Han, Rey, Finn and Gleeson Character Leaked Images?

However Mad Max is still a male lead with a strong female co-lead. Star Wars is heading the direction where the female lead IS THE ONE MAIN CENTRAL FIRST LEAD, not a second lead. We are now living in a world where women are completely empowered to stand above men. Rey stands head and shoulders above Finn and Poe.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2015 ---

That is all going to change. Women are superior over men, period! All the great movie roles are all female leads. Female leads are far better than male leads. Star Wars will be more successful because of Rey as the main lead. This new trilogy will surpass the OT and PT.

 

Most of them were just mediocre to me.
Nothing against a female lead, but I have the feeling that this trend is exaggerated.
Movie makers should cast under story circumstances/needs and not shoerhorn/force female or male parts in to be political or trendy correct.
You don't create a timeless classic with too much "political correctness or trendy stuff" in mind. (my biased opinion)

 

No matter any of our personal feelings on the matter, movies aren't made to change the political or social landscape, for the most part. They are made to make the company money. period. If Disney or Universal or whoever thinks they will make the most money with a male lead, chances are they will focus on that. Furthermore, we as a people are the ones who pay our money and watch these films, so ultimately, we decide what the film companies make. Example; Don't you find it odd that Black Widow is the only Avenger without a solo film? Because they don't have faith it will make them large profits. 2nd, History has shown that female super hero films don't do well, like Catwoman or Elektra. So, if companies are wary to put a female in the lead, isn't that really the fault of the audience for rejecting that concept? Which was my original point. Not that I hate the idea of Rey being the lead, but given the history of successful films, probability states that they will go with a male lead for higher profits.

 

Loved that solo Hawkeye film.... Oh wait, he doesn't have one.
Also, Captain Marvel will be female in the upcoming movie.
And we likely won't get another solo Hulk movie for awhile because they don't think he makes a good standalone character. Probably because he is a woman.. or black.
"... isn't that really the fault of the audience for rejecting that concept?" No, it's the fault of crappy movie makers. Look at Hunger Games. That proves that female action leads can and do work well if the material grabs audiences.

 

Respectfully and with great caution I am going to disagree with you there. I think film has had massive influence on politics and the social landscape. The examples are almost too numerous to mention.

Film is meant to do more than just entertain, at least good films are. Star Wars in particular has had MASSIVE influence in all kinds of aspects of American culture, including politics. Indeed, Star Wars IV is an entire allegory about the political landscape of the late 20th century.

Art is rarely objective, it provides a subjective frame through which to tell a story and that frame often has social, sexual, political, historical influence, context and theme.

We're forgetting these films are meant to be art, not just a roller coaster. It's naive to think "politics doesn't belong in Star Wars", because politics is embedded within its framework. Star Wars is a very PREACHY franchise, it's constantly interpreting the American ideal and spirit through the template of fantasy and science fiction.

I think it is unwise to deny that reality and in my humble opinion, makes Daisy's casting all the more triumphant.

I get your point to a degree, you shouldn't cast a woman in a role, merely for the sake of casting a woman in a role, but in this case there's no reason why is should NOT be a woman, both from a social perspective, political perspective and even from a business perspective, the decision is sound.

This is a very volatile subject though and if my post is seen as both a bad tangent and possibly in danger of pushing the conversation in a bad direction, I'll fully understand if the Mods want to delete this post. I am trying to suggest though that Star Wars is riddled with political and social commentary, that it is much more than explosions, chase scenes and fight scenes and that like it or not, Star Wars is looked upon to reflect the American ideals about myth, legend, aspiration, hope and duty to family.

 

I agree with this. I guess I'm reminded of when JC was making Avatar and they told him to make it less "treehugging", and he told them if they took that aspect out, they can make it without him. As an artist myself, I believe in using art to hold up a mirror to society and allow us to look at ourselves. But we must do it honestly. Like someone else said, when I see a 90 pound woman punching a man out, or beating him up, it takes out the reality. Some things in our society and nature can't be changed. If Rey is a Jedi, in the Star Wars universe, I get it that size doesn't matter and she will do great as the lead. If she goes fist to cuff with a 230 pound man and beats him down, the realism is lost to me. There's a fine line between being equal and being an 80's macho Schwarzenegger role.

And yes, I did forget about Hawkeye not having his own movie, but until Age of Ultron, he was kind of boring as a character.

 

It won't make a big impact if Daisy Ridley's character would be the lead(which has 99% chance of happening).We,the fans,will go watch the film anyway,no matter who is the lead.If JJ and Kathleen Kennedy think she's up for the role then I have faith it was a good decision.You can't predict if it would impact potential new fans in any way for example,,Let's see TFA.It has a women as the lead!" or the opposite.It won't effect SW fans but it's difficult to say about newcomers.A woman with a lightsaber to me looks as tough as a man with a lightsaber.

 

Lots of people like Han Solo, Obi-Wan, Leia, and Padme more than Luke and Anakin. Being the "new hope/chosen one/narrative focus" can be as much a curse as a blessing.

 

Great post, awesome read. Thank you for sharing, but my one comment:

But when I see Tom Cruise at 5' 3" run at Olympic speed distances with a gait that is barely a trot, let alone a sprint, it takes out the reality too. So let's not forget how incredibly TINY a lot of male action heroes are in real life.

On a tangent, but related to the counter-argument, I'm not sure I've seen a realistic fist fight in years from Hollywood. Indeed CGI has actually made this worse because physics can be completely ignored, I mean these days they are even loose with scale, I think the jeep in the opening sequence of Avengers 2 changes size like four times.

Even the best boxing films take great liberties to exaggerate and romanticize the violence to make it seem more poetic and interesting to watch. Real fights aren't as interesting and fights in film become more like ballet and violent poetry, see every Tarantino film ever made for proof.

