Darth Vader's New Look (Rebels)

I disagree, but anyways.....

 

Thousands of cosplayers disagree with you.

 

Yeah.... You clearly either don't get or care what I said on the other page in regards to lighting in how it relates to his conveying his presence on screen. Saying that supposedly thousands of cosplayers disagree with me, isn't really conclusive evidence as they could cosplay as Vader for any number of various reasons.. Where as my point on how lighting effects/techniques can be used to alter the viewer's impression of the scene actually has some grounding in non-subjective methodology.

To give some perspective on how I am viewing this, I worked with a friend on a small film he wanted to take to a local (state level) film festival to try and sell the idea. I ended up working with another guy doing a lot of the lighting, and we filmed mostly during the daylight hours so we had to alter the time of day through lighting as well as give the emotional overtone in the scene through the lighting (no dialogue in the film only music). So the color/temperature of the lighting has a lot to do with that, as well as angle/direction that the light is thrown. We filmed mostly in someone's home so outdoor light was a factor.

What I am talking about can be pretty easily searched regarding lighting techniques via a cursory Google and YouTube search. Like this one that has different areas of filming broken down. And here is the section dealing with lighting and its effects. My experience working on that one film was eye opening and gave me a new perspective on how I look at films in general. It made me appreciate the care and level of involvement in how depth and contrast are given to make it appear as it does on screen.

 

Sorry, I just don't agree that "a lot of the perception of Vader's presence" comes down to lighting techniques like you claimed. A bit, maybe. If you throw claims like that around, they should be backed by better evidence I think.

There's no way to measure what effect the lighting techniques had on the perception of the audience. But it is a known fact that Vader's armor continues to impress and awe, even when shown in normal conditions without special lighting tricks.

I doubt that we'll see a lot of cos-players running around in rebels Vader costumes, only if they outnumber the original Vader costumes would it prove that the new design is more popular.

 

You need to go to the links and read about how techniques give depth to the scene.

But, since I doubt you will...
ROTS, on the bridge of the Star Destroyer where Vader's presence is given depth through the scene's lighting and made him look more imposing.


A New Hope where Vader isn't as imposing in the scene mostly because he is just so washed out:

Also in this scene may be a good example of what happens when you have too much light in the scene as there is no depth given to the officer behind Vader. Some of this was reworked IIRC in post production in the various different editions Lucasfilm has put out of the films.

From the same film, where the lighting effects (as well as smoke effects) give Vader a more imposing presence:


In ESB when confronting Luke on Bespin, Vader is made to intnetionally look more menacing and something to fear:

There are two major light sources for this scene, one from the lower right shooting upward towards Vader, and one behind. Giving the shot a nice contrast.

ESB an example of back lighting giving a more imposing presence through the silhouette technique:


In a lot of Vader's scenes he is also shot by the camera with a slight upward look to give him a more imposing presence in film.

 

Yeah... but 'more popular' isn't the be all and end all of success though. Far fewer people are going to see this particular version compared to the original, even fewer of those are going to get particularly worked up about it, those who do probably won't be so overwhelmed with awe they decide to alter the standard design to match a relatively obscure cartoon version. But they're still going to turn up as Darth Vader, and anyone who does go above and beyond and decide to go full-on Rebels/McQuarrie Vader... will also turn up as Darth Vader. Very few people are going to be turned onto the character solely and specifically by one cartoon depiction because he's all ready a pop culture icon. Even if there are very few Vaders with the one specific Rebels version won't necessarily mean it's a failure.

 

Since you edited while I was replying, perception and depth are altered in film through the techniques I have been talking about to give him a more imposing presence. The audience's perception of how Vader should be viewed has already been formed through cinematography done in the OT. The way he was shot on film and the way he was lit was made to make you have that perception. The care given towards the character in this regard is why he is viewed as imposing and something to be feared.

Yes because popularity is such a great metric....... Not the point I was making. Everything I have been talking about has nothing to do with popularity of the character, but rather how the character is perceived in the scenes due to how he is shot and lit.

 

Everyone repeat after me: "It's just a stylistic difference..."

 

The Darth Abides

 

Man, that guy needs to put some sunscreen on before he gets....

Nevermind.

