Hang on, how do you know all this? Specifically the "universal renown" bit? Because the film does establish the fact that Poe has at least heard of her deeds but hasn't served under her yet; she is known by reputation by everyone in that scene (except of course, the audience).
This is the tricky bit about TLJ: The film puts you into that situation where you're inclined to side with Poe because he's the POV character and the one we already know, not because he's in the right. Everything you've seen of Holdo is colored by Poe's reactions to her, she is cast in a disfavourable light because the film pretends to show you the traditional narrative of a plucky hero who knows better than the person in command. You feel she's a bad leader because Poe thinks she's a bad leader, not because she actually shows poor leadership (She makes one mistake, yes, but one that is pretty understandable: After all, who would be stupid enough to do a mutiny while the ship is under fire?). Leia trusts Holdo. That should have been enough for Poe, why isn't it enough for you?
Three bits of info that supports this. 1) Holdo refers to Leia in her speech about having hope. This along with the other films establish Leia as a person of import and respect. If Holdo was as influential as Leia, then she didn't need to refer to Leia to supplement her authority because she should have already commanded it. 2) Poe was not the only person to mutiny against Holdo. So it's not just Poe who doesn't trust her, but all the other people who are part of the mutiny. 3) Leia is established as the head of the resistance group, not just as its top commanding officer but also as the figurehead for the overall resistance against the empire, probably thanks in part to her contributions in the original trilogy.
By default, I trusted Holdo, until she failed to contain Poe. Heck, I still assume she's a capable tactician even by the end of the film because I had no reason to assume otherwise. It was her handling of Poe that suggested to me that she was not a good leader for the situation at hand.
I disagree. By making her a middle-aged woman with pink hair in a feminine dress, the film sets you up to react exactly as Poe does: Astonishment, then derision. She could've been Ackbar, yes. She could've been another character we know. But if she had been any of those, the entire arc ceases to work, because you lose the element where you're inclined to agree with Poe because of deeply ingrained stereotypes.
Isn't this making an assumption in itself that everyone who watches the film holds these stereotypes implicitly? Stereotypes are a dime a dozen. Poe being a rash and hotshot pilot is in itself a similar sort of construct. If you don't like that kind of a personality type, then you would already be implicitly against Poe. The fact that I didn't agree with Poe (which keep in mind doesn't mean I have to agree with Holdo) might have some basis in his character archetype. As for the dress, I honestly didn't even think too much about her dress being a factor until it was brought up later. And even then, it could pass as somekind of write-off for the diverse space cultures.
If the intent was to make me side with Poe, then it failed to do so because I wasn't inclined to agree with him to begin with. I would raise the question of whether or not you sided with Poe initially because of implicit stereotypes and the film's point of view. My suspicion is that both you and I didn't like Poe on the onset.
Using stereotypes is bound to result in different reactions. I could argue that if Holdo was a stern, by the books male admiral, then the audience would have seen him as being part of the stereotype of "close minded military men" who are so incredibly rigid that they are incapable of coming up with creative solutions that more "erudite" individuals would develop, which by the way is a fairly common to the point of being tropish. Just insert any movie where you pit a scientist against the military when it comes to solving somekind of problem, whether it's aliens, the climate, or etc. But not everyone is going to have the same reaction to this. This is simply what I have come to expect from this particular trope. You can bet there are probably people out there who will first be astonished and then derisive about this version of Holdo.
I think relying on these kind of assumptions is a fairly weak method of narration because it can produce such varied responses based on people's experiences. I rather the characters be consistent and well developed over using assumed implicit biases. It's the same reason why I think the aesthetics of making the Empire / First Order looking like WW2 Nazis is rather lazy.
All that said, I do think it helps in terms of the film's narrative angle to have Holdo be an unknown character to the audience. We all know Leia, Han, Luke or possibly even Ackbar pretty well, so we know for sure what they are capable of. It would create some dissonance if a proven leader doesn't act in character. But you can also use a developed character that has demonstrated that they probably aren't fit the role of being leader to similar effect. In BSG, the audience probably already expected bad things to come when Colonel Tigh took over. There, we would have trusted Tigh less than say, Lee Adama automatically, in a similar manner to how we would treat a completely new character being introduced because we haven't seen proven leadership and assume they don't have it.
Poe's lesson comes at such an incredibly high price that he honestly should have just been sacked of his command.
He was, remember? After losing the bombers?
Poor word choice. I meant he should have been removed from partaking in anything, permanently. The guy is a menace, and they pamper him with a temporary suspension.
This is my problem with the subplot. Poe is supposed to learn a lesson, and the audience is supposed to be thinking: "Ah, I shouldn't have been supporting Poe. He was rash and got people killed!" Instead, I'm thinking to myself: "What a horrible tragedy. Poe is terrible. Holdo should have done something about it. If only Leia had the forethought to appoint a more capable leader if she were removed from command."
She did. You were just too absorbed in Poe's bull**** and your preconceptions of what Star Wars protagonists do to see her.
Leia was the one who actually demoted him for disobeying orders. She called him impulsive and dangerous. And then later on, she removed him from the bridge and yelled at him. None of these actions were particularly effective at restraining Poe.
In regards to people being absorbed in Poe's bull****, what exactly is Poe's bull****? I thought Poe was a disagreeable character pretty early on and figured he was going to cause trouble later on. My assumption is that Poe's bull**** refers to automatically siding or favoring an impulsive individual who refuses to cooperate with others, making decisions that sometimes pay off but can also have devastating consequences. If this is Poe's bull****, then I'm surprised that I have been absorbed in it, given that I never quite liked him to begin with.
I want to emphasize that agreeing or disagreeing with Poe's actions does not automatically mean you disagree or agree with Holdo's actions in turn. It is possible to think that Poe is irresponsible but also conclude that Holdo is an ineffectual leader.
It's not that people don't understand the idea or lesson being told. It's just handled in such a way that it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion where the director's intent was a safety video about trains, but everyone is too busy being preoccupied by the horrific crash in front of them. A lot of people claimed the casino subplot was hamfisted, but that was handled far better than the Poe/Holdo plot, which I wished was its own film.
Nope, gonna keep disagreeing on that.
My metric for a piece of art or media is whether or not it achieves the intended effect on its audience. This applies to basically everything, from poems to games to films. And to be fair, it's difficult to make a work universal. People are ridiculously diverse, and so it's incredibly unlikely that you can achieve the desired effect on everyone. Now the secondary metric that comes from this is usually measured as the proportion of people who were affected as intended by the author. If the intention of the Poe/Holdo subplot was that people realize that Poe was full of **** and that Holdo was right, followed by a realization that they were backing the wrong person, then the results seem rather mixed. You have people who supported Holdo from the beginning, and you have people who disagree with both Poe and Holdo.
