Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SSF

Is this the beginning of the end for Star Wars and the Boy Scouts?

Recommended Posts

Late last year I wrote a post on the comparison between the feminist and social justi.ce themes being injected into the Star Wars franchise; which seemed to mirror the BSA's 'progressive' decision to allow girls to join the BSA

While The Last Jedi movie faced greatly mixed reviews from critics, longtime Star Wars fans and new, progressive Star Wars fans; the financial success of that movie could not be disputed.

Many longtime fans who were deeply put off by the overt feminist and social justice themes and undertones of the Last Jedi, however, swore to no longer support the Star Wars franchise given its current direction.

The Solo movie, which opened this weekend, is now being called the first Star Wars flop ever due to its extremely low opening box office numbers, as many of these ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, chose not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe, by voting with their wallet and not seeing the movie (myself included).

Is it likely that changes will be made to Disney's take on the Star Wars universe given this financial hit?

Should the BSA expect a similar financial hit, over its decision to allow girls to join the BSA?

I know that many on this board are championing the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts, but are there enough of you who share that view to outweigh the number of Americans who simply feel that the inclusion of girls in the Boy Scouts of America, is political correctness run amok and ultimately a huge mistake?

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If execs bury the changes in unnecessarily neutral language, they will lose scouters who prefer that you speak plainly.

Trained in marketing, they meticulously count news clippings and categorize them into favorable and unfavorable media references. If they lean too much on trying to read those tea leaves, it's gonna be rough.

Inclusion rhetoric is also potentially disasterous. Think about the constant glossary reminders that Venturing has to put out. That breath wasted in teaching scouters that it's not "Venture Scouts". A Silver/summit award that has an eagle on it but is not an Eagle award. The lesson? "Treat us like real scouts, just don't call us scouts." Ridiculous! And membership numbers confirm it.

Like I tell new acquaintances, it doesn't matter what you call me, just don't call me late for dinner. Changing language won't help girls be included. Actually helping girls be included will.

The kind of girls I want are the kind who can appreciate the the boys I have. When that happens, it's a beautiful thing. Precious few changes in title are necessary. Consider Robert's Rules of Order. It declared that a female leader was also to be called Chairman/Director/Governor. But to make clear that such woman was welcome in her post, simply address her as Madame Chairman. Such a move did not bankrupt Robert's Rules, it made it more valuable to a wider audience. Why? Because the opposite of a room full of men conducting business was a room full of men brawling, not a room of full of both sexes conducting business.

We need to remind ourselves that the original opposite of Boy Scout was Military Scout. We weren't giving boys space from girls. We were giving space from imitating the warfare of the day ... a space where military disciplines could be use for youthful peacetime service.  That same space can and is being used for both sexes to perform youthful peacetime service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wait ... what? You are comapring to utterly different things; I can see which dots you are trying to connect, but you are ending up with the wrong picture and forcing some ideas that I do not believe a relevant. For you to claim that Solo is seeing less success (mind you, it's nothing near a flop - it's still making millions, just not as many as other Star Wars films) - because movie-goers are "voting with their wallets" "not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe" I would find laughable if it wasn't so erroneous. I still don't know where fans are getting these "social justice themes" in TLJ, and honestly what's wrong with getting a few more female characters (= Rose and Holdo. 2. Big deal)? Honestly, Star Wars fans are the HARDEST to please and the MOST obnoxious in their reviews (well, with the exception of Trekkies, lol).

You didn't like The Last Jedi. We get it. I thought it was great, and more fun that I have had in a Star Wars movie in a long time. I say this as somebody who is as big a Star Wars fan, if not far moreso, than almost anybody here. When you speak of the "ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, I am amongst their numbers. But you want to make this political, which isn't the case. Why isn't Solo doing well? Nothing to do with politics I can tell you - it's that nobody really cared about getting a Han Solo movie in the first place! LOL. It's simply a movie nobody asked for, coming too close off the heels of another, bigger Star Wars movie, which, as much as you may have hated TLJ, still made so many billions of dollars that it has generated a greater income than many world nations. Your may resent the changes to your idealized Star Wars childhood all you like, but they are going to continue to be made, and continue to be successful. I have enjoyed them greatly, and I am as conservative as anybody. Star Wars is such a juggernaut that your wishing Solo would flop won't make a ding-dong difference in the numbers.

