TCTTS said:

---

No, it's never this clear and this concise. Because more often than not the complaints come with all kinds of extra *****ing and moaning, virtue signaling, dog whistles, etc and generally sound somewhat unhinged, if not straight up racist/homophobic. I'm not saying people haven't expressed their complaints in these terms before - of course they have - I'm saying it's hardly ever *just* in these terms.

---

fig96 said:

---

There was a lot more discussion about the show being "woke" (geez I hate that term) than anything that actually showed up in the series.

---

captkirk said:

---

fig96 said:

---

There was a lot more discussion about the show being "woke" (geez I hate that term) than anything that actually showed up in the series.

---

Including good story telling

---

TCTTS said:

---

Or, before posting, simply ask yourself, "Do I sound like a racist, homophobic ******* to TCTTS?"

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

In early drafts of the show, Kennedy straight up told her, "You've written a great Star Wars show, now go write a Leslye Headland show." It's really hard to argue that Kennedy just wants a good Star Wars story and not activism when that's exactly what we have from the horse's mouth.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, this entire show is the equivalent of the kid who got an assignment, focused on an idea they were passionate about and thought was really awesome, and then completely failed because they focused on that instead of meeting all of the requirements in the rubric. Headland, the writers she hired, and (at least some of) the actors she cast were so focused on the woke points of the show they failed to pay the requisite attention to anything else. Her activism and not leaving it at the door to focus on production quality is why she was unsuitable for the role.

And yes, she and everyone else at Disney/LF were hyperfocused on the wokeness of the show. That's how they marketed it and their main focus before release. Others have mentioned Fallout as a show that was very diverse, had what make would consider woke themes, and yet was incredibly well received. Why? There's was no overriding intent or focus on diversity. No one went on a media tour touting it as a super queer feminist wet dream. They focused on story and successfully bringing the Fallout universe to screen. Shows and movies that are hyperfocused on their inclusivity and wokeness rarely do well. Inclusive and even woke shows do well when their creators focus on the the story and getting it right and let inclusivity and wokeness take a backseat.

So yeah, it was woke, the wokeness did it in, and that wokeness is what Kennedy wanted.

---

fig96 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

fig96 said:

---

There was a lot more discussion about the show being "woke" (geez I hate that term) than anything that actually showed up in the series.

---

Including good story telling

---

Totally agree. The writing was clunky, pacing was off, dialogue wasn't very good. Lightsaber choreography was generally pretty badass and that's about it.

---

• Poorly written
• Poorly directed
• Poorly casted (with the exception of Manny Jacinto and Dafne Keen)
• Poorly acted (with the exception of Manny Jacinto and Dafne Keen)

TCTTS said:

---

I've noticed more and more that a certain group of people have been increasingly referring to anything that prominently features or is made by minorities as "DEI," and in the process correlating minorities with a lack of quality. Which is starting to get reeeaaalllly close to being code for "this thing sucks because it doesn't prominently feature/isn't prominently made by white men."

To be clear, that's NOT what I'm saying you're doing here, but also... what, exactly, do you mean? You say it's "easily" explained, but I've read your post three times now and it's not clear at all what you're saying. I of course have an idea, but why not just explain it in a way that leaves no "minorities = bad" gray area?

I just see a lot of complaints on this board about "agendas" and the like, and while I understand the complaints (and even agree with them at times), what I don't see are practical solutions being suggested by those complaining. Should these types of things not feature black female leads? Should Furiosa not have been made? Should Headlund not have been given the opportunity, even though plenty of other blockbuster novices have succeeded where she failed?

If it's not that difficult, what's the solution to whatever it is you're arguing? I'm genuinely asking.

---

TCTTS said:

---

On one hand, I completely get what you're saying. But on the other, in the Disney era, the franchise has still aimed far more at males than females. Just calling it how I see it, in terms of intended audiences...

Episode 7 = BOYS and GIRLS
Episode 8 = BOYS and GIRLS
Episode 9 = BOYS and GIRLS
Rogue One = BOYS
Solo = BOYS

The Mandalorian = BOYS
The Book of Boba Fett = BOYS
Obi-Wan Kenobi = BOYS
Andor = DUDES
Ahsoka = GIRLS
The Acolyte = GIRLS

Granted, I'll give it to you that the last two efforts - Ahsoka and The Acolyte - are the first two entires that have seemingly been aimed more at girls than boys. So it certainly feels a bit overbearing as of late. I'll also conceded that, including both of those, six out of eleven entires (five movies and six series) have featured female leads. So over half. That said, even though something like Rogue One featured a female lead, it still felt aimed squarely at boys/dudes, IMO, and that the female lead was there more to appeal to wives/girlfriends being drug to the theater, as opposed to trying to make new fans out of young girls.

Either way, yes, Disney/Lucasfilm can certainly stand to cut back on the number of female leads, but I also understand exactly why they've tried going down that path. Seeing as, between the prequel era and the Disney era, despite your thesis, female-centric, young adult, sci-fi/fantasy movies absolutely took off, and made **** tons of $$$. Twilight, The Hunger Games, Divergent, Snow White and the Huntsman, etc, etc resulted in the blockbuster game completely changing, so I totally get why Disney/Lucasfilm wanted to try for a piece of that action as well, right at the height of it all. They would have been stupid not to, and I'm sure their thinking was that they could feature female leads here and there, while simultaneously trying to appeal to everyone everywhere all at once, thinking they had boys guaranteed regardless.

Turns out, it's a much trickier balance to pull off than they thought.

And then, of course, literally at the exact same time, Trump became President, MeToo happened, the whole landscape became super charged, everyone dug their heals in on their respective sides, doubled down, and now here we suddenly are, years later, because of delays caused by Covid and two strikes, still being fed "The Force is Female" content that started development all the way back in that era.

That said, while I don't think Star Wars ever will or should be made only for boys/dudes, it does at least feel like they're finally starting to tone it down again in that regard, with what they have coming down the pike. Of all the new stuff coming (not counting second seasons of Ahsoka and potentially The Acolyte), only one features a female lead, and that's the Rey movie planned for 2026/2027. Everything else... Skeleton Key, Andor season two, The Mandalorian & Grogu, Lando, James Mangold's movie, Shawn Levy's movie, etc... is either aimed primary at kids or boys/dudes.

---

LPHA said:

---

This is such a stupid, stupid argument

---

Quote:

---

Jon Boyega, and Oscar Isaacs, each having major roles in all three movies

---