O lordy. Rabbit people. Well, I guess they know who to eat first if stranded on a desert island planet.

I kinda had a crush on Amaiza Foxtrain (even though I've been calling her 'Amalia Foxglove' for the last thirty years...)

Coulda used less green rabbits though. I guess he was a prototype for Rocket Raccoon; he used almost exactly the same shtick, only he's much, much less cooler and interesting.

Oh, early EU, how I miss you! We had silly green rabbits but Star Wars felt like ours and not theirs .

#OccupyStarWars

On 4/9/2018 at 5:41 PM, Vorzakk said:

I don't think they meant that that's all that can be done with the setting; I think they just meant that that's what a large percentage of the movie-going populace wants to see in a Star Wars movie, so the studio's not likely to deviate very far from formula.

That's exactly what they're saying, yes.

They're wrong, though.


And IMHO, Disney is going the smart route about this.

They're releasing the "saga" movies every other year, which have exactly what the "average joe" wants from a star wars movie.

BUT, every year in between, they're releasing "anthology" movies that deviate from this formula.

Rogue One was a spy/war type movie.
Solo will be a heist type movie.

They're trying out different formulas on those anthology movies to see what else works in a star wars setting.

On 4/15/2018 at 7:17 AM, OddballE8 said:

That's exactly what they're saying, yes.

They're wrong, though.


And IMHO, Disney is going the smart route about this.

They're releasing the "saga" movies every other year, which have exactly what the "average joe" wants from a star wars movie.

BUT, every year in between, they're releasing "anthology" movies that deviate from this formula.

Rogue One was a spy/war type movie.
Solo will be a heist type movie.

They're trying out different formulas on those anthology movies to see what else works in a star wars setting.

They didn't really need to though, IMO. Lucas already proved his setting was very flexible with a samurai movie (ANH) a romance movie (AoTC) plus the genre mash-ups that were TCW. Brain invaders and zombie troopers?

Really, Disney has been nothing but patronizing in their insistence of replaying the OT.

On 2018-04-16 at 10:26 PM, Vestij Jai Galaar said:

Really, Disney has been nothing but patronizing in their insistence of replaying the OT.

I don't know if it's patronizing so much as cowardice. Part of the problem is corporate ownership, and being beholden to shareholders for consistent profits.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

I don't know if it's patronizing so much as cowardice. Part of the problem is corporate ownership, and being beholden to shareholders for consistent profits.

It seems to me that they would should be able to satisfy shareholders with their investments in things like Avatar, and in Disney's own brand.

Either way, the people who care are the ones who get hurt...

The corporate movie machine, with its four-quadrant methodology, will always ensure that a Star Wars movie is not-too-bad but not-too-great. Rogue One is an example of a new Star Wars movie done right but if it wasn't directly tied into the saga of the Death Star no one would have cared. And The Last Jedi was a deliberate inversion of The Empire Strikes Back , which, in my opinion, makes it brilliant but also too beholden to the original trilogy.

Fans praise The Clone Wars now but when the show started, there was copious whinging about Ahsoka and Truman Capote the Hutt. And there are otherwise sensible people who are now thinking that the prequels were good movies (they're not). Ten years from now, fans will be fawning over The Force Awakens . Whether you like or hate a particular portion of the Star Wars franchise, it's not immune to the cyclical nature of fandom: hate it when it comes out because it breaks with expectations, sit on it for a few years, change your opinion.

I'll also posit that there's nothing new that a creator can do with the Star Wars universe. It has very set boundaries and when you stray outside them, you get the Yuuzhan Vong.

Star Wars is, for me, a nice little nostalgia kick that tickles the pleasure centers of my brain and a neat setting to pull ideas from. I enjoy it but I enjoy it for a different reason than most people. I also know that corporate Hollywood knows that nostalgia kicks pay the big bucks more than throwing out truly original stories.

On 2018-04-18 at 9:13 AM, Vestij Jai Galaar said:

It seems to me that they would should be able to satisfy shareholders with their investments in things like Avatar, and in Disney's own brand.

That's not how our version of capitalism works. They are legally liable for every penny they don't wring from every franchise they have. The board members love their job more than risk of failure on new ideas. Independents will always have more freedom to make "art", they have to take risks or be lost in the pile of mediocrity.

25 minutes ago, whafrog said:

That's not how our version of capitalism works. They are legally liable for every penny they don't wring from every franchise they have. The board members love their job more than risk of failure on new ideas. Independents will always have more freedom to make "art", they have to take risks or be lost in the pile of mediocrity.

Not to mention, the big franchises are what allow the big studios to put money towards "smaller" movies. That's how something like, say, Batfleck v Miracleman can gross $873 million worldwide on a $250 million budget, and still be considered to have performed poorly at the box office by the studio; it didn't make what they'd projected (breaking $1 billion), so there was less to spread through the studio's other movies (and, of course, the executives).

Watch the show Firefly. It is an Edge of the Empire game set six years after the end of the Clones wars.

The narrative devices of "Doomsday Weapon" (really just a standard McGuffin), Evil Space Empire, and dog fights in space can be varied so much that it's really not a problem. You need these type of power imbalances if you want to tell an EPIC saga, like Star Wars is. Also, you need to have the WW2 references clear as well, even if it's just for ambiance. The "Wars" in Star Wars cannot be ignored. You may argue that it's formalistic, but all heroic storytelling are.