Sadly, the BSA is in far hotter water than Star Wars is. But experience is proving that those of us who want to preserve the Boy Scouts for what it is - a dynamic organization for boys that protects their right to explore their world without intervention from adults, girls, political agendas, et cetera - are in the minority now. And unlike Star Wars, which is simply a matter of artistic tastes and personal preferences, this is a matter of right and wrong, though too few will fight to protect that. This is why I will bow out of Scouting at the end of next year, but continue to happily enjoy Star Wars probably decades after the BSA is defunct.

Edited by The Latin Scot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Wait ... what? You are comapring to utterly different things; I can see which dots you are trying to connect, but you are ending up with the wrong picture and forcing some ideas that I do not believe a relevant. For you to claim that Solo is seeing less success (mind you, it's nothing near a flop - it's still making millions, just not as many as other Star Wars films) - because movie-goers are "voting with their wallets" "not to support Disney and Ms. Kennedy's progressive take on the Star Wars universe" I would find laughable if it wasn't so erroneous. I still don't know where fans are getting these "social justice themes" in TLJ, and honestly what's wrong with getting a few more female characters (= Rose and Holdo. 2. Big deal)? Honestly, Star Wars fans are the HARDEST to please and the MOST obnoxious in their reviews (well, with the exception of Trekkies, lol).

You didn't like The Last Jedi. We get it. I thought it was great, and more fun that I have had in a Star Wars movie in a long time. I say this as somebody who is as big a Star Wars fan, if not far moreso, than almost anybody here. When you speak of the "ardent, longtime Star Wars fans, I am amongst their numbers. But you want to make this political, which isn't the case. Why isn't Solo doing well? Nothing to do with politics I can tell you - it's that nobody really cared about getting a Han Solo movie in the first place! LOL. It's simply a movie nobody asked for, coming too close off the heels of another, bigger Star Wars movie, which, as much as you may have hated TLJ, still made so many billions of dollars that it has generated a greater income than many world nations. Your may resent the changes to your idealized Star Wars childhood all you like, but they are going to continue to be made, and continue to be successful. I have enjoyed them greatly, and I am as conservative as anybody. Star Wars is such a juggernaut that your wishing Solo would flop won't make a ding-dong difference in the numbers.

Sadly, the BSA is in far hotter water than Star Wars is. But experience is proving that those of us who want to preserve the Boy Scouts for what it is - a dynamic organization for boys that protects their right to explore their world without intervention from adults, girls, political agendas, et cetera - are in the minority now. And unlike Star Wars, which is simply a matter of artistic tastes and personal preferences, this is a matter of right and wrong, though too few will fight to protect that. This is why I will bow out of Scouting at the end of next year, but continue to happily enjoy Star Wars probably decades after the BSA is defunct.

Thanks for responding and for these insights on Star Wars. I do agree with your take on what the BSA should be.

I appreciate that you're a Star Wars super fan and apparently an ardent supporter of the new Star Wars movies  launched under Kathleen Kennedy. I myself am definitely no super fan of Star Wars  (of any generation) by any means.  

I think you're mistaken though, if you think that the Star Wars "juggernaut" will continue given it's current trajectory. 

The  Last Jedi made a lot of money because people went to see it in good faith, expecting that it would be a good movie. Instead what they got was a bad movie laced with overt gender politics and leftist social agendas. If you enjoyed it, that's great. I'm glad you did, but most people were very put off by the movie. Yes, artistic differences are subjective and can be open to interpretation, but box office returns, budgets and financial figures are matters of fact.

