Of course there's more to it, but it's still basically just one group saying yes, and another group saying no. Whether one is right or wrong, or what exactly the arguments are, is beside the point I was making.
Poll Is Rey a Mary Sue?
- Thread starter fireproof78
- Start date
Ridiculous. Your definition of "remotely significant" seems a bit off.
Wrong. Everyone mentioned was in a film. Yes, it's a film.
You really thought that was supposed to be the entire list of female Star Wars characters from the expanded universe? Are you kidding me? I even left off Taun We.
His point that Padme is not a "significant" enough female character for him to have noticed her?
So who is 'significant' other than Leia? Beru, who died after a handful of lines or Mothma who did basically nothing in the film?
Mentioned in a film is meaningless. Appeared in a film is worth mentioning, but even then, doesn't mean much if the role is tiny.
So, hyperbolic, like I said. But not by much.
Why not both? Maybe his first words were "Janweh merdah Toovish!" or "Sterfeet is a miwitawy!"
They aren't my criteria, the Bechdel test may not be perfect but it's by far and away the best objective measure we have of the significance of female characters in a movie.
If a female exists only to serve as an accessory to or to facilitate the presence of a male then she's not significant in her own right. She's furniture.
If that's all she exists for in a film then that's exactly what she is, a non entity. She has no purpose or agency other than being the womb which bore Anakin, then the loss which motivates his actions.
That you seem to be selling exactly that as significance seems counter to the idea of positive representation here and certainly makes any claim she is a major character at the very least misguided IMHO. Claiming she is important simply because she gave birth to an important male character is absolutely sexism because in the absence of any other role within the plot that renders her worth as being entirely based on her relationship to a male, on her performing her duty as the means by which someone more important came into the world.
She exists within the film purely as an adjunct to a male character, that's not strong representation by any means.
Really?
Try subjectively.
He seems far more memorable to me and certainly gets equal billing to Obi Wan when they share the screen, compared to Shmi who is by and large just....there.
His overall point still stands and you know it.
The leader of the Rebellion is a wholly insignificant character? Okay then...
Weirdly, she made an impression on Peter David, who actually at least counted her as a character for some reason! ( Probably because she didn't piss him off by giving birth to anyone. )
We're talking about characters appearing in the films, not mentioned in the films. But strawman away if you must.
To you, maybe, but labeling someone a "nonentity" when they don't live up to your political objectives is kind of some scary shit.
Nope. Giving birth doesn't take away her agency, sorry. ( Not that it would really matter if she had just told the Force she had a headache that night. It didn't save Mon Mothma in the end. )
Her importance to Anakin's turn is paramount, while Anakin's turn is kind of legendary in its centrality to the overall storyline. Her role in this is developed over the course of three films. ( I mean, it's nothing like the seventeen-film odyssey of Dex's character, but it's at least a start, right? )
Weirdly, the initial claim said nothing about "positive" representation at all, just bemoaned an alleged lack of characters. I don't believe the words "significant" or "representation" were even used.
Actually, that was you, not me. Oopsie!
You think?
...That's not what "billing" means.
And that's only if you can see her in the first place! Not everyone can. Besides, how can a nonentity be "there"? Do they show up in photographs?
She's in the Alderaan scene at the end of ROTS, her and Bail are holding baby Leia. I didn't know she had a name until years later.
Well, yes, actually. They are people who enjoy Star Wars. Let's try not to make this political, ok?
And, yes, I know that wasn't explicitly political comment but alludes to politics and it would be nice to not have them in this thread. I mean, really nice.
She's a non entity because she's a non entity.
What can you actually tell us about her other than being Anakins' mother?
That's it, that's all there is to it. There is a child who is an important character and by definition a child must have a mother.
There she is. She gets a name and a few generic lines, beyond that we know nothing about her and she contributes nothing directly to the plot.
No one said pregnancy or birth takes away her agency.
I said by itself it doesn't represent agency.
