|
|
Post by jppiper on May 5, 2021 22:39:02 GMT
Anthony Did they have to use The Older washed up Past their Prime versions of Han Luke and Leia?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on May 6, 2021 1:52:54 GMT
They did another "saga poster" with the sequel characters at the front though  Anthony Did they have to use The Older washed up Past their Prime versions of Han Luke and Leia? Ouch! Well, Joe, you have a point -- the luster of the OT denied? However, I think it's an interesting composition, and the most effective of all the new "May 4th" panels available (or that I've seen). We again have the "Force Dyad" between Rey and Kylo emphasised here. Kylo's cape sweeps out behind him in the "bad guys" hemisphere, while Rey matches him and seems waiting for his arrival (her eyes are looking up in Kylo's direction) as her own garment sweeps across the "good guys" hemisphere -- the two "tails" of the protagonist-antagonist couple forming something of a swirling ellipse. And Luke and Leia are most obviously in their older/greyer/sadder "Force Guardian" guises because they are Rey's surrogate parents against the "bad apple" Kylo. So it sort of works. But... What we're again seeing here is a kind of tiered "caste" system from Disney (obviously, these are independent art pieces, but they have nonetheless been commissioned and carefully chosen) based around overt elevation of the ST and covert demotion of the PT; with the OT somewhere in-between (but mostly interchangeable with the ST). Let's compare: (I hope Anthony doesn't mind me linking to these images straight from Naboo News) The Skywalker Saga Disney+ poster from last year:  The new "Star Wars Day" poster for this year: With these panels/posters, they are clearly trying to impress upon people the primacy of the OT and the ST as a single unit of expression and consumption. Indeed, they are conveying two interrelated messages or motifs: i) The originals and sequels are the "core" of Star Wars and have many relatable or heroic characters (i.e., you should fixate upon rebels-vs-imperials stuff over and over). ii) The prequels are in the mix but are not of the same essence or importance (i.e., they're neat for background/filler, but you can overlook them if you like). These two notions are borne out in similar -- but slightly divergent -- ways in the two panels. In the top panel from last year, there are multiple prequel characters in evidence, and they take up considerable space in the "bad guys" hemisphere. Even some heroes get in, but one is oddly in both hemispheres simultaneously (Padme in her Queen Amidala guise), while the other (Obi-Wan in his ROTS guise) is comfortably slotted in the "good guys" side as the putative "instructor" of the protagonist in the PT and OT (the latter of which, as stated, is given rough parity with the ST). Both characters, I would argue, are strong picks, but also relatively "safe" ones. Conversely, there is little risk with using prequel villains, since villains are something of an easier sell with Star Wars, and there has been significantly less grumbling online about, say, Maul or Dooku, than Anakin or Jar Jar. Indeed, complaints around the prequel villains tend to centre on how Lucas "wasted" them and should have devoted more time to them -- a sort of circular proof that Lucas "ruins" even his best ideas. In the bottom panel from this year, there are again multiple prequel characters in evidence, but they are almost all confined to the "bad guys" hemisphere and nowhere near as large as in the top panel. There is also only one hero character in the "good guys" hemisphere, and this character is stashed right at the back, as if racing to catch up to the OT/ST characters and to justify her inclusion. Moreover, it's Ahsoka, which is cool, but she's rather obviously only there because of her recent appearance in "The Mandalorian" (note her proximity to Din, the title character). Along with Asajj Ventress in the "bad guys" hemisphere, you also have secondary prequel characters -- i.e., prequel characters from supplementary material -- replacing/supplanting prequel characters that could have gone there from the movies themselves. Not that this is any big deal in itself (it's all sort of a relative thing), but if you hit the "delete" button in your head, the bottom panel ends up being left with almost no-one from the prequel films (while comparatively overflowing with OT/ST ones). Another notable aspect of both panels is that the spaceships and troopers all come from the OT/ST -- and these are, in and of themselves, practically the same thing (e.g., the stormtrooper design/concept of the ST is only a minor evolution of the stormtrooper design/concept in the OT). Nothing from the Galactic Republic makes an appearance here, even though the prequels are heavily populated with distinctive and attractive designs and concepts that add tremendously to the iconicity of the saga. Bob Iger reported in his memoirs that Lucas took offence to "The Force Awakens" because, in his paraphrase, "There's nothing new." The fuller quote really puts these panels in perspective (or vice versa): It's interesting, among other statements, that Iger asserts that Abrams "[created] a perfect