Star Wars Discussion Thread

3,380,675 Views | 32385 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by MuckRaker96
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

Oh and I guess I'll throw out that I also think that headline was super clickbaity and ridiculous.

I guess I'm on an island with this one, and that's fine. I agree that the headline is a bit clickbaity, but I *do* believe that TROS damaged the franchise going forward. Not in any irrevocable way, of course, and the next movie will still make a killing, but long term, with all new characters and story points, it's going to be an uphill battle to remain relevant for sure. And TROS being such a wet fart of an ending for the saga didn't help that effort.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PatAg said:

MuckRaker96 said:

I was laughing at the over the top Forbes headline but thanks for making it personal. I don't give a **** if you or anyone else here dislikes the movie, that's your opinion and why I jumped off the original TROS thread on the first place, just wanted to talk about the story on the screen.
TC's line was funny, but it is laughably stupid to think Star Wars will "never recover" from making insane amounts of money on these "horrible" movies. It is a little sad to see that Forbes is resorting to these kinds of article headlines, but maybe its been like that for a while, I haven't really read it often lately.
This was my thoughts exactly. I would think that Forbes would be above click baity stuff but then again I admit I haven't read it in a decade.

That said, after just getting back from Galaxy's Edge/Hollywood Studios/WDW, Star Wars, as a massive revenue/profit center for Disney, is only getting bigger.
Urban Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

Oh and I guess I'll throw out that I also think that headline was super clickbaity and ridiculous.

I guess I'm on an island with this one, and that's fine. I agree that the headline is a bit clickbaity, but I *do* believe that TROS damaged the franchise going forward. Not in any irrevocable way, of course, and the next movie will still make a killing, but long term, without all new characters and story points, it's going to be an uphill battle to remain relevant for sure. And TROS being such a wet fart of an ending for the saga didn't help.
I think that to a certain degree at least, Disney has made SW "too big to fail" now. Between the merchandizing, theme parks, resorts, Disney+ series, and of course, the movies, it's global and it's massive. It's literally the most prominently displayed advertisement in Orlando. The Stormtrooper helmet is as easily recognized now as the mouse ears.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're not wrong about that. I think the saving grace for Star Wars going forward will be the tv series, ironically. A lot of people are all in on Mandalorian, and just about everyone is excited for Obi-Wan.

That's why it really pissed me off when it started looking like they were gonna **** that up too.

But, I'd rather they take their time and put out a quality product, than rush it. It's a little worrisome that they are this far into pre-production without solid scripts in place.

Fingers crossed for that one.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Urban Ag said:

TCTTS said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

Oh and I guess I'll throw out that I also think that headline was super clickbaity and ridiculous.

I guess I'm on an island with this one, and that's fine. I agree that the headline is a bit clickbaity, but I *do* believe that TROS damaged the franchise going forward. Not in any irrevocable way, of course, and the next movie will still make a killing, but long term, without all new characters and story points, it's going to be an uphill battle to remain relevant for sure. And TROS being such a wet fart of an ending for the saga didn't help.
I think that to a certain degree at least, Disney has made SW "too big to fail" now. Between the merchandizing, theme parks, resorts, Disney+ series, and of course, the movies, it's global and it's massive. It's literally the most prominently displayed advertisement in Orlando. The Stormtrooper helmet is as easily recognized now as the mouse ears.

I agree for the most part. No one is saying "Star Wars is going to fail." I don't know where people are getting that from the article or anything I said. Star Wars is here to say. The article is simply stating the fact that the Skywalker Saga ended with a stain. That's literally the only point it's making. And I'm simply building off of that and saying that stain could have ramifications going forward. By ending the saga on such a low note, and considering that the cinematic efforts going forward won't have the luxury of being tied to the OT in any way, the days of Star Wars being THE end all be all cinematic franchise might very well be over. That's not to say it won't still be successful at the box office, it just might not be the juggernaut it has been until now.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

You're not wrong about that. I think the saving grace for Star Wars going forward will be the tv series, ironically. A lot of people are all in on Mandalorian, and just about everyone is excited for Obi-Wan.

That's why it really pissed me off when it started looking like they were gonna **** that up too.

But, I'd rather they take their time and put out a quality product, than rush it. It's a little worrisome that they are this far into pre-production without solid scripts in place.

Fingers crossed for that one.

Agreed. TV feels like the future of Star Wars, at least for the foreseeable future. And that's totally fine. Less risk, but also less box office reward obviously, which plays into my overall point.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This is what's crazy. I'm subscribed to the Disney World subreddit, and have been seeing posts of absolutely MASSIVE crowds for Galaxy's Edge, which I find legitimately (but pleasantly) surprising, given the somewhat lackluster opening few days. (I was there a few weeks after opening and it wasn't nearly as busy as it seems to be these days.)

