Disney Purging Star Wars, Marvel Woke Agenda

[David Johansen]

X-Wing was fantastic but so was the sequel Tie Fighter.  And yeah, you've got no shields and two concussion missiles if you're lucky but you're fast and maneuverable like nothing else.  And X-Wing / Tie Fighter is all about maneuver.


As for ablative shields, they go away awfully fast when you get hit.


I don't think the technical details are as important as the writing but some consistency one way or another would be nice.

[HappyDaze]

(Also, IIRC the X-wing was supposed to be a cutting-edge design that was stolen by the aerospace engineers making it. It wouldn't have lost much of its bite in a mere 30 years.)

I believe they threw that lore on the X-wing out with the EU.

[HappyDaze]

A lot of the X-Wing's invulnerability in beta-canon comes from Luke Skywalker's plot armor and the choice to have one other survivor who also happened to be in an X-Wing being translated into game form (first WEG, Then the rather legendary X-Wing game... which also added the idiocy that deflectors were regenerating ablative fields to the EU*).

No, there was another...
No, not Wedge.
The guy in the Y-wing.

[Lurkndog]

I kind of like the idea that the TIE fighter doesn't have shields.

Firstly, if you're not the Millennium Falcon, shields in Star Wars don't tend to do much. Plenty of examples of ships getting one-shotted. They really are plot armor when you get right down to it.

Secondly, given that shields seem to offer partial protection at best, eliminating them and the hyperdrive in favor of speed and maneuverability sounds like a tradeoff that might be reasonable. It might give a good pilot enough of an edge to be worth it. It might also help to make the TIE more cost-effective.

Thirdly, it makes the ships and tactics more distinct from each other, which i think is good.

Lastly, it is totally in character for the Empire to use its troops and small vessels as disposable assets.

[Chris24601]

Can't eliminate the shields entirely if you're a spacecraft that can move significant percentages of light speed... not unless you want to be shredded by interstellar debris.

My feeling is that while TIE's probably do have shields, they're the on the weaker side (possibly even as low as the bare minimum needed for safe spaceflight) because they are optimized for speed, but even weak shields will still sometimes throw a blaster bolt off course (particularly weaker ones).

The reason I like them having at least a few shields is because, as stated, they're mostly plot protection anyway and on the off chance you even need a protagonist to hop in a TIE Fighter, its nice to have something you can use to more easily justify a glancing blow that would allow you to up the tension without the binary of avoided everything and KABOOM!!!

I'll also be the first to admit that I'm in favor of less cartoonish villains so the idea that the Imperial military (whose budget is for all intents and purposes unlimited) actually knows what its doing in outfitting its pilots and soldiers with decent gear and a realistic approach to casualties (i.e. they're unavoidable in war, but if reasonable measures can reduce them then you employ them because "effectively unlimited in the macro-scale" or not... at the micro-level you've only got the troops and equipment you've got at the time the enemy makes contact) just makes for better bad guys and forces the heroes to be that much better.

Also, ironically, arguing against the notion that the Empire actually does treat its troops as disposable is the Stormtrooper. Cheap and disposable faceless minions don't need to be kitted out in full environmental body armor; you give them a face covering helmet, maybe a flak jacket if they're lucky, and coveralls. Not only that, the fact that the Empire goes to the expensive of kitting their Stormtroopers in said armor also implies that the armor isn't useless as it is often presented to be in beta-canon. It may not prevent a casualty, but it could be good enough to stop a fatality and with bacta tanks that means your veterans are back in the field in days or weeks instead of needing new ones trained up from scratch.

It also means that the heroes aren't just a little above average to be dealing with the Imperial Military. There's no skill or excellence required to club the minion equivalent of a baby seal (can't hit the broad side of a barn and die from the slightest injury per beta-canon).

So let the Imperials be really competent I say because that makes the heroes who oppose them shine all the brighter.

[jhkim]

Getting back to the topic of Disney, I wonder what people think about the boycott of the Mulan remake? It seems like it has gotten significant traction. On the one hand it seems liberally motivated. On the other hand, it is against the Chinese government, which is also unpopular here.

https://www.cnet.com/news/mulan-boycott-explained-why-some-fans-are-skipping-disneys-new-remake/

From my view, I dislike Disney as a corporation. I must grudgingly admit that they do produce many technically and even artistically good works, but I am appalled by the power they have particularly over kids - usually with a conformist message. I have liked a number of the MCU films and some other productions. I didn't like the Star Wars sequels, but I was lost to Star Wars already after the abominable prequel trilogy.

