Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I’ve had a turbulent opinion of Prometheus that has smoothed out over the years and settled into affection. Covenant is an interesting movie but, like Alien Resurrection and the AvP movies, I don’t think it fits with the others. Folks who don’t like these films should rest easy; if another Alien film gets made the producers will almost surely go the route of the Terminator franchise and ignore everything after Aliens.

 Manchu wrote:
I’ve had a turbulent opinion of Prometheus that has smoothed out over the years and settled into affection. Covenant is an interesting movie but, like Alien Resurrection and the AvP movies, I don’t think it fits with the others. Folks who don’t like these films should rest easy; if another Alien film gets made the producers will almost surely go the route of the Terminator franchise and ignore everything after Aliens.

See i never liked when they did that. First it makes it confusing AND there are people out there who like those movies.

It’s probably for the best. Hopefully, it will be done with Star Wars some day.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


Not when Dice Stockholm is the developper. Other subdivisions have B teams, but DICE stockholm is more akin to the Z division.

As for the underlined there are SO MANY REASONS HOW that it is difficult:

But here a non complete list:

Marketing:

Spoiler:

Yeah, that is supposedly how a WW2 game of a franchise that prided itself in imersion, should look like.... What do you mean it doesn't ! YOu are AlL tHe FolLoWiNg!!!!!

- Calling fans uneducated." Even though there were just as many surprisingly good thought out argumentations against this.

- Telling fans to not buy it. " Well the numbers did show now didn't they.

The design:

Spoiler:

Overarching Design is and was a failure.
What do i mean by that:
-A life service which allready performed worse in the sales department doesn't get any "life" service.
-Pay to earn cosmetics.
- No community servers.
- Gamemode rotation on some of the bread and butter modes like rush.
- NOT HAVING THE TECHNOLOGY FOR A 2x XP event supposedly, even though all BF titles recently had a 2x event due to the virus. Tied in of course with the over grindy but skipable by money grind for cosmetcs. AKA Greed.

The actual game design:

Spoiler:

- No all kit weapons.
- Serious balance issues in weapon balancing often times self introduced in ttk changes. (type 2 a, MMG too good, too bad, )
- Attrition: A idea that went neither far enough nor needed implementation. Either or no half measures because the halfmeasure ATM in place is just bloody annoying.
- Vehicle balance issues, because the one thing BF1 did really bad (aka choosable vehicles instead of fixed spawns)they copied over.
-gak tier visibility. Even after a whole year. BF1 had genius 10 / 10 visibility compared to V and BF 1 allread yhad visibility issues.
- Bad map design. Something that Dice Stockholm started with BF4, and BFV completed in many ways, the maps first designed by artists and then actually getting into the hands of actual level designers leading to hillariously stupid designed maps. One sided as all hell.
- the women. Not as in they are there, even though as a history nut you might allready have issues with it for most factions (except the soviets). No what i mean here is beyond the completly ahistorical fact of their implementation they also scream louder then the 10 Handgreanades inevitable flying and detonating on you when you attempt to revive them.
- Dice Stockholm, including but not limited too: Rushjob, lack of understanding of the technology, lack of foresight , lack of skill as shown by early 4 aswell and 0 capability to actually make a Netcode work (same as bf4). Except BF4 got handed off to LA and turned into a great game.

Oh wow, I had no idea DICE Stockholm was the problem. Doubly surprised that LA was the reason 4 was so good, as I understand it they developed the first Star Wars Battlefront reboot which I thought was complete and total garbage. As to the rest of the post, yeah I agree that map design has been a huge problem with V. The only maps I've been genuinely excited to play are Devastation and Iwo Jima, everything else I either loathe or just... completely indifferent. I do really hate the 'life service' model. I was initially very excited about the prospect of free new maps, but considering how slow the support has been I honestly think I'd rather go back to the way BF1 did it. Yeah it cost more, but I at least got way more content.

And they cut it off as of yesterday

 Elbows wrote:
If we're discussing computer games as well...I gave up on 90% of them when DLC went from "an actual expansion which you add to an already complete game"...and became "Unlock actual normal game features and things in different colours".

In general, feth DLC of all shapes and sizes unless it's an actual expansion to an existing product.

