Full Series Mini Series The Inquisitors (Spoilers)

"Fan service" falls flat as a criticism for me. The whole point of the author writing the story is to entertain fans. If they do something worth criticizing, that is not servicing me as a fan.

 

The way I look at it, everything that's specifically part of the Star Wars IP is fanservice. They could have made this entire show, all the underlying story parts that matter exactly the same, but skinned with their own original franchise. Anything other than that is fanservice. Let's not go down the path of "It's OK to like TIE fighters, but not OK to like Jerec." It's true Jerec is only better than an original creation if you're a fan, but a TIE fighter is only better than an original creation if you're a Star Wars fan, too.

 

They seem to be missing why everyone loved ANH. I can garantee you that nobidy walked out of the theater in 1977 saying, "Thank god we didn't see the Emperor" and nobody walked out of ROTJ saying that they hate the character.

 

There's a recurring pattern where fans get fired up about a villain or "evil" faction because they like the mystery and the horror-monster, remorseless quality. But absolute hostility isn't all that much fun for writers, directors, and actors, so when it's time to write a sequel or five, they bring in nuance, humanity, and moral shadings. Vader is a cherubic toddler and a whiny adolescent. Hannibal was abused as a child. Borg are redeemable. By the third movie, the xenomorph doesn't even want to eat Ripley anymore! Come on! You could argue that these were necessary developments that evolved franchises and made for more mature storytelling, but an important part of what brought the fans in for the early chapters gets lost in the process.

I hate the phenomenon of sci-fi wars starting off with absolute black-and-white World War 2-style conflict, then ending with the whimper of a tacked-on handshake, the whole conflict bogged down in examination of how alike we are to our enemies. Ender's Game and the Matrix trilogy both start out in a really fun place, almost Warhammer 40K "BURN THEM!" territory, but the supposedly grownup "all buddies" endings are such letdowns.

 

Fan service is giving fan's what they demand or expect (story wise) and this isn't necessarily a good thing. And entertaining doesn't mean you give what people expect.

 

Part of my point is that if they try something that fails it is not servicing the fans, so it wouldn't be accurate to characterize it that way. Basically all published writing attempts to entertain or otherwise fulfill its readers, when it succeeds and when it fails. Throwing that around as an insult when one dislikes something is really no more descriptive than simply calling it bad.

 

Part of my point is that if they try something that fails it is not servicing the fans, so it wouldn't be accurate to characterize it that way. Basically all published writing attempts to entertain or otherwise fulfill its readers, when it succeeds and when it fails. Throwing that around as an insult when one dislikes something is really no more descriptive than simply calling it bad.[/quote]


I wasn't "throwing it around as an insult".

And, yes, movies, TV shows, books etc. are attempts to entertain.

Fan service is giving to the demands of a certain fan base.

Doing this is not an attempt to entertain, it is an attempt to appease.

For example, I remember there were many complaints that TPM had no Han Solo type character - suppose George Lucas had done that. Where is the entertainment in a copy of a character?

 

Am I the only one laughing at the fact that a movie about Clones is held up as an example of "unique" character concepts?

(Yeah yeah, technically TPM didn't have the clones yet, but you get it...)

 

ThatWanFromStewjon I didn't mean to imply my comment was targeted at your use of the term specifically, I was explaining what I was talking about in reference to it. I personally don't see a huge difference in writing something to entertain someone and writing something to "appease" someone, since you seem to mean appeasement in terms of getting a story they like.

 

This is just what I mean - just because someone is the fan of a franchise does not mean that where they want it to go is the right thing dramatically, visually, etc.

I don't seem to be able to find the right words to explain why fan service is a bad thing.

Appeasement is away to stop debate and discussion.

 

Fans desire good stories and the writers appease them by trying to write good stories.

A good story may or may not have fan service. FS might break a story or it might make a story. It depends on how well it's handled.

A Han Solo character might have been great in the PT, or it might not have been.

I agree the fan service charge doesn't tell us much except that some people think certain tropes shouldn't be repeated (Han Solo) while others should (Jedi).

