As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Star Wars] Open TROS Spoilers! Beware!

1959799100101

Posts

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited February 2020
    I see franchise as a movie and the sequels and reboots (ie Bond). A CU is a bunch of stuff packed into one setting that doesn't rest on one story or one set of characters. I'm sure there are exceptions, and it's more of a know it when you see it kind of thing (purely talking about movies).

    Star Wars is CU now and I think it should have remained a three movie franchise.

    Bogart on
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    .
    klemming wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't want Star Wars to be another MCU.
    What does that mean, though? You don't want Star Wars to be a massive media franchise that earns $ridiculous money?
    You don't want it to be about a dozen separate plots that occasionally all link up to fight robot armies or something?

    Star Wars is already a Cinematic Universe, and always has been.

    I think the "cinematic universe" tag for Marvel products is necesary, because they cant make the movies constrained by decades of monthly stories on each character and possible configuration of groups, and they are not going to just roll back everything that is not the movies, (like Disney with SW) because the comics ARE the source, so a distinction has to be made, several universes and realities exist under Marvel, and the Cinematic universe is one of those.

    With Star Wars is a lot simpler, the movies are the source and what most people would consider canon, and then theres a lot of additional content, official or otherwise. Like LucasArts games, or Extended Universe comics, etc.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    Kamar wrote: »
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

    The MCU is bad though, why not use a good example, like the Tarantino universe?

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

    The MCU is bad though, why not use a good example, like the Tarantino universe?

    Could you quantify that statement? It's a critical and commercial success. By every measurable metric, the MCU is good.

    And does that mean that Rebels or Resistance turn it into a CU? They barely touche the main movie story, people from there just show up like Stark showing up to talk to General Ross.

    The MCU is only a unique thing because they've already been doing it for decades in the comics. Spider-Man and the X-Men and Captain Marvel have always been in a shared universe, they just started doing it with live-action.

    The only thing I don't like the MCU for is for making everyone call everything a Shared Universe like it's some hugely original idea. Are the Pratchett books a Discworld Literary Universe? Same setting, different casts of main characters, some overlap between them...

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

    The MCU is bad though, why not use a good example, like the Tarantino universe?

    Could you quantify that statement? It's a critical and commercial success. By every measurable metric, the MCU is good.

    And does that mean that Rebels or Resistance turn it into a CU? They barely touche the main movie story, people from there just show up like Stark showing up to talk to General Ross.

    The MCU is only a unique thing because they've already been doing it for decades in the comics. Spider-Man and the X-Men and Captain Marvel have always been in a shared universe, they just started doing it with live-action.

    The only thing I don't like the MCU for is for making everyone call everything a Shared Universe like it's some hugely original idea. Are the Pratchett books a Discworld Literary Universe? Same setting, different casts of main characters, some overlap between them...

    I dont measure the quality of a film based on how much money it made, or how many critics it payed.

    Its bad because the direction is poor, the acting is abysmal, the dialogues are uncanny and its been made as generic as possible.
    It excells in the parts that are expensive, special effects, sound, promotion an attractive cast, etc.

    And its ture, Comics have been doing it since decades ago, and every decade or so, they have to reset the universe because its impossible to keep, without restricting your writters to telling the same story over and over.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

    The MCU is bad though, why not use a good example, like the Tarantino universe?

    Could you quantify that statement? It's a critical and commercial success. By every measurable metric, the MCU is good.

    And does that mean that Rebels or Resistance turn it into a CU? They barely touche the main movie story, people from there just show up like Stark showing up to talk to General Ross.

    The MCU is only a unique thing because they've already been doing it for decades in the comics. Spider-Man and the X-Men and Captain Marvel have always been in a shared universe, they just started doing it with live-action.

    The only thing I don't like the MCU for is for making everyone call everything a Shared Universe like it's some hugely original idea. Are the Pratchett books a Discworld Literary Universe? Same setting, different casts of main characters, some overlap between them...

    I dont measure the quality of a film based on how much money it made, or how many critics it payed.

    Its bad because the direction is poor, the acting is abysmal, the dialogues are uncanny and its been made as generic as possible.
    It excells in the parts that are expensive, special effects, sound, promotion an attractive cast, etc.

    And its ture, Comics have been doing it since decades ago, and every decade or so, they have to reset the universe because its impossible to keep, without restricting your writters to telling the same story over and over.

