this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
111 points (92.4% liked)
Star Wars
4922 readers
6 users here now
Discussion for all things Star Wars. Movies, books, games, TV shows and more are welcome.
1. Keep it civil.
2. Keep it Star Wars related.
3. No memeposts. Memes are great and everybody loves them, but there is already [email protected] for those.
Community icon art from DeviantArt user DavidDeb.
Banner art by Ralph McQuarrie.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The article lands on "not actually all that bad, especially from a business perspective, but could be much better," which is kind of unsatisfying, but I did like the opening analogy to the Falcon: "The garbage will do."
One thing they absolutely have to do is get better acting and production values that match the sequels, or at least Mando S1. The Volume should only be used when the scene makes sense for it, so either spaces that are themselves enclosed, or where the actors' blocking reasonably makes sense. Kenobi was particularly egregious with this, especially the airspeeders sequence. Everything is just so slow and small and anything that can't be done in VFX is crowded into a very tight space. When the Acolyte tried to build bigger sets... I dunno... something came off wrong, like they contracted the whole thing out to the Disney teams that make the public spaces in Galaxy's edge, which like all theme parks trade a certain amount authentic screen presence for durability. I doubt the sets are that durable, making it all the worse when they look how they do. BOBF's infamous scooter chase had some other issues, but what locked it in as a blunder was the cheap visuals that screamed, "We can't afford enough set to zoom through it at more than jogging speed!" Somebody needed to tell Robert Rodriguez that this isn't Spy Kids. Andor had a large but not unlimited budget, but the key is (barely greebled AK-47's aside) that they used it wisely and got bang for their bucks; they made choices that fit the story into the budget (they actually made two TIE fighters feel terrifying), and it ended up looking just right for the most part.
Then the acting. All 5 Disney movies did okay with this, and the sheer watchability of the performances an one area where I think they ALL outshone all three PT movies. Star Wars has never been known for "realistic" dialogue, but the OT sold it by having actors with movie star charisma, veteran chops, and a decade of "new Hollywood" naturalistic sensibilities. Then you had a collaborative process that took better takes and excised material that couldn't be made to work. The ST was less organic, but similarly collaborative and while almost cloyingly modern and quippy at times, you don't get the sense that the actors are struggling with the material. I don't want to lean in too hard on overly simplistic narratives here, but the amount of control that Lucas had in the prequels undoubtedly led to an under-emphasis on the parts of filmmaking he finds less interesting, and too much reliance on newfound abilities to "fix it in post." He somehow got awful performances from Natalie Portman and Samuel L. Jackson, and even fairly uneven ones from Ewan McGregor.
The shows, however, have mostly skewed to the worse side of things. Not quite so stilted as the PT, but there is a serious lack of charisma and humanity emanating from them, and it just makes things less fun, and when your dialogue mostly exists to deliver exposition, it leaves us more willing to nitpick details. Andor has a grimmer tone, but there is charisma there. The performances were compelling and I had to watch. You cannot and should not make all Star Wars like Andor, but you could make it all as well-conceived as Andor.
.