New Obi-Wan movie shows lack of creativity at Disney

[The Romulan Republic]

Vader having a one sided fight against rebel troopers was always going to be a highlight of the movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean people want to see Vader come back espousing dialogue as he horrendously did with Krenic either.

Though really, Vader was only half of what I loved about that scene.

It took the ordinary, rank and file rebel grunts and made me care about them, both by showing how fucking terrifying Vader is from the perspective of an ordinary, non-Force-using soldier, and by putting the ultimate success of the mission that the entire Rebellion depended on and the entire main cast had just died for in their hands.

For one glorious, horrifying moment, it made redshirts heroes.

[Eternal_Freedom]

It also rather neatly sums up the entire Empire vs. Rebels story in one scene - Vader is the Imperial Juggernaught, utterly outclassing the Rebels, who nevertheless fight on regardless and despite dying almost to a man, mange to achieve their goals that the Empire (in the form of Vader) could have prevented if they hadn't been too focused on fighting the Rebels.

[Q99]

On the 'take risks' thing-

TFA took risks with the makeup of the main cast. Rogue One took risks with the basic structure and tone compared to the other movies- they got away with risks in those areas because they have some less risky major elements. Overall, things still expand and they don't just tell the same story.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, Disney's actually pushed things in new directions I didn't think they'd go.

Its kind of ironic that people are complaining about them just doing the same old thing when they made a Star Wars movie with a woman and a black man as the leads, killed Han Solo, and made the main villain a deconstruction of a typical Sith Lord. And then followed it up with a film where in addition to another female lead, they killed the entire main cast. All of that entailed a certain amount of risk and controversy, weather you like the results or not. So you're right that it makes sense for them to play safe in other areas. You can't always gamble, or eventually you'll lose.

[ray245]

On the 'take risks' thing-

TFA took risks with the makeup of the main cast. Rogue One took risks with the basic structure and tone compared to the other movies- they got away with risks in those areas because they have some less risky major elements. Overall, things still expand and they don't just tell the same story.

That's not really a risk considering we are in an age where people are more comfortable with non-white leads. Sure a vocal minority will complain, but the vast majority don't care.

Story-wise, there's really no risk when they simply rebooted Star Wars and remake Ep 4 with better VFX.

[CetaMan]

Non-white leads are something where the only ones who care are probably those who are going to have an issue, the vast majority of us generally don't care who the lead is as long as it fits.

[ray245]

Non-white leads are something where the only ones who care are probably those who are going to have an issue, the vast majority of us generally don't care who the lead is as long as it fits.

Hence the notion that Disney is somehow taking "risk" by casting non-white leads is hilarious. Perhaps if Disney actually did it in the 1950s it will be considered risky. But in 2015?

[The Romulan Republic]

Non-white leads are something where the only ones who care are probably those who are going to have an issue, the vast majority of us generally don't care who the lead is as long as it fits.

Hence the notion that Disney is somehow taking "risk" by casting non-white leads is hilarious. Perhaps if Disney actually did it in the 1950s it will be considered risky. But in 2015?

In the 1950s, realistically, it simply wouldn't have happened. America was still segregated, legally, at the time. Keep in mind that Lt. Uhura on Star Trek (who was not a lead, and was just the communications officer) was a big deal in the '60s.

And even today, their are people who will react with hostility, as we see every time such a casting decision is made. Though they may be counter-balanced by those on the other side who would react with hostility to all-white male leads. I also think that the fact that every major new character except Kylo Ren and the droid was a woman or minority (Rey is a woman, Finn is black, Poe is Latino), is significant. Playing it safe would have been to do just one or two tokens. I'm glad they didn't do that.

But either way, they were courting a measure of controversy with the decision, and risky or not, it was something new in a Star Wars film.

[ray245]

Non-white leads are something where the only ones who care are probably those who are going to have an issue, the vast majority of us generally don't care who the lead is as long as it fits.

Hence the notion that Disney is somehow taking "risk" by casting non-white leads is hilarious. Perhaps if Disney actually did it in the 1950s it will be considered risky. But in 2015?