    DC did that mostly. Marvel were pretty clear of universal resets for the most part. And either way, that's a failure of writing and the size of the continuity over multiple decades for the same characters. Unless they manage to make their actors immortal and lock them into contracts, that shouldn't be a problem for live-action.

    And can we distinguish between not liking a film and saying everyone who did was paid off?

    I feel like we're getting away from how SW should/shouldn't be like the MCU, if that's even a goal to be aimed for/avoided.
    Certainly we don't want to see a Star Wars movie where the direction is poor, the acting is abysmal, the dialogues are uncanny and its been made as generic as possible, but I think all of those ships have sailed at various points. Determining which points for each one should start a nice argumentfriendly discussion.

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    FANTOMAS wrote: »
    Kamar wrote: »
    A Star Wars modeled after the MCU gives room for all the different stories people say they want to see in the setting, though.

    A smaller Star Wars must be about people using the Force and swinging lightsabers around, whether you like it or not.

    The MCU is bad though, why not use a good example, like the Tarantino universe?

    Could you quantify that statement? It's a critical and commercial success. By every measurable metric, the MCU is good.

    And does that mean that Rebels or Resistance turn it into a CU? They barely touche the main movie story, people from there just show up like Stark showing up to talk to General Ross.

    The MCU is only a unique thing because they've already been doing it for decades in the comics. Spider-Man and the X-Men and Captain Marvel have always been in a shared universe, they just started doing it with live-action.

    The only thing I don't like the MCU for is for making everyone call everything a Shared Universe like it's some hugely original idea. Are the Pratchett books a Discworld Literary Universe? Same setting, different casts of main characters, some overlap between them...

    I dont measure the quality of a film based on how much money it made, or how many critics it payed.

    Its bad because the direction is poor, the acting is abysmal, the dialogues are uncanny and its been made as generic as possible.
    It excells in the parts that are expensive, special effects, sound, promotion an attractive cast, etc.

    And its ture, Comics have been doing it since decades ago, and every decade or so, they have to reset the universe because its impossible to keep, without restricting your writters to telling the same story over and over.

    Direction on the whole was great, acting on the whole was great, dialogue on the whole was great. Finally, your critics paid comment is pure conjecture. If you don't like a series virtually everyone raves about that's fine, not everyone likes the same thing. But there's no conspiracy to pay of critics everywhere to give bad films good reviews. If that were the case TRoS wouldn't be sitting at 50% in aggregate reviews.

    I genuinely hope Star Wars gets a creative director akin to Marvel's Feige. Someone overseeing the entire process is leagues better than a different person changing the story every other movie.

  • LanlaornLanlaorn Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    You can say it's a cinematic universe now, but it was originally one film and then three films* that told one story. And that was when you could point at Star Wars and say it was pretty good. The MCU is set up to support a world (which is easy, as it's mostly our world, plus superheros and aliens), whereas Star Wars, to me, has mostly looked shaky and somehow unsatisfying when they've bolted on other stories or tried to extend the one that worked. Haven't seen the Mandalorian yet, though.

    Star Wars keeps trying to shove more bits into the story we care about, whereas the MCU is just a place where lots of stories happen.

    *and a holiday special, I guess.

    Maybe for you, but I never saw those movies in theaters, they came out before I was born, for me Star Wars was a huge number of books and computer games. My childhood was those trashy EU novels and KotOR and Jedi Outcast and X Wing, etc.

    Honestly I'm hazy on the timeframe here but I'm pretty sure I was a huge Star Wars fan before I even saw any of those movies. My eastern european parents who hate all things scifi and fantasy certainly never showed them to me as a kid, let alone agonized over the right order to do it in.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2020
    Bogart wrote: »
    You can say it's a cinematic universe now, but it was originally one film and then three films* that told one story. And that was when you could point at Star Wars and say it was pretty good. The MCU is set up to support a world (which is easy, as it's mostly our world, plus superheros and aliens), whereas Star Wars, to me, has mostly looked shaky and somehow unsatisfying when they've bolted on other stories or tried to extend the one that worked. Haven't seen the Mandalorian yet, though.

    Star Wars keeps trying to shove more bits into the story we care about, whereas the MCU is just a place where lots of stories happen.

