10 minutes ago, emsquared said:Yes, cuz you're totally not spending noticeable effort and amounts of time quoting and picking apart ppls posts who spoke counter-point to you.
👍
Hey, Pot, have you ever met Kettle?
I'm going to pose a question to a third party because I don't trust my own temper and fear my repose might get me banned for profanity. @P-47 Thunderbolt do I dignify this with a response?
Edited by Ebak14 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:I somewhat agree with a lot of what you're saying, even though I really like the first two sequels, but while this seems in contradiction to common sense, the final instalment of a trilogy is usually the least profitable one, regardless of the franchise, and part of the reason they stopped at three movies. The first film of a franchise is rarely surpassed by future instalments. Return Of The Jedi was the least profitable film of the original trilogy.
That is true, but emsquared is also questioning why it needs to be that way. There's no reason a film couldn't be the third film and still be the most successful. Is he right? I dunno. I feel its an impossible question. However, there is bound to be a trilogy out there where the final did the best of them all. Plus, what measuring stick do you use?
12 minutes ago, Ebak said:I'm going to pose a question to a third party because I don't trust my own temper and fear my repose might get me banned for profanity. @P-47 Thunderbolt do I dignify this with a response?
I'm just curious how some people think civil conversation and dialogue about differing opinion is supposed to happen if those differing "sides" don't all...y'know...participate.
10 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:I'm just curious how some people think civil conversation and dialogue about differing opinion is supposed to happen if those differing "sides" don't all...y'know...participate.
It's more that, it's a weak comeback... "Oh look you're complaining about complaining, that invalidates everything you said". I just want some positivity and not see constant post from fans who believe Star Wars is dead because 3 to 6 more movies were made that did not meet their standards, whatever those standards may be. You can criticise something, by all means, but some people just will. not. shut. up about it. Doesn't mean I don't want it to improve. I just want to go a week without the very vocal part constantly going on about how bad the movies were or that they are somehow justified when an article the one on the first page of this topic this is posted.
Edited by Ebak1 hour ago, emsquared said:There's no reason - intellectually - why the final movies shouldn't have been the biggest of all time.
9 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:while this seems in contradiction to common sense, the final instalment of a trilogy is usually the least profitable one, regardless of the franchise
Is that still applicable in modern times?
If you look at contemporary peers like the Harry Potter movies or the Marvel cinematic universe, this trend that I remember being noted particularly in the 80s and 90s just doesn't seem as obviously true now...
Regardless, still, by industry reckonings it was a disappointment - not a failure but did not perform as expected or desired, and at a nearly full 50% drop-off in BO, I still think it's hard to argue against the assertion that Disney bungled it.
Harry Potter movies work if we discount the beasts movies as the last movie was the highest grossing...I think.
The MCU...that's a bit more of a challenging beast. Do you go by the third movie as part of a single character? I think the MCU is too big to kind of compare especially since there's a lot more going on with that. However even going by different metrics:
Iron Man 3 (the third Iron Man) has the highest box office gross in the Iron Man films.
Iron Man 2 (the third film in the MCU overall) has middling box office figures but does track lower than the first Iron Man overall.
The third Avengers film (Infinity War) was the highest grossing Avengers film, at the time and was beaten by EndGame.
So rule of sequels not doing as well doesn't always ring true.
2 hours ago, emsquared said:They gave us objectively crap movie-making and non-existent storytelling, that only a mindless Star Wars-zombie - the CORE of the core, those who will truly swallow whatever it is, no matter what it tastes like, and say, ' YOp, tHIs iS StAR wArs!! ' - could ignore the flaws of.
@emsquared While I agree with your opinion of the trilogy (in general), the way you're going about stating your opinion here is deliberately inflammatory and it's not very constructive. Whether you're right or not about it being a bad film, you'll never win people to your point of view by calling people names and mocking them.
