The prequel hatedom needs to go die in a fire

[Batman]

I think Lucas personally handcuffing me to a theater chair and pinning my eyes open would've been cool. Weird, but cool. Well and uncomfortable.
I have already expressed my dislike for the PT and maintain that even objectively, they are worse movies than the OT.
Which doesn't necessarily mean they are BAD movies (I personally think at least AotC is and TPM is a maybe but RotS was quite good).
I can absolutely get behind not liking the PT. This is entertainment, and we are allowed to be disappointed when we don't get what we were expecting. I don't care about Lucas' vision, I wanted Star Wars. And the PT didn't deliver. It was the same universe, yes, but it didn't have the same feeling.
The OT was Star Wars. The PT was just stuff happening in the Star Wars universe.

That being said the 'worst' that can be said about the PT is that they were not very good and not very Star Wars movies. They didn't rape anybody's childhood, and they're certainly not the equivalent of genocide.

[The Romulan Republic]

I see the Prequels as basically fun popcorn films, but not as innovative, revolutionary, or clever as the OT ended up being (partly due at least in part to inventing the modern blockbuster, and partly due to the brilliant Luke/Vader twists). I don't see them as generally bad, but each one had a specific flaw, or flaws, that dragged it down somewhat.

Phantom Menace: Too cartoony for my taste, arguable invocation of racial stereotypes.

Attack of the Clones: Padme easily forgiving Anakin and getting together with him after he admitted slaughtering an entire village.

Revenge of the Sith: Uneven pacing, humour that clashed with the more dramatic and tragic elements of the film, questionable plotting wrt Padme's death.

[Gandalf]

The OT was Star Wars. The PT was just stuff happening in the Star Wars universe.

Is there some sort of definition of a SW film?

[The Romulan Republic]

The OT was Star Wars. The PT was just stuff happening in the Star Wars universe.

Is there some sort of definition of a SW film?

I believe the definition is "Anything that OT purists approve of." Just like the definition of "real Star Wars fan" is "Anyone who agrees with the OT purists."

[Batman]

Is there an 'official' definition of Star Wars? Of course not. But as we're talking entertainment I think I'm entitled to define what 'I' consider Star Wars.

[Batman]

I'll happily call TCW and Rebels Star Wars. They had everything that made Star Wars Star Wars. The PT...didn't.

[ray245]

I think Lucas personally handcuffing me to a theater chair and pinning my eyes open would've been cool. Weird, but cool. Well and uncomfortable.
I have already expressed my dislike for the PT and maintain that even objectively, they are worse movies than the OT.
Which doesn't necessarily mean they are BAD movies (I personally think at least AotC is and TPM is a maybe but RotS was quite good).
I can absolutely get behind not liking the PT. This is entertainment, and we are allowed to be disappointed when we don't get what we were expecting. I don't care about Lucas' vision, I wanted Star Wars. And the PT didn't deliver. It was the same universe, yes, but it didn't have the same feeling.
The OT was Star Wars. The PT was just stuff happening in the Star Wars universe.

That being said the 'worst' that can be said about the PT is that they were not very good and not very Star Wars movies. They didn't rape anybody's childhood, and they're certainly not the equivalent of genocide.

Do you think that different generation of fans have a different idea of what "true SW" is? Or should people in general follow the tastes of the OT-generation fans?

[Jub]

Do you think that different generation of fans have a different idea of what "true SW" is? Or should people in general follow the tastes of the OT-generation fans?

There would have been no Star Wars without A New Hope and the sequels it spawned after coming out of nowhere and redefining what a successful movie looked like. It's not a big stretch to say that a Star Wars movie should invoke the feeling of the first three movies that literally created a franchise out of nothing. Even Lucas realized that which, IMHO, was why he ended up stepping away from the franchise he created in hopes that somebody else might be able to give the fans what they wanted again.

