New Movie Worries

[Wooker]

I watched the star wars movies starting at the age of 5. They were amazing and i've loved every single part of them since (even the prequels). But, now I worry the movies will be too "politically correct." Just to say i'm perfectly okay with blacks,whites,yellows and so on. But, forced diversity in films and commercials is so frequent now and is so annoying. Just because a movie has more whites than blacks doesn't make it racist. I just hope the movie continues what the past ones did and doesn't pull from today's crappy society to deteriorate the galaxy as we know it.

[Leklor]

It juste depends on whether the characters are well written and the actors talented.

If that's good, they can assemble the most politically correct cast they want, I'll still be satisfied.

[mynxvablid]

I'm more worried about Disney having the reigns instead of Lucas. Now, more than ever, I'm afraid we'll be seeing Mickey Skywalker, Duck Solo, Pluto-bacca, Princess Minnie, and Darth Goofy.

[Mubrak]

I'm more worried about Disney having the reigns instead of Lucas. Now, more than ever, I'm afraid we'll be seeing Mickey Skywalker, Duck Solo, Pluto-bacca, Princess Minnie, and Darth Goofy.

 

Lucas went this way ever since he introduced a tribe of teddy bears. It can't get much worse than JarJar

 

Disney is more than Duckburg, even in tv-shows. Gargoyles anyone?

Edited August 16, 2015 by Mubrak

[mudmobile]

I watched the star wars movies starting at the age of 5. They were amazing and i've loved every single part of them since (even the prequels). But, now I worry the movies will be too "politically correct." Just to say i'm perfectly okay with blacks,whites,yellows and so on. But, forced diversity in films and commercials is so frequent now and is so annoying. Just because a movie has more whites than blacks doesn't make it racist. I just hope the movie continues what the past ones did and doesn't pull from today's crappy society to deteriorate the galaxy as we know it.

At this point I have such a low tolerance for PC junk, so I understand your thoughts.

 

The thing is SW has always had a diverse cast of characters over time. So unless they make it so massively blatant that something is there just because its the PC thing to do, it wont be an issue.

 

The real issue will be in the real world with people trying to make things into a big PC thing.

[ShadowMudkip]

The ironic thing, is that the SW universe is already incredibly diverse without being PC. Just look at the PT trilogy, where half of the characters were aliens.

[KenuDragonfire]

I'm more worried about Disney having the reigns instead of Lucas. Now, more than ever, I'm afraid we'll be seeing Mickey Skywalker, Duck Solo, Pluto-bacca, Princess Minnie, and Darth Goofy.

 

Ah, yes, because Disney is known for destroying every single franchise they touch, am I right?

 

Do you remember how after Pixar was bought by Disney, their quality went entirely downhill? I mean sure, they've made Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up, Toy Story 3, and Inside Out, which have received universal critical acclaim, but don't you remember Cars 2? Cars 2 was 100% Disney's fault, am I right?

 

Do you remember how Disney has completely destroyed the Marvel franchise and made it a complete joke? I mean sure, they've created a film franchise that has the in-universe connections to each other shared by comic books, tried their hardest to retain the tone of the original source material, pushed Superman and Batman off the pedestal of most popular superheroes, are attempting to clean up the insanely complicated Marvel comic book universe via Secret Wars, and are willing to do entirely insane concepts and stories in their films (A Guardians of the Galaxy movie? Doctor Strange? Captain Marvel? Black Panther, especially to a core white American audience? Ant-Man directed by Edgar Wright? Infinity Wars, a story where a god who worships death kills half the universe?) But I mean Thor 2 and Ironman 2 were kind of bad, and I mean, Marvel is obviously making these movies for kids so really they've killed Marvel forever.

 

Oh, and NOW they're going to kill Star Wars. Yes, by possibly making some non-canon, out of universe merchandise crossing two of their most popular franchises, Disney is going to destroy Star Wars. I mean, sure, the very worst they could do is a small easter-egg in one of the films or a TV show that includes one of those crossover characters that wouldn't be considered canon and is incredibly unlikely to happen, but, yeah, making some crossover toys to sell at their theme parks is going to ruin Star Wars forever. Mind you, George Lucas basically made the Ewoks to be sold to kids as toys, and then proceeded to make them a major plot point in the final movie as a bunch of small tribal people with spears and rocks manage to destroy a scouting party of the most powerful military in the galaxy at that time. That didn't ruin Star Wars though.