In the 1950s, realistically, it simply wouldn't have happened. America was still segregated, legally, at the time. Keep in mind that Lt. Uhura on Star Trek (who was not a lead, and was just the communications officer) was a big deal in the '60s.

And even today, their are people who will react with hostility, as we see every time such a casting decision is made. Though they may be counter-balanced by those on the other side who would react with hostility to all-white male leads. I also think that the fact that every major new character except Kylo Ren and the droid was a woman or minority (Rey is a woman, Finn is black, Poe is Latino), is significant. Playing it safe would have been to do just one or two tokens. I'm glad they didn't do that.

But either way, they were courting a measure of controversy with the decision, and risky or not, it was something new in a Star Wars film.

Except Star Wars isn't the first sci-fi movie to star a black lead, or a woman and etc. Those controversy exist because we live in an age of easy communication, allowing those who are outraged to have a massive voice.

So no, I am not going to fall over and credit Disney for taking risk with the casting. The only time the SW franchise took risk was in 1977.

[JLTucker]

Ugh. This means the property will now reach Marvel-levels of shitty quality. Christ. Count me out. I will not see any spinoffs.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hence the notion that Disney is somehow taking "risk" by casting non-white leads is hilarious. Perhaps if Disney actually did it in the 1950s it will be considered risky. But in 2015?

In the 1950s, realistically, it simply wouldn't have happened. America was still segregated, legally, at the time. Keep in mind that Lt. Uhura on Star Trek (who was not a lead, and was just the communications officer) was a big deal in the '60s.

And even today, their are people who will react with hostility, as we see every time such a casting decision is made. Though they may be counter-balanced by those on the other side who would react with hostility to all-white male leads. I also think that the fact that every major new character except Kylo Ren and the droid was a woman or minority (Rey is a woman, Finn is black, Poe is Latino), is significant. Playing it safe would have been to do just one or two tokens. I'm glad they didn't do that.

But either way, they were courting a measure of controversy with the decision, and risky or not, it was something new in a Star Wars film.

Except Star Wars isn't the first sci-fi movie to star a black lead, or a woman and etc. Those controversy exist because we live in an age of easy communication, allowing those who are outraged to have a massive voice.

So no, I am not going to fall over and credit Disney for taking risk with the casting. The only time the SW franchise took risk was in 1977.

I'd say that the ending to RotJ was... I don't know if risky is the right word, but fairly original.

Its certainly a bit outside the box for an action film franchise to:

a) retcon the male and female leads as brother and sister, rather than have them be love interests.

b) Shift the focus of the conflict from "hero fights and defeats villain" to "hero saves/redeems the villain."

On that note, "I am your father" (which set all that up) was definitely a risk. One that paid off massively, but still a risk.

[Q99]

That's not really a risk considering we are in an age where people are more comfortable with non-white leads. Sure a vocal minority will complain, but the vast majority don't care.

Story-wise, there's really no risk when they simply rebooted Star Wars and remake Ep 4 with better VFX.

I'm not just talking race, I'm talking character. Ex-Stormtrooper for example, or much bigger, the villain a giant wannabe- Kylo was definitely a risk, they literally designed one of the corner stones of the film to be pathetic, and made it work.

They could've just tried to go for Luke 2.0 with Han 2.0 and so on.

[ray245]

I'm not just talking race, I'm talking character. Ex-Stormtrooper for example, or much bigger, the villain a giant wannabe- Kylo was definitely a risk, they literally designed one of the corner stones of the film to be pathetic, and made it work.

They could've just tried to go for Luke 2.0 with Han 2.0 and so on.

A stormtrooper that did no known bad acts throughout the movie, and refuse to obey a command to kill civilians. A villain that everyone still thinks is pathetic. A story that effectively copied most of the major plotlines from ANH. No need for Han 2.0 when you have the original Han.

No, TFA is as safe as it could have been as a Star Wars movie. Risks would involve doing stuff that pisses off the fanbase. Deliberately changing the overall aesthetic of the universe. No more X-Wings vs TIE. Not another Jedi vs darksider storyline. Not another story about a young force sensitive learning about the ways of the force.

NJO is a flawed storyline, but at least they took risks.