PT PT Discussion of future SW Content (Locked) - Discussion Moved to Saga Board

If I'd yielded to that logic when engaging those with a different view, I'd never have set out to defend the prequels online in the first place.

And Seeker Of The Whills was vague in their response; using only the pronouns "this" and "it" in reference to the post by Lulu Mars -- which mentioned both alien skin colouration and uniforms/costuming.

So I think this is a lame, confected controversy. I mean, if everyone in Star Wars was wearing a white t-shirt and ripped jeans, that might change the visual flow and meaning of the movies -- right? At some point, and I'd argue that point is reached fairly quickly, it becomes silly and constricting to only mention skin colour in the course of a conversation on character design.

It's not like all the Star Wars characters are drawn naked. Their clothing is an indispensable part of their look from the very first. We watch these movies and they earn our admiration because they are richly designed and skillfully executed on a number of levels. Various design vectors go together.

 

But therein lies the problem with Claire. She's cartoonishly mean at the beginning, and there's no explanation for that. She's just an ice queen professional woman and we're supposed to accept that as a legitimate stereotype. And she doesn't find deeper meaning in herself like Sam Neil (a character whose aversion to children is explored in depth). She just doesn't like kids and is cold and mean, and then bullied and cajoled into becoming more maternal and more traditionally feminine by a traditional male figure. It is, by today's standards, quite sexist.

 

So I just saw the news regarding Carrie, wanted to repost my thoughts in other parts of the forum as this is personal to me:

This just made me sad and heartbroken all over again. Carrie was clearly struggling every day with this, and my heart goes out to her, Billie, Todd, and the rest of their family.

I can totally understand how difficult dealing with a mental disability can be - although I haven't had to receive intensive treatment for my OCD since I was first diagnosed, I still battle with it every day. It's just a part of life for me and others with mental disabilities, and while it may get easier to fight, you never stop fighting. I hope Carrie's story encourages more people with mental disabilities like addiction and OCD to seek help - and if you are reading this, please do so - there is light, trust me. The world will be so much lesser without you.

Rest in peace Carrie, we still miss you just as much as we did in December.

 

The beigelians that seem to have been on the increase since TFA aren't really a deal breaker for me. In this instance I think their costumes look wonderfully outrageous and awesome. But if I'm being honest, I do miss the days of electric blue/green Twi'leks ect.
...added a bit of to the Galaxy.


Edit: Hopefully this news will assuage some fears that the ST is going to be 100% in-cohesive because its directors were given creative freedom.
https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/201...o-add-a-scene-to-star-wars-the-last-jedi.html
These people talk to each other...from time to time.

 

I think you are dramatically expanding the scope of my argument. All I'm saying is that the new Lucasfilm is not afraid of multi-colored aliens.

 

And you are reducing my argument to a point of trite absurdity. Why on Earth would Disney/Lucasfilm be afraid of multi-coloured aliens?

Focusing on a single pixel and ignoring the mountain of pixels around it condemns any discussion to a state of gross poverty and ignorance.

A proper, mature, rounded argument can only be had with an expanded set of data points; which I tried to provide some sense of in the post you quoted.

 

You cannot accuse people of reducing an argument when you are only determined to prove a quantitive difference in the diversity in the overall colour design of a film without even considering form following function.

Your argument is just that more colours are better than fewer colours. And that the supposed lack of diversity is designed to spite one trilogy and unduly enhance the prominence of another trilogy, both from the same film-maker.

 

Lighten up, Cryo. I was recognizing the absurdity of the discussion. It was a self-deprecating post on my part. You ventured into slave Leia territory, while I was simply talking about orange and blue aliens. My initial point was simple, and deliberately so: that it is a tad beyond the pale to assert that the new LFL has a stated design policy that aliens (and clothing, for that matter) must be pale (pun intended). I think what's happening is that there was indeed an emphasis on muted color tones (in general) with TFA, and this was a design choice Abrams made which was of course more reminiscent of the OT (not surprising in-universe either given that the ST occurs after the OT in time). However, that was a directorial decision, not a studio one. I believe it's carte blanche for TLJ and future films. There's nobody at LFL saying "muted color tones, for aliens and clothing, is a must!" That's a rather absurd notion.

