DominicCobb

It’s not.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

I don’t agree. TFA served its purpose of mostly being a nostalgia trip, and while most felt it was derivative of ANH and very safe, I think only relatively small minority actually truly disliked it.

“Served its purpose”.
Like I said before, the “this movie needed to ease people back in with nostalgia and the next movies could be different” line doesn’t work when TFA locked in the nostagliamax art direction and Rebels vs Empire rehash, among other things.
Rebooting ANH made the entire trilogy stillborn.

I agree it didn’t make things easy for RJ, but the existence of the New Republic, and the fringe government nature of the FO left its sequel with enough possibilities to take things in a different direction, despite TFA’s tendency to copy ANH. TFA ends with both the New Republic, and the FO suffering a major defeat. It was TLJ that turned the FO into an organisation with unlimited resources like the Empire, the Resistance into rebels, and prevented the New Republic from being an active participant in the rest of the story.

I mean, the FO was already more resource rich than the Empire, if the third (and bigger badder) Death Star is anything to go by.

Again I agree with Biggs here (to an extent, I think the FO’s wealth in relation to the Empire is up for debate). Everything you stated, Dre, is as true in TFA as it is in TLJ. (Which, by the way is what I mean when I say that fans aren’t angry TLJ did a 180 on TFA, they’re angry that it didn’t.)

By the way we’re way off topic at this point.

I disagree. Both the New Republic and the FO suffered a major setback, but it only seems to have affected the good guys, and the FO reigns the galaxy from the moment TLJ begins, as stated in the crawl. The fight in TFA was uneven, because the New Republic wouldn’t openly oppose the FO. In TLJ the fight is uneven, because the rebels are the only ones left standing, and the galaxy is about to be overrun.

If you’re saying TLJ had the ability to move in a different direction, I don’t disagree. But the direction it went it was completely valid and in keeping with what TFA established.

First of all, you’re taking “the First Order reigns” too literally to mean that they literally control the whole galaxy, when the meaning here is that they’ve simply become the most preeminent force in the galaxy. The New Republic’s leadership has been shattered, which has left the rest of it in complete disarray (which is why the FO has been so easily taking over, as stated in the film). The Resistance/rebels aren’t the only ones left standing, in fact it is stated that Leia has allies that have the strength and power to stand up and oppose the FO’s conquest alongside her, if only they could believe that it is a fight they can win. So we went from uneven fight because the New Republic won’t publicly oppose, to uneven fight because the New Republic’s head’s been cut off, with FO swooping in to pick up the pieces and the rest being to afraid to help fight back.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

I don’t agree. TFA served its purpose of mostly being a nostalgia trip, and while most felt it was derivative of ANH and very safe, I think only relatively small minority actually truly disliked it.

“Served its purpose”.
Like I said before, the “this movie needed to ease people back in with nostalgia and the next movies could be different” line doesn’t work when TFA locked in the nostagliamax art direction and Rebels vs Empire rehash, among other things.
Rebooting ANH made the entire trilogy stillborn.

I agree it didn’t make things easy for RJ, but the existence of the New Republic, and the fringe government nature of the FO left its sequel with enough possibilities to take things in a different direction, despite TFA’s tendency to copy ANH. TFA ends with both the New Republic, and the FO suffering a major defeat. It was TLJ that turned the FO into an organisation with unlimited resources like the Empire, the Resistance into rebels, and prevented the New Republic from being an active participant in the rest of the story.

I mean, the FO was already more resource rich than the Empire, if the third (and bigger badder) Death Star is anything to go by.

Again I agree with Biggs here (to an extent, I think the FO’s wealth in relation to the Empire is up for debate). Everything you stated, Dre, is as true in TFA as it is in TLJ. (Which, by the way is what I mean when I say that fans aren’t angry TLJ did a 180 on TFA, they’re angry that it didn’t.)

By the way we’re way off topic at this point.

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

I don’t agree. TFA served its purpose of mostly being a nostalgia trip, and while most felt it was derivative of ANH and very safe, I think only relatively small minority actually truly disliked it.

