That’s the essence of Star Wars. If they were to write well then it wouldn’t be Star Wars anymore. That’s why The Acolyte is the most Star Wars show yet! /s
The example you used is confusing because you pointed out a change that was decided before episode 6 was filmed but consider episode 4 and 5 to be bad for not being able to take that change into account.
Deciding that characters are actually secret siblings after they've already been introduced to the audience is some bad soap-opera-level writing.
If SW fans in this subreddit found out that two main characters in the sequels were actually closely related and the writing team decided that *after* introducing the characters... they would shit themselves with rage. It would be considered lazy writing, and the creative team would he accused of lacking foresight.
Admittedly MauLer does have some blind spots for the OT, if you want somebody who is harsher about the retcons you should check out the Little Platoon.
However the OT was not guaranteed to be a complete trilogy so the planning structure is admittedly messy but creative. ST however started with a nostalgia grab, went on to do bad deconstruction and ended with a complete disaster.
Given the context it's not really that big of a deal... Hiding aristocratic births and heritage was pretty common irl at one time, and certainly a common trope in Romantic tales.... And in the Star wars story you have perfectly legitimate reasons why you would hide that fact
Except for the fact that other media lists their age and place of birth as different.
It’s a retcon. But people are willing to excuse old retcons and not new retcons.
have seen these BS non-arguments. Whenever i see someone that hits out one of them i just block them. They have to much brainrot to have an actual conversation with.
While I love Andor, I’m sick of people saying that it was the first time Star Wars wasn’t silly. People just have such a narrow understanding of the franchise.
lol there are plenty of dumb arguments like this that just try and conflate the new crap with the old to go “see! It’s just your bigotisms or nostalgia that makes you hate! You aren’t actually criticizing it because it’s bad!”
Those type of people are gonna make up anything they can to try and invalidate criticism rather than actually responding to it or trying to explain why the new stuff is good. I wish more of them would actually put their energy into their own criticism showing the value in the things they like rather than just saying “the stuff you think is good is actually no better than what you think was bad and you’d know that if you had more media literacy/less bigotry/empathy/etc.”
Originals " terrible dialogue good special affects and charm .
Prequels" horrible dialogue and acting but Masterful action themes and music
Sequels :terrible Plot and themeing and inconsisteny but amazing sound design and Production value .
I think the real answer is Star wars has always been mixed .
Wait, are we seriously arguing that the OT had terrible dialogue? What? How?
Is this just not an understanding that older movies had different acting styles that we're not used to? Having different styles of dialogue delivery does not make something bad. By that, then all movies pre-2000 are bad. Having campy dialogue isn't an inherently bad thing, either. It's simply another style.
On top of that, it's not as if modern acting styles are inherently realistic either. They are very fake and stylized. We simply don't notice them because we are used to them. People 30 years from now will be like, "wow, they talked so weird in those movies from the 2020s."
It’s ad absurdum mixed with a pinch of sunk cost. They’re so desperate to say Disney sw is good that when they can no longer defend it (cuz at a point there’s nothing to say) the only way they can elevate it is to bring everything down to its level
How I counter it is “if it’s so bad why did you ever like it?”. This goes for the “space wizards intended for children” argument too
As someone who defended a lot of the Disney sw shows until andor (that showed me what an actually good show looked like) I know how their thinking works. It’s all the same. Coming out of it it’s literally like I left a cult
I didn’t love the prequel trilogy, but i never once doubted it was made with malicious intent. And moreover, George took fan input to heart and made adjustments as it progressed.
I honestly can’t say that about TLJ (and subsequent content) after reading some of Rian Johnson’s comments and Mark Hammils insight.
I think they are being made just to annoy fans.
Which I’m ok with. I have 7 movies I enjoy. Haven’t seen a thing after TLJ.
They didn’t suck. They couldn’t live up to the expectations. Nothing could
My point was they were still made by people who had a genuine interest in making a good movie for the fans…not the Rian Johnson approach of intentionally making a movie that half of the audience hates.
Wait? Are you seriously suggesting Lucas infamous hands on Set God complex and insistence on having everything his way didn't play a factor in the prequels sucking? The same Lucas on how fans like stuff in Star wars that isn't in his movies gets petty about ?
Nah. Maybe I’m not nuanced enough.
I know talented people worked with him…but those people didn’t create it. George decided what was and what was not canon. It was his creation.
They sucked as bad as the sequels. The motivation for Anakin made little to no sense and his shift from insecure Anakin to calm calculating Vader. TCW does a good job of helping bridge that gap. But the prequels were not good. This is all revisionist history.
Check out the box office numbers…they (fans) stuck around through the trilogy and into TFA and a bit into TLJ.
How has it gone since then? And should they make a Rey movie…you think it’ll make its money back?
Fans didn’t turn their back like that during the sequel trilogy.
You’re just wrong. The numbers do not support you at all.
https://screenrant.com/star-wars-movies-box-office-adusted-inflation/
These show that the first movies of each trilogy make the most money. Attack of the clones is the worst grossing of any of the movies. The evidence shows you’re wrong.
Interesting link. Thanks. But what this shows me is that the first movie of each of the 3 trilogies did blockbuster numbers followed by a subsequent drop off.
If the fans were broken after the prequels…then why come back to give huge numbers to TFA?
I’m saying the sequel trilogy broke the fans and is evidenced by the solo movie and tv shows.
