[SPOILER] Episode IX: "The Rise of Skywalker"

[Deleted]

abcnews.go.com/gma/culture/multiple-films-star-wars-pipeline-sources/story?id=56057987

Here just the latest news in what appears to be a developing story: Seems "Solo's" box office performance, and the ongoing nerd rage about "The Last Jedi" finally affected Disney's decision making.

Myself, I hated "The Last Jedi" with the heat of a thousand fires across the galaxy, but really enjoyed "Solo".

What I don't understand about the current fan frenzy is all this RL-related drama; what I think I understand is that the new movies apparently were all shot with extremely tight schedules, and that a lot of the "sophistication" that angry fans (me included, when looking at my opinions on TLJ here) were missing. - So, a reduced production, or a more relaxed timetable might do the trick here that the brand needs to recover from all this controversy.

Let's see how this develops...

[murquhart72]

Just like to point out that "fan" is short for fanatic and a real Star Wars fan WILL watch AND enjoy everything that comes out for Star Wars.
So to all the fakers and haters claiming that Star Wars has been ruined: You obviously aren't fanatics. In short, if you hate on anything Star Wars, for any reason, just admit you're not a fan and move on, so the rest of us can enjoy our fiction

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2018 19:00:45 GMT -6 murquhart72 said:

Just like to point out that "fan" is short for fanatic and a real Star Wars fan WILL watch AND enjoy everything that comes out for Star Wars.
So to all the fakers and haters claiming that Star Wars has been ruined: You obviously aren't fanatics. In short, if you hate on anything Star Wars, for any reason, just admit you're not a fan and move on, so the rest of us can enjoy our fiction

Jun 22, 2018 9:06:06 GMT -6 Piper said:

I don't understand the pure hatred for a fan property by its fan-base. If I don't like something, I simply stop watching it or its sequels. I don't expend energy hating on it and the actors and actresses in the show.

Don't get me wrong. I completely understand not liking the latest installment, or the direction a series takes. I just don't get the resulting hatred. I know we're all different, have our own opinions, but Piper it's the wasted potential, etc.

I still don't get it.

I'd not necessarily equate fans hating on the new movies with the socio-political dimension of the discussion that seems to be going on about the movies on the internet. The 2015 reboot of SW has simply not managed to garner the cult following that the older movies did; I think everyone can agree on that, even if opinions on the movies by themselves might differ. - Whatever goes alongside, like the internet bullying against some of the actors, that's not really a SW issue. That's a bullying issue, if you know what I mean.

Now, the fan backlash against the movies, and Disney's reaction now, might actually be a good sign, in the sense that there might be some dialogue happening. The "Batman" franchise went through a few fairly bad movies, but then recovered because of a similar dialogue between content creators and fans. - And before you, Pip, or anyone else, get offended because I compare "The Last Jedi" to "Batman & Robin", let me confess that I actually like the George Clooney Batman movie. And no, no drugs involved.

[Deleted]

As I said, I don't really know about that - as in, outside of some very, very disappointed reviews of TLJ on Youtube, I have missed this completely. Not sure how I can say this in English, but what I mean is: I am, of course, not denying that it exists, I am saying that I myself have not seen it. - That said, I completely agree that the parts that I've seen, like when those teenage actresses were apparently harassed via social media, that is pretty horrible, and frankly seems quite maniacal.

Now, it cannot be denied that this is a whole dynamic made possible by the quality issues that the SW brand is experiencing: Especially the way that Disney tried to promote TLJ against all sorts of legit criticism - say, from renowned "guerrilla" critics like Red Letter Media, or the bad audience scores at Rotten Tomatoes - made it possible for all sorts of hatemongering a-holes to piggyback on the notion that something dishonest or defamatory was going on.

Again, I am not judging individual taste or specific content here, I am saying: Coming from a billion-dollar company, from the biggest franchise-holder in the world, directly blaming the audience for struggling to embrace a movie series containing such controversial decisions as killing two of the series' arguable main characters and making the movies co-dependent to the merchandising line, that's simply not a very smart thing to do.

- And backlash WAS to be expected, if only because books like "Crucible" were still selling. People loved the old EU; changes, especially changes towards a new "grimdark", would not have been necessary. Not because I personally would have preferred things differently, but because it's always risky to change successful concept. That kind of stuff, you need to take into consideration as somebody who takes over such a prestigious brand.

