What do you want the force, and the Jedi to mean?

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, as I recall, you were already denouncing the Sequels before the first movie premiered, so I don't think you're entirely objective here. I think that, like a lot of fans, you're too fixated on their being only one right way to make a Star Wars movie (ie the way you expected/wanted it to be made), and therefore treat everything else as bad.

And we could still get a scene of ghost Luke passing the torch to Rey in person, though it remains to be seen if that will happen.

I denounce them because I think the writing team is not ideal. I've pointed out many issues I had with JJ Abrams as a director, and recently a number of people have come around to the points I made about him before TFA started shooting. Do I think there's a "one right way" to make a Star Wars movie? Yeah of course, because I think that's the path that will satisfy the fanbase the most while at the same time open up the Star Wars universe for more story-telling opportunities.

And my counter-argument would be that even leaving aside my basic dislike for pandering, trying to satisfy the fan base first is a fool's errand, because the fan base is composed of a bunch of different people with a bunch of different views they're all passionately attached to, many of which amount to "I want it to be like my imagining of the OT through rose-tinted glasses, except somehow still original", which is impossible because those films were made by different people with different technology in a different era, and they couldn't be duplicated if they tried. Trying to pander to the fandom is "written by committee" dialed up to a million.

Of course, what a lot of people mean by "satisfy the fanbase" is basically "appease the die-hard OT fanboys who have appointed themselves gatekeepers of the franchise". I don't think they should be pandered to, and we both know TFA was hurt by trying to pander to them, because trying to appeal to those people, and opening up the Star Wars universe for new opportunities, are mutually-contradictory goals. I think the franchise would be far better served by trying to grow a larger fan base. I think that they made a movie just for the OT fans with Solo- and it tanked. IIIRC, its the only Star Wars movie never to turn a profit at the box office. There's a lesson there, but a lot of people took entirely the wrong one, and concluded that Solo failed due to a backlash against TLJ not pandering to the bitter OT fanboys enough.

I also think that the fact that you wrote off these movies before you ever saw them casts doubt on the fairness and objectivity of your analysis. Same for all the other critics who wrote them off before they saw them. Say what you will about my views, I gave TLJ not one but two viewings before coming to conclusions about it.

You can have a scene of Luke passing the torch to Rey, but that moment will not sastify many fans because many fans ( excluding the sexists) can feel Rey never had the chance to be Luke's student in the truest sense. The bond between Luke the master and Rey the student is very underdeveloped, with TLJ implying that all Rey needs is Luke's books rather than his personal instruction.

Many fans will be dissatisfied no matter what they do.

I also think, thought its tangential here, that it was less "Rey just needs the books" and more "Rey needs to reinvent the Jedi as something new, keeping the spirit of the institution while losing the institutional baggage." In other words, what's important is who she is as a person, not the books.

My issue with the sequels is how they were approached conceptually. I think you can have the best acting and directing around in a film, but if the film is built upon weak concepts, it will undermine the overall appeal of the setting in the long run.

I agree with that statement, in and of itself. I just think you're overlooking the fact that there are some good concepts in the ST (particularly TLJ) because they aren't the concepts you had in mind.

So in essence, I think the people who cheered and basically partake in the social media campaign about how JJ Abrams was the best choice to direct EP 7 were the ones that should share responsibility if the sequel era ultimately end up as an era that no one is really that invested in. I see it as people trading long-term enjoyment for a quick-short-term fix.

As someone who argued that Abrams was a good choice to direct, I'd like to address this: Abrams is in my opinion a decent director, and a fairly solid choice for Star Wars given his style and experience... but he's not very good at constructing a solid plot. If he left the script alone, and just focused on directing, I think he'd be just fine. Unfortunately, directors tend to exercise a lot of power over the script in the film industry (much more than in television, as I recall), so therein lies the problem.

[ray245]

And my counter-argument would be that even leaving aside my basic dislike for pandering, trying to satisfy the fan base first is a fool's errand, because the fan base is composed of a bunch of different people with a bunch of different views they're all passionately attached to, many of which amount to "I want it to be like my imagining of the OT through rose-tinted glasses, except somehow still original", which is impossible because those films were made by different people with different technology in a different era, and they couldn't be duplicated if they tried. Trying to pander to the fandom is "written by committee" dialed up to a million.

Of course, what a lot of people mean by "satisfy the fanbase" is basically "appease the die-hard OT fanboys who have appointed themselves gatekeepers of the franchise". I don't think they should be pandered to, and we both know TFA was hurt by trying to pander to them, because trying to appeal to those people, and opening up the Star Wars universe for new opportunities, are mutually-contradictory goals. I think the franchise would be far better served by trying to grow a larger fan base. I think that they made a movie just for the OT fans with Solo- and it tanked. IIIRC, its the only Star Wars movie never to turn a profit at the box office. There's a lesson there, but a lot of people took entirely the wrong one, and concluded that Solo failed due to a backlash against TLJ not pandering to the bitter OT fanboys enough.

I said sastify, not pander. That's two different things. A company can chose not to pander to fans but still satisfy the fans because fans usually don't know what they want. The recent total war game is one such example. A loud segment of the Total War fanbase was upset about a new game set in China because most of them don't know anything about China and hence they think they will dislike the game based on that. Instead, Total War Three Kingdom not only sold well in China, but it also sold very well in the US and Europe.

Pandering would be giving the fans more European-focused game.

