Moderator: Vympel
That was, ultimately, already decided by TFA itself.
Which was tremendously stupid on Disney's part, because they hurt the brand's long term value.Vendetta wrote: ↑2020-01-22 09:03amUltimately, the Star Wars sequels were not aimed at kids. They hired a director who lives in the nostalgia bubble and have put that at the centre of everything they've done. They made a sequel trilogy that aped the aesthetic of the originals, and made character prequels and side stories set only around the originals.ray245 wrote: ↑2020-01-22 07:57am I am not talking about the cartoon show. I am talking about the flood of merchandise, novels and video games that came out with the prequels. In an era where kids today are increasingly opting for video games as the cornerstone of their childhood, the failure of Disney to produce major SW video games after video games to keep the interest of kids is a major failure compared to the prequels.
Disney already has the wallets of the kids, whether it's from Frozen or Marvel.
Their version of Star Wars was aimed at the 45-50 year olds.
That's why nobody will have nostalgia for the sequels in 20 years, because the sequels are already Ready Player Obi-Wan.
I don't know, when people on a gun board know who a certain blue skinned muppet is...
People were invested in seeing what happens after ROTJ, after decades of waiting. People were hyped about TFA because it promise them that their investment in the film's mystery boxes are worth something. Part of the backlash against TLJ was because those fans are told mystery boxes aren't really worth much in story-telling. Any Ep7 movie would have made a ridiculous amount of money because fans had been waiting for it for decades.
Only if you ignore the deeper issues and differences between the reception of the two trilogies. The prequels despite its faults, had a clear story it wanted to tell. No one knows what story the sequels is trying to tell because the two directors are too busy course-changing each other.
People were saying the same stuff about the prequels back when they came out. Wasn't real Star Wars, had ruined everything, kids didn't like it, etc etc etc etc. It's an old story and its ultimately just people projecting their personal preferences onto some grand fandom narrative on the basis of no real evidence.
That flood of stuff was mostly mediocre tie-in crap. The Clone Wars is the only thing that came out with any sort of longevity or mass appeal.
Ep 1 made $900 million back in 1999, which at the time only Titanic has earned more. The financial success of a movie in a franchise has less to do with their actual quality, as much as how much of a must-see event they are.The prequels were only a success in the sense that they were in general bad films with a poor reputation that neverthless had a lot of spinoff material. I mean, that's fine so far as it goes, but they didn't 'save' Star Wars. TFA didn't make $2B at the box office because people liked the prequels or Med-Star II or Jedi Starfighter or whatever, and it certainly wasn't because people got enarmored about mystery boxes. Like, if you honestly think that a movie made $2B at the box office because people cared who Snoke was, you can, but it's not extending the movie any credit for its actual quality in why people enjoy films.
There's not much demographic data to support the view that kids are that hyped about the Mandalorian either. SW itself can survive, but not being able to use a entire era will limit the success of a franchise. There's only so much you can do with the OT era before everyone gets bored of it.There's absolutely no evidence that kids don't enjoy Mandalorian. And again, I'm not talking about the ST, I'm talking about Star Wars. Star Wars survived the cultural embarassment that were the prequels, it'll survive a mediocre end to some other trilogy.
TFA was basically a once in a lifetime event for all the obvious reasons - first Star Wars movie in a decade, direct continuation to ROTJ, return of the original cast. See what happens next, basically. But the primacy being given to TFA's 'mystery boxes' as a reason for the movie's critical and general popularity just sounds like fan wank to me. It's not something that would preoccupy the general audience such that it'll reach $900M domestic. It was an internet fandom thing first and foremost, not something that captured the imagination of the world.Patroklos wrote: ↑2020-01-22 12:23pm Sure. If you are walking into a known trilogy your expectations for the next installment definitely colors your appreciation for the first. Properly setting up themes and cliff hangers pecans generating interest in those themes and cliffhangers and an expectation that someone has already thought about the follow up. A follow op you are invested in.
If you buy a ticket to TLJ expecting a pay off and there is nothing there if definitely impacts the the perception on both installments.
TFA also had the benefit of the doubt regarding ticket sales by being the the first installment. Nobody knew anything about the ST other than “Star Wars!” You had to pay to get a taste, whether you walked away craving more or hacking up bile. This also means the ticket sale numbers for TLJ reflect heavily on the reputation of TFA, not the quality of TLJ. Same goes for TROS, it depending heavily on the reputation of both previous installments. At least for opening weekend numbers before viewers can have much knowledge to judge whether to see the current release on its own merits.
The fact that TROS numbers are low is as much a consequence of disappointment TLJ, either as a self contained movie or it’s Inconguities with TFA, as any knowledge of TROS itself by audiences. Unless you want to blame it all on poor TROS marketing. That’s fair as it was terrible.
I agree a one year gap between TLJ and TROS was two short. It is, however, 365 times better than the TFA/TLJ gap.
I don't think that's really relevant. It's impossible to reasonably deny that the prequels, as a project, were not considered a success. It doesn't matter that they had a consistent story - people still didn't like the story for various reasons.ray245 wrote: ↑2020-01-22 05:47pm Only if you ignore the deeper issues and differences between the reception of the two trilogies. The prequels despite its faults, had a clear story it wanted to tell. No one knows what story the sequels is trying to tell because the two directors are too busy course-changing each other.
Again, this is the kind of stuff that no one was actually saying in the aftermath of the prequels release. I'm nearly 40, any presumptions I make about what is and isn't a formative part of a kid's childhood now is just going to be me projecting.But people still consumed them. For kids who grew up with the prequels, those stuff were things I've consumed for a whole decade. That is more relevant for making things nostalgic than the actual quality of those stuff. SW remained an important formative part of people's entire childhood.
The key difference there being that Episode 1 got much worse reviews than TFA did, and rightly so.Ep 1 made $900 million back in 1999, which at the time only Titanic has earned more. The financial success of a movie in a franchise has less to do with their actual quality, as much as how much of a must-see event they are.
Yeah, at worst they'll need to start off an entire new era.There's not much demographic data to support the view that kids are that hyped about the Mandalorian either. SW itself can survive, but not being able to use a entire era will limit the success of a franchise. There's only so much you can do with the OT era before everyone gets bored of it.
Vympel wrote: ↑2020-01-22 06:12pm TFA was basically a once in a lifetime event for all the obvious reasons - first Star Wars movie in a decade, direct continuation to ROTJ, return of the original cast. See what happens next, basically. But the primacy being given to TFA's 'mystery boxes' as a reason for the movie's critical and general popularity just sounds like fan wank to me. It's not something that would preoccupy the general audience such that it'll reach $900M domestic. It was an internet fandom thing first and foremost, not something that captured the imagination of the world.