 

And, ooh, maybe Star Wars will have some racial diversity this time around. Obviously this is political correctness taking over the Star Wars universe! Sure, you're posting your complaint on a game forum for a Bioware game, a company that has a fantasy series that deals with progressive themes and comes out in major support of said themes, and that the game forum you're posting this complaint on is The Old Republic game forum, a game that now includes LGBT romances and has, since its release, many PoC and aliens as major and minor characters in its storylines, but yeah, Star Wars shouldn't be politically correct. This may be a space opera that has a spiritual energy that lets you fire lightning out of your fingers, has technology that never improves despite there being thousands of scientists, and kills millions of people in the first 35 minutes of the first movie, but a racial and gender diverse cast? Now you're being silly.

 

Oh, and I physically will be unable to stop myself from clapping in the theater if it turns out one of the characters in Episode VII is gay. Not because it's a big step for gay representation in film, but because I would be so excited to read all the articles about why in the absolutely ridiculous and illogical universe of Star Wars a character being gay shouldn't be a thing that happens.

[Wooker]

I wont read your comment since its excessively long and from the start i could see the sarcastic ******e vibe of the writing. But, from my skimming of it you seem like an arrogant ****** who can't converse without pulling crap out of your ***. Good Day.

[BrianDavion]

I'm more worried about Disney having the reigns instead of Lucas. Now, more than ever, I'm afraid we'll be seeing Mickey Skywalker, Duck Solo, Pluto-bacca, Princess Minnie, and Darth Goofy.

 

news flash, those existed long before Lucas sold off disney my sister, who does a reasonable amount of traveling and likes to bring me neat little baubles, visited disney land well before the sale and brought me http://www.yourwdwstore.net/assets/images/1/10000/7000/700/045544354608.jpg that. but ya know, they've never inserted duck maul into the comic books or anything, it's just a fun little toy basicly.

[Rhyltran]

I'm nervous too but not because it's disney. I don't think Disney is bad. Nor do I think it's bad that star wars is owned by Disney. In fact, I'll point out to you original poster, George Lucas had already stated there was no way in hell we would ever see Episode 7. So Disney or letting it rot in the hands of lucas? At least Disney is giving us more star wars stuff. Plus the best part about Disney is they're not scared to do movies that aren't the "Jedi vs Sith" mold. Rogue One is a movie that has been given a release date of next year.

[fidothegran]

It's not so much the political correctness as the entire movie/game/book being nothing but a big fat SJW rant instead of an actual story.

[Cordarn]

I figure it will be all right, but just make sure your liberal friends don't watch it, lest they get offended and call it racist;) Edited August 17, 2015 by Cordarn

[t-darko]

I watched the star wars movies starting at the age of 5. They were amazing and i've loved every single part of them since (even the prequels). But, now I worry the movies will be too "politically correct." Just to say i'm perfectly okay with blacks,whites,yellows and so on. But, forced diversity in films and commercials is so frequent now and is so annoying. Just because a movie has more whites than blacks doesn't make it racist. I just hope the movie continues what the past ones did and doesn't pull from today's crappy society to deteriorate the galaxy as we know it.

 

So what you're saying is that you don't have a problem, unless you decide you have a problem!??

 

And should we call it 'The Darkside' or 'The slightly less lightside' Since color isn't an issue here?

 

And are you saying that a three eyed woman with ten foreheads are more likely to occur in the galaxy then an asian looking guy??

 

and what were your worries again exactly!?

Edited August 17, 2015 by t-darko

[fidothegran]

I'm more worried about Disney having the reigns instead of Lucas. Now, more than ever, I'm afraid we'll be seeing Mickey Skywalker, Duck Solo, Pluto-bacca, Princess Minnie, and Darth Goofy.

 

People still believe that the new movies will be crossovers? It's not like all of Disney's buyouts have become crossovers, at least not canon ones.

[CharagonIGN]

People are more worried about Disney's influence, of which there is no evidence of, than the fact that JJ Abrams has yet to direct a good movie?

 

Of all the things to be concerned about for Episode VII, Disney's influence doesn't make the Top 5.

Edited August 21, 2015 by CharagonIGN

[Rhyltran]

People are more worried about Disney's influence, of which there is no evidence of, than the fact that JJ Abrams has yet to direct a good movie?

 

Of all the things to be concerned about for Episode VII, Disney's influence doesn't make the Top 5.

 

I too am more worried about the director than the movie itself.

[fidothegran]

I too am more worried about the director than the movie itself.

 

I was a bit skeptical until the basic plot got leaked to me, since nearly all of JJ Abrams' stuff has involved some sort of time travel.

[Leklor]

People are more worried about Disney's influence, of which there is no evidence of, than the fact that JJ Abrams has yet to direct a good movie?

 

Of all the things to be concerned about for Episode VII, Disney's influence doesn't make the Top 5.

 

I don't understand these people who worry about Disney.

