Is it time for Favreau/Filoni fans to feel the heat?

Fair points. I do agree about Dave and or Jon not running Lucasfilm, (though I think Jon has the capabilities too and I trust him over Dave) but There too much stuff that Dave has done that I disagree with, WBW is one of them. Yes it was a very cool scene but that fundamentally breaks SW more so than TLJ or any of the other sequels have done. Time travel/manipulation doesn't belong in SW and what set it apart from other space sci-fi franchise. He's the last person who I want to see run Lucasfilm.

 

How does storytelling break Star Wars? Star Wars is a fantasy series. Does Gandalf the White break Lord of the Rings?

Star Wars is best if you don't take it too seriously. I didn't love the prequels so I didn't dwell on it. I liked Clone Wars. So far I've enjoyed most of the TV stuff, but again. It's never going to be perfect for everyone. Many future projects won't work. That's just the nature of the beast. Enjoy what you like when it happens and move on from the stuff you don't, but nothing is fundamentally broken.

 

Oh, I think both of them technically could run LFL, as they both have leadership experience, but that would mean no more F&F content creation. You can't run a massive company and also create vast amounts of quality content. (As an example, GL wrote and directed six films in his 41 year stint as head of LFL). Being the boss is an actual job, just like being a content creator is. I'm sorry to say it, but fans not understanding that is really dumb

I agree with this 100% There are a handful, or so, of Feloni stuff that makes me wince, and the WBW is one.

 

I personally love the prequels and was a fan of them before it was cool to like them and I'm mixed emotions of the sequels. I do recognize the faults of both trilogies. TCW was good but the show is too jarring and doesn't like up with the event of Episode 3. Anakin in TCW and Episode 3 are 2 different people.

I haven't dug deep of the LOTR lore, just seen the movies, so I can't comment about that. It worked in the movie and I assumed the books gives the viewers a proper explanation.

Star Wars doesn't need to have time travel/time altering capabilities. It a slippery slope that can create a multi-verse (old canon tier isn't the same thing, it was never g canon) in star wars and that doesn't need to happen. Star Wars has always been linear story telling and it's what separates itself from Star Trek, Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, etc. WBW also cheapened Vader's character because it was used to save Filoni pet creation of Ashoka. She should of died in Rebels. WBW created a slippery slope for Star wars and if it's not treated correctly, it can easily cause even more of a mess. What's to stop them from using WBW to change events because it wasn't well received or they realized they made a mistake down the road? Not to mention WBW is a wet dream to the portion of the fandom that want to have everything from 2012 to present erased and considered non-canon (I know it will never happen). Ask yourself, what good does WBW bring? I doubt we'll see anything more of it but it is an event that is canon.

 

If you are a creative filmmaker or showrunner, the President of Lucasfilm is NOT a job you aspire to. The Head of Lucasfilm is a business person who,gives the stamp of approval to projects and may serve as an executive producer for some of them.

Neither Favreau or Filoni would have the slightest interest in Kennedy's job. They've already been promoted to their dream jobs: Favreau's influence goes beyond Kennedy now. He's Disney's Numero Uno Creative Consultant reporting directly to Disney's CEO and Filoni as the Numero Uno Creative Consultant for all things Star Wars.

The only reason Kennedy has gotten so much fan attention as Lucasfilm's Prez is because she greenlit The Last Jedi.

 

These are all your opinions about story choices. That's perfectly well and good, but you claimed these choices "fundamentally break" Star Wars. That's simply not the case. Star Wars is fine.

 

Well said, DP. This is the kind of place were I can opine that everybody around me engages in exaggeration and hyperbole in making their points, but MY hyperbole is actually a well-reasoned and rational CRITIQUE, thankyouverymuch.

 

Money doesn't equal quality. If earning power is the litmus test of a director taking on a franchise, Do you think that Micheal Bay should take over directing SW films? He's very successful film maker and his movies have made a lot of money. The fact of the matter is box office is driven by teenage boys and 20 something young men who will do repeat viewings of films. That's it.

I haven't watched BBF. But from the criticism I have seen of it stems pretty close to the critiques of Luke in the ST. For some baffling reason people expect people not to have changed or be changed by life. To expect a 50+ man to behave like a 20 something stud is just weird in my opinion. People aren't static and neither is life. Things change and I am glad that the makers are taking this intelligent approach. As opposed to just having the protagonist an action figure or fan stand in.

