Star Wars: The Force Awakens [** SPOILERS FROM POST 4472 ONWARD **]

johnny_ultimate

Luckily, I think many films have managed to represent homosexuality in a way that's significantly more progressive than any video game, although sadly it's the rare mainstream release indeed that does so. The 'gay planet' ghetto so fundamentally misunderstood the issue that I had actually purged it from my memory until you brought it up again :pac:

But you're right - a big part of all this is not making a character's gender or sexuality their most defining characteristic, because that's heavy handed and backwards.

karaokeman

Anyone know which of these new cast members will play the next generation Skywalker(s)?

krudler

karaokeman wrote: »

Anyone know which of these new cast members will play the next generation Skywalker(s)?

I hope they aren't too young, if they're setting the sequels 30 or so years after the OT then Han and Leia's kids would be grown adults, I dont want to see another whiny Skywalker teenager.

Goodshape

norrie rugger wrote: »

What is going to come first though, studios taking risks on a female audience (potentially, if done incorrectly alienating the geeky teenage male core group) or girls actually showing that they like Sci-Fi and go to the shows (in large numbers)

It's not about having a female audience, it's about breaking out of the mindset that all people of importance are straight white men.

Adamantium

I also loved these drawing that Ralph McQuarrie did (which are often better than he movies themselves) detailing Imperial Center (Corsucant) that was supposed to be the showdown in Return of the Jedi instead of the 2nd Death Star, but was cut for budget reasons.

Very Blade Runner/Gothic cathedral esque. Much better than the blandness what we got in the prequel movies. Looks as if it was run like a dictatorship

norrie rugger

Goodshape wrote: »

It's not about having a female audience, it's about breaking out of the mindset that all people of importance are straight white men.

OK you're in charge of a couple of hundred million quid. Would you cast a woman or gay man as your lead? I am talking in a business sense only. Studios are there to make money, they are not idealistic NGOs trying to change society.
In a pure business sense I probably would not cast a gay person as lead for an American blockbuster. If 10% of the gay community don't turn up versus 10% of a bigoted section of the straight community, in a business sense I know who I have to alienate.
Studios do not care about our personal thoughts as long as they get maximum number of bums on seats


Remember that this is being made for an American audience, one of the most conservative places in the western/entire planet. This is even in the geeky section.

I kinda remember Torchwood Miracle Day getting attacked.

norrie rugger

we shoul prob note this discussion to another thread to be honest

Tony EH

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obiwan lied to Luke from the off (Darth Vader killed your father). He hid the fact that Leia was his sister. He and Yoda told Luke that he would turn to the dark side, and they were both wrong. They thought Vader was irredeemable and must be killed, and they were both wrong.

They wanted Luke to let Leia and Solo die, and said that they couldn't help Luke if he chose to face Vader.

Some "Light" side.

Nah, that's just bad writing! :pac:

The "Darth Vader killed your father" angle was the original story line. Lucas had to change it later in the trilogy, because "Darth Vader is your father" sounded better and made for a more dramatic plot.

Likewise with "Leia is your sister". Leia was originally meant to be Luke's love interest. Not his sibling.

...and Vader was originally meant to die a nasty old shite, without redemption.

This is one of the major problems with the Star Wars universe. George was just making it up as he went along.

Zubeneschamali

Adamantium wrote: »

Much better than the blandness what we got in the prequel movies. Looks as if it was run like a dictatorship

Actually, I think many of those images look exactly like the Coruscant we saw in the prequels, if you restyle the pyramids which Blade Runner got to first.

And the whole "run by a dictator" thing is overdone: the Empire only lasted 20 years - the republic had been in existence for a thousand generations before that, which should be at least 20,000 years. The emperor barely had time to redecorate, never mind rebuild a world-spanning city.

Mr Freeze

Tony EH wrote: »

...and Vader was originally meant to die a nasty old shite, without redemption.

Vader is so soft in RotJ.

I would love to have seen a more darker version of the film.

norrie rugger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, I think many of those images look exactly like the Coruscant we saw in the prequels, if you restyle the pyramids which Blade Runner got to first.

