After TLJ, Is "Franchise Fatigue' now Plaguing Star Wars?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
Cutie McWhiskers said:
It's not. It really only relies on TCW, which was never decanonized.
Ironically Solo is the only Disney SW film with a white male lead.
Phasma, if written more consistency outside the "money scenes" where she gets some well-acted dialogue about how she's going to kill Finn and Rose, would be remembered far better than just Star Wars' version of South Park's Kenny or Doctor Who's Master. Just to be dispatched only to return next time with no explanation and a fate that seems even more conclusive, but come next movie *bloop* there she is again.
Rose was a foul ball. The line of saving what you love was decent but in the context of the whole scene where Finn is going to kill himself in a futile attempt to save everyone-- just thought of something: The futility of Finn's "to be glorious self sacrifice" might be the reason for Rose to have interceded. But everyone who criticizes the scene assumes his tiny fighter ship would take out the huge cannon as if it were copying Star Trek's "The Doomsday Machine" or something. Or Finn didn't want a relationship with Rose and preferred suicide.
I don't know.Hux... acting aside, he's simply forgettable.
Finn had a few good lines, he's the "everyman" character for audiences to more closely associate and identify with, but otherwise had little to actually do.
Poe was just "obey me without question" stick figure but with a chiseled face audiences would drool over, even though there was a plan and reasonable situations ensured you don't tell everyone about the plan. Imagine if Poe knew and was caught and told the first order the plan.
So, yeah, I can't really hit a home run but some of the characters are worthy of at least a bunt.
Why would the alt-right be against "Solo?" It stars a white guy. Has several white guy stars. If the movie was a success they could just as easy use that as "proof" that they have been right all along. It also assumes they have enough buying power to influence a movie's ability to make money all by themselves. Of course at this point I expect people have the ability to declare victory in any kind of scenario. If it makes money and it's a success it's because a return to old values. If it flops it's Kennedy's fault.
Jason
Thanks for the clarification.
I misinterpreted the brouhaha way back when over what was de-canonized. I honestly couldn't care less who's got what skin color or if they have interior plumbing or exterior. Just show compelling actions and motivations and not let too many plot holes stick out. And let everyone of every attribute be good or evil or perfect or imperfect without bias or artificial narrative, since heavy-handedness would often be seen a mile away. Disney's SW movies too often don't create consistently compelling characters. Relying on what they look like in place of having good characterization is also pandering. Actors have to take what's on paper, but even the best of actors can only do so much with a dire script. Case in point: TNG season 1. Thank the actors for making such treacle watchable and Disney clearly hired some excellent people. It's the scripting that has the problems.
A Star Wars movie is not special anymore. Like everything else in our culture. They used to be rare. Now they're commonplace. You used to get Wizard of Oz once a year with that "special" logo and drumming before hand. MAN! That was a great night if you were a little kid. Now everything and every food is always available.
I didn't even know Solo was out yet, much less at our theater which I just drove past. And I was pretty hype for Rogue One because it was another trip into that universe I grew up with. It was a thoroughly-derivative, WWII, team-destroys-the-bad-thing film -- but I went to see it on opening night.
No idea if I'll even see Solo. Signs point to no. Just not interested.
I didn't even know Solo was out yet, much less at our theater which I just drove past. And I was pretty hype for Rogue One because it was another trip into that universe I grew up with. It was a thoroughly-derivative, WWII, team-destroys-the-bad-thing film -- but I went to see it on opening night.
No idea if I'll even see Solo. Signs point to no. Just not interested.
So far, the results are that it's made $101M. The original goal was, what, $170M? I've read "36M, 85M, in one article "struggling to make $115M". At least as of yesterday. Source of current raking: http://comicbook.com/starwars/2018/05/27/solo-a-star-wars-story-box-office-opening-weekend/#3
And $100M is still no disaster from a certain point of view: Anyone making a movie that rakes in more than what it cost to make is a technical and economic success. How much did "Solo" cost to make? And what figure represents its final revenue result? Does that result include home video and streaming, which of interest won't happen for a few months unless the movie really stinks in which case it'll be pumped out to home video options sooner rather than later.
But given the size and context of "the brand", then one can suggest "Solo" is flopping. And I agree, it is flopping. The brand "Star Wars" should be doing far better. And I'm not sure the months' worth of negative publicity by the media (right-, left-, middle-, etc, they'd all griped and all made reasons) is the primary reason.