[Falconer]

Yeah, TLJ was a real disappointment. Disney has a lot of thinking to do.

[Deleted]

Grace Randolph, who runs a movie news YouTube channel that mostly talks about box office numbers, has made a pretty good run down of the current state of Lucasfilm. Her channel is a decent size (700k subs) and she doesn't seems to be shilling for either side.

[Deleted]

Hehe, thank you. Obviously, the sources here are questionable - but there seems to be a core narrative, of sorts, building through everything that has been shown over the last few months: That major corrections are likely imminent.

That said, without my usual fervor when it comes to these things, I think the main issues of the brand are conceptual, and not strategical, which in this case could be replaced with "artistic":

First, Star Wars simply desperately needs a writer's room that has at least partial creative authority over the respective movie directors, and that has the brand's long-term perspective in mind. As in, if people literally predicted every plot point in your last movie, you need to change your mojo.

But second - and that will be much harder to accomplish, because it's sort of a leftover of the Lucas era - SW has become notoriously controversial since their marketing section decided to focus not on "young adults", but mostly on pre-teens. The simplifications of the overall story that come with that are all but killing the franchise: Because the new characters are not really badly done; they're just focusing on conflicts and themes that are more understandable and relevant to elementary school children than to young adults. Here are a few examples that I believe to spot:

Luke is about learning the necessary use of violence, and about his struggle - and about mostly his failure - to protect the people he cares about. Rey, in contrast, is about self-esteem, mastering basic human emotions, and, to a large part so far, positive communication with authority figures.

Anakin, as badly as he's written, is all about complex concepts like the personal loss of innocence, and whether the ends justify the means. Kylo Ren is all about how, when you're angry, you shouldn't overreact, and how to talk to authority figures in a way that doesn't end in bloody murder.

The Ewoks are wonderful in their dualism of looking cute, but being terrible cannibalistic monsters; the Porg are wonderfully, errh, fluffy.

- Stuff like that. And that forced reduction of complexity is what virtually every adult viewer of SW stuff has been criticizing since "Episode I": Midichlorians are completely nonsensical within the in-universe logic, but because they serve to explain any five-year-old how the Force works, and, allegorically, how going to the doctor is a good thing, they have a purpose for the company's marketing. - And so, these things are probably never going to go away, unless Disney decides that making movies for high schoolers is as profitable.

[Falconer]

Good post, but I have a slightly different view. You can write for children and delve into deep and heavy themes. C.S. Lewis showed that. For that matter, Greek Mythology, the Bible, Arthur, Mark Twain… Children have always been raised on stories packed with symbol and rich in a rhetorical structure that they might not always grasp right away but which rings true and around which they can order their minds and draw lessons as they grow. So I don’t really accept the idea that children should be served up vapid, trite lessons.

The past five SW movies actually exclude children by being PG-13. Maybe that’s old-fashioned of me, but, I would never let a child under 13 watch a PG-13 movie; isn’t that the point? How are they supposed to sell toys if children under 13 aren’t even allowed to watch the movie? Well anyway, my point is it’s not about the target age, it’s about the content of the message. And that is what people are complaining about, isn’t it? Taking this mythic story about a cosmic war between good and evil, and making it dance to the latest fashionable sociopolitical dogmas? Star Wars in 1977 was a great escape from all the depressing, preachy movies of the time!

[Deleted]

Jun 26, 2018 11:10:57 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Good post, but I have a slightly different view. You can write for children and delve into deep and heavy themes. C.S. Lewis showed that. For that matter, Greek Mythology, the Bible, Arthur, Mark Twain… Children have always been raised on stories packed with symbol and rich in a rhetorical structure that they might not always grasp right away but which rings true and around which they can order their minds and draw lessons as they grow. So I don’t really accept the idea that children should be served up vapid, trite lessons.

Actually, we're not disagreeing at all. I am just describing what I believe to see, not what I'd like to have. - I've always lamented this "Pokemonization" of modern child-oriented storytelling, and also about this "war against boys" that I believe to see going on when traditional stories are discarded in favor of more zeitgeist-friendly concepts. - Now, my perspective here is obviously very German; over here, people found ways to continue to listen to Wagner's operas after WWII. So, a little misogyny and male-centrism don't scare folks here all too much. - This has also to do with a certain degree of canonized national identity: There's simply a social consensus about which traditional tales (Nibelungs, Arthurian Circle, Dr Faustus... and presumably everything involving David Hasselhoff ) "a proper German" should know, regardless of their social validity. This gives the discourse on such things a certain - and generally friendly - direction.

