19 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

For example I don't like the sequels beyond The Force Awakens. Not because of race or gender. but because the characters were really poorly handled and it is clear they had NO PLAN.

Oh, I’m gonna regret this, since we’ve danced this dance before, but...

Being handled in a way that didn’t work for you doesn’t mean they were “poorly handled.” (Although, y’know what? I agree that Abrams and Terrio didn’t handle them well in the big finale.) And, no big revelation here...the original trilogy had no overarching “plan,“ either. Really, neither did the MCU, despite people pointing to it as a template for how movie series should “have a plan,” Feige’s hyperbole about a “plan,” and the outright falsehood of their one-time slogan “it’s all connected.”

Okay, everybody. I was as much a part of this as anybody, and I readily admit that, but I think we're starting to go in circles over stuff that has been argued ad nauseam before.

Can we stop and get back onto the original topic?

53 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And here you go making personal attacks again instead of addressing what is actually being said. This is why we cant have nice things.

Well actually no, he said he must have missed something and I told him in all honesty what that was and and why I deleted it.
Addressing his smuckness was an added bonus.

48 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Because instead of discussing the content of his posts you instead attack the person.

It wasn’t even me who he was adressing.

28 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Oh, I’m gonna regret this, since we’ve danced this dance before, but...

Being handled in a way that didn’t work for you doesn’t mean they were “poorly handled.” (Although, y’know what? I agree that Abrams and Terrio didn’t handle them well in the big finale.) And, no big revelation here...the original trilogy had no overarching “plan,“ either. Really, neither did the MCU, despite people pointing to it as a template for how movie series should “have a plan,” Feige’s hyperbole about a “plan,” and the outright falsehood of their one-time slogan “it’s all connected.”

The Problem is when you use different directors who have different visions having no plan results in disjointed stories. Which is what we got. We got set up in the Force Awakens that got no pay off in The Last Jedi. And the 2 directors treated the characters differently. which also contributed to problems. I think Largely because Rian ignored what JJ set up.

As to the Original Star Wars. He did have a loose plan. He started with a 9 part story he wants to tell. So yes George had a loose vision he was willing to change as he went along.

What Feigi did was give directors a lot of freedom as long as they hit certain points. Like how the Tesseract is handled. What became of the Mind Gem etc. Also all the directors were on board with building an overall story.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

We got set up in the Force Awakens that got no pay off in The Last Jedi.

Yes you did. You just didn’t care for the pay off.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

He started with a 9 part story he wants to tell.

That is a highly dubious claim seeing how that SW when it first came out was a stand alone story.

38 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

That is a highly dubious claim seeing how that SW when it first came out was a stand alone story.

Then maybe you should actually look at the history because that is what happened.

57 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

That is a highly dubious claim seeing how that SW when it first came out was a stand alone story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sequel_trilogy

Quote

Early development[edit]

According to Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker, in 1976, Star Wars creator George Lucas told him that he planned three Star Wars trilogies. Lucas suggested Hamill could have a cameo role in Episode IX, which he imagined filming by 2011.^[1][4] A Time magazine story in March 1978, quoting Lucas, stated there would be ten Star Wars films after The Empire Strikes Back.^[5] Gary Kurtz was also aware of proposed story elements for Episode VII to Episode IX before 1980.^[6][7] In 1980, at the time of the release of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas said there were seven further Star Wars films he wanted to make. He said he had "twelve-page outlines" for those films.^[8] In an interview with Jim Steranko in Prevue magazine published in late 1980, Lucas described how the expansive scope of Star Wars had started with an overlong screenplay:

So, I took the screenplay and divided it into three stories, and rewrote the first one. ... Then, I had the other two films, which were essentially split into three parts each, two trilogies. When the smoke cleared, I said, 'This is really great. I'll do another trilogy that takes place after this.' I had three trilogies of nine films, and then another couple of odd films.^[a] ... It's a nine-part saga that has a beginning, a middle and an end. It progresses over a period of about fifty or sixty years with about twenty years between trilogies, each trilogy taking about six or seven years.^[9]

