New animated series: Star Wars Rebels

[avatarxprime]

Was gargoyles a Disney show? I never watched it.

It was

A show created by Greg Weisman no less, one of the producers on this show. However, Disney never cared for what Greg did with Gargoyles and destroyed it when they got rid of him and produced "season 3.

Additionally, Disney has been on record starting that they want Disney XD aimed at a younger audience, which is why they cancelled the otherwise excellent Tron Uprising. The show was getting an audience but it wasn't the right demographic for them. Heck, take a look at Spectacular Spider-Man (by Greg Weisman, which Disney opted to cancel) vs Ultimate Spider-Man (by an unrestrained Disney) for a look at how Disney has been changing their shows for the demo they want watching XD.

Still, I remain optimistic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why would a company reject viewers because they're not the viewers they intended to have? They should be glad they're appealing to more than one demographic. It's not like Disney doesn't already have a lot of stuff for the little children demographic. Are they afraid they'll lose their reputation of being suitable for children if they show anything that appeals to older people?

[RogueIce]

Heck, take a look at Spectacular Spider-Man (by Greg Weisman, which Disney opted to cancel) vs Ultimate Spider-Man (by an unrestrained Disney) for a look at how Disney has been changing their shows for the demo they want watching XD.

Actually that's more complicated than "Disney didn't want it". It was a licensing issue when Marvel was bought by Disney. Sony had the movie rights and TV rights for Spiderman. However they apparently had to give concessions to Marvel/Disney in order to keep the movie rights, so they gave up the rights to TV. But since the rights for the character designs, writing and so forth for SSM were still owned by Sony, Marvel would have had to license those to continue it and, needless to say, they opted not to. This post by Greg Weisman himself is probably the best information you'll get this side of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Why would a company reject viewers because they're not the viewers they intended to have? They should be glad they're appealing to more than one demographic. It's not like Disney doesn't already have a lot of stuff for the little children demographic. Are they afraid they'll lose their reputation of being suitable for children if they show anything that appeals to older people?

From what I understand, "children's animated series" or whatever seem to be judged more on toy sales and merchandising than reviews, ratings, viewership, etc. So I suppose there may be a feeling that if it's not doing well with the target demographic, that's a bad thing because the unintended demographic may not be so keen to buy the toys, get a Happy Meal, and so on.

I mean sure, maybe if it really, really explodes into some kind of major viewership experience, like say a certain equestrian show, that might count for quite a bit. Although I would note that in my totally vague and not at all specific example, those theoretically non-demographic fans also buy merchandise (and apparently quite a bit, or would if such a fandom existed) so it's really hard to tell where the true appeal for the parent company lies.

[avatarxprime]

Heck, take a look at Spectacular Spider-Man (by Greg Weisman, which Disney opted to cancelWeisman luck happened) vs Ultimate Spider-Man (by an unrestrained Disney) for a look at how Disney has been changing their shows for the demo they want watching XD.

Actually that's more complicated than "Disney didn't want it". It was a licensing issue when Marvel was bought by Disney. Sony had the movie rights and TV rights for Spiderman. However they apparently had to give concessions to Marvel/Disney in order to keep the movie rights, so they gave up the rights to TV. But since the rights for the character designs, writing and so forth for SSM were still owned by Sony, Marvel would have had to license those to continue it and, needless to say, they opted not to. This post by Greg Weisman himself is probably the best information you'll get this side of a Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Ah, I see. I corrected my own quote now. Last time I was involved on the status of any of that was when Season 2 of Spectacular ended and then again when Ultimate was announced. Thanks for pointing this out, nice to see Greg addressed the issue even if it was a couple years later. Always nice to know why a show you liked got axed. However, none of that alters the main point which is the difference between shows from Disney before they went with their Disney XD relaunch to now in a post relaunch world.

Why would a company reject viewers because they're not the viewers they intended to have? They should be glad they're appealing to more than one demographic. It's not like Disney doesn't already have a lot of stuff for the little children demographic. Are they afraid they'll lose their reputation of being suitable for children if they show anything that appeals to older people?