QuoteLuke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
Personally when Episode VII came out I was just glad there was more star wars. I didn't think it was an amazing film, but thought it had potential and was excited that there was a new contribution. I didn't like the next ones, and I've already stated why in this thread. Some of the people here seem to want to polarize it into two groups:
These two groups don't exist, and it's flawed to think that the issue is that simple. The arguments for and against these films is nuanced, and I'd rather have the chat in a friendly manner over a beer than by arguing in a forum.
Can we please all stop insulting each other?
13 minutes ago, Ebak said:It's more that, it's a weak comeback
Speaking of weak comebacks, I talked about a whole slew of objectives signs that they are crap movies.
Your response, like so many others before I piped up again, was nothing but ad hominem invective.
Care to refute the actual points made?
1 minute ago, SufficientlyAdvancedMoronics said:the way you're going about stating your opinion here is deliberately inflammatory
Ok now, obviously the OP in this thread was a bit of an intentional stirring of the pot...
I legitimately found it interesting to learn that Doomcock had made "predictions" in the past on purported insider information that later turned out to be true, but beyond that, I just found it funny and wanted to commiserate with like minded folks, whom I knew there were plenty of here based on previous sequel ****-posting.
If someone legitimately read my OP, saw the information was from someone calling themselves Doomcock, and saw what the conversation immediately turned into, but continued to read on and think there was any real discussion going on here... well, I apologise to that person who doesn't exist.
No one's trying to change minds here.
And in that post in particular, minus the actual substantive assertions, I just enjoy holding a mirror up to the pervasive and toxic passive aggression that ppl are so quick to decry, but also use, here.
Before I called ppl mindless, there were others, and Ebak themself was back-handed calling ppl childish. "Everyone's opinion is valid... buuut you're childish." 🙄
So, you can call me the bad guy, I probably am in many ways, at many times.
But y'all need to look a bit harder in the mirror, cuz all yer seeing in me and getting upset at right now is just a reflection of yourself.
7 minutes ago, emsquared said:Is that still applicable in modern times?
If you look at contemporary peers like the Harry Potter movies or the Marvel cinematic universe, this trend that I remember being noted particularly in the 80s and 90s just doesn't seem as obviously true now...
Yes, it generally is. Although far fewer trilogies are made these days, with every studio wanting some of that sweet, sweet ongoing franchise money. Looking at the Harry Potter movies, the second dropped from the first, and the third dropped from the second, then they began to rise, taking a significant drop from the eighth (the highest grossing) to the ninth ( Fantastic Beasts ) and dropping from that with the tenth.
The Marvel movies are all over the map, box office-wise. They rise and fall. Marvel Studios considers Spider-Man: Far From Home to be the final chapter of what's been retroactively branded the "Infinity Saga," and it took in just a little over 1/3 of the global box office of Avengers: Endgame . It even made less than three of the movies most often derided by detractors of the franchise ( Avengers: Age of Ultron , Iron Man 3 , and Captain Marvel ).
It's never been a hard-and-fast pattern, though. Just a very common one, with a logical foundation: People go see part 1, because it's unknown. Fewer go see part 2 because it's now a known quantity and some of those viewers of part 1 didn't like it. Even fewer go see part 3 because they liked part 1, but not where part 2 took the franchise.
23 minutes ago, emsquared said:Regardless, still, by industry reckonings it was a disappointment - not a failure but did not perform as expected or desired, and at a nearly full 50% drop-off in BO, I still think it's hard to argue against the assertion that Disney bungled it.
By this yardstick, as noted above, Far From Home was a "disappointment," because it had a 65% drop from Endgame .
14 minutes ago, emsquared said:Speaking of weak comebacks, I talked about a whole slew of objectives signs that they are crap movies.
Your response, like so many others before I piped up again, was nothing but ad hominem invective.
Care to refute the actual points made?
Ok now, obviously the OP in this thread was a bit of an intentional stirring of the pot...
I legitimately found it interesting to learn that Doomcock had made "predictions" in the past on purported insider information that later turned out to be true, but beyond that, I just found it funny and wanted to commiserate with like minded folks, whom I knew there were plenty of here based on previous sequel ****-posting.
