The absence of alien protagonists (and droids kind of count here) bothers me. Talking about how expensive they are and how difficult they are is a bit silly. These are $200 million movies from the world's biggest movie studios, with more technical expertise behind them than NASA. They're not cutting aliens because they're expensive to make or difficult to do.

Pretty sure this is an "audience sympathy" thing. There's a persistent belief (probably perpetrated by market researchers and marketing departments, curse their cocaine-fueled hides) that you have to make characters "relateable". Sure, you have your requisite "cute" droid to sell some plush toys, but the rest should focus on wish-fulfillment: give people someone to relate to, that they can see themselves as.

I hate this type of thinking, even though I definitely partook of it as a child. OBVIOUSLY I wanted to be Han Solo, not Chewbacca.

But at least we HAD a Chewbacca. And two droids. And -- yes, even then -- Ewoks. And -- I'm committing semi-heresy here -- even Jar-Jar. One of Lucas's greatest sins isn't just that he transformed a racist stereotype into a buffoonish CGI character for comic relief and laughs from kids, it's that he pretty much ruined the possibility of primary alien characters in the subsequent sequels.

I like aliens. And yeah we can have arguments over whether they should be Star Trek Bump-on-Nose-Pretty-Much-Human aliens or "Actually Most Aliens Would Be Totally Unrelateable Like Stanislaw Lem's Solaris" aliens, but something middle ground would be nice. Chewie was a middle-ground alien. As were Jar-Jar and the Ewoks. It's just a shame that they all got progressively more imbecilic. I would LOVE to see the cartoons' attitude to aliens translated to the films. It would be spectacular.

Pretty sure this is an "audience sympathy" thing. There's a persistent belief (probably perpetrated by market researchers and marketing departments, curse their cocaine-fueled hides) that you have to make characters "relateable". Sure, you have your requisite "cute" droid to sell some plush toys, but the rest should focus on wish-fulfillment: give people someone to relate to, that they can see themselves as.

Have you noticed the trend to make the most important main character very bland and featureless? LotR and Frodo being one example. Thankfully, some recent movies have slightly deviated from that pattern. Theory behind the pattern being that when main character has as few as possible defining characteristic more people can relate to him (usually him, not her). But still, most main characters are not very unique or strong characters in mainstream movies. And often the more supporting, secondary characters, are much more memorable than calculated bland main character.

Disclaimer: I don't really know about movie theory, and this is my own pondering, and I might be totally wrong. If so, please inform me about it.

Pretty sure this is an "audience sympathy" thing. There's a persistent belief (probably perpetrated by market researchers and marketing departments, curse their cocaine-fueled hides) that you have to make characters "relateable". Sure, you have your requisite "cute" droid to sell some plush toys, but the rest should focus on wish-fulfillment: give people someone to relate to, that they can see themselves as.

Have you noticed the trend to make the most important main character very bland and featureless? LotR and Frodo being one example. Thankfully, some recent movies have slightly deviated from that pattern. Theory behind the pattern being that when main character has as few as possible defining characteristic more people can relate to him (usually him, not her). But still, most main characters are not very unique or strong characters in mainstream movies. And often the more supporting, secondary characters, are much more memorable than calculated bland main character.

Disclaimer: I don't really know about movie theory, and this is my own pondering, and I might be totally wrong. If so, please inform me about it.

Not sure this is so much a trend as it is a feature of certain types of story: the Joseph Campbell archetypal hero's journey/quest motif doesn't leave a lot of emphasis on character detail. Thus, Han Solo is a more "developed" character than Luke in the OT. Yet, by the same token, a "historical" approach often leaves a lot of room for character investigation: Anakin is a much more compelling character idea than Luke's character, as the emphasis there is to delve into the motivation for his decisions, rather than putting all the momentum into quest-fulfillment. So it's a feature of plot and story, for the most part. And villains are often more compelling than heroes in such stories, because they -- unlike the heroes -- have a history wherein they have moral choice (which they happened to have failed, although sometimes they have chances for redemption, as does Anakin). (This applies pretty well to Frodo as well, though I wouldn't take character analysis too far in any LOTR books, as character development wasn't Tolkien's strong suit and Jackson only had the source materials to work with. Gollum, on the other hand...now there's an interesting character.)

The less you put into a character and the more anonymous , the more the audience will put of themselves into him or her.. This study is mostly popular in video game theory than movies I think I remember from school, but to a point it can work in movies too I guess...

Boba Fett's popularity can be related to this. He had a very strong and cool design and came off as very mystical and he could look like anyone of us under that Helmet.

The less you put into a character and the more anonymous , the more the audience will put of themselves into him or her.. This study is mostly popular in video game theory than movies I think I remember from school, but to a point it can work in movies too I guess...

