So besides Fett who else will get a solo movie slot?

Every one because it's Disney, remember Aladdin how that was a good movie nicely self contained then they kept making bad sequel one after another.

Much like beauty and the beast two added nothing of worth the same will be true of young Han solo, and young yoda and young emperor Palpatine etc.

Prequels suck because there is no tension you know they live no matter how dangerous the situation is.

The real question becomes "what do we call the spinoff movies?"

They've been given an official name by Disney, though I can't recall what it is at the moment. Anthology or something?

They were called Anthologies, but they seem to have dropped that with the official announcment that Rogue One was filming. It's just Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

So besides Fett who else will get a solo movie slot?

Every one because it's Disney, remember Aladdin how that was a good movie nicely self contained then they kept making bad sequel one after another.Much like beauty and the beast two added nothing of worth the same will be true of young Han solo, and young yoda and young emperor Palpatine etc.Prequels suck because there is no tension you know they live no matter how dangerous the situation is.

Sequels and spinoffs, especially under Disney, just never work and tension can only, ONLY, be created by the possibility of death.

Remember how everyone was bored with Game of Thrones when they killed hero characters? I mean it happens so often that we just expect it. It's not like everyone goes into a fantasy movie expecting the good guys to win. Every time. Always.

So besides Fett who else will get a solo movie slot?

Every one because it's Disney, remember Aladdin how that was a good movie nicely self contained then they kept making bad sequel one after another.Much like beauty and the beast two added nothing of worth the same will be true of young Han solo, and young yoda and young emperor Palpatine etc.Prequels suck because there is no tension you know they live no matter how dangerous the situation is.

Exactly, just like how Empire added nothing to Star Wars and really brought the whole thing down. Godfather 2 was a shell of the original. Toy Story 2 and 3 were utter garbage compared to the originals. Avengers did nothing with the characters established already by Marvel. Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Sequels and spinoffs, especially under Disney, just never work and tension can only, ONLY, be created by the possibility of death.

Remember how everyone was bored with Game of Thrones when they killed hero characters? I mean it happens so often that we just expect it. It's not like everyone goes into a fantasy movie expecting the good guys to win. Every time. Always.

False equivalence fallacy thy name is perni, also that's a mighty fine strawman you've created there.

Did i say all sequels are bad? nope so that whole tangent was pointless, also pixar=/=Disney and was in fact the major reason they stopped pumping out all the crap 2D straight to DvD films because for the first time in a very long time they had another success on their hands and they thought the future was all CGI films from then on and closed their 2D studio for a long time.

Can you dispute the fact that alot of Disney prequels and sequels were unnecessary garbage?

Can you honestly tell me you thought for a second Jango would kill obi wan in AotC?

I mean attack my opinion by all means but for the love of the dark side have a cohesive counter point, this was just messy.

Not angry just disappointed and will be sending your folks a report card you'd best not hide it.

Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Well, that is certainly not why it was garbage, but it most certainly WAS garbage. I'd honestly rather watch Crystal Skull again than Temple of Doom. But again, nothing to do with it being a prequel.

Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Well, that is certainly not why it was garbage, but it most certainly WAS garbage. I'd honestly rather watch Crystal Skull again than Temple of Doom. But again, nothing to do with it being a prequel.

I still hear the screams!

Did i say all sequels are bad?

Uh... you at least implied that all Disney sequels are bad.

also pixar=/=Disney

Pixar = Disney to precisely the same extent Lucasfilm = Disney.

Can you dispute the fact that alot of Disney prequels and sequels were unnecessary garbage?

You're comparing apples to oranges. Rogue One is a big-budget movie with a strong cast and an enormous budget; The Return of Jafar was a deliberately downmarket, direct-to-video special with a budget about 1/6 that of Aladdin.

Can you honestly tell me you thought for a second Jango would kill obi wan in AotC?

Attack of the Clones was bad because the writing and direction (and some of the acting) were lackluster, not because it was a prequel. Creating believable conflict in a prequel does have some unusual features, but it's far from impossible. (Where examples are concerned Wicked, Patriot Games, X-men: First Class, Metroid Prime, and Ocarina of Time all pop to the front of my personal canon, and I'm sure if I did some research I could come up with some more.)

So besides Fett who else will get a solo movie slot?

Every one because it's Disney, remember Aladdin how that was a good movie nicely self contained then they kept making bad sequel one after another.Much like beauty and the beast two added nothing of worth the same will be true of young Han solo, and young yoda and young emperor Palpatine etc.Prequels suck because there is no tension you know they live no matter how dangerous the situation is.