Guess that Rise of the Resistance really is worth the hype.

But it's a great sign that the popularity of Star Wars just cannot be killed by a single (or even 2-3) bad movies. There is still life in this franchise, and they have all the time in the world to get it back on course.

Still, it makes me genuinely sad that they bungled the end of the actual saga this much. (In MY opinion.)
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:

Genuine question. (This is NOT an attack, but curiosity.)

Why do you jump off the thread when reviews aren't completely positive? I get it if it's just pure, unreasonable hate for the movie, but I felt like the TROS thread remained pretty level-headed and there seemed to be a good balance of positive and negative reviews.

Furthermore, do you not agree with ANY of the criticisms of the movie?
I just don't enjoy trying to slog through the endless diatribe over and over again of the same few complaints when I'm trying to talk about the movie with other people who also want to talk about the movie - what was actually on the screen - not how they rushed it, or how Kathleen Kennedy is terrible, or how they're taking shots at RIan Johnson. I don't care about any of those things and I consider them a huge waste of my time.

Star Wars to me isn't about directors and political statements and fan service and whatever else comes up. It's only about the story on the screen, the characters, where they go, and what they do. I liken it telling stories to my daughters about me growing up. They like some more than others, and they want to hear some more than once but they're not telling me "Ugh, that plot is too similar to the one you told us two years ago." or "The pacing of that story was too slow for my taste." They just want a story that makes them laugh or be silly or happy or sad or excited. That's what it is for me and Star Wars. Even two days short of turning 46, it makes me feel like a kid, and that's why I love it so much.

TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And that's all fine and good, but Star Wars is many things to many people. To me and others, the directors, writers, Kennedy, the behind the scenes history, etc. go hand in hand with the story. IMO, you can't have one without the other. I admire the way you love of the franchise, but that doesn't mean I have to curtail what *I* enjoy about it so as to not offend *your* enjoyment of it, considering the fact that this a communal message board.
john32f
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MuckRaker96 said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

Genuine question. (This is NOT an attack, but curiosity.)

Why do you jump off the thread when reviews aren't completely positive? I get it if it's just pure, unreasonable hate for the movie, but I felt like the TROS thread remained pretty level-headed and there seemed to be a good balance of positive and negative reviews.

Furthermore, do you not agree with ANY of the criticisms of the movie?
I just don't enjoy trying to slog through the endless diatribe over and over again of the same few complaints when I'm trying to talk about the movie with other people who also want to talk about the movie - what was actually on the screen - not how they rushed it, or how Kathleen Kennedy is terrible, or how they're taking shots at RIan Johnson. I don't care about any of those things and I consider them a huge waste of my time.

Star Wars to me isn't about directors and political statements and fan service and whatever else comes up. It's only about the story on the screen, the characters, where they go, and what they do. I liken it telling stories to my daughters about me growing up. They like some more than others, and they want to hear some more than once but they're not telling me "Ugh, that plot is too similar to the one you told us two years ago." or "The pacing of that story was too slow for my taste." They just want a story that makes them laugh or be silly or happy or sad or excited. That's what it is for me and Star Wars. Even two days short of turning 46, it makes me feel like a kid, and that's why I love it so much.


And that's all well and good for you, but I'm just here to contemplate the operations of running an intergalactic empire. If you can't get that part right, then you've lost me, a la the way Last Jedi did. I can go into it more if you'd be interested.
Hagen95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I thought something new had popped up from all the new posts, but it's just TC and Muck trying to one up each other (again).
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's why I started my own thread.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Solo Tetherball Champ
How long do you want to ignore this user?
john32f said:

MuckRaker96 said:

Brian Earl Spilner said:

Genuine question. (This is NOT an attack, but curiosity.)

Why do you jump off the thread when reviews aren't completely positive? I get it if it's just pure, unreasonable hate for the movie, but I felt like the TROS thread remained pretty level-headed and there seemed to be a good balance of positive and negative reviews.

Furthermore, do you not agree with ANY of the criticisms of the movie?
I just don't enjoy trying to slog through the endless diatribe over and over again of the same few complaints when I'm trying to talk about the movie with other people who also want to talk about the movie - what was actually on the screen - not how they rushed it, or how Kathleen Kennedy is terrible, or how they're taking shots at RIan Johnson. I don't care about any of those things and I consider them a huge waste of my time.