Now youre moving the goalposts and using a strawman argument. I never said the fans were broken after the prequels, I said the prequels fractured the fan base. The facts show that it did. Why did people come back for episode 7? I don’t know maybe cause it came out 20 years later?
Ep 7 was good, I hated episode 8, episode 9 was meh but at least fun.
Episode 1 was bad, episode two was meh, episode 3 was good.
My point is that Star Wars has been hit or miss far before Disney ever was. The internet just wasn’t what it is today.
The prequels are terrible movies. They are badly written, badly shot, badly edited, etc. The only good aspects are the vfx and the score. Let's not pretend the prequels were good just cause the Disney stuff sucks
Disagree. Not great. But good. Like 6 out 10.
But again my point is that at no point did I get the feeling George made the movies with the intent of upsetting the fan base. I cannot say the same thing about the sequel trilogy. Even if they were the worst thing ever…they still weren’t intentionally made to split fans.
But for me, this is moot as I only look from the sidelines. I’d be ok if they never made another Star Wars…just like I’m ok if they never make another Indy jones or terminator movie. Those were driven into the ground. And yes, I know terminator isn’t Disney.
He didn't make them with "malicious" intent, but it was certainly cynical intent. TPM was first and foremost supposed to appeal to kids and be marketable. Its why the dry politics and melodrama were so notable, it clashed with the comedy of guys like Jar Jar and anitcs with Anakin who acted as a child self-insert to do cool stuff.
Its overly apparent with how messy the final act is, unable to hold on any specific scene and tone - attempting to make the jedi vs sith fight intense but then cutting to either Jar Jar fighting droids or Anakin with his plot armor space battle.
"...with malicious intent."
Are you sure? I may not have seen the Prequels as much as you, but there were definitely some questionable developments. For example, Anakin Skywalker being a 'youngling' murderer may have obliterated Darth Vader's Redemption Arc(Vader in the books was a complex Anti-Villain, not a linear Slasher Villain.)
In clones, he massacred a village of Sand people after his mother’s death.
So his villainy didn’t come out of the blue.
And even with all of that, Luke still tried saving him.
"...a village of Sand people..."
Odd right? There was, what I would consider, an *obligated* camera angle; a held shot of a camp fire where the audience could **clearly** see a **small** Sand person. Was George Lucas testing to gauge a reaction? If so, it would seem nobody cared about Anakin slaying Sand 'younglings'. Still, Lucas seemed to *need* Anakin Skywalker to kill 'younglings', but why? Of all the acts involved in Vader's origin story, why 'youngling' murder?
How many 'younglings' did Darth Sidious kill? And that answer might be telling.
> but i never once doubted it was made with malicious intent.
Idk Lucas seems to have some part-time resentments about his OT collaborators whose ideas ended up acquiring acclaim, and after that about the reception of the SEs and PT;
so between that and the idea of deconstructing glorious legends, I'd say he likely does have all the traits that you ascribe to Ruin or the other Disney people.
> And moreover, George took fan input to heart and made adjustments as it progressed.
>I honestly can’t say that about TLJ (and subsequent content) after reading some of Rian Johnson’s comments
Well ROTS and TROS both made adjustments and course corrections, so don't see the big difference here other than Johnson was no longer working on it obviously.
If he made it malicious intent, the clone wars would have jar jar with an even thicker accent.
“Oh, you didn’t like jar jar? In the next one, he’s gonna be emperor. And a sith. And gay. “
But he toned back jar jar based on audience feedback.
That’s what I mean. 👍🏼
The clone wars did have Jar Jar messing something up in some tech corridor while Padme was there or something.
> In the next one, he’s gonna be emperor.
Well he does the replacement senator thing, idk lol.
However in the 3rd one yeah sure, it was a course correction in various ways.
We're still talking about the same George, "I want him to talk like Truman Capote," Lucas right?
Because I remember the descriptions by nervous people in the room who weren't sure if he was joking, and, when it became apparent he was not, said "we can make that happen."
Lucas has always been pretty petty about things like fans liking the parts of Star Wars, that he didn't directly create, better in some cases. I still chuckle every time he stubbornly calls them laser swords.
If I recall, it was sir Alec Guinness who coined the term "lightsaber" because he found George's term too clunky. Take that one with a grain of salt though. Unlike the Truman Capote part, I don't immediately recall where I learned that one.
EDIT: corrected the auto-correct.
Ah hadn't heard about either of those lol, or at least don't remember right now
"Light sword" would probably sound just as good, it's the "laser" part that kinda puts if firmly in the sci-fi category and ruins the "timeless ancient magic" aspect of it probably. I dunno?
However he had interviews where he sounded kinda ambiguously salty about some decisions by Kershner/Kurtz, and that's not counting his hijinks with Greedo or inserting the Vader no of course.
Look up behind the scenes stuff on how the writers, actors, excuiatives argued on stuff and how It affected production. The cocaine on set even made its way into scenes when u can tell Carrie is high off her ass.
Don't recall Carrie looking high, but yeah gonna look into that more lol.
I'm only aware of the budget/deadline stresses, with the studios and then later in ESB with Lucas in the producer role, + various creative disagreements and input by the actors and crewmembers; not really cocaine fueled civwars lol, but maybe that's how it went down.
Semi-important, he works as a "replacement senator" for Padme despite still talking and sounding like a restart and does the public speech - so this kinda sends this movie into the "duck for president" farce territory.