Exactly, just like how Empire added nothing to Star Wars and really brought the whole thing down. Godfather 2 was a shell of the original. Toy Story 2 and 3 were utter garbage compared to the originals. Avengers did nothing with the characters established already by Marvel. Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Sequels and spinoffs, especially under Disney, just never work and tension can only, ONLY, be created by the possibility of death.

Remember how everyone was bored with Game of Thrones when they killed hero characters? I mean it happens so often that we just expect it. It's not like everyone goes into a fantasy movie expecting the good guys to win. Every time. Always.

False equivalence fallacy thy name is perni, also that's a mighty fine strawman you've created there.

Did i say all sequels are bad? nope so that whole tangent was pointless, also pixar=/=Disney and was in fact the major reason they stopped pumping out all the crap 2D straight to DvD films because for the first time in a very long time they had another success on their hands and they thought the future was all CGI films from then on and closed their 2D studio for a long time.

Can you dispute the fact that alot of Disney prequels and sequels were unnecessary garbage?

Can you honestly tell me you thought for a second Jango would kill obi wan in AotC?

I mean attack my opinion by all means but for the love of the dark side have a cohesive counter point, this was just messy.

Not angry just disappointed and will be sending your folks a report card you'd best not hide it.

Disney, probably under the guidance of Steve Jobs ended the direct to DVD movie tripe years ago and sacked the president of that division (DisneyToon Studios). They merged all of their animation under one department (Disney feature animation) that has Lasseter as one of the people at the helm. Yes, Pixar = Disney. Has for more than a decade. Disney has a great record in the movie business since then. Especially animation.

Have bad, cheaply made videos from a defunct studio been bad? Yes? Relevance? None.

Was I worried Jango would kill obi-wan? Nope. Was I worried Vader would kill Luke? Nope. Could it have happened? If you thought so you're a gullible sap.

Am I surprised you cherry picked the worst sequels/prequels ever made as examples of why new Star Wars movies will suck even though they have even less to do with how the new movies will turn out than my examples and then criticize me for false equivalence? Not in the slightest.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/apple/steve-jobs-directs-disney-18376/

Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Well, that is certainly not why it was garbage, but it most certainly WAS garbage. I'd honestly rather watch Crystal Skull again than Temple of Doom. But again, nothing to do with it being a prequel.

It's probably the weakest of the original 3, but I don't think it's by that much. The ripping out of hearts and mine carts were awesome. They ate monkey brains.

I think it was my favorite as a kid... Now I want to watch it again.

This wasn't a skyfall thread I just genuinely wondered.

The reverse question is how will people that don't need a third starter get access to the cards from the new movies if it is compatible.

I don't care about the reprints I have enough ties I suppose a fourth x-wing would be fine but not really needed, certainly don't need the cardboard tokens but don't want to pay out just for pilot cards.

I really don't think it will be another X-Wing and 2 more TIEs. People who don't need a another starter will buy one or two for access to the new ships. I wouldn't be surprised if FFG includes a couple of new upgrades cards that people that don't want new ship would buy the set to get.

Some of the FO TIEs have a turret and gunner.

I have to say the ship I'm most stoked for is the guppy. Like a B-Wing on acid.

Anything is better than the Crystal Skull. I rather sit through the entire PT twice than watch that once.

Temple of Doom was a piece of garbage since, as a prequel, we knew Indy would survive

Well, that is certainly not why it was garbage, but it most certainly WAS garbage. I'd honestly rather watch Crystal Skull again than Temple of Doom. But again, nothing to do with it being a prequel.

It's probably the weakest of the original 3, but I don't think it's by that much. The ripping out of hearts and mine carts were awesome. They ate monkey brains.

I think it was my favorite as a kid... Now I want to watch it again.

Isn't ToD the only one of the four whose plot deviates from the "race against America's enemy to find the MacGuffin" formula?

Uh... you at least implied that all Disney sequels are bad.

I bet you if we make a list things like fox and the hound 2 will far outweigh any good sequels (of which i can think of zero without googling it)

I want to say Aladdin 3 wasn't terrible but haven't seen it in decades, but it was unnecessary

Pixar = Disney to precisely the same extent Lucasfilm = Disney.