I enjoyed the Last Jedi so much because it used all these elements but in a new way and in some ways that really surprised me.

Here's what the big Star Wars Tropes give you to work with as a GM/player:

Doomsday Weapon (must be of planetary scale or bigger, because of Galaxy setting). Necessitates extreme Heroics as in willingness for personal sacrifice. High drama right there!

Fight Against Evil Space Empire : Everybody (mostly) morally sides with the underdogs - proven fact. SW is very black and white, because it's a classic saga at heart. The lack of ambiguity clears away doubts about decisive action on both sides and we can get on with the action!

Dog fights in Space : Clear reference to the real world makes the conflict seem more real. Also it's fast, visceral and looks nice on film. High Stakes and personal skill emphasized.

Laser sword duels : Clear reference to matinees from the 1940-60's, helps the audience understand. Same as the dog fights. Also, gives great opportunity for Drama with banter and when a foe is beaten but not killed or disarmed.

I think Star Wars works and have worked well for over 30 years is because of these things, not in spite of them. However, it's become self-referential and rigid. I was very disappointed in The Force Awakens because it used all these ingredients in the same way as we've seen before.

TLDR/Final point: Break and ignore all these things as much as you like. I'm just trying to point out why they are not inherently bad.

A tip: Don't loose the relationship high drama! The betrayals, the romance, the heroic sacrifices, the bonds forged in battle, the fall from grace, the redemptions. That's the true heart of Star Wars for me.

Disney could do anything they want with Star Wars and be successful. It's a matter of having good writers, but that is the unicorn everyone chases anymore imo.

3 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Disney could do anything they want with Star Wars and be successful. It's a matter of having good writers, but that is the unicorn everyone chases anymore imo.

If they hired Maelora as a writer that wouldn't be an issue.

6 hours ago, Vestij Jai Galaar said:

EDIT: well-meaning quip not well received. Fin.

1 hour ago, Vestij Jai Galaar said:

If they hired Maelora as a writer that wouldn't be an issue.

They just aren't paying for good writing, they're just wanting to churn out content, and we end up with these vacuous scripts that push corporate agendas and it's then frosted over with sfx. Nothing wrong with a lot of the basic ideas, they just don't get the time to be massaged and vetted into good stories.

Writers only write scripts. Hollywood movies are 100% the vision of the director, with significant input from the editor.

2 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

Writers only write scripts. Hollywood movies are 100% the vision of the director, with significant input from the editor.

Which is why there are definitely not two Academy Awards for screenwriting. And writers never spend time on set while in production. And production companies never hire ghostwriters to punch up a film.

On 4/24/2018 at 4:27 PM, rogue_09 said:

Which is why there are definitely not two Academy Awards for screenwriting. And writers never spend time on set while in production. And production companies never hire ghostwriters to punch up a film.

Doesn't matter. Without the director's approval, script changes don't happen. What the screenwriter writes and what the director gets out of the actor and how he blocks a scene are often two different things.

Writers write screenplays. Directors create movies.

But to say they're 100% on the director discounts the input of every artist and craftsman that works on the film. Directors guide and create the vision of a film, but they're not 100 % responsible for the outcome.

Studios and producers override directors all the time. In the end—especially on larger budget productions—a director is still a hired gun who needs to please the money people.

3 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

Without the director's approval, script changes don't happen.

Unless you're a veteran, established director who can get an ironclad contract signed, studio execs can force any script change they want. The money talks. Heck, perfect examples are Rogue One or Solo . The various directors never had 100% control over those films. If anything, the higher the budget, the less say a director has in the outcome.

Filmmaking may well be the most collaborative art form. To give one person 100% credit is reductive.

The divide between the thinking of movie people and game playing people is huge. I think some of the choices the movie people make over the sensibilities of gaming people is laudable, and vice versa, but movie people (even when they used to be gaming people) make very different creative choices.

On 5/2/2018 at 11:59 AM, rogue_09 said:

But to say they're 100% on the director discounts the input of every artist and craftsman that works on the film. Directors guide and create the vision of a film, but they're not 100 % responsible for the outcome.

Studios and producers override directors all the time. In the end—especially on larger budget productions—a director is still a hired gun who needs to please the money people.

Unless you're a veteran, established director who can get an ironclad contract signed, studio execs can force any script change they want. The money talks. Heck, perfect examples are Rogue One or Solo . The various directors never had 100% control over those films. If anything, the higher the budget, the less say a director has in the outcome.

Filmmaking may well be the most collaborative art form. To give one person 100% credit is reductive.

Nobody gets 100% credit but in the Hollywood studio system, the director is the boss when it comes to the creative vision.

55 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

Nobody gets 100% credit but in the Hollywood studio system, the director is the boss when it comes to the creative vision.

I think Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (just to name two) might disagree with you.

4 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

Nobody gets 100% credit but in the Hollywood studio system, the director is the boss when it comes to the creative vision.

And regardless of the situation, the director also shoulders all of the hatred/blame for any issues or disagreements with the work.