DrDre

RogueLeader said:

“some dank corners of society” haha, very apt!

Yeah, I think this can definitely go both ways, and maybe this is sort of a byproduct of the internet, where conversations are constantly happening online. And suddenly there is this feedback loop that transforms the pleasant sound of reasonable discussion into a screeching war between two sides.

I think it often plays out this way: say someone online wants to have a conversation that is related to race/sex/etc. that they’re genuinely curious about, but then they get called racist/sexist for simply asking the question. It may have just been one insult out of five fair responses, but we know how aggressive comments tend to stand out more. This person may have been open and willing to change his mind, but the personal attack may cause him to fall back into the other camp, and never really understand what the issue was or ever agree with it because of that association.

Especially when it comes to issue of race/sex, it can be tricky having any discussion about it with some people. If you’re trying to talk about inherent bias that exists in literally every person, some people can take just that observation as a personal attack, depending on their own sense of security, but also the attitude/tone of the person they’re talking too.

And the same can play out the other way. The Internet has created this boogieman of the SJW and the femininazi. So people won’t even give ideas regarding feminism, for example, a chance because they feel like they know everything they need to because they followed the algorithm of guys complaining about it on YouTube.

Which kind of ties into the Mary Sue thing. One person might have a fair point about how Rey fits into common traits associated with that trope. But then another person brings up the inherent bias of female characters being called wish fulfillment characters when male characters are rarely ever criticized for the exact same thing, and then the original person feels like they’ve been called a sexist and it devolves into a fight. Or, sometimes a person just calls them a “SEXIST!” and the conversation literally goes nowhere.

It’s weird. I think people get unfairly labeled racist or sexist when literally most people have inherent biases regarding race and sex. They’re not bad people, it might be something they might not be aware of. People who intentionally discriminate based off race or sex deserve that label, but a personal with intentional bias versus unconscious bias or two different types of people. So throwing around those terms devalues the seriousness of the labels, as well as potentially alienating the person who desperately wants/needs to understand their inherent biases to overcome them, which can lead them to become MORE biased. Humans can be a god damned self-fulfilling prophecy, haha.

I’ve seen the opposite also play out, where someone has a really interesting meta or analysis of The Last Jedi and people call point fingers calling “SJW propaganda” or “feminist agenda”. Pop Culture Detective has a really interesting video regarding TLJ and ideas of feminism and masculinity, but you see a lot of those kind of comments there. It’s possible it is partly because they’ve already made their minds up on how they feel about the movie, or they might be insecure regarding their own masculinity and are projecting those complicated feelings online, but regardless, that is why I think it is important to try to approach these topics with respect. If you want people to be open-minded about your opinion, it has to start with respect. So I think a lot of these conversations have to be approached with civility just for the mere desire to counter what apparently is the status quo of online conversation.

I think we just forget how nuanced these conversations can be, and we fit “pro-TLJ” and “anti-TLJ” into boxes. There are pro-TLJ people who think some people take shit on twitter TOO far, and I know anti-TLJ people feel the same way.
Clearly most people who don’t like the film don’t agree with the hate and death threats people like Kellie Marie Tran and Rian Johnson have gotten. There are also people in the pro-ST camp give Reylos A LOT of shit because they think shipping them equates to supporting abusive relationships. What could be an interesting discussion devolves into name calling.

Anyway, people like that guy get themselves into that problem when even agreeing to a debate, so I really don’t have much sympathy. I like TLJ for very personal reasons, so I don’t know why I would feel the need to defend my reasons for liking a movie. Or, if there would even be any logic into that kind of debate format. I don’t like Jurassic World, but I’m not going to pressure people into a debate about why they’re not allowed to like Jurassic World. I remember ranting about JW after its release, a lot like how hardcore anti-TLJ people on YouTube rant about that movie, and in retrospect I feel like the conversations I had with people at that time was some of the most pretentious, self-entitled bullshit I’ve ever wasted breath on. Mostly because I was pretty condescending. In retrospect I thought, why can’t I just let people enjoy a movie they like?
And the answer had more to do with me than it did with them or the movie.

Great post! Keep 'm coming! 😃

oojason said:

DrDre said:

oojason said:

DrDre said:

IsanRido said:

LordPlagueis said:

IsanRido said:

I don’t like the ST myself, but the Mary Sue argument is very silly and indicative of one’s attitude towards women. “We don’t hate women, we hate poorly written characters” doesn’t apply when a person defends the prequel trilogy over these films.

The Mary Sue argument is not indicative of a personal attitude against women. That is ridiculous. A person can think that Rey is a Mary Sue without thinking that all other strong female characters are Mary Sues.

I wasn’t talking about the argument as a whole, I was refering to it in the context of ST criticism. As it turns out, in those films there’s no proof that Rey is some kind of overpowered protagonist with no flaws. She doubts herself constantly, characters can best her physically, and the bulk of The Last Jedi consists of her and other characters failing to do things. So naturally, her being described as Mary Sue raises a few eyebrows.

In the context of the first six films she is an overpowered protagonist, as she just has all these Force powers despite not getting any training within a matter of days

In this context Rey is seemingly no more overpowered as two of the main protagonists from those first six films; a 10 year old child who blows up the Control Ship in TPM whilst flying for the first time in space, or with Luke piloting an X-Wing in battle and going on to blow up the Death Star (just like flying T-16s, apparently 😉) - both of whom had little-to-no training; both also within a short amount of time.

It shouldn’t surprise you, that I disagree. While all protagonists have had their moments of “Gary Stu”-ness if you will, there are a couple of elements, that come into play here. For one there are a number of skills that have been consistently attributed to trained Jedi, or more experienced students of the Force, the Jedi mind trick, the Force pull, lifting rocks, etc have all been used to display the protagonist’s progression, or lack thereof, in learning the ways of the Force. In ROTJ Luke is shown performing the Jedi mind trick for the first time early in the film. This was clearly done to show how much his character had progressed since we last saw him, and since we saw Obi-Wan perform it in ANH, when we were all in awe of what a Jedi can do. It represented the point on the horizon, the impossible made possible by learning the ways of the Force. Having Rey perform the Jedi mind trick, and the Force pull at this early stage of the story diminishes that, and sets her apart, in that she apparently doesn’t have to go through the trials and tribulations, that previous protagonists had to go through to reach that point. Secondly, defeating the dark side apprentice has consistently been used as the sort of end-boss scenario throughout the films. It has been presented as the final trial a student faces before becoming a Jedi, and the moment, where the temptation of the dark side is at its peak, because it may help the student obtain victory, but at a terrible price. Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart. I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how the creators played fast and loose with the previously established lore, and thus invited accusations of the character being too powerful too soon, which in a more, and more polarized atmosphere resulted in Rey being labeled a “Mary Sue” by some of the more extreme corners of the fandom.

but despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially.

Can I ask what are Rey’s force powers that grow exponentially you are referring to? Are there examples of these powers growing ‘exponentially’? Stronger, sure. With more understanding of the them (late in the film) - of course; yet that likely comes from more practice over time - along with the teachings and training from Luke.

Practise over time would be a logical explanation, if the two films didn’t play out over a very short period of time. When Luke does a Force pull in TESB with great effort, most accepted this, because years had passed since the destruction of the Death Star. Practise over time, and discovering hidden powers with that practise makes sense in that context. Rey goes from being a newbie at the start of TFA to her and Kylo being pretty evenly matched in their fight against Snoke’s guards, to this in what seems a matter of days:

Rey thus progresses in her control over her Force powers over two films, like Luke did over a trilogy, which spans years, or like Anakin did over a trilogy, which spans over a decade. This would not be an issue, of we weren’t made aware, that the ST developments take place over a much shorter time span, and without the training, and guidance, that previous protagonists had recieved.

No worries on disagreeing - or having that different view 😃 Yet it is now the time spent learning the mastery of the Force Powers you have an issue with in comparison with the first six films - not the supposed ‘overpowering’ or ‘despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially’ as to which you originally stated? Or that she has done this in a different way to what has come previously? Okay, fair enough.

It’s great to have a thoughtful debate on this subject, thanks for that! 😃 No, I still maintain she is overpowered, and that her power grows exponentially, despite not having the previously essential factors of time, and training. I say this, because she goes from being able to perform, what were previously advanced Force powers, to defeating a wounded Kylo Ren, to being able to compete at the level of a well trained Force user like Ben Solo in their fight against Snoke’s guard, to the Force pull stalemate, that ends up destroying Anakin’s lightsaber in what seems a matter of days.

I did refer to two overpowered protagonists’ achievements from the previous six films at a time before (or shortly beginning) their training/awareness - a la Rey on her journey; and not towards the end (which obviously hasn’t happened for Rey yet) - though if you wish to change the context again, then okay.