I haven't heard much of the bashers of Rey say that she's bland. Mary Sue yes. Perfect yes. But not bland. But I suppose I could understand why some would see her that way, especially given the hyper animated/neurotic/hot mess heroines that make up most qualities of heroines in Hollywood films. Quiet, introspective and subtle characterizations are very rare.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1--bzmYmNlfhVlDCd3cqpZHablxfBEbw1o74LtYBTcSY/edit?usp=sharing



From what I have seen the main criticism of the ST and Kennedy, is that certain people are wedded to the fact that the SW should be a certain way. A fan insert (okay let's be be blunt)mostly white males, swash buckling adventure with easy victories. There should be no struggle and there should certainly be no hard questions. It is what it is.

 

I agree. Net worth was just a short-hand way of making the point that Jon Favreau is, without question, on the short-list of the best filmmakers in Hollywood. That fact doesn't mean posters here have to like his films but they can't ignore his many accomplishments. His resume includes a classic Christmas film (Elf), the dazzling kick-off to the MCU and the foundation film for all that Marvel Studios has become (Iron Man). His reboots of The Jungle Book and The Lion King have revolutionalized the industry with the ground-breaking technology he embraced AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT, he's revitalized SW with The Mandalorian, the giant tentpole for the successful Disney+ streaming service. Net worth aside, however you want to slice and dice it, that's one hell of a record that few directors in the business can rival.

Let me get this straight: you didn't watch the show.....but for some baffling reason, you want to offer an opinion about it anyway?

Here's another take on the criticisms of the ST: SW fans expect compelling stories.

The whole notion that ST bashing came from angry white males wanting 'swashbuckling males' in their SW films is downright silly. Anybody who thinks Star Wars didn't have strong female characters "back in the good ole' OT days" seem to have forgotten Princess Leia.

 

That's totally allowed and accepted IMO, but there's a time and place for it, along with a perspective. An outside opinion on something can allow for a more objective or rather observational, and in some ways more inclusive view...if it's offered as such. Which, I feel @Veronica's comment was. (Inclusive at least; I don't think these discussions by their very nature can be objective.)

I'm not going to fully disagree with this, since I want to stay at least moderately on topic, and I actually don't fully disagree. But there's a validity in @Veronica's comment that rings true...because it IS true. Yes, Leia was there, but so where Luke (aka the main protagonist) and Han (aka the at times more popular character). Leia was there, but was she protaging? Outside of ANH, were her actions affecting the plot in a meaningful way? Because outside of going back for Luke, I'm not entirely sure. I don't mean this as a dig on Leia. I ADORE Leia and think she's easily one of the best characters in the franchise, and by far the best woman (sorry Merin, Satele, and Ahsoka!), but I use these questions to dig into what the other side may be thinking, even if they don't or can't express that.

Honestly, I'd go even farther and say that a lot of bashing we see comes not just from wanting "swashbuckling men" but "swashbuckling white men." (Something Veronica also points out.)
I remember the pushback on Finn, for just being a black stormtrooper, and conversations about how if there may have been less pushback had they gone with the concept art of Finn, where he was white. I remember the harassment that KMT got...and the harassment that Daisy Ridley got...harassment that Adam Driver and Oscar Isaac seemed to avoid (with clarification that Oscar is, as Hollywood likes to put it and he jokingly mentioned, ambiguously brown).

You'll see that in even the largest fantasy franchises today:
Black Superman is still an ongoing conversation - should it be Clark Kent, or Calvin Ellis? (Who also brings some political context as well.)
Both the D+ Percy Jackson show and the Wheel of Time show on Amazon did blind casting for major characters, and the characters are now undergoing a race-lift. Yet even if the creator is on board as is the case with Percy Jackson, or if the casting so far has been accurate to souls of the characters and their most important features as is the case with the Wheel of Time, the conversation about the race lift is the most vocal point among haters.
And I'm not even going to touch the LOTR Rings of Power stuff.

So yeah, race and gender are still touchy topics among so-called fans today. Which was the point of the original post, not just the heading, if I'm understanding it correctly. THAT BEING SAID, @Darth Derringer you're also right. SW fans expect good stories, and when they feel as if those stories haven't delivered, they're going to complain. Loudly. And the ST was no exception.

