Boba Fett Spin-Off

Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
1,277
Reaction score
76
People might say I'm getting off the topic but I found some comments in here interesting.

You say 'For A Few Dollars More' is just two bounty hunters out for monetary gain, no 'good' guys, no character to root for, out for themselves. And that Fett isn't even at that level.

Well if one watches the entire movie, they find out that the Lee Van Cleef character was after the bad guy because the bad guy had killed his brother in law and raped his sister, and his sister shot herself during the rape. After killing the bad guy, Van Cleef then showed no interest in the bounty at all, be it the agreed upon split with Clint Eastwood, or some attempt to get more or all of it himself. In fact, he is a tough guy along the way, butting heads with Eastwood, then teaming up to increase the chances of success, but in the end his disposition changes and you can see he feels an inner peace at having avenged his sister's rape/death. 'We' the viewer know of the rape/suicide murder, but Van Cleef doesn't reveal it to anyone. Eastwood only finds out that he looked like the picture of the girl between the two watches (his own and the stolen one recovered from the bad guy).
It could be said that he was out for himself (it was his sister) and he wasn't good (he killed him rather than turned him over to the authorities), but really he was seeking justice for the rape induced suicide and murder in a time/setting/genre where justice and law were not easily found. There are those who would place such behavior on the side of 'good' rather than 'bad' or 'evil' and would root for that character. Of course, that's a bit of a twist to the ending so you don't necessarily know it going along, to root for him along the way. But you do realize this about his character at the film's end.
Sure. But my point was that these characters are not "noble" characters in the traditional Hollywood sense. They are anti-heroes, with a profession that was looked down on and was populated with extremely nasty people. They are not the template for a central heroic character and there's just no way that Disney would have such a dubious character at the heart of a whole movie. Therefore, Boba Fett will have to be softened to make him more "acceptable", which would further ruin him. Boba Fett is a bad guy. He's not someone to root for. He works for a criminal organisation, hunts people for a living and his common method of "capture" is disintegration. This isn't a guy parents are going to want their kids rooting for, for an entire film.

Personally, I'd love to see a Star Wars film with a real scumbag Boba Fett at the heart of it. But, it ain't going to happen.

Now regarding Fett, AotC contradicted a previous backstory, but in a 'Legends' category there is a point where he leaves the bounty hunter life to become a Journeyman Protector, something like a marshal over a territory if we want to continue to think in western terms. He was attempting to 'clean his act up,' become more legitimate (a law officer type as opposed to a bounty hunter) you could say. Get married and settle down. Well his wife is raped and he kills a superior officer (the guilty party) and is jailed then exiled from Concord Dawn. I am not positive at the moment but I believe the story is told such that it did not come out publicly that the superior officer was the rapist, maybe even that she was raped at all, just that Fett killed a superior officer and gave no reason.
I never cared for Legends or the EU. Too much of it was shite. But, that story there could make for a great film. To bad that something like that will never see the light of day. BTW, was that story in a comic or a book? I wouldn't mind checking that out.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
12,529
Reaction score
0
I find it a bit ironic that GL opposed Kasdan back in the day pertaining to the 'spaghetti western' type ending of the OT that was originally pitched for (by Kasdan), but was eventually changed out for profit-gaining reasons (by GL). And even MORE ironic pertaining the original 9-part storyline by GL/Kurtz pertaining to a similar type ending of Luke Skywalker ('going off into the sunset')…...holy sh*t, I realize that DID happen so to speak! :D
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
0
People might say I'm getting off the topic but I found some comments in here interesting.

etc. ...
Are you kidding?
Off topic is par for the course around here.

Anyway, great post Sizzzler.

I think a Fett movie could work, but would depend on how it was done and when it was set.

Two of my favorite classic TV shows are Have Gun will Travel, and Wanted Dead or Alive. Both are about bounty hunter protaganists in the old west, although Richard Boone's and Steve McQueen's characters are easily more sympathetic than Fett would be.