Star Wars to me isn't about directors and political statements and fan service and whatever else comes up. It's only about the story on the screen, the characters, where they go, and what they do. I liken it telling stories to my daughters about me growing up. They like some more than others, and they want to hear some more than once but they're not telling me "Ugh, that plot is too similar to the one you told us two years ago." or "The pacing of that story was too slow for my taste." They just want a story that makes them laugh or be silly or happy or sad or excited. That's what it is for me and Star Wars. Even two days short of turning 46, it makes me feel like a kid, and that's why I love it so much.


And that's all well and good for you, but I'm just here to contemplate the operations of running an intergalactic empire. If you can't get that part right, then you've lost me, a la the way Last Jedi did. I can go into it more if you'd be interested.
Please share!
dromo07
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
photoshopped
Aggie_Journalist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did TROS cause more damage than TLJ? I'd argue no, but neither did the franchise any good.

They need their next original trilogy to be really, really good.

I wonder what it would take to redesign the Disney world / land rides to feature the original cast and setting instead of the new trilogy cast and setting. My brother, who had been amped to go to the parks, doesn't even have an interest anymore after how much he disliked TROS and the new trilogy in general. But it would be an entirely different story if they used the original cast and time period.
Thanks and gig'em
jabberwalkie09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

True, but the difference is the same characters/story from the OT are what most people seemingly responded and clung to, re: the hype and interest in the sequel trilogy. Yes, Rey and Kylo were big hits, but would they have been as big without being tied to Luke, Han, and Leia? Given the overall disappointment in the sequel trilogy, it's going to be very interesting to see how audiences respond going forward to a brand new cinematic Star Wars story that isn't anchored to any characters or story points from past films.

I haven't kept up with much of the fandom (or anything Star Wars related for some time) since I pretty much walked away from the franchise after TLJ, but were Rey and Kylo really big hits? I haven't gotten the impression that any of the characters in the sequel trilogy were as big as those from the OT or PT.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Big hits" doesn't have to mean "as big as the characters from the OT or PT." I didn't make that comparison. And even though I was mainly being generous for the sake of the counter argument, I'd still argue that yes, Rey and Kylo were "big hits" among the younger generation and in terms of the marketing, theme parks, etc.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie_Journalist said:

Did TROS cause more damage than TLJ? I'd argue no, but neither did the franchise any good.

They need their next original trilogy to be really, really good.

I'd agree that no, TROS didn't cause more damage than TLJ, but the advantage TROS and the sequel trilogy had in general, again, was that it featured classic, beloved characters, and was a continuation of the Skywalker Saga. There was still a "have to see it" element with TROS, despite how poorly TLJ was received, simply because it was the end of a 40-year-old story. The next trilogy won't have that luxury. No believed characters, no continuation/end of a beloved story. Combine that with the "failures" of both TLJ and TROS, and it's going to take a hell of a great movie in 2022 to get the cinematic world back on track.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He's not wrong. (About TROS being a terrible conclusion to the series)

On an unrelated note I was channel surfing last night and got sucked into watching TLJ. Still good.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie_Journalist said:

I wonder what it would take to redesign the Disney world / land rides to feature the original cast and setting instead of the new trilogy cast and setting. My brother, who had been amped to go to the parks, doesn't even have an interest anymore after how much he disliked TROS and the new trilogy in general. But it would be an entirely different story if they used the original cast and time period.

Before TROS came out, I had a mild interest in visiting the parks. Thought it'd be fun to take my nephews when they're a bit older. After TROS, though, I honestly don't think you could pay me to go, and I now have zero desire to take my nephews. That said, if either park was set in the OT, I would be there in a heartbeat. I might even pay to go alone. To have a drink at the Mos Eisley cantina, or walk around Cloud City, would be pretty awesome.
Belton Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Aggie_Journalist said:

I wonder what it would take to redesign the Disney world / land rides to feature the original cast and setting instead of the new trilogy cast and setting. My brother, who had been amped to go to the parks, doesn't even have an interest anymore after how much he disliked TROS and the new trilogy in general. But it would be an entirely different story if they used the original cast and time period.

Before TROS came out, I had a mild interest in visiting the parks. Thought it'd be fun to take my nephews when they're a bit older. After TROS, though, I honestly don't think you could pay me to go, and I now have zero desire to take my nephews. That said, if either park was set in the OT, I would be there in a heartbeat. I might even pay to go alone. To have a drink at the Mos Eisley cantina, or walk around Cloud City, would be pretty awesome.
The theme park hasn't changed an iota since TROS came out. The park is set prior to the movie and the "backstory" doesn't have anything to do with TROS. At all. On top of that, the park is heavily influenced by the OT and the rest of the universe.