Very few people are calling out to make another movie like TPM or even AoTC. There's nobody asking for more silted romances, over dramatic no's, child actors, or bitching about sand. Even you admit that you only enjoy the PT films as popcorn flicks and that's solely because you prefer wuxia style action and feel the OT was too slowly paced.

The question I have is, why should anybody settle for popcorn action flick when they grew up watching a game-changing sci-fi epic?

[ray245]

Do you think that different generation of fans have a different idea of what "true SW" is? Or should people in general follow the tastes of the OT-generation fans?

There would have been no Star Wars without A New Hope and the sequels it spawned after coming out of nowhere and redefining what a successful movie looked like. It's not a big stretch to say that a Star Wars movie should invoke the feeling of the first three movies that literally created a franchise out of nothing. Even Lucas realized that which, IMHO, was why he ended up stepping away from the franchise he created in hopes that somebody else might be able to give the fans what they wanted again.

Very few people are calling out to make another movie like TPM or even AoTC. There's nobody asking for more silted romances, over dramatic no's, child actors, or bitching about sand. Even you admit that you only enjoy the PT films as popcorn flicks and that's solely because you prefer wuxia style action and feel the OT was too slowly paced.

The question I have is, why should anybody settle for popcorn action flick when they grew up watching a game-changing sci-fi epic?

Because they grew up in an era where sci-fi has already been changed by Star Wars?

[The Romulan Republic]

So the bar for being a "real Star Wars film" is literally "as revolutionary as the movie that invented the modern blockbuster"? Well... that's an impossible standard, so by that definition every Star Wars film will always suck.

[Jub]

Because they grew up in an era where sci-fi has already been changed by Star Wars?

So did I, I wasn't born until 8 years after ESB was released and was 11 when TPM hit theaters. The entire PT was wrapped up before I finished high school. I should be the exact audience the PT was aiming to rope in and yet the striking difference in tone and quality turned even kid me off. It didn't make me any less of a fan though, I joined this message board on a new defunct account back in 2004 precisely because I was a massive Star Wars fan.

Plus, your argument really doesn't hold up. By the time I first read Neuromancer or Foundation I was an adult living in a world full of stories inspired by these novels. They still had an impact because they're well-written works of fiction they couldn't rely on flashy effects and mile a minute action to draw me in. The same goes for works like East of Eden, Lolita, the works of Shakespeare which are far older than ANH and yet still just as effective.

So I ask again, why settle for popcorn when I've already seen greatness?

So the bar for being a "real Star Wars film" is literally "as revolutionary as the movie that invented the modern blockbuster"? Well... that's an impossible standard, so by that definition every Star Wars film will always suck.

It's not a big stretch to say that a Star Wars movie should invoke the feeling of the first three movies that literally created a franchise out of nothing.

Did you even read the post I made?

Also, see above in my response to Ray.

[ray245]

Because they grew up in an era where sci-fi has already been changed by Star Wars?

So did I, I wasn't born until 8 years after ESB was released and was 11 when TPM hit theaters. The entire PT was wrapped up before I finished high school. I should be the exact audience the PT was aiming to rope in and yet the striking difference in tone and quality turned even kid me off. It didn't make me any less of a fan though, I joined this message board on a new defunct account back in 2004 precisely because I was a massive Star Wars fan.

Plus, your argument really doesn't hold up. By the time I first read Neuromancer or Foundation I was an adult living in a world full of stories inspired by these novels. They still had an impact because they're well-written works of fiction they couldn't rely on flashy effects and mile a minute action to draw me in. The same goes for works like East of Eden, Lolita, the works of Shakespeare which are far older than ANH and yet still just as effective.

Because your personal experience is not universal? Sure, a lot of fans might share your views, but the prequels were well received at the box office and it was popular amongst kids when they were released?

So I ask again, why settle for popcorn when I've already seen greatness?

And how many people really cared that much about "greatness"? A majority of movie-goers would be fine just watching a movie once and say they enjoy them. All the prequels had an A- on cinemascore, which suggest while people might not think they are the greatest movie ever, they did find it watchable and enjoyable.

