Star Wars: Entering an uncivilized era

[Myrddin]

5 hours ago, mormont said:

Well, put it this way: I'm struggling to think of another example of this phenomenon, where an extremely successful franchise film is somehow responsible for the failure of the next, otherwise unrelated, film in the franchise because fans grumbled about it online.

Can somebody name one?

Ask again after House of Dragon comes out.

ETA: Actually, it seems to be pretty common. People rush out to see a sequel based on loving the first one (-->). The second movie sours them so they're less likely to go see the next one (X). The following is based on fan observations over the years, not box office numbers. If we want to dig in to that level, I guess we could.

Fantastic Beasts --> FB2 X FB3

Matrix --> Matrix Reloaded X Matrix Revolutions 

Transformers --> T2 X T3 X T4 XX T5

Alien --> Aliens --> Alien3 X Alien Resurrection X 

Prometheus X Alien Covenant 

Batman --> Batman Returns --> Batman Forever X B&R

X-Men --> X2 --> X3 X X-Men 1st Class --> Days Future Past --> X-Men Apocalypse X X-Men Dark Phoenix

 

I'm not saying Solo failed due entirely to Last Jedi. As has postulated above, it was probably many factors including being less excited for new Star Wars so soon after a disappointment. I enjoyed Solo, and would've enjoyed that cast continuing.

(Personal note: the only franchises I quit due to disappointment would be Fantastic Beasts, Transformers, and the initial Batman franchise (I wasn't even interested in seeing Batman Begins until well after release).)

[RumHam]

20 minutes ago, Myrddin said:

Ask again after House of Dragon comes out.

I'm really curious about this myself. Of course the quality of the show is also a pretty huge variable. Personally I'm excited for it.

[IlyaP]

24 minutes ago, Myrddin said:

(Personal note: the only franchises I quit due to disappointment would be Fantastic Beasts, Transformers, and the initial Batman franchise (I wasn't even interested in seeing Batman Begins until well after release).)

Batman needs to stop. Can someone please just get Bruce Wayne into therapy already?

[RumHam]

1 hour ago, IlyaP said:

Am I a bad boy for preferring Whedon's version to the Snyder cut?

I think you could make a strong argument that Whedon's version is the better version because it's just less bad movie. The Snyder Cut had a some stuff I liked in it, but it's still just not good.

Also a lot of the stuff I found interesting was teasing sequels that are never going to be made. So I kinda think it didn't even belong in a movie that was already so damn long.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, IlyaP said:

Am I a bad boy for preferring Whedon's version to the Snyder cut?

Now, hear me out - it's 'cause Danny Elfman's score really appeals to me, whereas Junkie XL's score does not speak to me one bit, and feels musically uninteresting and lacking in any memorable leitmotifs when compares to Elfman's. (As always: de gustibus non est disputandum.)

Yes. Yes you are. 

Elfman's score isn't bad I guess, but I was really put off by the inclusion of the Superman '78 and Batman '89 themes. These are film's I've seen multiple times and I used to love a lot. I've come to hate them and the whole trend toward nostalgia in superhero films. Burn every physical copy and erase them from every database, I say.

What took the cake for me was people slamming Batfleck for being too violent and in the next breath praising Keaton's batman as the genuine article. Jesus Christ, did the ever even watch those films? 

Each to their own.

1 hour ago, RumHam said:

I think you could make a strong argument that Whedon's version is the better version because it's just less bad movie. The Snyder Cut had a some stuff I liked in it, but it's still just not good.

Also a lot of the stuff I found interesting was teasing sequels that are never going to be made. So I kinda think it didn't even belong in a movie that was already so damn long.

Yeah, Josstice League also teases shit that'll never happen. Unless there's a film coming out featuring the Legion of Doom I don't know about. Between this, Silas Stone surviving, and Cyborg's more comic accurate form at the end of the film, I don't believe for a moment the studio was "cutting their losses". They thought they'd fixed it and this was the new direction. They even brought a bunch of film twitter clowns in for a set visit to get them on side. "They're really listening!" I can still remember the video of Devin Faraci, Frosty, and Peter Schiretta. 

