Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

There's one little problem with what you're saying. The Last Jedi came out a year AFTER Rogue One, and it grossed MORE.

Rogue One was in 2016 and grossed $1,056,057,273.

The Last Jedi was the following year, in 2017, and grossed $1,332,539,889.

You would hope that a main numbered entry would outgross a spin-off, if only because the general public (i.e. non-hardcore fans) is much more likely to show up for the next installment of the Star Wars saga instead of a mid-quel whose overall ending (the Rebels get the Death Star plans) was already known decades ago.

The more telling thing is that Last Jedi only garnered 2/3rds of what Force Awakens earned at the box office, and Solo only got 40 percent of Rogue One's numbers. To me that indicates not that there's "Star Wars fatigue", but rather that bad movies do worse financially than good movies of the same franchise/genre released within the same timeframe.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by svenge

The more telling thing is that Last Jedi only garnered 2/3rds of what Force Awakens earned at the box office

This is not a new thing with Star Wars. The second installments of the OT and PT also grossed about 2/3rds of what the first installments made.


A New Hope: $307,263,857

The Empire Strikes Back: $209,398,025


The Phantom Menace: $1,027,044,677

Attack of the Clones: $649,398,328

[JEDGAR1000]

While on the topic of fatigue, I came across this google trends breakdown for star wars over time. Definitely diminishing numbers from 1 film to the next with Ep 9's teaser & title reveal resulting in less searches than after just 8's teaser debuted.



I of course expected a drop from 7 to 8 considering it was the first in a while, but the drop from 8 to 9 I think might be telling. Of course we'll have to wait and see.

[BNex99]

I don't think it's fair to compare Marvel and Star Wars in terms of amount of content that's come out in the past few years (and that actually may be part of the problem with Disney's initial strategy for SW).

Even though the Star Wars universe has certainly expanded over the years, and there's room for different kinds of stories within it, it's nothing compared to the variety of characters and stories Marvel is able to pull from. And they've been engineering the films from the start to coalesce into a cohesive whole (albeit with a few speed bumps here and there). The building blocks for this had already been laid out in decades worth of comics, but the films were still able to establish their own definitive continuity from the start (although it looks like it might get a little convoluted after Endgame).

Star Wars, on the other hand, has been trying to add to what was already a definitive continuity (sort of) while also filling in gaps and even retconning some of them. The franchise isn't really built to hit you with something amazing every few months (or even once a year), so of course fatigue was going to set in.

That said, as I mentioned in another post, I absolutely love The Last Jedi and feel that all of this might have been worth it for that film alone.

[Hardback247]

I seem to have a problem with feeling more worried about how OTHERS feel about these movies instead of just being satisfied with how I feel about them myself.

[nodeerforamonth]

Originally Posted by octagon

Who did Obi-wan (or "Ben" if you prefer) duel on Mustafar?

Most people would say Anakin, no?

Same for murdering all those younglings.

yes. Though technically he was Vader at the time. And? So why not refer to Anakin in A New Hope and ESB and ROTJ? Instead everyone calls him "Vader". Why not his original name?

Kylo was only referenced as "Ben" once. Vader as Anakin many times. People have more of a right to say that Luke and Anakin fought in ESB and ROTJ than Luke fought Ben in TLJ.

If you're going to call someone by their "original name", do it for everyone (yes, even Palpatine), not just "Ben".

[octagon]

Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth

yes. Though technically he was Vader at the time. And?

You asked why people don't refer to Vader as Anakin and I provided examples of cases where people refer to Vader as Anakin.

Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth

Kylo was only referenced as "Ben" once.

Yeah, no. Han called him Ben. Rey called him Ben. Luke called him Ben. Hell, Yoda called him Ben.

Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth

People have more of a right to say that Luke and Anakin fought in ESB and ROTJ than Luke fought Ben in TLJ.

You should take that up with Luke then because Luke called him Ben during that fight.

Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth

If you're going to call someone by their "original name", do it for everyone (yes, even Palpatine), not just "Ben".

Sure, that's one way to go. Here's another...

How about if we each decide for ourselves whether we're going to call that Kenobi fellow Ben or Obi-wan based on our own criteria instead of slavishly adhering to some 'rule' proposed by an internet rando?