As for TROS numbers being so low (relatively speaking), it's impossible to exclude the movie's extremely ordinary WOM. Hovering at ~50% on RT is absolutely damning. The B+ CinemaScore is unprecedentedly bad for a Star Wars movie. Even if we chalked up it's poor opening to disappointment with TLJ (and that's simply not comparing like with like - TROS opened with a weekend-to-holiday advantage that TLJ didn't), if it had been a good movie then in the box office environment it was released (virtually no serious competition) it should've had great legs and it'd have made a lot more money by now.
In terms of being critically acclaimed and getting near-universal love? No, it wasn't a success. But it was decently well-received when it was released ( A- cinemascore) and made money at the box office.
You are missing my argument yet again. I am not contesting with you about the quality of the EU materials. I am contesting with you about the importance of sheer quantity. It might have come across as "flawed" to you, but to kids of my generation, many of us literally spend more than 9 years consuming the "flawed" content. It's the fact that we were enjoying content for 9 whole years during the formative periods of a child that mattered the most.Again, this is the kind of stuff that no one was actually saying in the aftermath of the prequels release. I'm nearly 40, any presumptions I make about what is and isn't a formative part of a kid's childhood now is just going to be me projecting.
It isn't actually a coincidence that the stuff you're nostalgic for all happened while you were a kid. Any grown adult talking about how the stuff for kids now isn't as good as the stuff they liked when they were a kid is missing the obvious, or:
Yeah
The key difference there being that Episode 1 got much worse reviews than TFA did, and rightly so.
Is Disney willing to do so? After all the money they've spent on making the sequel era the cornerstone of their theme-park strategy? And a sequel set way after ROS is still caught up in the mess of ROS, because the issues that ROS created will be there for ages. Any new Jedi Order after ROS is still going to be a Jedi Order set up by Rey, any new darksider will still have the baggage of "Are they secretly controlled by Palpatine?"Yeah, at worst they'll need to start off an entire new era.
I don't actually think having a consistent story mattered in the long run. No one, when complimenting the prequels generally, wistfully talked about "they had a consistent story". In fact one of the most common criticisms of the prequels is that TPM is largely a waste of a film and is too disconnected from the events of AOTC and ROTS to really matter, which also handily explains why 'the prequel era' of stories is based on AOTC and ROTS with virtually nothing in between TPM and AOTC.ray245 wrote: ↑2020-01-22 07:36pm In terms of being critically acclaimed and getting near-universal love? No, it wasn't a success. But it was decently well-received when it was released ( A- cinemascore) and made money at the box office.
But the point this having a consistent story mattered in the long run. I think people didn't like the execution of the story, which is radically different from not liking the story itself. The general view that fans had when Disney bought SW was that Lucas should be allowed to write the story, but he needs other directors and writers to help him polish up his story. Once again, I think you are making the same sort of mistake you've done in thinking JJ Abrams had a good ending in mind for ROS. You're focusing far too much on the superficial elements of filmmaking and audience reception. The intangible elements of filmmaking, such as having a clear vision of the story matters more in the long run and how people will receive a movie.
No, I get your argument, what I'm saying is that you're missing the fact that you are no longer a child so the value judgments you're making about the ST as films and how kids feel about them are not based on a child's point of view. The idea that kids don't like the ST isn't based on anything particularly measurable or real, and reads a lot like projection to me.You are missing my argument yet again. I am not contesting with you about the quality of the EU materials. I am contesting with you about the importance of sheer quantity. It might have come across as "flawed" to you, but to kids of my generation, many of us literally spend more than 9 years consuming the "flawed" content. It's the fact that we were enjoying content for 9 whole years during the formative periods of a child that mattered the most.
Nostalgia isn't an issue of quality of content to a child, but the length of exposure a child have to a particular franchise.
Recall what we were talking about - TFA. It got great box office and great reviews.So? And ROS has lower cinemascore than TPM. Ep 7 would have made insane amount of money no matter what.
Why are you assuming that pre-existing eras are the only era available to them? They could jump 1,000 years in the future or past. But we already are hearing rumors that the next film will be set during the 'High Republic', hundreds of years prior to the prequels. Theidea that the ST has 'poisoned the franchise as a setting' is just catastrophism.Is Disney willing to do so? After all the money they've spent on making the sequel era the cornerstone of their theme-park strategy? And a sequel set way after ROS is still caught up in the mess of ROS, because the issues that ROS created will be there for ages. Any new Jedi Order after ROS is still going to be a Jedi Order set up by Rey, any new darksider will still have the baggage of "Are they secretly controlled by Palpatine?"
The ST thanks to ROS has largely poisoned the well for the Star Wars franchise as a setting. You can still keep fans engaged with OT era and Prequel era stuff for a while, but once you've bored fans of those era you're not really left with anything else to do. The post-ST is going to be extremely un-engaging of a era to craft a story.
I'm sure Disney would still make money on Star Wars, but I can see Star Wars diminishing in brand value like Star Trek.
I think it absolutely does. It entails a creative vision that can cement in people's minds a lot better in the long run. Also, I disagree with the idea that there was virtually nothing between TPM and AOTC. There are a fair number of children's books about young Obi-Wan and young Anakin, but more importantly, there were loads of video games set in TPM.Vympel wrote: ↑2020-01-22 08:08pm I don't actually think having a consistent story mattered in the long run. No one, when complimenting the prequels generally, wistfully talked about "they had a consistent story". In fact one of the most common criticisms of the prequels is that TPM is largely a waste of a film and is too disconnected from the events of AOTC and ROTS to really matter, which also handily explains why 'the prequel era' of stories is based on AOTC and ROTS with virtually nothing in between TPM and AOTC.
Yes, but that is exactly why I think the sequels will not have as good of a long-term reception as the prequels.That the prequels had a consistent story is more a point of comparison people use when criticising the ST, its not a compliment to the prequels as such.
I am not making a qualitative argument, I am making a quantitative argument. Yes, there will be interest amongst kids in the sequel era, but the amount of material they are getting is tiny compared to what my generation is getting during the prequel era. I cannot make arguments' based on today's children's point of view, but I can make an argument about the amount of SW exposure they are getting as a whole.No, I get your argument, what I'm saying is that you're missing the fact that you are no longer a child so the value judgments you're making about the ST as films and how kids feel about them are not based on a child's point of view. The idea that kids don't like the ST isn't based on anything particularly measurable or real, and reads a lot like projection to me.
You can say that Lucasfilm has dropped the ball on producing content for the ST, but that is not the same as saying that the interest isn't there.
And I am saying the reception of TFA was in part aided by the promise of things to come. TFA ended on a cliffhanger, and it creates a very different kind of emotional reaction from the audience than TPM, which did not have a cliffhanger. Basically, I think we should look at TFA as essentially a marketing trailer for ROS. It set up expectations that all the mystery boxes will be unboxed in a meaningful way to the audience, and that drives fans to be hyped about the sequel trilogy as a whole, once they've seen TFA.Recall what we were talking about - TFA. It got great box office and great reviews.