“Served its purpose”.
Like I said before, the “this movie needed to ease people back in with nostalgia and the next movies could be different” line doesn’t work when TFA locked in the nostagliamax art direction and Rebels vs Empire rehash, among other things.
Rebooting ANH made the entire trilogy stillborn.

I agree it didn’t make things easy for RJ, but the existence of the New Republic, and the fringe government nature of the FO left its sequel with enough possibilities to take things in a different direction, despite TFA’s tendency to copy ANH. TFA ends with both the New Republic, and the FO suffering a major defeat. It was TLJ that turned the FO into an organisation with unlimited resources like the Empire, the Resistance into rebels, and prevented the New Republic from being an active participant in the rest of the story.

I mean, the FO was already more resource rich than the Empire, if the third (and bigger badder) Death Star is anything to go by.

Considering that SKB apparently was also their home world I don’t necessarily agree. I would have argued after TFA, that they put most of their resources into turning their homeworld into a super weapon. The FO seemed more like the rebels in TESB to me, forced to hide on an ice cube in the unknown regions.

There’s nothing in the film to suggest that the SKB is their home world, nor that all of their resources were contained on that planet.

As for hiding on an ice cube, this

looks quite a bit different than this

It looks different for sure, but the entire base looks like something from a James Bond movie, the secret base of a terrorist organisation like Spectre. The fact that the FO resides on an inhabitable ice cube strongly suggests they were forced to build up their military strength in secret.

I don’t deny that they built up their force in secret (that’s obviously the implication), and I think a more relevant comparison would be to the Death Star, which was also done in secret (although I definitely get SPECTRE vibes too). What I disagree with is the suggestion that this is analogous to ESB, where the rebels are literally hiding because they know the second they are spotted the Empire is going to absolutely obliterate them. The Empire openly opposed and sought the complete destruction of the rebels, while the New Republic did not for the FO.

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

I don’t agree. TFA served its purpose of mostly being a nostalgia trip, and while most felt it was derivative of ANH and very safe, I think only relatively small minority actually truly disliked it.

“Served its purpose”.
Like I said before, the “this movie needed to ease people back in with nostalgia and the next movies could be different” line doesn’t work when TFA locked in the nostagliamax art direction and Rebels vs Empire rehash, among other things.
Rebooting ANH made the entire trilogy stillborn.

I agree it didn’t make things easy for RJ, but the existence of the New Republic, and the fringe government nature of the FO left its sequel with enough possibilities to take things in a different direction, despite TFA’s tendency to copy ANH. TFA ends with both the New Republic, and the FO suffering a major defeat. It was TLJ that turned the FO into an organisation with unlimited resources like the Empire, the Resistance into rebels, and prevented the New Republic from being an active participant in the rest of the story.

I mean, the FO was already more resource rich than the Empire, if the third (and bigger badder) Death Star is anything to go by.

Again I agree with Biggs here (to an extent, I think the FO’s wealth in relation to the Empire is up for debate). Everything you stated, Dre, is as true in TFA as it is in TLJ. (Which, by the way is what I mean when I say that fans aren’t angry TLJ did a 180 on TFA, they’re angry that it didn’t.)

By the way we’re way off topic at this point.

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

I don’t agree. TFA served its purpose of mostly being a nostalgia trip, and while most felt it was derivative of ANH and very safe, I think only relatively small minority actually truly disliked it.

“Served its purpose”.
Like I said before, the “this movie needed to ease people back in with nostalgia and the next movies could be different” line doesn’t work when TFA locked in the nostagliamax art direction and Rebels vs Empire rehash, among other things.
Rebooting ANH made the entire trilogy stillborn.

I agree it didn’t make things easy for RJ, but the existence of the New Republic, and the fringe government nature of the FO left its sequel with enough possibilities to take things in a different direction, despite TFA’s tendency to copy ANH. TFA ends with both the New Republic, and the FO suffering a major defeat. It was TLJ that turned the FO into an organisation with unlimited resources like the Empire, the Resistance into rebels, and prevented the New Republic from being an active participant in the rest of the story.

