it, his stock in hollywood/tv would have skyrocketed. This is why you have Elizabeth Warren fabricate her native american (Cherokee) status. As a white woman, she didn't fall into a group with enough victim status (the more of these groups you belong to, the stronger your voice is on the left)
• You weaken the country. Other countries that aren't playing these games will catch and overtake the US. You simply aren't utilizing your people in the most optimal manner (which would be people gaining positions based purely on merit).

Also, as Jordan Peterson pointed out in the video I posted previously, equality of outcome doesn't even logistically work because you can continually break down a group into smaller and smaller parts. I won't repeat it here, because it is all in the video.

I am not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that if you have two circumstances, one where a person tries to check off a diversity quota versus a person who casts their actors/actresses based on what best serves the story/movie, the second person is far more likely to come out with a better product. The first person is limiting his/her options. The movie is taking a backseat to the political agenda/quota. Plus, when it becomes obvious that a diversity checklist is being employed, it turns the majority of the people off. We've seen this with Star Wars, lady ghostbusters, etc. It isn't speculation, its already happening.

People aren't diversifying these jobs because they are hard. Surely a roofer has a harder job than a movie critic. These jobs are far more physically taxing and/or dangerous. How come we don't have an open dialogue about the fact that the vast majority of workplace deaths happen to men (because of dangerous jobs). Where is the diversity here? It's okay to try to poach the "good" jobs while ignoring the harder ones?

Okay, but what if we directly tackle your statement: "there isn’t diversity checklists for these jobs because there aren’t others who want the job who are being denied it". Let's look at the NBA example I provided previously. 80-85% of the players in the NBA are black (because they are the best = merit). Those multi-million dollar jobs are highly sought after. Why don't we apply the diversity checklist here? Because the people want to see the best play the best. Pure merit, no political bull-poop. I don't want to see some second rate white player put in their to equal out the numbers and better represent the social demographic, I want to see Micheal Jordon, or Lebron James, etc. We can take this further. The average height in the NBA is around 6'7", but the average male height in the US is around 5'9" or 5'10". So is the NBA discriminating against shorter people? No, it is merit based, so if someone short can reach the required level of NBA performance, they will make it into the NBA (there a bunch of short players who have played). But they have to be able to outplay the guy who gets cut from the team because he isn't as good as the short guy. Equality of opportunity. Let the best rise to the top. It should be no different in any other profession, it is just easier to identify in sports.

Solo did suffer from the TLJ backlash and rightfully so. As audience members, we have no direct say as to what is produced in Hollywood and how it is produced. However, our spending patterns do. We all get to vote with our wallets. If you don't, they will continue to pump out whatever they wish. If you want change, you need to speak up.

For the record, Solo DID have SJWness. L3 was a complete SJW tool. Stating that Lando is pansexual was also a prime example (hinted at in the movie, but directly stated by the co-writer, Jonathan Kasdan). Then the staff started going through their NPC handbook to insult the fans who were voicing concerns. Hey, fair enough, its a free country, but those fans don't have to pay to see your movie. The people proved that ultimately they are the ones that hold the true power.

As for innocents being caught in the crossfire, you (and I don't mean you specifically) can't force people to spend their money on your film. If someone is boycotting the film, that is their right. They aren't forcing others to do the same, everyone gets to decide for themselves. Should people be obligated to pay money to see a film (or franchise) that they are not happy with? People will spend their money on what they wish, that is how capitalism works. It is up to Lucasfilm in this case to deliver a product that the fans enjoy... or else, they will feel it in their bottom line.

 

Hey look... Star Wars...

 

Honestly, we could keep debating this and there’s plenty more I’d like to say, but outputting these posts are exhausting and time consuming in a way that for me isn’t worth the effort (In terms of gratification, I’m not saying you are making bad arguments). If you don’t mind, I think I’m going to bow out here as I don’t think I have the will or the stamina to continue.

 

I agree.

In terms of the topic, it is obvious that we things very differently. I think we both mean well but it is obvious that we will probably never see eye to eye on it. And that is okay. The fact that we managed to traverse such a delicate landmine of a topic (politics) without it turning into a shitshow is victory enough for the both of us.

 

Should really have been Palpatine’s face rather than a Stormtrooper helmet, but never mind

 

Maybe it is one of those photo cutout backgrounds like you see at various tourist spots. This is the stormtrooper version, they get to pretend to be the emperor.