In this interview, Lucas also stated that he had "titles and ten-page story outlines for each of" the nine episodes.^[9] In an interview with Gary Kurtz in the same magazine, Kurtz said:

Whether or not all nine or twelve films actually get made depends on how George feels as time goes along. The series may happen the way he originally planned or may completely change. As the films are made, each of the stories develops. As each is finished, I think the direction of the saga may change a bit.^[10]

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

The Problem is when you use different directors who have different visions having no plan results in disjointed stories. Which is what we got. We got set up in the Force Awakens that got no pay off in The Last Jedi. And the 2 directors treated the characters differently. which also contributed to problems. I think Largely because Rian ignored what JJ set up.

TLJ did, indeed, pay off what TFA set up. It may not have been done in a way that you preferred, but, it not only paid it off, but rather than ignoring what Abrams set up, Johnson built directly upon that setup.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

As to the Original Star Wars. He did have a loose plan. He started with a 9 part story he wants to tell. So yes George had a loose vision he was willing to change as he went along.

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Then maybe you should actually look at the history because that is what happened.

It’s not, really.

Originally, he had one story: “The Star Wars.” When production was greenlit by 20th Century Fox, be pared it down to what became the original Star Wars, believing that it was the most stand-alone he’d be able to make, not anticipating the cultural phenomenon it would become. Upon its success, his accounting of his “plan” would vary from interview to interview - nine movies, then twelve, then back to nine, then (to prevent potential future profits from being lost in divorce) three. His “plan” with that original story was for the plucky Rebels to defeat the Empire by destroying the Death Star. The original opening crawl even tells us as much: destroying the Death Star will “restore freedom to the galaxy.” Only it didn’t. And those decisions to expand, re-expand, contract, then contract again led to the alleged final chapter being...another attack on another Death Star. (Not to mention the sudden swerve to make Leia the mysterious “another hope” and Luke’s sister, originally meant to be a character whose discover was going to be the plot of the entire VII-IX trilogy, at one point.)

So, if we’re counting just having the end goal of “the good guys win” as the original trilogy having a plan, then so, too, did the sequel trilogy.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

What Feigi did was give directors a lot of freedom as long as they hit certain points. Like how the Tesseract is handled. What became of the Mind Gem etc. Also all the directors were on board with building an overall story.

Feige talks a good game, and he’s a great administrator for the franchise. But, little not-so-secret here: he didn’t care “how the Tesseract was handled.” It was a McGuffin. It wasn’t even an Infinity Stone at first...it was the MCU version of the comics’ Cosmic Cube. The Infinity Gems/Stones and Thanos’ quest for them wasn’t even a thing going into Avengers. He was an Easter egg teasing future possibilities. If that was “the plan” all along, then Feige was actually pretty sloppy, as some of the items that were retconned into Stones made little sense, like the Mind Stone being in Loki’s scepter, or the Tesseract being the Space Stone. Why give up the former to a lackey, and why is the latter only important as a portal to facilitate that lackey’s invasion of Earth?

I wouldn’t really say that he gave directors a lot of freedom, either, such as forcing Thor’s cave vision into Age of Ultron, and other such things leading to Whedon and Scott Derrickson leaving over diplomatically generous “creative differences,” Edgar Wright leaving the movie that owes its very production to his championing it, and Patty Jenkins’ departure over not having breathing room pushing Natalie Portman away for years. Don’t get me wrong, I love the movies, but as I’ve said before, Feige’s “plan” is pretty much the same as the Cylons’ plan that was mentioned every week in the opening of Battlestar Galactica: sounds good, but doesn’t exist, and is ultimately cobbled together and explained in 20/20 hindsight.

7 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

TLJ did, indeed, pay off what TFA set up. It may not have been done in a way that you preferred, but, it not only paid it off, but rather than ignoring what Abrams set up, Johnson built directly upon that setup.

It’s not, really.