Disney, and Ms. Kennedy, injected feminism and their 'progressive' views into the Star Wars universe and for The Last Jedi, they upped the dosage  and that's now backfiring on them. Plain and simple. You can ignore that if you want to, but the reality is the reality. People just want to see Star Wars. They don't want Kathleen Kennedy's "The Force is Female" take on Star Wars.

Bear in mind that Disney is all about profit and right now Solo is not nearly profiting to the tune that they would like it to, since the majority of fans who turned out for The Last Jedi chose not to waste their hard earned money on Solo. It wasn't the marketing, it wasn't the Memorial Day weekend opening, it was the fact that people simply did not want to pay to be force fed (no pun intended) a lesson from Kathleen Kennedy and Disney on gender politics. They learned their lesson after The Last Jedi and weren't going to fall for that twice.

Only time will tell, but I would venture to guess that Disney's pursuit of $ will drive some changes in the way that they approach Star Wars.

Yes, a movie franchise and an organization for boys are distinctly different but to my original point, both chose to alienate their bases of longstanding supporters and proponents by embracing a feminist agenda and, I think it's safe to say that sadly neither the BSA or Star Wars are flourishing right now...can these trends be reversed and what will it take to do that?

I personally do believe that Star Wars, in pursuit of $ will change its course, eventually, but I don't believe the BSA has any plans to deviate from their current heading.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been under the false illusion that virtue sells better than sin. Violence and sex are popular and profitable themes in Hollywood movies.  If the Disney studio decides to take the course of greatest profitability, my guess is that is this is the direction they will be going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people are just burned out on Star Wars. My brother-in-law is a die-hard SW fan, has multiple Star Ward tattoos and always goes to opening night releases for the new films. He hasn't seen Solo yet.

Disney is over-doing it, that's why Solo numbers are lower than typical for a Star Wars film. They were announcing the Boba Fett film as Solo came out. Is every character going to get their own film now? Maybe there's still hope for Jar Jar to make a comeback. ;)

I just don't think it's a fair comparison to the BSA. The film franchise and our organization have very different challenges and different factors in play when it comes to their successes and failures. 

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/26/2018 at 4:37 PM, SSF said:

Is it likely that changes will be made to Disney's take on the Star Wars universe given this financial hit?

This forum being what it is, I feel compelled to say that the following is sarcasm:

Sure, the next movie is going to have no female characters, just men.  And no alien males either, because in the current political climate who wants to see them, so all human men.  Unfortunately I'm not quite sure which human men are still alive, except the ex-stormtrooper and what's-his-name, Rey's new boyfriend, and maybe Lando.  And whatever happened to Wedge Antilles.  (Sorry, my "peak" as a Star Wars fan was sometime around the release of Episode VI, and I'm talking about the version with the force-ghost of the old Anakin at the end, not the Haydn Christensen Anakin.)

The preceding comment has been sarcasm, well except that parenthetical part at the end, that was serious.  The sarcasm is now over.  Only serious comments will follow.

Quote

Should the BSA expect a similar financial hit, over its decision to allow girls to join the BSA?

They clearly don't expect one, they expect the opposite.  Whether they should or not has of course been a matter of debate, but I think the discussion of what will happen is mainly a waste of time at this point.  Predictions of the future aren't worth the pixels they're printed on.  We will know when it does or doesn't happen.

And back to Star Wars for a second, the fact is that movies have had social-change themes forever.  A few days ago my wife and I happened to run across the movie "Desk Set" (Tracy-Hepburn) on tv and watched most of it, for about the 20th time.  It was made "a long, long time ago," 1957 I believe.  I wonder how some here would have reacted to parts of that when it came out.

On the other hand, as I said the last time this subject came up, sometimes a movie is just a movie.