I’ve already argued these situations aren’t comparable, because neither Anakin or Luke were able to use advanced Force powers, or defeat a trained Force user before they received training. In fact both Anakin and Luke were defeated by the dark side apprentice, when they did receive training. Now, we can point to Anakin seeing things before they happen, and being able to compete in podraces, or him destroying the droid control ship (which was down to luck more than anything else), or to Luke guiding the missile into the exhaust port in ANH, as being overpowered, and in relation to many other characters in this universe they are, but that is beside the point. The question is are they overpowered in the context of what has been established about Force users and students of the Force in the past? The answer in my view is, that despite the fact that Anakin and Luke have been presented as having great potential (Anakin having the greatest potential ever recorded), learning the ways of the Force, and controlling it, has consistently been presented as being very hard to accomplish, and so despite their talent, it was made abundently clear, that Anakin and Luke would never be able to reach that potential, and compete at the level of a trained Force user, without time, training, and guidance.

‘Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart.’ You refer to the fight where Kylo - who hasn’t yet finished his training - (and has been shown to be emotionally unstable) was injured, weakened emotionally by killing his father, and ordered by Snoke to bring Rey to him - not kill her - but to capture her… and one he was completely on top of until Rey let in the Force to guide her… it doesn’t fit with your claim. It is apparent that she will face Kylo again in IX - and that the ‘terrible price’ you believe Rey (as the protagonist) should pay is likely still to come.

For one Kylo Ren may not have finished his training, but he was trained for years by both Luke, and Snoke, and thus was an advanced Force user being able to pull off amazing feats, we had never seen before, like stopping a blaster bolt in mid-air, or freezing an opponent with the Force. Kylo may have been injured, and emotionally compromised, but he seemed to have little trouble dealing with Finn, who received military training, and Rey up to the moment, that she let the Force guide her to victory. Which leads me to my next point, just closing your eyes, and then becoming a lean, mean fighting machine is not how the Force works. We’re talking about a novice, who up to that time believed the Jedi were a myth. As Obi-Wan said to Luke after training with Yoda:

“You can feel the Force, but you cannot control it.”

So, even after receiving training from the most powerful Jedi Master in history, Luke, who like Rey was a prodigy, cannot control the Force, let alone be expected to defeat a trained Force user, like Darth Vader, or Kylo Ren. It would be like winning a Formula 1 grand prix after receiving a week of training. What Obi-Wan is saying to Luke is, you may know where the gas pedal, and the breaks are, but you cannot control it. Driving in a simulator is not the same as driving a 1000 HP car on a real race track, and it will take years for you to master the skills to do it. This is a dangerous time for you, as you have enough skill to be able to start the car, and drive on a straight track, but once you reach some curves, odds are you will be hitting a concrete wall. Luke didn’t listen, and so Luke losing his hand in his fight against Vader, is him running into that concrete wall. Now, TFA would have us believe Rey, who has never even seen a Formula 1 car, or any car for that matter, just gets into one, and defeats a former Formula 1 champion. Even if that Formula 1 champion has a disadvantage, as Kylo does in his fight, it’s still highly unlikely for someone, who should not be able to control such a powerful machine, to finish the race, let alone come in first.

Now, I’ve already argued Kylo not having finished his training is not really a good counter point, because he’s obviously at a very advanced level, with the powers he has displayed, and knowing he’s been trained by two very powerful Force users, Luke and Snoke over a period of years. However, even if for the sake of argument, I would find that explanation reasonable, how does that reflect on him becoming the Supreme Leader in the next film? This is what bugs me about this. The character of Ben Solo goes from being an apparent master at the start of TFA to being greatly deflated by the end of the movie, which, if we ignore the situation with Rey for a moment, is fine. I mean, he is presented by TFA as kind of a poser, hiding behind a mask, pretending to be Darth Vader. However, I feel you then have to follow through with this, and so he will need to go through some kind of training (as suggested by Snoke at the end of TFA), or major development to be a credible threat again, but apparently this poser gets to not just be Darth Vader, but the Emperor a few days later (and every bit as immature, and petulant as he ever was to boot).

You refer to the scene where Rey makes that face (hardly ‘smiles and giggles’) after shooting down TIEs in trying to save more of the Resistance - her friends - who are on a ‘Hail Mary’ of a mission in attacking the First Order’s Door Ram with ski-speeders - upon her arrival at Crait:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykXWRNZiI3M
 

It is strikingly similar to Luke’s face or his emotions on display here (yet with less time passing); just after Obi-Wan’s death and being consoled by Leia, after they had escaped the Death Star, and also shooting down TIEs:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4dMh2SmJqY (‘That’s it! We did it!’)
 

It is similar, but that speaks against ANH, not in favour of TLJ. I think the PT and SE have made clear Lucas is not a master of tone, and that weakness is on display in this scene. However, I would also argue Lucas at least reserves a little time (not enough, mind you) for the character to reflect on what has happened in the consolation scene with Leia. Had Lucas gone the way of RJ, that reflection scene would be missing entirely. Secondly, I would argue the general tone of ANH is quite a bit different from films like TESB, and TLJ. ANH is a fairy tale of sorts, and the general tone is one of adventure and excitement, while films like TESB and TLJ take on a much more somber, and serious tone, and so I would say such a tonal inconsistency is more detrimental to a story like TESB, and TLJ, then for a story like ANH, or TFA.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

You are focusing on what is the same. It is only the same in a vague way. In TFA the map was not stolen. Poe does not remain a prisoner but escapes with Finn’s help. Yes, that initial beat is the same, but nothing else about it is. TFA uses a few beats from ANH and rearranges them and changes how they play out to create a new story. It is not the same story retold. The details being different is what makes it a different story. It isn’t the second Star Wars film to feature a bar scene after all. It isn’t like it is the second Death Star. Star Wars has been full of reused beats and tropes. Most people have enjoyed it and it is the second most successful Star Wars film of the franchise. So it must have done something right. If you focus the the McGuffin and the super weapon, then yeah, they are going to seem the same. If you focus on who does what and why, then story is totally original. The McGuffin is not the plot. It is a tool to drive action and get us into the story.

If you have to focus on specific elements, than it is not totally original. I think most would say TFA does more than just reuse some beats and tropes. TFA is like the Vanilla Ice song, Ice Ice Baby, which has the exact same base line as Queen’s Under Pressure. If you focus on the baseline, it’s a copy, but if you add in the other elements, it’s still a different song. However, nobody would argue Ice Ice Baby is totally original, if you just ignore the baseline. Remove the baseline, and you remove an essential part of the song.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

IsanRido said:

LordPlagueis said:

IsanRido said:

I don’t like the ST myself, but the Mary Sue argument is very silly and indicative of one’s attitude towards women. “We don’t hate women, we hate poorly written characters” doesn’t apply when a person defends the prequel trilogy over these films.

The Mary Sue argument is not indicative of a personal attitude against women. That is ridiculous. A person can think that Rey is a Mary Sue without thinking that all other strong female characters are Mary Sues.

I wasn’t talking about the argument as a whole, I was refering to it in the context of ST criticism. As it turns out, in those films there’s no proof that Rey is some kind of overpowered protagonist with no flaws. She doubts herself constantly, characters can best her physically, and the bulk of The Last Jedi consists of her and other characters failing to do things. So naturally, her being described as Mary Sue raises a few eyebrows.

In the context of the first six films she is an overpowered protagonist, as she just has all these Force powers despite not getting any training within a matter of days

In this context Rey is seemingly no more overpowered as two of the main protagonists from those first six films; a 10 year old child who blows up the Control Ship in TPM whilst flying for the first time in space, or with Luke piloting an X-Wing in battle and going on to blow up the Death Star (just like flying T-16s, apparently 😉) - both of whom had little-to-no training; both also within a short amount of time.

It shouldn’t surprise you, that I disagree. While all protagonists have had their moments of “Gary Stu”-ness if you will, there are a couple of elements, that come into play here. For one there are a number of skills that have been consistently attributed to trained Jedi, or more experienced students of the Force, the Jedi mind trick, the Force pull, lifting rocks, etc have all been used to display the protagonist’s progression, or lack thereof, in learning the ways of the Force. In ROTJ Luke is shown performing the Jedi mind trick for the first time early in the film. This was clearly done to show how much his character had progressed since we last saw him, and since we saw Obi-Wan perform it in ANH, when we were all in awe of what a Jedi can do. It represented the point on the horizon, the impossible made possible by learning the ways of the Force. Having Rey perform the Jedi mind trick, and the Force pull at this early stage of the story diminishes that, and sets her apart, in that she apparently doesn’t have to go through the trials and tribulations, that previous protagonists had to go through to reach that point. Secondly, defeating the dark side apprentice has consistently been used as the sort of end-boss scenario throughout the films. It has been presented as the final trial a student faces before becoming a Jedi, and the moment, where the temptation of the dark side is at its peak, because it may help the student obtain victory, but at a terrible price. Again having Rey defeat Kylo Ren very early in the game, without a hint of temptation, diminishes what came before, and again sets her apart. I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how the creators played fast and loose with the previously established lore, and thus invited accusations of the character being too powerful too soon, which in a more, and more polarized atmosphere resulted in Rey being labeled a “Mary Sue” by some of the more extreme corners of the fandom.