Pixar studio and disney studio while both owned by the same parent company are different studio's, i'm very clearly talking about the 2D studio that pre-dates it and was closed down not long after pixar arrived on the scene for previous stated reasons.

You can tell that because i don't mention any pixar movie, but i can here's the list:

Cars 2

Planes

Planes 2

Monsters University

Cars 3 (not out but it'll be bad)

All those are pushed out to sell toys.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Rogue One is a big-budget movie with a strong cast and an enormous budget; The Return of Jafar was a deliberately downmarket, direct-to-video special with a budget about 1/6 that of Aladdin.

Talking about animated films not live action, again pretty clear from the names of the movies i'm using.

The other guy brought up live action.

Attack of the Clones was bad because the writing and direction (and some of the acting) were lackluster, not because it was a prequel. Creating believable conflict in a prequel does have some unusual features, but it's far from impossible. (Where examples are concerned Wicked, Patriot Games, X-men: First Class, Metroid Prime, and Ocarina of Time all pop to the front of my personal canon, and I'm sure if I did some research I could come up with some more.)

Wasn't the point i was making.

The point was there is no tension if you know they live and appear in older films, that applies to good or bad movies.

Planes

Planes 2

Not Pixar movies and I don't see an imdb entry for 2

Monsters 2 wasn't bad at all. 78% on rotten tomatoes

Toy Story 3. 99% fresh, made under Disney ownership.

Pixar is not disneytoon animation and is a different studio. Just like Lucasfilm last I checked.

There is no tension in Pixar movies either because you know the heroes survive. That's why they're all so bad. Incredible's, awful flick.

Am I surprised you cherry picked the worst sequels/prequels ever made as examples of why new Star Wars movies will suck even though they have even less to do with how the new movies will turn out than my examples and then criticize me for false equivalence? Not in the slightest.

I didn't cherry pick i pointed to their track record and it's not a good one.

Disney over saturated the market in the early 90's going back to classic movies and making trash set before or after.

Disney is over saturating the market with superhero films but fortunately marvels got a big enough universe to keep things fresh for now and Disney is mainly just providing money and letting the marvel method do it's thing.

Disney is going to oversaturate the market with starwars.

It's an oft repeated trend and historically not done them or the fans any favours.

We don't need to know what happened to han before he ran into luke and ben kenobi in a seedy tavern, and it's far more likely to ruin the mythos than enhance it.

How many people were happier knowing how and why Hannibal Lecter started down his dark path?

Am I surprised you cherry picked the worst sequels/prequels ever made as examples of why new Star Wars movies will suck even though they have even less to do with how the new movies will turn out than my examples and then criticize me for false equivalence? Not in the slightest. [/background][/font][/color]

I didn't cherry pick i pointed to their track record and it's not a good one.

Disney over saturated the market in the early 90's going back to classic movies and making trash set before or after.

Disney is over saturating the market with superhero films but fortunately marvels got a big enough universe to keep things fresh for now and Disney is mainly just providing money and letting the marvel method do it's thing.

Disney is going to oversaturate the market with starwars.

It's an oft repeated trend and historically not done them or the fans any favours.

We don't need to know what happened to han before he ran into luke and ben kenobi in a seedy tavern, and it's far more likely to ruin the mythos than enhance it.

How many people were happier knowing how and why Hannibal Lecter started down his dark path?

Red Dragon is fantastic. The TV series is even better. Thanks for reminding me of fantastic prequels

Planes

Planes 2

Not Pixar movies and I don't see an imdb entry for 2

Monsters 2 wasn't bad at all. 78% on rotten tomatoes

Toy Story 3. 99% fresh, made under Disney ownership.

Pixar is not disneytoon animation and is a different studio. Just like Lucasfilm last I checked.

There is no tension in Pixar movies either because you know the heroes survive. That's why they're all so bad. Incredible's, awful flick.

Okay so i was wrong on planes i admit it but all that does is shuffle them back under bad Disney sequels.

And again with the straw man building, keep that up and i'll just have to consider you a troll and stop taking you seriously.

Planes

Planes 2

Not Pixar movies and I don't see an imdb entry for 2

Planes 2 was called Planes: Fire and Rescue

...and it wasn't that great

Planes

Planes 2

Not Pixar movies and I don't see an imdb entry for 2

Monsters 2 wasn't bad at all. 78% on rotten tomatoes

Toy Story 3. 99% fresh, made under Disney ownership.

Pixar is not disneytoon animation and is a different studio. Just like Lucasfilm last I checked.