    *and a holiday special, I guess.

    Yeah, Star Wars was a trilogy. And then another trilogy. And a ton of tie-in media of dubious quality with a lack of grasp on the public consciousness. You can see the difference right away with the MCU vs like pre-Disney Star Wars. The MCU is a ton of films everyone knows are all tied together even if they are all separate naming schemes and such. Star Wars was 2 trilogies and that was basically it. As much as the hardcore fans moaned about or loved the EU, the public at large just didn't know or care. There's a few other media properties tied to it with some pull but most of those just got grandfathered in to the post-Disney Star Wars anyway and they still kind of form a secondary tier.

    The problem with the ST is not that Star Wars is not a Cinematic Universe, it's that the people who made ROS had zero interest in tying all the threads together and finishing off the trilogy. And to a lesser extent that Fisher died at a really unfortunate time. Both TFA and TLJ build up a new story with new characters while one-by-one having a send-off for the original cast. If you have an actually competently made 3rd ST film and Fisher lives, you tie up the couple of story beats and send off the last of the original cast and now you've got 3 trilogies that each start and finish their own thing. And it's still not really like the MCU. It's like trilogies with some spin-offs. And that's fine.

    shryke on
  • ChaosHatChaosHat Hop, hop, hop, HA! Trick of the lightRegistered User regular
    I wouldn't want a cinematic universe in the sense of say, eight different mini movie series that have one massive crossover. I WOULD be down for a cinematic universe if there were different siloed continued storylines with limited crossover. So, let's say you commit to three series in three eras, you have a "what the Rebels were doing between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi" with Hera Syndulla leading a group of rebels in valiant space battles and daring missions in a Rogue One or Wraith Squadron vibe. Let's say you want to do a "What the hell were Ahsoka and Sabine doing later?" spacey force mystery Jedi series. This can also fill in "how did Moff Gideon get the Darksaber?" Then maybe a "rise of the First Order series." You can have people cross over between those stories, a young, exuberant Rebel pilot in the first story can be a grizzled, jaded commander in the last one angry that they're fighting the same war some 20 years later. Maybe that young pilot is Holdo, which is why she can understand Poe because she too made that journey from hotshot to leader. Hera can show up in the Ahsoka story.

    I don't need to see everyone cross over into one Avengers style movie. I would like it to show some context and tell some background stories on different characters in different times. Have some fun crossovers and easter eggs if you're up on it, but there is a lot of space in Star Wars, both physical and temporal. It makes sense for everyone in the MCU to know each other. They're basically all tied to Earth in some way and it would be reasonable for the couple dozen superpowered good guys on Earth to band together.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    While I dig much of what the MCU did, as a *universe* I find Star Wars a more appealing, more inspiring sandbox. In that respect, I absolutely see the appeal in books, comics and games telling the adventures of heroic X-Wing pilots or a squadron of cold-as-ice TIE Fighter aces. As a playground, I'd choose Star Wars over the MCU any day of the week. For me, the appeal of the Marvel movies lies in how they have created this large, messy, at times dysfunctional family, and I like the films best when it's about this aspect. With Star Wars, that's much less what I'm looking for. Sure, it can be fun to see Han, Leia, Yoda & Co again, but mostly I'm there for the AT-ATs, for the Millennium Falcon and the Imperial Shuttles, for the pew-pew of lasers and the half-roar, half-whine of a TIE Fighter flying past.

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    klemming wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't want Star Wars to be another MCU.
    What does that mean, though? You don't want Star Wars to be a massive media franchise that earns $ridiculous money?
    You don't want it to be about a dozen separate plots that occasionally all link up to fight robot armies or something?

    Star Wars is already a Cinematic Universe, and always has been.

    Everything in the MCU is connected. Characters get their own film and then they show up in other characters' films and they do the big team-up film every few years, etc.

    I don't want that. Give me Star Wars that has nothing to do with the numbered films. Give me Star Wars that don't have lightsabers in it. Give me Star Wars that's set on a single planet. Give me Star Wars that doesn't have any overt Empire vs Rebellion going on. There's so much you can do in Star Wars, it doesn't have to keep being the same thing again and again.

  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    klemming wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    I don't want Star Wars to be another MCU.
    What does that mean, though? You don't want Star Wars to be a massive media franchise that earns $ridiculous money?
    You don't want it to be about a dozen separate plots that occasionally all link up to fight robot armies or something?

