Disney Star Wars General Discussion

[ArGarBarGar]

I don't know about a "war" between Disney and the fans, but insulting the people you hope are the paying customers is never a good idea for any business.

I think the "insults" have been generally over dramatized, particularly the whole interpretation that Disney only thought toxic fans hated TLJ.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

I think the "insults" have been generally over dramatized, particularly the whole interpretation that Disney only thought toxic fans hated TLJ.

People tend to overrate the "fans" importance.

Vocal fans on the internet are a VERY small portion of the customer base.

 

[Shockmaster]

People tend to overrate the "fans" importance.

Vocal fans on the internet are a VERY small portion of the customer base.

Man, I sure hope some of you aren't business owners.

But for the sake of avoiding argument, let's say that's true. Disney isn't currently avoiding the sequel trilogy because of vocal fans on the internet. Hell, if they went by who was most vocal on the internet they'd probably be pumping out more sequel trilogy content. They're avoiding it because it doesn't sell. If it did, they wouldn't be completely contracting Kathleen Kennedy when she proclaimed it being the future of Star Wars a few years back.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Man, I sure hope some of you aren't business owners.

But for the sake of avoiding argument, let's say that's true. Disney isn't currently avoiding the sequel trilogy because of vocal fans on the internet. Hell, if they went by who was most vocal on the internet they'd probably be pumping out more sequel trilogy content. They're avoiding it because it doesn't sell. If it did, they wouldn't be completely contracting Kathleen Kennedy when she proclaimed it being the future of Star Wars a few years back.

I made absolutely no argument about the sequel trilogy. All I said is that the vocal minority represent a small fragment of the consumer base. That being said, they DO have an influence on the larger customer base.

However, the argument that each movie grossed less than the previous one is a bad one. It is a trend that the two other triologies also had. The really metric you need to look at is the merch. Pretty sure people are not attached at all to the new characters and aren't buying merch. Hardcore fans DO have a bigger impact on merch than they have on theatre tickets. Collectors and so forth.

They are moving away from the ST because it does not sell, you are right about that. But it isn't because of the internet nerds not liking artistic choices... it is because of people not buying outside merch (which, yes, can be linked to the artistic choices, of course). It is because OTHER Star Wars properties sell more.

I hope YOU do not own a business of YOU think "fans" opinions on artistic choices matter in the grand scheme of things. People crapped on the PT and still do, yet, they were able to monetize it to great success. ST fails there... and it might not have anything to do with the quality of the films (and it could and probably has to at least a degree).

As I said many times, I fully expect them to try and revive these IPs (the characters and events of the ST) at some point. How? I do not know. When? I do not know. But there are stories to be told around that time period and way to monetize the properties. Does not matter if net nerds hated the movies or not. Now is not the time because it is too fresh and they have other very valuable stuff to exploit.

 

[Shockmaster]

I made absolutely no argument about the sequel trilogy. All I said is that the vocal minority represent a small fragment of the consumer base. That being said, they DO have an influence on the larger customer base.

I did. That was the point of the discussion starting with Hasbro omitting the sequel trilogy characters.

However, the argument that each movie grossed less than the previous one is a bad one. It is a trend that the two other triologies also had. The really metric you need to look at is the merch. Pretty sure people are not attached at all to the new characters and aren't buying merch. Hardcore fans DO have a bigger impact on merch than they have on theatre tickets. Collectors and so forth.

They are moving away from the ST because it does not sell, you are right about that. But it isn't because of the internet nerds not liking artistic choices... it is because of people not buying outside merch (which, yes, can be linked to the artistic choices, of course). It is because OTHER Star Wars properties sell more.

You just contradicted yourself there. Regardless, I don't think the higher quality of other Star Wars merchandise would stop them from buying sequel trilogy merchandise if it was of good quality, or as you put it, had better artistic choices.

I hope YOU do not own a business of YOU think "fans" opinions on artistic choices matter in the grand scheme of things. People crapped on the PT and still do, yet, they were able to monetize it to great success. ST fails there... and it might not have anything to do with the quality of the films (and it could and probably has to at least a degree).