Boba Fett's popularity can be related to this. He had a very strong and cool design and came off as very mystical and he could look like anyone of us under that Helmet.

Master Chief from Halo is the perfect example of this.

The less you put into a character and the more anonymous , the more the audience will put of themselves into him or her.. This study is mostly popular in video game theory than movies I think I remember from school, but to a point it can work in movies too I guess...

Boba Fett's popularity can be related to this. He had a very strong and cool design and came off as very mystical and he could look like anyone of us under that Helmet.

Master Chief from Halo is the perfect example of this.

Yes, good examples.

I personally like characters who are "stronger" in terms of characterization, rather than relateable. I think TFA actually did a reasonably good job across the board with its new characters -- both Rey and Finn bring a lot to the table in terms of the particulars of their background and the effect this has on their motivations, without coming across as either too deterministic or bland. So my beef isn't actually with the quality of the non-alien characters in the new films, but rather (as Rodian suggests) that they're just missing the "diversity" boat in favour of aliens as background density.

Yes! Loved the new character trio too!.. I just wanted more aliens as part of the gang. This is just what I would like to see... Well we got bb8 and it/he/she was fun:)

The less you put into a character and the more anonymous , the more the audience will put of themselves into him or her.. This study is mostly popular in video game theory

It also seems rather common in fiction aimed at young adults (or at least the stuff that my girlfriend likes to listen to on audio book). The main character is a mediocre person from a mediocre background who finds him or herself thrown into an extraordinary situation and, without any actually effort on their part, becomes a central part of it.

As to the topic at hand, I predict that we'll see exactly as many alien protagonists as Disney's focus groups tell them will make money. No more; no less.

Consider the original trilogy. In ANH (set after Rogue 1), there were no aliens shown in the Rebel Alliance (except Chewie). If you look out at the crowd in the medal scene, no aliens. None in the fighters, or ground crews. None in the control room. Toward the beginning, the Rebellion was a human operation. Even at Hoth, Chewie was the only alien. Again, they were conspicuously absent. Aliens joined later. By RotJ, then you start seeing alien pilots, commanders, and others. I always assumed that the Empire continued to oppress the aliens, and finally after enough Rebel victories, they believed they had a fighting chance, and joined in.

So it doesn't surprise me to see that there aren't any aliens in the Rebellion yet.

I wouldn't do a movie with all major roles written as hutts

I would! It would be called:

Star Wars: Slugfest

As the main freak show advocate here, I can't avoid giving my 2 cts. by proclaiming that we could do with more aliens in important roles. I wouldn't do a movie with all major roles written as hutts, but a team as in Rogue One could have included Zabrak or Twi'lek easily and maybe a weirder species like a Mon Cal or something. Imho Yoda, Ackbar etc. have shown that a well designed species/model and a well written character can be relatable (if that is even a word).

Without seeing the actual movie it's hard to say upfront whether or not more aliens in important role made sense for the film or could be easily inserted into the story. What we do know about the movie seems to indicate that is basically a space heist movie set in a war zone. Considering the Empire's anti alien policy it may not make sense to have an alien as an important part of the cast. While it would be good to see aliens in a Star Wars film I also think it should make sense for the plot. And if half the plot has our plucky band of hero's sneaking around an Imperial base then aliens just don't fit in.

But it's not like we are going to see an end to Star Wars movies anytime soon. We are pretty much getting a new Star Wars film every year. I'm sure when it makes sense they'll include aliens in central roles. Look at what Disney did with Rebels after all. When it made sense they created a more diverse alien cast. But I think Rogue One, considering what few plot details we have, is likely not the best movie to scream for more aliens. Let's see what Ep VIII and whatever off year Star Wars movie after that has in store for us.

Let's judge the alien situation after we see what the movie is actually about and whether or not a human focused story made sense.

I guess there hasn't been that much change over the years. The Galaxy is very human centric and the movies have been as well. I would say 80% of all inhabitants are human and there are groups of aliens in certain places. Spaceports, dive bars and canteena's Jedi Temples and senate halls are places that Aliens would gravitate towards, but the main areas of habitation in the SW galaxy are human settlements first and foremost.

The impression I get is that there just aren't many aliens in the trailers these days but once the movie hits the screen they are there and they look awesome. If the Sizzle reel is anything to go by then there will be quite a few aliens in the movie. Both trailers for TFA had no aliens besides Chewy either...

One thing to consider, the, lets call it the yavin cell, from A New Hope, is likely made up of humans because of the TIEs (pun) to Alderaan and Chandrilla as both Leia and Mon Mothma are leaders of that cell it seems. So with those worlds being human population, it could be reasoned why we don't see many other species.