 

I'm not sure how else you should call it. If you can't improve the original, you might as well stop and do something new and better like a new villain.

Most characters are lit to look as impressive and cool as possible, that's no news. Despite all that, many designs fail to become popular, no matter how many filming techniques were used to make them look awesome.

You are giving too few credit to the people who actually constructed the armor and mask and that's what bugged me in your first post on the topic. By playing the influence of lighting up you're diminishing their work, like it isn't the main reason the design became a success.

Popularity is a better metric than no metric at all. Vader's costume works in real life, that is pretty clear, because otherwise it wouldn't pop up everywhere.

 

So you agree with me that the techniques behind filming aid in that respect?

But we aren't talking about those "many designs," we are talking about Vader. Why do you keep going back to popularity? Again, nothing I have been discussing has anything to do with popularity of the character.

Incorrect, I am saying that the look they are going for comes together when working in concert. The entire outfit is impressive, but it is not of itself menacing and is aided by the effects. I think you are giving too much credit to just the image of Vader after having been conditioned through the films to do so without recognizing the complexity of the scenes. Following your line of reasoning, to say that it is due to the design would be to diminish James Earl Jones' voice work in the films.

None of this has anything to do with what I have been discussing, but since you want to derail into popularity.... There are many reasons why Vader is popular. James Earl Jones' voice, the imposing nature given to him with the techniques we have been discussing, he's complex, and he's conflicted just to name a few. Though there is a portion of the audience that is more drawn to the villain than the hero as well. It's not just because the costume works in real life.

 

Of course they aid, I said as much in post 130.

Even the shiniest light won't make a turd look delicious. The only reason why all the cinematic techniques worked so well is because the look and design was genius in the first place.

What the hell? Have you never seen a decent Vader cosplayer in real life? How can you say that the armor is not in itself menacing?

You are blaming this all on conditioning, really? Is it so easy to discard the experiences of so many people?

Just how desperate are you to defend Vader's rebels look? Tearing down the original design won't work, that kind of rhetoric is transparent and nobody is gonna be fooled.

You just proved that I was right, you really do think little of the original design.

I'm done here.

 

The original version looks pretty darn menacing in a cold, impassive way. The Rebels version, being very similar except in a few minor details, also looks menacing, with a more overt threat. BOTH can be made to look more so with crafty use of lighting, staging and of course that infamous voice.

... this thread really could have been so much shorter couldn't it?

 

Because it has work in concert with other elements to complete the look of the character, of which the costume design is a part of that. Someone can do a great cosplay, but it may or may not have the same impact. When I see a convincing cosplay, I marvel at the dedication and attention to detail but that doesn't mean it looks menacing each time I see it.

I'm looking at it from an analytical, technical perspective of how Vader is presented to be in the films. Mine and other's personal feelings regarding the character shouldn't play into that. And yes, conditioning does play into how we view the character.

None at all, I've recognized that it fits the style and I believe it also in line with what they have been saying that Vader will be portrayed as in the series.

I think you assumed too much here, but whatever.

Well, bye.

 

Jabber: I know we often disagree but that set of posts was very interesting and well-thought. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

But it doesn't. It looks like a caricature of Vaders helmet. It's there in basic form, but in the same sense that a Rubies made Halloween mask looks like the actual Halloween mask:

One is clearly an imitation of the other. The semblance is there, but none of the actual heart and details.

While I don't disagree that lighting is incredibly beneficial to the menace that is Darth Vader, I don't think that is the primary reason he's such an imposing figure. To me, it's his character design. The biomechanical nature behind him, a cyborg in every sense of the word, along with the fact that his face is a jet black, emotionless, and almost featureless. That, coupled with the fact that he's almost like a futuristic Vlad Dracula: a tall, angry figure clad completely in black with a black cloak surrounding his frame. It's why he's so threatening whether on bright Hoth, or dark Bespin. He's a tall, dark figure that you simply can't tell the emotions of. Villains are always scarier when you can't tell if they're smiling or scowling. I think that's a part of why the Rebels Vader design is so less appealing for me than the classic design. Instead of hulking, he's lanky. Instead of expressionless, he's scowling. He looks more cartoony, like (as I said above) a caricature.