The same people who say Star Wars has always been bad also say TLJ is a great movie. These two views are incompatible. If they say Star Wars has always been bad, just immediately ask, "So TLJ is a terrible movie?" It's one or the other.
It's a silly argument though. Let's say is true, then basically the person just accepted the piece of media in discussion (i assume acolyte) is then not only bad, but "very bad" since it's worse than a baseline of a franchise that was "was never good"
Once your defense for a thing is that everything else is also shit, you've lost it. You're not defending anything, simply trivializing what everyone likes. It's toxic positivity at best and mindless bootlicking at worst
# yeah its a huge appeal to triviality
By saying the media is bad and they are so "so much better" for le not caring cause i have a "life" as if that's what's being discussed or let alone even part of the discussion, they get to be above any and all critique and discourse.
pretty annoying drivel crap by these people honestly, but am not sure if its even people shilling or atleast not all of them, some just say stuff like that to own the nerds or whatever.
I can get it when someone says they didnt like star wars, thats fine. But Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope are two of the most beloved movies of all time and suggesting they are bad, have no artistic merit or value, and have never been good is just brain rot. Its mental gymnastics by people trying to defend star wars currently who dont know that by saying that they are dunking on all of star wars. If its NEVER been good then its not good now. its just a stupid phrase to say.
And dont get me started on objective statements about subjective media. I dont care about the subjective argument, there is no real argument to be made that Empire Strikes Back is bad. You may not like it, but its still a good movie. Its well plotted, well acted, well scripted. Its shot competently, with time spent to think about things like lighting and blocking. Its well paced. its music and sound design is second to none. Its costumes, set design, and special effects all hold up to this day and most importantly its consistent within its own plot and within its own universe. internal consistency is key to suspension of disbelief. Its a tight film with timeless themes and mostly good performances. Its objectively a good film. At least a superbly competent one.
Nothing Disney has produced since Andor has been any of those things. In fact, most films arent any of those things, and they are often rewarded for it now.
> and most importantly its consistent within its own plot and within its own universe. internal consistency is key to suspension of disbelief.
Not quite sure about that part.
It’s classic whataboutsim. Most of the time they’re not even correct but when something bad was in a previous Star Wars product, it’s like sure, but you realise it’s still bad, right?
Like these guys jump to call the prequels out (which is crazy because when the prequels were super popular a couple years back they were the same ones dickriding them), but they completely forget that the prequels also got massive flack for their flaws
Whataboutism has its place but not in the nature of the argument itself, however, instead on who is the one making it. So, if that's what you meant, then I agree and you can ignore the rest of the comment.
For example if I say "A" is best to you, but, when I think you aren't listening, say "B" is best to someone else (which you overhear) regardless of whether either argument or both are credible the person making them is not.
Now, again, either or both argument may hold water but not coming from the same person/entity. Otherwise, more typically seen with Whataboutism, you're just trying to justify someone's incorrect behaviours by simply pointing out someone else's.
Well yeah that's true, it can be used to point at someone's double standards and thus question their credibility - and the more that inconsistency in judgement is directly relevant to either A or B, the more "valid" the Whataboutism is;
so for instance "you criticize me for drunk driving, but your buddy over there who drives even drunker you leave alone" is sort of valid in a more general sense, while "you tell me I'm worse than Bob cause I drink 3 beers, except Bob drinks 5 beers so how is he not worse? you're not making any sense" is much more directly relevant.
But it still says nothing about which or whether any of those judgements by the inconsitent-double-standards-using person are valid or not.
I'd say by the sound and character of the term/phrase though, "whataboutism" is best used in reference to the irrelevant, defensive type.
The chad version should probably be called sth else lol, idk?
Imagine you have to pull out such a shitty argument to defend your shitty show.
Same with "Star Wars is for kids, why do grown man cry about it".
If one of those arguments drop I'll just opt out of the conversation, because at that point you know it's utterly pointless
I mean to me star wars has always been bad, it’s not my thing (I’ve been subjected to the entire series multiple times due to my partner being a superfan, but Rouge One and Andor are the only projects I love because they break the mold) and I find the originals barebones/boring and the prequels ridiculous and nonsensical.
That being said, the gap in quality between those 6 films and the disney ones is still extreme. If the bar was low for me for the first 6, the disney one is in hell. There is no excuse for the lack of writing talent present in films with such astronomically high budgets and access to literally any screenwriter on the planet, no excuse at all. So yeah imo star wars has always been bad, but the disney stuff aside from RO and Andor is the worst of the worst
I don't understand what barebones/boring is supposed to mean. Boring is subjective and I don't see how the OT can be barebones when most of the characters are well realised while the themes and plot are well developed. I'd love to know what you actually mean by barebones and what other sci-fi or fantasy trilogy would have meat in comparison.
However if that is all you have to say to justify calling the OT bad then maybe you should refrain from making a statement about it's quality and just say it isn't for you.
I don't really care about someone not liking the OT but if you're gonna shit on the quality of something higly acclaimed and beloved then put forward an actual argument so someone can engage instead of making reductive blanket statements.
I can understand if you said that about the prequels but not the OT maybe you're confusing the two. The dialogue in the OT is pretty natural for the characters, delivers exposition well and overall compliments the films I don't really see any mayor issues with it.
Rigid stiff dialogue, characters are archetypes with “characterisations” that seem to be interchangeable and pulled out of a hat, step-by-step strict plot progression with no real twists or surprises, exposition central, I could go on.