Most people aren't "superfans" that cared that much about a popcorn movie achieving "greatness". They enjoy something that is popular at the time, then move on to other stuff they found interesting.

It's not a big stretch to say that a Star Wars movie should invoke the feeling of the first three movies that literally created a franchise out of nothing.

Did you even read the post I made?

Also, see above in my response to Ray.

How do you "evoke" the feeling when the feeling varies so differently between people?

[Jub]

Because your personal experience is not universal? Sure, a lot of fans might share your views, but the prequels were well received at the box office and it was popular amongst kids when they were released?

Popularity isn't an objective measure of quality. Nor is there any evidence that the PT would have done materially worse had they been made to invoke the feeling of the OT rather than trying to set a new tone for the franchise.

And how many people really cared that much about "greatness"? A majority of movie-goers would be fine just watching a movie once and say they enjoy them. All the prequels had an A- on cinemascore, which suggest while people might not think they are the greatest movie ever, they did find it watchable and enjoyable.

Most people aren't "superfans" that cared that much about a popcorn movie achieving "greatness". They enjoy something that is popular at the time, then move on to other stuff they found interesting.

And that means that we should only expect actual effort from movies hoping to win an award or passion projects? Your entire thought process is exactly what lead to the rise of reality TV and the decline of educational programming on TV. Your thought process leads to conversations like, "What's the cheapest and easiest thing we can make that'll still get engagement with the least picky 50% of our audience?" It leads to shit like the emoji movie actually seeing the light of day.

Do you see no problem with this?

How do you "evoke" the feeling when the feeling varies so differently between people?

You can use the same style of cinematography, use physical models for your space ships, use puppetry/costuming (aided by CGI) for your aliens, write to the same pacing as the OT, etc. The OT feels pretty cohesive so Lucas should have understood what he did to make those look and feel the way they did. I expect that Disney will never find that tone and will run the franchise into the ground with yearly releases made with hired gun directors and little long term vision.

Do you want that to happen?

[ray245]

Popularity isn't an objective measure of quality. Nor is there any evidence that the PT would have done materially worse had they been made to invoke the feeling of the OT rather than trying to set a new tone for the franchise.

There's no objective measure of quality. Everything is inherently subjective based on the viewer's personal experiences and expectations.

Why should the PT evoke the feeling of the OT? It's not meant to be the same era as the OT, and the story it is trying to tell is very different from the OT. I think what the Prequels did and helped SW as a franchise is that it granted the universe more "breathing room" creatively. It allows every era to be its own thing.

With the ST era, it tries so hard to capture the OT era that it had no identity on its own. Franchise needs to evolve or they will be stuck and forgotten by people with the exception of the old fans.

And that means that we should only expect actual effort from movies hoping to win an award or passion projects? Your entire thought process is exactly what lead to the rise of reality TV and the decline of educational programming on TV. Your thought process leads to conversations like, "What's the cheapest and easiest thing we can make that'll still get engagement with the least picky 50% of our audience?" It leads to shit like the emoji movie actually seeing the light of day.

This is just snobbery at work here.

Do you see no problem with this?

I don't think I should be elitists about people's preferences, as it's basically being snobbery and enjoying the feeling you're "better" than the uneducated peasants. I do see a problem with people being snobby about entertainment.

You can use the same style of cinematography, use physical models for your space ships, use puppetry/costuming (aided by CGI) for your aliens, write to the same pacing as the OT, etc. The OT feels pretty cohesive so Lucas should have understood what he did to make those look and feel the way they did. I expect that Disney will never find that tone and will run the franchise into the ground with yearly releases made with hired gun directors and little long term vision.

Do you want that to happen?

So you want conservatism in art. As a fan, that's what you will enjoy, but it is a terrible strategy at making the films appealing to new fans. I think wanting everything to be same or just like the "good old days" is a terrible thing for a franchise. Franchise have to evolve and make the new films relevant and interesting to a new generation of fans, because what might appeal to the superfans like yourself might not appeal to new audience.

