Darth Vader's New Look (Rebels)

jabberwalkie

I still stand to my opinion that changing the X-Wings serves the story and the immersion into the universe (because the changes suggest the passage of time) while I don't really see a good reason to change up Vader.

McQuarrie this, McQuarrie that. McQuarrie is used as an excuse for the design, but other characters in rebels don't look McQuarrie as well, like Ezra Bridger.

Nobody has to like that everything is so heavily based on McQuarrie, though. He was a good concept artist, but is he a design god who needs to be revered by all the fans? I hardly ever hear anyone talk about him outside of Star Wars circles.

I'm not getting worked up over it, at least not anymore than the people defending the design, I just don't like that Vader looks like he has a perpetual scowl, amongst other things.

 

They'll notice that the mask looks like Darth Vader. Only the real "inside baseball" types will note the McQuarrie influence.

Incorrect. Many of the background and secondary characters are McQuarrie-inspired, as is Chopper (early R-2).

 

The influence goes beyond the characters......

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/tv/s...quarrie-legacy-on-view-in-animated-series/#/6

http://blogs.disney.com/insider/201...s-inspiration-from-the-franchises-oldest-art/

Zeb is the early version of Chewbacca, Lothal is inspired by his Alderaan designs, Azmorigan is based off of an early Jabba concept, and Chopper is based off of the early R2 concept.

Also, here is the city in "Vision of Hope" behind the main cast.

Which IMO, would draw heavy influence from this piece of concept art from McQuarrie. And that piece is one of McQuarrie's concepts for Alderaan I believe.

Finally, here is another piece and another that looks like it was directly ported into Rebels of McQuarrie concept art that Lothal is pretty clearly inspired by.

So, I think it is safe to say that McQuarrie's influence and art style goes beyond the characters.

 

I already knew that, but thanks I guess.

 

Looks silly; and unnecessarily so. Further cheapens the overall impression that I take away from the Star Wars universe. Consistent with the art style? Maybe, but as others have indicated , they could have just as easily drawn the mask to look like Vader and still be consistent with the "art style".

A thought for those who feel the helmet fits with the character of an "angry" Vader of the time period: at what point after RotS did Vader look in the mirror and decide the mask that Palpatine gave him just wasn't evil enough? Was it not Palpatine who decided what his instrument of fear would look like? Does palps just have a closet full of these masks of various expressions that he allows Vader to swap out to fit the occasion? Did palpatine wake up one morning and think "You know, I've been plotting the take over of the galaxy for years, but I just didn't get the eyebrows right on your mask, Vader. Can you swing by coruscant for a makeover?" At what point did Vader return to using the mask originally placed on his dying noggin?

The fact that these questions come to mind makes me laugh at the decision. I'm sure most of you will find them trivial or irrelevant, but it brings me out of the universe.

 

It still looks exactly like Darth Vader's helmet though. The basic shape, the general design, the colour, the breathing effect... The changes are to the details not to the fundamental basic design. Anyone who sees that design will instantly know that this is Darth Vader. If the reception to the new design when it officially airs is overwhelmingly negative to the new-look Vader I will hold up my hands and concede I was wrong, gladly. But I really don't think enough people will notice, or enough of those that do will care, for it to be a talking point outside of places like this.

 

McQuarrie's name isn't supposed to be used dismissively.

Yes. Yes, he is.

 

Like I said, I never heard anyone except for Star Wars fans even talk about him.

 

Why does that matter? Just because you are recognised widely by a few doesn't make one's art insignificant.

 

Nor I, and I'm a professional artist by trade. But that's to be expected; few people really go into the behind-the-scenes of a film. Hell, few people talk about an artist whom EVERYBODY should know about. When McQuarrie died, his name was heard everywhere, for a short while, and general audiences who didn't know Ralph from Adam for a brief moment collectively went "Ohhhh, so THAT's who designed the stuff in that film I like!" Same for H.R. Giger when he died, but his fame went somewhat further than McQuarrie's because he had a thriving fine arts career outside of his film work.

I'm not going to say you're wrong for thinking what you think, because you're not. It's not wrong to have an opinion on the artistic direction of a television series. But for me, yes, he WAS a design and god, and yes, he DOES deserve reverence. He EARNED it. No one has to want it in their cartoons, but even so, his work is not to be taken lightly, or dismissed easily, just for that reason.

 

Every once in a while, Cush, your apparent need to be contrary works in my favor...

 

I am not contrary just to be so, sir. It is mainly because I usually can see things from multiple angles and while it may not cause me to be popular or easily grasped, I don't apologise either. I consider it a blessing.

 

McQuarrie probably does deserve more credit than he gets but I don't think his stuff should be automatically held as 'good' simply because he was the one who did it. Often times you hear of artists (in the broadest sense - poets, writers, sculptors, even architects) who look back at things they did, even highly acclaimed work, and think it wasn't that good and they could and should have done better. No one gets it right every time...

 

Artists are oft our own worst critics as well.

 

I understand that. I feel the same way about some of the work that I've done myself, work others wouldn't remotely question. And of course there have been entire threads burned away because, for instance, Lucas wasn't satisfied with something HE did and decided to change it or "make it better." The furor that arose when he did so - repeatedly - should be taken as evidence that he wasn't necessarily the best judge of his own work.