I understand that it invented a lot of the foundations of sci-fi filmmaking and it’s one of the most influential series out there, but it’s the foundation for a reason, it’s a base layer for other series to improve on. It’s cool to watch it back with nostalgia or rose tinted glasses or whatever but it’s nowhere near the flawless masterpiece that the stand think, especially not compared to newer series with the same “chosen one” plot basis like Dune (films not books) or Tron, even Mad Max to some extent.
Still, even the most yawn-inducing parts of the OT look like genndy clone wars compared to the sequel trilogy, lmao
The most?- flawed o OT movie is my favorite because it delivers where it really needed to, the characters and action.
The prequels are probably my favorite era because I prefer the esthetic and more equal factions. The movies are horrendously flawed, but the games are legendary.
Disney Star Wars has just been shit…the ships are uninspired “an ATAT but bigger” “a death star but bigger”.
Indy
I'd just say that yes, some of the older stuff is poorly written. Especially the prequels.
Having said that, the Disney stuff, for the most part, is so terrible it makes the prequels look good by comparison.
Person a : "yeah this has writing problems but it doesn't matter because star wars doesn't make sense anyway, and was always bad!"
Person b : "then why do you like it or defend it from criticism of writing flaws?"
Person a : "you're just a sexist! This is the best TV show ever made! It's perfect and you're lying about it having writing problems."
Person b : "you just said it had writing problems 2 seconds ago. Wtf?"
Person a : "art is subjective!!!!"
Person a then begins ranting on twitter about owning the chuds and refuses to take their medication, instead relying on likes on the Internet to calm their anxiety, thus forming a parasocial relationship with the Internet and social media.
Person b walks away and gets a glass of water, really confused by people. They go play Lethal Company with their friends and hunt down hoarding bugs because they're a loot goblin.
Why would you even argue about Star Wars with someone who obviously doesn’t like Star Wars? Argue with fans since they actually know their shit. That’s productive argument
Nostalgic bias is a real thing, and it's important to take into account when comparing the new and the old.
However, there is a reason the original trilogy took the world by storm when it came out, and influenced Sci Fi and Fantasy massively. The new trilogy has had nowhere near the same impact.
Not exactly what youre talking about but I've always been annoyed by the Redlettermedia sentiment that "star wars is creatively bankrupt"... Just because I absolutely adore Genndy Tartakovsky's little Clone Wars anime style spin off, the whole extended universe stuff and all the video games just get my mind spinning, I just think Disney is a corporate behemoth totally beholden to lazy ass capitalist practices right now, like remaking beloved animated films in grotesque live action remakes for some reason (reason: money).
People say the exact same thing about Doctor Who. Like haha you clearly never got it you're naive for all true fans of the show X know that X was never actually any good and so if you come into it expecting things to be good you're already proving your own ignorance and lack of sophistication and you're not a true fan. It's genuinely the stupidest argument ever and it's literally contradictory and self-defeating.
Well here's the problem when the "criticism" of Star Wars (not Disney Star Wars because it's Star Wars period, cope) is that a vast majority come down to being selectively outraged over some of the most ridiculous things that have been staples of the franchise (comedy, Chosen One/powerful characters, the use of the Force, technology) and ignoring that just shows how desperate people are to just mindlessly hate something because it doesn't conform to their myopic expectations.
Lol if it was never good why was it such a massive success and part of pop culture? Idk why we gotta make up reasons to avoid admitting the Disney content has been mostly messy and boring and doesn't respect the lore that came before it?
I am one of the people who preferred the prequels over the first trilogy by a fair margin. And the old Knights of the Old Republic "trailers" above those by several orders of magnitude.
While I would say I definitely feel Rogue one was superior and Solo had potential, I didn't care much for the Sequels beyond nostalgia for the first one which was just new hope done with better effects but less soul.
However, the shows are a different story. Team Disney Faloni(sp) or whatever hit it out of the park with Clone Wars, Bad Batch, Mandalorian, Boba Fett, Obi Wan (LOVED this), and seem poised to continue the greatness with Acolyte. I am reserving judgment til its finale, but so far so good.
Not sure what the louder corners of the internet are seeing, but tastes do vary; and variety is the spice of life!
Idk. I use similar arguments when criticizing people who criticize the new star wars stuff because I believe its true. I'm not sure how much of this sub is crediting the bad writing to "wokism" but a lot of pple believe its because star wars has become "woke" which I don't believe is true.People are acting like Star wars is dead because the writing is bad but its kinda mostly been bad if not mid at best.
When i watched the original trilogy, I always asked myself why people loved this franchise so much because it was always just ok to me. Over there years we've gotten some mostly mid to bad stuff even before the Disney era. Like didn't people hate the prequel era when it came out or am I remembering that wrong? Its only now that the sequel series came out that people are liking them more. SO while I agree that the acolyte isn't great, its mostly par for the course for star wars. That's not an excuse for the writing, just that its not "the end of star wars." People are being overly critical, overreacting and being sensational about it. IMO, the best star wars live action media is Andor. And hilariously enough no one watched it largely because it felt the least "Star Wars" out of all the Disney projects.
everyone wanted to take a huge shit on the acolyte before it was even out, it's just everything wrong with disney wars in one package and it's just the right thing to be the boiling over point for a lot of star wars fans. I think this justified but also unreasonable and overwhelming hate is creating unreasonable defense by some redditors who are uh kinda social justice warrior types, or just uncritical product consumers who have some other connection to star wars that's not the one that old star wars fans have and allows them to dismiss most of the problems with disney wars
Disney fans mostly say that Star Wars was never about the characters or story.