What offends me the most about it is that it was a film that was very consciously altered to make it more MCU-like; just as they did with Suicide Squad and clearly did with WW84. How'd that work out? Do they not remember Batman & Robin, Superman Returns and Green Lantern? If they want to make the DCEU a big screen equivalent of the Arrowverse, they can have it. It's got nothing to do with me. 

Between Mustache-Gate, all the cool shit that was excised from the movie, all the lame shit that was added, and all later stuff that's come out about the reshoots since, I wouldn't be offended if they burned every physical copy and the film negative. Again, each to their own.

[IlyaP]

25 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

What took the cake for me was people slamming Batfleck for being too violent and in the next breath praising Keaton's batman as the genuine article. Jesus Christ, did the ever even watch those films? 

I know right? Does no one remember this particular scene? BIG BADABOOM!

 

[RumHam]

57 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Yeah, Josstice League also teases shit that'll never happen. Unless there's a film coming out featuring the Legion of Doom I don't know about. Between this, Silas Stone surviving, and Cyborg's more comic accurate form at the end of the film, I don't believe for a moment the studio was "cutting their losses". They thought they'd fixed it and this was the new direction. They even brought a bunch of film twitter clowns in for a set visit to get them on side. "They're really listening!" I can still remember the video of Devin Faraci, Frosty, and Peter Schiretta. 

What offends me the most about it is that it was a film that was very consciously altered to make it more MCU-like; just as they did with Suicide Squad and clearly did with WW84. How'd that work out? Do they not remember Batman & Robin, Superman Returns and Green Lantern? If they want to make the DCEU a big screen equivalent of the Arrowverse, they can have it. It's got nothing to do with me. 

Between Mustache-Gate, all the cool shit that was excised from the movie, all the lame shit that was added, and all later stuff that's come out about the reshoots since, I wouldn't be offended if they burned every physical copy and the film negative. Again, each to their own.

I'm not trying to defend the original version. I'm just saying that if I had to watch Justice League again for some reason I'd pick the shorter version.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

50 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

I know right? Does no one remember this particular scene? BIG BADABOOM!

Trust me, I could write a dissertation. Even Bale's Batman kills people. By any moral or legal definition, he's responsible for the deaths of Ra'as Al Goul, Harvey Dent and Tallia Al Goul. There's no way that clown in the garbage truck survived that crash in TDK. I don't care if he ducked on the steering wheel. He's hamburger. 

17 minutes ago, RumHam said:

I'm not trying to defend the original version. I'm just saying that if I had to watch Justice League again for some reason I'd pick the shorter version.

Peace, man. Peace. Each to their own. If you like it, great. Though it wounds me... 

[Ran]

5 hours ago, RumHam said:

I think you could make a strong argument that Whedon's version is the better version because it's just less bad movie.

Bingo.

5 hours ago, RumHam said:

The Snyder Cut had a some stuff I liked in it, but it's still just not good.

A bloated mess vs. a lean mess, I'll take the lean one as well.

I'm never going to rewatch either version of the film. There's just, as you say, one that is less bad than the other.

[mormont]

I dunno. People keep citing as examples films that made far more money than Solo did and honestly the case that their take was affected by the fan reception of the more successful previous film is hard to distinguish from the normal diminishing returns of series.

I feel that blaming TLJ for Solo's box office is largely just making excuses for Solo. I doubt even Ron Howard really thinks that's the story here. 

[Heartofice]

Yeah I don't think blaming TLJ for Solos failure really adds up. 

Last Jedi made less than Force Awakens, and Rise of Skywalker made less than Last Jedi..

But Rogue One made almost twice as much as Solo and has still got a lifetime gross thats higher than Skywalker, with similar opening numbers.

So either Force Awakens killed Last Jedi's box office, or Rogue One did. But It doesn't seem like Force Awakens ruined Rogue One's box office numbers at all.

So i suspect that the real reason Rogue One did well and Solo didn't is because people wanted to see Rogue One, because it was a story people wanted to see, was getting a lot of positive buzz and good reviews .. and Solo was a meh movie that nobody really cared about, based on a faulty premise with little to really sell it. 

