[fastball]

You might be projecting a bit here. I'm neither angry nor upset. Nobody told me to feel any which way. I also don't think you can point to anything I've actually said and honestly categorize it as "reactionary", unless to you "reactionary" just means... reacting to the behavior and words of others. And if you want to talk about facts, I'm the only one that has presented any in this conversation: box office results and Kathleen Kennedy's own words. What have you provided?

And no, I don't think hiring a diverse group of people and making good product are opposites or at all mutually exclusive. I never said that, so please don't misrepresent me (as you seem very keen to do). What I do think is that people have priorities and if your priorities are out of whack then that is going to have an effect on your outcomes.

If Apple says that their goal is to have phones be made with as (racial and gender, not neuro) diverse a group as possible, rather than "we want to make the best phones", then yes, I absolutely would be concerned about the future quality of their phones. I don't care who designs/makes my iPhone, and so my priorities and Apple's priorities would be misaligned. In fact, probably the best signal for the future of Apple design recently (for me) was when they parted ways with Jony Ive, a white man. But that was not a good signal to me because of his race or gender, but rather because I think Jony Ive without Steve Jobs to curb his worst impulses was bad for Apple products.

Likewise, I don't care if Star Wars is directed by a straight white man or a pansexual black woman (my two favorite episodes of The Mandalorian S2 were directed by a woman and a black man) – I just want the focus to be on quality storytelling, which is clearly not Kathleen Kennedy's primary concern, if you (again) look at any of her public comments on the subject. Luckily it is Jon Favreau's concern, which is why with The Mandalorian we got both: compelling storytelling with strong characters (of all types), directed by a diverse set of directors.

[staticman2]

You do know Kathleen Kennedy has worked on many successful, beloved movies and was hired for that reason by George Lucas, right? Whatever imaginary version of Kennedy lives in your head strikes me as not particularly plausible.

It doesn't even matter if the characters in Star Wars are white or black or brown- they appear to live in a society with no human concept of race- so I don't even know why you keep bring up the topic of diversity? Human races have zero to do with the plot of any Star Wars ever.

From what i've seen of it Mandalorian depicts a color blind, gender blind social world just like the sequal trilogy, they are sort of the same, so why go on about it?

I don't know why you keep bringing up diversity? It has nothing to do with the characters or why Mandorian is different from the movies so who cares?

The fact you enjoy Mandolorian but not the films just suggests you like one thing and don't like another. It says nothing about gender, diversity, artistic intent (artists tend to try to make good art even if they fail at it. Business people tend to try to make money.) so I don't know how else to explain your posts other than reactionary.

It's cool you like the Mandalorian but you don't actually know the motives of anyone involved, you just know you like the art they made.

[fastball]

For the last time, just go listen to Kathleen Kennedy talk about Star Wars. She makes her motives clear. I really don't know what else to say to you. The fact that she has worked on other films does not impact what her goal with Star Wars was when she took the helm. It's not an imaginary version of her in my head, it's the version of her in my head which is entirely based on her public comments. Not sure how else you want me to form opinions of people. I have quoted her saying something to the effect of "wow this is great because we can have non-white-male directors" – if you want to provide a single instance where she says something like "our goal here is just to tell a good story", then have at it.

This entire post is about diversity and gender issues, so, um, what else would we be talking about? In fact, I think the intersection of gender with the new Star Wars films is hugely relevant to the OP.

Perhaps the reason Rey was a Mary Sue is because nobody felt comfortable saying "hey, maybe this character should have some like, flaws she needs to overcome or something", because they were worried people would see that as wanting the female lead to be weak, and get pilloried for the suggestion. Sure, maybe gender had absolutely nothing to do with this poor storytelling decision, but based on the actual comments of the creatives involved, that definitely seems like the less likely reality.

[staticman2]

I plan for this to be my last post on this so feel free to have the last word.

There's nothing about wanting to hire diverse staff that implies she wants to make bad movies or doesn't want to make good movies or anything at all. So your quote says nothing that needs to rebutted. It's just a non sequeter.

Your argument stems on the movies being bad. Who is to say the movies are bad? Critics loved Force Awakens and Last Jedi and exit audience polls were positive. (Arguing over whether Rey is a Mary Sue is so 2016. Who cares? So she's a Mary Sue, cool. The reviews were positive so maybe she is and movies with a Mary Sue are the greatest cinema in the world?)

I didn't like Last Jedi but the exit polls were positive (I looked them up at the time). And the professional reviews were positive as well.

Who are you or I to say Disney made bad movies, let alone spin some tale of wokeness ruining Star Wars?

I would hope you could dislike a movie without stating reactionary sounding talking points.

You ask how this related to the topic? You seem to think the goal of diverse hiring is some sort of damning statement so I shouldn't have to draw you a map of how you sound like a reactionary.

[fastball]

In no particular order because you kinda keep repeating yourself and rehashing strawmen I've already answered:

- I didn't ask how this is related to the topic, you did. And I answered you.

- The 42% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes says the movie is bad. The -$700M box office difference between VII and VIII says the movie is bad. The < 5 user score on Metacritic says the movie is bad. The fact that lots of people felt the need to make videos about how bad it was says the movie is bad. The fact that you didn't like it says the movie is bad. The fact that I actually enjoyed the spectacle of the film in the cinema but found it borderline unwatchable when I tried to rewatch at home says the movie is bad. Is most of this subjective? Of course. Does that mean we're not allowed to try to figure out what went wrong? Um, no? Is your stance really "shhh don't ask why the movie was bad it's not for you to know"?

- It's still unclear what you mean when you say "reactionary", so it kinda just sounds like you're trying to use that as some sort of putdown / dig and honestly it's not working.

- I don't "seem to think the goal of diverse hiring is a damning statement". I don't think that hiring diverse staff (which is not even what I was criticizing so...?) means you don't want to make a good movie. I merely think when your primary goal (evidenced by repeated public statements on the part of Kathleen Kennedy) is to make your movies "woke", that will inevitably be the thing you are most likely to succeed at. I honestly can't believe you're trying to make the argument that a split focus does not negatively impact your likelihood of succeeding in one particular area. That's a given. You can't be good at everything, so if your focus is "being woke" it invariably means you will be worse at executing on other things, like telling a good story.