    Star Wars is already a Cinematic Universe, and always has been.

    Everything in the MCU is connected. Characters get their own film and then they show up in other characters' films and they do the big team-up film every few years, etc.

    I don't want that. Give me Star Wars that has nothing to do with the numbered films. Give me Star Wars that don't have lightsabers in it. Give me Star Wars that's set on a single planet. Give me Star Wars that doesn't have any overt Empire vs Rebellion going on. There's so much you can do in Star Wars, it doesn't have to keep being the same thing again and again.

    I think this is sort of a splitting hairs situation in defining CU versus a franchise. I just want Star Wars to be in the hands of somebody who actually puts some effort into making sure those people chosen to add to it a) actually give a shit about the setting and b) don't have an issue with working inside the setting instead of breaking it to do what they want. Basically, somebody who makes sure the various entries at least don't contradict each other, but doesn't necessarily make sure everything connects into the same big story. I just see "cinematic universe" as the definition of the setting according to the official movies and series, it has zero correlation to me with a long, interconnected story across multiple movies/series.

    I wouldn't mind an MCU-style effort in SW myself because it definitely hasn't even been attempted yet, but the best stuff to come out of Star Wars since the OT has definitely been the ancillary series and movies, not entries in the main saga, so I wouldn't at all mind seeing more of that either.

  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    I think you're the one trying to split hairs here, because I was talking about my opposition specifically to MCU-style franchising - hence my initial statement and also elaboration.

  • DissociaterDissociater Registered User regular
    I've honestly reached the point that I think the biggest difference between the MCU and the Star Wars universe is that the MCU movies pulled generously from existing and established stories already set down in the comics. In other words, I don't think Hollywood screenplay writers are very good at their jobs, and seem incapable of putting together an original story with any kind of consistency or attention to detail, which is why so many of the best films of the last while are adaptations of other works. Game of Thrones is a good example. Once the writers ran out of books to adapt from, the story went off the rails, and the show suffered from a real lack of attention to detail.

    I mean this is a pretty gross generalization, but in my experience, it's pretty damn rare to encounter a wholly original screen or teleplay that's very good. Obviously there are lots of exceptions to this, but I do think it's a contributing factor.

    Like...writing a star wars movie shouldn't be hard. But here we are.

  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I think it's less about the writers and more about the contexts and structures in which they are forced to write. Writing a book makes you beholden to significantly fewer forces than writing a major motion picture. Game of Thrones is also a good example of this - if they were making movies, GRRM would've been dropped from the screenwriting process and replaced in order to meet a production schedule.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I don't think writing a Star Wars movie is inherently more difficult than writing an MCU movie, or a Star Trek movie, any other movie. I think they just picked writers/directors that suck.

    sig.gif
  • Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I dunno, I feel like I could take a crack at it.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    I think that if I tried to make a SW movie like the PT and and ST the way those were made, it would be a crappy SW film but still better than what we got.

    If I tried to make a Star Wars movie as a collaborative effort like the OT and with listening to, and working with, lots of people on the crew in the process, the result would be something handily better than the PT or ST but I wouldn't be able to call it "my movie".

    Basically, it seems like any decent SW entry needs a cooperative team, not directors wanting to stamp their mark all over everything.

  • CristovalCristoval Registered User regular
    Nowadays if I wrote a Star War it would mostly be hindered by me trying to make people mad.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I don't think writing a Star Wars movie is inherently more difficult than writing an MCU movie, or a Star Trek movie, any other movie. I think they just picked writers/directors that suck.

    MCU writers are often adapting existing stories. And also a lot of the entries are just kinda mediocre and mostly enlivened by potentially the best casting director humanity has ever produced and solid jokes.

  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Oh hey, are we talking about writing a Star Wars? I made this post earlier just for this purpose!
    I’ve still only seen RoS the one time and though I enjoyed myself on the whole, I certainly recognize the many and varied “issues” it has.

    Here, for posterity’s sake, is what I would have done as an episode IX sequel to TLJ and finale to the Skywalker saga with the caveat that I am in no way a film writer:
    TENSION!
    Under the singularly focused direction of Supreme Leader SOLO, the First Order decimates and further enslaves star systems that oppose its rule.