Artists are NEVER the best judge of their own work; art historians are. Artists are always going to be caught up in the flaws, the mistakes, the things that they think they should have gotten right but didn't. And often, they're mistakes only they themselves would notice. But because they invested themselves in the work, of course the flaws stand out like sore thumbs - to the artist. They can't look at the work objectively and can't be expected to. How many artists pooh-pooh what others would consider their finest work? How many damn a painting, a musical piece, a novel, a film or acting performance, that they think wasn't up to snuff but their audience thought was sublime? Answer: ALL OF THEM.

And then, yes, there are moments when the artist gets it wrong and EVERYONE sees it - as you said, no one gets it right EVERY time. But how often can we realistically apply that to Ralph's work? Maybe his little thumbnail sketches, sure, but we're not judging him on the back of those. NO artist should be judged by their thumbnails.

Yes, Ralph was not a god, and yes, he does deserve more credit than he gets, but this isn't really about how much credit he gets, but how much RESPECT. Maybe his work shouldn't always automatically be held up as good, though that's on a case-by-case basis at best - but his career, his body of work, and his seminal contribution to the Saga means that, for me, he DOES automatically deserve our respect.

 

It's not like I think little of McQuarrie, he did a good job and I like a couple of his sketches. But he's not untouchable and it is probably not advisable to copy all his designs blindly.

But that's probably also true for artists I admire more than him. It is never advisable to copy anything, well, blindly.

 

That's fair enough. And to be honest, none of his designs have been copied BLINDLY, or else the Vader helmet that caused all this "controversy" would have greeblies all over it and look a hell of a lot MORE like McQuarrie's painting of Vader than it actually does. THAT would be going too far. What we're seeing now is a subtle reference to that painting, not a faithful reproduction of it.

 

No, a faithful reproduction wouldn't be accepted by most, probably. Still, the rebels-version is obviously developed from the early McQuarrie designs, one can like that or not.

 

The proportions are McQuarrie's, to be sure. That's all. One can like THAT or not. But, to bring it back to the main point of the thread for a moment, just because Darth Saxman DOESN'T like it, that doesn't automatically warrant demoting, firing, or otherwise affecting the job prospects of Dave Filoni or anyone working for him. THAT'S where the argument falls apart. It's an artistic choice that one can like or dislike as they please; but they don't get to raise the torches and pitchforks aloft over it.

 

"With the Birth of Art came the Afterbirth: the Art Critic..."

Sorry, but I had to do it...

Back on topic: Ralph McQuarrie and Matt Jeffries are the seminal art director/designers for science fiction of the 20th century. Andy Probert and Rick Sternbach are probably #2 and 3 on that list.

 

@Pfluegermeister's on point again. Art is inherently subjective and you can like or dislike any given artist as you will, on the strength of their work (bringing in their race, gender, sexuality etc is another can of worms entirely.) You could see McQuarrie as an underrated genius or an overrated hack or anywhere in between and you are free to hold that opinion - there is no objective correct view. However, when the argument is that there is some sort of knock-on effect and the (in this instance) McQuarrie-influenced designs have some sort of nebulous but detrimental effect on the show's overall quality of story and plot and character development then you are making an inherently fallacious argument. Saying that the show is definitively poorer or that viewers would somehow be so distracted that they are removed from the plot simply on the basis of the artwork is just not true - any viewer who was truly that put off would simply stop watching if they found it so hard to follow.

Taking it a step beyond and trying to ascribe personal motivations to artistic choices is not only fallacious but judgmental besides. Deciding that no-one could possibly actually like this art style that you don't like and coming up with fanciful alternative explanations is rude and ignorant. Deciding that for all the multitude of reasons a style could have been chosen (cost-effectiveness, ease of production, good old fashioned personal preference) are meaningless and it MUST have been done to court controversy is ridiculous. This isn't South Park, its a family-friendly Star Wars cartoon.

 

I can't imagine that the Rebels production team used the concept art designs in order to cause a ruckus. I think that the show overall is utilizing McQuarrie's concept art because it fits well with the stylized animation.

But, if we want a bit of intentional controversy, I'm happy to oblige.

I like some of Vader's concept artwork better than the movie costume. There. I said it.

It's perfectly fine for the movies, and it is, of course, iconic. But sometimes, in certain light, and at certain angles, I think Vader's helmet looks goofy. I think some of the McQuarrie designs might have worked just as well, if not better.

 

Sacrilege!

/just kidding

Of course it is entirely subjective what design of a character you prefer or not, it's not a right or wrong question. In the end, it is the paying customer who will show whether they "dig" the style of the show and its design or not. It is wait and see.

 

I'll add to the intentional controversy. I think that what some refer to as Vader's intimidating presence via an expressionless exterior of the mask is only occasionally captured on film. For instance, the intimidation factor of Vader is best captured in ESB in my opinion mostly due to the lightning that is thrown on the character. This can also be seen at the end of ROTS when Vader is standing on the bridge of the Star Destroyer as well. I think a lot of it has to do with how polished Vader's helmet/mask is to show (possibly done in post-production) the stark contrast between the light reflecting on it and the darkness that seemingly swallows all around it.

Where as the mask and helmet we are getting for Vader in Rebels evokes that same intimidating impression right off the bat with the noticeably red lenses, more angular face, and eyes angled with a furrow brow of anger.

A lot of the perception of Vader's presence really comes down to (you may want to read that as depends on) the care given in regards to how (and color/temperature) light is thrown on the character.

Just my two cents.

 

Nah, the outfit is plenty intimidating on its own, it impresses even when worn by a good cos-player.