Movies are never "timeless" in regards to popularity. The popularity of movies are often due to their ability to capture the cultural zeitgeist of the period. The OT succeeded because they were released in an era where escapism and fun blockbusters was what audience have been crying for due to the Vietnam war and how it managed to depart from the tone of many other movies created during the 70s.

My argument is that you can never create perfectly those conditions that made you feel the way you did when you first watch the OT. That's why nostalgia is a powerful thing when it comes to entertainment, because the reasons you enjoy a movie the way you did was not down to the movie alone, but based on your life experience at the time.


I think when you talk about the "greatness" of the OT, I think you are too wrapped by your own sense of nostalgia and your personal preferences as a superfan to communicate effectively to someone who is a causal cinema-goer. You're already looking down at the casual audience thinking they are too uneducated and low-class to appreciate what you see in Star Wars as a "true fan". I mean sure, if you are talking to other SW fans who feel the same way about the OT as you do, they can understand your feeling well.

But for most casual audience, SW is at its heart a fun popcorn movie that they will enjoy before moving on to something more interesting. That's why Solo bombed at the box office and that's why Disney is now trying to put an end to their yearly release of SW movies. Causal audience enjoy Star Wars movie, but not in the same way Star Wars superfans do. It's why while the SW superfans might complain endlessly about how the prequels were horrible or how TLJ ruined everything, those movies still do well at the box office.


I think superfans can be quite disconnected from how the casual audience perceive a franchise, and inflate their own sense of importance.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

Wait. Wait just a minute. Do you guys think the fans who love the prequels and defend them are not the superfans but the casual fans?


Oh dear.

[Batman]

While I'm obviously not a fan of the PT I fail to see why someone would have to be a 'superfan' to like them

[ray245]

Wait. Wait just a minute. Do you guys think the fans who love the prequels and defend them are not the superfans but the casual fans?

Oh dear.

I never deny being a superfan as I bothered to be active on a SW forum. I'm just saying people like me who liked the prequels and bother to spend time discussing it online are not representative of the average casual fans.

The average casual fans might turn up for a SW movie they are interested in (so not Solo), enjoy a movie and move on once the hype dies down.

The people who made SW a financial success are these casual fans. The casual fans don't go online defending their love of the prequels because they don't care that much about it. But they also don't go online saying how they hated it and etc.

Essentially, I am saying superfans like us are living in a bubble that isn't reflective of how your average casual cinema goer would feel about Star Wars. They don't think of SW as some sacred cow.

[ray245]

While I'm obviously not a fan of the PT I fail to see why someone would have to be a 'superfan' to like them

If someone is going online defending the prequels? That's more of a superfan.

But there are people who can enjoy a movie but don't care about it that much to go online talking about how good it is and etc. I do the same with many non-SW popcorn movies. I enjoy them, but I don't feel like I need to discuss how I enjoy them with anyone online.

[The Romulan Republic]

The box office numbers suggest that a large portion of the general public enjoyed the Prequels, even if, as noted, they don't care enough to talk about it at length on-line.

I tend to see the hate as coming more from a mix of die-hard OT fans with rose-tinted glasses and built-up expectations, and the snootier of the professional critics.

Hell, I remember talking to a guy (who was not a die-hard fan) once and mentioning how people hated Jar Jar, and he replied with a derisive comment about how only nerds didn't like Jar Jar. I expect that kind of attitude is more common than most of us realize.

Edit: I expect its often the same with the ST, too- albeit with an added layer due to current political polarization making the casting of women and minorities in lead roles a flash point, and advances in social media allowing the usual fan backlash to be weaponized by the neo-fascists.

[Jub]

There's no objective measure of quality.

That's complete bullshit. There's a large gap between the fairly infamous Turkish Star Wars and A New Hope and it shows in everything from the effects, to the acting, to the lighting, to the script itself. One can't look at those two films side by side and say that the crews making them were equally skilled, that the technology behind them was equivalent, and that they'd both equally entertain an average audience.