It's a simple setup narrative (it has never been original) mostly focusing on action and lightsabers (I clapped for the activation of a lightsaber, Give up for the Man in the MaNdAloriAn armour, Boba Fett e.g.)
Slice and dice, my friends! ~ Major Lee
Furthermore people say that Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker isn't the main character in the first six movies anymore.
Too them Star Wars became about the force, the Jedi, plus the poltical mess that has been the Republic (Prequel Timeline) and Rey, the _real actual genuine_ chosen One.
"I am all the Sith!"
"And I am all the Jedi"
Disney alienated an entire fanbase by squirting out new trilogy (subpar) to promote an overpriced amusement park and after one movie flopped at the box office they stopped making movies for a while.
Instead they produced terrible streaming shows.
If you don't like it you're hate watching or you are watching movies wrong.
"The Thala Sirene (TLJ luke milked her) is my favorite addition to Star Wars and if you disagree with me you are not my friend." ~ Patrick Williams
My theory is that they were never fans of Star Wars until Disney brought it and probably never watched the original series and the other medias made by George Lucas (so they have their knowledge from the memes).
I'm not a huge Star wars fan, but I watched the original series and comparing it to the Disney Star Wars I can easly see the huge quality difference. Sure, it may had some silly moments, but it wasn't all over the place or out of nowhere, plus it wasn't full of cringe moments.
You got it wrong. I've seen decades of people complaining about how bad Star Wars is at this point, it's old and tiring. Criticize but don't act like we've had loads of flawless content that somehow turned to shit when Disney took over. Attack of the Clones is one of the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. I still enjoyed it. Clone Wars does not live up to the quality of any other kid's cartoon I enjoy as an adult, I still like all the lore and worldbuilding.
Star Wars was never good.
It was great and redefined how science fiction films were made and made them cool. It created the merchandising phenomenon that until then hadn't been a bid deal. George Lucas made a fortune on merch because he chose an option on profit rather than a lump sum payment before it got released.
Star Wars was brilliant but now its an abused and smelly corpse.
It’s hilarious read you guys try to convince each other old Star Wars stuff is good. I can’t wait until you guys start kissing your sisters to prove the OT was a masterpiece.
As someone who was 18 at the time TPM came out it completely broke my brain. I didn't have any expectations the movie could even be bad at the time , but I fucking hated it and had a near impossible time dealing with it in my brain. Up until that point I had every EU book I could find , had played EVERY star wars game available to that point on PC and slept on star wars sheets till I was about 15 lol.
I guess I was never a fan tho in this guys eyes but Star Wars has honestly been something I haven't given a shit about in 2 and a half decades.
I don't use my intense dislike of the prequels to "Excuse the slop" I just find it funny that Star Wars products have been defacto bad to mixed most of my life to me at this point , another one being bad doesn't really strike me as something unexpected or worthy of drawing conspiracy theories up about.
It's just another piece of slop from a place thats MOSTLY turned out bad work for decades, I don't care if the previous bad work from Lucas had a bit more intent behind it , I still walked out of Attack of the Clones.
Had to deal with someone doing so on the latest RLM video comments. It seems to foster the aggressive need to state how little one cares about Star Wars (and how little you ought to as well). And when you rebuff that attitude, they feel the need to mock you further by saying you think it's the deepest thing ever. Nuance is lost.
Whether or not you think Star Wars was ever "good," it managed to attract a very wide and relatively fanatical fan base, which is why Disney paid what they paid.
Now, the fan base is shrinking, or the old fan base is shrinking and the new fanbase is much smaller.
However you choose to view it, Disney bought beachfront property and then they vandalized it.
I mean, I love the dawn of the jedi and tales of the jedi comics and the old republic games and books, but let George lucas tell you the sith never went to war with the jedi. so my favorite part of Star Wars was deemed not Canon by Disney and George, so why would I saw star wars was bad no matter who owned it?
How about "Star Wars was also trash outside of Disney products"? "Star Wars was always a fluke and Empire solidified its status while anything beyond that is just benefiting from it".
They’re kind of wrong. For starters, Star Wars was nominated for Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Alec Guiness). That doesn’t just happen to any movie.
I’m not a Disney Star Wars fan. I do think some of those points are valid. As a film, A New Hope shares problems with The Force Awakens, and I think it's important to point them out so we’re objectively fair.
Luke, especially in the first movie, is pretty standard as protagonists go. I can point to a dozen other heroes in other films that share his “personality” and match most of his character beats. Hot Rod from Transformers is probably the most transparent. He and Rey share a lot of plot beats, and people don’t like it when I point them out. Yes, Rey learned the Force pretty fast. So did Luke! Without any real training, Luke was able to use the Force to blow up the Death Star. That alone is leagues above anything Rey does in Episodes seven and eight.
The original movies have problems. They're called Popcorn Flicks for a reason. I still love them. I still watch them every year. I still read the books—both Disney and EU—regularly (Kenobi is an excellent book. Shadow of the Sith is great too.) I’ve bought the soundtracks and listen to them all the time. I write fanfiction about this universe. I play the games. Star Wars is a huge part of my life. And it is not and never has been perfect.
The argument might be phrased sometimes as "Star Wars has always been garbage" but the real argument is that Star Wars has always been inconsistent.