We are meant to see Fett as a villain in TESB and ROTJ, so I think a movie set prior to those events can't humanize him too much.

Option one:
Early in his career, where he's still "defining himself".
This would have him try to do some right things, but get screwed and taken advantage of, so that he "hardens up".

Some episodes of the Clone Wars did this a little, like showing the trust he put in Aurra Sing, only to have her abandon him when things got heated. Thus, one step closer to his not trusting anyone and being an independent agent.

Option two:
During his career, after he's already "toughened up". In this case, it could just be a bounty hunting movie, where the person he's hunting is definitely scum, and any other bounty hunters that he's competing with are also scum.

For the "sympathy" and "human" element, let the people who either hire Fett, or who have been hurt by the person Fett is hunting, fill that void.

Option three:
Resurrect Fett from the sarlacc, and have him go through an arc similar to the story Sizzler references. This lets him still be a villain during the OT, as he should be, but also lets him go through a redemption of sorts.

Been a long time since I watched it, but maybe a story like the western Unforgiven would be appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unforgiven

(although made a little more kid friendly)
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2000
Messages
1,785
Reaction score
0
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,805
Reaction score
70
Location
Oregon
Second, I wish Disney never brought back any OT characters for their ST. That is Lucas' story to tell.
Which leads us to this: Take away all OT characters and just have Disney ST about Rey, Poe, Finn and Kylo (not as Han and Leia's son) and that story would have monumentally BOMBED!
Nobody would have cared about those characters without those OT connections.
So I guess it was a catch-22.

Disney would've failed either way. And they did...EPICCALLY!
I agree that it should have been so, and likely was. But once the ink was dry, I'm pretty sure they set upon their own path and rewrote 95% of it.
Also, w/o the OT infusions these movies would have been even more vapid than they were.

I truly get the sense that there were two very different movies/scripts fighting it over on screen. lol

People would have complained if Luke,Han,Chewie, and Leia weren't in the sequel trilogy as at least mentors for the new heroes.
In the traditional sense, yes. Those character would have been essential. But since this turned out to be nothing like it was supposed to be, then it doesn't matter anymore. These movies could have been on an island by themselves.

I'm thinking that Rogue One should have been their starting point, not TFA. Once they found out people were willing to accept new characters in the SW Universe, maybe it would have set a new tone. Star Wars itself doesn't need a passing of the baton like Kirk and Bones did for Star Trek to TNG. Not unless they were planning to do a whole new trilogy of Jedi focused movies, then they would need Luke in the Master role. But still focusing on the new characters. They tried to put too much into the ST.
 
Joined
May 10, 2012
Messages
2,700
Reaction score
21
I Hope a Boba fett movie never gets made under the present decision makers on Star wars at Lucasfilm and Disney.. If it does it will be garbage and will end further chances of sequels!
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,805
Reaction score
70
Location
Oregon
What, you don't think Fett and Sabine met up for an adventure and a tryst? With their illegitimate child showing up in the ST as a nobody. :grin:
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
10
I do agree, however, that the sequels have been pretty awful to the OT characters. Even Leia ends up looking stupid because of that Leia Poppins scene in 'The Last Jedi'. I'd rather Ford never came back, cos he was only there to kill off Solo, and Luke's character was just assassinated and ends up dying from too much Force, which was possibly the worst way I can think of for him to go out. R2 now looks like the poor man's BB-8 and C3PO is like a warm up act for a warm up act. Chewie has sort of gotten away with it, despite a lack of hugs. Christ knows what they're going to do to Lando.

I think it's fair to say that Disney chickened out when it came to the characters for their sequel trilogy and felt that in order to get bums on seats, they needed real Star Wars faces. Hence Solo was dragged out of retirement, dusted off, and plonked back into his smuggler role. Because that's what he was in the original films and JJ couldn't think of another "profession" that Han Solo would have been doing n the 30 years after the battle of Endor. Ford didn't give a crap, he just wanted Solo dead, because he's always been an arse about the character. Solo could have been a circus clown for all he cared, he was there for his millions and a chance to put a nail into the coffin of a character he never liked.