Taking an even broader view there's a marked difference in quality between many consumer goods. Take for example cheap bootleg DVD rips versus official 4k supported BluRay disks, they can show the same film and one will have notably improved visuals and sound than the other. The same goes for a dollar store toy and a collectors figurine, cheap shoes that might last a year and a more expensive pair that will last a lifetime, etc.

Why should the PT evoke the feeling of the OT? It's not meant to be the same era as the OT, and the story it is trying to tell is very different from the OT. I think what the Prequels did and helped SW as a franchise is that it granted the universe more "breathing room" creatively. It allows every era to be its own thing.

Allowing breathing room by filling in a previously only speculated upon back story for several key characters. Adding Midichlorians really added a ton to the lore about the Jedi and the Force. Adding a child actor was clearly a brilliant move that I expect to be repeated in a Star Wars sequel any day now...You have a funny idea of what breathing room means.

Not to mention that there are things in the PT that will objectively age worse than the OT. The CGI, for instance, looks pretty awful by modern standards and makes it obvious that the ships we see on screen aren't real. That same complaint can't be made for models which will always at least look real.

With the ST era, it tries so hard to capture the OT era that it had no identity on its own. Franchise needs to evolve or they will be stuck and forgotten by people with the exception of the old fans.

I should really write a sequel to a classic like East of Eden and fill it with modern slang and set it in space. That would really give that musty old tome room to grow and connect with modern fans! I'll go in and Poochy the shit out of classics because apparently nobody can enjoy something unless you update its style to catch every passing trend!

This is just snobbery at work here.

If that isn't the case explain the rise of the cheaply produced reality show genre? How about the glut of low effort movies released in the 90's when box office takes were down?

Studios will make the cheapest and easiest thing that they think will get a return.

I don't think I should be elitists about people's preferences, as it's basically being snobbery and enjoying the feeling you're "better" than the uneducated peasants. I do see a problem with people being snobby about entertainment.

So pander to the masses, make PG-13 films designed and focus-grouped to appeal to the widest swath of their target audience as you can, and keep shitting out films in the same genre until audience fatigue sets in and one finally flops? That's the modern trend in film; remakes, genre chasing (look at the teen fiction boom we just went through after Twilight and The Hunger Games hit big), and endless films with no message designed only to put butts in seats and make a tidy profit.

I can't condone making a film only to make money just like I can't condone any other harmful byproduct of capitalism that sacrifices quality and artistry because you can get a better ROI on easily made junk.

So you want conservatism in art. As a fan, that's what you will enjoy, but it is a terrible strategy at making the films appealing to new fans. I think wanting everything to be same or just like the "good old days" is a terrible thing for a franchise. Franchise have to evolve and make the new films relevant and interesting to a new generation of fans, because what might appeal to the superfans like yourself might not appeal to new audience.

I saw the OT as a kid, probably 7 or 8 at the time, which would have made ANH just shy of 20 years old when I saw it. By your flawed logic, I should have hated it for not being modern enough. So how do you explain a nearly 20-year-old movie capturing a modern child's imagination?

Movies are never "timeless" in regards to popularity. The popularity of movies are often due to their ability to capture the cultural zeitgeist of the period. The OT succeeded because they were released in an era where escapism and fun blockbusters was what audience have been crying for due to the Vietnam war and how it managed to depart from the tone of many other movies created during the 70s.

That's complete BS. There are plenty of movies that people consider must-see classics, that parents show their children after having themselves first seen it as children. I'd never heard of Vietnam or seen another film from the 70's when I saw Star Wars for the first time. Again I challenge you to explain how I latched on to it when by your logic it was no longer relevant to the zeitgiest of the mid 90's?

I think when you talk about the "greatness" of the OT, I think you are too wrapped by your own sense of nostalgia and your personal preferences as a superfan to communicate effectively to someone who is a causal cinema-goer. You're already looking down at the casual audience thinking they are too uneducated and low-class to appreciate what you see in Star Wars as a "true fan". I mean sure, if you are talking to other SW fans who feel the same way about the OT as you do, they can understand your feeling well.