It seems to me that to the extent that they are woke, it is only because that's the latest conformist message. As a corporation, they will play to whatever they think sells the best.

[Ratman_tf]

Getting back to the topic of Disney, I wonder what people think about the boycott of the Mulan remake? It seems like it has gotten significant traction. On the one hand it seems liberally motivated. On the other hand, it is against the Chinese government, which is also unpopular here.

https://www.cnet.com/news/mulan-boycott-explained-why-some-fans-are-skipping-disneys-new-remake/

I'm not so familiar with the situation in China. I've heard about the Ughyrs but it's all second or third hand reports of a country half a world away. Potentially it sounds like something I'd be against (China's treatment of a minority) but I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

From my view, I dislike Disney as a corporation. I must grudgingly admit that they do produce many technically and even artistically good works, but I am appalled by the power they have particularly over kids - usually with a conformist message. I have liked a number of the MCU films and some other productions. I didn't like the Star Wars sequels, but I was lost to Star Wars already after the abominable prequel trilogy.

It seems to me that to the extent that they are woke, it is only because that's the latest conformist message. As a corporation, they will play to whatever they think sells the best.

The one remake I watched was Aladdin, and it just solidified my opinion that the live action movies maybe shouldn't be rote remakes of their animated films. I kept thinking "That's interesting, I wish they'd done a different take on Aladdin instead of copying the first one."


The few reactions I've read to Mulan make it sound like they took out all the effort and hardships the animated Mulan faced in order to make live action Mulan "stonk womxn" which sounds terrible, but I don't know first hand.

[jhkim]

Getting back to the topic of Disney, I wonder what people think about the boycott of the Mulan remake? It seems like it has gotten significant traction. On the one hand it seems liberally motivated. On the other hand, it is against the Chinese government, which is also unpopular here.

https://www.cnet.com/news/mulan-boycott-explained-why-some-fans-are-skipping-disneys-new-remake/

I'm not so familiar with the situation in China. I've heard about the Ughyrs but it's all second or third hand reports of a country half a world away. Potentially it sounds like something I'd be against (China's treatment of a minority) but I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

Well, there's also the Chinese government's actions in Hong Kong, which is more familiar to many people in the U.S. since Hong Kong has had close U.S. relations in the past. I know several people from Hong Kong, so that helps. The situation with the Uighurs is less familiar to most, but it is widely condemned. Those defending the Chinese government, like Russia and Saudi Arabia, seem like they are mostly profit-minded.

From my view, I dislike Disney as a corporation. I must grudgingly admit that they do produce many technically and even artistically good works, but I am appalled by the power they have particularly over kids - usually with a conformist message. I have liked a number of the MCU films and some other productions. I didn't like the Star Wars sequels, but I was lost to Star Wars already after the abominable prequel trilogy.

It seems to me that to the extent that they are woke, it is only because that's the latest conformist message. As a corporation, they will play to whatever they think sells the best.

The one remake I watched was Aladdin, and it just solidified my opinion that the live action movies maybe shouldn't be rote remakes of their animated films. I kept thinking "That's interesting, I wish they'd done a different take on Aladdin instead of copying the first one."

The few reactions I've read to Mulan make it sound like they took out all the effort and hardships the animated Mulan faced in order to make live action Mulan "stonk womxn" which sounds terrible, but I don't know first hand.

I saw The Jungle Book in the theaters with my son, and I saw Aladdin on a long plane flight. The Jungle Book was better than Aladdin, which I thought was terrible -- but both seem largely pointless. I agree, it seems very much that they are making these by rote rather than based on a clear new vision. As I see it, they're targeting parents who want to show their favorite movies from their own childhood to their Gen-Z kids, who tend to not like the old-style animation. That specific targeting is probably hamstringing any creativity in the production.

[Chris24601]

The reason Disney has turned to churning out live action remakes and sequels to established properties is largely that it's creative animation talent pool has largely abandoned it for greener pastures. They don't create anymore... they buy established properties (Marvel, Star Wars, 20th Century Fox) and do remakes/hackneyed sequels.

A big part of it too is that they've been pushing hard for 3d animation and live action (with CGI) because the roles involved; "I'm the hair guy" or "I'm the water guy"; are easier to replace with H1B workers and nothing crushes creativity and motivation like watching your co-workers being made to train their low cost replacements before they're fired.