Jun 26, 2018 11:10:57 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The past five SW movies actually exclude children by being PG-13. Maybe that’s old-fashioned of me, but, I would never let a child under 13 watch a PG-13 movie; isn’t that the point? How are they supposed to sell toys if children under 13 aren’t even allowed to watch the movie? Well anyway, my point is it’s not about the target age, it’s about the content of the message. And that is what people are complaining about, isn’t it? Taking this mythic story about a cosmic war between good and evil, and making it dance to the latest fashionable sociopolitical dogmas? Star Wars in 1977 was a great escape from all the depressing, preachy movies of the time!

Maybe I'm just a bit out of the loop here as well, but my perception is that all this "SJW" stuff and the sensivity that comes with it is something particularly US-American. - The whole sociopolitical notion apparently escaped most of the people I talked to who watched TLJ around here, and when I watched the movie the first time, this wasn't at all on the radar of our group, either. - This is probably important for placing my own, very harsh of the last few movies within the right context: I didn't think I was watching a social allegory, just my favorite movie franchise returning with tremendous storytelling issues.

I also agree that shoehorning whatever political agenda into an escapist movie is not very smart, particularly if the story itself is not predisposed to allow it: Especially if a narrative element is only used to hit people over the head with a specific message. - Like, for example, I think everybody here will agree that, based on the established narrative, the role of "pink-haired lady" in TLJ should rather have been that of Mon Mothma - if only because that way, the character would not have been reduced to this role of "angry female superior at company Christmas party". The way it was done, though, there was no depth to the new character outside of that specific message. - FWIW, I can't really believe that many non-tween feminists watched this character, and went "yeah, that's how you do it".

[Falconer]

I definitely know people plenty of people (including most of my wife’s side of the family) who will watch a movie, invariably say “I liked it,” and never give it a second thought. In my family we always delve into what we liked and didn’t like, what the themes were, what worked in the music and the drama and the performances, what sorts of values were being promoted, etc.

To give a simple example, I remember watching Gladiator with a couple of my friends in high school, and when it was over we sat and talked about how a theme of the movie was that it is immoral to enjoy bloodsport, yet the movie capitalizes on its audience’s enjoyment of bloodsport (cheeeeeer when the hero kills the wicked emperor!).

So it’s part social activity and part just examination of what you’re being fed. It’s called literary-artistic criticism. Hey, some people like to just play D&D, some people like to compare editions and styles and really get into the behind-the-scenes of the game. I figure this is something similar.

SW is something of a hobby for me, up there with Tolkien and D&D and one or two other “things” I really, really enjoy. I’m not even much of a movie guy, but there’s something about the SW OT, especially the original SW and ESB, which punches through and affects me deeply. Thanks to criticism, I can identify what some of those things are. John Williams’ music. Ralph McQuarrie’s visual aesthetics. Harrison Ford’s performance. The mythological and religious undertones. George Lucas’s film influences. The fleshing out in the Expanded Universe. All these factors and more come together to form something I really care about.

Jun 27, 2018 8:20:22 GMT -6 Piper said:

I apologize in advance if I’ve offended anyone.

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? We’re just criticizing a work of art, but your modus operandi is to criticize the fans, time and time again. “Where is the fun in that?”

[Deleted]

Sorry, Pip, but I am with Falconer here. Generally, we as DMs are always also storytellers. So, talking about storytelling should be regarded as part of the craft. - But, specifically, "overanalyzing" is really something else; we were commenting on a discussion that is already going on, after all. That discussion is also part of the product experience, like it, or not.

[Falconer]

Jun 27, 2018 8:20:22 GMT -6 Piper said:

I apologize in advance if I’ve offended anyone.

Jun 27, 2018 12:20:36 GMT -6 Piper said:

What I won't do is be silent because my opinions make you uncomfortable. For this I will never apologize.

Okaaaay.

Jun 27, 2018 12:20:36 GMT -6 Piper said:

I merely disagree with you. I'll express myself in ways conforming to the guidelines of decency and forum policies.