But for most casual audience, SW is at its heart a fun popcorn movie that they will enjoy before moving on to something more interesting. That's why Solo bombed at the box office and that's why Disney is now trying to put an end to their yearly release of SW movies. Causal audience enjoy Star Wars movie, but not in the same way Star Wars superfans do. It's why while the SW superfans might complain endlessly about how the prequels were horrible or how TLJ ruined everything, those movies still do well at the box office.

Casual fans aren't that important when talking about art or about a franchise in general. Most fans will still go see a Star Wars movie whether it caters to them or not. Then, as long as they enjoyed it and it generated water cooler talk, they'll go see the next one too. For an example look at Avengers: Endgame it wasn't designed for casual fans but still smashed box office numbers, how do you explain that?

I think superfans can be quite disconnected from how the casual audience perceive a franchise, and inflate their own sense of importance.

So everything should be made to appeal to the broadest possible audience, no fans should ever be considered when making anything, and if you complain you must be some disconnected superfan who'll never be satisfied anyway? Am I reading you right?

[ray245]

That's complete bullshit. There's a large gap between the fairly infamous Turkish Star Wars and A New Hope and it shows in everything from the effects, to the acting, to the lighting, to the script itself. One can't look at those two films side by side and say that the crews making them were equally skilled, that the technology behind them was equivalent, and that they'd both equally entertain an average audience.

Taking an even broader view there's a marked difference in quality between many consumer goods. Take for example cheap bootleg DVD rips versus official 4k supported BluRay disks, they can show the same film and one will have notably improved visuals and sound than the other. The same goes for a dollar store toy and a collectors figurine, cheap shoes that might last a year and a more expensive pair that will last a lifetime, etc.

And those metrics are measuring quality are defined by people. You can measure the quality of the image and sound objectively, but those are not connected to how a person might evaluate the overall quality of a film because a film might have worst sound and video quality, but other qualities like writing and acting might affect the overall experience and reception of a film.

You're using the "average audience" as a barometer, which in itself has already made your criteria non-objective. You're defining the audience taste, then making an argument about how films can be "objectively" measured according to the taste of the audience you've created. That's not objectivity.

Objectivity is a set of definable facts, like pixel numbers and etc. Taste and preferences can never be objective.

Allowing breathing room by filling in a previously only speculated upon back story for several key characters. Adding Midichlorians really added a ton to the lore about the Jedi and the Force. Adding a child actor was clearly a brilliant move that I expect to be repeated in a Star Wars sequel any day now...You have a funny idea of what breathing room means.

We got a lot of development about how the Jedi and the Republic functioned, we got a lot of new designs of ships and etc. We got to experience what life was like in the core worlds. That's a vast expansion of breathing room for the OT.

Not to mention that there are things in the PT that will objectively age worse than the OT. The CGI, for instance, looks pretty awful by modern standards and makes it obvious that the ships we see on screen aren't real. That same complaint can't be made for models which will always at least look real.

See the video by CGI artists commenting on the CGI. Every special effects will feel dated as time went on. I can make the same argument about the movement of some puppets in the OT being too jerky and stop-motion like.

The only issue is whether we mind those dated special effects. Some people mind them more than others. It's not an "universal" view shared by everyone.

I should really write a sequel to a classic like East of Eden and fill it with modern slang and set it in space. That would really give that musty old tome room to grow and connect with modern fans! I'll go in and Poochy the shit out of classics because apparently nobody can enjoy something unless you update its style to catch every passing trend!

That's what the creators did with Star Trek. The atmosphere and "feel" of Star Trek evolve with time, and that brought in new generation of fans to the franchise. The same issue happened when Battlestar Galactica was rebooted/re imagined. It's only the hard-core fans that will complain about all the "changes" they've done to Star Trek.