From what I understand, "children's animated series" or whatever seem to be judged more on toy sales and merchandising than reviews, ratings, viewership, etc. So I suppose there may be a feeling that if it's not doing well with the target demographic, that's a bad thing because the unintended demographic may not be so keen to buy the toys, get a Happy Meal, and so on.

I mean sure, maybe if it really, really explodes into some kind of major viewership experience, like say a certain equestrian show, that might count for quite a bit. Although I would note that in my totally vague and not at all specific example, those theoretically non-demographic fans also buy merchandise (and apparently quite a bit, or would if such a fandom existed) so it's really hard to tell where the true appeal for the parent company lies.

Yeah, I agree with you there, but last I checked Spectacular Spider-Man and Tron Uprising were pretty light in the way of merchandise aside from the DVDs. So after merchandise from the show itself you have to figure it becomes how much stuff is bought from the stuff that gets advertised on the channel that is unrelated to a specific show (or relates to a different show then the one being watched) and I would imagine that is a far more difficult metric to calculate. When in that situation they should be using viewership, ratings, etc to identify the pull of their show. Heck, they could try it as an experiment, "We now shows X, Y, and Z are attracting an older audience so let's try courting advertisers for that older market and see if we can show specific commercials just for those show." It's not like regular network shows don't do that to squeeze every possible dollar they can out of a show's audience.

[NecronLord]

Didn't gargloyes have some pretty violent stuff and outright references to killing and death even from the good guys when that was a big no-no?

There's references to death and then there's...



Admittedly that was cut from the original release but there is a whole lot more explicit killing.

[Saxtonite]

Why would a company reject viewers because they're not the viewers they intended to have? They should be glad they're appealing to more than one demographic.

Invader Zim was cancelled for that reason AFAIK

[StarSword]

Why would a company reject viewers because they're not the viewers they intended to have? They should be glad they're appealing to more than one demographic.

You could ask the same question of Sci Fi*. From what I heard they cancelled Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis partly because they were attracting more women viewers than they were the 18-24 male demographic they wanted.

I have no fucking clue what goes through a network exec's head when viewer demographics get involved. Maybe it's because they don't want to negotiate a different set of advertising contracts.

* I categorically refuse to acknowledge the name change.

[Havok]

Didn't gargloyes have some pretty violent stuff and outright references to killing and death even from the good guys when that was a big no-no?

There's references to death and then there's...



Admittedly that was cut from the original release but there is a whole lot more explicit killing.

I would suspect that that particular scene was cut for the kiss aspect more than the death.

[applejack]

A starwars.com article about the conference held at Star Wars Celebration Europe in Germany about the show.

STAR WARS CELEBRATION EUROPE 2013: STAR WARS REBELS LOGO, ART, AND DETAILS REVEALED

July 27, 2013

Star Wars Rebels Executive Producer Dave Filoni pulled back the curtain on Lucasfilm's highly anticipated animated series for Star Wars Celebration Europe attendees today, discussing the huge influence of original Star Wars concept artist Ralph McQuarrie on the look and feel of the show, and revealing the series' unique logo and select designs.

Filoni talked at length about the use of McQuarrie art as a springboard for the series, showcasing many works from the original trilogy, including landscapes and characters, and detailing how they inform the visual identity of Star Wars Rebels.

For Star Wars Rebels, fans were given their first look at the Ghost, which will be the main character's ship and play a big part in the series, as well as a computer rendering of a very McQuarrie-esque Stormtrooper, the interior of a Star Destroyer, and more. The show's logo, a minimalist yet powerful design, is notable for its orange and black color scheme, which recalls the flight suit colors of Rebel pilots in the original Star Wars trilogy.

While unable to attend in person, Executive Producers Simon Kinberg and Greg Weisman shared their excitement for the series in a video message recorded specifically for Celebration attendees.

The series is set between the events of Episode III and IV -- an era spanning almost two decades never-before explored on-screen. It takes place in a time where the Empire is securing its grip on the galaxy and hunting down the last of the Jedi Knights as a fledgling rebellion against the Empire is taking shape.