bridge" -- but what, in this regard, fundamentally changed in the other sequels? They stuck with stormtroopers, X-Wings, TIE Fighters, Star Destroyers, and yet more planet-killing superlasers. Frankly, it's to laugh. And here we have these posters riding right along with the specious notion that a "perfect bridge" was created "between had been and what was to come". In truth, Iger is probably talking of the longer-term fiduciary aims of Disney with the Star Wars franchise, and nothing of the artistic process. And Bob... George criticised you precisely because you pandered. To act like sticking with old designs and bland concepts suggests some kind of fidelity or epic struggle on your part and all the people that conspired with you to railroad the sequels from the start is, well... delusional is one word. These posters, while eye-catching enough on their own terms, just reek of insincerity and corporate calculation -- the very two monsters that have been feasting on Star Wars since Lucas sold it on. The people at Disney/Lucasfilm have been pursuing a strategy of careful shunning and disavowal, punctuated by tokenistic inclusion (on multiple levels), ever since they began plotting the trajectory of the franchise in 2012. This poster, and Ewan's snotty comments from the other day, reveal that they're still running with the same script almost a decade later. |
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on May 6, 2021 2:53:26 GMT
They did another "saga poster" with the sequel characters at the front though Conversely, there is little risk with using prequel villains, since villains are something of an easier sell with Star Wars, and there has been significantly less grumbling online about, say, Maul or Dooku, than Anakin or Jar Jar. Indeed, complaints around the prequel villains tend to centre on how Lucas "wasted" them and should have devoted more time to them -- a sort of circular proof that Lucas "ruins" even his best ideas. In the bottom panel from this year, there are again multiple prequel characters in evidence, but they are almost all confined to the "bad guys" hemisphere and nowhere near as large as in the top panel. There is also only one hero character in the "good guys" hemisphere, and this character is stashed right at the back, as if racing to catch up to the OT/ST characters and to justify her inclusion. Moreover, it's Ahsoka, which is cool, but she's rather obviously only there because of her recent appearance in "The Mandalorian" (note her proximity to Din, the title character). Along with Asajj Ventress in the "bad guys" hemisphere, you also have secondary prequel characters -- i.e., prequel characters from supplementary material -- replacing/supplanting prequel characters that could have gone there from the movies themselves. Not that this is any big deal in itself (it's all sort of a relative thing), but if you hit the "delete" button in your head, the bottom panel ends up being left with almost no-one from the prequel films (while comparatively overflowing with OT/ST ones). Another notable aspect of both panels is that the spaceships and troopers all come from the OT/ST -- and these are, in and of themselves, practically the same thing (e.g., the stormtrooper design/concept of the ST is only a minor evolution of the stormtrooper design/concept in the OT). Nothing from the Galactic Republic makes an appearance here, even though the prequels are heavily populated with distinctive and attractive designs and concepts that add tremendously to the iconicity of the saga. Bob Iger reported in his memoirs that Lucas took offence to "The Force Awakens" because, in his paraphrase, "There's nothing new." The fuller quote really puts these panels in perspective (or vice versa): CryogenicThere was never Meant to be a Vader Like Character throughout the 3 films The Fans Kept whining about Maul that Lucas bought him back so they would Shut Up about it and Bob Iger can go to Hell! |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on May 6, 2021 4:51:49 GMT
I say put Jar Jar on everything. I'd love to be able to walk into a Wal-Mart and be able to buy a Jar Jar t-shirt. Alas, we do not live in that world.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikeximus on Aug 8, 2021 5:14:13 GMT
Anthony Did they have to use The Older washed up Past their Prime versions of Han Luke and Leia? Of course they did, how else were they going to remind everyone that their Sequel Trilogy was a dumpster fire? What better way to to sum up that empty vessel of a trilogy than by plastering the empty vessels of the ST “Big 3” on there.. Too be fair… I guess by using Rey, Finn, and Kylo in that artwork they’re making the same exact point about the ST. |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Aug 8, 2021 18:45:30 GMT
Has anyone besides myself ever applied the idea of fighting video game character balance programming to the interpretation of the complete set of movies in the cinematic canon? Like, the idea that the filmmaker collective deliberately buffs and nerfs the strengths and weaknesses of every film so that nothing is over/underpowered? It also applies to intentionally putting in certain things for the purpose of getting criticized...