Well, your opinion of “why do you guys care ha ha” has been expressed over and over and over, without adding anything substantial to the conversation. When you post it multiple times in every thread about Star Wars, it does remind me of one of our forum policies: “Do not enter a discussion for the sole purpose of disrupting said discussion.”

[Deleted]

DING DING DING

Chill out you must, or in the same pan as the Porgs I will fry you.

Seriously, guys, let's decide together that we don't want to have this sort of negative culture of discourse here.

Falconer, stop calling Piper a crybaby. Piper, don't be a crybaby.


What I mean when I say "negative culture of discourse", is - let's not create a dynamic where people generally perceive that any sort of disagreement is an offense.

We're here not to "say our opinions", we're here precisely to debate. So, debate. With fervor, if you have to.

That's not "trouble", and that's nothing to apologize for.

That's what we're here for.

[makofan]

I hated Star Wars VIII, but that has no bearing on whether I will watch Solo or not. However, I'll just buy Solo on DVD and not bother watching it in theatres.

[Deleted]

The twist here is, "Solo" is perhaps the best among the new movies; not, whatever, an all-time classic, but, like "Rogue One", not terribly controversial, or offensive to fans. A bit convoluted, yes, and constantly fan-servicing people who watched the newer animated series. But inherently watchable. If the movie hadn't bombed, we surely would have seen a sequel, eventually.

Actually, because of a certain detail that I initially thought I had simply hallucinated, but that the following article sort of confirms is plausible, I think the "Solo" movie is probably going to play a bigger role - and that we see a certain character again:

(Caution, possible SW super-spoiler!)

www.bustle.com/p/will-qira-be-in-more-star-wars-movies-emilia-clarke-has-hinted-at-a-future-for-her-character-9237508


...That would not be terrible.

[talysman]

Jun 26, 2018 8:06:25 GMT -6 @rafael said:

That said, without my usual fervor when it comes to these things, I think the main issues of the brand are conceptual, and not strategical, which in this case could be replaced with "artistic":

First, Star Wars simply desperately needs a writer's room that has at least partial creative authority over the respective movie directors, and that has the brand's long-term perspective in mind. As in, if people literally predicted every plot point in your last movie, you need to change your mojo.

But second - and that will be much harder to accomplish, because it's sort of a leftover of the Lucas era - SW has become notoriously controversial since their marketing section decided to focus not on "young adults", but mostly on pre-teens.

Forgive me for joining the thread, even though I'm not a Star Wars fan... but I agree that these kind of issues are probably what's causing problems for the franchise.

The second issue is certainly a major problem, not only because they are losing teen and adult interest, but they're probably losing some preteen interest as well. It's kind of a well-known principle that kids like stuff that's intended for the next age group up. Preteens like teen movies. They want to imagine themselves as being older and able to do all the things teens get to do. Deliberately aiming a movie at what you think an age group should like is pretty much guaranteed to kill off interest, unless you include "older" activities, even if those activities aren't presented in a mature way. That's why teen movies include adult activities (sex, alcohol, drugs,) while movies about teens that don't include that (High School Musical) are more popular with preteens.

But that first issue? Probably the hugest problem. Design by committee doesn't work very well, because you can see the seams that give away how the product was constructed. Again, I'm not a Star Wars fan, but when I saw the first movie in the latest batch (whatever it's called... Was it The Force Awakens? Or was that later?) my reaction was "Isn't this kind of the same story as the original, but they added grimdark and made the main character female?" Young adult on desert planet finds robot, teams up with space-faring ne'er-do-wells, and there's an evil guy dressed in black with mystical powers. To fight him, young adult needs to find older mentor who is a Jedi. Oh, and throw in some call-backs to previous movies. It's not that bad a movie, but it wasn't very original, either.

I think Rogue One is a better movie, but honestly, not that much better. I've forgotten everything except the broadest description of the plot. Haven't seen The Last Jedi (again, not a fan, so I don't go out of my way to see Star Wars movies. I wait for them to come to me, usually in free form.) But dismissing the usual nerdrage complaints, I figure its problems are basically the same thing: not an original story, assembled by committee to hit all the necessary marketing goals, failed to get as much money as expected.

That last point deserves to be expanded. I'm not certain that The Last Jedi did badly, if we pretend for a moment it's just a movie and not a Star Wars movie. A huge part of the problem when products are assembled by committee is that the committee is predicting a specific amount of income, instead of just being happy with making a profit. The Last Jedi may have at least broken even (haven't checked any figures.) But I know it certainly didn't meet the expectations of a Star Wars film. If not every fan is committed to seeing the movie, and fewer fans are seeing it multiple times, you've basically put in a lot of effort and a lot of hype for "just another movie", no better than many other movies.