Star Wars Rebels will be produced by Lucasfilm Animation, featuring many of the key talents that made Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It is scheduled to premiere in fall 2014 as a one-hour special telecast on Disney Channel, and will be followed by a series on Disney XD channels around the world.

Visit the official Star Wars Blog for a full recap of this panel and other Star Wars Celebration Europe events!

Nothing new from the text, but you do see some concept art of the Ghost flying among some weird-looking capital ships.

Ghost concept art

Plus more from a dude at CE II:

imgur

[RogueIce]

I like that logo, and the art I see looks good. Stormie armor is a little odd but if it's an early iteration I think it works.

Still have to wait nearly a year which is going to suck but I'm plenty excited.

[Vympel]

http://www.rebelscum.com/2013_CEII_Cele ... on_Europe/

There's all the images, in high quality, from the Rebels presentation.

Of particular interest to me is the ISD - its a hybrid of the Imperial-I and the Imperial-II class - its got the old tractor beam targeting array on the bridge from ANH, but the octuple turrets of the Imperial II. Grumble. Don't like that.

[PainRack]

Though actually the injuries we see in Vader in ROTJ during the lightning sequence are different from the injuries we see in ROTS. In ROTJ we can see evidence of a cybernetic replacement for his spinal chord while in ROTS he was still moving all of his limbs even as the cybernetic components were being added. While it is possible that he had minor damage that was then repaired with cybernetics instead of attempting to allow it to heal naturally, it is also possible he was injured further later. This would actually make a degree of sense in terms of Vader's progression, while Anakin was somewhat more acrobatic in his attacks Vader was much more direct and linear simply beating down the opposition with brute force that would take time to adapt to and in the meantime he would be somewhat vulnerable even against relatively weak Jedi that survived Order 66. This actually happened somewhat in the novel Dark Lord that had Vader adapting to the suit as a major theme(though the novel never went into detail on the inconsistency of his injuries).

That or continuous swelling combined with both the hackeyned(both deliberate as well as the emergency nature of Vader surgery) and Anakin condition caused further spinal damage that was resolved with cybernetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_compression

Or you know, the medical droids simply screwed up and hurt him further.

The thing is, Dark Lord only touched on SOME of the medical problems Anakin would had faced.

1. Massive third degree burns would had required large amount of fluids, due to the massive intravasacular fluid shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkland_formula
We don't see this.

2. There would had been a debilitating loss of function and Anakin SIMPLY wouldn't have been able to move,cybernetics or not.

3. The suit only marginally touched about how vulnerable Anakin was to infection.

4. The nutritional needs of Anakin would had been immense.


I also speculate that the initial suit was different to that in ROTJ simply because of the different life support requirements. The suit in ANH is designed to keep Vader functioning at his max potential. The suit in ROTS was designed initially to protect and keep him alive.

Perhaps it helped function most of these needs here.
http://www.msktc.org/burn/factsheets/Wo ... Management

[StarSword]

I also speculate that the initial suit was different to that in ROTJ simply because of the different life support requirements. The suit in ANH is designed to keep Vader functioning at his max potential. The suit in ROTS was designed initially to protect and keep him alive.

According to one of the EU books (it was either Death Star or part of the Coruscant Nights series; I forget) removing the suit entirely to recraft it would kill him, so it's the same suit in ANH as in ROTS. As it is, the suit does not leave him at his max potential: he's in constant pain and has to spend several hours a day in a hyperbaric chamber.

[fractalsponge1]

http://www.rebelscum.com/2013_CEII_Cele ... on_Europe/

There's all the images, in high quality, from the Rebels presentation.

Of particular interest to me is the ISD - its a hybrid of the Imperial-I and the Imperial-II class - its got the old tractor beam targeting array on the bridge from ANH, but the octuple turrets of the Imperial II. Grumble. Don't like that.

Is it really THAT hard to get proportions right on vehicles? Or is it a conscious choice to go to some super-stylized presentation? I mean the TIE, did they even pass their hand over the references?