Well if you hope those fans also become customers, then yeah, their opinions do matter to an extent. Perhaps the hate the prequels received was somewhat over-exaggerated as well.

As I said many times, I fully expect them to try and revive these IPs (the characters and events of the ST) at some point. How? I do not know. When? I do not know. But there are stories to be told around that time period and way to monetize the properties. Does not matter if net nerds hated the movies or not. Now is not the time because it is too fresh and they have other very valuable stuff to exploit.

Wouldn't hold your breath on that. The problem with the sequel trilogy era is that it's too similar to the original trilogy era, but worse. If Disney wants to tell another story set in a rebellion vs. empire setting, they're better off just telling it in the original trilogy era. Not to mention the actors of the sequel trilogy characters have made clear they have no interest in returning to Star Wars. Wouldn't count on Disney forking over the money to get them to change their minds either.

 

[AlanHUK]

What exactly is the "opposite of what RJ did"?

The Mandalorian isn't bad, but I also don't think it should be the "blueprint" for future Star Wars projects. I would like to see some more ambition, creatively.

Filoni and Favreau respect the IP and build from it, RJ made the IP fit his vision instead of his vision fitting inside the IP.

Sam Witwer sums it up nicely ‘you can’t reinvent Star Wars without knowing Star Wars first’

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Filoni and Favreau respect the IP and build from it, RJ made the IP fit his vision instead of his vision fitting inside the IP.

Sam Witwer sums it up nicely ‘you can’t reinvent Star Wars without knowing Star Wars first’

Elaborate on how RJ made the IP fit his vision, please.

 

[Osprey]

However, the argument that each movie grossed less than the previous one is a bad one. It is a trend that the two other triologies also had.

Actually, RotS grossed more than AotC, but you're right that the OT progressively made less. However, the argument could be made that that was a different era. The idea of trilogies was almost unheard of, people were a little skeptical of sequels and there was no internet hype machine. That's very different from today. It seems to me that we should be comparing the ST to other modern film series, like the Ironman and Captain America trilogies, both of which made more money with each entry. That's likely the bar that Disney was aiming for and why they probably aren't too happy that each of their movies made significantly less.

 

[Osprey]

Elaborate on how RJ made the IP fit his vision, please.

If you're honestly curious about why he thinks that RJ made the IP fit his vision, you should start by giving your argument for why you feel that he did the opposite, IMO. If you're not willing to, you shouldn't just put him on the defensive and expect him to waste his time answering to you.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

If you're honestly curious about why he thinks that RJ made the IP fit his vision, you should start by giving your argument for why you feel that he did the opposite, IMO. If you're not willing to, you shouldn't just put him on the defensive and expect him to waste his time answering to you.

Why would he be on the defensive? He proposed an idea that I honestly don't understand either. ArGar never said anything about RJ's process so why would he need to argue for the opposite?

 

[ArGarBarGar]

If you're honestly curious about why he thinks that RJ made the IP fit his vision, you should start by giving your argument for why you feel that he did the opposite, IMO. If you're not willing to, you shouldn't just put him on the defensive and expect him to waste his time answering to you.

That isn't how it works, though. He is making claims about something, and I'm looking for an elaboration of his previous statement so I understand it better. I don't need to make my own claims to explore someone else's.

 

[Osprey]

Why would he be on the defensive? He proposed an idea that I honestly don't understand either. ArGar never said anything about RJ's process so why would he need to argue for the opposite?

He's on the defensive because the burden is being placed on him to defend his statement and he isn't being given anything to argue against. It's like a prosecutor tossing questions at someone on the witness stand. I don't think that that's a polite or fair way to argue. If I'm going to ask someone to explain a statement, I'll take some of the burden on myself and give my own thoughts on the matter, so that the argument isn't one sided and the person can question my own thoughts in return. That seems only fair. Throwing out a one-line question and expecting a paragraph in return just so that I can pick it apart and keep the person on the defensive isn't, IMO.

That isn't how it works, though. He is making claims about something, and I'm looking for an elaboration of his previous statement so I understand it better. I don't need to make my own claims to explore someone else's.

