That's the age old question, though, isn't it? Is the customer always right? As somebody who works retail I will adamantly say "No, they are only sometimes right." In my experience, the customer is actually usually wrong more often than they are right. Should the fans be considered? Maybe, but not always. They're certainly not entitled be be part of the creative process, but then again fans are usually fans because they liked what something started out the be. And when franchises exchange hands as they are susceptible to, the original creative ideas can be altered and be open for interpretation.
I come at this point from a larger perspective than simply what's happened with Star Wars. There's other aspects whereby creators engage with audiences where I think the audience really ought to be considered more. For example, on a TV show that starts off by signaling the story will be about XYZ, and then wraps up the story by showing something completely contrary to it. That's where I think authors can't simply say "Well screw you, it's my story, so if you don't like it, too bad for you." I mean, yeah, they can (legally), but they shouldn't. They've made a bargain with the audience in those circumstances: "Come with me and tell you a story about X." Changing that up over time because they got bored with X or because they never really knew what X was or because X was never really the point and it was, in fact, all about Q, etc., etc., etc., all of those are instances where, despite the ownership of the author, I think the audience must be considered.
But if you ask me franchises not only should evolve, they MUST evolve. To remain stagnant is to embrace extinction. One could argue that "The Force Awakens" did A LOT to pander to fans. And it was called derivative for it. On the other hand, The Last Jedi did everything it could to subvert expectations and rustle fan jimmies. So, I'll repeat the first thing I ever said when defending this movie: fans don't know what they want. They never did, and they never will. That's perfectly natural. There's no one singular voice for this, or any fandom. Various voices and opinions is inherent in fandom. And that, in my opinion, is what makes not just fandoms, but life in general great.
For the most part, I agree here. Franchises especially have to evolve. That doesn't mean they have to mutate into something unrecognizable or where the soul of the work has been beaten out of it (e.g. Star Trek), but they do have to evolve and can't simply re-tell the same story over and over again without eventually getting stale.
And I agree -- to a point -- that fans don't know what they want. Not exactly, anyway. Even at the individual level, I think fans -- by virtue of their fandom -- are often stuck within the confines of what they already know, and therefore only really color within those established lines when thinking of "What more do I want." That's setting aside the "Do I want to use the green crayon or the red one" differences that each individual fan would have. A lot of times -- and I include myself in this, to an extent -- I think fans need an outside perspective to help the franchise evolve. That's always risky, because the outside perspective may not recognize what makes for the soul -- the core signifiers -- of the work.
Again, I see Star Trek as a good indicator. To look at the new films, you'd think it's about a few surface-level characteristics of some of the characters (more really the caricatures of them than any actual study of the characters would demonstrate), and the surface-level design choices (e.g. primary-colored uniforms and saucer-dish spaceships). Beyond that, it's totally generic, and that's because (in my opinion) they lost the soul of Star Trek, which operates best as a mixture of naval drama and exploration of the unknown. This is why Master & Commander is a better Star Trek movie than Into Darkness or Beyond were.
I still think the new Star Wars films are hewing pretty close to the "soul" of the original films, but that's based on my own sense of what that "soul" is and the fact that it's not (in my estimation) tied to any specific character.
I do think, however, that the "soul" is being expanded to be much more about fidelity to the
setting, rather than the themes themselves. I still haven't seen Solo, though, so I'm not sure how accurate that view is. I'll know more when I've seen it. But basically, as someone who digs the old West End Games D6 Star Wars stuff (much of which served as the basis for Tim Zahn's Thrawn books), I think there's a wealth of different stories and films that can be told within the Star Wars setting, and that Star Wars could itself become a "genre" even (kind of like how Marvel is almost a genre unto itself or how Bond films are practically a genre unto themselves). I suspect that this, too, is causing much agita for old school fans who view Star Wars as only operating within a more narrow framework than that of a genre or setting. I think they're right that Star Wars operates within that more narrow view, but I think they're wrong that it can
only operate within that narrow view.