    The spark that began with the spreading story of LUKE SKYWALKER has faded in the years following his final galaxy spanning force projection.

    REY, FINN, POE, CHEWBACCA, ROSE, and LANDO pick up the pieces after the celebratory funeral for their beloved General LEIA.

    The Resistance has one last chance to defeat the First Order but they have to call upon an unlikely source as an ally...

    *pan down to Korriban where we see R2D2, BB-8, and C3PO strolling up to a very large, creepy looking door where an eyeball droid pops out to greet them*

    *Palpatine chuckling*

    *hyjinks that does not involve super weapons*

    *Ben Solo fucking murders everything that reminds him of the past, including those chumps he uses to gain power in the time before the movie, but it’s one by one so we get some badass and distinct Knights of Ren action*

    *Rey does some training but realizes she can’t do the bringing peace by herself and through a struggle decides to train Finn as her apprentice*

    *Chewbacca and Rose run the Millennium Falcon like it’s never been done before, turns out it is a very decent smuggling ship as they shuttle important cargo including people between systems, avoiding First Order capture, they are really good at this job*

    *Lando and Poe have a kinship, Lando teaches Poe how to woo a lady, or a guy, or a calamari. Poe teaches Lando probably nothing, but it’s a fun relationship they have, I promise*

    *Rey turns, falling to the dark side, she is scary as fuck. Ben Solo never achieves his desire to eradicate the past because it lives in his mind. They battle, one a sith, the other a lost soul. The immense struggle destroys them both*

    *FN-2187, now known as, Skywalker Finn, takes up the mantle of Resistance leader, recruiting a new order of Jedi from across the galaxy. He was once a janitor, now a Jedi Master. He trains that broom boy to go from being a janitor to a Jedi Padawan*

    *It was never Palpatine, just force echoes like the story of Luke spreading*

    The film finishes with C3PO having his memory wiped, credits roll, stinger at the end of credits tease Obiwan show and Rian Johnson’s new film. That means this film would have been released after another year or two of production

    Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I don't think writing a Star Wars movie is inherently more difficult than writing an MCU movie, or a Star Trek movie, any other movie. I think they just picked writers/directors that suck.

    MCU writers are often adapting existing stories. And also a lot of the entries are just kinda mediocre and mostly enlivened by potentially the best casting director humanity has ever produced and solid jokes.

    Star Wars has plenty of existing stories that could be adapted. And casting and writing witty dialogue are both parts of making movies, so I don't agree with the line you're drawing there.

    sig.gif
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2020
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I don't think writing a Star Wars movie is inherently more difficult than writing an MCU movie, or a Star Trek movie, any other movie. I think they just picked writers/directors that suck.

    MCU writers are often adapting existing stories. And also a lot of the entries are just kinda mediocre and mostly enlivened by potentially the best casting director humanity has ever produced and solid jokes.

    Star Wars has plenty of existing stories that could be adapted. And casting and writing witty dialogue are both parts of making movies, so I don't agree with the line you're drawing there.

    It had plenty of existing stories, yes. Did it have any really good ones? Was that even what anyone wanted?

    And good casting and witty dialogue are certainly a part of good filmmaking (or certain kinds of it in the case of the second) they are far from the totality of it. The point was that the MCU skates by on mediocre scripts constantly based on being fun enough and it's actors charismatic enough that it doesn't sink the final product. ie - the MCU is not really doing a much better job on the "writing a good story" account but they've got a few elements that help them get by without that.

    shryke on
  • Doctor DetroitDoctor Detroit Registered User regular
    I’d say the casting for the ST was pretty good. They just panicked with the last movie.

    I mean, in a year that had sequels to Avengers, Toy Story, and Frozen, along with Aladdin and Lion King remakes...Disney didn’t need Star Wars to help the bottom line.




  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I think if the MCU movies weren't any good then they wouldn't be as successful as they are. The floor of what constitutes a "good" film seems to be consistently undervalued. It's actually not that easy to make a film that people will go out and pay money for, especially in this day-and-age where the cost of a movie is significant and streaming services are rampant. Whether or not the MCU movies have "artistic" or "intellectual" value is not the same thing as whether or not they are qualitatively good.