It seems a little disingenuous to suggest that you were just trying to understand him better.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I think that it's a little disingenuous to suggest that you were just trying to understand him better.

Okay, what on earth do you think it means when someone requests an elaboration on a statement they make?

 

[Osprey]

Okay, what on earth do you think it means when someone requests an elaboration on a statement they make?

Considering that you challenge nearly anyone here who criticizes the trilogy or RJ, and that's what he was doing, it stands to reason that you were challenging him, not trying to understand him.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Considering that you challenge nearly anyone here who criticizes the trilogy or RJ, and that's what he was doing, it stands to reason that you were challenging him, not trying to understand him.

I think he is a big boy and can take care of himself without you inserting yourself into the conversation. If he doesn't feel the need to elaborate further, he is perfectly welcome to, and I won't take any umbrage with it. But I don't particularly understand what he means by "making the IP fit his vision", because that is an incredibly vague observation and could mean different things, so I asked for elaboration.

 

[Osprey]

I think he is a big boy and can take care of himself without you inserting yourself into the conversation. If he doesn't feel the need to elaborate further, he is perfectly welcome to, and I won't take any umbrage with it. But I don't particularly understand what he means by "making the IP fit his vision", because that is an incredibly vague observation and could mean different things, so I asked for elaboration.

RJ is a big boy, as well, and can take care of himself without you defending him every time that someone criticizes him. You routinely insert yourself into conversations and put people on the defensive, so I was just giving you a taste of your own medicine. As for "making the IP fit his vision," yes, that can mean different things, but I believe that you asked so that you could argue with whichever meaning he meant, not simply out of curiosity. If you're going to insist that it was the latter, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

You cannot talk about me apparently inserting myself into conversations when you literally inserted yourself into a conversation between me and someone else.

If you think I'm acting in bad faith then don't engage with me. That is better than whatever you are trying to do right now.

 

[Warden of the North]

Put me on the list of people who never want Rian Johnson to have anything to do with Star Wars again.

"Art" be damned, TLJ is the most disappointing part of Star Wars I've encountered

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

"Art" be damned

Sums it up pretty well.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

I just want some ambition (I don't believe Mandalorian is particularly ambitious), and I don't want upcoming shows/movies to try too hard to tie into the OT or PT or ST or Clone Wars, similar to like we see in the MCU in some cases. My favorite movies in the MCU were generally self-contained (BP, GoTG, Thor 3), and allowed the main characters to grow without major plot points relying on outside characters that we can point at and say "hey I know that character!" Yes I know Thor 3 had Banner, but his inclusion wasn't the major focus ( just like Bucky at the end credits of BP).

There is a lot of potential in the new IPs that were announced, though, so I am curious to see how it all plays out. But like with the MCU I wonder how much they are going to tie in existing characters/locations/references to them.

Of all things, I think I am most excited for whatever Taika Waititi has in store for his upcoming movie. Even though I have no idea what it is about he seems like a great fit for a Star Wars movie.

 

[Osprey]

Put me on the list of people who never want Rian Johnson to have anything to do with Star Wars again.

"Art" be damned, TLJ is the most disappointing part of Star Wars I've encountered

TLJ wasn't even artistic. It was just disrespectful, which Rian seems to confuse for being artistic. I've watched a few of his other films and haven't liked them, either. They seem to have a "smug" quality to them where you can sense how highly Rian thinks of himself and how hard he's trying to impress the audience and subvert their expectations. Unfortunately for us, he succeeded with TLJ because we sure didn't expect what we got.

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

TLJ wasn't even artistic. It was just disrespectful, which Rian seems to confuse for being artistic. I've watched a few of his other films and haven't liked them, either. They seem to have a "smug" quality to them where you can sense how highly Rian thinks of himself and how hard he's trying to impress the audience and subvert their expectations. Unfortunately for us, he succeeded with TLJ because we sure didn't expect what we got.