To be fair and unnecessarily pedantic, Boba Fett is supposed to be closer to early-to-mid-forties. He's younger than Ahsoka. Boba was 10 in AOTC, 13 by ROTS, and thus 31 by ANH. (Ahsoka was about 12 at the beginning of TCW and 15 by the end and ROTS.) Add about 3-4 years for ESB and ROTJ to bring him up to 35 (being cautious), and roughly 5 years for The Mandalorian to take place would make him 40. This doesn't erase your point - I know 25 Y.O.s who behave and act like they're in their forties at their earliest. I know those in their forties who look and act like they're still in their late twenties or thirties. I just wanted to point out that (like many Star Wars and other actors), the actor's age isn't the same as the character's age.

ALLOW ME TO BE AN OPPOSITE EXAMPLE TO YOUR EXPERIENCE! Back in the day, I always found myself defending Rey from the Mary Sue complaints, despite me personally finding her incredibly bland. (Not because she was bland, mind you, but simply because I couldn't relate to her and thus found her boring.)

I feel it's less of Star Wars being a certain way, and Star Wars being governed a certain way as a property. To get the obvious comparison out of the way, people want a Kevin Fiege less because of the fact he's a white man (although that does play a part in his success and the perception of him, but not as much as people think nowadays) but because he's consistently delivered crowd-pleasing successes both in front of and behind the camera. HIs movies are well-loved by most, and his behind-the-scenes behavior, passion, and leaked notes show that he's doing not only what's best for the company but also what he thinks is best for the fans. At this point, when he announces a property that no one outside of a really big comic-book nerd has heard of in an upcoming project, people trust it'll be good because they trust him to put a good team together and make something competent and pleasing out of it.

Kathleen, be it because of her own choices, her philosophy about and perception of Lucasfilm, or wonky luck, hasn't gotten that same trust. She's made some creative and brilliant choices, but her company is cursed with major behind-the-scenes issues, projects that get announced and then "silently" shelved, and a rotating list of directors to the point it's hard to get excited about anything from Lucasfilm at times until a trailer for said project is announced. People want to feel as if the company is alike a ship, and the one at the top is steering them towards a location in a way they know is best for the people.

Yes, Lucasfilm is far from the only company to have that issue, as evidenced by Universal's "failure-to-launch" monster multiverse and Warner Bros constant struggles with the DC films (exacerbated to unseen degrees with the controversies and court cases these past few weeks) but neither of those have a leading figure like Kevin or Kathleen.
And we can't forget that the MCU is Star Wars' spiritual successor in a lot of ways, so comparisons are often going to come up. They took what SW did in serialized movies and all but perfected it. They are the Mandalorian to Star Wars' Boba Fett.

It's certainly not what I want out of Star Wars, but given that several of the more popular characters that haven't made it into the canon (Kyle Katarn, Dash Rendar, all the cut Skywalkers, Revan*) are white, there's a line of logic on their side. Again, it's not what I want, nor is it sympathy or empathy, but I can see a glimpse of understanding. As for easy victories, honestly, that's the opposite of what I feel I've heard. People wanted Rey to go Dark Side at the end of Episode 9 or even in Episode 8. People want there to be sacrifice and heartache. What people seem to not want is for that sacrifice and heartache to come at the expense of their childhood characters.




Anyways, that's all I have to say. Carry on.

 

Actually there are many, many directors and innovators who have done much better than Favreau. There are many directors who fall into this category and many directors who have long accomplishments as directors and technological innovators.

And I wouldn't say he revitalized SW with the Mandolorian, as much as give a vocal disgruntled fans who I referred to above what they want. A space western weded to the OT.

What’s baffling about making a comment on a message board?

I am not commenting on the quality of the show. I am commenting on the fact that the criticism stem from the fact that the criticism that I have seen, stem from the fact the character is different form how he appeared or was portrayed in the OT. These are the same accusations lobbed at the portrayal of Luke in the ST. That there should be no allowances for any growth That life is static and that characters do not change due to circumstances. They want a plastic action figure. Not a flesh and blood autonomous human being.

Not what I wrote. Here it is again:





From what I have seen the main criticism of the ST and Kennedy , is that certain people are wedded to the fact that the SW should be a certain way. A fan insert (okay let's be be blunt)mostly white males, swash buckling adventure with easy victories. There should be no struggle and there should certainly be no hard questions. It is what it is.