This change impacted quite a few games I would have carried on playing. I stopped paying any attention to the Total War franchise (easily one of my favourite gaming franchises of all time) when you had to buy a DLC expansion for $3 to see blood in the game...get fethed.

I mean, this is kind of an extreme strawman argument here when applied to TW in particular, since the DLC releases that they've been putting out for Warhammer TW have been fething stellar.

1) nearly every DLC is a complete new faction

2) all the gak you purchased for DLC in TW1 carried over to TW2 and the games actually merged into one another letting you play with everything together on a huge map, which kicks ass

3) even if you don't buy the DLC factions they get added to your game as enemies and you can play against them

I agree with you that DLC can be and often is total bs. but a lot of DLC is just what expansion packs used to be


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I’ve had a turbulent opinion of Prometheus that has smoothed out over the years and settled into affection. Covenant is an interesting movie but, like Alien Resurrection and the AvP movies, I don’t think it fits with the others. Folks who don’t like these films should rest easy; if another Alien film gets made the producers will almost surely go the route of the Terminator franchise and ignore everything after Aliens.

See, I'm kind of of the opinion that "horror franchise" or "horror sequel" should not really be things that exist. How is it "horror" if you go in knowing what to expect and you made your purchase based on having experienced a previous branded product and want more of that same.

That said, I do think Prometheus was more successful as a horror movie to me than any of the alien sequels precisely because you go in not knowing what the monster is or what it could do. It was just frustrating because it was a horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters.

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

 LordofHats wrote:

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

That is part of the reason I like the horror movies I like.

couple examples off the top of my head:

Babbadook. I never felt like the main adult character in this film was acting out of STUPIDITY, just acting under a reasonable, commesurate level of stress and fear surrounding the situation.

I would never criticize the scene in Prometheus where the lady runs away from the falling ship in the direction it's falling. That looks stupid, to the audience, because we can see continuously over her fething shoulder, a thing she cannot do. She looks behind her shoulder for a fraction of a second, and probably doesn't see much of anything. Your instinct would be exactly the same as hers: just run away. It'd be down to luck if you ran in the right direction! My complaint is more with the very opening bits of the film, where they do gak like take off their god damn helmets when they're supposed to be astronaut-tier biologists and scientists. "hey, the air is clean, let's take off our helmets! Couldn't be any kind of microbial threats present on this ALIEN fething PLANET"

Annihilation. Here is a story about professionals descending into a maddening, horrific situation where they are actually portrayed as consummate professionals before they go crazy, and I appreciate that so, so much. It adds immensely to the horror toward the end of the film where the first time the characters encounter a threat, they follow their training instinctually and take it the feth out while maintaining discipline.

Get Out. I'll be honest, I didn't see Get Out through as much of a horror movie because I found it really fething funny during the "tension building" section, but I did appreciate that the main character seemed to act rationally throughout.

Id add Event Horizon and i think its called Pandemonium (or something, its another space one). Bith show tge charactersmostly acting rationally but dealing with something so far outside of their training/common sense/rationality that they can be excused for errors they make in hindsight.

I would agree with those suggestions.

 Hulksmash wrote:
Id add Event Horizon and i think its called Pandemonium (or something, its another space one). Bith show tge charactersmostly acting rationally but dealing with something so far outside of their training/common sense/rationality that they can be excused for errors they make in hindsight.

oof. Pandorum. That one was one of those "boy oh boy this horror movie was made to twist the knife in my particular irrational phobias I do not like this one bit" for me.

If you don't like being painfully aware of your veins and thinking about tubes and needles going into them, do not google this film or even look at the movie poster!

the_scotsman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

Annihilation. Here is a story about professionals descending into a maddening, horrific situation where they are actually portrayed as consummate professionals before they go crazy, and I appreciate that so, so much. It adds immensely to the horror toward the end of the film where the first time the characters encounter a threat, they follow their training instinctually and take it the feth out while maintaining discipline.

Agreed - really enjoyed that film and felt the decent into madness was well done.

I think the characters in the Thing and its prequal tend to react quite well - some practical, some freaked out and some stupid...