Rey learnt of these Force powers from Kylo Ren during her interrogation - and after some practice (and failure) comes to use one of these newly learnt Force powers.

A fact that was revealed in the novel, not in the film. I don’t think a film should rely on a book to provide such explanations.

but despite that her Force powers, and abilities still grow exponentially.

Can I ask what are Rey’s force powers that grow exponentially you are referring to? Are there examples of these powers growing ‘exponentially’? Stronger, sure. With more understanding of the them (late in the film) - of course; yet that likely comes from more practice over time - along with the teachings and training from Luke.

Practise over time would be a logical explanation, if the two films didn’t play out over a very short period of time. When Luke does a Force pull in TESB with great effort, most accepted this, because years had passed since the destruction of the Death Star. Practise over time, and discovering hidden powers with that practise makes sense in that context. Rey goes from being a newbie at the start of TFA to her and Kylo being pretty evenly matched in their fight against Snoke’s guards, to this in what seems a matter of days:

Rey thus progresses in her control over her Force powers over two films, like Luke did over a trilogy, which spans years, or like Anakin did over a trilogy, which spans over a decade. This would not be an issue, of we weren’t made aware, that the ST developments take place over a much shorter time span, and without the training, and guidance, that previous protagonists had recieved.

This is without considering the line from Snoke that ‘Darkness rises… and the light to meet it’ - which could indicate the Force is also using Rey to address a lack of balance of sorts - is it somehow amplifying these powers somehow? Possibly - hopefully we’ll learn more on this in the final part of the story (though I imagine many of us wish we’d have seen more of this in the two films so far).
 

Perhaps, but my issue with this is, that in my view this element of the story, which goes against everything previously established, has not been properly developed. It is mentioned in a few lines by Snoke, but her apparent special status in the canon is not recognized by either Luke or Yoda, who just speak of her like the next Jedi prodigy. Additionally, the idea that in the absence of the Jedi, the Force will bombard some unknown individual with amazing powers, defeats the whole purpose of the protagonists that preceeded her, because the element of choice, and temptation is largely taken out of the equation, turning her into some predestined champion of the good side. It inadvertedly sets up the idea, that had Luke, and Anakin failed to defeat Palpatine in the OT after years of training, struggling, and suffering, it wouldn’t really have mattered, because the Force would have just bombarded another innately good nobody with amazing powers to balance the scales, and get the job done in their stead. It is a form of deus ex machina, that in my view undermines the underlying themes of the saga up to that point.

She fails to convert Kylo, but Snoke is dead, she manages to escape the Supremacy without so much as a scratch,

Somewhat hyperbolic, yes? 😃 Though RogueLeader’s post on this answers some of this claim 😉

Yet, as stated above, Kylo turns her over to Snoke who would easily kill her if not for Kylo’s intervention / ambition. She also seemed to be in a fight for her life with Snoke’s guards - with both Kylo and Rey coming through it, just, upon teaming up with each other to defeat them. I’ll cover the non-physical wounds later below…
 

and despite discovering the truth about her parents, in the next scene is all smiles and giggles,

I’m not sure which scene you are referring to mate - yet I don’t think we can blame the editing of the film onto the character of Rey in the context here, regardless.
 

Why not? RJ chose to have Rey come to the Resistance’s rescue, and have her react like this after her apparent failure, and the revelations of her past:

He could have shown her being rattled, and distracted, and have Chewie remind her to keep her eyes on the ball. This is what I mean with a lack of consequences. It’s all a matter of buildup, and consistent tone. If you want, what has happened to her, to resonate with the viewer, it should resonate with the character:

I think these are legitimate, and reasonable criticisms of how her character was developed, and handled throughout this trilogy (thusfar). The fact that some critics use the controversial hyperbole “Mary Sue” as a vehicle to express those criticisms, and that there may be legitimate arguments, that invalidate the “Mary Sue” label, doesn’t automatically invalidate the underlying issues some of us have with her character, which would have been equally applicable, if it would have been another male protagonist.

I think that video is a reflection of our society these days. I remember watching some of these youtubers in their early days, when their videos were driven mostly by content, and their criticisms were still ankered in reality. However, like many populist politicians, they are no longer interested in balanced discussion. They are interested in rabble-rousing, and catering to the lowest common denominator among their supporters. However, I think it is a mistake to point to them as some root cause of evil. They are a symptom of a culture, that is driven more, and more by polarization, victory at all costs, and a lack of respect for alternative points of view. It is a sad state of affairs, that a franchise that once united people from all walks of life in their fandom, is now a linchpin in this bizarre culture war. I’m watching “The Clinton Affair”, and I’m was immediately struck by this statement by Monica Lewisky, which I think, is very apt in this situation:

“They see everything through partisan eyes, and there’s very little room for humanity”.

DominicCobb said:

act on instinct said:

DominicCobb said:
And so, to my point, I think there is a lot to TFA itself beyond what mysteries it sets up (if any), and I think people too easily forget that. Now, if you don’t care for what it offers beyond the “mysteries and fan service,” fair enough, but that’s not all that’s there.

I really don’t mean to be a jerk about this but could you articulate some examples? TFA had rathtars which is a little different, this thing of abandoned fallen star destroyers to be scavenged that’s new, I wish it were explored more but it’s unique to this trilogy, but sticking just to TFA I’m not sure what else isn’t from the past that also isn’t a mystery, I’m racking my brain a little trying to think of more honestly.

I’m talking about more than just in-universe elements. Story (characters and themes), music, locations, production design, costumes, action, humor, direction, acting, editing, etc. etc. In my mind there’s a lot more to a movie than plot points and lore. The movie is an experience in and of itself, separate from its place in the saga as well as a part of it - and it’s a hell of a lot of fun.

I think one of the major elements, that makes TFA work, despite it’s derivative nature, is its energy. To me TFA always feels like Star Wars film with the energy and humor of an Indiana Jones film. I think that is one of Abrams’ great talents.

DominicCobb said:

pleasehello said:

DominicCobb said:

For instance, the worst part of TFA (in my opinion) is the inclusion of Starkiller Base, not simply because it is a repeat of the Death Star, but because it is only really in the film to repeat the Death Star, and thus feels inorganic to the rest of the story - whereas other repeated elements fit far better and serve a more justifiable purpose in this narrative and actually work in the film’s favor.

Absolutely agree. The only purpose Star Killer Base serves is a big, flashy battle sequence at the end of the movie, which is a piss poor justification for its existence.

The original Death Star battle works well because it is a defining moment for the main protagonist. It brings Luke’s character arc to completion. The Return of the Jedi Death Star battle works not as well because the fighters are ancillary characters whom the story is not about, but is still symbolic of the Rebellion’s decisive and final victory against the Empire. The Star Killer battle has neither of these things and has almost no reason to exist and honestly the movie could be just as effective without it.

Pretty much.

The only other thing it accomplishes is destroying the New Republic, which is a pretty secondary plot point in that film and is really only important in regards to the macro level stakes for the trilogy as a whole.

I agree. There are two things, that I feel were completely unnecessary, and just put there to evoke memories of the OT, Starkiller Base, and the Resistance. The Resistance seemed like a half-baked attempt to get the Rebellion back when there was no real need for one. They cooked up this idea, that the New Republic didn’t want to directly confront the FO, which seems reasonable enough, but it wasn’t really in the film. There was no face for the cowardice, and arrogance of the NR, and so the seemingly ineffectual NR was wiped out of existence before having an identity of its own. I think rather than have this sort of weak side plot, that ended in the destruction of SKB, the focus should have been put more on the growing tensions between Leia, and the leadership of the NR, repositioning her as the true leader on the good side, after having been demonized as the daughter of Darth Vader, and then have the movie end with the shocking destruction of the central system, validating Leia’s point of view. It also would have given Leia more of an arc. The scenes on SKB could still play out in the same way with Han’s death, and the duel, but the moment of Han’s death would coincide with the destruction of the NR. The space battle would then be more a diversion for the rescue of Rey, who is the only person, who has seen the map to Luke, and knows his location (BB-8 could have been damaged, and lost the info). I guess it would be a bleak ending, but it would have raised the stakes, while the movie still ends with Rey finding Luke, as a hint of hope for the future.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

I would say the plot is completely different. ANH is driven by the Death Star Plans and a huge danger to the free galaxy (first Alderaan and then Yavin IV). TFA is driven by the search for Luke. In ANH Vader is searching for the plans protect his asset and they fall into Luke’s hands. In TFA, Kylo and Leia are searching for Luke and no one finds him until the last scene. The map to Luke never is within reach of Kylo like it is Vader (R2 is there on the Death Star with the plans). In TFA, the piece of the map they have is useless without the rest which we get after the climax of the film.