[Malcadon]

Jun 26, 2018 11:10:57 GMT -6 Falconer said:

The past five SW movies actually exclude children by being PG-13. Maybe that’s old-fashioned of me, but, I would never let a child under 13 watch a PG-13 movie; isn’t that the point? How are they supposed to sell toys if children under 13 aren’t even allowed to watch the movie?

So true! Toy lines based on PG-13 films are doomed to fail.

If you really want to push toys, go with an R-rated film. Conan the Barbarian, Rambo: First Blood Part II, Police Academy, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Aliens, Toxic Avenger, The Predator, Robocop, Starship Troopers, and Deadpool had fairly successful toy lines, and a number even had cheesy '80s cartoons based on them. Its a shame those "concerned parents" groups kept us from having R-rated cartoons.

The whole point of the "PG-13" rating is to represent slightly mature films for children — to push toys no less — but are so half-assed about the content that it should rightfully be just a PG-film, as it used to be. (Anyone remember how a pre-PG-13 film like Logan's Run, with all the violence and nudity, was only a PG film?) I remember as a kid, I did not want to settle for half-assed "grown-up" films: I wanted the full-moon!

[Deleted]

Jun 30, 2018 11:39:28 GMT -6 talysman said:

Forgive me for joining the thread, even though I'm not a Star Wars fan... but I agree that these kind of issues are probably what's causing problems for the franchise.

Please don't feel offended, but please stop apologizing without reason. ;)Being a "fan" used to be sort of self-aware admission of bias, not a badge of honor. - Like, for example, myself, I am a fan of the Finish rock band, "Amorphis". Each new album for the last ten years has been progressively worse. Yet, I am still going to. Spend. Real. Money. for each new release.

Was it The Force Awakens? Or was that later?) my reaction was "Isn't this kind of the same story as the original, but they added grimdark and made the main character female?" Young adult on desert planet finds robot, teams up with space-faring ne'er-do-wells, and there's an evil guy dressed in black with mystical powers. To fight him, young adult needs to find older mentor who is a Jedi.

I think Rogue One is a better movie, but honestly, not that much better.

That one, I think, is actually going to age well. Not as a "Blade Runner", but perhaps as a "Contact"; a solid contribution to the genre, but hardly more than that. - What you say is the same sensation I experienced: The plot is somewhat in my mind, and I remember some pretty great visuals. But the characters, the deeper connections - nothing has stuck with me. In contrast, I vividly recall a lot more about, say, "Outbound Flight", a Timothy Zahn SW novels that I only listened to during one particularly long drive. - That certainly has to do with my personal attachment to the respective, but it also points to the ability of the director to tell a story.

I'm not certain that The Last Jedi did badly, if we pretend for a moment it's just a movie and not a Star Wars movie. A huge part of the problem when products are assembled by committee is that the committee is predicting a specific amount of income, instead of just being happy with making a profit.

"The Last Jedi" actually did pretty well in theaters - but the effect is sort of comparable to "Matrix Revolutions": DVD and secondary merchandising sales are apparently tanking. - Now, in today's economy, that might or might not be an indicator on the movie's reception, but if that's true, then Disney's honeymoon with SW is likely over.

"Solo" is the movie that tanked, or, well, did not exceptionally well. - Which I think is a bit of a shame, because, while far from being an exceptional movie, it was not terrible. (To me, at least.) Then again, "not terrible" is not enough to make a product "exceptional"...

[makofan]

Like, for example, myself, I am a fan of the Finish rock band, "Amorphis". Each new album for the last ten years has been progressively worse. Yet, I am still going to. Spend. Real. Money. for each new release.

THREAD DERAIL! It's like being a fan of Therion

[Deleted]

Hehe, the life of a metal fan these days, it is not an easy one. But there are moments of hope. ... I don't usually listen to stuff that is quite so "black", but lately, I find myself having a new appreciation for "Summoning", as well.

You know what I listened to on my way to work for the last month or so? - For real: The "Solo" soundtrack!

