Chen G.

The cast doesn't have to adhere to the demographic of the general populace. That's what I'm saying.

I have no issue with the film (in terms of diversity) whatsoever. Its cast with nowhere near a 50/50 ratio.

Did I say distribute them evenly?

Oh, yes! They wanted an actual horse for the opening scene and couldn't efford it. It would have ruined it!

Nor I. But people read into one's posts what they want to read into one's posts.

No. I don't mind that. I want female characters in films. The Last Jedi is nowhere near a 50/50 cast, which would be unrealistic in military organisations such as the Resistance or The First Order. Women are, on average, far less compelled to join such organisations than men. Race is a completely different matter. Its a none-issue. Have as many black, hispanic and asian cast members as you wish.

Well, the statistics say otherwise. Thankfully, protagonists in films tend not to be too agreeable or average anyway, so that usually isn’t an issue in the portrayal of female characters.

Agreeableness in one of “the big five”, which are a very well-established psychological term, and women are generally found to be (again, on average) more agreeable, among other things. Again, it’s thankfully very hard to overplay this in films, but as you say, films can nevertheless overplay the diversity issue.

It’s not that they’re different or the same; it’s that the latter is firmly planted in the former. That’s science, but it’s readily intuitive to most, as well. So when that’s undone in films, we feel something is off.

Tell that to animalia.... Anything else is besides the point, because this is a discussion about realistic portrayal of gender in film.

I’m not right-winged at all. To claim that women and men are not the same is not a right-winged opinion. It’s actually not an opinion at all. To oppose equality-of-outcome isn’t a right-winged opinion, either. But this isn’t an issue with The Last Jedi. But I can see it becoming an issue with films not too far into the future. Its not a political issue. It’s an element of realism in film. Few and far between are the professions (especially those that we see in action films) that are pursued by men and women in equal measure. If films “corrected” this, it would feel unrealistic.

It’s not about upbringing, mostly. It’s rooted in our biology. Women are, on average, less assertive than men by nature, and that’s fine. That’s just the way they are. It’s not a political statement: it’s a matter of fact, and one that - when defied - tends to make movies feel contrived. Certainly not an issue with The Last Jedi, but an important subject to discuss in movies in general. I will say however: That’s not what equal opportunities mean.

Well, first, I didn’t say The Last Jedi was too unrealistic when it comes to the depiction of women. Mine was a general comment, voiced against the preplexity that people seem to feel against issues that others may have with equity in film. And women are less “powerful” than men in other regards, too: they’re, on average, quite more agreeable and less assertive than men. But admittedly that’s something you’re going to have to work extra-hard to make feel contrived in film, because film characters - especially in these type of movies - usually manage to accomplish such feats and face such adversity, that you accept that they’re out of the ordinary, anyway. But it is a strong claim against equality-of-outcome in terms of the gender breakdown of the entire cast: as is the case in the real world, some of the roles within this universe (say, within the Ressistance) will be predominantly male, and others - predominantly female; and very few of them, if any, will parallel to size of each gender within the general population. That’s perfectly natural. So if I see cast that is split 50/50 - it’s likely to feel unrealistic and contrived.

There are things that you would instantly feel to be unrealistic when a film is trying too hard to “empower” its female characters: women physically outclassing a bigger, sturdier man; women being overtly characterized in ways that defy gender roles too hard. Genders roles are not a social construct; they’re engrained, to no little extent, in the biological differences between men and women: it’s not just that we have different physical attributes; we, again on average, don’t think or behave the same. That’s also why the existence of female characters is far more important than a diversity of ethnicity in film: because women, being a different beast to men, will have trouble relating to an all-male cast; whereas men of different ethnicities wouldn’t, on average, have as big a problem relating to a cast of different ethnicity, because race doesn’t correlate with innate behavioral differences, in the way that gender does. Not that I’m saying The Last Jedi has issues in these regards, but it needs to be said.

Men are, on average, far more powerful than women. So no. Diversity in films, as in life, should only exist insofar as it conforms to the biological differences between the two genders. Women and men differ in more than just genitalia.

More than fine. A career highlight. Luke’s story is great stuff, from a dramatic standpoint.

A thought occurs: with the reassuring that this series will be within the same continuity as the existing sextet and probably adhere to its established aesthetic, it also reassures that the music will most probably be in the vein of Shore’s work on the sextet. In fact, Shore’s work is so comprehensive that the thematic foundation has already been laid out by him even for stories that take place in the second or early third age: we already have themes for the Orcs, for Sauron, for all the Elvish and Dwarvish cultures, a theme for Numenore (in the Rarities), a theme for Angmar (the Gundabad theme), etc...

The source material in terms of the second age, early third age and even parts of the first age, is told rendered a narrated historical account rather than a character and dialogue-driven story. As such, they are minimalist but at the same time beg for expanding upon. Because it’s written like a history book, it suggests that there’s way more going on than what is being told. Adaptation isn’t just about abridging the source material. Embellishing existing material and creating new material from scratch are just as important.

Apocalypto’s much more violent.

I don’t mind made-up or embellished material in adaptations. It’s par for the course. But I wouldn’t like anything to break up the viewing order between the two trilogies (a-la Rogue One). The narrative structure is pitch perfect as it is.

What’s there to tell in between the two? I mean, I’d love to see Balin’s death, but that’s not enough to fill a series.

If I had to guess, I’d say they’d probably focus on the events earlier in the third age. Namely, the war with Angmar, and possibly the simultaneous wars of Gondor. I really hope they keep the events of the First Age for the big screen. They lend themselves to that more, I think.

I meant vision in terms of the visual arts. For better or worst, Jackson has made a six film series spanning over 20 hours that’s a) entirely his, and b) has a fully realized, overarching narrative structure. And I think it’s as good a vision of Middle Earth as we would ever see committed to screen, flaws and all.

The way I read it was more about the television series keeping with the continuity of the established films, which - again - was to be expected. And yes, I assume they'll have Jackson on-board the production, if only by name.

I'd rephrase that: In watching the film, I just couldn't get into it. I suppose its because I'm not a christian, nor grew up around christians. I'm not saying its good or bad. I just don't feel like I'm in a position to pass judgment on it, which is very unusual with me.