That is not completely different. That is very similar. In both films the villain is looking for important information vital to the survival of the heroes, that has been hidden at the last moment by one of the heroes in a droid. That droid ends up in the hands of the main protagonist, who lives on a desert planet, and with the help of an ally tries to get the information back to the home base of the heroes. The heroes go to a seedy bar in an attempt to further their quest. The villains use a super weapon to destroy a planet/planets. One of the heroes needs to be rescued from the villain’s base, we get another desperate attack to destroy the super weapon, we get another trench run, etc, etc.

Now what is the same are a lot of the setups and scenes. As I said before, the opening is setup almost identical in many ways, but once the McGuffin arrives in our hero’s hands, the story diverges greatly. We are treated to Abrams version of the Cantina (which makes story sense because it is the sort of place Han would frequent and would go to when he needed something), Death Star, trench run, enemy base rescue, imminent danger, etc. But the story between them is nothing alike. In ANH, they accidentally find Leia, in TFA they go to rescue Rey. In ANH Leia needs rescuing, in TFA, Rey does not. In ANH the Death Star is closing in to fire, in TFA Starkiller Base is charging to fire. In ANH Tarkin refuses to leave, in TFA Hux evacuates. So a lot of story points touch on the same ideas, but the execution and resolution is very different because they plot of the film has a different goal. ANH is all about the Death Star while TFA is all about finding Luke. The crawls set it up this way. I find both movies to feel very different. While TFA evokes a sense of nostalgia and plays in familiar territory, everything is different and new.

The fact that some details are different, or that the order of events have been altered somewhat, or that one character is switched for another does not suddenly make it completely different. It makes it not identical, because several things have been altered, but the similarities, are there, and they are obvious. The question is whether making a few changes, and adding some new elements is enough to make it seem fresh? Some will say yes, while other will say no.

DominicCobb said:

Omni said:

My last two cents on the “is TFA just SW 2.0?” argument: This video, in which the guy tries to be as unbiased as possible. It’s a good video.

I will say it’s baffling to see people saying that TFA doesn’t have the same plot as SW. The story isn’t exactly the same (even though it’s incredibly similar) but the plot is, pretty much, the very same thing…

I don’t see how it’s baffling that someone would say they aren’t the exact same. I don’t think you’re actually baffled, you know full well they aren’t the same. I don’t understand why these conversations always turn to hyperbole. (Maybe because there’d be nothing to argue about if we were all honest with what the films actually are.)

Honestly, I like TFA, but I would say the plot is highly similar to ANH, with a few elements of TESB and ROTJ thrown in for good measure. The question is not whether it is, or isn’t similar, because it is, and not by accident, but if it is too similar, such that in the combination with the story, characters, and visuals, it ruins the movie for you. It didn’t for me, but I think because of the similarities, it’s lasting impact may be somewhat less, than if it had been more original. I would also say, that if someone were to argue, that they didn’t like TFA, because it was too similar to ANH, that that would not be an unreasonable point of view. I would say, that I can see their point, but the other elements in the film, and the way they were presented, made it seem fresh enough for me to like the movie, and not classify it as a rehash.

Rodney-2187 said:

What about The Hidden Fortress then?

There are actually less similarities of the plot, when comparing TFA to The Hidden Fortress. The Hidden Fortress also doesn’t have the same setting, visuals, and score.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

I see you are unaware of what has happened at Disneyland. It is not the failure you think it is. The access to Galaxy’s Edge has been full up. Crowds have been good. What has not been good is overall attendance because no one wanted to compete with the crowds they expected for the opening period. Disney made plans to address that, but not before people had made their vacation plans and skipped over this summer. I expect next year to be one of Disney’s best at the two parks with Galaxy’s Edge.

And it is your opinion that they rebooted the franchise. That completely ignores the cyclical nature of the story and how much the ST is paralleling the EU stories that so many fans are familiar with. I don’t see any issue with attracting a new generation at all. A number of people who are more casual fans like the ST more then the previous movies. And the box office numbers (adjusted for inflation) show that the ST is more popular than the PT was. The only group I see with a big problem with the ST are those who had expectations of what the ST would and would not include and don’t like that it doesn’t live up to that. A repeat of the PT all over again. Let the writers tell their story and sit back and enjoy. I indulge in spoilers so I can divest myself of all expectations and just enjoy how the story unfolds. Your theories of deconstructing and rebooting over analyze the trilogy and widely miss what the movies say about themselves. The ST was always going to involve the death of Luke in the first Episode (the first one he was in) and Harrison has been saying Han should die for 30 years. They passed the torch and Carrie’s passing forced that to be even more complete. This is the Rey, Finn, Poe trilogy and the OT characters are really just enlarge cameos. You had expectations, perhaps not of exactly what the characters would do, but definitely what they shouldn’t do. It is almost as if Lucas, Abrams, and Johnson set out to make a trilogy that was exactly what you didn’t want to see. I see symmetry in the repetition. I see the parallels in myth, history, and pop culture (Star Wars is a more serious take on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers after all) and I’m enjoying the tale. It is very much what happens after the great war is over and how things move on. Often it is ghosts of the past that haunt the future and bring back a defeated enemy. I find the story of the ST to be very mythic and very classic and not repetitive at all. Certainly not a reboot. If you want to know what I call a reboot, just look over at Star Trek under CBS. The ST has nice echos of the Zahn trilogy while being new and fresh. Just in the ST, they took 30 years instead of 10 years to regroup and attack the Republic.

The Zahn trilogy does not have Empire vs rebels 2.0, or have the New Republic wiped out of existence, such that we reset the galaxy to an OT state. It does not have a Darth Vader wannabe, who also was a former Jedi pupil of the hero’s Jedi mentor. It does not have a fascimile Emperor. It does not have another Death Star like super weapon. It does not have another Jedi prodigy from a Tatooine clone. It does not have another ground battle involving walkers on a white plane. It does not have another throne room scene, where our hero has to witness the destruction of the rebel fleet, and an apprentice betraying his master to save the life of the hero. The Zahn trilogy was new and fresh. I can’t say the same for the ST. I’m not saying the films aren’t entertaining, and there are new elements, and nuances, but the so called cyclical nature is a poor excuse for resetting the story, and essentially giving us the OT with a new coat of paint. I’m not saying I dislike the ST in general, or that they’re bad movies. I’m saying it could have been a whole lot better, if they hadn’t undone most of the OT’s victories, and in stead given us a new and original story with new and original heroes, and villains, that weren’t in some way a slight variation of characters and stories we have seen before.

The Zahn trilogy does have a reminant of the Empire. It does have a unique Jedi student situation. The Republic is unsteady so the players are pretty much the same as Empire vs. Rebels 2.0. And in The ST, the republic has not be wiped out, only the government. We won’t know what the state of the galaxy is until TROS comes out since only days or weeks have passed since the Hosnian system and the fleet were destroyed. I feel you are making too much of what you see as parallels and you aren’t seeing how different the ST is from the OT. I do not share any of your feelings as to what the story of the ST is. I see closer parallels to the Zahn Trilogy. But in any case it is supposed to be similar. Read or seen the Cloud Atlas? Lucas has been going for a simlar story telling feel in Star Wars. Different generations face similar trials and handle it different ways. Anakin failed. Luke redeemed Anakin. What will Rey do? TROS will reveal it. And I think if they create the right trailer and buzz, the movie is going to do very well.

For one the PT is far less similar to the OT than the ST is. Secondly just because Lucas used similar trials to highlight the choices made by Anakin, and Luke, which unlike the ST were part of a single narrative with a beginning and an ending, doesn’t mean that he meant Star Wars to be an endless cycle of similar characters facing similar situations. Lucas also made it very clear he feels each trilogy needs its own visual style:

“They wanted to do a retro movie. I don’t like that. Every movie, I worked very hard to make them different,” Lucas said. “I made them completely different – different planets, different spaceships to make it new.”

So, Lucas obviously felt TFA was too much of a repeat of what we had seen before. Apparently he doesn’t share your views on similar storytelling to the extend that it was used for the ST.

I disagree. I think the PT had more parallels to the OT. To really understand the trilogies you have to focus on the hero and their journey. Anakin’s journey ended in his downfall. Luke rose to great heights and redeemed his father. Rey… what will she do? The death of Qui-gon is closer to the death of Obi-wan than any death in the ST. The great celebration at the end of ANH and TPM. The young boy from Tatooine finding a way off the planet and on the road to becoming a Jedi. The middle chapter where the training is tested and both fail in their major battle and lose a limb. The final chapter where they face their greatest challenge and one fails while the other succeeds. The girl, the guy, the droids, the galaxy in turmoil. In terms of plot points crucial to the final outcome of the main plot, they are far more similar than the ST is to either. Sure it features a McGuffin like the OT, and a hotshot pilot like Han, but it gives the girl the lead role and replaced the princess with the ex stormtrooper. Rey’s training does not flow to success like Anakin and Luke’s and she does not face an opponent she is unprepared for and she doesn’t lose a limb. The mentor only dies AFTER the hero moves on on her own. In some ways TLJ may feel a bit more like TESB in tone, but in plot points it is laid out differently and serves a different purpose.