 

I don't think he sucked. I thought he was a good villain. Threatening, but not stupid/over-the-top. And - 4 LIGHTSABERS!!!

 

Grievous was a straight bad-ass to me. Four lightsabers and half-robot/man? COME ON. TCW did him great too. Those episodes in his lair... LOVED them.

 

Yeah, I thought Grievous was handled very well. He wasn't a coward like some claim him to be. He was always willing to fight the heroes, but smart enough to know when he needed to retreat. And the CIS was handled adequately as well. I began watching Season 1 again recently (except I'm following the official chronology) and the show begins with nothing but The Republic getting its ass handed to it. Usually it ends up that their "victories" in these early episodes is them barely escaping with their lives, and not before they've had a ton of casualties.

 

IRL wars end usually with no real justice served to the victims.
I dunno, Ender's Game didn't pull something like the bugs had a lost homeworld that moves around and is willing to accept them at the cost of expelling Ferroans who were already living there for generations (yeah yeah they could "live in harmony" but seriously who wants to live next door to the scary aliens who enslaved the galaxy?). The OT really did well by not pushing any of this Empire apologism I see. The Empire was bad and needed to be overthrown. End.

I actually didn't like Maul that much until the writers started "humanizing" him because I can kind sorta relate to all the abuse he's been put through. Like merciless assassins - when do you really see those in real life? But children from abusive households who had to be perfect or face the wrath of their caretakers? All too common.

I like it when Grievous is also a big dork in addition to being a "badass". I mean the guy looks like he's blushing in the live action. It really appeals to me how he has a war story that ends in no justice being served or the Kaleesh making peace with the nasty baby-eating bugs. And having family back home...he was a ladies man and I bet he's a Cool Dad to his kids. Or a jerk absent dad. Too bad TCW's writers couldn't really show that, except for him having a pet

 

I love the Shadow Guards in TFU. I would be very happy if they use the Shadow Guard concept in Rebels.

 

Doesn't anybody notice that the Separatists and the Empire both have everyone running around with red lightsabers?

 

gg rules.

 

Grievous was a buffoon in ROTS, all he had was the cheap lightsaber trick with the robotic wrists which easily got parried by Kenobi within seconds and Grievious was literally chopped to pieces. I think the problem is the obvious, Grievous in the micro series was menacing, mysterious and actual threat to the heroes and he filled the villain role nicely(plus had a cool factor which always helps) this was further complemented nicely with the Darkhorse Republic series' portrayal. The movie version of Grievous for lack of a better word was excrement. early on Grievous was also being sold as like General Kael(from Willow) and a proto-Vader for the ROTS film.

The CW series tries to bridge the micro series/republic with what we saw in ROTS, but its more a hybrid and was for the most part, more the former than latter thankfully.

 

The Inquisitor may be a way to bridge the PT-era and OT-era villains; he appears to be a cross between Darth Maul and Vader, a Pau'an (first appeared in RotS) with an Imperial aesthetic. Although attired in Imperial garb and armor, he holds a double-bladed lightsaber (saberstaff) like Maul does. To further emphasize the similarities, take a look at the Inquisitor's TIE Advanced. It appears to bear similarities to Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator almost as much as Vader's own TIE Advanced. Note the foldable wings, which resemble those on Maul's Scimitar.

 

Great eyes spotting those Infiltrator wings, Circular Logic - you make a good case on the broader point too. I definitely see the combination now.

 

I was really looking forward to The Inquisitor; had such high hopes and was applauding the innovation and creativity surrounding this mysterious character. Yet, I cannot shake the feeling that Rebels is going to run this. Ezra just has this rather annoying Disney look to him that, no matter what, he will always over the odd - making The Inquisitor look weak.

 

I really don't see Filoni letting that happen, but time will tell.

 

Some of my favorites...

"I like Jedi and darth vator 100."

"What happened to Princess Laya??"

"Wow he's freky,like Voldemort" I take it that's supposed to be "freaky"?

"That I would me a Jedi counselor witch is the same but well a Jedi" Umm...okay.