 

Being a cyborg of itself isn't the least scary. It can in fact make him more relatable in a way, some can/do seek the human heart buried within rather than striving to ignore or strip it from him.

 

He ought to look cartoony, what with it being ya know... a cartoon and all.

 

Yeah, yeah, everybody's human, yadda-yadda-yadda...

 

Well someone has to say it since so many seem to write off so many so easily.

 

I personally find the helmet design in Rebels to be far more intimidating than the one we're used to in the films. I always thought Vader looked cool and imposing, but he never struck me as legitimately scary, until now.





It probably has to do with the sharper and more aggressive angles. The helmet is less bulky and more streamlined, which is pleasing to the eye. The red tint on the lenses helps, too. I really enjoy this design.

 

Been away from this board for a few days ---- lot of replies to catch up on:

A few people point out that my dislike for the perpetually scowling mask is my own opinion, and that I should take it and go away with it. Rebels Vader is what it is, and I need to just suck up and deal, without criticizing the art choice.

That would be easy to do if we had ANY other Star Wars shows out there to fall back on and enjoy, which held more traditional (accurate) art styles for the characters. But we don't. From Clone Wars to now Rebels, Filoni's shows are the ONLY ones that we have. No other choices. All we get are the art styles and characters that he and his team want to put forward, and it's been this way for over 7 years!!! 7 years in, and we've gone from a dandy Louisana accented Hutt as main antagonist and Anakin Skywalker using language like Snips and allowing his padawan to call him SkyGuy to an Aladdin look-alike as the main character, emaciated Wookies, Pink mandalorians and a perpetually scowling Vader.

No, it's likely that these decisions were not made to piss off fans, but they were made without thinking about the responsibility to bear as being the ONLY team out there putting out Star Wars TV shows/movies from 2008 to 2015. For all the people ripping on JJ Abrams on here, saying they prefer Filoni, at least JJ seems to be honoring the old look, the old special effects method, authentic set designs etc. to capture the look and feel of the movies that made Star Wars famous and made us all the fans that we are today.

I'm not calling for Filoni and co to be fired, per se, but am calling for at least other teams and artistic leaders to be given a chance at putting out some Star Wars TV shows (animated or live action), to give us a break from Filoni and his artistic choices, which continuous fail to impress me and oftentimes make me cringe.

Why is that so controversial? Why are folks on here so defensive of Filoni, going so far as to even say they prefer the look of scowling Vader and emaciated wookies to their original, iconic versions? How can anyone justify Ziro the Hutt and Snips/Sky-Guy as canon, in the same universe as the Star Wars movies? Would Star Wars have been a success if such characters and babyish dialogue been included in the OT? How would the emotional impact of the final scene with the Emperor, Vader and Luke been affected i f Vader had been perpetually scowling while looking back and forth between Luke and the Emperor?

 

If you're going to compare Filoni's work and artistic style choices to Abrams on a purely visual level... you're making an entirely false comparison. Abrams is making a live action film, with real actors, props, sets and backgrounds, filming on real locations as well as using a bit of CGI and computer trickery as he sees fit. Filoni is making an entirely animated series, he's making a cartoon. By definition he's not going to be trying to recreate the exact same look of the films, because he's working in a totally different medium for a totally different audience using totally different style. The style that was chosen for the show has resulted in designs you don't like, and that's fine. But there's plenty out there who do like them, a lot. You may not be impressed. You may cringe. Guess what? They don't care about you, one fan. They care about enough fans liking it enough for it to be a viable ongoing marketable success. And that is precisely what they've got thus far - a show that people watch regularly in decent enough numbers that a few fans not really being impressed by Vader's mask looking a bit different makes no appreciable difference.

THIS IS NOT THE OT. That is the single most important point here. It's not the same story, it's not the same style, it's not aimed (exclusively) at the same fans. It's a totally different story set in the same general universe. And its doing just fine. I've seen all three of the OT, in their original forms and various altered states. I've seen the Prequels, and enjoyed those too. I've watched CW, TCW, and I've watched Rebels, I enjoyed all three for the most part - they all have flaws but so do the original trilogy in their original forms. You don't like Filoni's choices, that's a perfectly valid opinion. But you are not owed a version that meets your personal seal of approval any more than anyone else is.