Disney's basically going into another Dark Age because they've gone complete soulless megacorp.

I'm starting to suspect that the rumors of Disney reversing course are just that and that they frankly lack the talent pool to significantly reverse course at this juncture even if they wanted to and that good productions like The Mandolorian will be more "in spite of" rather than "because of" Disney's involvement.

The only good thing about Mulan is that it's disaster of a performance (including, ironically, in China) may get them to stop butchering their classics with more live action remakes (other than those already in the pipeline).

[Ratman_tf]

As I see it, they're targeting parents who want to show their favorite movies from their own childhood to their Gen-Z kids, who tend to not like the old-style animation.

Well, that's a bit depressing.

[KingCheops]

As I see it, they're targeting parents who want to show their favorite movies from their own childhood to their Gen-Z kids, who tend to not like the old-style animation.

Well, that's a bit depressing.

Also annecdotal I believe.  My girls (6 and 4) have had Robin Hood, Jungle Book (original), Lady and the Tramp (original), Dumbo (original), and Cinderella (original) on loop at various points over the past 3 years or so.  I do have to admit it was depressing as fuck writing out that list.


Disney Animation does still produce some good originals (Tangled and Frozen spring to mind).  Of course Pixar is some next level shit -- everyone on this board should watch Onward.

[jhkim]

As I see it, they're targeting parents who want to show their favorite movies from their own childhood to their Gen-Z kids, who tend to not like the old-style animation.

Well, that's a bit depressing.

Also annecdotal I believe.  My girls (6 and 4) have had Robin Hood, Jungle Book (original), Lady and the Tramp (original), Dumbo (original), and Cinderella (original) on loop at various points over the past 3 years or so.  I do have to admit it was depressing as fuck writing out that list.

Disney Animation does still produce some good originals (Tangled and Frozen spring to mind).  Of course Pixar is some next level shit -- everyone on this board should watch Onward.

The originals do fine on video. There, they are competing with other television, and they're much better than that - even by modern kids standards. However, I don't think I'm out of left field with suggesting the change in kid's tastes in the theaters. I dislike Disney, but I'm sure they do tons of market research.

Most of Disney's animated films had multiple theatrical re-releases for decades after their release, but that stopped in the early 2000s. I can't picture a theatrical re-release of a classic Disney animation being successful today. Even including computer animated movies, there are fewer and fewer successful 2D animated movies released theatrically by any studio. If a 2D classic-style animated movie could be successful, I'm sure they'd be trying it.

[Armchair Gamer]

There have been limited rereleases of Disney animated classics as 'special events' for the past few years, but they tend to get very little attention. I took my mother to Sleeping Beauty this past February (this was before Covid-19 hit), and we were practically the only people in the theatre.

[Shrieking Banshee]

If a 2D classic-style animated movie could be successful, I'm sure they'd be trying it.

I think animation is unpopular in the west in the first place. People like CG because it lets them add fantasy crap and watch a video-game cut-scene for 3 hours but because they paid 20 million dollars for a 5 minute clip of the actors face grafted to their CGI duplicate its technically "Life action".
And if market research knew everything Disney would have never lost money on a movie. The answer is that market research can be largely misleading and/or self serving. Either telling the client BS in order to say how important you are in changing things. Or telling them everything they wanted to hear so they feel satisfied. Not saying this is always the case, but it happens.


But I also agree that 2D animation is both largely a lost art, and people in the west don't respect it for very very very very very very very very very very very very very very stupid reasons.
Im not bitter, why do you ask? 

[Spinachcat]

The sooner Disney collapses, the better for us all, but don't hold your breath. The amount of money being generated by streaming is monumental.

In the wake of Hollywood kowtowing to Burn Loot Murder, the future of "entertainment" is a deluge of politically correct woke cuckfests and there's plenty of idiots who will gobble down the nonsense. AKA, Mulan will do fine on Disney+...eventually.

But none of this lack of creativity is surprising. In an age of "sensitivity readers" and race-first casting and woke messaging, WTF do you expect? Creativity requires freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, aka, all the stuff the Left hates.

Combine that with Hollywood's panic about their bottom line, they just make what's safe, CFO approved, and then make sure everything is vetted by committee, and now doubled vetted by committees chosen by skin color and pants junk.

Whatever. More time for gaming.