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Aug 8, 2021 19:49:43 GMT
Has anyone besides myself ever applied the idea of fighting video game character balance programming to the interpretation of the complete set of movies in the cinematic canon? Like, the idea that the filmmaker collective deliberately buffs and nerfs the strengths and weaknesses of every film so that nothing is over/underpowered? It also applies to intentionally putting in certain things for the purpose of getting criticized... I didn't make any video game analogies, but yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Aug 31, 2021 20:36:34 GMT
Has anyone besides myself ever applied the idea of fighting video game character balance programming to the interpretation of the complete set of movies in the cinematic canon? Like, the idea that the filmmaker collective deliberately buffs and nerfs the strengths and weaknesses of every film so that nothing is over/underpowered? It also applies to intentionally putting in certain things for the purpose of getting criticized...
Wow. I think about the first consideration all the time with respect to my own creative work. Cohesion among a canon is so important to me and, I feel, in general.
But in relation to Star Wars, after the success of ANH, Lucas advised some of his collaborators that TESB didn't need to be that great. I wish I could find the exact quote but I tried and failed some years ago. In any case, I've always understood this as Lucas' desire to keep Star Wars squarely in the realm of pop (sorry, Ingram  ) and almost B-grade cinema; as a send-up or imitation of Classic Hollywood it deliberately is rather than a rival entry of an as-earnest fold. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 5, 2021 1:51:51 GMT
Has anyone besides myself ever applied the idea of fighting video game character balance programming to the interpretation of the complete set of movies in the cinematic canon? Like, the idea that the filmmaker collective deliberately buffs and nerfs the strengths and weaknesses of every film so that nothing is over/underpowered? It also applies to intentionally putting in certain things for the purpose of getting criticized...
Wow. I think about the first consideration all the time with respect to my own creative work. Cohesion among a canon is so important to me and, I feel, in general.
But in relation to Star Wars, after the success of ANH, Lucas advised some of his collaborators that TESB didn't need to be that great. I wish I could find the exact quote but I tried and failed some years ago. In any case, I've always understood this as Lucas' desire to keep Star Wars squarely in the realm of pop (sorry, Ingram ) and almost B-grade cinema; as a send-up or imitation of Classic Hollywood it deliberately is rather than a rival entry of an as-earnest fold. Cinema is a grand fugue. Everyone is on a mission to add to it and to (re)define it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 18, 2022 20:15:55 GMT
Every Disney Star Wars trailer ever made...
Hope Is Dope
|
|
|
|
Post by jppiper on Mar 21, 2022 0:42:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Mar 21, 2022 3:47:42 GMT
LMAO. Well, damn, that hits the spot. Although... It is a touch snide, in that eminently made-for-Twitter way. I guess I'll just write it out, in case the tweet is deleted, as tweets often are: 1977: Finally, I've finished writing my space movie. The bad guys are an allegory for for the Nazis and also America in Vietnam.
2005: I've finished the prequels to my other space movies. This time they're also about the death of democratic society in the United States and the war on terror.
2012: I sure hope the company I've just sold my space movie franchise to respects the political value of the stories.