And the whole "run by a dictator" thing is overdone: the Empire only lasted 20 years - the republic had been in existence for a thousand generations before that, which should be at least 20,000 years. The emperor barely had time to redecorate, never mind rebuild a world-spanning city.

agree but it's amazing what infinite slave labour could achieve in that time

Goodshape

norrie rugger wrote: »

we shoul prob note this discussion to another thread to be honest

Personally I'm not interested in that. Can't really believe this is something that people are actually prepared to argue against and I don't have the time for it. We'd just be whizzing around in loops of nonsense fallacies.

Already, bringing in the *maybe* of alienating "core audience" and contrasting a film franchise business with an NGO are ridicules distractions, bordering on straw-man fallacies if not actually crossing that line.

Simply, it was pointed out that a bit of diversity would have been nice in a cast of nearly 90% men. I can't believe that's actually debatable.

Tony EH

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Vader is so soft in RotJ.

I would love to have seen a more darker version of the film.

So would I. Star Wars is a perfect place for some really dark story telling. In fact, the prequel trilogy could have been an excellent dark and moody piece, if Lucas had had the balls to go down that route.

Instead we got a whinging teenager who needed to jerk off a little bit more.

'Return of the Jedi' already had the writing on the wall though, as to how Lucas wanted his baby to play out. It was to be softer and frankly dumbed down. For instance, even if the film had stayed with the original idea that a wookie planet was to be the scene of the climactic battle, instead of Endor, that alone would have made for a much better picture. But Lucas chose to go ahead and include teddy bears an in one stroke turned a potentially brilliant idea in a shit, but entirely profitable, one.

Everybody knows what an Ewok is, despite the fact that the word isn't mentioned once in the entire series.

Unfortunately, dumbing stuff down generally means a wider audience.

johnny_ultimate

norrie rugger wrote: »

OK you're in charge of a couple of hundred million quid. Would you cast a woman or gay man as your lead? I am talking in a business sense only. Studios are there to make money, they are not idealistic NGOs trying to change society.
In a pure business sense I probably would not cast a gay person as lead for an American blockbuster. If 10% of the gay community don't turn up versus 10% of a bigoted section of the straight community, in a business sense I know who I have to alienate.
Studios do not care about our personal thoughts as long as they get maximum number of bums on seats

The mere suggestion that casting a female lead is considered some sort of commercial suicide disturbs me greatly, and one luckily disproven by the massive popular success of films like Frozen and Gravity. Female and gay characters being lumped into the same broad category is... well... dispiriting to say the least.

If there's a Star Wars fan out there who would boycott the new film or get outraged because there's a woman in the lead role, they should be perceived as the backwards, immensely bigoted individual that they are and ignored accordingly.

The whole casting of a gay actor or a female lead would put people off is utter nonsense. Only the most bigoted of people would avoid a film because a lead cast member isn't a straight white male. This isn't the 50s where something as trivial as being gay could ruin a career. Looking at the past year and two of the most popular films with audiences feature female leads. Surely that alone would go someways to showing just how outdated a mindset some people have.

And let's not forget that one of science fictions most beloved and celebrated characters is a woman and that depictions of homosexuality have been common in the genre and no one has ever complained or been put off watching shows such as Deep Space Nine, Buffy, Stargate Universe, Farscape or Babylon 5 because of it.

Zubeneschamali

Tony EH wrote: »

'Return of the Jedi' already had the writing on the wall though

I wasn't as angry and disappointed with The Phantom Menace as a lot of fans were, because I was that angry and disappointed by Return of the Jedi when it came out.

norrie rugger

Goodshape wrote: »

Personally I'm not interested in that. Can't really believe this is something that people are actually prepared to argue against and I don't have the time for it. We'd just be whizzing around in loops of nonsense fallacies.

Already, bringing in the *maybe* of alienating "core audience" and contrasting a film franchise business with an NGO are ridicules distractions, bordering on straw-man fallacies if not actually crossing that line.

Simply, it was pointed out that a bit of diversity would have been nice in a cast of nearly 90% men. I can't believe that's actually debatable.

it would be nice and i think that their reasoning is flawed but that's the way they think. It will only change based on market demands

norrie rugger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The mere suggestion that casting a female lead is considered some sort of commercial suicide disturbs me greatly, and one luckily disproven by the massive popular success of films like Frozen and Gravity. Female and gay characters being lumped into the same broad category is... well... dispiriting to say the least.