I know about the rumours about the old republic era as the next era they are going to use. I am saying eventually the setting of SW needs a "future" that fans can be happy about. Say you want a narrative about the Sith-Jedi wars in the old republic, but at the same time the Sequel era is always going to be a minor nagging part of people's mind when they watch any narrative about Sith-Jedi conflict set prior to the prequels.Why are you assuming that pre-existing eras are the only era available to them? They could jump 1,000 years in the future or past. But we already are hearing rumors that the next film will be set during the 'High Republic', hundreds of years prior to the prequels. The idea that the ST has 'poisoned the franchise as a setting' is just catastrophism.
Not really, and what there was was forgettable dreck. It's far, far, far outpaced by the volume of material produced in between AOTC and ROTS.ray245 wrote: ↑2020-01-23 04:08am I think it absolutely does. It entails a creative vision that can cement in people's minds a lot better in the long run. Also, I disagree with the idea that there was virtually nothing between TPM and AOTC. There are a fair number of children's books about young Obi-Wan and young Anakin, but more importantly, there were loads of video games set in TPM.
The prequels don't have a good long term reception. It's been 20 years, that ship has sailed.Yes, but that is exactly why I think the sequels will not have as good of a long-term reception as the prequels.
That's more a function of the incompetence of Lucasfilm at managing their IP than anything to do with the ST as such.I am not making a qualitative argument, I am making a quantitative argument. Yes, there will be interest amongst kids in the sequel era, but the amount of material they are getting is tiny compared to what my generation is getting during the prequel era. I cannot make arguments' based on today's children's point of view, but I can make an argument about the amount of SW exposure they are getting as a whole.
Even in video games, sequel era stuff is relegated to a side note, with games like Battlefront 2 still being focused on the OT and Prequel era than the sequel era itself.
I don't consider that at all relevant to the general audience or its critical reception.And I am saying the reception of TFA was in part aided by the promise of things to come. TFA ended on a cliffhanger, and it creates a very different kind of emotional reaction from the audience than TPM, which did not have a cliffhanger. Basically, I think we should look at TFA as essentially a marketing trailer for ROS. It set up expectations that all the mystery boxes will be unboxed in a meaningful way to the audience, and that drives fans to be hyped about the sequel trilogy as a whole, once they've seen TFA.
This all sounds just like stuff you want to happen because you don't like the sequels. Given TROS' mediocrity still got it to over $1B at the box office, and the continued popularity of other material, I doubt it will.I know about the rumours about the old republic era as the next era they are going to use. I am saying eventually the setting of SW needs a "future" that fans can be happy about. Say you want a narrative about the Sith-Jedi wars in the old republic, but at the same time the Sequel era is always going to be a minor nagging part of people's mind when they watch any narrative about Sith-Jedi conflict set prior to the prequels.
I think there will be many people who are more than happy to ignore any issues with the setting, but at the same time, I think what the sequels has done to the SW as a setting will make it harder for people to get deeply invested in the setting as a whole. People's willingness to invest time in the setting of SW will change as a result. If the directors themselves couldn't care less about the setting, why should audience care that much about the setting?
Star Wars hasn't been the dominant pop-culture franchise in the world since a brief period between 1977-1983. The prequels got their lunch eaten by LOTR and Harry Potter, ferchrissakes. This idea that Star Wars was some worldwide cultural juggernaut against which nothing could stand is just pure fiction. It's just a big popular franchise. That's it. And ultimately, so what? It's not really a competition. I'm not going to shed any tears because kids like Marvel movies more than Star Wars. I'm not a Disney shareholder - and heck - even if I was - I wouldn't care because I own both.We've already seen how Star Wars spin-off movies cannot succeed simply because of the Star Wars brand name anymore, so it is not out of the hand to assume any new era-setting of SW might not garner the same amount of attraction as it would have been, if the sequels were not made the way they were.
Put it this way. JJ Abrams' movies like the Mission Impossible series are always profitable at the box office, but that does not translate into audience having an interest in spin-off films set in the Mission Impossible universe. So while any future Star Wars movie can be decently successful at the box office, I think people like JJ Abrams have effectively killed off Star Wars as the dominant pop-culture franchise in the world.
Forgettable to you, maybe. But not to kids like me.
There's been an increasingly amount of people saying the prequels were not as bad as people used to say recently. Amongst my generation, it's been seen as something that is enjoyable, even if there were a number of faults along the way.The prequels don't have a good long term reception. It's been 20 years, that ship has sailed.
The reason why there is so little materials is partly due to the sequels being unwilling to do anything new. What can you do about the sequel era when all the planets you are getting is essentially the same as the OT era planets? And everything is shrouded in such secrecy that even directors don't dare to intrude upon things created by other directors? ( See Rian Johnson's comments about the Knights of Ren). The sequel era being an era that hinges so heavily on secrecy is the thing that holds the entire era back.That's more a function of the incompetence of Lucasfilm at managing their IP than anything to do with the ST as such.
I think it does. That so much of the backlash against TLJ was made up of people who were annoyed their pet theories were dashed goes to show what TFA hinges on as a film to be well-received in people's mind.I don't consider that at all relevant to the general audience or its critical reception.
It got to a billion because it's marketed as the big finale to everything. People wanted to at the least find out what is going on, and want to be part of the conversation even if they hated the sequels. Context matters. It's why Solo failed, because it has less to do with the actual quality of the film, but everything to do with whether people feel it is an important movie that will form a part of people's water-cooler conversation at the office or in schools.This all sounds just like stuff you want to happen because you don't like the sequels. Given TROS' mediocrity still got it to over $1B at the box office, and the continued popularity of other material, I doubt it will.
It's a franchise that made $900 million in 1999, at a time where the only movie crossing a billion was Titanic. Ep 3 made $100 million more than Harry Potter in the US back in 2005, and was just behind HP by $50 million at the worldwide box office.Star Wars hasn't been the dominant pop-culture franchise in the world since a brief period between 1977-1983. The prequels got their lunch eaten by LOTR and Harry Potter, ferchrissakes. This idea that Star Wars was some worldwide cultural juggernaut against which nothing could stand is just pure fiction. It's just a big popular franchise. That's it.
It is a competition in terms of how much money Disney will invest in Star Wars IP. We will still have investments in TV shows thanks to Disney+, but it can kickstart a trend of Disney trying to reduce budget for future Star Wars movies, as well as being increasingly unwilling to take creative risk with the franchise.That's it. And ultimately, so what? It's not really a competition. I'm not going to shed any tears because kids like Marvel movies more than Star Wars. I'm not a Disney shareholder - and heck - even if I was - I wouldn't care because I own both.
If they make good stuff, people will show up. It's not complicated.
Doesn't really change the point about where the actual schwerpunkt of prequel material was.
"Not as bad as people say" ! = good.There's been an increasingly amount of people saying the prequels were not as bad as people used to say recently. Amongst my generation, it's been seen as something that is enjoyable, even if there were a number of faults along the way.
