DarthDementous

Although I'm sure Lucas had a lot of input into this book - and especially the prologue - the book was principally the work of Alan Dean Foster and was only credited to Lucas to keep the appearance of the single visionary. In fact, the requirement to have the book credited to Lucas deterred his first choice of writer, Dan Glut.
 
All the "Whills" stuff is from Lucas' early drafts. Its basically his version of Burroughs' "Girdley Wave."
 
None of which is to go against your basic argument, of course.
 
Oh, and just one more thing I can't resist:
 
 
This is supposed to be in the background of the movie: The whole idea is that the Emperor is the lackey of the Imperial officers and, specifically, Tarkin, not the other way around. Tarkin's line "regional governors now have direct control over their territories" was obviously mean to be read more smug than it does in the film, being that Tarkin is a regional governor.

I see a lot of Star Wars Lucas in Andor, and I think just like Nicholas Meyer on Star Trek, Tony Gilroy did his research by going back to the beginning… the 1977 Star Wars. Or actually, maybe even earlier… the very first Star Wars media to be commercially released. The 1976 novel by… George Lucas:

 
And if we look at the very opening pages of Lucas’s most early published words about the world of Star Wars, we get the sense of an original conception not quite THX, but much more Andor than the prequel trilogy:


 
The Jedi Knights are mentioned for this setting, but in the background. Not a single one is named. There is no Darth Vader, supposedly the guy Lucas’s six-film saga is about, the prophesied one to bring balance to the Force? Hell, there is no “The Force” even mentioned here! (Compare that to the kinda similar crawls at the beginning of the movies.) Instead we get the vague “Journal of the Whills”… what the heck the whills?
 
Oh now wait a second… there is exactly ONE other piece of Star Wars media I’ve encountered where I’ve heard that term referenced again. What was it? Oh yeah! I think Tony Gilroy had a little something to do with this…
 
Okay so now we are getting somewhere. Notice the Leia Organa quote at the end as well — she is a “senator”, not a “princess”. And her quote *perfectly* fits… well, Andor himself! Don’t you think?
 
And also notice her fellow Senator, Palpatine, is NOT an evil wizard! He’s just a politician! A power-hungry politician who in fact isn’t some great mastermind, but once he takes power, gradually has it taken away *from* him by those he elevated, eventually ending up as little more than a figurehead of the Empire itself — the system he enabled eventually even consumed the Emperor, himself! Man, this sounds so much more like political sci-fi rather than space fantasy! It sounds so much more like… Andor.
 
And after the absolutely horrible prequels which attempted to cover this same time period, and the messy sequel trilogy that ended with an equally dumb (if far more entertaining) film to the prequels… MAN, do I kinda wish George Lucas had continued with his original, more Foundationy, vision for this world. And what Tony Gilroy has achieved with Andor is to somehow move more towards that while also reconciling it somewhat with all the filmed Star Wars world we’ve seen. It’s really an incredibly impressive feat, especially since the writing and the drama and the character development and the acting are all so powerful.
 
Yavar

it's interesting because I still see a lot of Lucas in Andor, maybe not Star Wars Lucas, but the Prison Arc especially is incredibly reminiscent of THX-1138

Varada Sethu joining Gibson as another companion alongside Gibson for 2025 series: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-68802766
 
Looks like all the rumours about Gibson being fired (or leaving for some other reason) were clickbaity rubbish. Unless it had emerged that Gibson was a nightmare to work with, there would be no sense in someone leaving a reboot so quickly. I guess it must've been the talk about a new actress that led the usual suspects to decide she was replacing Gibson.

I think that's very, very likely. A kid in 2024 is much more likely to first encounter a contemporary Star Wars show or a recent Star Wars film or couple of films, and much less likely to first hit upon the original, 1977 film, especially seeing as how its nestled into the midst of the whole thing as "Episode IV." There's nothing to say that's the original: its just one of the episodes.
 
And, if that's the case, I do think it will take the edge off of the original film when kids DO get to it eventually. Its a much quainter film - it was made for far less money, and with less means - its more light on its feet, much more referential of then-fashionable pop-culture works, and all those qualities really work for the film in isolation, but when viewed after having seen a good helping of the larger "saga", all that stuff make it feel out-of-place, quaint and kind of underwhelming.
 