    I have the same issue with people who dismiss pop music as somehow "lesser" than other forms of music. If it was that easy to make pop music then everyone would be doing it. If esoteric jazz could be popular, they would make it popular. In that case people conflate their own tastes or overexposure to particular ideas and methods as somehow equating to some objective measure of quality, when all it reflects is whether or not they have seen it before or it tickles their particular form of fancy.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    I think if the MCU movies weren't any good then they wouldn't be as successful as they are. The floor of what constitutes a "good" film seems to be consistently undervalued. It's actually not that easy to make a film that people will go out and pay money for, especially in this day-and-age where the cost of a movie is significant and streaming services are rampant. Whether or not the MCU movies have "artistic" or "intellectual" value is not the same thing as whether or not they are qualitatively good.

    I have the same issue with people who dismiss pop music as somehow "lesser" than other forms of music. If it was that easy to make pop music then everyone would be doing it. If esoteric jazz could be popular, they would make it popular. In that case people conflate their own tastes or overexposure to particular ideas and methods as somehow equating to some objective measure of quality, when all it reflects is whether or not they have seen it before or it tickles their particular form of fancy.

    Look at the Transformers franchise.

    And the MCU is way better, at baseline, then that shite.

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    So I just watched this

    Where was the third film? This was clearly the fourth film.

    Also it was very bad. I think the second-worst film I've seen in theatres (though far from the worst I've ever seen anywhere).

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    The many, many disparaging reviews and a sense of grim foreboding about JJ Abrams taking on the job of finishing a story extinguished any desire to see it. This might be like Revenge of the Sith, in that it's a movie I never actually see from beginning to end but catch ten minutes of here and there when it lands on Sunday afternoon TV in a few years.

  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    The many, many disparaging reviews and a sense of grim foreboding about JJ Abrams taking on the job of finishing a story extinguished any desire to see it. This might be like Revenge of the Sith, in that it's a movie I never actually see from beginning to end but catch ten minutes of here and there when it lands on Sunday afternoon TV in a few years.

    I'm pretty sure that when I hit RotS on my current (very slow) full series rewatch, it will be the first time I've actually seen it all in order.

    Last time I decided to do the full series (quite a while back), I decided to watch TCW for the first time between AotC and RotS, and then I just sort of meandered over to the OT once early TCW bored me.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I saw all of them. In theaters.
    Yes, my parents had to take me to the OT.
    But back around '90 I think it was? when a new theater complex (which has since been torn down, of course) opened, they had a special deal where they ran the whole OT over and over, all day, and you only paid once at the door. I ran my view count way up that weekend.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    I saw it a second time because I promised a friend I'd go with him and his kid and he'd already bought the tickets.

    I noped out to the brewery after the desert scene.

  • FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    .
    Bogart wrote: »
    I think writing a Star Wars movie is incredibly hard. If it was easy there wouldn’t be so many that suck.

    I dunno, I feel like I could take a crack at it.

    And after you are done with it, it will go through 25 re-writes, and comitees to insert all the new merch they want to sell, and aligning the on-screen time of characters that appeal to X demographics, and now your script sucks too.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    I wonder if the reason that Disney refused to use the EU in the new movies is because those stories are owned by the individual authors as opposed to MCU where the stories are owned by Marvel the publisher

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Also a big reason that Hollywood writing seems lacklustre is because the executives choose the release date before finding a story

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    EU stuff has shown up in Disney's creations. They've been happy to pick and choose from the good stuff the same with Marvel's stuff.

  • BogartBogart Streetwise Hercules Registered User, Moderator mod
    I wonder if the reason that Disney refused to use the EU in the new movies is because those stories are owned by the individual authors as opposed to MCU where the stories are owned by Marvel the publisher

    Aside from the fact that the original actors mostly out-aged all the EU stories they were in, I would imagine it was more to do with how bad the EU stories were.

  • SaraLunaSaraLuna Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote: »
    The many, many disparaging reviews and a sense of grim foreboding about JJ Abrams taking on the job of finishing a story extinguished any desire to see it. This might be like Revenge of the Sith, in that it's a movie I never actually see from beginning to end but catch ten minutes of here and there when it lands on Sunday afternoon TV in a few years.

    It’s definitely gonna be like Revenge of the Sith. In that I’m gonna watch it once in the theater and then never again for 15 years. And then regret doing that.

This discussion has been closed.