Not really? It's trivial to imagine a game where you say, fly Resistance fighters against the First Order, or play a Resistance soldier, or heck, play as Kylo Ren if you really wanted to without stepping on anything to be covered by the films. But Disney has no inherent interest in video games and delegated to EA, which is a shitty studio with terrible business instincts.The reason why there is so little materials is partly due to the sequels being unwilling to do anything new. What can you do about the sequel era when all the planets you are getting is essentially the same as the OT era planets? And everything is shrouded in such secrecy that even directors don't dare to intrude upon things created by other directors? ( See Rian Johnson's comments about the Knights of Ren). The sequel era being an era that hinges so heavily on secrecy is the thing that holds the entire era back.
The backlash against TLJ was amongst segments of the fandom, not the general audience or film critics.I think it does. That so much of the backlash against TLJ was made up of people who were annoyed their pet theories were dashed goes to show what TFA hinges on as a film to be well-received in people's mind.
So? Marketing is how movies make money - it's built into the business model. Every movie that ever made over $1B at the box office had an epic fuckton of marketing that put it there, plumbing depths of crassness and bad taste in overload.It got to a billion because it's marketed as the big finale to everything. People wanted to at the least find out what is going on, and want to be part of the conversation even if they hated the sequels. Context matters. It's why Solo failed, because it has less to do with the actual quality of the film, but everything to do with whether people feel it is an important movie that will form a part of people's water-cooler conversation at the office or in schools.
It doesn't matter that TPM made $900M in 1999, we both know it made the exact same kind of stupid money (for the time) that TFA made for the same kind of 'lighting in a bottle' reasons. It doesn't change the fact that as a matter of cultural impact, the prequels were overshadowed by LOTR and Harry Potter.It's a franchise that made $900 million in 1999, at a time where the only movie crossing a billion was Titanic. Ep 3 made $100 million more than Harry Potter in the US back in 2005, and was just behind HP by $50 million at the worldwide box office.
Ep 2, which was the poorest preforming prequels, came in 4th place behind LOTR, HP and Spiderman in 2002.
Rise of Skywalker on the other hand, is most likely to be number 9 on the spot, behind Endgame, Lion King remake, Frozen II, Spiderman, Captain Marvel, Toy Story 4, Joker and Aladdin. The good news for Disney is that most of the movies performing better than ROS are all owned by Disney.
However, the fact that a brand new superhero film featuring a B/C tier superhero Captain Marvel can earned more money than Rise of Skywalker ( the big grand finale to the Skywalker saga!) puts everything into perspective of just how little interest there is in the Star Wars franchise compared to its peers.
The prequels, despite being widely slated, never fell down to 9th place at the box office.
As the article itself says, they made $6B on the movies they've made already. They've made massive investments in it. The idea that this is some sort of disaster and it'll become like say the dark age of Star Trek - again, this is catastrophising.It is a competition in terms of how much money Disney will invest in Star Wars IP. We will still have investments in TV shows thanks to Disney+, but it can kickstart a trend of Disney trying to reduce budget for future Star Wars movies, as well as being increasingly unwilling to take creative risk with the franchise.
And a bunch of other reasons to boot.The correlation between what is "good" and what makes money isn't as simple. Solo, by all means wasn't that bad of a movie. But no one showed up because people think that the brand-name of Star Wars on its own isn't worth their time.
This is true! I agree with this, and the basic premise of Scott Mendelson's article. But they're not going to suddenly stop making Star Wars movies, and there's room for something new without the lame and uninspired OT pandering that fatally wounded TROS being made undeniable with TROS (richly deserved) poor critical reception and underperformance at the box office.The poor performance of EP 9 also shows even the big Episodic movies isn't enough to get bums in the seats. Disney and LFL has shown themselves to be horrible at understanding feedback about the Star Wars movies. Everything they've done so far is to listen to feedback, and misinterpret wrongly again and again.
The OT pandering was what they thought everyone wanted, and they overplayed their cards with OT pandering. They course-corrected on Rian Johnson's work because they are getting feedback on how everything RJ did was terrible, and proceed to make a mess of movie in Ep 9. If Disney has shown themselves to be competent at understanding feedback from the audience, we would not be in position now, where the entire sequel era seems unappealing for a long while.
But it still mattered that kids were consuming stuff between EP 1 and Ep 2. That's three years of keeping kids engaged with the franchise with content.
That is entirely subjective? The pushback against those calling the prequels good tends to be coming from the older generations than the prequel-era kids. Good != perfect."Not as bad as people say" ! = good.
The problem is as Bob Iger himself have admitted, Disney under him has no interest in making the sequel era visually distinct from the OT era. Given that most of the resistance/FO soldiers and ships looks similar to the OT anyway, there is no additional merit in opting to play the sequel era stuff compared to the OT era stuff to begin with. And the OT era, with a much bigger rebellion, at the least gave players a much bigger scope to play in terms of setting.Not really? It's trivial to imagine a game where you say, fly Resistance fighters against the First Order, or play a Resistance soldier, or heck, play as Kylo Ren if you really wanted to without stepping on anything to be covered by the films. But Disney has no inherent interest in video games and delegated to EA, which is a shitty studio with terrible business instincts.
And yet they are the segment of fans Disney and JJ Abrams felt compelled to listen to.The backlash against TLJ was amongst segments of the fandom, not the general audience or film critics.
Perceived false advertisement can damage the value of the brand. Marketing and brand value works in tandem. It is easier to market something when there is an existing value in the brand, but if the marketing has damaged the value of the brand, then the effectiveness of marketing will decline.So? Marketing is how movies make money - it's built into the business model. Every movie that ever made over $1B at the box office had an epic fuckton of marketing that put it there, plumbing depths of crassness and bad taste in overload.
EP 3 made more money than Harry Potter in the US. Star Wars as a brand has always been more reliant on the US market than most other franchise. Yes, worldwide there were other movies that made more money and were more popular than the prequels, but the prequels were not overshadowed by other franchise the way ROS was. No prequel movie came in 9th at the box office worldwide. Not even EP 2. Solo performed even worse in terms of box office ranking.It doesn't matter that TPM made $900M in 1999, we both know it made the exact same kind of stupid money (for the time) that TFA made for the same kind of 'lighting in a bottle' reasons. It doesn't change the fact that as a matter of cultural impact, the prequels were overshadowed by LOTR and Harry Potter.
They've already made comments a few years ago that they are cutting down on SW movies released per year, under the stupidly perceived notion that there was audience fatigue of Star Wars, instead of assuming audience were fatigued of the Disney's stupid focus on the OT era at the expense of any creativity. SW won't fall off a cliff anytime soon, but it will slowly drain away in terms of popularity if all Disney can offer is OT nostalgia. It's the slow kind of death that studios won't be able to notice easily.As the article itself says, they made $6B on the movies they've made already. They've made massive investments in it. The idea that this is some sort of disaster and it'll become like say the dark age of Star Trek - again, this is catastrophising.
But the main reason is people simply don't care about the movie.And a bunch of other reasons to boot.