Yeah, because Disney influenced the MCU so much... (Not talking about quality or your opinion of it, simply influence.)

And they influence Miramax and by extension Quentin Tarantino so much...

 

Disney has indeed no decision power on the new movies. Lucasfilm and Kathleen Kennedy control that and if it sucks, it's on them, not Disney. Disney and specifically Bob Iger only sign the big check to get the movie made and collects it's (Large) share of the profit afterwards.

Star Wars isn't "controlled" or "influenced" by Disney.

As for J.J. Abrams, you're free to think what you want but Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness where excellent Star Wars movies.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Leklor

[TravelersWay]

As for J.J. Abrams, you're free to think what you want but Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness where excellent Star Wars movies.

 

They weren't - not in the slightest. They weren't even good Star Trek movies. They were nothing more than generic sci-fi action thriller movies with many annoying plot contrivances. There are much better examples of science fiction out there.

 

People also seem to forget that Disney has also made some good "normal" movies, like Splash, Cool Runnings, Good Morning Vietnam, Roger Rabbit, and Dead Poets Society.

Edited August 21, 2015 by TravelersWay

[Qui_Jon]

As for the original poster, I don't think its going to be an issue. first off the star wars universe has always lent itself to diversity. its just normally that was done by working in alien characters. Sure of what is assumed to be the three main cast members you have a young woman, a black man and a white man. I understand I guess where you see that as forced diversity, however I think you are missing a bigger point. Money.

 

At the heart of every movie made, and star wars though it might hold a more special place in a lot of our hearts that transcends us from looking at it as a simple movie, is a movie. Having a diverse cast that has cross appeal means more ticket sales, which translates to more money and more toy sales. I remember one time when asked why she became a character in star trek TNG Whoopie Goldberg answered really simply that growing up when she was watching the original series, Nichele Nichols character was one of the few woman that was on TV that looked like her. That was in a position of authority, in a command structure, and that left her with very fond memories of what that meant. The same can be said here, yes its money, but putting a black man into a main role means you have more of an ability to get black people to come see the movie, that isn't done really to prevent a big ruckus over the cast diversity but to put more ticket sales into the pocket. And I think looking at the success of the hunger games, and divergent movies and books its also understandable to see them want to cast a capable young woman into a role of importance as well.

 

As for the comments about Disney owning the studio and ruining or Disnifing the movies I don't think so. One thing that I have noticed is that Disney is smart. yes they want the franchise because of the money potential, not just from movies but from toys, books, games, theme park attractions, and to keep that money coming in requires them to keep the property desirable.

 

When Disney bought Pixar they could have simply mixed them into the bunch of Disney animated stuff, but they left the studio mostly autonomous to make their own movies. Yes there have been cars movies and planes that you can say lend themselves to toy sales, but movies like Up and Inside Out and such I thnk show that there is still that Pixar magic happening most times.

 

When Disney bought Marvel, leaving the comics aside, they were again smart. they know they don't know comics but began by hiring directors like John favereu and actor like RDJ who could do the job of bringing the comic pages to life. Then hired joss whedon to be in charge of bringing it all together. A director what not only had the geek credit to keep fans happy, but honestly had so of the best experience in putting together and working with an ensemble cast from his experiences with Buff, Angle, Firefly etc. he just knew how to make it work and did. I think they have don't a good job of not only making good superhero movies, but taking chances with other properties like guardians of the galaxy, and ant-man.(ok super hero but not almost more of a heist movie.)

 

And I see the same thing with Star Wars. From the point they hired JJ Abrams to atleast kick off the venture with episode 7 I was not that worried. Again here is someone that has made a completely viable rebootish of star trek, knows how to work drama, character development and action all into a movie and is a big enough fan to know what will and wont work and when he needs help will go to someone that he knows can help like Lawrence Kasdan .

 

So I think Disney is actually playing very smartly with their properties. they know they cant just make it all Disney so they hire the people that know the product to do what needs to be done. Which is all that any of us fans can really hope for.

[Leklor]

They weren't - not in the slightest. They weren't even good Star Trek movies. They were nothing more than generic sci-fi action thriller movies with many annoying plot contrivances. There are much better examples of science fiction out there.

 

People also seem to forget that Disney has also made some good "normal" movies, like Splash, Cool Runnings, Good Morning Vietnam, Roger Rabbit, and Dead Poets Society.

 

That's like... your opinions. From the meager Star Trek experience I have (A few Next Generation episodes an half a season of Voyager plus movies 2,3,4,6,8 and 10) it's indeed not very "Star Trek-ish". It had however a definite Star Wars print: Bombastic Space-Opera adventure with tons on set-pieces, great visual and above average score.