I mean, the FO was already more resource rich than the Empire, if the third (and bigger badder) Death Star is anything to go by.

Considering that SKB apparently was also their home world I don’t necessarily agree. I would have argued after TFA, that they put most of their resources into turning their homeworld into a super weapon. The FO seemed more like the rebels in TESB to me, forced to hide on an ice cube in the unknown regions.

There’s nothing in the film to suggest that the SKB is their home world, nor that all of their resources were contained on that planet.

As for hiding on an ice cube, this

looks quite a bit different than this

Tobar said:

dahmage said:

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

In my mind the only thing close to a solution for Disney/LFL is to move entirely beyond the existing characters, so at least there will be one less factor that comes with a lot of emotional baggage for fans.

Or, you know, they could have treated the legacy characters right. Never getting to see the big three reunited just one more time on screen will always be unforgivable. That is one area the ST bungled from the beginning.

To your point, I agree and think a lot of the fervor will die down once the original cast are done post IX.

but that’s just it that might have been right for you but I would have been very annoyed by that type of ST. Putting the big three together would have felt extremely fanservicey in my opinion.

Well then, you are lost. =P The way they separated the cast is something that’s usually only done in extreme cases of scheduling conflicts and is never satisfying. The story excuses for it in TFA were horrid. It painted both Han and Luke in a very poor light to just abandon Leia like that. Those three are inextricably linked together.

I remember someone here once put it best, that the OT was their story (Luke, Leia, Han), and everything else is just bonus. The fact that they don’t all meet up, from that perspective, isn’t that big an issue. It’s not their story, they’re just supporting characters in it, coming and going depending on the story’s needs. The idea that they’re a unit and must be together at all costs rings somewhat false to me as an absolute truth, because in reality they share relatively few scenes all together in the OT. Still, if this was the conclusion of the OT, I’d agree, we should see them together. But it’s not, for them it’s just an epilogue of sorts.

Artificially tearing them apart like that served no purpose other than to deprive fans of something special that can now never be rectified.

I mean you must know that’s just not true. Why would they do something with the sole purpose of annoying fans? Obviously the reason is that it didn’t fit the story they were telling. Whether you like that story or not is another matter, but let’s at least be honest here.

Tobar said:

DominicCobb said:

In my mind the only thing close to a solution for Disney/LFL is to move entirely beyond the existing characters, so at least there will be one less factor that comes with a lot of emotional baggage for fans.

Or, you know, they could have treated the legacy characters right. Never getting to see the big three reunited just one more time on screen will always be unforgivable. That is one area the ST bungled from the beginning.

Well that certainly is something that they could have done to appease fans. But a lot of people think the legacy characters have been served very well (and appreciate that they’ve been given a story that didn’t necessarily have to fit the obvious fan service check boxes). Served “right” is incredibly subjective.

Tying into my point here, I think that if decades of pent up fan hype wasn’t part of the equation, then this wouldn’t be as big a problem for some. After all these years, it’s natural for fans to have very specific ideas of what “serving a character right” means.

BiggsFan44 said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

I think it’s too easy to blame the fans. The fact is that TFA and RO were generally well recieved by fans and critics alike, despite being derivative and rife with fan service. Evidently something changed after the release of TLJ.

People realized that TFA was hollow.

As much as I disagree with your assessment, I do think there’s a kernel of truth somewhere in there. I would argue that the reason TLJ was so divisive is only partially because of TLJ itself, I think a significant amount of the hate comes from people who like TFA conditionally, who saw it and thought “well I don’t know, I guess it was fun but let’s see where this goes.” Since TFA was just the start it was easy to put aside the elements they didn’t care for and try to imagine things would be more to their liking next time. When TLJ doubled down on that track, and with 2/3 of the ST in existence, it makes sense that we’re now seeing some pent up frustrations with the overall direction of the trilogy coming to the fore only now.

The truth is I think the large majority of what’s divisive about TLJ can be found in TFA as well. The only thing, in my mind, besides what I mentioned above that makes TLJ more divisive is that it is less easy breezy and fan servicey/conservative than TFA.