I think that without Solo in 'The Force Awakens', though, we'd all be looking at a film that would have made FAR LESS money. That's for sure. The return of Han Solo got a LOT of bums on seats. Would the film have "bombed". No, I don't think so. It would have made money, just not the 2 billion it did, and more people would have recognised it, quicker, for the poor rip off of the 1977 film that it was.

I can certainly understand why Disney jammed in the original three, though. Their own new characters are completely empty.
Well said.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
37
Location
SC
I think they could easily do a Fett movie like Logan. A few tweaks of course with Fett begrudgingly dealing with the end of his life and facing his choices. I'd throw in an ex-wife and estranged daughter/granddaughter like in the EU. (If you wanted to look them up I'm referring to Sintas Vel, Ailyn Vel, and Mirta Gev.)
A lot of stories with Mandalorians would be awesome. There is even an understated story line with 2 tough guy Mandos that have a relationship (Goran Beviin, Medrit Vasur) for those that really need that story line. *No comment either way... Just saying.

Get the right person to do it and it could be great.
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,805
Reaction score
70
Location
Oregon
I think one of the biggest factors with a Fett Movie, are the controversies over who should play him. Considering the numerous actors who've filled the role.

Do you cast respectful of the OT, PT or just pick some random schmoe like they did with Solo?
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
12,529
Reaction score
0
Who knows? I'll say this though......they might pull some 'crafty' idea like "The Road Warrior" which utilizes a main character with minimal dialogue (16 or so one-liners to be exact), if they want to make some cinematic connection/homage to The Man With No Name.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
hmmm no announcements of the Boba Fett movie. I thought they were starting production any day now. :p
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
"100% dead"? it seems to have a life of its own.

it started as a video game "1313". it was briefly tossed around as a feature film. it became "the mandalorian".
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,805
Reaction score
70
Location
Oregon
Agreed, they're not about to make a Boba Fett movie to compete with the Mandalorian TV show. It's one or the other, and they put all their eggs in that basket.

Doesn't mean that I'm not a bit saddened to hear we won't be getting a movie. There was potential there to tell a different aspect of Star Wars, and possibly expand on some of the other Bounty Hunters and spin off a new Movie.
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
10
Agreed, they're not about to make a Boba Fett movie to compete with the Mandalorian TV show. It's one or the other, and they put all their eggs in that basket.

Doesn't mean that I'm not a bit saddened to hear we won't be getting a movie. There was potential there to tell a different aspect of Star Wars, and possibly expand on some of the other Bounty Hunters and spin off a new Movie.
Kathleen Kennedy killed Star Wars movies.
There is going to be only one movie in the next three years that she is President of Lucasfilm and that is EP.9
There will be no mention of spin-off movies at all.
The Benioff and Weiss movie won't start production until after Cray Cray KK is gone in three years.
The Ruin Johnson trilogy will never happen.

TPTB are allowing Cray Cray KK to oversee the television projects (from a great distance) because they can't trust her decision making. TPTB will not invest hundreds of millions of dollars into more movies after the debacle of TLJ and the financial failure of Solo. After the extremely poor leadership and decisions by Cray Cray KK, TPTB will take the less expensive route of television.

It's really sad to see the greatest box office franchise of all time to be reduced to streaming television shows.
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
So, a movie that was never actually announced in the first place is now "100% dead"?

Stop the presses.
lmao the people that made up the boba fett,obi wan, and yoda movies lucked out on this one
 
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
30,805
Reaction score
70
Location
Oregon
It's really sad to see the greatest box office franchise of all time to be reduced to streaming television shows.
While the jury is still out on that.

I have noticed that just about everyone is doing their own streaming service now, which will mean it's the only a matter of time before it' the only way to view their product. Ending what most of us have enjoyed about Netflix for years, not to mention the pointlessness of Cable/TV.