Edited by NJCubScouter
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that The Last Jedi made over a billion dollars. A BILLION DOLLARS!!! Did it make as much as The Force Awakens? Of course not, that was the first new Star Wars film since the prequals. But mercy, TLJ still made a TON of money - so much that they have now announced:

The obvious Episode IX

A live action TV series

Two entirely new Star Wars trilogies

An animated TV series

The continuation of their Forces of Destiny shorts

An entire Star Wars theme park at both Disneyland and Disneyworld

Not to mention the likely stand-alones of Boba Fett, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and likely more Solo films. 

Quote

Yes, artistic differences are subjective and can be open to interpretation, but box office returns, budgets and financial figures are matters of fact.

Yes indeed they are. And a BILLION DOLLARS generated from The Last Jedi tells me that, much as you may have hated it, that thing made MONEY, and LOTS OF IT. Star Wars is not slowing down at all; it's just going to get bigger and bigger. I am just grateful I have enjoyed everything they put out tremendously!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interesting theory, I'll ponder it more (I've got a 2-hour drive today).

Hollywood has produced nothing but dreck for about three decades now.  A few good movies might slip through now and again.  Not even that many.  Overall theaters offer nothing but CGI-run-amok, reheated leftovers, mind-numbing sequels, cardboard-cut-out characters, and social justice preaching. 

Star Wars is a good example.  I have fond memories of the first Star Wars (as in real-world chronological first) because our troop was on the way to Philmont.  Overnighting at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque NM, we had a great meal at a Mexican restaurant.  Off the cuff we drove to a theater and found seats just as the movie was starting.

The movie was good.  It didn't change my life.  But I enjoyed it.  I'm impressed now because I had never heard of the movie before I bought a ticket to see it.  Movie advertising was more humane back then. 

So I go see the sequel a few years later.  That was enough Star Wars for me.  Saw part of III at friend's house and found an excuse to leave early.

To each their own.

Comparing the BSA and SW...I'd say brand-fatigue has set in.  For both.

For Star Wars, how much more can be said about The Force, etc.?  Even in the early sequels, they had to resort to soap-opera plot devices to pad out the script. 

The BSA's brand fatigue is different.  It's not even "fatigue."   Since 1972, there has been a concerted effort within scouting to SIDELINE the outdoor element of scouting. 

Red berets.  Twenty four MBs required for Eagle and yet camping wasn't one of them (74ish - 81ish).  STEM.  Soccer.   Indoor Wood Badge. 

Which is interesting because outdoor adventure is timeliness.  It's truly "The Force" for the BSA, but the BSA has tried to minimize it over the years (until recently).

While I'm in favor of coed scouting, I respect the opinions of those who aren't.  I don't have a well-honed rationale for my position.  All I know is that when the coed discussion started when I was a scout, young Desertrat shrugged his shoulders and thought it would be okay.  Years later, I saw how the BSA helped my Venture daughter grow, and the enjoyment and friendships she has gleaned from her outdoor adventures. 

I think the BSA realized they had to do "something" so coed is it.  Too many lawsuits, huge drops in money and membership, too much wasted effort on products/services that had nothing to do with the outdoors...it all caught up with National. 

That said, I have found National's roll out of the coed program to be artless at times.  Clumsy.  They should have hired a real PR firm to handle it.  And made the program more like the BSA circa '55.

 

 

 

Edited by desertrat77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been a star wars fan since the 70's.  I know more about SW than I do about the BSA but I care about both and want to see them succeed.  I didn't care for LTJ but it had nothing to do with feminism.  The story sucked in my opinion and directly conflicted with all of the old canon and reversed a heroic character into a whiny hermit.  The previous SW movie killed off a main character.  Fan boys have dreamed of a new movie with the same actors since the ending of ROTJ and LTJ was an utter waste and a slap in the face.  I don't think most fans care about the progressive feminist themes you posted about.  The old fans I know have open arms for any new SW fans especially girls.  I see girls wearing SW shirts and it makes me feel good.  I would have been very happy in my teens to be able to talk SW with any girl.  Each generation is exposed to a different SW, I had the original trilogy.  Some fans had the prequel trilogy, others had the re-released originals, my son's generation had the cartoons and now this generation has the new movies.  I want everyone to find something in SW they care about and become a fan.