As for her importance to Anakins' turn, well, that's rather the point isn't it? She only matters in so far as she matters to a male, hence she only exists within the plot as an adjunct to him.
That's not being a well developed or interesting character, it's not having agency, it's being an accessory required for the male centric plot to unfold.
Weirdly, the initial claim said nothing about "positive" representation at all, just bemoaned an alleged lack of characters. I don't believe the words "significant" or "representation" were even used.
There are hundreds of background characters in the films. It's pretty clear the point being made is about ones who are actually significant in the story and play an active part.
Being a walking womb and then dying doesn't count.
Um, no it wasn't.
Mon Mothma is like President Whitmore from Indepence Day. If Independence Day were a movie told entirely from the pov of the crazy crop duster guy and his family. And if, instead of an awesomely memorable speech, he basically just appeared once or twice to throw around a few orders. So, yes, indeed, a HIGHLY insignificant character, regardless of position. Admiral Ackbar was more memorable and he's basically just a meme.
Well, there are no strawmen here, just you obsessively refusing to admit that you included at least one character who has never appeared in the films. You're the one who tried to cover it up by saying everyone on your list was 'mentioned' in the films. If that's not what your defense is, maybe you shouldn't have said that.
I figured that would probably be the scene, but I honestly can barely remember anything about it.
Which pretty much says it all.
We're apparently including someone who stood holding a baby in one scene as a "character" to bump up the numbers.
Almost as though it was something entirely new
Meaningless tautology.
I'm sensing the definition of "generic" is in flux along with everything else.
Absurd. You're not paying attention. ( Or in denial? )
No - you said she had no agency. That's because, having birthed a child, she was relegated to nonentity status.
"It wasn't because it wasn't" is probably gonna be the next stop on this journey.
Why do the "numbers" even matter? Is there some kind of critical threshold of ignored women that can be reached where it officially becomes a problem?
And that includes Shmi and Padme, both of whom were summarily ignored. I'd say a different point was made, perhaps inadvertently: the lengths that some will go to in order to defend the sequel trilogy's politics.
grendelsbayne said:
So how did she end up getting noticed by Peter David while Padme ended up being completely ignored? Is he another one of these guys who seem utterly enraged by female biology?
"Mentioned in a film is meaningless". I was never talking about characters "mentioned" in the films, I cited only characters who appeared in the films. That was... the whole point.
Nope.
Bullshit. Every character I mentioned appeared in the films. ( Keep in mind we're not restricting this category "the films" to only the films you care about, only the films you've seen, only the films you deem "significant", et cetera. )
Maybe the exact wording shouldn't have used the word "exactly", but the guy couldn't resist being extra dipshitty?
Not at all. I refer to her as a non entity because from a story telling point of view that's what she is.
Ok, what dialogue does she contribute which alters the plot beyond what it would be without her?
I really am. Tell me how her actions alter the plot?
Arguably she could have prevented Anakin leaving with Qui Gonn and Obi Wan, but then there wouldn't have been a plot at all. She doesn't drive any events on screen with her actions, merely acts as a necessary backdrop who facilitates others'.
I said she has no agency because she doesn't. Giving birth has no bearing on that at all and simply being the mother of a meaningful character doesn't make you one. We've moved past the point where a womans' purpose is simply to give birth to and raise children and nothing more.
That's a very reductionist way of looking at females on screen or in real life and one which is entirely counter to your own case. If a female character serves purely as the womb which bears a male hero she is not a hero herself by association.
Because there's no equivalence between being the central character in a film and being one who could be cut out without changing the events at all. TPM plays out much the same with or without her, she simply fills in the slot of "parent" which a small child necessitates.
In TCW her presence (or more importantly her death) motivates Anakins' behaviour, but she has no control over that situation and the only actions which pertain to it as either cause or effect are Anakins' own.
She's there simply to die and provide an impetus to his conversion.
Hence, no agency.
What story arc did Padme have which in any way was independent of Anakins'?
Again, if you can't differentiate her from simply being a driver for his actions she not only fails the Bechdel test but is at best a supporting character.