I too strongly disagree. Your argument hinges on the fact we should just focus on one element of the story, the journey of the hero, which you argue is original, and ignore the vast majority of other highly similar plot points, because they don’t fit your narrative. A film is much more than the journey of the hero. However, even if we go your way, and just focus on the hero’s journey, your argument breaks down. While I would say, it is debatable, which of the heroes, Anakin or Rey, is more similar to Luke in their first films, Rey’s journey in TLJ is anything but original. Her arc is an obvious mix of elements taken from TESB and ROTJ. Her arc starts by first following the plot of TESB, seeking guidance from a Jedi master, who initially turns her down, but after an old friend persuades him gives the hero a few lessons/training, then the hero enters a dark side cave, which gives her some cryptic preview of a reveal that will follow at the end of the movie, then after having a vision of the future, leaves that master against his advice to face the enemy, then switching to the plot of ROTJ, where she delivers herself willingly to the enemy in hopes of redeeming the villain, then that villain betrays and kills his master to save her life, and then back to the plot of TESB for the offer to rule the galaxy at the villains side, and the big reveal about the her parentage at the end. Anakin’s journey in AOTC has far less similarities to the OT than Rey’s journey. While he may lose a limb in a vain attempt to rescue his friend and mentor at the end, the bulk of his story is actually about his feelings for Padme, which lead to forbidden love, resulting in a secret marriage, while his attachments to the past, and subsequent emotional trauma, steer him down a dark path, and together with his secret marriage lay the seeds for his eventual turn to the dark side in the next installment. I should add that we haven’t even discussed the context of the hero’s journey, which in the case of the ST is just a copy of the OT, where a tiny band of rebels are facing an overwhelming force of Space Nazis led by a former Jedi student of the hero’s mentor, who has turned to the dark side, and had been instrumental in the destruction of the Jedi order. The context of the PT is a villain operating from the shadows, who through subversion, and manipulation starts a war, where he controls both sides, and uses the crisis to convince the Senate to willingly hand power over to him, a completely different premise from the OT.

These two videos clearly show how both TFA and TLJ heavily borrow scenes, plot threads, and visuals from the OT, and while I wouldn’t go so far as to call them rip-offs, they represent more of a mix tape of the OT’s greatest hits, with some new elements added for good measure, than an original story:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BX18Icf6fQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AgRgwW1Ovc

Hopefully TROS will finally change that, and offer a story that isn’t in some way an adaptation or remix of the OT.

RogueLeader said:

It sounds like he meant that from a visual standpoint in particular.

EDIT: Also wanted to say that I’m really enjoying how we’re having an interesting discussion about this even though we have different opinions!

Well considering Lucas stated the following about his plans for the ST, I suspect this opinion isn’t just restricted to the visuals, even though that quote seems to focus on that aspect of the film:

GL: [The next three Star Wars films] were going to get into a microbiotic world. But there’s this world of creatures that operate differently than we do. I call them the Whills. And the Whills are the ones who actually control the universe. They feed off the Force.

GL: If I’d held onto the company I could have done it, and then it would have been done. Of course, a lot of the fans would have hated it, just like they did Phantom Menace and everything, but at least the whole story from beginning to end would be told.

Lucas thus clearly feels the whole story as he outlined it to Disney during the sale has not (yet) been told, and while I suspect certain elements of his outline ended up in the final product, he obviously had something very different in mind for the core narrative. That’s not to say his movies would have been better, but they would definitely be more original, and expanded the universe and the lore to a greater degree.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

I see you are unaware of what has happened at Disneyland. It is not the failure you think it is. The access to Galaxy’s Edge has been full up. Crowds have been good. What has not been good is overall attendance because no one wanted to compete with the crowds they expected for the opening period. Disney made plans to address that, but not before people had made their vacation plans and skipped over this summer. I expect next year to be one of Disney’s best at the two parks with Galaxy’s Edge.

And it is your opinion that they rebooted the franchise. That completely ignores the cyclical nature of the story and how much the ST is paralleling the EU stories that so many fans are familiar with. I don’t see any issue with attracting a new generation at all. A number of people who are more casual fans like the ST more then the previous movies. And the box office numbers (adjusted for inflation) show that the ST is more popular than the PT was. The only group I see with a big problem with the ST are those who had expectations of what the ST would and would not include and don’t like that it doesn’t live up to that. A repeat of the PT all over again. Let the writers tell their story and sit back and enjoy. I indulge in spoilers so I can divest myself of all expectations and just enjoy how the story unfolds. Your theories of deconstructing and rebooting over analyze the trilogy and widely miss what the movies say about themselves. The ST was always going to involve the death of Luke in the first Episode (the first one he was in) and Harrison has been saying Han should die for 30 years. They passed the torch and Carrie’s passing forced that to be even more complete. This is the Rey, Finn, Poe trilogy and the OT characters are really just enlarge cameos. You had expectations, perhaps not of exactly what the characters would do, but definitely what they shouldn’t do. It is almost as if Lucas, Abrams, and Johnson set out to make a trilogy that was exactly what you didn’t want to see. I see symmetry in the repetition. I see the parallels in myth, history, and pop culture (Star Wars is a more serious take on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers after all) and I’m enjoying the tale. It is very much what happens after the great war is over and how things move on. Often it is ghosts of the past that haunt the future and bring back a defeated enemy. I find the story of the ST to be very mythic and very classic and not repetitive at all. Certainly not a reboot. If you want to know what I call a reboot, just look over at Star Trek under CBS. The ST has nice echos of the Zahn trilogy while being new and fresh. Just in the ST, they took 30 years instead of 10 years to regroup and attack the Republic.

The Zahn trilogy does not have Empire vs rebels 2.0, or have the New Republic wiped out of existence, such that we reset the galaxy to an OT state. It does not have a Darth Vader wannabe, who also was a former Jedi pupil of the hero’s Jedi mentor. It does not have a fascimile Emperor. It does not have another Death Star like super weapon. It does not have another Jedi prodigy from a Tatooine clone. It does not have another ground battle involving walkers on a white plane. It does not have another throne room scene, where our hero has to witness the destruction of the rebel fleet, and an apprentice betraying his master to save the life of the hero. The Zahn trilogy was new and fresh. I can’t say the same for the ST. I’m not saying the films aren’t entertaining, and there are new elements, and nuances, but the so called cyclical nature is a poor excuse for resetting the story, and essentially giving us the OT with a new coat of paint. I’m not saying I dislike the ST in general, or that they’re bad movies. I’m saying it could have been a whole lot better, if they hadn’t undone most of the OT’s victories, and in stead given us a new and original story with new and original heroes, and villains, that weren’t in some way a slight variation of characters and stories we have seen before.

The Zahn trilogy does have a reminant of the Empire. It does have a unique Jedi student situation. The Republic is unsteady so the players are pretty much the same as Empire vs. Rebels 2.0. And in The ST, the republic has not be wiped out, only the government. We won’t know what the state of the galaxy is until TROS comes out since only days or weeks have passed since the Hosnian system and the fleet were destroyed. I feel you are making too much of what you see as parallels and you aren’t seeing how different the ST is from the OT. I do not share any of your feelings as to what the story of the ST is. I see closer parallels to the Zahn Trilogy. But in any case it is supposed to be similar. Read or seen the Cloud Atlas? Lucas has been going for a simlar story telling feel in Star Wars. Different generations face similar trials and handle it different ways. Anakin failed. Luke redeemed Anakin. What will Rey do? TROS will reveal it. And I think if they create the right trailer and buzz, the movie is going to do very well.

For one the PT is far less similar to the OT than the ST is. Secondly just because Lucas used similar trials to highlight the choices made by Anakin, and Luke, which unlike the ST were part of a single narrative with a beginning and an ending, doesn’t mean that he meant Star Wars to be an endless cycle of similar characters facing similar situations. Lucas also made it very clear he feels each trilogy needs its own visual style:

“They wanted to do a retro movie. I don’t like that. Every movie, I worked very hard to make them different,” Lucas said. “I made them completely different – different planets, different spaceships to make it new.”

So, Lucas obviously felt TFA was too much of a repeat of what we had seen before. Apparently he doesn’t share your views on similar storytelling to the extend that it was used for the ST.