If someone legitimately read my OP, saw the information was from someone calling themselves Doomcock, and saw what the conversation immediately turned into, but continued to read on and think there was any real discussion going on here... well, I apologise to that person who doesn't exist.
No one's trying to change minds here.
And in that post in particular, minus the actual substantive assertions, I just enjoy holding a mirror up to the pervasive and toxic passive aggression that ppl are so quick to decry, but also use, here.
Before I called ppl mindless, there were others, and Ebak themself was back-handed calling ppl childish. "Everyone's opinion is valid... buuut you're childish." 🙄
So, you can call me the bad guy, I probably am in many ways, at many times.
But y'all need to look a bit harder in the mirror, cuz all yer seeing in me and getting upset at right now is just a reflection of yourself.
Oh I never questioned if the movies are good or bad. I just have issues with people going "They're so bad they should be rebooted" and pointing at the article like it's some justification that they are right. There are issues with the films, very legitimate problems with the films and how they were produced, lack of overall direction and more that you and I probably would agree on and disagree in other areas. I'm sick of the tribal warfare that occurs between the fanatical two sides of the fandom.
However, I still find the very idea of them removing them because people are upset about them childish because it is a childish and selfish response.
How is doing that positive or constructive to the fandom in any way bar appeasing people who disliked the films and dividing the fan base even more than it already is? It ignores that there are people who like the films, it ignores that there are fans who have been made because of these films. By removing these films you're sending a very clear message to them that they don't matter. Taking something away is a lot more destructive than simply creating new and better media, ala the Mandalorian. Why can't people simply like or dislike the films but let them be as they are?
3 hours ago, Ebak said:I'm going to pose a question to a third party because I don't trust my own temper and fear my repose might get me banned for profanity. @P-47 Thunderbolt do I dignify this with a response?
Yeah, you're best off ignoring it as you did. @emsquared 's manner of argument is not particularly conducive to a reasonable discussion. You came off a bit dismissive at times, but that isn't the entirety of your point or manner, and should generally be pointed out separately (as I think I have done). You often specifically pinned certain attitudes or opinions to your "name-calling," but I would still generally suggest avoiding that.
QuoteIt's the fact I don't let it consume me to a point you just basically called an entire group of fans lazy and ignorant. It's a film and it exists and it was made. Criticism can help guide and improve the future product, but it can't change the pre vious product
Take this, flip the "side" in certain regards, and that's pretty much exactly how I feel.
2 hours ago, Nytwyng said:Yes, it generally is. Although far fewer trilogies are made these days, with every studio wanting some of that sweet, sweet ongoing franchise money. Looking at the Harry Potter movies, the second dropped from the first, and the third dropped from the second, then they began to rise, taking a significant drop from the eighth (the highest grossing) to the ninth ( Fantastic Beasts ) and dropping from that with the tenth.
The Marvel movies are all over the map, box office-wise. They rise and fall. Marvel Studios considers Spider-Man: Far From Home to be the final chapter of what's been retroactively branded the "Infinity Saga," and it took in just a little over 1/3 of the global box office of Avengers: Endgame . It even made less than three of the movies most often derided by detractors of the franchise ( Avengers: Age of Ultron , Iron Man 3 , and Captain Marvel ).
It's never been a hard-and-fast pattern, though. Just a very common one, with a logical foundation: People go see part 1, because it's unknown. Fewer go see part 2 because it's now a known quantity and some of those viewers of part 1 didn't like it. Even fewer go see part 3 because they liked part 1, but not where part 2 took the franchise.
By this yardstick, as noted above, Far From Home was a "disappointment," because it had a 65% drop from Endgame .
You're comparing apples to oranges here a bit. It's hard to come up with direct parallels, but the Harry Potter and Marvel examples are decent in my opinion, as the "final installment" isn't exactly final, but is hyped and thought of as such. "The end of the Skywalker Saga" anyone? Far From Home's dropoff from Endgame is irrelevant, as is Fantastic Beasts's from whatever the previous one was.