They are going to be making movies that less and less people are excited about if they carry on with their current strategy of "listening to the fans". I am willing to bet the Disney execs and Kennedy is probably going to be stupid enough to "listen" to the fans and suddenly pump out stuff about the prequel era just because that is what's been making noise around the internet. They will carry on making mistakes that will erode the interest people have in SW IP, because they are endlessly reactive to the loudest feedback from youtube and the internet.This is true! I agree with this, and the basic premise of Scott Mendelson's article. But they're not going to suddenly stop making Star Wars movies, and there's room for something new without the lame and uninspired OT pandering that fatally wounded TROS being made undeniable with TROS (richly deserved) poor critical reception and underperformance at the box office.
They would've watched Episode 2 anyway, its really not that significant.
Nothing to do with being perfect. There is not going to be any great correction where people who grew up with the prequels come out and say they're good films. People generally grow out of that sort of myopia as they get exposed to more films.That is entirely subjective? The pushback against those calling the prequels good tends to be coming from the older generations than the prequel-era kids. Good != perfect.
I don't see that that's a relevant point of distinction given there's been no games of note except Battlefront anyway.The problem is as Bob Iger himself have admitted, Disney under him has no interest in making the sequel era visually distinct from the OT era. Given that most of the resistance/FO soldiers and ships looks similar to the OT anyway, there is no additional merit in opting to play the sequel era stuff compared to the OT era stuff to begin with. And the OT era, with a much bigger rebellion, at the least gave players a much bigger scope to play in terms of setting.
Yes, because they're dumb and didn't commit to the story they were telling and instead acted in a foolish, reactive manner.And yet they are the segment of fans Disney and JJ Abrams felt compelled to listen to.
TFA's advertising wasn't false? I mean, there was Finn holding a lightsaber making people think he had the Force but that's pretty much it, and apart from some people whining about that, no one much cared. The movie had excellent performance and excellent word of mouth. There was no backlash against the film because of its marketing.Perceived false advertisement can damage the value of the brand. Marketing and brand value works in tandem. It is easier to market something when there is an existing value in the brand, but if the marketing has damaged the value of the brand, then the effectiveness of marketing will decline.
So? Goblet of Fire was like only the fourth installment in a series of eight. It wasn't even the finale of the series. To point to the finale of the prequels managing to make more money than Goblet of Fire domestically - this isn't a significant argument. Kids in the 2000s cared more about Harry Potter than they ever did about the prequels, that's just undeniable.EP 3 made more money than Harry Potter in the US. Star Wars as a brand has always been more reliant on the US market than most other franchise. Yes, worldwide there were other movies that made more money and were more popular than the prequels, but the prequels were not overshadowed by other franchise the way ROS was. No prequel movie came in 9th at the box office worldwide. Not even EP 2. Solo performed even worse in terms of box office ranking.
They should cut down on SW movies released per year. Its not Marvel and shouldn't be treated as such.They've already made comments a few years ago that they are cutting down on SW movies released per year, under the stupidly perceived notion that there was audience fatigue of Star Wars, instead of assuming audience were fatigued of the Disney's stupid focus on the OT era at the expense of any creativity. SW won't fall off a cliff anytime soon, but it will slowly drain away in terms of popularity if all Disney can offer is OT nostalgia. It's the slow kind of death that studios won't be able to notice easily.
And a feckless truncated marketing campaign and releasing it at a very stupid time of the year.But the main reason is people simply don't care about the movie.
Ultimately we'll have to see what they announce next and who's in charge to figure out how things will shake out.They are going to be making movies that less and less people are excited about if they carry on with their current strategy of "listening to the fans". I am willing to bet the Disney execs and Kennedy is probably going to be stupid enough to "listen" to the fans and suddenly pump out stuff about the prequel era just because that is what's been making noise around the internet. They will carry on making mistakes that will erode the interest people have in SW IP, because they are endlessly reactive to the loudest feedback from youtube and the internet.
The upper management of LFL and Disney needs to realise the fault with ROS and the issues they have with the production of the new films lies more with them than the people lower in the hierarchy. Bob Iger eagerly promoted himself as this person who knows better than Lucas in terms of managing the SW IP. He was the one that told Lucas all he wanted to do is to recycle the OT.
As long as Bob Iger is still having a role in influencing the direction of the SW IP, I highly doubt Disney can change course or actually learn from their mistakes. To make something new will require management at the top to be creatively bold. There is no such person at LFL. Kennedy was a disaster of a person in charting a direction for the SW IP. She traded short-term gain at the expense of long-term damage.
To kids, 3 years is literally ages. Having stuff between the 3 years matters greatly.
On social media, there seems to be a feeling that more and more people are now praising the prequels. At the end of the day, what people define as "good" is still inherently subjective. There are many people who did think ROS is "good" after all.Nothing to do with being perfect. There is not going to be any great correction where people who grew up with the prequels come out and say they're good films. People generally grow out of that sort of myopia as they get exposed to more films.
The lack of material about the Sequel era doesn't help game developers, especially when it game development cycles have been increasingly for a while now. The less materials game devs have to work with, the more difficult it is to create games that are "canon" with the films.I don't see that that's a relevant point of distinction given there's been no games of note except Battlefront anyway.
And it supports my original point. Disney and LFL is stupid enough to listen to the loudest bunch of fanboys on the Internet, which gave those fanboys a disproportionate amount of influence on the direction of the SW fandom.Yes, because they're dumb and didn't commit to the story they were telling and instead acted in a foolish, reactive manner.
I'm talking about ROS advertising as this movie that is this "grand finale" that will conclude the Skywalker saga. I am talking about TFA itself as the marketing for ROS and TLJ. TFA tries to sell the audience a vision that there are secrets to be revealed ( that JJ Abrams clearly knows what is inside the mystery box) that can satisfy them. When TLJ and ROS unboxed the mystery box and revealed it is entirely empty from the very beginning, people are seeing TFA itself as false advertisement.TFA's advertising wasn't false? I mean, there was Finn holding a lightsaber making people think he had the Force but that's pretty much it, and apart from some people whining about that, no one much cared. The movie had excellent performance and excellent word of mouth. There was no backlash against the film because of its marketing.
Yet despite the Harry Potter craze, the prequels were not overshadowed the way ROS was by other movies. ROTS, as a grand finale to the prequels, with an ending that is apparent to most people before the movie is even released, came 1st in the US and 2nd worldwide. Ep 9, a supposedly even "grander" finale to the saga than EP 3, came in 9th at the worldwide box office.So? Goblet of Fire was like only the fourth installment in a series of eight. It wasn't even the finale of the series. To point to the finale of the prequels managing to make more money than Goblet of Fire domestically - this isn't a significant argument. Kids in the 2000s cared more about Harry Potter than they ever did about the prequels, that's just undeniable.