[talysman]

Jul 1, 2018 23:55:27 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Jun 30, 2018 11:39:28 GMT -6 talysman said:

Forgive me for joining the thread, even though I'm not a Star Wars fan... but I agree that these kind of issues are probably what's causing problems for the franchise.

Please don't feel offended, but please stop apologizing without reason. ;)Being a "fan" used to be sort of self-aware admission of bias, not a badge of honor. - Like, for example, myself, I am a fan of the Finish rock band, "Amorphis". Each new album for the last ten years has been progressively worse. Yet, I am still going to. Spend. Real. Money. for each new release.

But my point is: I don't like Star Wars. I've only spent money once on a Star Wars movie (Attack of the Clones) because I went to the theater with friends. Heck, maybe they paid for my ticket, so maybe I haven't spent any money on it. I've just seen Star Wars material when I watched it with with friends, or when I was idly flipping channels. They're OK, they pass the time, but I wouldn't say I enjoy them. I'm an outsider when it comes to Star Wars, which is why I excused myself when I butted in.

I'm interested in the part of the conversation about corporate marketing decisions vs. creative decisions, committees vs. individuals. Speaking as a Star Wars outsider, the better Star Wars films seem to have more of a singular vision instead of a manufactured feel. Speaking as a fan of some other things (Star Trek, frex,) I see the same thing happening elsewhere.

I'm not a really big general comic book fan, either, although I am a Doctor Strange fan and used to be a fan of Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, and even occasionally Superman. But I think you can see the same thing causing a problem for the DC movies vs. the Marvel movies. The people behind the DC movies made some decisions based on what they thought would work: everything grimdark, always end with a big meaningless battle and people slamming each other into buildings. They are cranking out boring products. The MCU movies definitely have a committee involved at some point, but at least some of the movies have some kind of artistic vision behind them, and the committee seems more flexible. "Oh, that worked? Let's do more of that, then."

I haven't seen any of the Universal Cinematic Universe movies yet, but from what I hear, it's a lot of the same problems. The whole thing was concocted by a corporate committee, and they've been having problems getting it started.

[geoffrey]

I think that 10 years after Disney releases its last Star Wars movie, Rogue One will be widely regarded as the sole gem of the lot.

[Deleted]

Jul 4, 2018 17:38:29 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I think that 10 years after Disney releases its last Star Wars movie, Rogue One will be widely regarded as the sole gem of the lot.

Could be, actually. Though, really, "Solo" was the more charming piece, I think. But "Rogue One", at least not a catastrophe, and the story, if cheesy, made sense.

[Deleted]

Jul 4, 2018 11:20:35 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'm an outsider when it comes to Star Wars, which is why I excused myself when I butted in.

Fair enough. No problem in saying that; I am just trying to prevent a taboo-based discussion. Saying that a movie/book/game wasn't to one's taste shouldn't be a matter of personal offense.

Jul 4, 2018 11:20:35 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'm interested in the part of the conversation about corporate marketing decisions vs. creative decisions, committees vs. individuals.

Basically, all modern franchises are decided by committee, on some level; there is no real creative freedom, any more, when it comes to that. Usually, you can foresee what sort of marketing "key" is applied. Like, with SW, there is Disney's clear intention to make it a "forever franchise", with an established "framing" conflict that is never quite resolved.

Jul 4, 2018 11:20:35 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'm not a really big general comic book fan, either, although I am a Doctor Strange fan and used to be a fan of Spiderman, the Fantastic Four, and even occasionally Superman. But I think you can see the same thing causing a problem for the DC movies vs. the Marvel movies. The people behind the DC movies made some decisions based on what they thought would work: everything grimdark, always end with a big meaningless battle and people slamming each other into buildings. They are cranking out boring products. The MCU movies definitely have a committee involved at some point, but at least some of the movies have some kind of artistic vision behind them, and the committee seems more flexible. "Oh, that worked? Let's do more of that, then."

I am actually a DC guy, except for a genuine love for Spider-Man. But, yeah, the MCU is lonely at the top: This is not because an individual (super-producer Kevin Feige) would stand against a wider committee, though, I think: It is because quality screenwriters have been employed from the get-go, and because nobody has feared being cheeky. Humor is half of the MCU's appeal.

Like, just look at those two compilations:




And then -




MCU scenes are all situational comedy scenes that could well be played out straight; DCU is all pre-scripted, which means that the interaction is less personal, colder, and less intense.