For my part I pledge to use that power responsibly.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

It feels like people are always more willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt than they are with Lucasfilm. MCU movies are always coming out on a consistent basis within months of each other, and the metaphorical cement is always wet in fans' memories. As time goes on, the harder cement dries up, and so, the longer it takes between sequels, the more concrete peoples' nostalgic feelings are about the installments that are already out, and they can’t accept any new developments in the sequels without thinking “This character would never do that!” or “Why wasn’t this brought up before?” That's the problem with making more Star Wars sequels decades later. Everyone has too many preconceptions about what Luke would and wouldn't do, and it affects their viewing experience.

I don't think you could 180 logans character or iron mans character without getting backlash either. you can get a bit of leeway with the rule of cool (thor) and you can slowly change a character by having them grow through a movie but people judge really harshly massive time skips where characters have a 180 in moral compass after the jump. They tried to explain the personality change with flashbacks but the personality change was to extreme for Luke and it contradicted his heroes journey.

If you made an old man batman story and batman was now a vigilante serial killer punisher style I could see the same sort of backlash the luke changes got. Basically I feel you can make a superficial change to a character off screen but you cant make a change that goes against the core of a character off screen without getting backlash.

[reason108]

I dare anyone to think about how their life has turned out if they are in their 50 or 60’s compared to how idealistic they were in their youth. Be honest with yourself. Did your life turn out exactly as you thought it would? Were you able to change the world in the way you thought you would? Did any of the choices you made in life have unintended consequences? Have you made mistakes? Have you ever been bitter or angry? If you’ve lived a perfect life then you probably can’t relate to Luke’s journey.

[mediocore]

Originally Posted by veritas

If you made an old man batman story and batman was now a vigilante serial killer punisher style I could see the same sort of backlash the luke changes got. Basically I feel you can make a superficial change to a character off screen but you cant make a change that goes against the core of a character off screen without getting backlash.

This is both a bad and good example:

Bad, because they did exactly this with Batman in the comics with The Dark Knight Returns, and it worked well. BUT they earned this because the story, while in its own continuity, built off of the mythos that had come before and the lore that surrounded the character, and was written well.

Good, because they did exactly this in Batman v Superman, and it didn't resonate with audiences. It wasn't earned, as it was a) the first introduction to this universe's Batman, and b) it was the second movie in the franchise, and was based on a story that hinged on decades of previous storytelling and rang hollow in the film because it wasn't "earned" or appropriate.

Personally, Luke's story really resonated with me as a viewer, but I understand how it wasn't necessarily something for everyone. I'm one of those folks that, for all their flaws, has love in my heart for all the Star Wars movies, even the ones that I think are "bad movies," just because I love the universe and the saga as a whole.

Forgive the rant.

[crissrudd4554]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

There's one little problem with what you're saying. The Last Jedi came out a year AFTER Rogue One, and it grossed MORE.

Rogue One was in 2016 and grossed $1,056,057,273.

The Last Jedi was the following year, in 2017, and grossed $1,332,539,889.

Plus he was including a film that hasn’t even been released yet.

Anyways as far as TLJ goes, I’ll try to make this quick. I enjoyed the film. It was longer than needed and has its flaws just like any other film but it had twists I didn’t see coming which for the most part added to my enjoyment. Is it the most definitive or perfect SW film? No. Is it the worse? No. I’d probably watch it over AOTC. For me it’s about the entertainment, not seeing if my own or others fan theories were realized. Same with E9. All the links or discussions involving spoilers or fan theories I ignore right away. I don’t wanna know what happens until I’m in that theatre. SW at the heart of it will always be 4-6 to me but I don’t mind throwing the other films a bone here and there. All things considered I thought TLJ was a different entertaining film.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by veritas

If you made an old man batman story and batman was now a vigilante serial killer punisher style I could see the same sort of backlash the luke changes got. Basically I feel you can make a superficial change to a character off screen but you cant make a change that goes against the core of a character off screen without getting backlash.

Maybe YOU should stop looking at things so superficially, and pay better attention to the subtleties and themes regarding Luke’s character in TLJ. It makes PERFECT sense.

Even if something a character does DOES go against his core, as long as it makes sense why it happened, it’s okay. Just because Luke won the battle in ROTJ, doesn’t mean he was never going to struggle with dark thoughts ever again. That’s not how life works.

[Hardback247]

The thing is, one of the crucial rules about being a Jedi is that you must detach all emotion when tasked with killing a bad guy. Luke detached himself from emotion when he was killing Jabba's thugs, but when Obi-Wan told him to the same to Vader, just couldn't do it. When the fight comes, Luke actually DOES try to kill his own father, but he was doing it WITH emotion, not WITHOUT. An act like that, of course, leads to the dark side.