SW isn't Marvel, but the idea that SW fatigue is true is because Disney as a studio is being stupid in terms of understanding data and feedback. What people are fatigued about is NOT Star Wars itself, but the constant callbacks to the OT. I've said way back in 2015 that nostalgia do not last. TFA gave people the return of the OT cast, then Rogue 1 gave people the OT in all of its modernised "glory".They should cut down on SW movies released per year. Its not Marvel and shouldn't be treated as such.
Which is more to do with Disney realising that there is no actual demand for Solo once they've seen some box office tracking data. Things like trailer views, twitter's lack of discussion on Solo when the first trailer dropped will give Disney signs that the movie is not going to do well, and any investment into marketing heavily will be a waste of cash.And a feckless truncated marketing campaign and releasing it at a very stupid time of the year.
Disney lucked out with Feige being in charge of Marvel. As evident by the recent failures of most "cinematic universe" in Hollywood, most of the senior management barely have a clue on how to manage a franchise with interconnected storylines. I've told you before that your defence of Kennedy as the president of LFL is flawed, and now we've seen Ep 9 paying heavily ( in relative terms) for the mistakes of Kennedy.Ultimately we'll have to see what they announce next and who's in charge to figure out how things will shake out.
Your average fan is an idiot when it comes to articulating what they think about movies or what they actually want in a movie or franchise.Sidewinder wrote: ↑2020-01-24 04:34pm Stop blaming fans. Fans are the most important customers you have, as they spend the most on your franchise's merchandise (movie tickets, DVDs and blu-rays) and tie-ins (T-shirts, novels, comic books, action figures and other toys, video and computer games, etc.). If you have no fans, your profits will drop dramatically.
Disney not only failed to appeal to fans, it actively drove them away when the company allowed its employees (including Rian Johnson) to accuse those with constructive criticism- who are NOT all "straight white males" or "alt-right"- of being "toxic manbabies." Do you know I'm Chinese-American, and I voted for Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections? I speak for myself when I say, "I don't like the sequel trilogy," NOT for the "alt-right."
Rian Johnson never accused anyone with 'constructive criticism' of being 'alt right' or 'toxic manbabies'. That's a horseshit narrative aforesaid groups have used to hide behind the larger fandom, and it's absurd how many people have fallen for it.Sidewinder wrote: ↑2020-01-24 04:34pm Stop blaming fans. Fans are the most important customers you have, as they spend the most on your franchise's merchandise (movie tickets, DVDs and blu-rays) and tie-ins (T-shirts, novels, comic books, action figures and other toys, video and computer games, etc.). If you have no fans, your profits will drop dramatically.
Disney not only failed to appeal to fans, it actively drove them away when the company allowed its employees (including Rian Johnson) to accuse those with constructive criticism- who are NOT all "straight white males" or "alt-right"- of being "toxic manbabies." Do you know I'm Chinese-American, and I voted for Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections? I speak for myself when I say, "I don't like the sequel trilogy," NOT for the "alt-right."
And yet somehow the OT wasn't harmed by a lack of Star Wars licensed material every 3 years?
Social media is deceptive. People reside in bubbles and hear things that they're predisposed to positively respond to, because it reinforces their views.On social media, there seems to be a feeling that more and more people are now praising the prequels. At the end of the day, what people define as "good" is still inherently subjective. There are many people who did think ROS is "good" after all.
That doesn't mean its a significant hindrance.The lack of material about the Sequel era doesn't help game developers, especially when it game development cycles have been increasingly for a while now. The less materials game devs have to work with, the more difficult it is to create games that are "canon" with the films.
Yep.And it supports my original point. Disney and LFL is stupid enough to listen to the loudest bunch of fanboys on the Internet, which gave those fanboys a disproportionate amount of influence on the direction of the SW fandom.
Some did, sure. The loudest bunch of fanboys on the internet, sadly.I'm talking about ROS advertising as this movie that is this "grand finale" that will conclude the Skywalker saga. I am talking about TFA itself as the marketing for ROS and TLJ. TFA tries to sell the audience a vision that there are secrets to be revealed ( that JJ Abrams clearly knows what is inside the mystery box) that can satisfy them. When TLJ and ROS unboxed the mystery box and revealed it is entirely empty from the very beginning, people are seeing TFA itself as false advertisement.
That's because TROS is a medicore misfire of a film with poor word of mouth, yes. You're getting away from the original point, which was that Star Wars hasn't been the dominant popculture franchise in decades.Yet despite the Harry Potter craze, the prequels were not overshadowed the way ROS was by other movies. ROTS, as a grand finale to the prequels, with an ending that is apparent to most people before the movie is even released, came 1st in the US and 2nd worldwide. Ep 9, a supposedly even "grander" finale to the saga than EP 3, came in 9th at the worldwide box office.
Nonsense. They're not the same kinds of franchise. Marvel movies actually tell the same kind of story repeatedly, and not very complicated stories at that. It's actually kind of ridiculous how often they repeat the same beats and the same tropes. Marvel movies are able to pull this off because comparing the 'Marvel universe' and 'the Star Wars universe' is not comparing like with like. Every comic book character inhabits their own mini-universe that is aesthetically and substantively very different from the others in look and feel. The idea that this can be repeated in Star Wars is simply ridiculous horseshit - Star Wars simply doesn't have that breadth of material to draw from. Even a cursory look at what Legends came up with over the decades (endless repetition of the rebels/new republic versus the empire/imperial remnant) will demonstrate that fact in two seconds flat.SW isn't Marvel, but the idea that SW fatigue is true is because Disney as a studio is being stupid in terms of understanding data and feedback. What people are fatigued about is NOT Star Wars itself, but the constant callbacks to the OT. I've said way back in 2015 that nostalgia do not last. TFA gave people the return of the OT cast, then Rogue 1 gave people the OT in all of its modernised "glory".
Multiple Marvel movies every year works because all the Marvel movies at the very least, try and tell a different story. They are of different genres. If Disney gave audience 3 Avengers movie every year, you can bet people will be sick of the Marvel franchise very quickly.
If you think there is some sort of SW fatigue, your ability to judge audience's expectations and demand is just as bad as Disney's management.
Possibly.Which is more to do with Disney realising that there is no actual demand for Solo once they've seen some box office tracking data. Things like trailer views, twitter's lack of discussion on Solo when the first trailer dropped will give Disney signs that the movie is not going to do well, and any investment into marketing heavily will be a waste of cash.
Kennedy's mistakes have nothing to do with managing 'cinematic universes'. Frankly, that approach can go die in a fire for all I care. It's not the only way to make movies. Marvel's dominance is harming cinema and its quite honestly the least interesting film franchise on Earth. Only a Disney shareholder should actually want this awful trend to take over Star Wars, not anyone interested in seeing a fresh take on Star Wars. Kevin Feige would be the total anthithesis of that. You'd be getting movies with the same tone and the same tropes being shovelled into your face again and again, forever.Disney lucked out with Feige being in charge of Marvel. As evident by the recent failures of most "cinematic universe" in Hollywood, most of the senior management barely have a clue on how to manage a franchise with interconnected storylines. I've told you before that your defence of Kennedy as the president of LFL is flawed, and now we've seen Ep 9 paying heavily ( in relative terms) for the mistakes of Kennedy.