I'm dreading that day, and have no intention of signing up for so many services.

We haven't technically had free TV in ages, in the sense of how my parents and their parents viewed it. But the idea/illusion of free TV will be missed, in favor of pay per view type of service.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
7
TPTB are allowing Cray Cray KK to oversee the television projects (from a great distance) because they can't trust her decision making. TPTB will not invest hundreds of millions of dollars into more movies after the debacle of TLJ and the financial failure of Solo. After the extremely poor leadership and decisions by Cray Cray KK, TPTB will take the less expensive route of television.

It's really sad to see the greatest box office franchise of all time to be reduced to streaming television shows.
You’re being too generous to Kathy by calling her crazy: If only she possessed a genuine streak of the maverick, archaic, risktaking vision of the crazy…

She’s a strict business individual through and through, and is only possessed of market-tested schemes, safe gimmicks and consumer-approved PC-statements. These are the reason her nuSW is so offensively bland and hollowly irrelevant. Corporate types like Kathy/JJ/Rian only know how to market SW— not tell SW stories. They wish they had a touch of crazy in them. Props to their business sensibilities, though: How such dull, sloppy and lazy films made over a billion each at least deserves a tepid cheer for their ruthless, colossal marketing LOL

In what may be a strange twist of ironic fate, these TV-series could very well be that darkhorse momentum that will bring back the true and genuine spirit of George’s SW— and more. Don’t poo poo streaming services, the best films I’ve seen this year have been via these new digital services: American Animals, Hold The Dark, Galveston… I tend to avoid blockbusters like a plague— although the coming of The Crimes Of Grindelwald has me a tad excited to get lost into… (If we want to talk about a wildly inventive, creative, inspiring powerhouse— all contained within a wizened, maverick, shrewd business individual, look no further than JK. She puts the soulless, hollowly corporate-by-number Kathy to utter shame.)
 
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
While the jury is still out on that.

I have noticed that just about everyone is doing their own streaming service now, which will mean it's the only a matter of time before it' the only way to view their product. Ending what most of us have enjoyed about Netflix for years, not to mention the pointlessness of Cable/TV.

I'm dreading that day, and have no intention of signing up for so many services.

We haven't technically had free TV in ages, in the sense of how my parents and their parents viewed it. But the idea/illusion of free TV will be missed, in favor of pay per view type of service.
I hear ya. I'm probably cancelling Netflix fairly soon. The marvel cancellations are shows I liked, trailer park boys could end at any time, who knows how many seasons of GLOW are planned, and frankly, I've watched pretty much every documentary on there I'm interested in.
 

GNT

Moderator
Joined
May 18, 2000
Messages
70,335
Reaction score
30
Location
Australia
No huge loss really, they probably would've ruined Boba Fett more than what Lucas did in AOTC. So yeah we all dodged a bullet here.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
yeah, regardless of what one thinks of Harry Potter on the whole, I kind of like JK.Rowling's "no ****s given" attitude when it comes to political correctness.
she's more interested in 'telling' stories than 'selling' stories -- or she wouldn't have hired johnny depp (given the "me too" accusations against him).
someone like KK would have dropped him like she dropped Lord and Miller. or like Marvel dropped Gunn. but JK doesn't seem to give a ****.

even KK's predictable "white v black" and "man v woman" rhetoric is all just part of a marketing ploy. don't be fooled.
it's like she's trying to start a prison riot. to get people all 'up in arms' against each other, for the sake of selling movie seats.
(like coke v pepsi, locked into their eternal battle of "Red v blue" -- for the sake of selling sugar-water -- more and more and MORE sugar water -- and both sides WIN).

meaning --> her industry rewards success by the amount of people she can "stir up" in the name of ticket sales --> she's not here to heal society by creating Gender Parity -- she's here to stick a knife in old wounds and make bank off it.
(in the same way that selena gomez exploits teen suicide with her nonsensical "13 reasons" show -- kk has chosen to exploit the "gender war" as a means of gathering an audience).
it's shameful.