Especially like "I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
Windows: Childs, what if we're wrong? Childs: Why, then we're wrong! I
If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think either one of us is in much shape to do anything about it.
That's right, Garry. They dig it up; they cart it back to their base. Somehow it gets thawed; it wakes up, probably not the best of moods....

but lots of good lines

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

Annihilation. Here is a story about professionals descending into a maddening, horrific situation where they are actually portrayed as consummate professionals before they go crazy, and I appreciate that so, so much. It adds immensely to the horror toward the end of the film where the first time the characters encounter a threat, they follow their training instinctually and take it the feth out while maintaining discipline.

Agreed - really enjoyed that film and felt the decent into madness was well done.

I think the characters in the Thing and its prequal tend to react quite well - some practical, some freaked out and some stupid...

Especially like "I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
Windows: Childs, what if we're wrong? Childs: Why, then we're wrong! I
If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think either one of us is in much shape to do anything about it.
That's right, Garry. They dig it up; they cart it back to their base. Somehow it gets thawed; it wakes up, probably not the best of moods....

but lots of good lines

Well, sure, I guess I wasn't mentioning films like aliens and the thing because when people talk about not finding good films I usually default to an assumption that there's an invisible "These Days" appended on the end and they hold up the best of the 80s and 90s as a kind of bygone golden age.

Those are also good films, with good character acting and writing of realistic characters reacting realistically to horrific situations.

There was a thing...Prequel? With like the norwegians? I have never heard of this lol.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

Annihilation. Here is a story about professionals descending into a maddening, horrific situation where they are actually portrayed as consummate professionals before they go crazy, and I appreciate that so, so much. It adds immensely to the horror toward the end of the film where the first time the characters encounter a threat, they follow their training instinctually and take it the feth out while maintaining discipline.

Agreed - really enjoyed that film and felt the decent into madness was well done.

I think the characters in the Thing and its prequal tend to react quite well - some practical, some freaked out and some stupid...

Especially like "I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
Windows: Childs, what if we're wrong? Childs: Why, then we're wrong! I
If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think either one of us is in much shape to do anything about it.
That's right, Garry. They dig it up; they cart it back to their base. Somehow it gets thawed; it wakes up, probably not the best of moods....

but lots of good lines

Well, sure, I guess I wasn't mentioning films like aliens and the thing because when people talk about not finding good films I usually default to an assumption that there's an invisible "These Days" appended on the end and they hold up the best of the 80s and 90s as a kind of bygone golden age.

Those are also good films, with good character acting and writing of realistic characters reacting realistically to horrific situations.

There was a thing...Prequel? With like the norwegians? I have never heard of this lol.

Yeah the Thing Prequal is realy good - they obviously went back over the orginal film as you can absolutely see how certain bits of that film come about - even down to axe in the wall or how people die.

Ends with the first scene of the original film and that ooh soo cool music starts up......genius

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

horror movie with RELENTLESSLY idiotic characters

I would be greatly thrilled if someone could just write a horror film with characters who are not idiots. Even some of the ones I really like, Sinister for example, seems to hinge on a character making a bad choice so obviously bad it boggles the mind.

Annihilation. Here is a story about professionals descending into a maddening, horrific situation where they are actually portrayed as consummate professionals before they go crazy, and I appreciate that so, so much. It adds immensely to the horror toward the end of the film where the first time the characters encounter a threat, they follow their training instinctually and take it the feth out while maintaining discipline.

Agreed - really enjoyed that film and felt the decent into madness was well done.

I think the characters in the Thing and its prequal tend to react quite well - some practical, some freaked out and some stupid...

Especially like "I dunno what the hell's in there, but it's weird and pissed off, whatever it is."
Windows: Childs, what if we're wrong? Childs: Why, then we're wrong! I
If we've got any surprises for each other, I don't think either one of us is in much shape to do anything about it.
That's right, Garry. They dig it up; they cart it back to their base. Somehow it gets thawed; it wakes up, probably not the best of moods....

but lots of good lines

Well, sure, I guess I wasn't mentioning films like aliens and the thing because when people talk about not finding good films I usually default to an assumption that there's an invisible "These Days" appended on the end and they hold up the best of the 80s and 90s as a kind of bygone golden age.