The Prequels also discuss this aspect of emotion, but they put a specific focus on fear being the emotion that could cause a domino effect towards the dark side.

In Return of the Jedi, after realizing that he almost killed Vader in anger, which would have taken him towards the path of the dark side, Luke throws his lightsaber as if to say, "If I only have the guts to kill Vader with emotion, I'm not going to kill him at all, because the only way I can would lead me to the dark side."

Unfortunately, the flawed part of the Jedi's whole "emotional detachment" philosophy reared its ugly head, when Luke was faced with his nephew, sensing all of this dark s*** in his head. When Luke describes this BRIEFEST moment of pure instinct, he's specifically referring to the old Prequel Jedi-era belief, that killing a dark side user without emotion is the best way of making sure that you don't go bad yourself. But his personal morals came poring back in. Unlike with the Vader incident, in which he almost killed him WITH emotion, he was almost about to kill his nephew WITHOUT emotion, which he realizes is just as morally screwed up! So, he ends up not doing it. It makes PERFECT sense.

[WKoA13]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

It feels like people are always more willing to give Marvel the benefit of the doubt than they are with Lucasfilm. MCU movies are always coming out on a consistent basis within months of each other, and the metaphorical cement is always wet in fans' memories. As time goes on, the harder cement dries up, and so, the longer it takes between sequels, the more concrete peoples' nostalgic feelings are about the installments that are already out, and they can’t accept any new developments in the sequels without thinking “This character would never do that!” or “Why wasn’t this brought up before?” That's the problem with making more Star Wars sequels decades later. Everyone has too many preconceptions about what Luke would and wouldn't do, and it affects their viewing experience.

Very much this. Additionally, for years, and years now we've also had a flood of movies and TV shows that go the extra mile to seed future plot points into very early episodes, and/or layer all sorts of clues, and easter egg, etc pretty heavily. Which, on its own is pretty cool, but unfortunately also results in fans OVER analyzing every single line, and frame, and which hand, which charater carried their coffee mug in walking down a specific hallway, and the pictures hanging on said wall...

Which has really has in turn changed the fun, hypothetical "Wouldn't it be cool if..." conversations into "No. This means this. And this is who this character really is. And this is X villain's backstory! And if it doesn't match what I've made up in my own head, then it's garbage and they've raped my childhood, and every involved needs to be fired from Hollywood, and the studio should spend another 500 million re-shooting and marketing the movie!"

[jayman3]

People have selective memory and forget that Luke isn’t the only character who had gone into exile in the Star Wars Universe after their failures.

[Bn43]

I'm one of the reasons TFA made more than TLJ. I went twice to the former. But only because the first viewing was in 3D and I realized 3D is godawful. Won't be making the same mistake ever again.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by jayman3

People have selective memory and forget that Luke isn’t the only character who had gone into exile in the Star Wars Universe after their failures.

There is a difference. Obi-Wan and Yoda at least tried. Luke just gave up. Obi-Wan also helped try to get the stolen plans to Alderan and Yoda trained Luke if a bit reluctantly. Luke moped around the island when Rey showed up and asked for help. He did Skype with Kylo Ren in the end to let the five remaining rebels escape so I will give him that.

[Weirded Wonder]

Originally Posted by Bn43

I'm one of the reasons TFA made more than TLJ. I went twice to the former. But only because the first viewing was in 3D and I realized 3D is godawful. Won't be making the same mistake ever again.

I'm another reason. Saw TFA a dozen times. TLJ, once.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

There is a difference. Obi-Wan and Yoda at least tried. Luke just gave up. Obi-Wan also helped try to get the stolen plans to Alderan and Yoda trained Luke if a bit reluctantly. Luke moped around the island when Rey showed up and asked for help. He did Skype with Kylo Ren in the end to let the five remaining rebels escape so I will give him that.

Yoda would never have done a thing had Luke not shown up. Sometimes people need a push to light a fire within them and get them back on track.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Yoda would never have done a thing had Luke not shown up. Sometimes people need a push to light a fire within them and get them back on track.

My impression from Empire is that Yoda was waiting for Luke to arrive so he could train him. Still more than Luke did in TLJ. Hell, the porgs did more to help than Luke did.