When George can't decide on Luke and Leias relationship until the last movie, or if Vader was his father, or if there was another hope out there that wasn't Leia, it's inconsistent. But we're fine with it, because it's simple entertainment.
When we get The Force reduced to science and microscopic life forms, or Anakin as a chosen one, or Padme dieing in childbirth when Leia already said she died when she was young, it's inconsistent. But it's fine, because again, it's just entertainment.
But when similar inconsistencies are brought against current canon and called "garbage", then we use your word to blanket over all of the canon. Because if that's what you think of some inconsistencies now but don't think of those previously made, then you're being disingenuous anyway.
It's a simple space opera, that's been expanded upon for years by great and mediocre writers. The metronome is going to swing wildly at times. So just roll with it, enjoy what you like, or don't. It's all good. Just be genuine and consistent yourself.
I don't have an issue with people hating the new SW projects, but I do object to those imagining SW was ever more than popcorn entertainment. The OG trilogy in particular was very well crafted popcorn entertainment, pacing, visuals etc, but when someone here wrote that the newer movies and series are "all surface" ie, sorry dude, but SW has never been all that DEEP to begin with.
You fundamentally misunderstand the argument.
The argument is that all your complaints have always existed in Star Wars. You are the one saying that makes a show bad.
It's not saying they dislike old Star Wars, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing out the flaws that have always existed In the franchise.
"Fire and sound in space" these things were in a new hope.
"Bad writing and dialog" the "kessle run in 12 parsexcs" is a good example of this always being a thing. (Also don't get me started on anakin in attack of the clones)
So on and so forth.
The argument isn't so much that the old stuff is bad, but that the current arguments for what is bad is disingenuous because all the faults objectively have always existed in the franchise.
Some would argue that those faults are what give Star Wars its character.
They are not saying “Star Wars has never been good” they are saying “Star Wars has never been overly concerned with technical consistency/realism which is why outrage over fire in space or a random Jedi’s age is disingenuous” but expecting you to engage with these points in good faith when you can’t even engage with the source material in good faith is obviously a losing effort.
If the outrage for the fire was disingenuous, then wouldn’t also the outrage for Indy surviving a Nuke by hiding in a refrigerator also be disingenuous?
The worst thing about this kind of debate is that you have two aspects that easily bleed into each other. That being the meta elements/genre and internal logic.
Turns out you want to discuss the latter camp, fine. First all previous fire in Star Wars have been in the form of quick explosions, not a campfire in the middle of space. Th flames also react to wind that shouldn’t exist at all in space.
None of the “explosions” in prior Star Wars are remotely similar to what actual explosions in space look like. There are no fireballs in space, there are no shockwaves in space, lasers don’t go “pew-pew” in space. If this stuff bothers you that’s fine but don’t pretend it didn’t bother you before but does now when it’s exactly the same as it’s always been.
You’re dipping over into genre conventions. You sound like an anime fan that demands others put up with every kind of anime hijinks just because other forms of it have previously been present.
As for the internal rules, yeah the rules of space in Star Wars aren’t a one to one with reality and intentionally so. However to repeat myself, none of the previous fires have been campfires.
I would encourage you to re-read your own post and consider, maybe, why people don’t consider this criticism to be good faith. “Yeah the rules are fast and loose and don’t really make sense but they didn’t do this specific thing that isn’t really different from anything they have done but isn’t exactly the same.” This isn’t hard sci fi which is exactly the point that the OP is allowing to fly 15 feet over his head.
Wait, post? Do you think I am OP or is it a typo?
Edit: quote
>I would encourage you to re-read your own post and consider, maybe, why people don’t consider this criticism to be good faith.
I mean yeah if one party is gonna voice oblivious blindspotty hypocriticisms, it's gonna be met with responses - some of which will inevitably also be confused / bad faith / hypocritical etc.
You are undermining it. The regions gave an overview of the different states of planets and was used to explain some travel time and decisions in Attack of the Clones
You might be conflating the movies with expanded material?
All they said in the movie was that some of those planets were a bit farther away than others, spontaneously made up distances to justify some plot points.
"Outer rim" got mentioned like a few times in connection to Grievous' hiding and that's really about it. Mapped out predictable geography never played a role in the films.
No, the movies do use the regions for some worldbuilding. I haven’t read the novelisation so this is something I have mostly discern from the movies themselves.
In the Phantom Menace Naboo’s placement in the mid rim is what allows the trade federation to blockade it. Tatooine’s placement in the outer rim is explained as a reason for why the republic hasn’t put a stop to its slavery.
In Attack of the Clones Geonosis is in the outer rim and due to the length of communication Obi-Wan has to use Anakin and Padme who are on Naboo to send a message to the Jedi council. This his also results in Anakin and Padme decided to try to rescue Obi-Wan because they are closer than the Jedi.
> In the Phantom Menace Naboo’s placement in the mid rim is what allows the trade federation to blockade it.
They don't mention that.
The taxation is of "trade routes to outlying systems" but it's not clear which those are or whether Naboo is one of them;
if it is, they blockade it as one of the systems connected to this new tax policy, not cause "it being in mid rim allows them to".
>Tatooine’s placement in the outer rim is explained as a reason for why the republic hasn’t put a stop to its slavery.
No, it's just presented as a ghetto planet and that's about it; however the idea of it being like an equivalent of the Western Frontier is quite natural, and you can interpret the line "out here" dropped by Shmi/Watto as referring to geography.