If there's a Star Wars fan out there who would boycott the new film or get outraged because there's a woman in the lead role, they should be perceived as the backwards, immensely bigoted individual that they are and ignored accordingly.

where is our Wonder Woman? It's the only reasoning that I can imagine keeps holding them back. A bunch of stuffy old men afraid to take risks. I don't know if they are real risks or not.

Mickeroo

norrie rugger wrote: »

where is our Wonder Woman? It's the only reasoning that I can imagine keeps holding them back. A bunch of stuffy old men afraid to take risks. I don't know if they are real risks or not.

The Flash film has had just as much trouble being made over the years, I don't think WW not having a film yet is anything to do with her being a woman. I'm sure we'll see a WW film if JL is successful. Marvel announced a Black Widow film a few weeks ago too.

The highest grossing film of last year was an action adventure with a female lead by the way, I don't think it's an issue.

Radiosonde

Deleted User wrote: »

And let's not forget that one of science fictions most beloved and celebrated characters is a woman and that depictions of homosexuality have been common in the genre and no one has ever complained or been put off watching shows such as Deep Space Nine, Buffy, Stargate Universe, Farscape or Babylon 5 because of it.

There is no way they'd even contemplate a gay lead though. Even deliberate "boundary pushers" like Buffy (though personally I think that was actually a quite conservative show at heart) didn't go that far. And Star Wars isn't really comparable with cult TV like Babylon 5; it's far bigger than that.

Nor really is it a question of foaming-at-the-mouth homophobe assholes and John Waters avoiding the film because it had a gay protagonist. The heterosexual male (usually white) is the "default" protagonist in Hollywood. And even popular female leads like Katniss from Hunger Games is still pretty much a masculine character, who embodies stereotypically masculine traits like strength, hunting-ability, hairy legs and so on. Even with the level of cultural acceptance of gender difference we have in the West nowadays, we're still a long way from a point where a Hollywood family blockbuster would explore sexuality in that way. A lot more people than you might imagine (probably than they might imagine!) would be unhappy if Star Wars had a gay man as the main character.

karaokeman

Tony EH wrote: »

'Return of the Jedi' already had the writing on the wall though, as to how Lucas wanted his baby to play out. It was to be softer and frankly dumbed down. For instance, even if the film had stayed with the original idea that a wookie planet was to be the scene of the climactic battle, instead of Endor, that alone would have made for a much better picture. But Lucas chose to go ahead and include teddy bears an in one stroke turned a potentially brilliant idea in a shit, but entirely profitable, one.

Everybody knows what an Ewok is, despite the fact that the word isn't mentioned once in the entire series.

Unfortunately, dumbing stuff down generally means a wider audience.

This is rubbish, Return of the Jedi is as dark and moody, possibly more so than Star Wars and Empire.

The Ewoks are meant to be there as a juxtaposition between the natural and the mechanical, which the Wookies didn't fit due to their intelligence.

Also note Jedi had the lowest box office profits of the original trilogy, so whatever was done with that film didn't make it more accessible to a wider audience.

Mr Freeze

karaokeman wrote: »

The Ewoks are meant to be there as a juxtaposition between the natural and the mechanical, which the Wookies didn't fit due to their intelligence.

These 2 articles are really worth a read:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/on-its-30th-anniversary-how-return-of-the-jedi-ruined-star-wars-forever-20130524

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/

The indigenous race that populated the forest moon of Endor was originally conceived as a slithery band of reptilian lizard creatures, which would have served the story well – the evil Empire being brought down by something equally scary and slimy (but fundamentally misunderstood.) Lucas got skittish, though, and changed them to the lovable Ewoks – essentially Native American teddybears, ready to be snapped up and snuggled by countless children the world over. The laws of 'Return of the Jedi' weren't governed by art or common sense or the needs and requirements of the screenplay – the revenue generated from action figures, boxes of novelty cereal and pajamas governed them.

Toy's, it was all about the toys.

karaokeman wrote: »

Also note Jedi had the lowest box office profits of the original trilogy, so whatever was done with that film didn't make it more accessible to a wider audience.