Which is to say nothing of the fact that, if this forum is any indication, TFA was not universally loved by fans. I personally thought the TFA debates would never end. Thankfully I know now that the TLJ debates will subside once IX is released.

DrDre said:

RogueLeader said:

You can’t equate Marvel and Star Wars and say if there is no Marvel controversy then Lucasfilm must be doing something wrong. I understand why people compare them, but they’re not the same

It’s not just Marvel. Star Wars has become a poster boy for fan toxicity in the eyes of the media. Its fans are at war with each other over the future of the franchise. I would say the franchise is in a deep crisis, yet LFM seems to be oblivious to this, or is ignoring it altogether.

What are they supposed to do to fix this? I can’t think of any feasible solution. You speak out against toxicity, fans complain that you’re calling everyone toxic. You make a movie doing something interesting, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make a movie catering to fans, fans complain it’s not what they want. You make no movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. You make lots of movies, fans complain that the franchise is dying. The truth is there’s no winning. Star Wars as a franchise just has a lot of shitty fans. This has been true and obvious for almost two decades now. There’s nothing anyone can do to change that.

DrDre said:

Collipso said:

the mcu is really fan service focused, while star wars is not.

just compare the last two huge MCU and SW installments: Infinity War and The Last Jedi. one is a fan service fest, the other is an indie director’s vision of the continuation of a story not really caring about what the fans think. i actually admire the latter attitude a lot more, even if i dislike TLJ and really enjoy Infinity War. but that IW was much better received by fans and general audience alike is an undisputable fact, so SW does probably have something to learn from the MCU in regards to audience reaction.

I don’t think IW was a fan service fest. The heroes lost, and 50% of them died. It featured a complex villain with moral ambiguity.

After 18 movies with next to zero deaths and very few complex villains, I’d say those were the two things most fans were clamoring for. I don’t want to go too far off topic, but I thought both of those elements were executed poorly and felt very fan servicey to me.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Star Wars has been dividing fans since Empire. Considering the passion fans hold for this series, and its nature as an ever expanding and evolving mythology, each new installment is bound to cause a considerable stir no matter what. Everyone would be a lot happier if they stopped getting so angry about the things they didn’t like and just ignored them, and instead focused on the things they did like. No need whatsoever to stress about things “not fitting canon” that way.

The MCU seems to be doing just fine with creating a universe without all animosity and hate that the Star Wars franchise has become known for these days. So, the past and current creators must be doing something wrong, since this state of affairs surely isn’t what Disney was going for.

There are millions of reasons.

• The MCU has a back-history of mythology that they’re pulling from. With each new Star Wars film they reveal something new about the universe, and for some fans those things can contradict their understanding of the universe (whether justified or not).
• The MCU is a by nature a collection of divergent styles. No one cares if Guardians feels different than Captain America, because they’re used to it.
• When divisive things happen in the MCU (like say Iron Man 3), fans know that it will have basically zero impact on the rest of the movies.
• Because the film series is so recent, and has been made at such a steady clip, there has been extremely little room for the hardcore nerds to build up and speculate what the universe means to them and where they think things and characters should go, or what the backstory should look like. I would wager a significant reason why the PT and ST are so divisive is both trilogies have had decades worth of pent up hype and speculation. If Marvel stopped making movies in 2017 and waited until 2030 to release Infinity War, even if it was the exact same movie, I’d put money on a significant portion of the audience absolutely hating it.
• Ultimately, people are much more invested in Star Wars than the MCU.

Basically, with Star Wars, I legitimately think you’re asking for something impossible. There is no scenario where Disney made Star Wars movies that weren’t divisive. Even if they played things conservatively and middle of the road, like Marvel, there’s going to be people mad about (I mean look at Solo). You’re just frustrated because you ended up in the mad group for the ST. But look on the bright side, you liked the PT a lot. So take what you like and be happy about it. Don’t fret over the rest.

I actually didn’t like the PT a lot, but I appreciate it on a conceptual level. The PT movies range from passable to pretty good in my view, but I wouldn’t call myself a fan of any of them.