Speaking as a ‘ fan ‘ , and not as a fanatic , I personally disagree with this portion of your statement .
I’m no expert , nor even as familiar with this ‘ galaxy ‘ as so many others here are - never got into the novels , comics , animation etc ... , but I do know what I like and what I don’t - have done so from a young age actually .
I didn’t like the direction TLJ took after what was being established in TFA , as part of a ‘ Trilogy ‘ .
The fact that RJ subverted certain expectations purposely shows what a Prima dona ( and SW hack ) he really is .
This is of course , my honest opinion as a ‘ fan ‘ of the OT films in particular , but not limited to those .
:cheersGed
Again, I blame JJ for most of that. I think JJ's choices were hacky and betray a real weakness in his storytelling chops. His insistence on inserting questions where none need exist, and his apparent inability to bridge the gap between the old films and the new (even turning that into a "mystery") ultimately was going to lead to some kind of disappointment. I'm also not remotely convinced he knew where he was going, since he so rarely seems to know anyway. It's all about "Isn't this an interesting question? I wonder what the answer could be, and wondering is the best part!" No, wondering isn't. Wondering isn't storytelling. Storytelling requires conclusions and answers, and you'd better ****ing well know those before you start telling your story, or the story will suffer for it.
I think JJ didn't have answers (Colin Trevorow might have, though), Rian realized this, and then decided that this meta-narrative stuff was ultimately meaningless and what mattered more was the
characters' journeys and experiences, rather than trying to manipulate and distract your audience. Just as a brief example of how this would play out, consider this fact:
Rey knows what her parents look like. The audience does not. Concealing their
physical appearance from the audience is a meta-narrative technique designed to maximize speculation about who they
might be. Oooh, do they look like Obi-Wan? Or Luke? Or someone else we already know? WHO COULD THEY BEEEEEEEE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? Except none of that is relevant
to Rey. What would matter more to Rey is who her parents
are, as opposed to
who she believes them to be. So, if you wanted to do this a different way, you'd do what Lucas did in '77, by having Luke believe that his father was a navigator on a spice freighter when, in fact, he was a Jedi knight. And, in fact, he was a Jedi knight who turned evil! All of that information is news to Luke, and therefore it makes sense that it would be news to the audience. If Rey had grown up never having met her parents,
then their appearance would matter (as part of a larger picture of who they are, or if it tied into other pertinent details). But JJ conceals this fact
purely to gin up audience speculation.
That's a bull**** storytelling technique. It's sloppy, it's lazy, and it's ultimately irrelevant. It's a cheap parlor trick, equivalent to a jump scare in a horror film. It
simulates an experience instead of actually doing the hard work necessary to deliver the real deal.
While Rian's answer to Rey's parentage is ultimately unsatisfying, I think the dark side cave's answer to Rey is what's most important
for her character. Rey is searching for her own identity, which is why she asks "Who are my parents?" and wants to know why she is the way she is. But she's searching for that identity so as to avoid having to make hard choices and take responsibility herself for her actions. She wants to know this so that it sets out a clear path for her to follow. In this, she's the polar opposite of Ben, whose path was set out for him from birth, who rejected that path,
and yet who is still ultimately determined and controlled by the very thing he rejects. Rey has maximum freedom to chart her course, and yet she doesn't even want that freedom. They each want what the other already has and seeks to rid themselves of. I get that not everyone is into this, but I think that is absolutely fascinating and exciting to watch, and I can't wait to see what their ultimate resolution is, because of how different that dynamic between them is from any previous Star Wars film. If it was just something as simple as "She's Han and Leia's secret daughter, Luke knew and hid her, but Ben doesn't know and then they'll have a big fight at the end," meh, that's not that different from the Luke/Vader thing. It might be...you know, ok. But it's nowhere near as interesting to me as the Rey/Ben relationship.
Nice Strawman attempt, but totally transparent, Dano. So enough already with this incessant, "Oh, I don't think Disney's trying to insult anyone...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.", Strawman nonsense.
That's...not what a strawman argument is.