Tatooine was probably pretty darn cool in 1977. But if you've seen Episode I (which I think had a far better location scout for Tunisia) and other entries into the expanded series that take place on Tatooine or on other desert planets (Jakku, Geonosis) and which far greater means to showcase the vastness of the desert (not to mention films depicting the antecedents of Tatooine: Barsoom and Arrakis), then the shots of the desert in the 1977 film lose a lot of their grandeur and mystique. Certainly, after all the frenetic lightsaber action in the other entries, the brawl between Old Ben and Vader comes across far lamer than it did in 1977.
 
Probably the best essay written on the film has this to say on the matter: 
 
 

as @Yavar Moradipointed out, yes that article linked doesn't back up any claim made by @Schilkeman and I actually remember reading that interview in preparation for the series and feeling a glow of hope because of how much Star Wars had been caught in the glut of self-reference and how inaccessible it had become

the snippet from his Rogue One interview I don't think says anything we didn't already know, but given this was well before Andor was even conceived of I don't think it's a very up to date perspective for Gilroy, especially since the nature of his involvement in that project is very different from being the idea progenitor and showrunner of Andor

Yavar brought up Star Trek, but to bring up an example closer to home, Chris Avellone the lead narrative designer of KOTOR 2 which is one of the most critically claimed Star Wars stories ever, was on record saying how he wasn't really a fan of Star Wars and had gripes with it. despite this, he did his due diligence and dived into the expanded material and in the process fell in love with the series, whilst also grounding his ability to critique long-accepted facets of the Star Wars universe in the story such as the Force

it would not surprise me in the least to learn that in the process of diving into this universe, Gilroy has actually found things to appreciate about Star Wars that he didn't before. he strikes me in the vein of Irvin Kershner, director of ESB, who if you listen to him talk about the film it's clear he's not bogged down in the lore but is far more interested at the character drama at the heart of the piece and that's where his interest lies instead. something far more important from a film-making standpoint than knowing and being a database for lore factoids, I have to say. that's the job of other people in the production like the Lucasfilm Story Group anyway, and they did a very good job because there's a lot of deep cut references and no contradictions at all that I could tell

You mean the tacked-on-last-minute-without-the-writer/director's-involvement-or-approval ending? So the actual script written by Nicholas Meyer conceived the Genesis device with a "plot relevance" that didn't exist until he was no longer on the project? You are making no sense, and your issues are still clearly with Star Trek III.
 
 
Ok, thanks for explaining what you meant. I mean, okay... how do you feel about how the borg queen is outsmarted(?) at the end of your beloved Star Trek: First Contact then? 
 
But really I don't think this is even a dumb concept at all: Khan left Earth in the year 1996. What he thinks of as battleships operate on a two dimensional plane of the ocean's surface. The point is simply that he doesn't have experience with true three-dimensional space battleship combat, even if the concept might click for him if he thinks about it for a while. In a way I think it feels like a bit of an in-joke dig at the Star Trek franchise itself, which much of the time just like Khan *does* treat spaceship combat as two-dimensional! (The computer game Starfleet Command is the ultimate expression of this phenomenon which was present throughout TOS and TNG in particular.) Like I wonder if Nicholas Meyer watched Star Trek: The Motion Picture, saw the three Klingon cruisers in formation firing on V'Ger as if they all had to be operating in the same plane, and then cooked up that little bit of script.
 
I'm anticipating that you'll come at me with, "but in 1996 Khan would have been familiar with submarines and airplanes, which operate more three-dimensionally". But you know what? Even though the battle in the Mutara Nebula sequence was inspired by submarine movies, it's not even true that space combat would behave the same way, because of gravity. There is still an "up" and a "down" when it comes to air and underwater combat, and sure you might change your elevation but you're still not going to behave fully three-dimensionally like you would in space, where even with your artificial gravity, it's tied only to your floorboards or whatever, and not your vessel's surrounding environment.
 