NeverarGreat said:

DrDre said:

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

I see you are unaware of what has happened at Disneyland. It is not the failure you think it is. The access to Galaxy’s Edge has been full up. Crowds have been good. What has not been good is overall attendance because no one wanted to compete with the crowds they expected for the opening period. Disney made plans to address that, but not before people had made their vacation plans and skipped over this summer. I expect next year to be one of Disney’s best at the two parks with Galaxy’s Edge.

And it is your opinion that they rebooted the franchise. That completely ignores the cyclical nature of the story and how much the ST is paralleling the EU stories that so many fans are familiar with. I don’t see any issue with attracting a new generation at all. A number of people who are more casual fans like the ST more then the previous movies. And the box office numbers (adjusted for inflation) show that the ST is more popular than the PT was. The only group I see with a big problem with the ST are those who had expectations of what the ST would and would not include and don’t like that it doesn’t live up to that. A repeat of the PT all over again. Let the writers tell their story and sit back and enjoy. I indulge in spoilers so I can divest myself of all expectations and just enjoy how the story unfolds. Your theories of deconstructing and rebooting over analyze the trilogy and widely miss what the movies say about themselves. The ST was always going to involve the death of Luke in the first Episode (the first one he was in) and Harrison has been saying Han should die for 30 years. They passed the torch and Carrie’s passing forced that to be even more complete. This is the Rey, Finn, Poe trilogy and the OT characters are really just enlarge cameos. You had expectations, perhaps not of exactly what the characters would do, but definitely what they shouldn’t do. It is almost as if Lucas, Abrams, and Johnson set out to make a trilogy that was exactly what you didn’t want to see. I see symmetry in the repetition. I see the parallels in myth, history, and pop culture (Star Wars is a more serious take on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers after all) and I’m enjoying the tale. It is very much what happens after the great war is over and how things move on. Often it is ghosts of the past that haunt the future and bring back a defeated enemy. I find the story of the ST to be very mythic and very classic and not repetitive at all. Certainly not a reboot. If you want to know what I call a reboot, just look over at Star Trek under CBS. The ST has nice echos of the Zahn trilogy while being new and fresh. Just in the ST, they took 30 years instead of 10 years to regroup and attack the Republic.

The Zahn trilogy does not have Empire vs rebels 2.0, or have the New Republic wiped out of existence, such that we reset the galaxy to an OT state. It does not have a Darth Vader wannabe, who also was a former Jedi pupil of the hero’s Jedi mentor. It does not have a fascimile Emperor. It does not have another Death Star like super weapon. It does not have another Jedi prodigy from a Tatooine clone. It does not have another ground battle involving walkers on a white plane. It does not have another throne room scene, where our hero has to witness the destruction of the rebel fleet, and an apprentice betraying his master to save the life of the hero. The Zahn trilogy was new and fresh. I can’t say the same for the ST. I’m not saying the films aren’t entertaining, and there are new elements, and nuances, but the so called cyclical nature is a poor excuse for resetting the story, and essentially giving us the OT with a new coat of paint. I’m not saying I dislike the ST in general, or that they’re bad movies. I’m saying it could have been a whole lot better, if they hadn’t undone most of the OT’s victories, and in stead given us a new and original story with new and original heroes, and villains, that weren’t in some way a slight variation of characters and stories we have seen before.

Counterpoint: Luuke

Yeah, the Luke clone is lame.

SilverWook said:

Can merchandise over saturation also be a factor? You have at least three different scales of SW action figures competing with each other now.

It can be a factor, but since the toy sales are related to the search volume for Star Wars in general, I would say it is brand recognizability in general, where the saga films have been competing with the standalone films for the audience’s attention. The MCU get away with multiple standalone films, and cross-overs, because the films are interconnected. It might have been a better idea to finish the trilogy before introducing standalone films. The standalone films could have filled the hiatus between trilogies.

yotsuya said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

I see you are unaware of what has happened at Disneyland. It is not the failure you think it is. The access to Galaxy’s Edge has been full up. Crowds have been good. What has not been good is overall attendance because no one wanted to compete with the crowds they expected for the opening period. Disney made plans to address that, but not before people had made their vacation plans and skipped over this summer. I expect next year to be one of Disney’s best at the two parks with Galaxy’s Edge.

And it is your opinion that they rebooted the franchise. That completely ignores the cyclical nature of the story and how much the ST is paralleling the EU stories that so many fans are familiar with. I don’t see any issue with attracting a new generation at all. A number of people who are more casual fans like the ST more then the previous movies. And the box office numbers (adjusted for inflation) show that the ST is more popular than the PT was. The only group I see with a big problem with the ST are those who had expectations of what the ST would and would not include and don’t like that it doesn’t live up to that. A repeat of the PT all over again. Let the writers tell their story and sit back and enjoy. I indulge in spoilers so I can divest myself of all expectations and just enjoy how the story unfolds. Your theories of deconstructing and rebooting over analyze the trilogy and widely miss what the movies say about themselves. The ST was always going to involve the death of Luke in the first Episode (the first one he was in) and Harrison has been saying Han should die for 30 years. They passed the torch and Carrie’s passing forced that to be even more complete. This is the Rey, Finn, Poe trilogy and the OT characters are really just enlarge cameos. You had expectations, perhaps not of exactly what the characters would do, but definitely what they shouldn’t do. It is almost as if Lucas, Abrams, and Johnson set out to make a trilogy that was exactly what you didn’t want to see. I see symmetry in the repetition. I see the parallels in myth, history, and pop culture (Star Wars is a more serious take on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers after all) and I’m enjoying the tale. It is very much what happens after the great war is over and how things move on. Often it is ghosts of the past that haunt the future and bring back a defeated enemy. I find the story of the ST to be very mythic and very classic and not repetitive at all. Certainly not a reboot. If you want to know what I call a reboot, just look over at Star Trek under CBS. The ST has nice echos of the Zahn trilogy while being new and fresh. Just in the ST, they took 30 years instead of 10 years to regroup and attack the Republic.

The Zahn trilogy does not have Empire vs rebels 2.0, or have the New Republic wiped out of existence, such that we reset the galaxy to an OT state. It does not have a Darth Vader wannabe, who also was a former Jedi pupil of the hero’s Jedi mentor. It does not have a fascimile Emperor. It does not have another Death Star like super weapon. It does not have another Jedi prodigy from a Tatooine clone. It does not have another ground battle involving walkers on a white plane. It does not have another throne room scene, where our hero has to witness the destruction of the rebel fleet, and an apprentice betraying his master to save the life of the hero. The Zahn trilogy was new and fresh. I can’t say the same for the ST. I’m not saying the films aren’t entertaining, and there are new elements, and nuances, but the so called cyclical nature is a poor excuse for resetting the story, and essentially giving us the OT with a new coat of paint. I’m not saying I dislike the ST in general, or that they’re bad movies. I’m saying it could have been a whole lot better, if they hadn’t undone most of the OT’s victories, and in stead given us a new and original story with new and original heroes, and villains, that weren’t in some way a slight variation of characters and stories we have seen before.

yotsuya said:

So far the performance of the Star Wars movies has not surprised me in the slightest. There really aren’t strong figures to go on for the OT and with all the re-releases of Star Wars in those early years it really slants things. It was a game changer on many levels. The rest of the OT had to live up to that and did a great job. They were able to craft a sequel that was better than the original in many ways, though the younger version of myself did not appreciate it.

But since TPM, I have been tracking things. Box Office numbers can be fun to look at. TPM had along run. AOTC had a shorter run. ROTS had the shortest run, but the biggest opening. Just from what I’ve seen, this is likely to be the trend for the ST.

Another trend I’ve noticed is that complaints reduce over time. As time goes on the lasting impression of the films improves. The initial complaints mellow out and more attention is paid to what was done well.

Ultimately the only two statistics that we can track long term are box office numbers and home video numbers.

But here are some variables to consider to interpret the Google stats presented here. Age of fans. Social media use of fans. Dedicated online sites for fandom. Quality of trailer. Quality of toys. Variety of toys. Collectableness of toys. Well, I could go on and on with different things that can very widely and affect stats. Harry Potter fans were largely young when the first books came out and were of an internet savy generation. Marvel fans came in all ages. There had been a few movies, but mostly comic books. But the age of some of the characters means you have a mix of fans covering a wide range of ages and duration. Star Wars has a huge and varied fan base. Fans have come on board with every film and every decade. The thing Star Wars has are many online communities (like this one). So when looking at statistics from Google we have to ask if things are different. What stats are going to give the full picture.