As to Chewbacca, as confirmed by canon, kashyyk IS occupied and the population enslaved.

If fewer aliens in leading roles is the price for not having another CGI-fest like the prequels, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-prequels-miniatures/

Just gonna drop this here...

If fewer aliens in leading roles is the price for not having another CGI-fest like the prequels, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-prequels-miniatures/

Just gonna drop this here...

I think truly alien protagonists would be prohibitively expensive due to the CGI costs to animate such characters as main characters. Best to leave that to an animated show where you are already animating every thing.

Having not read a majority of the Star Wars books out there, were there any books that focused on a truly alien protagonist? Seems to me that much as some people may want this, in all reality the market for such a thing may not be there.

Guardians of the Galaxy was done by Marvel studios and they are under Disney too... But yea, they have more freedom as a studio and company than Lucasfilms these days I guess(and with good reason)...

I think truly alien protagonists would be prohibitively expensive due to the CGI costs to animate such characters as main characters. Best to leave that to an animated show where you are already animating every thing.

Having not read a majority of the Star Wars books out there, were there any books that focused on a truly alien protagonist? Seems to me that much as some people may want this, in all reality the market for such a thing may not be there.

You don't need to go to the books to find alien protagonists. Clone Wars and Rebels have lots. So there's clearly a market there for aliens as key protagonists. And they are confirmed canon.

Also, I find it unusual that we'd think of these animated productions as "secondary" dumping grounds for perceived unpopular or unmarketable ideas. Having only recently watched them (I'm late to the party), I can confirm they are of very high production value, and in some cases have better plotting and stories than some of the feature films. The role of aliens in these shows are the only reason I haven't written off the current "canon" franchise as pure human speciesism and wish-fulfillment.

But film productions are notoriously risk-averse -- especially these days, where studios rely heavily on focus groups to determine what would be most palatable to mass-market audiences. Double that risk aversion for large franchises. Also, the cost issue of animating an alien is a red herring: animation is expensive, but if a marketing person thought it was a good idea, they'd do it in a hot second.

But as some others have pointed out, Marvel is willing to take some risks in this department, with Guardians of the Galaxy being a standout example. Some people are complaining about a "CGI-fest" -- does that apply to things like Guardians? Which to me was a pretty wonderful film and had a wonderful alien diversity, even if it did prefer CGI over models/costumes. And I think it's safe to say that it was very popular.

From what I know of Lucas, I doubt he would ever have made a film where the primary hero was an alien, but he also did seem to have a soft spot for fleshing out the diversity of planets/places, with the necessary inclusion of species diversity alongside it. Sometimes that devolved into monster-fests (Geonosis, anyone?), but overall I think he gave us more than we're likely to get in any of these new films, which are unlikely to take the risks he did.

I think truly alien protagonists would be prohibitively expensive due to the CGI costs to animate such characters as main characters.

Pretty sure this is not the reason.

I think it all comes down to the discussion of what direction they are taking the movies going forward and how they build out the franchise.

TFA is the number 1 top grossing film in the states ever, number 3 worldwide I am pretty sure the budget is there.

They are veering away from the prequels and fan fall-out number 1 Jar Jar and focus more on the OT look and feel, and they ar pretty much using a similar set up where the humans are the driving force of the movie with the droids and a few alien species making excellent side characters.

Are we ever going to see a movie focussing on a member of an alien species? I am sure we will, but it might take a while...

Some people are complaining about a "CGI-fest" -- does that apply to things like Guardians? Which to me was a pretty wonderful film

I was one of the people who called the prequels that... But I am not averse to CGi, eventhough I think it ages horribly in comparisson to practical effects.

When i say truly alien I am referring to aliens which are not decidedly humanoid. Yes the toons have aliens, but the main characters are usually human or humanoid.

When i say truly alien I am referring to aliens which are not decidedly humanoid. Yes the toons have aliens, but the main characters are usually human or humanoid.

In that case, fully agreed.But I don't think budget is the issue there...

From what i seen so far from cosplayers you can have believable twi'lek or zabrak without tons of cgi. I would prefer some near-human races for some variety. It's a galaxy full of aliens. Not some universe where you have 4 or 5 major races. In star wars they have millions of aliens so it would be a nice change to see some of them as main characters.

There's a persistent belief (probably perpetrated by market researchers and marketing departments, curse their cocaine-fueled hides ) that you have to make characters "relateable".

Side note: did you know that the human brain's reaction to cocaine is very similar to the reaction to sugar? So maybe it's just soft-drinks...

edit: punctuation.

Small derailment, sorry. (ok, this is still star wars and aliens, so maybe not so large.) I just had to share this with people