I also think that the fact that you wrote off these movies before you ever saw them casts doubt on the fairness and objectivity of your analysis. Same for all the other critics who wrote them off before they saw them. Say what you will about my views, I gave TLJ not one but two viewings before coming to conclusions about it.

My issue with the movie is regarding their concepts, and not with their execution. A technically well-executed film can still disappoint me if I dislike the concept from the get-go. I think that helps in making me objective because I know the exact issues why I am not happy with the film, rather than hiding behind some sort of in-depth film-breakdown to justify my lack of interest in them.

Many fans will be dissatisfied no matter what they do.

Sure, but there are ways you can do to make the character more engaging to more fans. You can't win everyone over, but you can win more people over. Disney chose the path with the most resistance, rather than the path that will make fans embrace the character even more.

I also think, thought its tangential here, that it was less "Rey just needs the books" and more "Rey needs to reinvent the Jedi as something new, keeping the spirit of the institution while losing the institutional baggage." In other words, what's important is who she is as a person, not the books.

So why make the books a focus instead of making Rey learn directly from Luke and his experiences ( both positive and negative)? In a drama, the relationship between characters is the more important than making a character learn skills by reading a book. Because a proper mentor-student relationship can allow the director to show how the student learn about the force, reading than telling the audience how the student learn about the force.

I agree with that statement, in and of itself. I just think you're overlooking the fact that there are some good concepts in the ST (particularly TLJ) because they aren't the concepts you had in mind.

There is SOME interesting concepts, especially with the attempt at showing how both the resistance and first order are equally responsible for feeding the military-industrial complex. But all that is wasted on the setting imposed by JJ Abrams.

As someone who argued that Abrams was a good choice to direct, I'd like to address this: Abrams is in my opinion a decent director, and a fairly solid choice for Star Wars given his style and experience... but he's not very good at constructing a solid plot. If he left the script alone, and just focused on directing, I think he'd be just fine. Unfortunately, directors tend to exercise a lot of power over the script in the film industry (much more than in television, as I recall), so therein lies the problem.

Abrams is only a solid director if you are asking him to make a one-off movie that people will forget about after a few years. He is terrible at building a solid foundation for a franchise or a series of films. Certain directors fit certain movies. In a franchise like Star Wars, in which good world-building is fundamental to making all sorts of viable cinematic universe across films, tv shows, cartoons, comics and books, you need a director that have a good understanding of making an engaging setting.

My impression of JJ Abrams is that he is a very good marketing expert, but a terrible director. He's good at creating gimmicks that will hook and entertain the audience if they saw the movie once, but his films tend to fall apart upon rewatching it and restricting the creative room for other writers and directors.

The foundation that JJ Abrams built for the Star Trek movies was terrible, and the nu-Trek basically collapsed upon itself after 3 films, even if they were all well-reviewed by critics. I think the same will happen to the sequel era with less and less audience being less invested in what happened to the galaxy.

[FaxModem1]

You know, I'm thinking about the sequel series to Avatar the Last Airbender, The Legend of Korra. In that show, the new crew has to deal with things that the Gaang, to use the fan term for the original characters, never did. But what also happened was that the original conflicts from the original show didn't show up, meaning that the world had grown and changed. Instead of the big bad Fire Nation invading the other three nations again, it was instead focusing on how the Water Tribes had a civil war, how the Earth kingdom was splintering and needed to reunite, how the Non-benders were discriminated against in Republic City by benders, etc. The world had grown, and while the original cast were still there, their achievements weren't ripped away so that we could see the Fire Nation as bad guys again, going after the rest of the world in misguided conquest. Toph, now an old woman in the Legend of Korra, even points out that she's old, and that fighting like she used to is beyond her. That's why we follow the new Avatar and her friends.

Imagine if Star Wars had done that. The Empire is gone, or neutralized, and you have to deal with human and alien relations, or the corporations and their corruption, or the people who don't want Jedi as arbiters in their disputes, viewing their powers as violations, etc. Or since that might be too intelligent and different from the OT, how about the New Republic having to deal with the Hutts and the corruption they're bringing in, and Luke and the gang stymied by key people being bought, limiting their ability to do anything, requiring different hands, such as their successors.

Instead, every accomplishment of the OT's is destroyed, so that we can have an equivalent of the Empire vs a ragtag group of heroes, without telling us who everyone is. The Jedi Order doesn't exist, because we can't have Luke accomplishing anything, so Rey can start at the ground floor of rebuilding the Jedi and learning to be one, at the cost of Luke's accomplishments meaning nothing in the long run.

Heck, Batman Beyond, which was controversial for showing that Gotham was still as bad as ever, if not worse, still had the key step of having Bruce Wayne continuing as a mentor role for the new Batman. However, Batman is a much different character, with points being made several times that Batman was always a bit too distant and cold to others, which drove people away and led him to living alone. They even had the controversial way of Batman retiring, due to him getting so old that he used a gun to survive, making him realize that he couldn't do it anymore. It seemed like a logical end for him as an old man without seeming like an odd evolution of him. There was further controversy in showing that Superman had been mind controlled for decades by Starro, whose character is much closer to Luke Skywalker in temperament and outlook, who was still someone who kept the Justice League going, and showed that outside of Gotham, the rest of the world is sunny, bright, and better because of Superman and the Justice League's actions.

I see what others have said about the Star Wars saga, that what they accomplished is wiped away so that it can be rebuilt from the ground up. And it is saddening, because you can have repeated conflicts to show that the galaxy is growing, without saying that previous sacrifices really meant nothing.