But the *smart* idea at the core of what Meyer wrote with that "two-dimensional thinking" line is that the villain might be smarter than Kirk, but he is less experienced with the kind of starship combat maneuvers that Kirk knows well. That is an interesting idea, and a good way to write a story with a menacing and intelligent villain that can still be defeated in a way that makes sense.
 
 
"They"? Again, are you really so unaware of how last minute an addition to the film that was, by Paramount brass? You're dismissing Nicholas Meyer's work (which is why I originally brought up Star Trek II in the context of this thread -- a Star Trek film done by a non-Trek fan) as "comic book nonsense"... when he vehemently opposed that last minute modification which was NOWHERE in the script he wrote (or shot). And you're acting like that was the POINT of the movie that it was building to... when that couldn't be further from the truth!
 
 
Hard disagree, to say the least. There are lots of things about it which make it the worst of the original six films, no question. The shoddy effects and most of all, the treatment of the supporting cast... after how well Nimoy treated them in his two films, that honestly really pisses me off. The script needed another pass or two. But at its core, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier has the absolute BEST depiction of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy friendship in all of the original six movies. And it has more TREK feeling/essence in what it's about (even if often executed sloppily) than any of the other movies with the possible exception of TMP:
 
Oh, and for my money it has the best score of the entire franchise.
 
I will watch it over and over again before I ever feel like EVER rewatching the overrated Star Trek: First Contact, which frankly feels like it betrays the familiar TNG characters in a way similar to how The Final Frontier treats Uhura/Scotty/Chekov/Sulu.
 
 
Don't understand what point you were trying to make with the Moby Dick quote...Picard's Borg trauma is a "petty personal struggle"? What the First Contact writers did with Picard was criminal, and didn't in any way grow naturally out of his arc and character development on the series itself. You're really going to try and square FIRST CONTACT Picard with the Picard that refused to send Hugh back to the Collective with a virus?? First Contact is the epitome of dumb action movie made for dumb normies who "don't really like Star Trek, but this one is cool"...which is why it was successful, I guess. Even though it's far from perfect, I think I'll stick with The Voyage Home for the kind of idealism you're talking about here. First Contact honestly makes me angry every time I try and give it another chance. I'd rather rewatch Generations or even Insurrection. Not Nemesis though... somehow they found a way to betray all the characters and make an even more dour I-don't-understand-Star-Trek film than First Contact, with that one.
 
 
 Are you serious right now? StarFLEET *is* and always WAS a military organization! Now, yes the conceit is that it's somehow a peaceful one (just like the United States military supposedly is, lol...)
 
But dude, get real. The ship has phasers and photon torpedoes. Since the 60s TV series!

 
All of the characters on the ship wear uniforms, have ranks, and follow orders/answer to superiors in a military hierarchy:

 
Yeah, there are scientists on the ship too... military scientists, with ranks fitting into a military hierarchy! They are explorers, but they are explorers that are part of a MILITARY ORGANIZATION. They go on away missions to "new worlds and new civilizations"... ARMED WITH GUNS. Even in the "more cerebral" original pilot episode "The Cage" (before "Where No Man Has Gone Before" went in an even more action-oriented direction!) Good grief, man:

 
So yeah, when I see THIS, I don't think Nicholas Meyer messed up, as you seem to; I think he did his homework as a "non-fan":

 
As for your "straight up naval uniforms"... did the navy somehow start wearing deep maroon and I missed it? These uniforms look far more "naval" to me:

 
 
By using arguments like, "the Genesis device only existed for the plot purpose of resurrecting Spock at the end in comic book fashion", apparently completely oblivious to the fact that the ending wasn't a part of the film Meyer wrote, shot, and edited, and was only added last minute without his involvement and over his vehement objections. Yeah... it appears to me that non-fan Meyer did his Star Trek homework far better than you. And to finally bring this back sort-of-on-topic... so did Tony Gilroy do his Star Wars homework, before going into his first role as sole creator/showrunner, with ANDOR.
 
Yavar

that went unreasonably hard

great action and bonkers stakes, Magneto comforting the Morlocks by saying 'don't be afraid' in Polish was very powerful

agreed on the no music part, it definitely contributed to this feeling of something being very wrong. this honestly felt like an animated equivalent to Infinity War's ending

kind of a hilarious tonal whiplash compared to last week's episode, there was some really heavy stuff in this one, not least Cyclops losing it and basically taking the Magneto-pill for a good 30 seconds

Bloody hell, that was intense. Those Fox movies are soooo lame compared to this. This was a great episode. 
 