Those are also good films, with good character acting and writing of realistic characters reacting realistically to horrific situations.

There was a thing...Prequel? With like the norwegians? I have never heard of this lol.

Yeah the Thing Prequal is realy good - they obviously went back over the orginal film as you can absolutely see how certain bits of that film come about - even down to axe in the wall or how people die.

Ends with the first scene of the original film and that ooh soo cool music starts up......genius

I guess for me the interest kind of flattens in the same way it generally does for me with prequels....I just don't usually care how background elements in a story got set into place, and usually, explaining them either doesn't affect me ("oh, looks like the axe got in the wall when someone went crazy and stuck an axe in the wall. Who could've guessed?") or affects my enjoyment of the original negatively ("Oh, the '12 parsecs' boast wasn't just a load of horsegak confusing time for distance that obi-wan had a little smirk about, it was ACTUALLY a secret space shortcut performed by infallable super-duper extra awesome pilot han solo!"

the_scotsman wrote:

I guess for me the interest kind of flattens in the same way it generally does for me with prequels....I just don't usually care how background elements in a story got set into place, and usually, explaining them either doesn't affect me ("oh, looks like the axe got in the wall when someone went crazy and stuck an axe in the wall. Who could've guessed?") or affects my enjoyment of the original negatively ("Oh, the '12 parsecs' boast wasn't just a load of horsegak confusing time for distance that obi-wan had a little smirk about, it was ACTUALLY a secret space shortcut performed by infallable super-duper extra awesome pilot han solo!"

I've found a lot of the time that prequels are series breakingly bad. . . Like, "main character has a tragic parent back story" . . . prequel: "yo, here's a series of stupid events that the parental MCs will make even dumber decisions to ham-fistedly explain our way out of this one cuz this here is a money grab!!!"


Not as series breaking, but if you've played AC: Origins in Egypt through to the end, you know how ham-fisted and silly prequels can get



I simply think that this prequel thing is a gakky trend that will eventually die off when writers and publishers remember that a little mystery is a good thing. Let us fans fill in our own blanks. If it is that important for the story now, then make it part of the current story.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I simply think that this prequel thing is a gakky trend that will eventually die off when writers and publishers remember that a little mystery is a good thing. Let us fans fill in our own blanks. If it is that important for the story now, then make it part of the current story.

If only GW had heeded that advice...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I've found a lot of the time that prequels are series breakingly bad. . . Like, "main character has a tragic parent back story" . . . prequel: "yo, here's a series of stupid events that the parental MCs will make even dumber decisions to ham-fistedly explain our way out of this one cuz this here is a money grab!!!"

I feel like this doesn't need to be the case though. It's mostly that once money gets involved, dumb ass decisions get make. Take Sinister. Great horror movie. Creepy in a very meta way, low budget in a way that worked, and capably acted with an eerie cramped atmosphere that made the scares really jump and feel earned rather than cheap.

Then comes Sinister II. Which commits the cardinal horror sins Sinister avoided; characters behaving like morons, showing the monster rather than suggesting it, and explaining so much the 'horror' feels contrived rather than gripping. That didn't need to be the kind of movie Sinister II was. They could have easily repeated the formula from the first movie, thrown in next contexts and situations and it could have been a good movie. But no. Money got involved and the dumbest thing the companies that make movies do is think that investing more into a project that was successful once will automatically keep it successful even if the product is hacked up and poorly done.

It's almost like companies have no strategy when it comes to creative works. They just back anything that looks good on paper with some business calculus and wait to see what makes money. It's a decent enough business strategy I suppose, but it makes gakky movies. You'd think that 2 decades of MCU box office dominance would have convinced people that a cohesive creative plan can make long running franchises continually successful.