Having said all that, I do think Last Jedi and Skywalker have pretty much killed Star Wars movies for a while, I doubt there is much appetite for more of that type of turkey.

[IlyaP]

47 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah I don't think blaming TLJ for Solos failure really adds up. 

Look, I tried to go as many times as I could, to buy as many tickets as I could!  

[IlyaP]

48 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Having said all that, I do think Last Jedi and Skywalker have pretty much killed Star Wars movies for a while, I doubt there is much appetite for more of that type of turkey.

I've been thinking this for a while. I just feel so tired from all the movies and I just don't feel like the ST movies were about anything, which made it hard for me to care about them.

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Yeah I don't think blaming TLJ for Solos failure really adds up. 

Last Jedi made less than Force Awakens, and Rise of Skywalker made less than Last Jedi..

But Rogue One made almost twice as much as Solo and has still got a lifetime gross thats higher than Skywalker, with similar opening numbers.

So either Force Awakens killed Last Jedi's box office, or Rogue One did. But It doesn't seem like Force Awakens ruined Rogue One's box office numbers at all.

So i suspect that the real reason Rogue One did well and Solo didn't is because people wanted to see Rogue One, because it was a story people wanted to see, was getting a lot of positive buzz and good reviews .. and Solo was a meh movie that nobody really cared about, based on a faulty premise with little to really sell it. 

Having said all that, I do think Last Jedi and Skywalker have pretty much killed Star Wars movies for a while, I doubt there is much appetite for more of that type of turkey.

I'm sure putting Darth Vader in Rogue One helped that film. Like it or not, he's Star Wars most popular character.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, sifth said:

I'm sure putting Darth Vader in Rogue One helped that film. Like it or not, he's Star Wars most popular character.

I had no idea that was going to happen till I was in the cinema and it happened! I don't think it was the main draw, I think the success of the movie was that it looked like a cool, war movie, set in Star Wars universe, and it took the franchise and the setting seriously. It wasn't some cartoony Jar Jar bullshit, which I guess is what JJ Abrams was trying to get away from, this was billed as the Star Wars movie all the OT fanboys had been hoping for since they were kids!

Solo on the other hand was the Star Wars movie that NONE of the OT fanboys had been asking for. 

[sifth]

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Solo on the other hand was the Star Wars movie that NONE of the OT fanboys had been asking for. 

Yea, I can agree on that. For example I don't think any of my friends or family have seen Solo. I can't blame them, because it's basically just a film about how Han Solo gets his stuff.

[IlyaP]

2 minutes ago, sifth said:

Yea, I can agree on that. For example I don't think any of my friends or family have seen Solo. I can't blame them, because it's basically just a film about how Han Solo gets his stuff.

The goddamn fuzzy dice.

[Myrddin]

11 hours ago, RumHam said:

I'm really curious about this myself. Of course the quality of the show is also a pretty huge variable. Personally I'm excited for it.

Thing is, I'm sure it'll be a good show. It'll look amazing and have a great cast. I'm also kinda meh over the idea.

Will I watch it? Yeah, at some point. Will I resign up for HBO for it? Nope. We're currently catching up on all the HBO shows. Once done, we'll cancel and wait another 6 months.

[Myrddin]

3 hours ago, IlyaP said:

I've been thinking this for a while. I just feel so tired from all the movies and I just don't feel like the ST movies were about anything, which made it hard for me to care about them.

That's because you've been watching the wrong franchise: Star Trek.   

[DMC]

10 hours ago, RumHam said:

I'm not trying to defend the original version. I'm just saying that if I had to watch Justice League again for some reason I'd pick the shorter version.

Yeah just sparing me having to watch all those comically long and pointless slow-mo shots makes the Whedon version infinitely better in my book.

9 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Even Bale's Batman kills people. By any moral or legal definition, he's responsible for the deaths of Ra'as Al Goul, Harvey Dent and Tallia Al Goul.

Well "morally" is entirely subjective, but no, he is certainly not "legally" (or criminally) responsible for Talia or Harvey's deaths.  Ra's?  Fair enough, I don't think the "I'm not gonna kill you, but I don't have to save you" distinction will serve as justification in court.