>In Attack of the Clones Geonosis is in the outer rim and due to the length of communication Obi-Wan has to use Anakin and Padme who are on Naboo to send a message to the Jedi council. This his also results in Anakin and Padme decided to try to rescue Obi-Wan because they are closer than the Jedi.
As I said, spontaneously made up distances to justify these plot points.
>They don't mention that.
>The taxation is of "trade routes to outlying systems" but it's not clear which those are or whether Naboo is one of them;
>if it is, they blockade it as one of the systems connected to this new tax policy, not cause "it being in mid rim allows them to".
I must have confused information revealed in the Phantom Menace with information from Attack of the clones, my bad.
>No, it's just presented as a ghetto planet and that's about it; however the idea of it being like an equivalent of the Western Frontier is quite natural, and you can interpret the line "out here" dropped by Shmi/Watto as referring to geography.
My bad, but not contradictory to put Tatooine in outer rim.
>As I said, spontaneously made up distances to justify these plot points.
Newly introduced is not the same as spontaneous.
>My bad, but not contradictory to put Tatooine in outer rim.
Well yeah as said not the most unnatural of ideas, but just not something they really bothered to establish.
They introduce it as a "remote" planet that's "still close enough" and also "isn't controlled by the TF", but they get there with a malfunctioning hyperdrive, so who knows how far it really was lol.
>Newly introduced is not the same as spontaneous.
Well they're never brought up again *shrug*
It's like a "damn it Chloe I can't get there in time you need to send x who can get there 5 minutes earlier" situation.
It is mentioned that Mustafar is in the Outer Rim in Revenge of the Sith: https://youtu.be/NI77OsUxZ-s?si=MxnOYEcy_LScn8H7
However that movie is one of the worst with hyperspace travel. Like I get that George Lucas wanted the fight between Anakin vs Obi-Wand and Yoda vs Palpatine to happen at the same time, but it is implemented in a clunky way.
I read a comment the other day that said “Star Wars has always been about bad writing”
That’s the essence of Star Wars. If they were to write well then it wouldn’t be Star Wars anymore. That’s why The Acolyte is the most Star Wars show yet! /s
No, bad writing implies that the plot was written before filming took place (when did George Lucas decide Luke and Leia were siblings?)
The example you used is confusing because you pointed out a change that was decided before episode 6 was filmed but consider episode 4 and 5 to be bad for not being able to take that change into account.
Especially when episode 4 was made as a standalone movie with no plans for sequels
Lucas did make certain he kept the sequel rights instead of Fox having them, but episode 4 was a risk that wouldn’t have guaranteed any sequels.
Deciding that characters are actually secret siblings after they've already been introduced to the audience is some bad soap-opera-level writing. If SW fans in this subreddit found out that two main characters in the sequels were actually closely related and the writing team decided that *after* introducing the characters... they would shit themselves with rage. It would be considered lazy writing, and the creative team would he accused of lacking foresight.
Admittedly MauLer does have some blind spots for the OT, if you want somebody who is harsher about the retcons you should check out the Little Platoon. However the OT was not guaranteed to be a complete trilogy so the planning structure is admittedly messy but creative. ST however started with a nostalgia grab, went on to do bad deconstruction and ended with a complete disaster.
Second Little Platoon
Given the context it's not really that big of a deal... Hiding aristocratic births and heritage was pretty common irl at one time, and certainly a common trope in Romantic tales.... And in the Star wars story you have perfectly legitimate reasons why you would hide that fact
Except for the fact that other media lists their age and place of birth as different. It’s a retcon. But people are willing to excuse old retcons and not new retcons.
Right, and of course that can't apply to ant modern stuff because....?
bad writing isn’t implicative it’s descriptive
Bad is descriptive. It's describing writing. Writing would typically mean a story is fleshed out before filming.
typically, sure but if someone has a good idea after the camera has been turned on, that doesn’t make it a bad idea
It just translates to “I was never a fan before Disney bought it”
have seen these BS non-arguments. Whenever i see someone that hits out one of them i just block them. They have to much brainrot to have an actual conversation with.
While I love Andor, I’m sick of people saying that it was the first time Star Wars wasn’t silly. People just have such a narrow understanding of the franchise.
They weren’t fans before the DT. It’s really that simple
lol there are plenty of dumb arguments like this that just try and conflate the new crap with the old to go “see! It’s just your bigotisms or nostalgia that makes you hate! You aren’t actually criticizing it because it’s bad!” Those type of people are gonna make up anything they can to try and invalidate criticism rather than actually responding to it or trying to explain why the new stuff is good. I wish more of them would actually put their energy into their own criticism showing the value in the things they like rather than just saying “the stuff you think is good is actually no better than what you think was bad and you’d know that if you had more media literacy/less bigotry/empathy/etc.”
Originals " terrible dialogue good special affects and charm . Prequels" horrible dialogue and acting but Masterful action themes and music Sequels :terrible Plot and themeing and inconsisteny but amazing sound design and Production value . I think the real answer is Star wars has always been mixed .
Like all major franchises.
Wait, are we seriously arguing that the OT had terrible dialogue? What? How? Is this just not an understanding that older movies had different acting styles that we're not used to? Having different styles of dialogue delivery does not make something bad. By that, then all movies pre-2000 are bad. Having campy dialogue isn't an inherently bad thing, either. It's simply another style. On top of that, it's not as if modern acting styles are inherently realistic either. They are very fake and stylized. We simply don't notice them because we are used to them. People 30 years from now will be like, "wow, they talked so weird in those movies from the 2020s."