You're totally free to dislike Abrams style and doubt that he'll deliver a solid Episode VII but know this: You won't make me share your skepticism. I'm hopeful that Lucasfilm cares enough for the 200 million dollars invested to make sure the movie works. And it has Lawrence Kasdan writting, since he wrote what is considered THE best Star Wars movie (I personally dislike it due to childhood bias, what can I say, I wasn't ready for ESB and never gave it a second chance even on multiple rewatches) there's no reason they'll deliver a poor movie.

Both Star Trek had awful writers in comparison (Sorry Orci and that other dude are truly woeful).

[TravelersWay]

That's like... your opinions. From the meager Star Trek experience I have (A few Next Generation episodes an half a season of Voyager plus movies 2,3,4,6,8 and 10) it's indeed not very "Star Trek-ish". It had however a definite Star Wars print: Bombastic Space-Opera adventure with tons on set-pieces, great visual and above average score.

You're totally free to dislike Abrams style and doubt that he'll deliver a solid Episode VII but know this: You won't make me share your skepticism. I'm hopeful that Lucasfilm cares enough for the 200 million dollars invested to make sure the movie works. And it has Lawrence Kasdan writting, since he wrote what is considered THE best Star Wars movie (I personally dislike it due to childhood bias, what can I say, I wasn't ready for ESB and never gave it a second chance even on multiple rewatches) there's no reason they'll deliver a poor movie.

Both Star Trek had awful writers in comparison (Sorry Orci and that other dude are truly woeful).

 

I have no skepticism to share. I said nothing about how I think E7 will turn out, just that the Star Trek reboot films failed in just about every way to capture what made Star Trek the success and phenomenon it was up until Gene's death (when his successors pretty much let it all go to hell). I have problems with JJ's artistic style on occasion, but find it positive that he is at least trying to get back to the roots of Star Wars in terms of the special effects design. However, despite Kevin Smith's seal of approval, I am not going to get my hopes up too much until I know and see more about the movies. Until then, I will continue to hope that the new movies will do the IP just as much justice as the two trailers have for E7 at this point.

[fdbgjfdhjgkjdhsg]

As long as it has a good story and no lens flares, I'd be ok with it.

[Qui_Jon]

I have no skepticism to share. I said nothing about how I think E7 will turn out, just that the Star Trek reboot films failed in just about every way to capture what made Star Trek the success and phenomenon it was up until Gene's death (when his successors pretty much let it all go to hell). I have problems with JJ's artistic style on occasion, but find it positive that he is at least trying to get back to the roots of Star Wars in terms of the special effects design. However, despite Kevin Smith's seal of approval, I am not going to get my hopes up too much until I know and see more about the movies. Until then, I will continue to hope that the new movies will do the IP just as much justice as the two trailers have for E7 at this point.

I guess then you didn't like over half the run of TNG or DS9 and hated voyager, all the star trek movies after 6, and the borg? All that was after gene's passing.

 

I mean sure star trek took some bad turns, but Gene and his "vision" of the future hampered many of the story lines that many people consider to be some of the best in the work. Roddenberry, put limits like there could be no conflict within star fleet or its allies. From what I know things like the Dominion war story line in deep space 9 was pitched to him and he said no way because of how much conflict it brought to the universe. He didn't want his universe to be at war essentially.

 

Now I can say that yes so far as character development the JJ star trek movies were a bit light, but star trek has never been about developing the characters from the movies, they movies have always be set pieces to put on display some of the relationships, namely kirk, spock, and McCoy. So seriously think about star trek the motion picture, that movie was practically nothing, but would have been nothing if not for the fact you had 3 years of a tv show to lay the ground work for it. Star wars has never been that way.

 

And frankly star wars over all doesn't have nearly the character development that you might assign to it. I think with so much EU stuff out there we take all that in and then those stories become apart of Han Solo, or Luke, but if you really look at juts the movies the characters are pretty paper thin. Luke is essentially the stereo typical teenager that feels trapped in the small town and wants to head out to see the world. Han is your typical ruffian with the heart of gold, leia the fragile looking tough as nails woman that you cant keep down. But that is about it. You don't really learn anything about any of the characters from the movies. They really are just thin character set pieces set to great music and great special FXs. And that is what I love about them. Yes over the course of the three OT movies the characters deepen somewhat, but not a lot mind you, not nearly as much as we know about Kirk or Picard, or Sisko, or data, or spock, or even miles o'brian for that matter. Because on TV you have a lot more time to put that into the development, and the star trek movies Abrams made played on the idea that you already would know Kirk and the crew so only gave a very precursory glance to their over all origins for complete newbs to star trek.