Also, I just happened to have watched the nation Roller Derby tournament on tilted track two weeks ago. Trust me, there are some very tough women out there. I believe many who have served in the military alongside women can vouch for this, or at least the few I know, echo this sentiment.

Anyway, Daisy is going to be great and it will be fun revisiting some of these doubters after she proves it in December. Also, it's quite clear you do NOT doubt, unless she punches someone bigger than she is.

I take the counter-argument that this is forced and unnecessary to heart though and respect those who feel differently than I do. Also I should concede I am NOT an artist, no artistic capability at all, so I am NOT an authority on any of this.

There is no doubt that if they really want to cast more women in tough roles, having the actress lift some weights and look athletic helps, I think Sigourney Weaver started that notion. So there is a point being made here by others, that is valid, I just don't happen to agree with it.

EDIT - Also I think this is also at the heart of the controversy over the Wonder Woman casting. Wonder Woman isn't a super model, she's an Amazon. Stay true to that, heaven forbid we actually let women larger than a size 2 get a part once in a while.

 

The reality is untrained, unexperienced men (also known as the far vast majority of men) would not fair well against the elite female fighters.

I'VE GOT A DICK GAWDAMMIT! I POST ON THE INTERNET! RONDA YOU'RE NO MATCH FOR ME I'M A DUDE! I'M ENTITLED TO WINNING LIKE CHARLIE SHEEN!

In fantasy settings this idea of chauvinist male supremacy is less relevant when you have the Force or "magic" as the great equalizer in addition to training. Besides, the underdog story is a tried and true story concept. I mean would Sylvester Stallone beat Dolph Lundgren in a real fight? Probably not, but who the hell cares?

 

But equally trained and experienced men would generally have a physical advantage. Not that they would always win, but the men would have a natural advantage and it would require a different technique than straight brawling.
And for the record, I have no problem with Rey, Black Widow, etc.

"this idea of chauvinist male supremacy" What makes it chauvinist? Genetics is genetics. Doesn't mean a woman can't fight a man and win, it just means that men generally have a genetic physical advantage in a straight brawl.

This makes me want to see mixed UFC... Put this all to a test.

 

Heh, that film is so awful that its a blessing to see it being put to such good use after all these years. Well done Magnar.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 23, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 23, 2015 ---

Some fat dudes I know are mean fighters because they have just enough strength to use all that weight to advantage. Other fat dudes I know have no core, so they topple like a pear with even just a little kinetic force and once you get a fat guy down, you can kick him in the head a lot faster than he's going to be able to get up.

We're hung up on size=power in fighting. Not always. For one thing, as mentioned, almost all major male action heroes are REALLY TINY. Even Mark Hamill is a ridiculously small guy. For another, Muhammad Ali was NOT the biggest guy and could take a significantly larger guy like Foreman down.

At some point, yeah if you are 6' 5" and fit and I'm 5' 2" and can barely climb a flight of stairs without wheezing then I'm gonna get creamed, but since Sly is only 5' 9" and Cruise is just 5' 7" and Hamill himself is only 5' 9", maybe we can give the female leads a bit of a break if their biceps aren't bulging like Jose Canseco's were in 1990?

I am not saying YOU specifically are not giving her a break, just that the volatility of a physically smaller woman playing an action role seems more vociferous but an incredibly puny Tom Cruise barely bats an eye.

 

1) True, but they go through great effort to make them look big. Tom wears platform shoes or is filmed from certain angles. I'm 6'1", which isn't freakishly tall, but its weird to think I'd tower over Bane (Tom Hardy). I think people tend to think of powerful men as taller than they are.

2) For sure. Lots of tough ladies. The reason I buy Gwen Christie on game of thrones is because she is a huge hulking person. On the other hand, Gal Gadot is literally an underwear model.

 

Nicely stated Alex, we think Tom is tougher and bigger than he really is. Also seems to me that Daisy Ridley is exactly the same height as Tom Cruise, so what's good for Tom, in all fairness should be good for Daisy.

Also I agree and know some ardent feminists agree that Gal Gadot was a miscast, despite her talent, an Amazon is part of who Wonder Woman is and that comes with physical requirements. As I said before, would it kill Hollywood to cast a woman larger than a size 2 dress? They are also incredibly beautiful too and deserve a part now and again.

To tie Gal Gadot to Daisy and the discussion about these photos, I think Daisy Ridley's casting is less dissonant. The reasons why Gadot's casting is not being received well by many is because the role has always suggested Wonder Woman was an outstanding athlete, eternally youthful, but strong, the strongest in fact, of her entire creed (the Amazons who legend had it were tall and strong). Hollywood ignored all that and insisted the only women who deserve to be on screen are ridiculously thin super models.

But there is no such physical template with Daisy's character, even Vader, weak, half-burned to death, requiring a breathing apparatus and with less peripheral vision because of that mask, can outmatch a physical specimen at his peak, say like Boba Fett. So we already have a template by which we know "size matters not, judge me by my size do you? And well you should not..."

I am enjoying this discussion and find it civil and informed, but I'm sure the Mods are shuddering if we stray too much further. So I'll hold comment on gender issues in Hollywood moving forward and thank you all for letting me share my point of view.

 

You should watch Warrior with Tom hardy, or for realistic martial arts watch The Raid and The Raid 2. Warning though because the raid movies are very violent. And the cast happen to also be in TFA in some capacity, assignable choreography.

--- Double Post Merged, Jun 24, 2015, Original Post Date: Jun 24, 2015 ---

Of course he could. Look where Stallone studied:

 

Woah what happened to this thread? It's turned into some crazy social studies blast!