The point is not whether I personally like or dislike the ST. The point is how the current movies and its creators have approached the existing canon and its fanbase. There will allways be detractors, but when a movie like TLJ is so divisive, and causes such an emotional response, I think there’s reason for concern.

People like to point to the extremists, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. There are huge numbers of reasonable fans who have qualms about the current state of the franchise, who feel they are between a rock and a hard place.

I don’t know what to tell you. They made a movie that they thought was a good continuation and expansion of the series and the canon. For a lot of people it was. I’m absolutely certain they were genuinely shocked by the extent of the reaction (obviously they knew some would hate it). I know I was. When I saw the movie for the first time and saw the audience’s reaction, I thought it was going to be a massive hit with the fanbase and go over a lot better than either TFA or the prequels (to me, it felt like TLJ was made for Star Wars fans first, while TFA felt like it was made for general audiences first, and the prequels for Lucas first - FYI I don’t think any of those are bad things). Little did I know how some others would react, and how extremely.

Just goes to show in my mind that we’ve gotten to a point with this series where people’s emotions are so charged, and in some ways so disparate, that it’s impossible to completely reconcile them all. In my mind the only thing close to a solution for Disney/LFL is to move entirely beyond the existing characters, so at least there will be one less factor that comes with a lot of emotional baggage for fans.

It’s not just about disliking a movie anymore, it’s about being accused of sexism, racism, and toxicity. It’s about being ostracized for not liking a movie.

That stuff goes entirely both ways and has nothing to do with the films themselves.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Star Wars has been dividing fans since Empire. Considering the passion fans hold for this series, and its nature as an ever expanding and evolving mythology, each new installment is bound to cause a considerable stir no matter what. Everyone would be a lot happier if they stopped getting so angry about the things they didn’t like and just ignored them, and instead focused on the things they did like. No need whatsoever to stress about things “not fitting canon” that way.

The MCU seems to be doing just fine with creating a universe without all animosity and hate that the Star Wars franchise has become known for these days. So, the past and current creators must be doing something wrong, since this state of affairs surely isn’t what Disney was going for.

There are millions of reasons.

• The MCU has a back-history of mythology that they’re pulling from. With each new Star Wars film they reveal something new about the universe, and for some fans those things can contradict their understanding of the universe (whether justified or not).
• The MCU is a by nature a collection of divergent styles. No one cares if Guardians feels different than Captain America, because they’re used to it.
• When divisive things happen in the MCU (like say Iron Man 3), fans know that it will have basically zero impact on the rest of the movies.
• Because the film series is so recent, and has been made at such a steady clip, there has been extremely little room for the hardcore nerds to build up and speculate what the universe means to them and where they think things and characters should go, or what the backstory should look like. I would wager a significant reason why the PT and ST are so divisive is both trilogies have had decades worth of pent up hype and speculation. If Marvel stopped making movies in 2017 and waited until 2030 to release Infinity War, even if it was the exact same movie, I’d put money on a significant portion of the audience absolutely hating it.
• Ultimately, people are much more invested in Star Wars than the MCU.

Basically, with Star Wars, I legitimately think you’re asking for something impossible. There is no scenario where Disney made Star Wars movies that weren’t divisive. Even if they played things conservatively and middle of the road, like Marvel, there’s going to be people mad about (I mean look at Solo). You’re just frustrated because you ended up in the mad group for the ST. But look on the bright side, you liked the PT a lot. So take what you like and be happy about it. Don’t fret over the rest.

Star Wars has been dividing fans since Empire. Considering the passion fans hold for this series, and its nature as an ever expanding and evolving mythology, each new installment is bound to cause a considerable stir no matter what. Everyone would be a lot happier if they stopped getting so angry about the things they didn’t like and just ignored them, and instead focused on the things they did like. No need whatsoever to stress about things “not fitting canon” that way.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

Why is this topic even still open? Hasn’t it been proven again and again that seemingly the only point here is to talk about the ST, which could easily be done in the review threads?