If that isn't the case explain the rise of the cheaply produced reality show genre? How about the glut of low effort movies released in the 90's when box office takes were down?

Studios will make the cheapest and easiest thing that they think will get a return.

Because people enjoy different kinds of entertainment and they are under no obligation to share your preferences?

So pander to the masses, make PG-13 films designed and focus-grouped to appeal to the widest swath of their target audience as you can, and keep shitting out films in the same genre until audience fatigue sets in and one finally flops? That's the modern trend in film; remakes, genre chasing (look at the teen fiction boom we just went through after Twilight and The Hunger Games hit big), and endless films with no message designed only to put butts in seats and make a tidy profit.

I can't condone making a film only to make money just like I can't condone any other harmful byproduct of capitalism that sacrifices quality and artistry because you can get a better ROI on easily made junk.

Films are meant to entertain the masses, especially blockbusters. You are under the illusion that studios should cater to your sense of entitlement instead of trying to cater on what the masses actually want to watch.

They might not be a film "classic", but most people don't go into movies expecting a "classic".

I saw the OT as a kid, probably 7 or 8 at the time, which would have made ANH just shy of 20 years old when I saw it. By your flawed logic, I should have hated it for not being modern enough. So how do you explain a nearly 20-year-old movie capturing a modern child's imagination?

Did you watch the special edition? Part of the reason they did the special edition was because Lucas wanted to reintroduced the OT to a new generation of fans with updated SFX. Some people did complain about the CGI in the special edition, but the special edition was well-received.

Disney tried the same tactic with Chinese audience, and many Chinese casual film goers said the movies look too dated for them to enjoy.

That's complete BS. There are plenty of movies that people consider must-see classics, that parents show their children after having themselves first seen it as children. I'd never heard of Vietnam or seen another film from the 70's when I saw Star Wars for the first time. Again I challenge you to explain how I latched on to it when by your logic it was no longer relevant to the zeitgiest of the mid 90's?

Read what I say. The popularity of the films is connected to the zeitgeist of the era. Your personal enjoyment of the OT is your personal taste and experience. What "revived" the popularity of Star Wars as a franchise in the 90s and early 2000s was the prequels being released in cinema, combined with the airing of the OT on tv stations and release on DVDs.

Without the same set of cultural zeitgeist, a franchise can fail to take off in certain parts of the world. The Star Wars franchise had trouble breaking into China because the cultural zeitgeist for responding well to the OT movies simply wasn't there in the 2010s.

Casual fans aren't that important when talking about art or about a franchise in general. Most fans will still go see a Star Wars movie whether it caters to them or not. Then, as long as they enjoyed it and it generated water cooler talk, they'll go see the next one too. For an example look at Avengers: Endgame it wasn't designed for casual fans but still smashed box office numbers, how do you explain that?

Casual fans are important because they made up the majority of the viewers. The bombing of Solo suggest there are Star Wars movies that won't interest the casual audience.

Endgame succeeded because it managed to turn a large portion of casual fans into loyal fanbase that have to see Endgame on opening day. And Endgame was marked as an end of an era, and these kind of movies usually prompt even the non-fans to be curious about it and watch it in the cinema.

For example, The Return of the King made a lot more money than the first two LOTR movies. There were many people who decided to check out ROTK even though they have never seen the first two movies or read the books. Once a movie is properly hyped up, even the non-fans will check it out.

So everything should be made to appeal to the broadest possible audience, no fans should ever be considered when making anything, and if you complain you must be some disconnected superfan who'll never be satisfied anyway? Am I reading you right?

Yes. I think as superfans we can be too entitled in what we want in a movie. Take the recent Godzilla movie. It looks like it is going to make a loss at the box office. While many Godzilla superfans felt the film gave them what they wanted, the casual audience seems bored or indifferent to the movie.