Karol

as @Yavar Moradipointed out, yes that article linked doesn't back up any claim made by @Schilkeman and I actually remember reading that interview in preparation for the series and feeling a glow of hope because of how much Star Wars had been caught in the glut of self-reference and how inaccessible it had become

the snippet from his Rogue One interview I don't think says anything we didn't already know, but given this was well before Andor was even conceived of I don't think it's a very up to date perspective for Gilroy, especially since the nature of his involvement in that project is very different from being the idea progenitor and showrunner of Andor

Yavar brought up Star Trek, but to bring up an example closer to home, Chris Avellone the lead narrative designer of KOTOR 2 which is one of the most critically claimed Star Wars stories ever, was on record saying how he wasn't really a fan of Star Wars and had gripes with it. despite this, he did his due diligence and dived into the expanded material and in the process fell in love with the series, whilst also grounding his ability to critique long-accepted facets of the Star Wars universe in the story such as the Force

it would not surprise me in the least to learn that in the process of diving into this universe, Gilroy has actually found things to appreciate about Star Wars that he didn't before. he strikes me in the vein of Irvin Kershner, director of ESB, who if you listen to him talk about the film it's clear he's not bogged down in the lore but is far more interested at the character drama at the heart of the piece and that's where his interest lies instead. something far more important from a film-making standpoint than knowing and being a database for lore factoids, I have to say. that's the job of other people in the production like the Lucasfilm Story Group anyway, and they did a very good job because there's a lot of deep cut references and no contradictions at all that I could tell

good. not everything needs multiple seasons to tell its story.

good. not everything needs multiple seasons to tell its story.

Now... now eventually you do plan to have TALES OF THE EMPIRE in your Tales of the Empire thread?

as @Yavar Moradipointed out, yes that article linked doesn't back up any claim made by @Schilkeman and I actually remember reading that interview in preparation for the series and feeling a glow of hope because of how much Star Wars had been caught in the glut of self-reference and how inaccessible it had become

the snippet from his Rogue One interview I don't think says anything we didn't already know, but given this was well before Andor was even conceived of I don't think it's a very up to date perspective for Gilroy, especially since the nature of his involvement in that project is very different from being the idea progenitor and showrunner of Andor

Yavar brought up Star Trek, but to bring up an example closer to home, Chris Avellone the lead narrative designer of KOTOR 2 which is one of the most critically claimed Star Wars stories ever, was on record saying how he wasn't really a fan of Star Wars and had gripes with it. despite this, he did his due diligence and dived into the expanded material and in the process fell in love with the series, whilst also grounding his ability to critique long-accepted facets of the Star Wars universe in the story such as the Force

it would not surprise me in the least to learn that in the process of diving into this universe, Gilroy has actually found things to appreciate about Star Wars that he didn't before. he strikes me in the vein of Irvin Kershner, director of ESB, who if you listen to him talk about the film it's clear he's not bogged down in the lore but is far more interested at the character drama at the heart of the piece and that's where his interest lies instead. something far more important from a film-making standpoint than knowing and being a database for lore factoids, I have to say. that's the job of other people in the production like the Lucasfilm Story Group anyway, and they did a very good job because there's a lot of deep cut references and no contradictions at all that I could tell

good. not everything needs multiple seasons to tell its story.

as @Yavar Moradipointed out, yes that article linked doesn't back up any claim made by @Schilkeman and I actually remember reading that interview in preparation for the series and feeling a glow of hope because of how much Star Wars had been caught in the glut of self-reference and how inaccessible it had become

the snippet from his Rogue One interview I don't think says anything we didn't already know, but given this was well before Andor was even conceived of I don't think it's a very up to date perspective for Gilroy, especially since the nature of his involvement in that project is very different from being the idea progenitor and showrunner of Andor