where KK would be finding new ways to 'divide and conquer' (people from their money), JK would be too busy creating new content. with no ****s given.
like.. oh I dunno.. an actual artist.. or something. (regardless what you think of her creations, she does it with her middle finger held high to any naysayers -- like Lucas and his PT). [/respect]
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
8
No huge loss really, they probably would've ruined Boba Fett more than what Lucas did in AOTC. So yeah we all dodged a bullet here.
well that and the fact it was never happening to begin with. B)
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
yeah, regardless of what one thinks of Harry Potter on the whole, I kind of like JK.Rowling's "no ****s given" attitude when it comes to political correctness.
she's more interested in 'telling' stories than 'selling' stories -- or she wouldn't have hired johnny depp (given the "me too" accusations against him).
someone like KK would have dropped him like she dropped Lord and Miller. or like Marvel dropped Gunn. but JK doesn't seem to give a ****.

even KK's predictable "white v black" and "man v woman" rhetoric is all just part of a marketing ploy. don't be fooled.
it's like she's trying to start a prison riot. to get people all 'up in arms' against each other, for the sake of selling movie seats.
(like coke v pepsi, locked into their eternal battle of "Red v blue" -- for the sake of selling sugar-water -- more and more and MORE sugar water -- and both sides WIN).

--> her industry rewards success by the amount of people she can "stir up" in the name of ticket sales --> she's not here to heal society, she's here to stick a knife in the wounds.
(in the same way that selena gomez exploits teen suicide with her nonsensical "13 reasons" show -- kk has chosen to exploit the "gender war" as a means of gathering an audience).
it's shameful.

where KK would be finding new ways to 'divide and conquer' (people from their money), JK would be too busy creating new content. with no ****s given.
like.. oh I dunno.. an actual artist. or something. (regardless what you think of her creations, she does it with her middle finger held high to any naysayers -- like Lucas and his PT). [/respect]
White v black rhetoric.....wtf rabbit hole did we just fall into
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
- Malcolm x wanted 2 separate communities: a "black community" and a "white community" -- always separate, always struggling for Equality -- his weapon was "black v white" rhetoric.

(like coke v pepsi)

- by contrast: Martin Luther King wanted 1 society where people are judged, NOT by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character -- a world where color doesn't matter, why?

because ALL humans are ALREADY equal (by dint of being HUMAN) -- his weapon was "color-blind" rhetoric.



--> ask yourself : who won?

(and ask yourself : why are we still celebrating MLK day..? when we are CLEARLY living in a Malcom X wet dream,

fueled by "Social Justice War-Profiteers" like Kathy Kennedy (and yourself), who (just like Malcom) ONLY EXIST to "divide" us).

--> "what rabbit hole", INDEED! :rolleyes: holy ****! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
- Malcolm x wanted 2 separate communities: a "black community" and a "white community" -- always separate, always struggling for Equality -- his weapon was "black v white" rhetoric.

(like coke v pepsi)

- by contrast: Martin Luther King wanted 1 society where people are judged, NOT by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character -- a world where color doesn't matter, why?

because ALL humans are ALREADY equal (by dint of being HUMAN) -- his weapon was "color-blind" rhetoric.



--> ask yourself : who won?

(and ask yourself : why are we still celebrating MLK day..? when we are CLEARLY living in a Malcom X wet dream,

fueled by "Social Justice War-Profiteers" like Kathy Kennedy (and yourself), who (just like Malcom) ONLY EXIST to "divide" us).

--> "what rabbit hole", INDEED! :rolleyes: holy ****! :rolleyes:
And you think the new star wars movies and kk promote black v white
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
Diverstiy is a bowl of skittles. (or m&m's if you're NOT a ****ing racist).
you reach into the bowl , and you pull out a heaping handful.