Not as series breaking, but if you've played AC: Origins in Egypt through to the end, you know how ham-fisted and silly prequels can get

And honestly, Assassin's Creed is a flawless example of this mentality. I gave up on the franchise by the end of the first game. It's story has always been ham-fisted, contrived, and contradictory. There is no creative hand guiding the franchise. Ubisoft keeps making them because they make money and so long as they make money they'll keep making them and they'll just keep being ham-fisted cause there was no plan in the first place.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Not as series breaking, but if you've played AC: Origins in Egypt through to the end, you know how ham-fisted and silly prequels can get

Spoiler:

there's that cutscene near the end where Bayek and his wife are on the shore, and the hawk/bird skull washes away in the waves leaving our iconic Assassins' logo

That's seriously the least ham-fisted and silly thing I can think of for the AC series. That's a cute nod that affects nothing at all. Unlike, well... All of the Odyssey DLC, the actual mythological creatures in Odyssey, the aliens, the secret societies and all the way down to the 'apple' in the original game.

Voss wrote:
That's seriously the least ham-fisted and silly thing I can think of for the AC series. That's a cute nod that affects nothing at all. Unlike, well... All of the Odyssey DLC, the actual mythological creatures in Odyssey, the aliens, the secret societies and all the way down to the 'apple' in the original game.

My argument isn't that the AC games aren't ham-fisted. . . . much of what you list are elements that the entire series is built around. My point was that, in relation to going from Origin to AC 1, that little cut scene was a prime example of "lets throw in this detail", or needlessly "solving" a mysterious detail that no body in particular got hung up on.

Ok well.
That is a product of History and things. AC needs to be as broad as possible.
We are more familiar with the myths, gods and monsters of ancient culture than history itself compared to Victorian London or American Revolution.
Which is why so much of Odysssey involves the "300" despite not being part of the main game, of greese history, its the most known in out culture.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Voss wrote:
That's seriously the least ham-fisted and silly thing I can think of for the AC series. That's a cute nod that affects nothing at all. Unlike, well... All of the Odyssey DLC, the actual mythological creatures in Odyssey, the aliens, the secret societies and all the way down to the 'apple' in the original game.

My argument isn't that the AC games aren't ham-fisted. . . . much of what you list are elements that the entire series is built around. My point was that, in relation to going from Origin to AC 1, that little cut scene was a prime example of "lets throw in this detail", or needlessly "solving" a mysterious detail that no body in particular got hung up on.

I didn't think that was your argument.

But an AC game showing the AC logo off to the player in the outro doesn't strike me as a real issue, given the giant list of issues involved with the games.

AC really went off the fething rails story wise around the AC2 expansions/AC3. While gameplay wise they have started screwing them up, at least they dropped the weird future and abstergo garbage. I don't think anyone has ever said "you know what is great about AC2? The parts where you get to play as Desmond!"...

Still sucks we never got the modern day AC game where Desmond is the main character.

The series definitely lost me with the yearly remakes of AC2. I did play 3 to the end, but it was a real mess, particularly at the end.

 LunarSol wrote:
Still sucks we never got the modern day AC game where Desmond is the main character.

The series definitely lost me with the yearly remakes of AC2. I did play 3 to the end, but it was a real mess, particularly at the end.

I didn't particularly mind AC2, 3 was the one that made me quit. I just couldn't get attached to the plot. On the other hand I saw Syndicate on sale on the Xbox store so have been passing the lockdown time by getting through it, although living in London the irregularities are irking me a bit.


While we're on video games, one particular franchise I'm losing hope in is Halo. I absolutely love Halo, it's the first real game I played after seeing my best friend playing Two Betrayals, and was a die-hard fan right through to Reach. When they released Halo 4 it just didn't have that same impact as the others: Gameplay was tedious - "You have to go to this place and press a switch while fighting Covenant, now go over there and press another one while fighting Prometheans! Done it? Good, now you have to press a third switch while fighting both Covenant and Prometheans! Isn't this imaginative?!" Most of the game was just having to go places and press switches.

What annoyed me the most, and this isn't solely Halo but a lot of other franchises are starting to do this as well, is the plot diverges so much between games it's hard to keep track. Between Halo 1 and 2, you didn't really need to know what happened between, any other publications were just an add-on, not necessary. Now however, you have to read all the books, graphic novels, short stories and films to understand what happens. Between Halo 3 and 4, or between 4 and 5 there are so many new or reintroduced characters, new technologies, storylines, etc, I have no idea what's actually happening, and it's overall harder to get attached to anyone.