 

RotJ did have by far the most diverse set of alien designs out of the OT films, since it wasn't as limited by budget constraints and deadlines as the first two. Lucas could more freely express his vision, like he did to an even larger extent with the prequels. But at the same time, it was the least well received entry by both fans and critics. It was a sort of omen to the prequels in that way. To this day, Jabba's Palace, particularly the Max Rebo band, are referred to as "muppets" by some. Not to mention the Ewoks, who are almost as maligned as the Gungans. Designs like these, with such brazen, unapologeticly campy and alien colors are rarely seen in Disney's new SW products. They are steering clear of the whole "muppet" look as much as the prequel-style CGI. This can be seen in how they've pretty much exhausted every design and element from the originals, be it in the movies, cartoons, books, comics, etc., but have we seen a single Ewok anywhere? No. Every other alien has been rehashed multiple times. I believe there was a mention of Ewoks in Maz's Castle in one of the book adaptations, where you don't have to show them physically, but they didn't bother adding them to the actual scene in the movie. They are obviously adhering most closely to the look of TESB (the "best" SW film), which had the least alien creatures of all the original six saga films, and the ones it had were much more humanoid and again, not so diverse in coloration. Think of Ugnaughts, or the Wampa, which they rehashed for Rogue One, as seen in your avatar.

 

Republic era is supposed to be peaceful, enlightened, culturally prosperous and diverse.

Imperial era is in darkness. Oppressive and austere. Both sides are defined by the war they wage, not the culture they make. Thus a martial look is hung on nearly all the characters throughout, with the exception of Luke and Leia in white.

Sequel era so far is confined to theareas resistance to the emergent first order. And so it, apart from the colourful characters of Maz's castle, is confined to similarly martial hues. The glimpse of the new republic looked colourful enough. But the story wasn't taking place there (sorry).

Form follows function. If they start developing the story simply to display a wider range of colours for its own sake then that's as bad as using effects with no story except the excuse to use the effect.

I have never heard anyone complain about the colour of the creatures in ROTJ following ESB. That sounds like wishfully thinking up an issue.

 

I don't think it's a corporate mandate, but simply the inevitable result of the current creative priorities. I do miss the vibrant, painterly look of the PT. And I also miss the storybook charm of aspects like the Gungan city, Dagobah, and Endor and the Ewoks. Thus far Disney has offered a very narrow interpretation of what Star Wars should entail. For me, sticking so close to that "ESB edge" has ironically made for a blander, safer, more routine experience.

 

Form follows function under Disney in the following manner: The form is what is considered safe or pleasing, the function is to ensure healthy return of profit to shareholders.

Does that about make it clear? I'm suggesting they have simplified (some might argue nullified) Lucas' complex tapestry for $$$. They didn't want to take risks.

What could have driven them to do that? Well, first and foremost, they're a big corporation, and corporations are notoriously risk-averse. But secondly, and just as importantly here, there was a big media-driven (or media-assisted) backlash to the prequels, via-a-vis the sainted, hallowed original trilogy, which has become something like the zero point of popular culture. You're no-one until you've seen those films, quoted them back a dozen times on social media, and denigrated or at least thought of denigrating the prequel trilogy and repeating various complaint memes about CGI and greenscreen, Jar Jar, racist stereotypes, wooden dialogue, a horrible romance, their ruining what people fell in love with originally, their very existence being the greatest mistake of all time, etc.

So how could seeking to "avoid" some of the pitfalls and artistic experimentation of the prequels not have failed to weigh in with the choices Disney/Lucasfilm made and are continuing to make? I've provided various print and video links in this thread, and various others, to expound upon this view of things.

Also look at this way:

They chose to make the sequel trilogy more fan-pleasing and OT-esque. I think it is worth remembering that Lucas was constrained by money and technology (especially on the original film) and deliberately made the earlier films more stripped-down and utilitarian in look and feel. Disney inherited all his film companies, all his design work and material, and have more money and influence than a Phoenician king. And digital technology, which already matured considerably even in the ten-year span between Lucas starting on and completing the prequels, is more sophisticated than it has ever been; with another decade elapsing between the release of ROTS and TFA. Disney/LFL had every last resource and every opportunity at their disposal to make the most visually spectacular trilogy of all time; and they... re-made (or clung heavily to) the OT. Movies from forty years ago.

That's not my argument. I'm talking beyond mere colour schemes -- and this has nothing to do with Disney/LFL spiting one trilogy and unduly enhancing the prominence of one over another.