Originally, he had one story: “The Star Wars.” When production was greenlit by 20th Century Fox, be pared it down to what became the original Star Wars, believing that it was the most stand-alone he’d be able to make, not anticipating the cultural phenomenon it would become. Upon its success, his accounting of his “plan” would vary from interview to interview - nine movies, then twelve, then back to nine, then (to prevent potential future profits from being lost in divorce) three. His “plan” with that original story was for the plucky Rebels to defeat the Empire by destroying the Death Star. The original opening crawl even tells us as much: destroying the Death Star will “restore freedom to the galaxy.” Only it didn’t. And those decisions to expand, re-expand, contract, then contract again led to the alleged final chapter being...another attack on another Death Star. (Not to mention the sudden swerve to make Leia the mysterious “another hope” and Luke’s sister, originally meant to be a character whose discover was going to be the plot of the entire VII-IX trilogy, at one point.)

So, if we’re counting just having the end goal of “the good guys win” as the original trilogy having a plan, then so, too, did the sequel trilogy.

Feige talks a good game, and he’s a great administrator for the franchise. But, little not-so-secret here: he didn’t care “how the Tesseract was handled.” It was a McGuffin. It wasn’t even an Infinity Stone at first...it was the MCU version of the comics’ Cosmic Cube. The Infinity Gems/Stones and Thanos’ quest for them wasn’t even a thing going into Avengers. He was an Easter egg teasing future possibilities. If that was “the plan” all along, then Feige was actually pretty sloppy, as some of the items that were retconned into Stones made little sense, like the Mind Stone being in Loki’s scepter, or the Tesseract being the Space Stone. Why give up the former to a lackey, and why is the latter only important as a portal to facilitate that lackey’s invasion of Earth?

I wouldn’t really say that he gave directors a lot of freedom, either, such as forcing Thor’s cave vision into Age of Ultron, and other such things leading to Whedon and Scott Derrickson leaving over diplomatically generous “creative differences,” Edgar Wright leaving the movie that owes its very production to his championing it, and Patty Jenkins’ departure over not having breathing room pushing Natalie Portman away for years. Don’t get me wrong, I love the movies, but as I’ve said before, Feige’s “plan” is pretty much the same as the Cylons’ plan that was mentioned every week in the opening of Battlestar Galactica: sounds good, but doesn’t exist, and is ultimately cobbled together and explained in 20/20 hindsight.

My Point is George always had a bigger story. He didnt necessarily know how it would turn out. But that is how most stories happen. Until it is written it does a lot of shifting around.

And as to TLJ paying off TFA. It didnt really. In fact it really screwed up the third movie. And it basically undid a lot of the TFA set up. Finn Went from committing to the Resistance to deserting from the Resistance for reasons that dont really make sense in story. The main characters spend no time together really. The story is a mess that does not really build on things that much. It feels REALLY disjointed when you add the 3rd movie. We wouldnt have this problem if either JJ or RJ were in charge of the full trilogy.

9 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Serious question however... How long should you stick with a series before deeming it unwatchable?

Two and a half seasons if the show has a hook that appeals to me. By the time season one is getting feedback season two is usually far to long to respond to a majority of feedback. This tends to be why most shows find their feet around Season 3, for me it happened with Star Trek TNG, DS9, Enterprise, Star Wars The Clone Wars, and even Rebels.

Not a hard and fast rule, some shows just don't improve, and some knock it out of the park from day one like Firefly.

3 hours ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Sorry, but why are you continuously being his spokesman in this thread???

Rude much?

44 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I wouldn’t really say that he gave directors a lot of freedom, either, such as forcing Thor’s cave vision into Age of Ultron, and other such things leading to Whedon and Scott Derrickson leaving over diplomatically generous “creative differences,” Edgar Wright leaving the movie that owes its very production to his championing it, and Patty Jenkins’ departure over not having breathing room pushing Natalie Portman away for years. Don’t get me wrong, I love the movies, but as I’ve said before, Feige’s “plan” is pretty much the same as the Cylons’ plan that was mentioned every week in the opening of Battlestar Galactica: sounds good, but doesn’t exist, and is ultimately cobbled together and explained in 20/20 hindsight.