I feel similar about the BSA.  There has been good and bad.  People have different opinions about what was good and what should or should not have been done.  I want BSA to succeed.  I want everyone to be a fan of the BSA even if it's not for the same reason I'm a fan.  I like some of the things that people on this forum complain about.  I think that it's a shame that people have an all or nothing attitude about BSA.  The recent SW movies aren't great but I'm still a SW fan.  I think its also similar to being a fan of a really bad sports team.  They suck but someone still supports them and hopes for better.  I think it's great that girls want to do the things boy scouts do.  I'm not a fan of National and I don't care for the way they do things.  I think that separate girl/boy troops would be ok but my biggest problem is that this will be outright ignored by many and it will be coed troops because of lack of volunteers, logistics and some people just don't give a damn about the rules.  If dad is the SM and mom is now an ASM because your sister is there too, why even be in scouts?  why doesn't the family just go camping on their own?  Camping allows the boys to get away from their family with the exception of maybe a few dads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Assuming that the Han Solo movie indeed flops, I'm going to throw out an alternative theory here on why that may be the case.  It is based on not much more than the reaction I had when I first heard they were making a Han Solo movie, and my supposition that there are other people somewhere out there who had the same reaction.  I'm going to go see it, just because it's a Star Wars movie (in fact, I thought of taking my wife to see it later today, but I think we'll wait until next weekend.)  But as much as I like Star Wars, I want to see something new.  I know that a movie that is part of a series is necessarily going to have some relationship to previous movies, but things need to move ahead.  There is a point at which the references to the past just become too much.  One of the worst examples of crossing this line was a scene in the second "new Star Trek" movie (the one with Khan) which had the same dialogue as a scene in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, they just reversed the characters. ("Ship... out of danger?"  My son, sitting next to me, had to restrain me from yelling at the screen. Hopefully somebody here knows what I am talking about.)  Anyway, here's the thing.  I know Han Solo.  I have known Han Solo for more than 40 years.  Do I really need to see another movie about Han Solo?  Especially when it doesn't advance the story?  (The last movie was partly about Luke, but it wasn't ALL about Luke, and it did advance the story, and allowed Luke to go out a hero even though it didn't seem that way for most of the movie.)  The other "non-episodic" ST film, Rogue One, was different because it had different main characters and answered a couple of questions that had been kind of hanging around for more than 40 years.  But Han Solo's childhood?  It just doesn't excite me.  I suspect there are others who are less excited too.  It is somewhat analogous to the very-short-lived "Young Indiana Jones" movies, which I never watched, and it appears that not very many people watched it either.  (I tried to find an example that did not have some connection to Harrison Ford, but couldn't, off the top of head.)  Like I said, I'll see it, if only to maintain the fact that I have seen every Star Wars movie in a theater since the beginning.  But if it is not gaining great enthusiasm, I think my theory may be better than the one about outraged anti-feminists boycotting Star Wars.

If anyone can come up with a connection between MY theory and the BSA, as Spock might say, I'm all ears.

Edited by NJCubScouter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Let's not forget that The Last Jedi made over a billion dollars. A BILLION DOLLARS!!! Did it make as much as The Force Awakens? Of course not, that was the first new Star Wars film since the prequals. But mercy, TLJ still made a TON of money - so much that they have now announced:

The obvious Episode IX

A live action TV series

Two entirely new Star Wars trilogies

An animated TV series

The continuation of their Forces of Destiny shorts

An entire Star Wars theme park at both Disneyland and Disneyworld

Not to mention the likely stand-alones of Boba Fett, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and likely more Solo films. 

Yes indeed they are. And a BILLION DOLLARS generated from The Last Jedi tells me that, much as you may have hated it, that thing made MONEY, and LOTS OF IT. Star Wars is not slowing down at all; it's just going to get bigger and bigger. I am just grateful I have enjoyed everything they put out tremendously!