Of course they don't want to alienate all their fans and have duds at the BO. You don't need to say that, for Chrissakes. It's as obvious as the sky is blue.
But KK has two imperatives. And it's a balancing act between the two.
One, she needs to advance her SJW agenda.
Nope. Sorry. Or at least, not in the way that I suspect you mean that.
And two, she needs to make somewhat good films so her agenda is received by as many pairs of eyes and ears as possible.
The problem is, many people reject her SJW agenda. And even if they reject it only partially, they certainly don't want it in the Star Wars movies they pay to go see. So if she lays it on too thick, too many fans will stay home, and the movie will suffer at the BO.
Quite the conundrum, for KK. But she knows a few things, which she can use to her advantage, to push the SJW envelope, and still get enough butts in the seats to satisfy shareholders, and most importantly, preserve her job. Because after all, without her job, she can't promote her agenda. And her SJW agenda is her primary imperative. Her secondary imperative, of making successful films at the BO, is only a means to protect her primary imperative--dissemination of her SJW agenda to the masses.
I was going to cut this, but I'm gonna leave it here.
These are baseless assertions, or assertions which, at best, rest on very, very shaky ground. At best. Bryan, whom I've quoted below, already touched on some of this. If Kennedy is such a bra-burning, crazed feminazi on a crusade to geld Star Wars and destroy its manly masculinity or whatever, then how come she keeps tapping dudes to direct her films? If she's such a loony more-radical-than-a-Black-Panther advocate for racial justice, how come those dudes are all white dudes, and white American or English dudes at that?
Ok, Poe gets dressed down multiple times from women in positions of authority over him. So what? Two movies have female leads. Big deal. There's still plenty of dudes around them, and these films are really ensemble pieces anyway. I just don't see this radical, all-encompassing "SJW agenda" at play.
But I'll tell you this. If the "SJW agenda" is nothing more than basic inclusivity?
Good.
I'm for it.
I'm for
more of it.
Representation in film matters, especially in stories about heroes. Casting a woman in a role is a good thing, if it gives my kid someone she can look up to in the future. Showing women in these films in positions of power -- over men who would otherwise traditionally be the hero of the tale -- is good, again, if it gives my kid examples of social interactions that she can look to so she doesn't feel like her place is subordinate by default. So, yeah, if that's the "SJW agenda," bring it on. My balls can take it.
I stand by the sarcasm of that last one enough to give it it's own post. In seriousness, I have no idea if Kennedy has a personal agenda. I simply don't know enough about her, but does Star Wars?
Yes.
Frankly, anyone who denies that is an idiot. Of course it has a social agenda. It ALWAYS has. So has almost all Sci fi. Arguably it's the thing Star TREK is most famous for: furthering a social agenda.... and most praised for. Denying that these agendas exist is just silly and makes people look either dishonest or ill informed.
Now we could have an argument about whether the new movies are more forceful in that agenda than previous movies (which also CLEARLY had social commentary themselves) and how that commentary affects the plot, and frankly: I would enjoy such a conversation, but we can't. Because current politics prevent it. But I wish we could. But even if we can't discuss it, I'm not going to pretend it isn't there. we're not 5. The major themes of the story are not weird accidental coincidences. There is current political allegory and it's pretty clear what direction it's slanted in.
But it's also not entirely fair to lay it all at Kennedy's feet. Nor even Johnson. I've seen people wonder when Disney is going to step in...but ironically, I've seen that same question asked THIS week, about Marvel (the comics, not the movies), and ESPN, and ABC...in fact this is not the first, but the FIFTH Disney subsidiary THIS WEEK that I've seen people ask that about, so it's pretty clear that the answer is: they did. They want progressive social commentary. For better or worse, it's pretty clear by now that the parent company is very interested in that.
For me, on the remote unlikely chance that we actually are able to have a real conversation about this...I think commentary is good. Trek was well served by being on the vanguard of it. But I do think they need to be A) honest about it, and B) less cliche about it. Trek was good usually, but occasionally heavy handed. The OT was MAGNIFICENT at it: no one can deny that Leia was strong, but also subtle. the PT...had too many other problems for anyone to care what the commentary was...something about tyranny.