I think all of Kennedy's experience as an old-school producer actively work against Star Wars, because it entails a lack of clear creative vision for the franchise as a whole. You cannot treat Star Wars movie as its own solo movie and give directors the freedom to do whatever they want just because that's how you have produced movies throughout your career. A producer who is not a story-teller will damage the overall value of the Star Wars "universe".
Marvel gets away with this, because the MCU so far has condensed 1960-2015; or about 55 years of contradictory storylines, contradictory origins, and the ever changing "linear Marvel Time Scale" where it's always ten years since Captain America was revived, into a single, pretty cohesive storyline...
On the other hand, the 09 Star Trek film did brilliantly because it ignored "the fans" and focused on making a decent film.Sidewinder wrote: ↑2020-01-24 04:34pm Stop blaming fans. Fans are the most important customers you have, as they spend the most on your franchise's merchandise (movie tickets, DVDs and blu-rays) and tie-ins (T-shirts, novels, comic books, action figures and other toys, video and computer games, etc.). If you have no fans, your profits will drop dramatically.
Disney not only failed to appeal to fans, it actively drove them away when the company allowed its employees (including Rian Johnson) to accuse those with constructive criticism- who are NOT all "straight white males" or "alt-right"- of being "toxic manbabies." Do you know I'm Chinese-American, and I voted for Obama in the 2008 and 2012 elections? I speak for myself when I say, "I don't like the sequel trilogy," NOT for the "alt-right."
09 JJTREK had the seeds of it's own demise written into it's DNA from the start.
Different era and a total lack of competition at the time.
It depends on how you interpret what you are getting from social media. The fact is the prequels were never as universally despised as social media and internet fanboys were making it out to be in the first place. Their A- score and inital fresh RT ratings suggest the inital reception was decent even if it wasn't stellar, before the fanboys drown out all other voices. Now, for the fanboys on the internet to praise the prequels shows a radical shift in the overall rhetoric about what's good SW and bad SW.Social media is deceptive. People reside in bubbles and hear things that they're predisposed to positively respond to, because it reinforces their views.
That doesn't mean its a significant hindrance.
And it really shows you're really mistaken ever since Disney bought over SW when you keep insisting a major movie studio won't be stupid enough to listen to fanboys. Turns out they are.Yep.
See above. When Disney thinks the fanboys are representative of the entire audience, it affects how they think a movie is received.Some did, sure. The loudest bunch of fanboys on the internet, sadly.
A franchise that isn't domiant would not make 2 billion when Ep 7 came out. Did you think the success of TFA was solely due to the 77-83 crowd watching it? Without the prequels to essentially bring the prequel era kids into the Star Wars franchise as a whole, TFA won't be as hyped up. TFA works because nearly everyone is familiar with SW (except in China because the audience there was just plain confused by the sheer amount of nostalgia bait)That's because TROS is a medicore misfire of a film with poor word of mouth, yes. You're getting away from the original point, which was that Star Wars hasn't been the dominant popculture franchise in decades.
You're letting your personal preference and bias cloud your judgment. SW and MCU are both cinematic "universe" in the sense that there was a whole cohesive universe across different movies and media that was driven by a key singular vision (at least SW was before Lucas sold it). The EU material for SW is extemely rich, IF the studio knew how to make use of them. The fact that studios don't ( even Filoni misued a character like Thrawn) is purely down to their mismanagement and lack of a good producer that understands how to make use of them.Nonsense. They're not the same kinds of franchise. Marvel movies actually tell the same kind of story repeatedly, and not very complicated stories at that. It's actually kind of ridiculous how often they repeat the same beats and the same tropes. Marvel movies are able to pull this off because comparing the 'Marvel universe' and 'the Star Wars universe' is not comparing like with like. Every comic book character inhabits their own mini-universe that is aesthetically and substantively very different from the others in look and feel. The idea that this can be repeated in Star Wars is simply ridiculous horseshit - Star Wars simply doesn't have that breadth of material to draw from. Even a cursory look at what Legends came up with over the decades (endless repetition of the rebels/new republic versus the empire/imperial remnant) will demonstrate that fact in two seconds flat.
Which is why I have to put the blame on Kennedy again. A producer or CEO that knows SW will have a clear idea what fans actually want and what they aren't interested in. Solo should have never have been greenlit in the first place. There was huge demand for an Obi-Wan movie, but Kennedy made the mistake of cancelling it and turning it into a mere TV show. Kennedy so far in her decision making, has acted like your average poster in an internet forum.Possibly.
I think you are being out of touch with how audience taste has changed and evolved. You don't like the Marvel movies, but kids, teenagers and young adults see MCU as THE defining franchise of their time. Your personal prejudice is terrible at helping you make good judgment about pop-cinema. You see MCU as being stale and recycling the same tone and stories, but the audience who eagerly watched the MCU movies don't see it that way. To them, they see MCU as fresh and even daring at times. Black Panther for example, resonated very well with African-Americans.Kennedy's mistakes have nothing to do with managing 'cinematic universes'. Frankly, that approach can go die in a fire for all I care. It's not the only way to make movies. Marvel's dominance is harming cinema and its quite honestly the least interesting film franchise on Earth. Only a Disney shareholder should actually want this awful trend to take over Star Wars, not anyone interested in seeing a fresh take on Star Wars. Kevin Feige would be the total anthithesis of that. You'd be getting movies with the same tone and the same tropes being shovelled into your face again and again, forever.
That's just handwaving.
No, its not just the fanboys at all. That the prequels are bad films is a widely held opinion in pop culture generally. This is hardly controverisal because all the ways they're poorly made and executed can be recited rote at this point.It depends on how you interpret what you are getting from social media. The fact is the prequels were never as universally despised as social media and internet fanboys were making it out to be in the first place. Their A- score and inital fresh RT ratings suggest the inital reception was decent even if it wasn't stellar, before the fanboys drown out all other voices. Now, for the fanboys on the internet to praise the prequels shows a radical shift in the overall rhetoric about what's good SW and bad SW.
That's changing the subject. We were talking about a lack of material, remember?It is when you consider how game development works. When almost every creative decision you make in a video game have to be approved by LFL to avoid stepping onto the shoes of the movie directors, there's not a lot of things you can do. Even BF2 have the stupid rule of heroes character can't be killed off in a multiplayer game because heroes canonically didn't die in those battles.
Yes, and?And it really shows you're really mistaken ever since Disney bought over SW when you keep insisting a major movie studio won't be stupid enough to listen to fanboys. Turns out they are.