There were threatening us with a potential Yoda film way back when the anthology films were announced. I do hope the legendary Frank Oz is still up for this if and when they get around to it. He's 74 now.
I first felt that way when I saw cotton candy in grocery stores for a buck per box. Always blame the kid or its parents for purchasing, of course. Nobody else is ever to blame for de-specializing everything.
I'm going to see "Solo" eventually. The lead actor's apparently good in it and Disney did the right thing by not casting a big known name as star power doesn't always work or, if nothing else, star power can easily shadow the content in favor of the star. Kudos to Disney, they bought this big brand and want to expand on it and flesh out details. That's not bad in of itself. But the last I'd read,
The Kessel Run is just (allegedly) a generic shortcut. The result of which dilutes Han's boasting in ANH. On the plus side, it addresses the "12 parsecs" spatial vs temporal issue. But some thought highly of the scene. I'm not taking any opinions into mind when I go see it. That's why I like the inconsistent reviews on youtube. Some are perceiving things wrong or didn't pay attention or other possibilities. Any one of us looking for spoilers might still be (pleasantly?) surprised once we see the thing and get the detail as told by the movie for real.)
LOL! "Threatening"
- I'm glad I don't drink sodie pop next to my computer's keyboard...If Oz were up to it... I don't know. What remains about Yoda that needs to be answered in a movie? So far, "Rogue One" added nothing and "Solo" may or may not be any different, I can't speak for it right now but am hoping they add in something and leads with consistency to how Han was in ANH. I can fathom some potential as to why he became so untrusting and all that - but does the spinoff movie deliver, that I definitely do not know either way.
I know people love freaking out about these things, but I'd say that if one Star Wars movie doesn't make a billion dollars it's maybe really not that big of a deal. 
Even if Star Wars hype dies down a bit, it's still way more profitable to release one or two 500 mil movies a year than wait 10 years and hope that one hits 2 bil again, so take a freaking guess which option Disney will choose...
Even if Star Wars hype dies down a bit, it's still way more profitable to release one or two 500 mil movies a year than wait 10 years and hope that one hits 2 bil again, so take a freaking guess which option Disney will choose...
Neither did the Academy, giving Marcia Lucas, Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew and Oscar for best editing. Lucas was also nominated for best director.
Because of deciding to shoot most of it twice it's cost somewhere between 250-300 million. So, it needs to make a lot before it becomes profitable and unlike most blockbusters, Star Wars movies make most of their money in the US.
Wow, you're really clueless. I'm not alt-right. I don't want an all-white or all-male "paradise." And neither do the (majority of) people who are boycotting Disney Star Wars after TLJ (many of them aren't white males, by the way, if you actually took more than 2 seconds to look at the people....you'd see many females and people of color among the voices of discontent). Keep parroting that line if you wish, but it completely mischaracterizes our viewpoint in a sea of strawman. But, unsurprisingly, you are treating us the same way as Lucasfilm is treating us.
There's a reason why the same people who are praising Cobra Kai are saying "Star Wars could learn from this." Cobra Kai is neither all-white nor all-male, yet it is being praised by those SAME "alt-right dickheads." Hmmm, imagine that! Why? Well for one thing, it respects the source material and logically entends upon it. For another, it has well-drawn, realistic characters that we actually care about. And for another, it doesn't have the creators and directors telling original fans they are whiny misogynists (JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson).
If you keep belittling us as "alt-right dickheads", it just makes you look silly. Are there some? Sure. Is it all of us? No. But we are entitled to our opinion, just as you are. Solo is failing not so much because of "Star Wars fatigue", but moreso because it was a troubled production and they had to reshoot it, because the lead actor is poor, and because when you turn core fans off and insult them on Twitter and in the media, THIS is what happens.
Do I want to see a social justice droid and Han Solo and pansexual Lando? Not particularly. But if Disney actually showed they care about the source material and the fans, I'd watch their movies. Rogue One was good. All the others have been stinkers. Remember, the backlash is still relatively new....it only started after TLJ. It's completely in Disney's hands if it continues, or if it grows.
Huh?
This statement has me genuinely confused, particularly because one of the people you're accusing of "telling original fans they are whiny misogynists", JJ Abrams, is an "original fan" and made TFA specifically for the sake of rekindling nostalgia in himself.
That would be three lucky shots in a row, counting that obscure cult classic he managed to get done in 1977.
Good for you.