I'm glad you've enjoyed Disney's take on Star Wars, but the number of fans who share your opinion is shrinking fast.

Please don't try to confuse the issue. We're no longer talking about The Last Jedi's box office returns, we're now talking about Solo's box office returns...and in the greater scheme, how the opinions of the majority can be so easily cast aside by an elitist minority, who believe that "The Force is Female" and that girls should be in the Boy Scouts. (For the record, I would be equally opposed to including boys in the Girl Scouts.)

As I noted, yes, The Last Jedi, made a lot of money, but moviegoers were so put off by the gender politics injected into the movie, that they are now turning their backs on the Star Wars franchise. The whole point of my post was to point that out. Perhaps you did not see that part of my post.

Disney and Lucasfilm's have also had zero respect for the original mythology of Star Wars and its original characters - Luke, Leia and Han; each of whom were disrespected and desecrated in the Last Jedi and Force Awakens respectively. That also contributed to many fans choosing to no longer support Disney's progessive taken on the Star Wars franchise.

Disney/Lucasfilms had forecast that Solo was going to do $170 million in its opening four day weekend, and even that was far less than any other Star Wars opening, but Solo barely managed to break $100 million dollars. 

Take a look at he snippet below from the Hollywood Reporter, posted just a few hours ago. There are countless others like this one.

Does it sounds like they're calling Solo a blockbuster hit?

Lucasfilm and Disney are facing a moment of reckoning.

Over Memorial Day weekend, they were jolted when Solo: A Star Wars Story battled hard to hit $103 million domestically and bombed overseas with $65 million. The film badly trailed the launch of fellow stand-alone pic Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, which debuted to $155 million domestically in 2016 on its way to topping $1.056 billion globally. At its current rate, Solo may not gross much more than $400 million all in after costing at least $250 million to produce before marketing.

Yes, Disney and Lucasfilms have a lot of future Star Wars productions in the works. The question is will they continue to embrace this "Force is Female" agenda or will Disney reconsider that approach given that a lot of moviegoers are simply not interested in that and want their Star Wars movies, TV shows, comics, etc. to be devoid of extreme social agendas.

Solo (also labeled online as Soylo, So-Low and So-No) is just the first movie to experience the impact of this backlash from audiences. Many fans are already now labeling the new Boba Fett movie, Beta Fett

If you want to see things through rose colored glasses and believe that Solo is a mega blockbuster and all is honky dory with Disney's "Force is Female" approach to Star Wars, then that's your choice, but the reality is the reality.

Edited by SSF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about in other regions, but here Solo lost to a high pressure ridge leading to a Great Lake flatter than glass. The kids were considering the movie as everyone gathered Friday, but the weather took an unexpected turn for the better. My DiL wanted to make up for lost paddleboard time last summer, where every weekend had 2' - 6' waves (... so sad seeing her come up from the boat ramp every morning all dejected). And everyone else (be they kayaker or swimmer)  pretty much agreed that we needed remind 54-degree Erie that it was time to warm up for the summer. I accompanied her for a mile paddle into the sunset last night, and felt guilty about disturbing the water at every stroke.

I suspect the folks with sailboats would be inclined to the theater. But that's a small slice.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What's funny is that I read more than a dozen articles on Star Wars every day, yet I have never once encountered the phrase "Force is Female." I feel like you've made it up. But I see now why you are bitter. You treat Han, Luke and Leia like sacred characters. But they aren't; they're made up, but to give them life, to make them feel real, they have to act in ways that we can understand, and sometimes that means not everybody lives happily ever after. That's clearly what you wanted. But the way they mature and grow as characters is far more realistic, more believable, and more compelling than your desired outcomes, and to say that they were "disrespected and desecrated" is byperbole and exaggeration. Han was given a wonderful role in VII, but Harrison Ford has wanted out of the SW universe for years, so they wouldn't have kept him longer than they did. Leia was given full, meaningful roles in both VII and VIII, but sadly Carrie Fisher passed away before IX, which was to have been her biggest role. And I think Skywalker's arc tells a tragic, but hopeful story that makes sense of his times and his world, and that ends with a beautiful message (not to mention one of the most powerful manifestations of the Force in any SW movie to date).  