My OP is not about the ST beyond it being a part of SW.

Then why are all your posts about your personal issues with the ST (that have nothing to do with the series being a “cohesive saga”)?

I believe the final tally was within their margin of error. They actually seemed to be the only place anticipating the possibility.

Why is this topic even still open? Hasn’t it been proven again and again that seemingly the only point here is to talk about the ST, which could easily be done in the review threads?

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:
I just think you are at the point of thought that this a terrible movie even though there is still a lot to love about this film. Like others have said, I feel like you made this thread to find people to agree with your opinions rather than be open-minded about anything else.

Again, it’s not even about quality.
Let’s use Anakin instead of TFA since you people get hung up on defending JJ- how can early TCW Anakin, who is basically

1. A different character than movie Anakin
2. Clearly Filoni’s response to failings he perceived with movie Anakin

be said to exist in the same story as an alternate version of that character?
How can different be the same?

You know Lucas was heavily involved in TCW, especially in the early years right?

TFA (and TLJ) were under no obligation to bow reverently at the altar of the PT. Putting aside the obvious fact that that’s ridiculous and they can do whatever they want, the ST is set 50-60 years after the PT, so it’s only natural the we don’t see many elements of it. I mean, look at the OT. If one were to watch the PT and then the OT without any knowledge or comprehension of the production timelines, it’d look like the OT was completely abandoning and disregarding a lot from the PT.

I don’t understand how ‘not referencing’ is equal to ‘disrespecting’ (especially since both TFA and TLJ *do reference the PT).

BiggsFan44 said:

NeverarGreat said:

BiggsFan44 said:

NeverarGreat said:
-Every character in these movies is more compelling than any character in the prequels.

Do you really believe that?

Well maybe not Ric Olié. 😉

More seriously, it’s not that the Ewok movie characters are more realistically portrayed or well acted (they aren’t), but rather that there is some ineffable sense of energy and earnestness in their writing and direction that has been wrung out of the prequel characters. Just look at the behind the scenes materials for Episode 2 for the sort of energy that all but disappeared when George was done editing.

I think that feeling of earnestness is the essential component in a Star Wars movie, which is why the sequel trilogy has worked so much better than the prequel trilogy in my opinion.

Wow, I can’t believe that you hold that opinion.

Might as well make that your signature, save you a lot of time from typing it up every time you post.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:
That’s all well and good (personally I’ve never let youtube reviews determine my personal opinions)

Rude, honestly.

Really more of a running joke here. Probably rude though, yes.

I will say in general though I’ve been pretty nice to you so far. If that’s the rudest this thread has gotten (which I don’t think it is, you were fairly rude to me as well), then it’s the least rude thread on the whole forum.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. We’re talking about subjective art here. Many thought that the PT was as great a transgression from what had been established as you do TFA (if not moreso). Just because you think the opposite doesn’t make it a fact.

My comparison is spot on.

Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

I will tell you I’ve looked at the Thrawn trilogy and did not like what I saw. Turns out not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes the “Star Wars spirit.”

If you think TFA is better than a story that actually logically follows from RotJ, then I think we are on too different of wavelengths to converse further.

Yes we are on different wavelengths! Don’t you see that’s been my point the whole time? If you can’t appreciate or stand what one piece of the canon does, just ignore it. That’s all it takes.

I don’t know why we can’t converse further though?

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood more than the PT.

The irony of this post is that it is in response to me, a person who saw the PT when he was a child.

And if I could venture a guess, the hypocrisy is that you seem to be more forgiving of the PT because it reminds you of your childhood (presumably).

1. You also most likely saw the OT as a child.

So? You seem to suggest that the only reason I like the ST is that it reminds me of my childhood, and the only reason I dislike the PT is because it doesn’t. Clearly that’s not the case. You suggest that the ST reminds me more of my childhood than the PT, which is literally impossible.

2. My opinion on the PT is not as clouded as you might think, since I went through a Plinkett phase and thought that the PT was absolutely terrible for a few years. But then it kind of hit me that I didn’t actually believe that after I watched ANH for the first time in a long time and found that it was very recognizably made by the same man who made the PT.
   Mike’s TFA opinion only confirmed that my taste was subjectively objectively subjectively objectively correct.