Franchise films can succeed if they appealed to the casual fans, but listening to superfans can affect the overall reception of a film. I think as a rule, superfans are horrible at expressing what we actually want from a film. And having superfans in charge of directing a SW movie might not be the best idea as well. The production issues of R1 was saved by reshoots by a director who said he was NOT a Star Wars fan. He essentially made an argument that as a non-fan, he can be more detached in making a film that will appeal to a large audience.

I've posted an article in another thread that express how I feel about the role of fandom in a franchise.

What’s at the root of these types of campaigns? In recent years we’ve seen a growth in entitled attitudes among some fans – a feeling that has always bubbled under the surface, but which has risen as the internet has given more and more amplification to their voices. As far as these fans are concerned, their beloved characters and universes are not “owned” by their makers – but by those who spend their hard-earned on going to watch them. And so criticism moves out of the realm of simply being a reaction, into something that drives a cause – the injustice will not stand, the wrong must be addressed.

But just as an author cannot claim complete ownership of a work once it’s been given to the world, so too an audience has no right to claim ownership while it’s being created. The only duty that a filmmaker has is to deliver the work as they see fit – and to deliver commercial success, of course, if that’s what they’ve been hired to do. In general, if the work is good, it has a chance of succeeding – even if it might make decisions that not every viewer would have made in the process.

Fandom has, and always will have, an important role to play in art and culture. To consume, to engage, to enjoy, to criticise, to analyse, to adapt. But demanding to have a say in the work itself isn’t part of the deal. It fails to take into account that not every other fan may even agree with one’s criticisms; not to mention that, frankly, fans don’t always know best what they actually want. And the time and effort that some groups expend campaigning against works they don’t like would surely be better spent encouraging, or even creating more of, ones that they do.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-entitled

The article sums up my stance about the amount of influence a fan should have over a franchise. I certainly do not believe a filmmaker should be reading what I post about the SW movies as something they should seriously listen to.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

The box office numbers suggest that a large portion of the general public enjoyed the Prequels, even if, as noted, they don't care enough to talk about it at length on-line.

I tend to see the hate as coming more from a mix of die-hard OT fans with rose-tinted glasses and built-up expectations, and the snootier of the professional critics.

Hell, I remember talking to a guy (who was not a die-hard fan) once and mentioning how people hated Jar Jar, and he replied with a derisive comment about how only nerds didn't like Jar Jar. I expect that kind of attitude is more common than most of us realize.

Edit: I expect its often the same with the ST, too- albeit with an added layer due to current political polarization making the casting of women and minorities in lead roles a flash point, and advances in social media allowing the usual fan backlash to be weaponized by the neo-fascists.

Wrong. Box office numbers suggest that a large portion of the general public saw the prequels. The common consensus would not be that the prequels sucked if most people liked them, and it very much is.

By your metric, Minions is a good film with a silent majority behind it just because it did well at the box office and is beloved by a segment of people who loved it before they developed taste. Is Transformers 4 as good as the Star Wars OT, too? It did well at the box office, and I'm sure you can find individual adults who don't get the hate.

[Bob the Gunslinger]

As for there being no such things as classics...what? Disney is making billions on the fact that there are classics. Most franchises around today are just flesh built around the skeletons of classics. Children today still love Star Wars, Star Trek, Superman, Batman, Scooby Doo, Pokemon, Godzilla, and so on.

In my personal experience, children today still get engrossed in ANew Hope or Godzilla vs Monster Zero or The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad. Adults care more about how the special effects look than children do. Children care more about what the special effects do. A bad special effect that entertains, or even stimulates the imagination, is a good special effect.

(And yes, by this logic the prequel series' special effects still hold up.)

[Galvatron]

The special effects aren't even in my top ten of complaints about the prequels. The writing, directing and performances are far and away the worst aspects of those movies.

[Gandalf]

So everything should be made to appeal to the broadest possible audience, no fans should ever be considered when making anything, and if you complain you must be some disconnected superfan who'll never be satisfied anyway? Am I reading you right?

Considering that they're media products designed for mass consumption and cross promotion (tie ins everywhere!), I think the ship has sailed on that one.