--> in the case of M&M's , they all taste the same. so nobody cares what color they are. why would they care?
all M&M's taste the same, regardless of their skin color. they are functionally identical. they all taste the same.

--> but in the case of skittles, people have "preferences" based on "color" -- why? because they do NOT taste the same.
they are NOT functionally identical. so we DO care what color they are. color matters BECAUSE they are NOT equal.
(and NOBODY should have more than their share of those tasty/preferable red ones -- EVERYONE has a preference).




now : here's where it might get tricky for you*

- in a world of racist discrimination, where color matters, because people DO have "preferences" (a preference for role models who "look like them", for example), then we must pick and choose one actor of each color for our SW movies -- read: in a racist world where ALL humans have a "racial preference" for their OWN kind.... then we must be fair to everybody... or everybody FIGHTS about it.

(this position is built upon a racist world view -- the foundation that people have "preferences", for those who "look like them")**

- but in a world where all people are equal, therefore color does NOT matter (because all M&M's taste the same so NOBODY cares what they look like), then we can safely reach our hand in and pull out a random handful of actors for our SW movies -- and NOBODY CARES what color the actors are, because the actors are "functionally identical" -- read: it doesn't matter what people "look like"... so there's nothing to FIGHT about.

(this position is built upon an 'equal' world view -- the foundation that NOBODY CARES about skin color, so nobody has a "preference").





* the reason its hard for you is because you firmly beLIEve, in your own heart, that young children should have role models who "look like them" -- this is your "preference" for humanity**

you yourself have a "preference" to see one-of-every-color in your SW movies, based ONLY on the color-of-actor (not based on "ability" or "merit") -- this satisfies your OWN sense of spatial order -- your OWN sense of "fairness" and "equality" (which is only based on "Race").

--> this position is ROOTED in a belief that humans are NOT functionally identical, like those skittles. (or color "wouldn't matter" in your mind -- like those M&M's).





** dude: racism is not simply an acknowledgment of different color states -- it is a PREFERENCE for different color states.

it is a belief than one color (or another) is "better" -- for ANY given application -- (often expressed as a PREFERENCE for those who "look like you").

which you have personally expressed, over and over and over again, as a necessary aspect of the "Casting" process.

expressing a "preference", (the idea of 'better'-based-on-color), is the very definition of Racism -- look it up.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
end of solo: tank is full. rebellion has "hyper fuel".
end of 8: tank is empty. rebellion runs out of "hyper fuel".

hmmm....

do I think the actual physical gasoline in my vintage mustang,
is the same actual physical gasoline that I pumped into it when I bought the car?
no.

do I think it's the same "MacGuffin", being used by 2 movies, released back-to-back?
in a failed attempt to connect them?
yes.




I only called it a "lame" attempt at world building.
but silly me, I'm arguing with someone who did NOT notice that these 2 "plot points" from the same franchise were actually intended to "rhyme" with each other.

(it's just a random coincidence that 2 SW movies, released back-to-back, share the same MacGuffin).
(yeah. that's a very... "intelligent" analysis.. you keep it up. good job. you're not a "moron" at all). :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 15, 2000
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
10
--> ask yourself : who won?

(and ask yourself : why are we still celebrating MLK day..? when we are CLEARLY living in a Malcom X wet dream,

fueled by "Social Justice War-Profiteers" like Kathy Kennedy (and yourself), who (just like Malcom) ONLY EXIST to "divide" us).

--> "what rabbit hole", INDEED! :rolleyes: holy ****! :rolleyes:
Oh snap!!!!
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
Diverstiy is a bowl of skittles. (or m&m's if you're NOT a ****ing racist).
you reach into the bowl , and you pull out a heaping handful.




--> in the case of M&M's , they all taste the same. so nobody cares what color they are. why would they care?
all M&M's taste the same, regardless of their skin color. they are functionally identical. they all taste the same.