That’s all well and good (personally I’ve never let youtube reviews determine my personal opinions), but just know that you shouldn’t go around throwing claims of nostalgia goggles without being prepared to take the same heat.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

I think that’s a false equivelance, since the PT is clearly building off the themes and character arcs of the OT, whereas TFA is a giant regression.

It’s not a false equivalence at all. We’re talking about subjective art here. Many thought that the PT was as great a transgression from what had been established as you do TFA (if not moreso). Just because you think the opposite doesn’t make it a fact.

My comparison is spot on.

Just look at the Thrawn trilogy. We should have gotten an actual continuation of the story that addressed the Rebels becoming the dominant power in the galaxy. But JJ gave us a soft reboot. It’s genuinely insulting to the audience’s intelligence.

I will tell you I’ve looked at the Thrawn trilogy and did not like what I saw. Turns out not everyone has the same opinion of what constitutes the “Star Wars spirit.”

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

I’m suddenly very angered by this conversation, so all i’ll say is that I find it odd that so many older fans can’t see what is going on.
You all can be so diplomatic and measured when it comes to the ST, and yet I read something by another longtime user here that said “The Ewok movie characters are all better than the PT characters.”
I submit that the reason why Star Wars is broken beyond repair as far as being a cohesive universe goes is the one-two punch of

1. massive negative hyperbole when talking about the PT
2. massive double standard between the PT and ST

And it’s all because the ST reminds you all of your childhood more than the PT.

The irony of this post is that it is in response to me, a person who saw the PT when he was a child.

And if I could venture a guess, the hypocrisy is that you seem to be more forgiving of the PT because it reminds you of your childhood (presumably).

BiggsFan44 said:

RogueLeader said:

You saying Episode 7 hates Episode 1 is just totally subjective though.

I disagree. Remember that JJ was so petty that in the final movie he deleted the podracing flags from the trailer version of the Maz’s Castle shot because “My movie isn’t about podracing.” (Or something very similar, I remember that he was asked that in an interview.)

This reminds me a lot of an attitude I used to see around here a lot, before there were new movies to talk about - people saying “George Lucas hates the OT.” Now, do you believe that’s true? I don’t think so at all. Obviously you can’t deny there were things he wished he could change. But he didn’t hate those movies.

And yet so many saw the prequels as George saying “fuck you” to the OT. Which I think is silly and has little basis in reality. But the truth is that you can always twist and turn things to fit your narrative. If you don’t think things are sufficiently catering to your perceptions of the series, I can see why you could think elements were being “attacked.”

That doesn’t make it true, of course.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

Frank your Majesty said:
which means the prequels got it totally wrong.

You’re not seeing what i’m saying. The PT used CG for Yoda, yes. But that’s because CG is (very arguably) superior to puppetry. It’s why Maz Kanata isn’t a puppet.
You can of course disagree that CG is more expressive etc, but it’s changing it BACK after it’s already been changed that is the comment on the franchise’s history that i’m talking about- in a way that merely “updating” Yoda was not.

I mean, they wouldn’t have made him a puppet in TLJ if they didn’t think that superior. I think many people would say puppet Yoda is far superior to CG Yoda.

As for ‘changing’ vs. ‘changing back,’ I don’t see any significant difference between the two, especially in this series where, if you were to watch chronologically, had TLJ used CG, that would seem like ‘changing back.’

I don’t think i’m really getting my point across. I’m trying to say that Maz Kanata wasn’t a puppet for the same reason PT Yoda wasn’t a puppet- the tech is newer. It wasn’t a comment on the puppet Yoda being bad. Yoda being a puppet in TLJ is a comment on CG Yoda being bad/worse, even though Maz Kanata exists.

I don’t see how it’s a comment on anything. TLJ is a sequel to ESB and ROTJ and in those films Luke interacts with a puppet Yoda. Simple as that I think.