This makes about as much sense to me as any irrational need to defend TROS.
I Have Spoken
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I feel like TC is just trolling muck at this point, and I'm not sure what I think about it.
I Have Spoken
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
amercer said:

On an unrelated note I was channel surfing last night and got sucked into watching TLJ. Still good.


Insert "some men just want to watch the world burn".
Cinco Ranch Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Aggie_Journalist said:

I wonder what it would take to redesign the Disney world / land rides to feature the original cast and setting instead of the new trilogy cast and setting. My brother, who had been amped to go to the parks, doesn't even have an interest anymore after how much he disliked TROS and the new trilogy in general. But it would be an entirely different story if they used the original cast and time period.

Before TROS came out, I had a mild interest in visiting the parks. Thought it'd be fun to take my nephews when they're a bit older. After TROS, though, I honestly don't think you could pay me to go, and I now have zero desire to take my nephews. That said, if either park was set in the OT, I would be there in a heartbeat. I might even pay to go alone. To have a drink at the Mos Eisley cantina, or walk around Cloud City, would be pretty awesome.
You're missing out. I took my family last Thanksgiving. To walk aboard the Millennium Falcon was worth all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and time to do a Disney trip, and was worth even missing the game against UGA. It was awesome to run into Chewbacca. We had pictures taken with Darth Vader, Chewie, Kylo Ren, and Rey. Yeah, it was a great trip, and I highly recommend taking your nephews when they get a bit older.
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I actually liked it. And I was a little surprised to find myself sitting through it on TNT, because I never watch TV with commercials.


But I'm never getting back all the hours I spent defending it on the original thread, so I'll stop now.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, I know. I never said the park changed. I said that TROS killed my interest in the park. I've obviously never been, but literally every piece of marketing and online content I've seen of the park has to do with the sequel trilogy. It's Rey, Kylo, and The First Order walking around and interacting with fans. It's set on a planet not featured in the OT. My point is that I have no desire to revisit anything to do with the sequel trilogy after TROS. And the question Aggie_Journalist asked had to do with hypothetically converting the park to a clearly recognizable OT setting with OT characters. So I answered that question.

What is it with the last few responses to my posts just completely misinterpreting what I'm saying?
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I Have Spoken said:

I feel like TC is just trolling muck at this point, and I'm not sure what I think about it.

Belton Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Yes, I know. I never said the park changed. I said that TROS killed my interest in the park. I've obviously never been, but literally every piece of marketing and online content I've seen of the park has to do with the sequel trilogy. It's Rey, Kylo, and The First Order walking around and interacting with fans. It's set on a planet not featured in the OT. My point is that I have no desire to revisit anything to do with the sequel trilogy after TROS. And the question Aggie_Journalist asked had to do with hypothetically converting the park to a clearly recognizable OT setting with OT characters. So I answered that question.

What is it with the last few responses to my posts just completely misinterpreting what I'm saying?
Yeah, you answered that question, but you prefaced it with the bolded comment, which is what I addressed. There's literally no way to misinterpret what you said, let alone completely.

TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Huh? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Before I saw TROS, I kind of sort of wanted to visit the parks. After I saw TROS, I no longer had a desire to visit the parks. My sentiment was that simple.

Whatever you're trying to say about the parks not having changed since TROS came out... I know and I agree. But what does that have to do with what I said?

I'm so confused about this pointless bone you're choosing to pick with me?
amercer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trying to decide if Pointless Bone is a better porn movie or funk band name.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Belton Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Huh? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Before I saw TROS, I kind of sort of wanted to visit the parks. After I saw TROS, I no longer had a desire to visit the parks. My sentiment was that simple.

Whatever you're trying to say about the parks not having changed since TROS came out... I know and I agree. But what does that have to do with what I said?

I'm so confused about this pointless bone you're choosing to pick with me?
Now I'm confused about how you can't grasp that I was saying that I thought it was irrational to not visit a park with your nephews because you hate the movie.

Calling it a pointless bone to pick is a little odd. It's really not that extreme. I don't think any less of you or anything.
MuckRaker96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

Huh? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Before I saw TROS, I kind of sort of wanted to visit the parks. After I saw TROS, I no longer had a desire to visit the parks. My sentiment was that simple.

Whatever you're trying to say about the parks not having changed since TROS came out... I know and I agree. But what does that have to do with what I said?

I'm so confused about this pointless bone you're choosing to pick with me?
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
amercer said:

Trying to decide if Pointless Bone is a better porn movie or funk band name.
Would be a terrible porn movie because it suggests that said Bone never gets relief.
Page 901 of 926
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.