Well, I won't defend Rian Johnson because I don't like him either, but TLJ is still the only film of the series using narrative elements to build something more than a gooddies vs baddies. Most of it is about building expectations (in the film itself, but maybe as a reflection of expectations towards the film), and leaving them with no satifying closure, in order to turn a relativist mirror on the series' absolutist discourse.

It's certainly not high art, but it's enough to go over the heads of most of the fans of this type of films. The whole what was done to my Luke?! and this is disrespectful (to my expectations) reactions are highly ironic and only make the film more interesting and pertinent. If anything, Johnson should have gone further because what was pretty obvious (you know, the guy did sell arms to the Rebels too) clearly wasn't enough.

 

[AlanHUK]

Elaborate on how RJ made the IP fit his vision, please.

Luke Skywalker.… I mean it doesn’t really need to be elaborated on, but you’d ask me to so

Luke’s 3 film character arc was disregarded, he becomes a Jedi when he gains control over his impulses putting down his weapon in ROTJ

In the TLJ he goes to kill his nephew because he had bad thoughts, the guy who believed Vader could be redeemed ignites his weapon on a sleeping child. It’s described as a fleeting moment, but he literally armed himself entered Kyle’s room and ignited the sabre. That’s not fleeting there’s thought involved.

After this(timeline wise) he went searching for the first Jedi temple(TFA states this), which is a very Luke thing to do, something goes wrong he learns and goes again.

But then when we see him he has given up on himself and said the Jedi need to end. With no explanation, and unanswered questions?

Why was he searching for the temple?
If the Jedi needed to end why did he keep the texts?
Why leave a map to his location if he was going to refuse to do anything?

Now you as an individual may like RJ’s decisions, but they categorically do not fit the established character of Luke Skywalker, and when you have the person who played him say that it’s not something you can debate.

If we move away from Luke onto general things:

Light speed tracking (without planting trackers, which led us to light speed skipping a complete abomination)
Light speed kamikaze (makes the OT pretty dumb they could have done it to the Death Star)
Physically transferring matter from one location to another through the force (JJ made this far far worse)

But the actors can probably shed more light onto it

Mark Hamill - I said to Rian, ‘Jedi’s don’t give up’

Daisy Ridley - ‘Rian didn’t keep anything from the first draft of the Episode 8 scripts, ‘ultimately RJ is a film maker, and one person can’t dictate how a film is supposed to be - but freedom of expression sure’

Sam Witwer (Maul) - ‘you have to know Star Wars to reinvent star wars’

John Boyega - would take too long, but he’s not been shy about his feelings.

Anthony Daniels also wasn’t a fan, the guy who played ackbar talked about how disrespectful they had been to him on set.

Now I like RJ as a director, and if this was a stand alone movie it wouldn’t be viewed with anywhere near the level of disdain it gets(excluding the whole space casino side plot). But it wasn’t a stand alone movie, it was a sequel to 7 previous films.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

For the record, TLJ was not the first movie to introduce light speed tracking, Rogue One was.

A couple other clarifications:

1. It is heavily implied that Luke was prepared to destroy the Jedi texts when Rey landed on the planet (note the robes he is wearing in the first shot are the same as those he wears in the end)
2. Luke didn't leave the map for people to find him. There is nothing in the text that indicates he specifically left that map, unless there is something that I missed. The only thing I know of that indicates Luke left the map is in an excerpt in the visual encyclopedia (I believe that is what it is from, and that isn't necessarily an authoritative source on what is canon).

 

[Pranzo Oltranzista]

and when you have the person who played him say that it’s not something you can debate.

You say absolutely nothing about Rian Johnson's vision, you only state the things YOU feel doesn't match the previous films... Anyway, I don't really care debating your understanding of Skywalker's character, I just thought that this appeal to authority was hilarious considering what some pretty important names' feel about the whole saga...

"Can't say I'm enjoying the film — new rubbish dialogue reaches me every other day on wages of pink paper — and none of it makes my character clear or even bearable." - Alec Guiness

"I did think the character itself was relatively thin." "I think he’s certainly a much less interesting character than Indiana Jones. He’s dumb as a stump..." - Harrison Ford about Han Solo

Not something you can debate!