It’s the director’s decision. When Lucas decided to change Yoda to be CG, that was his perogative. Hopefully a director isn’t making decisions based solely on what tech is “newer” (though I fear that was a big factor in many of Lucas’s PT decisions).

Okay, but then why was Maz Kanata (AKA dimestore Yoda) CG when JJ tried to spin TFA as “practical effects: The Movie”?
And by “newer” I meant that Lucas perceived a benefit to using it. Not that I communicated that at all.

Well first of all your over-exaggerating JJ’s statements on practical effects. Anyone who’s seen the film knows that there’s thousands of VFX shots and JJ would have no reservations admitting it. Both kinds of effects serve purposes. The pre-release hype over practical effects was only done to quell the fears of fans who were turned off by the two guys on a green screen approach of the prequels.

As for why Maz was CG, it must be noted that she was actually conceived as puppet character. And I think there’s a lot of reasons why JJ might’ve made the decision to go with motion capture. Besides the simple binary “better or worse” that you suggest, being a CG character gives the director and performer a lot of latitude to change the character and performance well after production has wrapped. If I remember correctly, Maz and Snoke’s final designs were chosen relatively late in the process.

Ultimately, why a director chooses one or the other depends on a variety of factors. With JJ, you can tell that he pushed for puppet creatures in every instance except ones in prominent speaking roles. The fact that he replaced Plutt’s face with CG would suggest that there was something he wasn’t getting out of that particular puppet performance.

With Yoda, things are slightly different. If Rian was making a comment, as you suggest, I’m not sure why he wouldn’t have made Snoke a puppet as well (which is what many rumors said he would). But Snoke’s role is fairly sizeable in the film, and it’s easy to see why Rian would have opted for continued use of motion capture there. But with Yoda, this is a character who has a history of being a puppet. Every scene he’s ever had with Luke was as a puppet, performed by Frank Oz. Considering the fact that this is quite likely Yoda’s last film appearance, it seems at the very least fitting to be done this way. Moreover, there’s really no need to make him CG. When Lucas did it, he said it was done for the purpose of the fight scenes. Not only does Yoda not fight here, he just has one scene where he remains largely stationary.

So, to sum up, directors prefer puppets in certain circumstances, this role fit that circumstance, the character has a history of being a puppet, the puppet version of the character is (by most accounts) the overall better known and better liked version, the puppet version is the one chronologically closest to this film, and using a puppet here worked better to connect on an emotional level with the films that are most relevant to this scene. The fact that the character has appeared as CG a couple times doesn’t seem like a terribly great reason against.

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:

BiggsFan44 said:

DominicCobb said:
As for how people on this site “cope” with the problems you mention, well a lot of people here just ignore the prequels, which are the cause of the majority of continuity problems with series to begin with.

I’d argue that the ST betrays the spirit of the series more than the PT did though. And that’s a larger problem than things like why Owen didn’t recognize 3-P0.
TFA is a waste of 200 million dollars because it copies a movie but makes it worse (And the argument that the first Disney SW movie needed to feel “familiar” is moot, since TFA locks the entire trilogy into a “big bad Empire vs. scrappy rebels” redo, complete with locking in the stale aesthetic/art direction), and TLJ writes Luke so incredibly OOC that he can’t be considered the same character who said “You’ve failed, your highness. I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”

You made this thread to talk about (seemingly) continuity errors. If the ST doesn’t fit your personal canon, I think we already have a thread to discuss that. If not I don’t know what to tell you.

Not exactly continuity errors, but more “How are we supposed to believe that all these movies have happened in the same universe when some filmmakers/showrunners are at war with sections of the saga”. And it even applies to things like TLJ throwing JJ’s mystery boxes into the garbage.

Well in that case I think you’d find not everyone agrees with your interpretation of what’s going on there (to say the least).

On a macro level, some fans have been disagreeing with the direction of the franchise since 1980. Every time something new comes out, someone’s going to say it doesn’t mesh with their perception of the series. The solution is simple, of course: take what you like, forget the rest. Don’t worry about “everything taking place in the same universe” or whatever.