There is no tension in Pixar movies either because you know the heroes survive. That's why they're all so bad. Incredible's, awful flick.

Okay so i was wrong on planes i admit it but all that does is shuffle them back under bad Disney sequels.

And again with the straw man building, keep that up and i'll just have to consider you a troll and stop taking you seriously.

You're going to have to explain how this is a straw man:

You state prequels are not good because you know the heroes can not die.

I extend that premise to all movies where I know the hero can not die.

You claim straw man.

I mean, at best, it's false equivalence as well, but I'm not saying you stated something you didn't to argue against it. You stated movies where we know the hero can't die has no tension. I disagree, and provide examples

Comparing Star Wars to an old defunct movie studio is a... What did you call it? False equivalence fallacy.

No it's a question.

Will knowing han's history enhance the mythos or will it ruin it?

If you look at most prequels for any films in any genre knowing more tends to detract rather than enhance the original movies.

I extend that premise to all movies where I know the hero can not die.

Yes that's a strawman argument.

Your arguing against a point i did not make as if i did make it.

In a debate format like a forum that's a dishonest thing to do.

Say you said "All Nazi's are evil" and i extended that to "all Germans are evil" and then proceeded to make it look like you hate an entire people instead of one group would that be fair? of course not.

Don't presume to know a strangers stance just respond to what they've said instead of what you think they said

Comparing Star Wars to an old defunct movie studio is a... What did you call it? False equivalence fallacy.

No it's a question.

Will knowing han's history enhance the mythos or will it ruin it?

If you look at most prequels for any films in any genre knowing more tends to detract rather than enhance the original movies.

It's a question? Okay. Did James Cameron make great sequels in the late 80's/early 90's? I mean, it's a question that is just as relevant to Star Wars as the questions about movies from a studio that hasn't existed for more than a decade. Maybe even more relevant because at least Cameron still makes movies? I don't get where you are going.

Will knowing more about Han's history enhance his mythos? Maybe? Maybe not? But why take risks right? Would Empire hurt or help the Star Wars movie which was an awesome phenomenon all on its own. I mean we're going to shoe horn in a romance and we all know how nerds love when that happens.

I've named as many prequels as you that were great, or at least entertaining and didn't hurt the original

I extend that premise to all movies where I know the hero can not die.

Yes that's a strawman argument.

Your arguing against a point i did not make as if i did make it.

In a debate format like a forum that's a dishonest thing to do.

Say you said "All Nazi's are evil" and i extended that to "all Germans are evil" and then proceeded to make it look like you hate an entire people instead of one group would that be fair? of course not.

Don't presume to know a strangers stance just respond to what they've said instead of what you think they said

No, you said "all Nazis are evil and no movie can be made where they are not evil." I point out in the movie Valkyrie Tom Cruise plays a Nazi that isn't evil. Or that in movies like Saving private Ryan they are just portrayed as soldiers and human beings.

You specifically said "there is no tension if you know they live and appear in different movies"

I know lots of movies where there is tension if I know the main character lives, explicitly or implicitly. Hell, I can talk people into watching the Star Wars OT now and they will experience tension during ANH and ESB, despite knowing they will be alive and in RotJ. It's just a false statement

Pixar studio and disney studio while both owned by the same parent company are different studio's, i'm very clearly talking about the 2D studio that pre-dates it and was closed down not long after pixar arrived on the scene for previous stated reasons.

You can tell that because i don't mention any pixar movie, but i can here's the list:

Cars 2

Planes

Planes 2

Monsters University

Cars 3 (not out but it'll be bad)

All those are pushed out to sell toys.

Key point to also remember, is that both Pixar and Disney Animation Studios (while not doing 2D anymore, is still their animation film arm) is headed by the same guy. It has been admitted that the Cars sequel is mainly to push merchandise. I will allow them the Cars sequels, if it means they are given more free reign on their other films. Monsters University was made mainly because they wanted to. And Planes, while in the Cars universe, isn't Pixar. That is Toon Studios, who is mainly responsible for the direct to video stuff.

As for prequels being bad, does that also mean historical movies shouldn't be made? Because we know the end result already.

No again that's not my stance at all.

Disney run things into the ground, it's their MO and i' saying they'll do the same with starwars as they did with their classic films by making too many films of poor quality that will add little.

Eventually they may also do that with marvel.

Once is a blip, twice a coincidence more than that it's a trend.