2022: Welcome to our expensive space hotel resort, we've really leaned into the evil iconography and we hope that you and your children cosplay as fascists and help us rat out the aliens.Posted by alex (@tinysnekcomics) on March 19th 2022. I hope the implication in "rat out the aliens" isn't that Star Wars fans, of today or yesteryear, are racist or xenophobic, or against a more open society -- or that Disney are somehow encouraging this. Star Wars, at its core, is a moral fable that underlines the value of diversity and tolerance of difference, with a story that preaches the importance of getting along to resist evil and build a better world. Even Disney haven't fucked that up. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on May 15, 2022 22:48:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Jun 27, 2022 16:18:04 GMT
Interesting to posit that the only Star Wars screen drama to be well-received by fans, and also primarily feature core characters, since the Disney acquisition, has been The Force Awakens. Look at all the rest: Rogue One: loved, but focused on new characters The Last Jedi: mixed Solo: thrashed The Rise of Skywalker: thrashed The Mandalorian: loved, but focused on new characters Book of Boffa Fett: thrashed Obi-Wan Kenobi: mixed It should be said that TFA was a blatant rip-off of the original Star Wars, that only got the acclaim it did because of two things: a) the lack of a Star Wars film in a decade. There was such a drought that people were willing to give Abram's utter lack of creativity and innovation a free pass. b) the notion, according to the OT fanboys, that it righted the wrongs of the the PT, which the critics were highly sympathetic to. If a film like TFA were released tomorrow, it would get a completely different reception. It only got the praise that it did because appealing to the lowest common denominator worked then, and that is not a positive sign when it comes to a film standing up for years to come, when the nostalgia burst it provided is long forgotten. Already, some fans are starting to understand what a sham it was. While creating stories with a whole new set of characters may not be a guaranteed root to success, it's difficult to deny that, when it comes to those mainly concerned with legacy chatterers, it's very challenging to please a majority of fans. We saw this very evidently in the PT. However, if we include animated drama into our question, it's the PT-derived TCW, in its revived 7th season, that married fan acclaim with familiar characters, and wasn't a TFA-style knock-off either. Maybe all new characters in all new Star Wars eras like the Old Republic are the way to go, there is far less for the storytellers to interfere with, tamper or screw up, but at 1000 BBY (or whatever many millennia) you also have to acknowledge that it'll appear much more foreign than the liked Rogue One or Mandalorian did. For all those two dramas being new and different, they skirt around the OT and share a lot of its DNA, even having Luke and Leia make small appearances. They'll be no Skywalkers in Old Republic, there won't even be Yoda in his youth. That "freedom" may be a curse as much as a blessing, because whether we like it or not, we come back to the mythology out of nostalgia and the familiar (its why the saga films do commercially better than stand-alones). If the prequels were too much new to handle at once, despite having Obi-Wan, audiences will need to brace themselves for something far more alien.
How did people assess the fan receptions to the prequels in 2005? Today the idea is that they were all thrashed, but as Cryo's research on Rotten Tomatoes shows, there was a re-writing of history in the interlude between the PT and ST. I think you could say there was more mixed for all three?
|
|
|
|
Post by mineirinho on Aug 19, 2022 21:46:30 GMT
Overview
In a 2012 conversation with Kathleen Keneddy, George Lucas claimed he has story treatments for other movies other than just the sequel trilogy (https://youtu.be/YyqlTi7lkhY). Of course,we can`t be sure if he would have made it exactly how Disney did, but it is interesting to speculate.
I believe the reason George decided to make movies outside of the main saga was the cancellation of the Underworld series. More on that later.
Another point of discussion is how they would structurally fit with the main saga. As footnotes (like Lucas described TCW), an actual part of the story in some ways (like an Episode 3.5) or just expanded material?
Rogue One
The idea of Rogue One comes from an abandoned story for Underworld. Why it was abandoned is unclear, but it is possible George just did not want the story of the Death Star plans told on screen at all.
At an unspecified moment after Disney bought Lucasfilm, John Knoll pitched the idea again and it was approved. The problem here is we can`t know for certain if George was even aware of all of this. If the pitch was made before he left production on Episode VII, it is very likely he not only knew of it, but would have approved it.
There is no other information on his involvement on this film. I personally don not think he was still working with Disney by the time the pitch was made, meaning it would not be a part of his canon even in early stages.
Solo
Interestingly, this also comes from an Underworld episode, although it would likely have made in the series if it was not canceled.
Lucas himself worked with Kasdan on the early scripts for the movie version in 2012. This all makes me think Solo is the standalone film closest to George`s vision: the idea, story and it seems he wanted to do it for a long time.
I also don`t think firing Lord and Miller changed the original story. Kasdan was unhappy they were changing the script and was more satisfied with the finished version. Ron Howard is also a good choice to direct George`s vision, as he did with Willow.
It is also important to note George was on set for this film for one day.
Another note is that I think the cameo from Maul at the end came from George, possibly to set up his appearance in the sequel trilogy.
