Discussion Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy Star Wars Movie - NOT FILMING April 7th, 2024 (Blame Fredrik!)

Also, it's not as if the middle-aged basement-dweller grifters are anywhere near the majority of the fanbase whatever they might think. So why waste effort producing content just to annoy them? They don't matter, nobody at Disney or any other franchise owner cares about what they say or think because it doesn't affect sales.

"Urgh, if they don't do what we want we'll boycott! Get woke go broke!"
Bro, there are like 10,000 of you. You wouldn't put a dent in a movie's global box office and Disney don't care if you unsubscribe to Disney+ because they have hundreds of thousands more people who will sign up.

 

Here's a couple examples of what I mean by how far out of context it's being presented. The majority of people see a headline and run with it. It's a combination of what you said about a certain demographic being angry combined with people who don't care how they get interactions on their page as long as they get it.

Again in spoiler quotes to emphasize that I am criticizing these type of posts.

Spoiler

That's to answer the question about "how could anyone think she just wants all men who like Star Wars uncomfortable." That's a small sample of what's constantly on social media.

It's stupid, intentionally inaccurate, and done for publicity and attention. But it's misled and angered a lot of people with hundreds and thousands of comments on all those posts. And it's all those people see or know about it, because approximately zero pages are including the actual information we're discussing here.

 

The problem is, if the movie fails then these people are going to claim they were right.
Just as we've seen with the failure of The Marvels

 

Again, it doesn’t make sense to draw the conclusion that it failed because it was marketed as having a female director. Executives want to find the actual reason for the failure and reverse it, they don’t want to find a false reason and act on that. The most they’d do is not market it as such - the actual important part (that the director is a woman) won’t be material to any failure, and someone like KK definitely knows that.

 

They'll act on it if they don't believe it's a false reason.
Why do you think so many action movies didn't have women in them as the main lead for many decades? Because studio bosses for a long time didn't think it would sell.

 

You don’t need to sell a director like you do actors. Most people have no idea who a director of any given film is. The most they do is ‘from the director of’ which is gender blind. It’s completely different to ‘x type of actor sells more than y.’

 

Depends on the director.
And if a studio market a movie based on the fact the director is a woman, they do so on the assumption it will be a selling point.

 

I usually don't know who the director or producer of a movie is. The closest it usually gets is when I watch the trailer and it's like "from the director/producer who made [other movie I liked]" and then I still don't know who it is. Unless it's a huge name that "everyone is familiar with" sort of thing. But I see the other side of the argument too because I know there are people who do really strongly pay attention to such things.

 

So? If it doesn’t sell the film, then they just don’t bother marketing it that way next time (I don’t really think it’s going to be a broad marketing strategy in the first place). That doesn’t mean that a material reason it failed is because of a female director. We already know that female directors are able to break the box office. It just doesn’t make sense to revert and say ‘female directors are box office poison’ because the film sunk. You would never say that the reason a film failed is because a director is male.

 

I mean, I always know who the director of a film is, but that's because I'm a nerdy cinephile. However, the vast majority of general audiences (who, like it or not, make up most of a film's paying crowd) have no idea who directed it. Nor do they care for the most part. So to say a film could or will fail because of its director, particularly their sex, is absurd and just isn't factually accurate.

 

I actually liked her documentaries. Just watched them and I’d say that lady got courage and fights for the right stuff.
No idea how talented a movie maker she is when it comes to FX heavy SciFi stuff though …

 

How's that new trilogy of his coming along
Star Wars makes money. Water: wet. Solo took hit after that film financially if I recall. Crazy to insinuate TLJ and the backlash was part of the reason for that

 

they will say they were right either way

if the film fails they will say they were right

if the film makes a billion dollars, they will also say they were right, they will just say it was because Filoni was secretly in charge of everything the whole time or some such thing, anything that lets them avoid giving credit to a woman

 

Kennedy certainly never seems to get credit even when something is good.

 

I think she gets credit for hiring Fareau and Filoni. And Gilroy. They just get the creative credit.

 

Well, yeah. Men who murder women should not be the primary audience that Star Wars caters to.

She also hired Edwards, who I think is the Star Wars director with the best visual handle on the material. Across the George and Disney periods.