Why the hell wouldn't it? A franchise need not be 'dominant' to make an insane amount of money when it comes back from a 10 year hiatus with a movie that's well-reviewed and has excellent word of mouth combined with leveraging nostalgia and a 'what happens next' hook. Star Wars simply was not a dominant franchise before 2015, and hadn't been for a very long time. It had been thoroughly overtaken by Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter in the minds of kids. That's just an objective fact that's not subject to debate, and minor datapoints like "oh it made slightly more money domestically than a Harry Potter movie in 2005" doesn't change that.A franchise that isn't domiant would not make 2 billion when Ep 7 came out. Did you think the success of TFA was solely due to the 77-83 crowd watching it? Without the prequels to essentially bring the prequel era kids into the Star Wars franchise as a whole, TFA won't be as hyped up. TFA works because nearly everyone is familiar with SW (except in China because the audience there was just plain confused by the sheer amount of nostalgia bait)
No, there's nothing "rich" about the SW EU. It's mostly total trash, read by a minority within a minority, and has absolutely none of the cultural clout of literally half a century of comic books about hundreds of different chaacters. The idea that the EU could for some sort of basis for a SW 'cinematic universe' is laughable.You're letting your personal preference and bias cloud your judgment. SW and MCU are both cinematic "universe" in the sense that there was a whole cohesive universe across different movies and media that was driven by a key singular vision (at least SW was before Lucas sold it). The EU material for SW is extemely rich, IF the studio knew how to make use of them. The fact that studios don't ( even Filoni misued a character like Thrawn) is purely down to their mismanagement and lack of a good producer that understands how to make use of them.
Who says there's huge demand for an Obi-Wan movie, and not a series? Reddit? I thought we weren't meant to listen to fanboys? You're contradicting yourself.Which is why I have to put the blame on Kennedy again. A producer or CEO that knows SW will have a clear idea what fans actually want and what they aren't interested in. Solo should have never have been greenlit in the first place. There was huge demand for an Obi-Wan movie, but Kennedy made the mistake of cancelling it and turning it into a mere TV show. Kennedy so far in her decision making, has acted like your average poster in an internet forum.
Producers aren't paid to make the same sort of decisions a fan can make. They are paid because they can be better than your average fan in understanding what people want to see and what they don't actually want to see.
I wonder why Black Panther, the only movie with an African-American lead and a substantially African-American cast, after literally scores of MCU movies led by whites, resonated very well with African-Americans?I think you are being out of touch with how audience taste has changed and evolved. You don't like the Marvel movies, but kids, teenagers and young adults see MCU as THE defining franchise of their time. Your personal prejudice is terrible at helping you make good judgment about pop-cinema. You see MCU as being stale and recycling the same tone and stories, but the audience who eagerly watched the MCU movies don't see it that way. To them, they see MCU as fresh and even daring at times. Black Panther for example, resonated very well with African-Americans.
So what? That doesn't mean Star Wars should become like Marvel. You might as well argue that Star Wars should adopt the methodology of the Fast and the Furious franchise. After all, it made money, didn't it?You don't like MCU, but enough people liked MCU to allow it to be the number 1 movie of all time worldwide box office.
Back then video games and other big franchise are hardly a thing. SW basically invented the whole notion of movie franchise. By the early 2000s, that's very common.
It's "widely held" because all the media outlets were basically ran by the same bunch of fanboys writing stories about how Lucas ruined Star Wars, when your average audience couldn't care less about it. A- cinemascore is a decent rating for major blockbusters.No, its not just the fanboys at all. That the prequels are bad films is a widely held opinion in pop culture generally. This is hardly controverisal because all the ways they're poorly made and executed can be recited rote at this point.
That's changing the subject. We were talking about a lack of material, remember?
I question the framework you used to judge what is a good strategy for SW and what's not good. I think many of your arguments are fundamentally lacking in long-term consequences.Yes, and?
I'm the generation of kids that grew up with HP, and I'm as big of a HP fan as I was of SW fan. I was crazy over HP, but in my mind SW was still the biggest franchise there is, while HP is more of a faze. HP was seen as a kids' and teenager's franchise, while SW was seen as something that both adults and kids can get crazy over together. My perception of how kids react and thought about franchise is far better than you imo, because I was actually a kid back then.Why the hell wouldn't it? A franchise need not be 'dominant' to make an insane amount of money when it comes back from a 10 year hiatus with a movie that's well-reviewed and has excellent word of mouth combined with leveraging nostalgia and a 'what happens next' hook. Star Wars simply was not a dominant franchise before 2015, and hadn't been for a very long time. It had been thoroughly overtaken by Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter in the minds of kids. That's just an objective fact that's not subject to debate, and minor datapoints like "oh it made slightly more money domestically than a Harry Potter movie in 2005" doesn't change that.
No, there's nothing "rich" about the SW EU. It's mostly total trash, read by a minority within a minority, and has absolutely none of the cultural clout of literally half a century of comic books about hundreds of different chaacters. The idea that the EU could for some sort of basis for a SW 'cinematic universe' is laughable.
Who says there's huge demand for an Obi-Wan movie, and not a series? Reddit? I thought we weren't meant to listen to fanboys? You're contradicting yourself.
So? The point is an MCU movie can resonate with its audiences really well. It is able to bring in new demographics and engage with people in a way the new SW movies failed to do.I wonder why Black Panther, the only movie with an African-American lead and a substantially African-American cast, after literally scores of MCU movies led by whites, resonated very well with African-Americans?
They can see this largely disposable forgettable pablum as 'the defining franchise of their time' all they like, they're still forgettable, largely interchangeable movies without any sort of consistent theme or message than what is convenient for the film (such that characterisation for their own characters changes wildly as required for whatever plot they've invented for the relevant film), produced to a very specific, rigid formula that simply doesn't change. Its very good at pleasing crowds and making money. That's all it does. It doesn't make for good cinema, and that you think this factory-assembly-line approach to film would actually be good for any sort of fiction you actually care about is horrifying. Unless you're a Disney shareholder, you shouldn't want this. Ever.
No one is saying SW should be a carbon copy of Marvel. Instead, break it down and figure out how to apply elements from Marvel that can benefit the SW franchise. Having a CEO of Lucasfilm that has a clear creative vision for the franchise the way Feige did is going to massively help. Your insistence that SW shouldn't learn from Marvel is the exact reason why we ended up with ROS that failed to make more money than R1 while Endgame is now the no1 movie of all time, with people that didn't even watch any prior MCU movies felt they should watch Endgame and the new audience enjoyed it as well.So what? That doesn't mean Star Wars should become like Marvel. You might as well argue that Star Wars should adopt the methodology of the Fast and the Furious franchise. After all, it made money, didn't it?
It's super common for fans of a thing to think they're the most significant part of the consumer base, but it has never actually been true. Fans are always a very small portion of the consumer base and their financial contribution is minimal compared to general audiences and especially children.Sidewinder wrote: ↑2020-01-24 04:34pm Stop blaming fans. Fans are the most important customers you have, as they spend the most on your franchise's merchandise (movie tickets, DVDs and blu-rays) and tie-ins (T-shirts, novels, comic books, action figures and other toys, video and computer games, etc.). If you have no fans, your profits will drop dramatically.