Jul 4, 2018 11:20:35 GMT -6 talysman said:

I haven't seen any of the Universal Cinematic Universe movies yet, but from what I hear, it's a lot of the same problems. The whole thing was concocted by a corporate committee, and they've been having problems getting it started.

That one died right with its official birth - "The Mummy" not only flopped, but is a pretty bad movie, as well. I am not really following this, but I think all sequels got unceremoniously canned. "Dracula Untold", however, which is not officially part of that universe, is one of my favorite movies of the decade.

[Todd]

I think you’re mistaken if you think Kevin Feige isn’t a big reason for Marvel’s success. Wrangling things together between all these different films, securing the talent and keeping the, relatively motivated, making sure everyone is on the same page— those are all super important to making the overall Marvel Cinematic Universe tick. SW and DC don’t have that same capable leader in that position.

[talysman]

Jul 4, 2018 21:26:37 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Jul 4, 2018 11:20:35 GMT -6 talysman said:

I'm interested in the part of the conversation about corporate marketing decisions vs. creative decisions, committees vs. individuals.

Basically, all modern franchises are decided by committee, on some level; there is no real creative freedom, any more, when it comes to that. Usually, you can foresee what sort of marketing "key" is applied. Like, with SW, there is Disney's clear intention to make it a "forever franchise", with an established "framing" conflict that is never quite resolved.

It's true there's always a committee, but there's a big difference between a committee that makes broad decisions and one that micro-manages. One says "Here's the general idea of what we're looking for. Who do we know that can deliver that?" And then trusts their picks for writer and director. The other doesn't trust their people to make all the decisions, but steps in at multiple points with notes about how it should be done.

Of possible interest, here, is a podcast I've been listening to called "Movie Sign with the Mads". It's Frank Conniff and Trace Beaulieu (TV's Frank and Dr. Forester from MST3k) teaming up with Carolina Hidalgo to review a mix of new movies and classics. Their review of Solo: A Star Wars Story says a lot of the same things: basically, someone picked two guys to make the movie at the beginning and didn't like that it was turning into a comedy. They thought Solo should be a dead serious movie, so they fired those guys and got Ron Howard to direct a safe, conventional movie that tanked.

Movie Sign with the Mads reviews Solo

They also did reviews of several DC Universe and MCU films and routinely seem to dislike the DC ones, but love most of the Marvel ones. And they hit a lot of the same points: the DC films seem to be under tighter reins, while the Marvel ones seem more likely to just pick good people and trust that they'll do well.

[Deleted]

Yeah, apparently the production costs of "Solo" were at around 300.000 $ because of this change; again, the final movie is far from bad, but - it's not worth 300 mio.

I'm having a few problems with contemporary movie (and book) critics - like, they often are not wrong, but they aren't precisely right, either. For example, the DC movies don't precisely suffer from a lack competence; it's just that the core material is weaker, and that modern, millenial audiences aren't particularly open for pulp elements like we have flashing up there. Or, "Solo" is not a bad movie, by any means - that it flopped might just have to do with it being released closely after "Deadpool", and the newest "Avengers". The same way that 2017's "It" wasn't precisely the best movie of the year - it was just released against zero genre competition. Stuff like that.

[Malcadon]

I feel sorry to all the Kevin J. Anderson-Rebecca Moesta fans out there who wanted The Young Jedi Knights stories to become film-canon.

I feel sorry to all the Timothy Zahn fans out there who wanted the Thrawn Trilogy to become film-canon.

I had yet to see Solo: A Star Wars Story, and I would feel sorry if it completely overwrites the established continuity of Brian Daley's The Han Solo Adventures.

[Deleted]

The "Solo" movie is basically the Crispin trilogy condensed; really, as close an adaptation of an old EU story as we're ever going to see, perhaps.

starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Han_Solo_Trilogy


...And given that the Crispin trilogy is already pretty alright, the movie's plot is not terrible. If done a little bit better, if a little more successful, this would have been a great backdoor-pilot to more stories about the scoundrels. My theory is that this is why there is so much drama going on, right now - because many plans for the franchise were connected to this one.

[Deleted]

This channel sheds some (rather sensationalistic, and often unbearably childish) light on the business side of things; this video in particular, I like, though, because it touches stuff that we have brought up, here - how it is important for content creators to be in a dialogue with fans, and how the fan scene seems to be dominated by clickbaitin' towncriers these days.