For instance, you can wander over to YouTube to the official Star Wars channel and look up how many views the various trailers have had. The thing you have to keep in mind is that those numbers are not static and keep growing. And the channel isn’t old enough to cover the PT, much less the OT, so it is only useful for comparing the ST and the stand alones. The first teasers in order of release are:
TFA: 24 million
R1: 45 million
TLJ: 44 million
Solo: 13 million
TROS: 31 million
There was a second teaser for TLJ that has 82 million

Then there are the official trailers, not including TROS which hasn’t come out yet:
TFA: 103 million
R1: 38 million
TLJ: 53 million
Solo: 18 million
There was a second trailer for Rogue One that has 27 million

And then the box office from Box Office Mojo (adjusted domestic gross and including all the films):
ANH: 1,286,033,500
TESB: 710,548,800
ROTJ: 729,660,300
AHH SE: 271,395,100
TESB SE: 132,691,800
ROTJ SE: 89,256,800
TPM: 764,280,500
AOTC: 468,630,500
ROTS: 534,514,500
TCW: 44,123,400
TFA: 974,117,000
R1: 544,579,000
TLJ: 609,026,300
Solo: 205,860,700

Of the new films, Solo has done the worst in all areas. If you go by this list and the number of views just of the first trailer for TROS, I’d predict the teaser gets 5-10 million more views by the time the movie is released, the full trailer will have 50-60 million views, and the box office will be better than TLJ, but under $700,000,000.

And to me it isn’t a mystery why Solo bombed. It was the combination of too close to TLJ, the casting, the subject matter, and stiff competition in the theaters. The views of the trailer show the lack of interest.

But my question again is if the Google stats are so informative and show a lack of interest in TROS, why the views of the trailer are so high? And if it is so accurate, why didn’t Rogue One overtake TFA at the box office? Rogue One made more than ROTS, but less than TFA or TLJ, even though by these graphs it should have made more than at least TLJ. But it didn’t. Statistics can be very flawed. The trick is to find solid and repeatable statistics that do provide useful predictive information.

And as a side note, Avengers Endgame is #16 for adjusted box office for all time, between Avatar and ROTJ.

You see, that’s where you’re wrong. With statistics there’s always an amount of uncertainty, and so even if the relationship is strong (correlations > 50%), a movie that shows higher interest can get lower box office returns or vice versa, meaning that interest x will result in y +/- e, where e is a measure of uncertainty, and so the prediction for the box office of RO may be 1300 M +/- 300 M, and TLJ 1100 M +/- 300 M. In any case the relationship between google searches and toy sales has proven to be even stronger, and so the decline of interest in Star Wars can not only be expressed in terms of google search volume, but in toy earnings, which we know have decreasing significantly over the last few years. Many attributed this to decreasing toy sales in general, but now we can show it is simply related to less interest in the brand in general.

oojason said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

I make predictions, because I’m a scientist, and this sort of stuff interests me. I hope TROS will get the reception it deserves. If it’s great and widely accepted by the fandom, and the public in general, I hope it succeeds. If it’s bad or another extremy divisive film, which further deepens the rift in the fandom, I hope it sinks faster than Titanic.

Personally I don’t think we should be cheering for the failures of things that refuse to play it safe or don’t fear what will happen if they don’t satiate the desires of some fans. I couldn’t care less what the fandom at large (or at small) thinks. I just care if it’s good or not.

The divide between fans goes well beyond the merits of a single movie. A climate has been created by the creators, media, and fandom, that has led to some very ugly situations, and people being demonized for having an opinion on a movie, whether positive or negative. If that climate is perpetuated, I won’t care about the future of the franchise one way or the other. Star Wars to me is more than a bunch of films, it is a relationship, and the fandom is an integral part of that relationship. If the fandom is broken, all that will be left is a bunch of blockbusters with the Star Wars brand slapped on it. So, I believe the creators should think out of the box AND do their part to make that relationship work.

That ‘climate,’ hate to break it to you, is largely imaginary.

Personally I find it easy to separate the work from the fandom. Most fandoms are obnoxious, SW perhaps moreso than many. Personally, I’m not going to let that affect my enjoy of the films any time soon.

There’s nothing imaginary about being called an SJW for liking Holdo, and Rose Tico, or a misogynist or man baby for disliking those same characters.

The imaginary claim is in regards to the creators. Yeah, the fandom says stupid shit. That’s why I said fandom is obnoxious and best ignored.

The fandom, the media, and Lucasfilm employees have directly or indirectly kept adding fuel to the fire. From the very beginning critics were branded as haters, misogynists, manbabies, and what not, and not just by obnoxious fans. In the mean time Lucasfilm, and Disney did very little to set the record straight, that most critical fans had no association with toxic elements in the fandom. So, yes the creators didn’t directly attack fans for the most part. They had the media do the dirty work for them. All they had to do is stay silent, while the critics were all painted with the same toxic brush. I guess, it was in their interest to perpetuate the myth, that criticism against their products was mostly limited to toxic fans, driven by sinister motives, and Russian bots. Let’s get real here, even on this forum the motives of critics are continually questioned. We’re annoying, unreasonable people, that didn’t get what we want, and therefore hate Disney Star Wars, and desperately want it to fail…

I’ll add a different interpretation of events - in the interests of balance…

Critics were not, from the very beginning, ‘branded as haters, misogynists, manbabies, and what not’. I recall people associated with the films made it clear that valid and genuine criticism was okay and differing opinions on it were fine, and that they couldn’t please everybody out there (as it has been for many previous films and franchises) - which are reasonable and fair enough views.

I imagine over time the death threats, announcements of their deaths, actors being harassed and abused to the point of being chased off social media, as well as becoming aware of the abhorrent racist and sexist comments online… took their toll. Friends, family and associates explaining to others around them (including kids) that so and so isn’t actually dead as been posted up on the internet (news like this spreads quickly - who knew?) - and does have an effect on people.

Yet people around the film still stated it’s okay to have differing or critical opinion - though some people around the film and franchise also called out the more toxic, sexist and racist elements - and rightfully so.

Unfortunately, in doing this, some of the critics with genuine and valid issues have somehow seemingly felt their views were denied or rubbished - or somehow their legitimate criticisms were being put in with those sexist, racist and toxic views.

Also, some of the more more clickbait and monetised based media - used this criticism of the sexist, racist and toxic views - and spun it as criticism of many people who just didn’t like the film itself - further polarising the fanbase - yet also ensuring future subscribers and revenue streams.
 

Profiting from hate and division, it seems, is a nice little earner. Especially online in the age of monetised channels. Some of the more toxic channels have come together in a bid to boost their respective subscriber lists and revenues with other like-minded social media outlets.

And those that do profit from hate and division won’t be giving that nice little earner up anytime soon…

 

It’s a shame that more people who have genuine and valid issues with the film - seemingly do not call out others who do derogatorily criticise it on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, and disability more often - and instead stay quiet, or ignore it, or overlook it.

Or even criticise people who have taken issue with those that have these abhorrent views - seemingly because they mistakenly feel attacked for having genuine criticisms of the film.

 

Feel free to disagree, tear it apart, or whatever. That’s all I’ll be saying on the subject in here - and I don’t wish to derail DrDre’s intriguing thread.
 

I can get behind this. Nice one!

DominicCobb said:

Again, it’s not so much that SW has failed as Marvel has succeeded in an insane way. 23 films in 11 years, and very quickly snatching up the highest grossing franchise title (which it will hold perhaps forever - or at least our lifetimes). The reason for this incredible success is obvious: The Avengers. Here’s really a mega franchise that collects multiple sub franchises and enriched them all. That series has grown exponentially more popular with each crossover because the concept of a crossover is unprecedented, and the desire to see a live action superhero team up film was a strong one for the preexisting Marvel fan base and for others alike - and it was a desire that had been pent up for decades before it ever happened. It’d be unreasonable to expect SW to match Marvel’s success, and perhaps that was actually the problem behind a failure like Solo, where Disney was trying to more closely follow their winning Marvel formula - not every series can be Marvel, and truthfully, as of yet it’s unclear if any series can ever be.

For me, again it goes back to “who cares.” I’ll always prefer Star Wars, I did when I was a kid and it wasn’t the most popular in school, I did when TFA came out and was the biggest movie ever (sort of), and I still do even though Marvel has obviously eclipsed it and everything else. For me, I never felt like I needed my love of Star Wars validated. So, personally, I don’t care if Marvel is more successful. Maybe if they can some day make a movie as good as TFA or TLJ (let alone SW or ESB) I’ll care more. But until then, I’ll love Marvel, but I’ll just love Star Wars a little more, and how much money either makes couldn’t matter to me less.

I think that Star Wars has gone stale. I look at Star Wars these days, and it all has a sameness to it that makes the universe feel small, and inconsequential. I mean forty years have passed, and we’re still fighting stormtroopers, and have former star Jedi pupils running amok. We’re still trying to defeat space Nazis. We get the same visuals with minor updates. In the end they’re all just pale reflections of what once was fresh and original. As fans we can get excited, or angry about cranky Luke, but from a general audience perspective isn’t cranky Luke just Obi-Wan/Yoda with a twist? Isn’t Kylo Ren just Darth Vader Light? Isn’t Rey just a female Luke. As fans we may get excited about a Sith Trooper, but isn’t the general audience going to look at them, and go sarcastically: “O wow, a red stormtrooper, how exciting…”? Did we really need origin stories for classic characters, showing us things we already knew, or didn’t care to know? Isn’t the real issue here, that Star Wars is still stuck in the past, while the MCU has offered something new (in cinema terms), fresh, and exciting? What are we really expecting from TROS? The rebels beat the Empire again. Darth Vader gets redeemed again. Where are the endless possibilities? Star Wars has failed from a certain point of view. It has failed to stay fresh. Star Wars has become a franchise for old people trying to rekindle their youth.

