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)

Rescuers Down Under was a favorite of mine as a kid.

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.

...what? Disney is a giant, tentacle-ey corporation with a lot of subsidiaries. The direct-to-video studio wasn't well liked even within Disney because it was perceived as damaging to the properties it worked on.

Pixar movies were out-competing traditional Disney animation for about a decade, and Disney did briefly shut down their traditional feature animation division. But that was never the part of the business responsible for the flotilla of direc-to-video movies you're deriding--and, not to set this bit aside, the traditional animation studio was revived when Pixar guys John Lasseter and Ed Catmull were brought in to sit over all Disney's animation. (That is, Pixar's not the badguy in this story.)

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.

You were claiming the Star Wars Anthology movies are destined to be bad because Disney. It's hard to see how talking about Rogue One isn't relevant, here.

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

I didn't misunderstand your point. My response is that some obvious tools for creating believable dramatic conflict are indeed missing if you know the character is going to survive, but that doesn't mean sequels can't create believable dramatic conflict at all. And there are a lot of examples in the world for how that can be done.

If it's not your stance, why do you keep repeating it over and over? It looks more like you realize it's wrong and are now just dodging

Is Disney making multiple movies running it into the ground any more than anything Lucas did with it in the last 30 years? How many awful books, comics, games, holiday specials, spinoff ewok movies did he do or green light? If anything Disney has lightened the dregs of Star Wars significantly, it hasn't been this pure since the mid 80's as far as canon content

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.

Disney Animation Studios is NOT Disney Toon Studios. Disney's main, animation feature film branch has only really made one sequel, with the unsurprising Frozen 2 being their second. Toon Studios is the main culprit behind the direct to video stuff. And they haven't made one sequel to a classic in 7 years. I imagine Disney head toon guru, John Lassetter may be responsible.

Marvel and Feige are responsible for running the MCU into the ground, NOT Disney. Likewise, I trust Kathleen Kennedy to not run Star Wars into the ground. I mean, look at how she was able to get Iger to back off of a May 2015 release.

The only time I could see the core set being discontinued is because FFG have put out a 2.0 starter set to replace it.

I just don't see this happening.

If they do a 2.0 I imagine it would be just a rule book. I doubt any changes would be enough to warrant a completely new starter

what if The Resistance and First Order are new factions - would seem to be pretty reasonable to have 2 separate core sets if that was the case

I have the gift of future sight and I can tell you that they are not new factions.

And even if they were they would be sooooooo very far behind in ship selection

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.

Heresy.

Burn the heretic....

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

That might be going a little too far

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

That might be going a little too far

Yeah, the first 15-20 minutes of Crystal Skull are okay, and the prequels have more than 20 minutes of Palpatine scenes.

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

There are problems with making prequels. There's a tendency to be too cute and include too much stuff that's a call-back (call-forward?) to the thing it's a prequel of and yeah, you have to work a bit to immerse viewers enough to forget they know what the eventual fate of some of the characters will be. And if you want to say that YOU can't square the circle and so there's no tension FOR YOU, that's fair enough. But honestly, for most people if a story/movie/whatever's good it'll get them emotionally involved no matter whether they intellectually "know" what's going to happen to the characters or not.

PS - who cares if they produce too much Star Wars stuff that adds very little? There's ALWAYS been too much Star Wars stuff produced that adds too little. Just enjoy what you can from the good bits and ignore the rest, same as everything else.