Most of that wasn't Feige. Feige wasn't in charge back then. Ike Perlmutter was, and he was a much more heavy-handed, micromanaging kind of producer. His handling of Age Of Ultron is a big part of why Disney stepped in and removed his influence from the MCU films. Perlmutter was also the reason we didn't get that Black Widow film back then, and we would never have gotten Black Panther or Captain Marvel with him still in charge.

44 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And as to TLJ paying off TFA. It didnt really. In fact it really screwed up the third movie. And it basically undid a lot of the TFA set up. Finn Went from committing to the Resistance to deserting from the Resistance for reasons that dont really make sense in story.

Finn never committed to the Resistance in TFA. He was prevented from fleeing Takodana by the First Order’s attack. He went to D’Qar with Han and provided the Resistance with information about Starkiller Base explicitly to rescue Rey. (In fact, he exaggerated the kind of help he could provide to do so, thus endangering the mission.) That carried through to TLJ, where he tried to leave the Resistance fleet, once again to try saving Rey and to keep her from returning to the fleet with the First Order right there. He didn’t commit himself to the Resistance until Rose got him to look deeper, and he saw that the war was really everywhere.

49 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The main characters spend no time together really.

And...?

50 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The story is a mess that does not really build on things that much.

I respectfully disagree. Sorry it didn’t work for you. That doesn’t make it a “mess,” nor does that invalidate its building on its predecessor.

51 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It feels REALLY disjointed when you add the 3rd movie.

I can somewhat agree here. TRoS doesn’t feel like it fits well with either of the preceding movies...including Abrams’ own entry.

52 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

We wouldnt have this problem if either JJ or RJ were in charge of the full trilogy.

Maybe. Maybe not. Considering that the only real disconnect is the second entry by Abrams who directed and co-wrote not only it and one of the two it feels disconnected from, and was a producer on all three, I’m not so sure.

49 minutes ago, Ebak said:

This tends to be why most shows find their feet around Season 3, for me it happened with Star Trek TNG, DS9, Enterprise, Star Wars The Clone Wars, and even Rebels.

Even at that, Enterprise didn’t really show that much improvement until Manny Coto took over as showrunner in season four, and even that was too little, too late. I’ll admit...Enterprise and Voyager before it soured this lifelong Trek fan on much of the franchise as a whole, and I still haven’t fully returned.

At the same time, both shows (and Discovery) have their fans, who see something worthwhile in them. My problems with the shows are mine, and I’m sure many of my criticisms of them could also be said of TOS, TNG, DS9, and the movies.

3 hours ago, Ebak said:

Rude much?

What on Earth is rude about politely asking someone why they keep answering for someone else?

If anything it is rude to talk for another person.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Then maybe you should actually look at the history because that is what happened.

I would have replied but Nytwyng already schooled you.

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

I would have replied but Nytwyng already schooled you.

No he didn't. Not at all. He also wasn't a jerk.

5 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

What on Earth is rude about politely asking someone why they keep answering for someone else?

If anything it is rude to talk for another person.

Calling someone on bad behavior is not rude.

15 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

I'm just glad I staved off the torture.

Fair enough. Totally fine.

15 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Serious question however... How long should you stick with a series before deeming it unwatchable?

Better question is... How long do you have to watch a series before you get to wade in and say it's "objectively terrible" and "torture"? I'm totally fine with you have whatever smart or dumb ideas you have, but as I said above you can't say something is objectively bad when a) it's pretty subjective and b) you haven't even watched it. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Tell us your opinions on something else, or come back and join in when you've watched it.

It actually makes Rebels seem pretty good. Lots of people here like it except this one guy thinks it's crap, but then again he hasn't even watched it.

Anyway, it's a Star Wars cartoon which is what we were talking about (I think?). All the other stuff... whatever.

On 5/29/2020 at 12:09 AM, Mandalore of the Rings said:

Better question is... How long do you have to watch a series before you get to wade in and say it's "objectively terrible" and "torture"? I'm totally fine with you have whatever smart or dumb ideas you have, but as I said above you can't say something is objectively bad when a) it's pretty subjective and b) you haven't even watched it. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Tell us your opinions on something else, or come back and join in when you've watched it.

It actually makes Rebels seem pretty good. Lots of people here like it except this one guy thinks it's crap, but then again he hasn't even watched it.