--> but in the case of skittles, people have "preferences" based on "color" -- why? because they do NOT taste the same.
they are NOT functionally identical. so we DO care what color they are. color matters BECAUSE they are NOT equal.
(and NOBODY should have more than their share of those tasty/preferable red ones -- EVERYONE has a preference).




now : here's where it might get tricky for you*

- in a world of racist discrimination, where color matters, because people DO have "preferences" (a preference for role models who "look like them", for example), then we must pick and choose one actor of each color for our SW movies -- read: in a racist world where ALL humans have a "racial preference" for their OWN kind.... then we must be fair to everybody... or everybody FIGHTS about it.

(this position is built upon a racist world view -- the foundation that people have "preferences", for those who "look like them")**

- but in a world where all people are equal, therefore color does NOT matter (because all M&M's taste the same so NOBODY cares what they look like), then we can safely reach our hand in and pull out a random handful of actors for our SW movies -- and NOBODY CARES what color the actors are, because the actors are "functionally identical" -- read: it doesn't matter what people "look like"... so there's nothing to FIGHT about.

(this position is built upon an 'equal' world view -- the foundation that NOBODY CARES about skin color, so nobody has a "preference").





* the reason its hard for you is because you firmly beLIEve, in your own heart, that young children should have role models who "look like them" -- this is your "preference" for humanity**

you yourself have a "preference" to see one-of-every-color in your SW movies, based ONLY on the color-of-actor (not based on "ability" or "merit") -- this satisfies your OWN sense of spatial order -- your OWN sense of "fairness" and "equality" (which is only based on "Race").

--> this position is ROOTED in a belief that humans are NOT functionally identical, like those skittles. (or color "wouldn't matter" in your mind -- like those M&M's).





** dude: racism is not simply an acknowledgment of different color states -- it is a PREFERENCE for different color states.

it is a belief than one color (or another) is "better" -- for ANY given application -- (often expressed as a PREFERENCE for those who "look like you").

which you have personally expressed, over and over and over again, as a necessary aspect of the "Casting" process.

expressing a "preference", (the idea of 'better'-based-on-color), is the very definition of Racism -- look it up.
so.. i'll ask again what in the new Star Wars is an example of black vs white.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,610
Reaction score
62
I already told you. it's in the casting decisions which are based on creating a diversity model, "one of each color", like so many skittles.

as explained, this practice is rooted in the fundamental idea that "colors" are not equal.

(IF the colors were equal, then the practice of "sorting" them would NOT matter to you --> there would be no such thing as "black" or "white" for you to fuss over).

read the thread again.




I know this is hard for you.

the concepts of "black" v "white" are social constructs which are NOT rooted in bilogy (nor are they supported by DNA, in any way shape or form). DNA tells us there is NO difference.

this is the part you don't understand : "race" is a social construct. perpetrated by the historical & ongoing "sorting" of humans. (by hollywood castings, for modern example).

the concept of "Race" is NOT supported by science... but it IS supported by hairbrained hollywood producers. ((and those who agree with them, like yourself)).

science tells us, there's no difference ; Kathy tells us, "one of each color" <-- ((one of them is racist -- and it's not "science" -- which camp are YOU in?))
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
1,661
Reaction score
0
I already told you. it's in the casting decisions which are based on creating a diversity model, "one of each color", like so many skittles.

as explained, this practice is rooted in the fundamental idea that "colors" are not equal.

(if the colors were equal, then the practice of "sorting" them would NOT matter).

read the thread again.


* the reason its hard for you is because you firmly beLIEve, in your own heart, that young children should have role models who "look like them" -- this is your "preference" for humanity**

I've never once said that or even believe in that. I don't believe it matters what gender or *** a role model is they can inspire anyone. So your entire argument holds no water.

Also show me proof that they only hired Jon Boyega because he is black. Everything I have seen is because he was the best actor for the part.

Not to mention if you aren't racist as you claim then why does any of that matter since as you said they are all m&ms and all the actors are the same?

btw you probably shouldn't be quoting Donald Trump Jr.
 
Top