I’m of two minds on Movie vs TV as well.
I like the less rushed format of TV. Most of episode 3 was exactly what I was hoping for with this series (Ben with a day job and Ben & little Leia). However, all that I enjoyed so much this week, the lengthy walk through the mining colony and the safe house, would have been lost or severely trimmed for time in a two-hour film. You just couldn’t burn a quarter of a film on that character depth and deeper pace. I’m fine with the lesser production value because for me, story comes first.
In defense of a film, we would have bigger better production values but how much better? Enough to sacrifice depth and story? Maybe not and as I just mentioned above, not for me. After the mess that was Solo, I think we’re years away from a theatrical event in the franchise. That may not be a bad thing.
Well, Star Wars movies - with the possible exception of Rise of Skywalker - aren’t exactly Michael Bay’s Transformers. There’s plenty of slow scenes and stuff that gets called boring. The first chunk of ANH, for example, is just two droids wandering through a desert. And the double edged sword of TV series is, while they might have material for 4 hours, if they need to fill out 8 hours then water gets dumped in and it’s hard to argue this show isn’t watered down.
But true, bombing of Solo might be the reason for more series and less movies. With Darth Maul cameoing there and Vader in Rogue One, I expected those two to come together and work as set ups for the content in the Kenobi movie that was being developed. Thought maybe Vader, in this movie continuity, was responsible for cyborging Maul back into fighting shape and we’d see two of the most visually iconic baddies together on screen vs Obi Wan. Anyway, trialing off here.
Yeah, series vs film. Everything has its upsides and it’s usually based on the type of conflict you’re exploring. McKee explains it better within the first minute here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMrPdxLqIlU