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.

The Empire Strikes Back may be the best instalment of the original trilogy, but as a film it doesn't work on its own; it's clearly the middle one. For me, Star Wars, Solo and Rogue One all work on their own if you've never seen any other SW films. Rogue One perhaps loses something in that it takes a while for you to figure out who the rebels are.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming film. The TV shows are interesting, but not sufficiently to make me subscribe. Perhaps once they're all finished and I can watch them all in a single month.

Yup.

Grew up binge watching the OT with my brother at least one weekend a month every month, read numerous books and comics, and played all the video games as soon as they came out.

I enjoyed the PT when it came out. It told a good story and helped solidify what I expected from the Clone Wars and further elaborated on Anakin's descent to the dark side while becoming Darth Vader. I also binge watched the Star Wars: Clone Wars animated series when they were on Cartoon Network.

I currently play X-Wing weekly. I didn't get into Legion when it was only OT because a conventional army vs militants wasn't something I was going to enjoy in a war-game. I am eagerly awaiting the Clones Wars expansion and I will probably play that as often as I can get games.

“You can never please the fans!”

To the contrary, fans have been overwhelmingly pleased with the OT from 1977 until today. The main exception is RotJ, which has been constantly criticized regarding the Ewoks since 1983. Even so, RotJ is more substantial than any of the SW films released after it.

Fans have also been pleased with the Clone Wars show, overall.

I get why people argue “you can never please the fans!” It’s substantially easier to attack the audience than it is to defend the Prequels or Disney movies.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

The funny part for me is that ROTJ could never stand up to the hyper-criticism people use against the prequels and sequels. It isn't a very good film. The direction, script and performances are the worst of the originals, and it's not even close. Even Harrison Ford looks like he should be doing dinner theater. Cripes, people carp about porgs, but at least they're just scene dressing. The Ewoks represent far more brazen pandering, and they're real characters and an important part of that film's story!

But ROTJ gets a pass because nostalgia. Which is a very powerful poison, and a reason why superfans seem so constantly upset with franchises that should be their favorites. #NotMyWhatever

It's very hard to live up to some golden ideal that doesn't actually exist. If I was running a studio, I probably wouldn't give two gaks about the superfans of any given franchise either. You can never please them, so feth 'em. Aim at the fans a step or two toward the center, general audiences, and everyone in between, and let the superfans not care anymore.

Return of the Jedi has the best duel in the entirety of the SW films so far, though.

That, and as per what gorgon is claiming is nonsense - the idea that RotJ gets a pass is just bizarre. I've met like, two people in my entire life who thought it was their favourite(both of whom were the much-lauded "normal fans"), and only a handful more than that who didn't acknowledge it was the worst of the OT by a fair distance and a lot of the reason it's still fondly regarded by most fans is exactly because it's part of the OT and so is the conclusion of the tale told in its two far better predecessors, which elevates it somewhat.

In other words...it gets a pass by association with the rest of the original trilogy.

Which is the real issue - it's entirely possible to please "superfans", it's just not easy to do so when your main objective is to please aforementioned popcorn guzzlers first & foremost.

Well, I'm glad that you agree that SW superfans have to be ignored when it comes to feature filmmaking. Their 'deeper appreciations' aren't aligned. And that combined with a 2-hour format may largely explain why we haven't had a universally embraced SW film in almost 40 years. A better approach would seem to be a mix of products, like any other company trying to reach disparate audiences. So maybe more longer-form works like the Mandalorian for fans wanting the deeper dive (the Clone Wars series seemed to operate well here also), while feature films serve the masses. That won't stop the superfans from complaining about the films (because most will watch them anyway, no matter what they say), but at least it might give them more to engage with.

RotJ doesn’t and has never gotten a pass.

It has always been regarded as the weakest film of the OT. It has been mercilessly roasted because of its Ewoks since it was released.

It’s still a better movie than any of the PT or DT films.

I’m sure there are people nowadays who claim the OT movies can do no wrong but that is not how RotJ has been talked about over the last 36 years.

Of course! Not everything new is great, of course, but then, not everything old was great either- for every Heir to the Empire, there's a Crystal Star, a Star Wars Christmas Special for every Empire. But they still put out some amazing stuff- Solo was great fun, and Rogue One was delightfully bleak. The Rebels duel between Ahsoka Tano and Darth Vader sent chills up my spine.

Just an idle musing that I had in regard to the fanbase and how the studio(s) handle it. . .

There's been a comments ITT about how the current SW show runners have made comments basically to "push" fans of the Original Trilogy, or "original fans" out of the way and focus entirely on creating new fans, and how that attitude has been perceived.

I for one think it has been mishandled (by the creators as well as some fans), and that other film franchises have done better.

Now, this next bit is more a comment on toss-backs and "fan service" . . . The Trek reboot, IMHO handled this brilliantly in that they didn't merely rehash old 1960s tropes. They made a more modern Trek movie, and gave old time fans a line or two, or some thing seen in the background. Same with some of the Craig "Bond" films, where he enters a workshop with some jetpack from Moonraker, or the old DB5. . . Whatever you or I think of the overall quality of these types of films, I think there is something definitely positive to say about how the film-makers on some of these large franchises do their thing while also giving the fans a nibble.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

I for one think it has been mishandled (by the creators as well as some fans), and that other film franchises have done better.

Now, this next bit is more a comment on toss-backs and "fan service" . . . The Trek reboot, IMHO handled this brilliantly in that they didn't merely rehash old 1960s tropes. They made a more modern Trek movie, and gave old time fans a line or two, or some thing seen in the background. Same with some of the Craig "Bond" films, where he enters a workshop with some jetpack from Moonraker, or the old DB5. . .

'Other franchises...done better'? Star Trek reboots did weakly in the box office and were widely derided. My dislike for JJA pretty much comes from his so-called "Trek" movies.

One of the best things in 'Casino Royale' was that it was not at all like Moonraker, generally seen as low point of the Bond franchise.

Backfire wrote:

'Other franchises...done better'? Star Trek reboots did weakly in the box office and were widely derided. My dislike for JJA pretty much comes from his so-called "Trek" movies.

One of the best things in 'Casino Royale' was that it was not at all like Moonraker, generally seen as low point of the Bond franchise.

'

Did you actually read the entire comment, or only get what you wanted out?? I was ONLY talking about the fact that the film makers put little things to draw interest from long-time fans. I was not talking about the quality of the films themselves. .

TFA was chock full of references to the OT, both in terms of small things and, uh, the whole plot.

 Manchu wrote:
TFA was chock full of references to the OT, both in terms of small things and, uh, the whole plot.

Yep, and then we have TLJ, as mentioned earlier, where the creators basically said, "GTFO" to long-time fans. . . It seems that different franchises have VERY different views on how to approach/handle their fanbase. Some prefer to thumb their noses at the fans, and some welcome all fans old and new and try to create something that will appeal to both.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Yep, and then we have TLJ, as mentioned earlier, where the creators basically said, "GTFO" to long-time fans. . . It seems that different franchises have VERY different views on how to approach/handle their fanbase. Some prefer to thumb their noses at the fans, and some welcome all fans old and new and try to create something that will appeal to both.

Ok, so I didn't like TLJ. I thought it made a lot of mistakes in the script and the way it kind of ignored everything that came before. But I never felt like it was sticking up its middle finger at me personally. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the idea that TLJ was telling fans not to watch it.

balmong7 wrote:

Ok, so I didn't like TLJ. I thought it made a lot of mistakes in the script and the way it kind of ignored everything that came before. But I never felt like it was sticking up its middle finger at me personally. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the idea that TLJ was telling fans not to watch it.

Apparently, based on some comments far earlier in this thread, the filmmaker's themselves made comments during press tours.

Yep, Disney reps and the director pulled a pretty common "modern day" technique of referring to people critiquing their product as: (insert your choice of: racist, sexist, elitist, etc. etc. etc.). You know, the "you can't critique me if I call you a _______" dodge that's becoming ever more popular.

Basically, regardless of whether you liked the film(s) or not, they're acting like petulant children, which is not a superb way to endear yourself and your future efforts to your consumer base.

balmong7 wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


Yep, and then we have TLJ, as mentioned earlier, where the creators basically said, "GTFO" to long-time fans. . . It seems that different franchises have VERY different views on how to approach/handle their fanbase. Some prefer to thumb their noses at the fans, and some welcome all fans old and new and try to create something that will appeal to both.

Ok, so I didn't like TLJ. I thought it made a lot of mistakes in the script and the way it kind of ignored everything that came before. But I never felt like it was sticking up its middle finger at me personally. I'm not quite sure where you are getting the idea that TLJ was telling fans not to watch it.

Because something something ess jay dubyas something something people who aren't exactly like me in every way exist therefore SW is ruined forever

Basically.

It doesn't help when a lot of the criticism is actually coming from a place of (insert your choice of: racist, sexist, elitist, etc. etc. etc.). So now there is the fun of siphoning the information to figure out what is reasonable and valid and which is something else.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Of course! Not everything new is great, of course, but then, not everything old was great either- for every Heir to the Empire, there's a Crystal Star, a Star Wars Christmas Special for every Empire. But they still put out some amazing stuff- Solo was great fun, and Rogue One was delightfully bleak. The Rebels duel between Ahsoka Tano and Darth Vader sent chills up my spine.

But I think a lot of people’s point is that while real SW and the EU had up’s and downs so far even as you yourself pointed out with your examples of good Mouse SW moments, none of those moments came from the New Main Trilogy and all of them had strong links with real SW stories except maybe Solo. If you set Rouge 1 in the new timeline with a team stealing the new super dooper not a Death Star honest designs would anyone have really given a gak, I mean solos not a terrible movie but it is about one character a species and a couple of spaceship designs away from being a generic sci fi heist movie. Rebels basically plundered the prequel,orig trilogy and the EU to stay alive. Take resistance for example they tried to build on the new movies and it is gak that will be lucky to make a 3rd series.

So basically the short version is any mouse SW stuff that was not built on the shoulders of the original movies or by grave robbing the original EU has bee a turgid pile of gak. P.S I am aware there are characters from the new movies with the names of characters from the original trilogy but they bare so little relation to the real characters they could have been replaced by any blank cypher they liked and it would have made zero impact to the movie. P.P.S I mean I know why certain characters were included so they could die and others given red arms so they could stop paying royalties on the merchandise but still.

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, Disney reps and the director pulled a pretty common "modern day" technique of referring to people critiquing their product as: (insert your choice of: racist, sexist, elitist, etc. etc. etc.). You know, the "you can't critique me if I call you a _______" dodge that's becoming ever more popular.

Basically, regardless of whether you liked the film(s) or not, they're acting like petulant children, which is not a superb way to endear yourself and your future efforts to your consumer base.

See I always felt those comments were directed towards the people that were actively harassing the actors on their Instagrams and whatnot. Not towards the actual fans themselves. Now maybe they were worded poorly, and maybe Disney was trying to lump legit criticism in with the racist and sexist stuff in order to avoid admitting to their own mistakes. However, I don't think that in and of itself they were trying to push away fans. Just the toxic people.

SeanDrake wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Of course! Not everything new is great, of course, but then, not everything old was great either- for every Heir to the Empire, there's a Crystal Star, a Star Wars Christmas Special for every Empire. But they still put out some amazing stuff- Solo was great fun, and Rogue One was delightfully bleak. The Rebels duel between Ahsoka Tano and Darth Vader sent chills up my spine.

But I think a lot of people’s point is that while real SW and the EU had up’s and downs so far even as you yourself pointed out with your examples of good Mouse SW moments, none of those moments came from the New Main Trilogy and all of them had strong links with real SW stories except maybe Solo. If you set Rouge 1 in the new timeline with a team stealing the new super dooper not a Death Star honest designs would anyone have really given a gak, I mean solos not a terrible movie but it is about one character a species and a couple of spaceship designs away from being a generic sci fi heist movie. Rebels basically plundered the prequel,orig trilogy and the EU to stay alive. Take resistance for example they tried to build on the new movies and it is gak that will be lucky to make a 3rd series.

So basically the short version is any mouse SW stuff that was not built on the shoulders of the original movies or by grave robbing the original EU has bee a turgid pile of gak. P.S I am aware there are characters from the new movies with the names of characters from the original trilogy but they bare so little relation to the real characters they could have been replaced by any blank cypher they liked and it would have made zero impact to the movie. P.P.S I mean I know why certain characters were included so they could die and others given red arms so they could stop paying royalties on the merchandise but still.

I can definitely see your point. If you're looking for 80's Star Wars, that era's over. It was as soon as the prequels released, or the Special Edition. I had avoided TLJ because I know how polarizing it is. Personally, I loved Luke as a terrible teacher because it's consistent. He was a terrible candidate for Jedi, an apprentice who failed every major test and then dropped out of Jedi school to go lose a duel. Then he wins against a guy trying NOT to kill him, and immediately throws away his weapon rather than striking down evil and freeing his father. He's got great intentions, and appalling follow through, but he always has. I laugh every time Rey thrusts her hand out and he whacks it with his leaf. Finn's fight against the Spinmaster in TLJ is fantastic, and Phasma is a great new character who oozes menace. If you look for it, there's lots to love in the new films. L-337 is hilarious- I kind of wonder if Lando managed to download her into Lobot. K-2SO has a fantastic disregard for humanity.

I'll grant you Resistance is aiming very, very low on the age bracket- I think the new Duck Tales is more mature than it.

But you know, there's always the gold standard litmus test for 'mouse Star Wars', if you really think it would have been in better hands with George Lucas- is it better than The Phantom Menace? Because Pod races, seriously underage romance, and Jar Jar are what Lucas wanted for Star Wars. And sand. I think the quality has gone way up since he stepped aside, though I am very grateful to him for making the original trilogy.

balmong7 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Yep, Disney reps and the director pulled a pretty common "modern day" technique of referring to people critiquing their product as: (insert your choice of: racist, sexist, elitist, etc. etc. etc.). You know, the "you can't critique me if I call you a _______" dodge that's becoming ever more popular.

Basically, regardless of whether you liked the film(s) or not, they're acting like petulant children, which is not a superb way to endear yourself and your future efforts to your consumer base.

See I always felt those comments were directed towards the people that were actively harassing the actors on their Instagrams and whatnot. Not towards the actual fans themselves. Now maybe they were worded poorly, and maybe Disney was trying to lump legit criticism in with the racist and sexist stuff in order to avoid admitting to their own mistakes. However, I don't think that in and of itself they were trying to push away fans. Just the toxic people.

That's exactly the case. Certain right-wing groups deliberately took the comments out of context to push their political agenda, but when you look at the original source for the comments it's clearly aimed at incidents everyone can agree are bad behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:
In other words...it gets a pass by association with the rest of the original trilogy.

Not just by association. ROTJ has some flaws, but its good points are good. It's the conclusion to all of the things that have built up over the past two movies and that gives it a lot more weight than any of the "why does this movie even exist" sequel garbage. ROTJ wouldn't get a pass if it was a truly bad movie with no redeeming qualities.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Yep, and then we have TLJ, as mentioned earlier, where the creators basically said, "GTFO" to long-time fans. . . It seems that different franchises have VERY different views on how to approach/handle their fanbase. Some prefer to thumb their noses at the fans, and some welcome all fans old and new and try to create something that will appeal to both.

I've never understood this take on the whole situation. I never felt personally attacked, nor did I feel in any way 'unwelcome' by that film, and I've been a Star Wars fan since seeing ANH in the early '80s.

 Manchu wrote:
“... The main exception is RotJ, which has been constantly criticized regarding the Ewoks since 1983. ..

Funnily enough, I never had a problem with the Ewoks, although when I first found out that they were originally going to be Wookies, it did spark a pang of 'what might have been'...

My issues with RotJ come more from Harrison Ford quite clearly wanting to be anywhere other than on that set, Luke trying to be all aloof and jedi-like, and Leia not really having anything to do for most of the movie resulting in the main cast just all being a bit bland. There's lots of cool stuff happening in that movie, it's just really difficult to care about it because the people who were so appealing from the previous movies are so boring in this one.

Leia and Han get their story pretty much worked out in the Tatooine interlude. The second half of the movie belongs to the Luke-Vader-Emperor scenes and everything else going on during them just pales in comparison.

In reply to OP:

Something's definitely 'off in my Star Wars section of the brain.

Couldn't care enough to track down the trailer for 9. I was brainstorming settings for the next rpg to run a month ago and Star Wars didn't even make a running, despite 2/3rds of all campaigns I've run ending up being set in the Star Wars universe.

So yeah..

...and Peregrine just beautifully proved my point, as usual.

 Elbows wrote:
...and Peregrine just beautifully proved my point, as usual.

I genuinely have no idea what "point" you think I proved for you. Are you deciding that any time someone uses a critical label for a group it must be some kind of dodge, rather than an honest and accurate statement about the group in question?

PS: in trying to answer this please keep in mind that I think TLJ is a terrible movie, so I'm hardly white knighting for Disney.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Backfire wrote:

'Other franchises...done better'? Star Trek reboots did weakly in the box office and were widely derided. My dislike for JJA pretty much comes from his so-called "Trek" movies.

One of the best things in 'Casino Royale' was that it was not at all like Moonraker, generally seen as low point of the Bond franchise.

'
Did you actually read the entire comment, or only get what you wanted out?? I was ONLY talking about the fact that the film makers put little things to draw interest from long-time fans. I was not talking about the quality of the films themselves. .

Yeah, but I quite don't get it. 'Fan service moments' in JJA Trek reboots were kinda cringey and overplayed mostly (downright embarrassing in Return of Wrath of Khan...oops I mean Into Darkness). Casino Royale was great because it did not attempt to stand on previous Bonds but did its own thing which was quite close to Fleming's original vision of James Bond. I remember very few if any 'fan service' moments there. And when you reboot something, that's how you should do it.

Frankly, after handling Star Trek so poorly, I only can wonder who thought that JJ Abrams would make a great guy to handle new Star Wars. Directors who live by 'rule of cool' are fine for one-off movies, but not great for setting intensive stories.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:

But you know, there's always the gold standard litmus test for 'mouse Star Wars', if you really think it would have been in better hands with George Lucas- is it better than The Phantom Menace? Because Pod races, seriously underage romance, and Jar Jar are what Lucas wanted for Star Wars. And sand. I think the quality has gone way up since he stepped aside, though I am very grateful to him for making the original trilogy.

I don't think Lucas is a crap writer, but he certainly became a crap, lazy director. It was a big mistake that he decided to direct the movies all by himself. I am sure Prequels would have been much better if he had hired an outside director for the job and also challenge some of his writing. Difference between OT and PT was that in the first, Lucas was surrounded by people who had their own input and were able to challenge and question his unrefined ideas. When making prequels, he was surrounded by yes-men who just took his first draft and started shooting it.

As an aside, I was stuck at an airport yesterday and smashed through about 80% of the new Thrawn book, having enjoyed the previous.