I think the main issue is the change of ownership to 343i, they seem to be falling into the typical game producer system of milking as much as possible from the consumer. Bungie released DLC, but it was minimal and even some DLCs were free on release. 343i on the other hand introduced microtransactions and made multiplayer into a pay-to-win system, even more tedious when you consider that so, so much of the unlocks were just useless filler material - "You've spent £2.50 to unlock a Jungle Transport Warthog! It has no gun like the real Warthog but it's green! Spend another £2.50 and you might be lucky enough to unlock the Snow one, it's the same but white!" . Additionally, there's something about their overall aesthetics. The game is too sleek, clean and flashy, it doesn't feel like Halo, more just a generic sci-fi shooter.

 Valkyrie wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Still sucks we never got the modern day AC game where Desmond is the main character.

The series definitely lost me with the yearly remakes of AC2. I did play 3 to the end, but it was a real mess, particularly at the end.

I didn't particularly mind AC2, 3 was the one that made me quit. I just couldn't get attached to the plot. On the other hand I saw Syndicate on sale on the Xbox store so have been passing the lockdown time by getting through it, although living in London the irregularities are irking me a bit.

I have only gotten to experience living in the city that a game was supposed to be set in once, and it was with Fallout 4 and Boston, and I have never had a better laugh tbh. The town I lived in at the time, Malden, was on the map (well, it was a subway station on the map, the town wasn't there) and it was like a 10 minute walk from downtown, which was hilarious.

It was overall a very fun experience though. I guess living in like NY or London lots of games are set there so you'd get to play around with that often.

I had visited Italy a couple years before AC2 was released and quite enjoyed how well they captured Florence and Venice. I played a bit of Brotherhood to enjoy Rome, but didn't finish it. Overall they captured all 3 pretty well from my memory.

I came up at a time when you had Halo or Killzone. . . . I always preferred the grittier story and setting of Killzone (IMO the artstyle of Halo always made me question whether there was indeed a war going on or not, everything was too clean and sanitary)

Anyhow, I gave up on Killzone when they released the most recent one (ages ago now in game terms) and it was this whole weird splinter cell shooter stealthy kind of game. Not really my jam.

I haven't given up on an entire franchise as such, but I have given up on parts of a franchise. For example:

Attack of the Clowns was a terrible film. I am movie literate enough to have recognized all the scenes Lucas stole from other, better films. Walking out of the theater, I immediately decided I was not going to watch Revenge of the Sh**. Two decades later, and I still haven't seen it.
The Last Jedi was a deeply flawed film, but I thought a sufficiently talented writer could devise a plot that could conclude the story. I was willing to give Rise of the Skywalker a chance, until I learned JJ Abrams had been tapped to write it (why is a director writing a movie? He is a director, not a screen writer... movies: that is why you fail) and that man has never crossed a finish line story-wise without falling on his face and dying. So I noped out of Return of the Jedi 2 Electric Boogaloo. What I've learned of the plot reading the thread here has convinced me I made the right call.
But if Disney were to pull it's head out of it's backside and put together a team with vision and a plan, like their Marvel team, I'd be willing to give them another shot.

I noped out of Dune when Frank Herbert's son decided to let Kevin J Anderson write some Star Wars novels and slap "Dune" on the book covers. I still hold out hope for this new movie that seems to be in the works, though, because I don't think Kevin J Anderson is working on it.

I noped out of Gundam the Origin (both the anime and the manga), because of its rampant canon violations. I'll still watch something UC Gundam that gets made, but I'll never sit down to GtO.

Oh, man. Herbert Junior's Dune prequels. I noped out of the first one hard. He had Bene Tleilax suicide bombers running around shouting religious slogans that revealed who they are and what they believed (or what Junior thought that meant, anyway) literally thousands of years before anyone in the setting found that out.

They kept that secret past the death of the God-Emperor, and there it was just out in the open for anyone to grasp. Didn't see any point in those books after that.

Though, 'continuing' a dead author's story is one of my pet peeves anyway. Grave robbing would be more respectful. At least then you could attempt to claim to be preserving a mere physical relic, not destroying something integral and intimate to the author.

How often has “the child takes over the franchise” worked? Just Christopher Tolkien?