I cannot see where you get the idea that the Force is "Female" - it certainly isn't in the movie, so you must be getting it from your own strained interpretations. Just because you call it "the reality" doesn't make it so. You seem to hope that we will believe that you speak for a large body of Star Wars fans, but having a broad and close relationship with that fanbase myself, whether through the 501st and Rebel Legion, the various fan connection sites, or from the most recent comic-cons and other large events, it seems to me that fan response is over-whelmingly positive. You'll have to demonstrate that all the feedback I am getting from these sources is misleading before I can believe that they are in some kind of minority.

Edited by The Latin Scot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

What's funny is that I read more than a dozen articles on Star Wars every day, yet I have never once encountered the phrase "Force is Female." I feel like you've made it up. But I see now why you are bitter. You treat Han, Luke and Leia like sacred characters. But they aren't; they're made up, but to give them life, to make them feel real, they have to act in ways that we can understand, and sometimes that means not everybody lives happily ever after. That's clearly what you wanted. But the way they mature and grow as characters is far more realistic, more believable, and more compelling than your desired outcomes, and to say that they were "disrespected and desecrated" is byperbole and exaggeration. Han was given a wonderful role in VII, but Harrison Ford has wanted out of the SW universe for years, so they wouldn't have kept him longer than they did. Leia was given full, meaningful roles in both VII and VIII, but sadly Carrie Fisher passed away before IX, which was to have been her biggest role. And I think Skywalker's arc tells a tragic, but hopeful story that makes sense of his times and his world, and that ends with a beautiful message (not to mention one of the most powerful manifestations of the Force in any SW movie to date).  

I cannot see where you get the idea that the Force is "Female" - it certainly isn't in the movie, so you must be getting it from your own strained interpretations. Just because you call it "the reality" doesn't make it so. You seem to hope that we will believe that you speak for a large body of Star Wars fans, but having a broad and close relationship with that fanbase myself, whether through the 501st and Rebel Legion, the various fan connection sites, or from the most recent comic-cons and other large events, it seems to me that fan response is over-whelmingly positive. You'll have to demonstrate that all the feedback I am getting from these sources is misleading before I can believe that they are in some kind of minority.

You read more than a dozen articles on Star Wars everyday....? Wow, that's really something...I hope you  and the 501st Rebel Legion (no idea what that is) continue to enjoy doing that if that's what your floats your boat.

We can each have our own subjective interpretations on Solo, or the Last Jedi or any Star Wars movie, but the fact is that Solo under performed tremendously at the box office. For a big budget blockbuster movie that is part of the (arguably) most successful movie franchise in history a forecasted $400 million take home (and thats before marketing costs) makes this movie a flop.

I know that's not what you want to hear but that's the reality.

And, that's not "my reality," it is simply the reality of the situation. The movie is a bomb because people do not want to be force fed gender politics in Star Wars.

You and a few others, including the ladies in the photo below, may enjoy that particular  take on Star Wars, but a lot of other moviegoers who would have otherwise chosen to have spent money on this movie - if not for the injection of feminism, gender politics and extreme social agendas - chose not to do that.

For the record, the person who created the "Force is Female" was none other Kathleen Kennedy . Here she is in a photo...I  guess this wasn't in one of the dozen articles you read daily though.

Image result for kathleen kennedy "force is female"

What's especially interesting with regard to Star Wars and the BSA, is that while an elitist group chose to impart their own views, perceptions and agendas on a well established franchise/organization, with zero regard to the feeling of those who supported and held dear the franchise/organization, for many decades, through sheer strength in numbers, those supporters were able to have an impact. Time will tell what changes, if any, may be coming.

Can the same happen for the BSA?

I've said my peace here, so this is my last word on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×