Yavar brought up Star Trek, but to bring up an example closer to home, Chris Avellone the lead narrative designer of KOTOR 2 which is one of the most critically claimed Star Wars stories ever, was on record saying how he wasn't really a fan of Star Wars and had gripes with it. despite this, he did his due diligence and dived into the expanded material and in the process fell in love with the series, whilst also grounding his ability to critique long-accepted facets of the Star Wars universe in the story such as the Force

it would not surprise me in the least to learn that in the process of diving into this universe, Gilroy has actually found things to appreciate about Star Wars that he didn't before. he strikes me in the vein of Irvin Kershner, director of ESB, who if you listen to him talk about the film it's clear he's not bogged down in the lore but is far more interested at the character drama at the heart of the piece and that's where his interest lies instead. something far more important from a film-making standpoint than knowing and being a database for lore factoids, I have to say. that's the job of other people in the production like the Lucasfilm Story Group anyway, and they did a very good job because there's a lot of deep cut references and no contradictions at all that I could tell

I skimmed that article. I don't see anything like Gilroy "on the record saying he is not a fan of Star Wars", and it also doesn't include your "real and explanatory" phrase. So what in the article are you saying backs up your claim?
 
But hell, even if Gilroy wasn't really a fan of Star Wars before, that's not necessarily a detriment (in fact it can be an asset) -- just look at Nicholas Meyer's contributions to the Star Trek films, as a self-described "not a fan" of Star Trek.
 
I'm a lifelong fan of Star Wars and Andor is some of my favorite Star Wars. It leans into the political aspect that intrigued me in the original film and which I wanted to know more about. An aspect that Lucas himself was apparently wanting to dig into more, as evidence by his approach to the prequel trilogy... only that was plotted and scripted terribly, whereas Andor does it right.
 
Yavar

Gilroy is on the record saying is not a fan of Star Wars and that he wanted to create something more "real and explanatory."
Here's an example.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/09/andor-star-wars

Do you mean Dylan? I mean, why is there a 30 minute football game in the middle of M.A.S.H.? Sorry you couldn’t follow it.

I think to treat these things in trilogies - as Lucas would doubtlessly want us to - is wrong. In lumping these films up that way, a lot of the nuance in terms of the merits and demerits of the individual entries, is lost.
 
And, again unlike Herr Schilkeman, I personally think the stylistic incongruity between Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back is a huge, gaping abyss. To me, the feeling of the films could hardly be more different if they tried. It furthers my case that these films are better seen as six entries, rather than as two trilogies, AND your point that Star Wars and the elusive Star Wars "feeling" is effectively redefined with each passing entry, certainly within the "Lucas" canon.

that actually helps makes the argument of the stylistic difference between the PT and the OT because George had to go back and modify the original films in order to update them to his modern sensibilities which very clearly changed. clear example of that is the shot in the ESB special edition where Leia is walking back and forth in front of a window and the camera is doing a slow digital zoom-in which is a very common shot in the Prequels. it's also very jarring stylistically in a film with a completely different directing style.

 
 

it's not a different video. it's a segment from the 'How To Watch Star Wars' monstrosity that I suffered through with some friends. it's gobbledegook because it goes off on these bizarre tangents like the Bon Jovi one (I think that went for 30 minutes?) and assumes that you're on the same page as him of what makes good film-making. so you end up in an endless montage of pointing out film references (some of which are a huge stretch) with the implication that by virtue of Lucas making all these references, even when it's to the detriment of the sensibility of the Star Wars such as the terribly convoluted Attack of The Clones Padme assassination plot, it is good because it has showed he has watched a bunch of films - something that I think Rick Worley genuinely believes about himself.

the TPM review again was made by one member of RLM, 15 years ago in a completely different format from the Andor review which features two members. to write it off based on that is bizarre, and stop saying 'they' when the Plinkett reviews were almost entirely one person whereas RLM is made up of multiple people who don't all see eye to eye. it's such a convenient narrative that gets peddled by the anti-RLM brigade that avoids them having to engage with the nuance of anything about the content outside of the Plinkett reviews