Let me remind you of the following pieces of data that have attended my last few posts:

1) Kathleen Kennedy slamming Jar Jar via "ScreenSlam":



Time Index: 2:18

"Jar Jar's definitely not in this movie."

She can't even complete her sentence before loud cheering and clapping begins.

And secondary to that symbolic promise, she then zeroes in on another of Lucas' contentious creations:

Time Index: 2:25

"Ewoks are not in the movie."

The cheering is much more mixed that second time around with a few mild boos and general sounds of disapproval muddying up the half-hearted din.

Note also that John Boyega, sitting next to Kathleen Kennedy (incidentally: they are both dressed in brown), clenches his fists and hits them against his legs, grinning and mouthing something like "Yes" or "Fantastic" three times, when KK makes her Jar Jar comment. Thereby assenting to her remark and adding to the chorus of approval. However, when she makes her Ewoks remark, Boyega delays his reaction a split second, and then audibly boos along with the audience. Kennedy also seems to try and rescue the disapproval toward her Ewoks remark by comically blaming Harrison Ford: "Sorry. That's because Harrison insisted on it." Harrison quickly backs up her ploy by extending the joke: "It was in my contract." These people, in my opinion, play to the crowd and gauge their responses accordingly. I finish with that to "colour" (pun intended) what I'm arguing here. It's not about spite; it's more like demagogy and fanocracy.

2) Kathleen Kennedy slamming "Bikini Leia":

Referring to a notorious scene in Return of the Jedi, I asked Kennedy if she would ever have put Princess Leia in a golden bikini—the famous “slave Leia” costume that is embedded in the collective unconscious of legions of men who were adolescents in the 80s. “With a chain around her neck?,” Kennedy asked, arching an eyebrow and laughing. “I don’t think that would happen.” She quickly added that she didn’t think George Lucas would put her in that bikini today.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/kathleen-kennedy-hollywood-producer

(And she is quickly contradicted by Mellody Hobson in that same passage).

So here we have Kennedy politically hitting out at the original trilogy. Overall, the original trilogy is more elevated in the new Disney cosmogony, for a variety of reasons, than the prequels (and even the prequels are hardly abandoned). So you might think this is an odd strategy. And I do think it could backfire. However, it clearly plays into the trendy emphasis on female empowerment of late, and the implicit notion that Star Wars should be a vehicle which doesn't overtly sexualize women, and which is, furthermore, capable of granting them an "equal" footing with men. The above remark is a crystal-clear example of Kathleen Kennedy, President of Lucasfilm, not only passing negative judgement on iconic films she inherited the responsibility of keeping alive and massively expanding upon, directly from Lucas, at that, but of her slandering the old "Lucas empire" and of minting the new "Kennedy/Disney empire" concurrently. In so doing, she is also planting a seed in people's minds that some aspects of the earlier films, beyond women and chains and bikinis, aren't necessarily acceptable in a post-Lucas universe.

In the same article, she takes a second dig at Lucas when the following is said:

Lucas was a beloved and oddly vulnerable figure in the minds of his employees. Until he chose Kennedy to replace him, no one who worked for Lucas thought there was ever going to be another Star Wars movie; he was bruised and bitter after Episodes I, II, and III, the so-called prequels, had been widely panned. Lucrative as the franchise and its merchandising continued to be, without a big Star Wars movie in the works, Lucasfilm lacked its primary reason for being. Nobody ever questioned Lucas—in fact, nobody made a move without him. “I think this company, for a long time, was driven by waiting to see what George wanted to do,” Kennedy told me. “I don’t run this company that way. People aren’t sitting around waiting to see what Kathy wants to do.”


Note two things about that:

i) Kennedy is openly insinuating that Lucas was autocratic, indolent, and ran Lucasfilm like a trust fund or billionaire's pet project. Whether there is some truth to this or not, she is directly taking a shot at him in public; in the same article/interview that includes her inveighing against the pulp eroticism of the Jabba's Palace sequence in the last installment of the original trilogy. Which was also made at a time when Lucas' marriage was collapsing. So there could be a further implied critique about Lucas being psychologically thrown off his game by his personal troubles even during the original trilogy. The sunken accusation here is that Lucas' head wasn't in the right place and what was happening with his marriage compromised his judgement and led to a frustrated Lucas sexualizing Leia either deliberately or inadvertently. Women became slightly toxic or deviant to him (his wife cheated on Lucas with a younger man) and he went with a bikini-clad, enchained Leia (and Oola) against his better judgement. I'm not saying that. I'm not even saying Kathleen Kennedy is saying it. But it's something that can, in theory, be teased out of her salvos against Lucas in the article, in my opinion.

ii) When Vanity Fair incorrectly referred to "The Force Awakens" as "Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens", they issued a retraction at the bottom of a former article:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2015/05/star-wars-the-force-awakens-vanity-fair-cover

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misidentified the title of the new Star Wars film. It is Star Wars: The Force Awakens*, not *Star Wars: Episode VII—The Force Awakens.