Unless you're acting as a gatekeeper and defining who a SW fan is. That is exactly what LF has given us with the ST compelling story that the fans have enjoyed

 

There was a lot to unpack in these last two posts. I'll address a couple quick points first:

In a previous post I said: ...Jon Favreau is, without question, on the short-list of the best filmmakers in Hollywood. That fact doesn't mean posters here have to like his films but they can't ignore his many accomplishments.

My take was simply an acknowledgement that Favreau is one of the best filmmakers in the business today. That's somehow controversial???...let alone controversial to posters on a Star Wars fan site??? 'Nuff said. I'll leave it at that and get to a much more interesting topic.

In a previous post I said: The whole notion that ST bashing came from angry white males wanting 'swashbuckling males' in their SW films is downright silly. Anybody who thinks Star Wars didn't have strong female characters "back in the good ole' OT days" seem to have forgotten Princess Leia.

This sure sounds like a critique of the Princess Leia character viewed through a 2022 lens with zero historical context applied.

When the character of Princess Leia first appeared on the big screen, she was ground-breaking. Instead of the white knight rescuing the princess, George Lucas flipped the story on its head and had the brave Princess rescuing her would-be white knights.

In ANH, George Lucas created an iconic female character (with serious props to Carrie Fischer's performance as well) who became The Catayst for a change that began to take place in female protaganists in adventure films. No longer was it 'a given' that actresses in adventure films would be playing 'the damsel in distress.' Following on the heels of ANH, we got Ripley in Alien and the evolution has continued on through today.

Gosh, you might get the impression that ol' George Lucas was actually pretty darn progressive back in those OT "male swashbucker" days.

 

You know I said "outside of ANH," right? I acknowledge everything she did in ANH, but a trilogy is more than it's first part. But again, I was trying to explore a certain point of view, not necessarily one that I perceive.

 

Luke leaves Dagobah.
Obi-Wan Force Ghost: "That boy is our last hope."
Master Yoda replies: "No. There is another."

 

Which, according to the historical context, wasn't supposed to be Leia. The "another" became Leia, but it part of Lucas' (admittedly constantly changing) plans.

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-luke-skywalker-sister-leia-retcon/2/

 

The fact is that Leia was in ANH -- and remained throughout the OT -- a strong female character and a ground-breaking one. Carrie Fischer set her character apart from other movie heroines of her day thanks to the kick-butt attitude and assertive personality she displayed.

I guess you could say she was '2022' back in 1977...and 1980 ...and 1983.

 

Yeah, I agree. I love Leia, as I said before. She's easily my favorite woman in Star Wars. My points were - as I said twice before and now for a third time - exploring a different point of view, not ones I share.

 

There's a Grand Canyon-wide difference between character growth (Bobb Fett in TBoBF) and a character transplant (TLJ's Luke Skywalker.)

If you pay attention in interviews with Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni, they always mention the importance of respecting the characters they are entrusted to portray in Star Wars.

 

I think the teeth gnashing and flinging of poodoo levels are more than sufficient.

I don't want to crap on how people feel, they feel the way they do but a large chunk of this is difficult to see is a good light and more of it seems extremely overwrought if not full on cartoonishly exaggerated but that is through my eyes and filtered through my experiences not their's.

I get it as an issue of fairness so if you can rebalance the entropy then I guess whatever but if we are just adding then I don't see much value in inheriting the whirlwind.

 

Unlike in Boba Fett, the things which happened to Luke happened off screen. Thanks to the timeline and where episode VII picked the story back up again. So we were never going to see Luke "develop" into the depiction we got in TLJ. But it was nevertheless entirely credible given the circumstance and events off screen, years previously.

When those events take place on screen, the audience can accept that the filmmakers at least sought their permission by taking the character in that direction (and quite a few people still don't allow it). And that's what it comes down to in this argument, I feel. Respecting the audience's sensibilities and sensitivities. Showing a character struggling to come to terms with an offscreen tragedy is not disrespect unless the choice not to fully disclose the tragedy in "real time" was completely arbitrary or lazy. But the decision to pick up Luke Skwyalker's character after he'd already lived a whole lifetime since Endor was not arbitrary. It was dictated by the history of Lucasfilm and its originator's changing attitudes toward the saga, its "completion", and the fan's/general public's reception toward it and to him.