I doubt that Tony Gilroy has said that 'Star Wars can be anything', but feel to prove me wrong if you've got a quote from his you'd like to share

when it comes down to it, the science fiction aspect of Star Wars is just as valid as the fantasy element, and the beauty of the EU and expanded material in general is that it doesn't have to appeal to everyone. you can enjoy the shows that play up the fantasy element (and are unfortunately significantly worse in construction, not because of the dialling up of fantasy but because of every other aspect of the production) and not be personally interested in the ones that play up the science fiction element - they are both Star Wars though. Andor isn't just the sci-fi aspect of Star Wars either, it's the political aspect and also the ramifications of tyranny and the nature of revolution - all of which can be found in the Original Trilogy, just dialled up to 11 here as the main focus instead of the backdrop. exactly what TCW does, minus the pulp that actively harms the kind of story being told
 

I have watched that full Rick Worley video before (both parts) and it is gobbledegook. as tempting as it is to pull the same lazy trick of writing you off because you're a fan of his, I will point out that none of what he says there applies to their Andor review which I assume you haven't watched. for one, the Plinkett reviews are the opinions of Mike Stoklasa, whereas the Andor re:view features both Mike Stoklasa and Rich Evans who don't see completely eye to eye on the show, and it's an unscripted discussion as opposed to an edited video series that came out ~15 years ago at this point

when you brought up Thunderbirds I assumed that was going to be relevant to the 'feeling of Star Wars' in general but that seems to just be specific to the animation style of this one show and doesn't relate to the movies, so I don't get the relevance

that consistent appeal to pulpiness is actually not a good thing in TCW. the arcs that want to explore the more serious and dramatic aspects of the war like the Umbara arc suffer heavily because characters like Pong Krell instead of exploring a more nuanced view on how some of the Jedi regarded Clones and the question of whether they were legitimate life or basically genetic tools, the pulp machine kicks in and makes him an unequivocally evil dark Jedi who was actually working for Dooku the whole time and his actions were one-note sabotage. I am so very thankful something like this does not happen in Andor as it would weaken the storytelling significantly.

'the style of Andor doesn't match the films' again assumes the films all have this one homogenous style when stylistically the Original Trilogy and the Prequels are miles apart. even A New Hope to Empire Strikes Back is quite stylistically different, owing to a change in directors. that's then clearly not what makes something Star Wars or not.

if that's the level of reactionary thinking you're going to display, I'm glad you didn't waste both our times either.

TCW is a mish-mash of different tones and different things Lucas was influenced by that are dialled up or down depending on the arc. sometimes it's Kurosawa, and in a way far more directly than the movies, and sometimes it's the Silmarillion where Lucas gets interested in creation myths and Force deities. sometimes it's taking its cues from more hard sci-fi like The Cube or Bladerunner - it depends on the arc. the irony is something with the tone of Andor could exist pretty comfortably in a TCW arc.

to call it a mash-up of 'Flash Gordon and Thunderbirds' is reductive and I don't even think very accurate. plus, as @Chen G. went to great and thorough lengths to cover, Flash Gordon is not nearly as large of an influence on Star Wars as Lucas and others would have you be lead to believe. for that matter, what Flash Gordon and Thunderbirds elements are even in TCW?

I think that's backward. I think George saw movies he liked and went looking for their literary (or other) source material. I can't imagine a world where read Dune before seeing Lawrence of Arabia. Same with Burroughs and Flash Gordon. I could be wrong, and there's no way I know of to be sure short of asking him, but he came at Star Wars visually first, and narratively second.
 
Way to restate my point and make it sound like your idea. Again, this is a style vs content argument. But in the case of Lucas, style often is the content. Read Carl Barks. George's framing and visual narrative is very similar to Barks's paneling.
 
The style differences between SW and ESB are a bit overblown. The lighting is the most obvious, as is Kershner's preference for blocking over framing, his (in my opinion) clumsy shot geometry, and his less rhythmic sense of editing. But the acting and dialog is not at all dissimilar, and the production design is right in line with the other films. It's slower, and in the sub mediant minor, but it's the same symphony.
 
I've also never bought this PT vs OT difference. Especially with the special edition, I think they fit quite nicely. George was an improvisor, and it took him a couple of takes to get a solo to his liking, but he got it there in the end.
 
I disagree, let's just leave it at that.