Why on Earth is that important? Because it demonstrates that they were clearly corrected by Disney/LFL and made to change the reference. Technically, "The Force Awakens" *is* Episode VII; so there is obviously a fair degree of brand sensitivity on Disney's part for them to "force" a change of that nature. Moreover, and this is my real reason for citing it, if Disney/LFL felt there was anything unfair or incorrect in the Kennedy interview above, they would have contacted the publication and asked them to adjust the article. So we can infer they are fine with the Vanity Fair article flatly stating that Lucas "was brusied and bitter" after "the so-called prequels" ended up being "widely panned". That's quite a statement to leave lying open in full view; in an article that is essentially a "vanity" piece (pun intended) for the new head of Lucasfilm (appointed, let's not forget, by George Lucas himself). To sum up, what that article is saying, and what Disney/LFL are letting it say, is:

- Lucas was bruised and bitter.
- Lucas was controlling and lazy.
- Lucas made bad or questionable artistic choices.

Read the extracts I provided again and tell me I'm in error on those fronts.

There's no spiting occurring here (as spiteful or as ungrateful as some of what Kathleen Kennedy has said sounds).

What there is is calculated, public derogation of Lucas, the prequel trilogy, and even the original trilogy; secondary to the aim of advancing the cause of Disney and making it seem like Star Wars is being allowed to grow again after a period of poor management stemming from fatigue and frustration -- themselves traceable to benighted choices Lucas did or didn't make as a result of being out-of-touch or feeling wearied and jaundiced due to a downturn in his personal life, with that invariably interfering with or "colouring" his artistic sensibilities.

Disney have actually regurgitated bashing points (and therefore kowtowed to the online denigration of Lucas) that are as old as the hills. They've just done it far more economically, and in a slightly more urbane, politically-correct way than many of the things that have repeatedly been said online the past twenty years. Kathleen Kennedy has also clearly arrogated to herself the right to criticize and chide Lucas in public; as a function of expressing (or attempting to express) her own moral rectitude and clear-eyed, virtuous regard for the saga and its millions of fans going forward.

Those comments of hers, and many others made in the marketing campaign for TFA, cannot be ignored or forgotten about, in my opinion. As the saying goes: start as you mean to go on. So while it may, indeed, seem incredulous, at first glance, that they would take shots at any of the films, much less weight one trilogy over another, I think it can be seen that they have done, and are going, exactly that. It's ultimately a strange, politically-correct project about exorcising Star Wars of its demons and letting the blood run clean. In that regard, the prequels are obviously more in the firing line, based on the detraction they received. But as Kathleen Kennedy's remarks about an aspect of ROTJ go, all of the films are open to targeting; with respect to whatever commercial goals are being pursued. What is felt best for the company and best for the bottom-line over the longer term.

So if I feel that Star Wars might be a little lesser than what it once was, and is being crudely copied into a new mold, I hope you have some sense as to why I hold to that opinion and why I remain weary about the direction everything now seems to be heading in.

 

Leave it to Cryo to take a small discussion about the color of aliens & turn it into a full-blown anti-Disney thesis.

 

Anti-Disney thesis? Even if we conclude that as true, at least what has been provided is broken down-analyzed evidence, including sources.

And the argument is still within the context that Marto was quoted on.

 

right on queue....lol.

might be a Disney-bot

 

Thank you, Quantum.

Even though I do seem to have a "thesis" fetish, I do, at least, try and ground what I say with quotes and sources.

Also, I must confess, I got a few things horribly wrong above:

- Kathleen Kennedy does not say "Jar Jar's definitely not in this movie". She says "Jar Jar's definitely not in the movie."
- John Boyega doesn't really hit his fists against his legs.

 

Jings. It sure maks ye think.