 

I think it’s reverse — I mostly don’t see her getting credit for hiring them. It’s spun more like she was made to or something. And when Bo Katan was a primary player in Season 3 and Lizzo was a guest, i don’t think favreau and Filoni were dragged, it was Kennedy again. Because — woman.

what was said above will most likely happen. Those who think they’re right will be vocal and loud. If it fails — reason. If it succeeds — men, horses and patriarchy.

 

Kathleen Kennedy is seen as the Devil disguise by some angry fans like Theory who has gone through many meltdowns past few Days.

But now they have turned against Both Jon Faveru and Dave Filoni who they once liked.

Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy gotten hate for Qoutes out of contexts, false hate from right wing maga Fandom Menace Group. I now not only want it to succeed because of more Rey adventures and for Sharmeen be the first director but also because to rub it in these freaks.

 

Bigots will be bigots. And social media makes them bigger.

 

I'd suggest you ask Lucasfilm/Kennedy as to why they would draw that conclusion. But if you're asking why I'd imagine *they* would draw that conclusion... history suggests DLF are quite reactionary... Lucasfilm learning 'never to recast iconic Star Wars characters', after the failure of Solo, and stating it as an intent whilst publicising the McGregor OWK show, being an example.

 

Also, whatever people might think of a movie like TLJ, it's not as divisive as the Internet made it out to be.
It was critically acclaimed & made big money, I see as many people defend it as hate on it which is basically like the Prequels.

Why would LFL decide to scrap most of the plans they had for IX and do a stupid fanservice reactionary piece like TROS just because some people got mad on social media?
There's no need to be so reactionary, stick to your plans if you believe in them.

 

Even fans of TFA (at the time) believed the film was overly derivative/safe... that was an oft cited criticism. And there was of course enough inbuilt production time between films to adjust. But "somehow Palpatine returned"...

I think the reality is that because the ST didn't have an overriding/singular creative vision, that the writers/filmmakers/studio were reacting/being influenced by a myriad of factors...

 

Star Wars is a rich world riven with analogs and metaphors for the real world, so using this to make some interesting subtextual points could be powerful.

Could.



The aim of a film maker is to make a film. The job of a film is to entertain a paying audience.

Generally, antagonising an audience is the opposite of entertaining them. Unless you are Norm Macdonald.

IMHO most peoples issues with progressive plots and tropes are with the implementation, more than the concepts. To give an example, I personally am bugged by women and POC in the Empire... not because I am a fascist, but because the *darn Empire is*. They should be cliquey and class-riven and nepotistic and incredibly racist and sexist. As they are the bad guys. It is easy lipservice to drop one in three extras as a women let's say - Purely to be more "progressive" without thinking about actually doing something interesting with the world.

You see similar things with historical dramas.. or even Dr Who. They cast Isaac Newton as a POC. Why would this be a problem? Well (hilariously), it reduced the verisimilitude of the episode. It made people realise that it "isn't real".

The worse thing for fantastical shows like SW or ST or Who is to damage the suspension of disbelief. It destroys the credibility of the show and reduces it to a childhood pantomime. They need the surrounding work to be more believable to support the unbelievable crazy stuff. It's why the TARDIS has a soft SF backstory and isn't just a magic booth.

Star Wars was one of the first "Space Opera" stories, (through it's used universe stylings) to enable credible suspension of disbelief. Getting the characterisation, plot or even tone wrong can smash this.

I'd suggest this type of story is particularly vunerable to this. Lucas got it right in the OT and just about right in the PT. It's much harder than it looks.

UKS

 

Well I don’t think they’d draw that conclusion.

As to why you think they would, you still haven’t explained why beyond “they have proven to be stupid.” The example you’ve given, while rash, still has more logic to it than female directors being box office poison for Star Wars. There were at least arguments to be made that people didn’t care about Han Solo when Ford isn’t in the leading role, and that this may carry forward for other characters to some extent (their argument seemingly more along the lines of, “it’s risky to do this, so we won’t” rather than it can’t work, aka Obi-Wan). That’s at least some logic there from a business sense, even if overly risk adverse. The female director thing would just be spectacularly stupid and illogical, not to mention out of character for someone like Kennedy.