From what Kurtz says in that article, they make 3 times more on merchandise anyways, and that seemed to be the goal of the 3rd film, and the prequels.

Tony EH

karaokeman wrote: »

This is rubbish, Return of the Jedi is as dark and moody, possibly more so than Star Wars and Empire.

The Ewoks are meant to be there as a juxtaposition between the natural and the mechanical, which the Wookies didn't fit due to their intelligence.

Also note Jedi had the lowest box office profits of the original trilogy, so whatever was done with that film didn't make it more accessible to a wider audience.

You've failed. 1/10

Tony EH

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Toy's, it was all about the toys.

From what Kurtz says in that article, they make 3 times more on merchandise anyways, and that seemed to be the goal of the 3rd film, and the prequels.

You've won! 10/10

Adamantium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z08pO0nDCPA

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2002/11/11/an-interview-with-gary-kurtz

Zubeneschamali

karaokeman wrote: »

This is rubbish, Return of the Jedi is as dark and moody, possibly more so than Star Wars and Empire.

In Star Wars, when Obiwan pulls out his light saber in the cantina, he chops a guys arm off effortlessly.

In Empire, we see Vader and Luke slicing through metal, and Vader takes Luke's hand clean off.

In RotJ, Luke goes nuts on Jabba's yacht... and several people fall down. He might as well have hit them with a stick. Because done properly, that fight couldn't be in a kids movie. Bah.

roanoke

Just to chime in on the side-topic of the reasons behind ROTJ, I have to disagree with those who say that ROTJ was tailored simply to be a movie to sell toys. No doubt that ROTJ excelled in terms of merchandising, but I think people who assume this is where Lucas's mind was when he put the movie together are giving him too much credit as a businessman and not enough as a guy who wants to make movies that suit his own tastes and interests at any particular time.

I've just finished reading Rinzler's Making of Return of the Jedi and it's clear that all he had in mind when it came to ROTJ was make a very fast paced, effects heavy movie that tied up the story, came in on budget and also gave him the opportunity to 'revisit' some of the sections he felt unsatisfied by from the first movie (hence the numerous visual similarities between ANH and ROTJ).

The book states that, as far as merchandising went, the main interest Lucas had in that regard was making sure that someone produced a line of soft Ewoks that his baby daughter could play with. I actually believe this. I really don't think it's a movie made with one eye on merchandise.

When a movie like this doesn't suit an individuals taste of falls short of expectations I think the temptation is to blame it on some cynical reason like 'merchandising' or 'pandering to kids' when in truth it may have just been a director whose interests had moved elsewhere over the almost 10 years between the start of the OT project and its conclusion.

Radiosonde

Am I alone in not hating Ewoks? ROTJ is a very uneven movie but I don't blame the inclusion of a teddy bear race.

Zubeneschamali

Radiosonde wrote: »

Am I alone in not hating Ewoks? ROTJ is a very uneven movie but I don't blame the inclusion of a teddy bear race.

The Ewoks nearly work: the scene where they are going to eat our heroes is funny, there are a few scenes of them getting their furry asses kicked by the Emperors crack troops, and some of their traps are cool.

But then there are the scenes with them beating those same crack troops by jumping on them with tiny stone axes. No.

pixelburp

Radiosonde wrote: »

Am I alone in not hating Ewoks? ROTJ is a very uneven movie but I don't blame the inclusion of a teddy bear race.

When I was growing up through the 80s, while I didn't care for the Ewoks and thought them a bit silly, I didn't actively hate them. I still don't hate them if I'm honest; I'm old enough now to appreciate the technicalities of why they're a bit of a tonal shift from the previous 2 films, and yes their presence as a merchandise too was cynical if irrelevant nowadays, but they don't completely derail the movie. Yeah they're blatantly cute carnivores with a thirst for stormtropper blood, but I can look past that.

Taken in isolation, divorced from the dark complexities of Empire's internal battle within its characters, Return of the Jedi is fun. Flawed yes, but fun; its set-pieces were pretty damn good to keep a person entertained and excited: while the battle on Endor was a bit daft, the speeder chase was exciting; the epic battle in orbit is still a thrill-ride and the franchise's best space battle imo; the entire sequence set in Jabba's palace and on his barge are fantastic. It has its moments.