Other films and Kenobi
Pablo Hidalgo claimed that “As he retired, George Lucas left the launching points of several standalones. That he wanted [Solo] made matters to some. [Rogue One wasn’t one of them] That came from John Knoll.” (https://swinfoground.wordpress.com/2019/09/16/quotes-hidalgos-answers-to-questions-part-iii/). This quote, of without sources on this course, implies that George wanted more films other than Solo. This is just speculation, but I think Obi-Wan was one of them and the rest would be stories from Underworld.
The information without sources are from wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Sept 22, 2022 14:04:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 11, 2022 1:36:11 GMT
Okay, I have no particular passion for this topic right now (although I've been trying to summon some), but Alessio has been pestering me to post his own reply; which, in fairness, I promised him several times to do already, over the last week or so. I warned him I would be annotating it, but since I'm feeling disinclined to personally weigh in on the topic right now, I am presenting Alessio's reply without commentary. While I do think he raises good points (which is why I agreed to post it), please bear in mind that these are Alessio's thoughts and they do not necessarily encapsulate my own views: |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Oct 11, 2022 5:20:41 GMT
Don't blame you. Both sides of the political spectrum seem pretty insane to me right now. It is all such a quagmire with no clear path. Eck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Oct 11, 2022 5:38:01 GMT
As tone can often get muddled over the internet, before judging I must first ask sincerely: Did the author here intend this as an elaborate parody or are these bases & conclusions being made in earnest? |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 11, 2022 23:40:03 GMT
As tone can often get muddled over the internet, before judging I must first ask sincerely: Did the author here intend this as an elaborate parody or are these bases & conclusions being made in earnest? It's not a parody and was meant seriously (in the author's own words). I like Alessio and do genuinely believe he raised some valid points, but he also tends to get lost in some of the random minutiae of a thing, perhaps making him seem a bit tunnel-visioned; and maybe his prose reads a bit stiff. I do understand that Disney/LFL looked at Gina Carano's tweets and considered them problematic. Do I agree with the way they handled the situation? Not really. However, looking at it from their point of view, I think she said some stuff (and shared some memes) that put them in a tight spot. There is nothing unusual in being fired by an employer for being lippy or speaking discordant words, at odds with company policy, on social media. And Carano was granted a fairly privileged opportunity: a recurring role in a well-liked show, playing an original character in an iconic sci-fi/fantasy franchise. A lot of people would have jumped at the chance to be in her shoes. That said, leftist/collectivist fascism is becoming increasingly common online; where narcissism reigns supreme and has no real checks or balances, and cancellation/deplatforming (or receiving a strike/warning that can lead to suspension from a platform) is regarded as not merely a useful option, but the only reasonable response to anyone considered insufficiently pious to leftist doctrine. I find the left's intellectual arrogance deplorable; and its attitude to freedom of speech utterly risible. Freedom of speech is a cardinal Enlightenment value. To see it being so casually abrogated, and a new intolerance of opposing viewpoints embraced, by the very people who ought to be upholding freedom of speech (and freedom of conscience) as sacrosanct, as the classical left did, is alarming and genuinely inspires hatred and contempt in me. My intellectual heroes, you see, were very outspoken on the matter of free speech. Unfortunately, they're now considered "privileged white males"; so, of course, their wisdom is shunned -- they themselves have been half-cancelled. Suffice to say, I've suffered my own amount of deplatforming and unpersoning on TFN and on Facebook, and I've seen it happen to many people I like and admire (as well as some people I might disagree with, but who still deserve the right to speak their minds), so there's a lot more I could say; but, right now, I'm completely burned out on the topic. I honestly just want to stick to discussing "Andor" while the first season is running. It's nice to feel positive and encouraged by a Disney project for once; and to not have to make too many qualifications about it. Right now, the whole Gina Carano thing (which, let's face it, isn't even a recent development) is a pointless distraction. I posted Alessio's thoughts because I made an early promise to do so; and then he kept nagging me to follow through. I think he is well-intentioned, but I don't like the idea of anyone being scolded or harangued, just because they think differently. That's kinda the nub of the whole issue. |
|
) and almost B-grade cinema; as a send-up or imitation of Classic Hollywood it deliberately is rather than a rival entry of an as-earnest fold.