I seriously hope come December JJ offers up something truly unique and exciting both narratively and visually.

Now I’m going to sound hypocritical, but I am curious how Marvel toy sales are doing, mainly because part of me is curious if kids even play with toys at all these days (if I knew any kids I’d ask).

While exact numbers are hard to find, Avengers toys are the main force behind Hasbro’s success right now:

https://www.businessinsider.nl/hasbro-toy-sales-crush-estimates-boosted-by-avengers-endgame-2019-7/

Revenue expectation for Marvel toys for 2018 were approx. $500 M, which is in line with the toy revenue prediction model I showed based on google trend data. So, yes kids still play with toys, just not as much with Star Wars toys. Also the relationship I established between general interest in Star Wars and toy sales works for data from 2005 to 2019, and so there’s no real evidence that lower toy sales for Star Wars are related to a decreased interest in toys in general. Interest in the various properties seem to drive toy sales with a successful property generates interest, boosting toy sales in general, like Endgame in 2019, while less successful properties result in less interest and disappointing toy sales.

OutboundFlight said:

From what I’ve seen, kids of this generation are preferring marvel movies over Star Wars movies. Not that they dislike Star Wars by any means. They like it, but not as much as Marvel, hence it doesn’t have the priority like it did in the 80’s and 2000’s. No one’s fault.

I think it’s that simple.

They do, but this was not some preordained fact. Before 2008 there was no MCU, and so Kevin Feige and his team had to device a plan to get people to see their movies and buy their merchandise. The same was true for Kathleen Kennedy and her team by 2012, only they were starting from an existing franchise, and fanbase. In the end it’s the product and the marketing that made the customer prefer the MCU over Star Wars. That doesn’t mean the Star Wars product is bad, but a different product might have tipped the scales in the favour of Star Wars. Perhaps Star Wars is getting stale, or perhaps it’s the simultaneous introduction of saga films and spin-offs that affected the recognizability of the brand, or perhaps it’s any number of other reasons.

RogueLeader said:

This is really cool, Dre! Where are you getting these datasets from to make your graphs?

I’m wondering about how much actual marketing and advertisement plays into this. Because it’s not like they just release the movies and then wait for the masses to buy toys. Do we know how much they’re spending on marketing for the MCU compared to Star Wars?

Thx! 😃 I got the interest data from google trends, and I just googled the toy data. The marketing budget is a good question, I will take a look at that.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

See, that seems like an odd deduction to me. Honestly, if anything Disney has been focusing too much on the old canon, to the detriment of the new. 90% of merchandise, tie-in books, etc. seem to be OT related.

And I can’t imagine anyone who decided not to go to Galaxy’s Edge simply because it focuses on the new canon - general fans wouldn’t even necessarily know that’s the case and more hardcore fans wouldn’t care. I think there are a lot of other factors at play with the park, namely blocking out pass holders, raised ticket prices, and the fact that they still haven’t opened the second ride (the reason I haven’t been yet, and I obviously am a fan of the new canon). Worth noting too that the extent to which the park is “new canon” is only the characters who walk around the land. The planet that’s the setting of the park isn’t from any of the movies and the ride that’s open now doesn’t feature characters from any of the movies either (perhaps, if anything, this is evidence of a different problem).

They have focussed too much on the old canon in a way, but they also killed off much of the old characters in the service of a story, that can be considered a modern take on the OT. The objective thus seems to be less about building on what came before, and more about replacing it with Disney canon.

They killed off two old characters. One, they were lucky to get to use at all. The other was destined to die because that’s how this series works (the mentor passes the torch to the next generation), but is able to stick around anyway due to ghost powers. I’m not sure I understand this specific complaint.

JEDIT: Oh, I guess they killed Ackbar too. Really razing the old canon with that death.

Two out of the big three are dead, and this trilogy isn’t done yet. A lot of people expected Luke to die in the final installment. R2-D2 has been replaced by BB-8, C-3PO has been sidelined.

I’m not sure why anyone would have expected this trilogy to be about the old big three. That’s not really how this series rolls, nor would it have been practical considering their advancing age (a statement that’s making me sad now that I think of it - moment of silence for Carrie). R2 and 3PO have been sidelined since 2002 and 1999 respectively. No one goes to these movies to see them. And people seem to love BB-8 just as much them, so I’m not sure that “replacing” really backfired in anyway.

I will agree to the extent that if TROS underperforms, probably the main reason will be lack of Han Solo and Luke Skywalker, but I think that says more about how those two characters boosted the performance of TFA and TLJ. Truthfully, Disney’s lucky it got to play with the old characters at all.

I agree. The future of the franchise was always going to be in the hands of a new generation of characters. However, I question the wisdom of undoing much of the classic characters’ achievements, and then to put new similar characters in similar situations. This makes it more difficult for the new generation of characters to distuinguish themselves from the old. People remember Neil Armstrong for being the first man on the moon, but who was the person that followed in his footsteps? It would have been wiser to leave the moon to the old guard, and to have the new characters go on a trip to Mars.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

See, that seems like an odd deduction to me. Honestly, if anything Disney has been focusing too much on the old canon, to the detriment of the new. 90% of merchandise, tie-in books, etc. seem to be OT related.

And I can’t imagine anyone who decided not to go to Galaxy’s Edge simply because it focuses on the new canon - general fans wouldn’t even necessarily know that’s the case and more hardcore fans wouldn’t care. I think there are a lot of other factors at play with the park, namely blocking out pass holders, raised ticket prices, and the fact that they still haven’t opened the second ride (the reason I haven’t been yet, and I obviously am a fan of the new canon). Worth noting too that the extent to which the park is “new canon” is only the characters who walk around the land. The planet that’s the setting of the park isn’t from any of the movies and the ride that’s open now doesn’t feature characters from any of the movies either (perhaps, if anything, this is evidence of a different problem).

They have focussed too much on the old canon in a way, but they also killed off much of the old characters in the service of a story, that can be considered a modern take on the OT. The objective thus seems to be less about building on what came before, and more about replacing it with Disney canon.

They killed off two old characters. One, they were lucky to get to use at all. The other was destined to die because that’s how this series works (the mentor passes the torch to the next generation), but is able to stick around anyway due to ghost powers. I’m not sure I understand this specific complaint.

JEDIT: Oh, I guess they killed Ackbar too. Really razing the old canon with that death.

Two out of the big three are dead, and this trilogy isn’t done yet. A lot of people expected Luke to die in the final installment. R2-D2 has been replaced by BB-8, C-3PO has been sidelined. Also, most people expected the classic characters to die at some point, but not necessarily in the service of a reboot.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.

See, that seems like an odd deduction to me. Honestly, if anything Disney has been focusing too much on the old canon, to the detriment of the new. 90% of merchandise, tie-in books, etc. seem to be OT related.

And I can’t imagine anyone who decided not to go to Galaxy’s Edge simply because it focuses on the new canon - general fans wouldn’t even necessarily know that’s the case and more hardcore fans wouldn’t care. I think there are a lot of other factors at play with the park, namely blocking out pass holders, raised ticket prices, and the fact that they still haven’t opened the second ride (the reason I haven’t been yet, and I obviously am a fan of the new canon). Worth noting too that the extent to which the park is “new canon” is only the characters who walk around the land. The planet that’s the setting of the park isn’t from any of the movies and the ride that’s open now doesn’t feature characters from any of the movies either (perhaps, if anything, this is evidence of a different problem).

They have focussed too much on the old canon in a way, but they also killed off much of the old characters in the service of a story, that can be considered a modern take on the OT. The objective thus seems to be less about building on what came before, and more about replacing it with Disney canon.

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Huh I guess Star Wars really is dead and TLJ killed it. Good job, you proved it. Haha

Nope, Star Wars is in decline, and I’ve said nothing about TLJ being the cause, just that Disney’s strategy hasn’t worked, which is a reasonable conclusion, if the objective is growth, a conclusion supported by the recent analysis of bloomberg:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/star-wars-is-struggling-to-win-over-the-marvel-generation

What then would you say is Disney’s strategy that has been so disastrous?

Out with the old, in with the new. The Galaxy Edge theme park is the best evidence, that Disney gambled on the strength of the new canon. In the process they alienated a subsection of the previous generations of fans, whilst not being able to win over the new generation. They essentially rebooted the franchise with characters that aren’t as compelling, and so people lose interest.