Other than Zahn writing Thrawn as godlike in his deduction powers (which he always did) it's an enjoyable story of dutiful, non-villainous Imperial officers dealing with threats both without (Grysks) and within (corrupt officials). The fact they've woven the power games between Tarkin and Krennic into the jumping off point for the story gives it more of a connection to concurrent events (Thrawn starts the story at Lothal, and has one week to deal with Krennic's literal vermin problem or he loses all funding for the TIE Defender program that will then go to the Death Star).

Rogue One, Rebels, the Thrawn books. Canonically hammering home the sense of nostalgia that is entirely missing from the rest of the Star Wars output.

He’s a great ideas man but his writing is...I mean the dialogue is...he should have let someone else polish it up for him.

 gorgon wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It seems that even for those who like TLJ the existence of TLJ has diminished their enjoyment of SW, even if it is indirect (b/c they don’t enjoy other SW fans/ex-fans talking about not enjoying TLJ).

I feel like you're bending over backwards to blame TLJ for what is ultimately an issue with the fandom proper.

Thats not to say you're wrong about the constant bombardment being draining though.

I'm transitioning our Edge of the Empire game into an Only War one precisely because we can't seem to get through a session without someone bringing up that they're not going to see the new one and how ruined the franchise is and exactly who's fault it is. I see no reason to put work in week after week preparing maps and encounters, practicing voices etc, if all it does is serve to remind them of something they hate now.

It's going to get even worse once 9 comes out. Yes, it's script fixer is the guy who excreted Justice League and Batman V Superman, but even if it somehow miraculously isn't awful the people on both sides are too invested, and the discourse will be just as hostile.

The funny part for me is that ROTJ could never stand up to the hyper-criticism people use against the prequels and sequels. It isn't a very good film. The direction, script and performances are the worst of the originals, and it's not even close. Even Harrison Ford looks like he should be doing dinner theater. Cripes, people carp about porgs, but at least they're just scene dressing. The Ewoks represent far more brazen pandering, and they're real characters and an important part of that film's story!

But ROTJ gets a pass because nostalgia. Which is a very powerful poison, and a reason why superfans seem so constantly upset with franchises that should be their favorites. #NotMyWhatever

It's very hard to live up to some golden ideal that doesn't actually exist. If I was running a studio, I probably wouldn't give two gaks about the superfans of any given franchise either. You can never please them, so feth 'em. Aim at the fans a step or two toward the center, general audiences, and everyone in between, and let the superfans not care anymore.

Your point being? ROTJ is weakest of the OT yes. It's still light years ahead of sequels in term of script, direction and performance. Only thing it loses is in CGI department. But that's the least important part of movies.

There's grading in quality. Just because it's weakest of OT doesn't mean it's equal to the trash that the sequels are. Sequels don't even try to create new. I basically had seen last jedi 20+ years ago...Except by better version.

tneva82 wrote:
Your point being? ROTJ is weakest of the OT yes. It's still light years ahead of sequels in term of script, direction and performance. Only thing it loses is in CGI department. But that's the least important part of movies.

There's grading in quality. Just because it's weakest of OT doesn't mean it's equal to the trash that the sequels are. Sequels don't even try to create new. I basically had seen last jedi 20+ years ago...Except by better version.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I question your ability to look at RotJ with any objectivity if you believe that's true.

Eps. 7 and 8 have good performances and are well-directed, and RotJ has genuine issues in both departments. As others have said, the RotJ cast obviously mailed it in (so many awkward deliveries), and by all accounts the director (Marquand, an odd choice from the start) was in way over his head on the production. It showed. Lucas was apparently on set a ton (*unlike* TESB) and was more or less a 'shadow director', which goes to show that troubled SW productions aren't something that started with Disney. Lucas' involvement also may explain why some of the issues with RotJ resemble those of the prequels.

If you love the overall story being told in RotJ and not the ones told in Eps 7 and 8, I understand. I don't completely agree, but I understand. It's just funny to me how fans conflate their story likes and dislikes with other aspects of filmmaking. Abrams and Johnson ran rings about Marquand (and his puppet master). Kershner did too -- it's why TESB is so good.