Anyway, it's a Star Wars cartoon which is what we were talking about (I think?). All the other stuff... whatever.

This was pretty much my problem and pet peeve. It can't be objectively bad. I'm sure he was just exaggerating. Still irks me that he'd do that because he could just say 'I dun like it' rather than 'It's objectively bad' the latter is going to cause more of a ruckus than the former because in the latter you are placing a verifiable truth on something. By saying something is Objectively bad. You're essentially saying "and I can't understand why people would like it" or "and you should not like it too." This is why language is complex, important and people should think about what they say.

9 minutes ago, Ebak said:

This was pretty much my problem and pet peeve. It can't be objectively bad. I'm sure he was just exaggerating. Still irks me that he'd do that because he could just say 'I dun like it' rather than 'It's objectively bad' the latter is going to cause more of a ruckus than the former because in the latter you are placing a verifiable truth on something. By saying something is Objectively bad. You're essentially saying "and I can't understand why people would like it" or "and you should not like it too." This is why language is complex, important and people should think about what they say.

Yeah, I agree with that. Particularly in this case as personal taste was the real question for this topic and calling something "objectively bad" is unnecessary and serves simply to inflame the topic. However, I do differ with you in some regards.

I've used the phrase "objectively bad" before to refer to a certain piece of media, and I meant it. I do get what you are saying, but there is a standard for "objectively bad" and "objectively good" (although neither of us is the sole arbiter, we can certainly draw our own conclusions).

I do understand what you mean by the connotations (and consequences), and that is why I stray away from using that language even though my opinion on the matter hasn't changed.

To your point about the connotations, I separate "objectively good/bad" from subjective like/dislike. There are some things that I think are "objectively bad" that I enjoy anyway (like a certain football team* ). The only people I'm directly disagreeing with (or disapproving of) are those who say that it is objectively good or that it's "the best" as that is not a subjective statement of "favorite" but a statement of objective value. I have no ill-will towards people who do like it as long as they don't insist that I should or call me names for not.

This is not to relitigate TLJ for the umpteenth time, just to give a different perspective on the "objective/subjective" comparison.

*I know, not quite what was being discussed, but it's still funny (to me at least).

1 hour ago, Ebak said:

This was pretty much my problem and pet peeve. It can't be objectively bad. I'm sure he was just exaggerating. Still irks me that he'd do that because he could just say 'I dun like it' rather than 'It's objectively bad' the latter is going to cause more of a ruckus than the former because in the latter you are placing a verifiable truth on something. By saying something is Objectively bad. You're essentially saying "and I can't understand why people would like it" or "and you should not like it too." This is why language is complex, important and people should think about what they say.

For the most part, I agree. As I mentioned in a previous post, though, I can kinda see the other side, too.

I mentioned a particular comics writer. I can enumerate the flaws and shortcomings that I find in his work. These observations are based upon exposure to examples of his body of work across two decades. I haven’t read all of his work, but, after realizing that I didn’t like it roughly a year into his run on a book I’d been reading, I’ve sampled some here and there. And, I see the same elements present, whether it’s a book from 2000, 2010, 2020, or anywhere in between.

So, while I kinda get the perspective, I do have to wonder about the sample size. And, even with a suitably large sample, when communicating in a forum that is likely to have both fans and non-fans of a work, it’s possible to approach the subject by saying, “Here’s what I don’t like about the work,” rather than the “objectively bad” descriptor which, as you point out, carries other connotations with it.

9 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

There are some things that I think are "objectively bad" that I enjoy anyway (like a certain football team* ).

Yeah it's easier to say the team is objectively bad because of their win/loss record. Not so much with a cartoon. But by liking said football team (even though they are objectively bad) you become (objectively) a super fan! No bandwagoning for you! IF they ever get objectively good in the future you should remind people that you actually liked them when they sucked! 🙂 That's what I do!

I like Bob Dylan, but I'm better than the average "fan." I even like his Christian albums (which are pretty awful) AND (sort of) like his Christmas album (which is objectively bad 🙂 ) so it proves I'm a super(ior) fan.