This one...i still think is salvageable, but they need to pick a lane. Either let the message drive the plot, or the plot drive the message. But you can't tack on some "save the slave-horses" crap onto an unrelated plot without it feeling silly. Nor a "Our entire cause is based on resisting blind obedience to authority, but blindly obey me anyway because I'm Laura Dern with a kickin dye job damnit" plot. That's not commentary, that's just crap writing with bad casting on top.
Here's the thing with the Laura Dern character. I think it
was subtle, just not in the way that most people think.
The subtlety is in the subtlety of the
change from what's a normally accepted character to one that is somehow discomfiting.
Consider this: What's the difference between Michael Ironside's character in Top Gun and Laura Dern's character in TLJ? Answer: one has purple hair and the other is bald. Oh, and one's a woman and the other is a man.
We automatically accept Michael Ironside dressing down Tom Cruise -- a literal "maverick" -- in Top Gun and busting his ass about being too much of a hotshot. We even contrast Ironside's character with Tom Skerrit's character -- who knows Cruise more closely and is more sympathetic and encouraging to him. Direct parallel between Holdo and Leia and their relationships with Poe. Nobody bats an eye when Michael Ironside chastises Tom Cruise. But when Holdo, a woman, and one who doesn't carry herself as a military leader, does it? OMG SJW AGENDA!!!! FEMINISIM RUN AMOK!!! RAMPANT PC CULTURE!!!!!
But really? There's no meaningful difference between the two. Both are characters we're introduced to at random, and who are in positions of authority over the character we're supposed to recognize as the hero. Both are trying to get a particular job done, and don't have a lot of patience for hotshots who -- in their opinion -- endanger their fellow pilots. Neither is particularly interested in offering any deference to or suffering of the sense of entitlement that they see in said hotshot pilots. That's the subtlety: that by simply changing the gender and overall bearing of a character, we're suddenly making people feel uncomfortable. Doesn't that strike you as...worth considering? Like, why is it that we're more accepting of one situation and not the other? That's where I think the subtlety lies. It's not in the presentation of the up-front dynamic, but in the questions that's "intended" to raise (if it raises any). I'm not entirely convinced that's
why they made the role female (e.g. it's not specifically to force people to grapple with latent sexism and concepts of patriarchy), but I think if there's an agenda, that's how it played out.
I also think it's probably different for a lot of us who saw Star Wars (1977) as kids, and therefore were more accepting of someone like Leia than, say, our grandparents or even some of our parents might've been in 1977. Had there been an internet back then, maybe people would be complaining about how Betty Friedan had somehow infiltrated their Flash Gordon throwback movie.
There is zero evidence to suggest KK has a Feminist agenda. Every director and Priducer she has hired to date have been men. JJ, Trank, Gareth, Rian, Lord and Miller, John Favreau, Benioff and Weiss, the rumored James Mangold for Boba Fett, all men. She’s being very heavily criticized on social media by real SJW’s and female fans for failing to elevate a woman to helm one of these projects. So the reality of how Lucasfilm is being managed flies in the face of that narrative.
She was at a special event promoting women in film, give me a break. I would wear that t-shirt too had I been there. Wearing a T-shirt is a zero compared to actually hiring women to make Star Wars films which has yet to happen. Pretty lousy raging feminist..,
A company that doesn't want to insult its fans will make changes after they pump out an admitted underperformer and say something like "Yeah, we screwed up, but we're looking to give the fans what they want. We're working hard on the next film and we're going to deliver something that will really capture audiences!"
Not, " Hey you racist, sexist *******s! Love our movies or you're a tyrant!"
I don't think the company sees TLJ as an underperformer worthy of altering the direction of future films. Nor do I think that's been remotely the message they've sent. that may be what you've heard, but that's not what I hear and that's not what they're saying. You can dislike the film without being a sexist. There's plenty to point to that has nothing to do with racism or sexism.