This is because Star Wars sits in a gray area between a trilogy and larger franchise (in number of movies) like Marvel or Harry Potter (I think the latter is a more direct comparison).
11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Yeah, you're best off ignoring it as you did. @emsquared 's manner of argument is not particularly conducive to a reasonable discussion. You came off a bit dismissive at times, but that isn't the entirety of your point or manner, and should generally be pointed out separately (as I think I have done). You often specifically pinned certain attitudes or opinions to your "name-calling," but I would still generally suggest avoiding that.
Take this, flip the "side" in certain regards, and that's pretty much exactly how I feel.
You're comparing apples to oranges here a bit. It's hard to come up with direct parallels, but the Harry Potter and Marvel examples are decent in my opinion, as the "final installment" isn't exactly final, but is hyped and thought of as such. "The end of the Skywalker Saga" anyone? Far From Home's dropoff from Endgame is irrelevant, as is Fantastic Beasts's from whatever the previous one was.
This is because Star Wars sits in a gray area between a trilogy and larger franchise (in number of movies) like Marvel or Harry Potter (I think the latter is a more direct comparison).
Kinda part of the point.... 😁
It's come up various ways, so I'm going to just throw in my take on being a "Star Wars fan."
I look at this much differently than some do. I look at Star Wars as a whole rather than as the sum of its parts. This comes in part from how my brain works in that I am typically better at the big picture than the details. This is helpful in some ways (being able to ignore all the painful awkwardness with Anakin and Padme in I and II, and so loving the movies for the story), and problematic in others (mixing up my words and confusing things like Milwaukee, Minnesota, and Minneapolis. I know which is which, but sometimes the wrong word comes out even though I have the concept right).
This also manifests in how I make stories. I love stories, and always have. I've tried to make my own, but never could get the darn things out of my head. I had great ideas, but could never put them into practice or convey them. This is part of why I love the RPG so much, because I don't carry the full weight of the story. I can get that macro, overall framework, and then I build it with the PCs.
Anyway, for me, a "Star Wars fan" is someone who loves "Star Wars." Not "they have to like x% of Star Wars movies and buy merchandise," just "love Star Wars." The theory, the universe, the story. I consider the story of the first six movies (episodes 1-6) indispensable, but once you go further than that, you get significantly more contradictory stories and then I've no objections to you choosing where to go from there, picking what works best for you. I am by no means excluding or delegitimizing anyone who doesn't, but I think that oftentimes the people who have a well thought out headcanon, keeping and disregarding stories as desired, are some of the most devoted Star Wars fans as they have put in a lot of thinking and effort into their beloved franchise. Not, "they have to hate X" not "they have to love X."
For my part, I spend way too much time thinking about Star Wars. Heck, I have detailed conversations about the political landscape of Star Wars and the "proper" form of government. That's pretty much unrelated to the movies, that's just theory and thought about the inner workings of the universe. A lot of that has morphed into thinking about RPG campaigns, but still. Even well before the Sequel Trilogy, I knew what Star Wars meant to me, and I picked and chose amongst the available materials as to what Star Wars was for me. Yuuzhan Vong, that was absolutely not Star Wars to me. Legacy era, even less. Old Republic, ehhh... some good stuff, but a lot I didn't like. The dark times, there was some stuff in there that didn't fit. Likewise, the Sequel Trilogy is not Star Wars to me. However, I take planets and species and a lot of factual, worldbuilding info from even stories I disregard entirely. I just treat the stories as if they didn't exist, for me .
This has been quite rambly, but I'll try to wrap it up. This isn't a "write your own Star Wars" so much as it is "choose your own Star Wars." I absolutely do not disapprove of writing your own Star Wars stories, but it's best to be working from the same buffet rather than starting with a blank canvas. Likewise, I think you should start from a base of the originals and the prequels, building from there.