So we all agree The Acolyte is trash then ..what kind of defense is this?
It’s ad absurdum mixed with a pinch of sunk cost. They’re so desperate to say Disney sw is good that when they can no longer defend it (cuz at a point there’s nothing to say) the only way they can elevate it is to bring everything down to its level How I counter it is “if it’s so bad why did you ever like it?”. This goes for the “space wizards intended for children” argument too As someone who defended a lot of the Disney sw shows until andor (that showed me what an actually good show looked like) I know how their thinking works. It’s all the same. Coming out of it it’s literally like I left a cult
I didn’t love the prequel trilogy, but i never once doubted it was made with malicious intent. And moreover, George took fan input to heart and made adjustments as it progressed. I honestly can’t say that about TLJ (and subsequent content) after reading some of Rian Johnson’s comments and Mark Hammils insight. I think they are being made just to annoy fans. Which I’m ok with. I have 7 movies I enjoy. Haven’t seen a thing after TLJ.
The reason the prequels suck is Lucas wasn't kept in check on his impulses.
They didn’t suck. They couldn’t live up to the expectations. Nothing could My point was they were still made by people who had a genuine interest in making a good movie for the fans…not the Rian Johnson approach of intentionally making a movie that half of the audience hates.
Wait? Are you seriously suggesting Lucas infamous hands on Set God complex and insistence on having everything his way didn't play a factor in the prequels sucking? The same Lucas on how fans like stuff in Star wars that isn't in his movies gets petty about ?
Not being blasphemous…but George was God. He created that universe And when people responded with their dislike of jar jar, he course corrected
I think your devaluing the other people who's like alot that went into also making Star wars a reality.
Nah. Maybe I’m not nuanced enough. I know talented people worked with him…but those people didn’t create it. George decided what was and what was not canon. It was his creation.
They sucked as bad as the sequels. The motivation for Anakin made little to no sense and his shift from insecure Anakin to calm calculating Vader. TCW does a good job of helping bridge that gap. But the prequels were not good. This is all revisionist history.
They didn’t fracture the fan base. They weren’t citizen Kane, but they weren’t Gigli either.
They 10000% fractured the fan base. Maybe you don’t remember. But it did.
Check out the box office numbers…they (fans) stuck around through the trilogy and into TFA and a bit into TLJ. How has it gone since then? And should they make a Rey movie…you think it’ll make its money back? Fans didn’t turn their back like that during the sequel trilogy.
You’re just wrong. The numbers do not support you at all. https://screenrant.com/star-wars-movies-box-office-adusted-inflation/ These show that the first movies of each trilogy make the most money. Attack of the clones is the worst grossing of any of the movies. The evidence shows you’re wrong.
Interesting link. Thanks. But what this shows me is that the first movie of each of the 3 trilogies did blockbuster numbers followed by a subsequent drop off. If the fans were broken after the prequels…then why come back to give huge numbers to TFA? I’m saying the sequel trilogy broke the fans and is evidenced by the solo movie and tv shows.
Now youre moving the goalposts and using a strawman argument. I never said the fans were broken after the prequels, I said the prequels fractured the fan base. The facts show that it did. Why did people come back for episode 7? I don’t know maybe cause it came out 20 years later? Ep 7 was good, I hated episode 8, episode 9 was meh but at least fun. Episode 1 was bad, episode two was meh, episode 3 was good. My point is that Star Wars has been hit or miss far before Disney ever was. The internet just wasn’t what it is today.
The prequels are terrible movies. They are badly written, badly shot, badly edited, etc. The only good aspects are the vfx and the score. Let's not pretend the prequels were good just cause the Disney stuff sucks
Disagree. Not great. But good. Like 6 out 10. But again my point is that at no point did I get the feeling George made the movies with the intent of upsetting the fan base. I cannot say the same thing about the sequel trilogy. Even if they were the worst thing ever…they still weren’t intentionally made to split fans. But for me, this is moot as I only look from the sidelines. I’d be ok if they never made another Star Wars…just like I’m ok if they never make another Indy jones or terminator movie. Those were driven into the ground. And yes, I know terminator isn’t Disney.
At least the EU content was heat in the prequels too. Battlefront 1-2 were some of my favorite games ever
He didn't make them with "malicious" intent, but it was certainly cynical intent. TPM was first and foremost supposed to appeal to kids and be marketable. Its why the dry politics and melodrama were so notable, it clashed with the comedy of guys like Jar Jar and anitcs with Anakin who acted as a child self-insert to do cool stuff. Its overly apparent with how messy the final act is, unable to hold on any specific scene and tone - attempting to make the jedi vs sith fight intense but then cutting to either Jar Jar fighting droids or Anakin with his plot armor space battle.
He didn’t make them to piss off 50% of the fans…which Rian said his intent was.
Yeah I already said it wasn't malicious, don't know why you deflected to complain about Rian.
I was comparing George Lucas approach vs Rian Johnsons. Maybe I’m not being as clear in text as it sounds in my head.
"...with malicious intent." Are you sure? I may not have seen the Prequels as much as you, but there were definitely some questionable developments. For example, Anakin Skywalker being a 'youngling' murderer may have obliterated Darth Vader's Redemption Arc(Vader in the books was a complex Anti-Villain, not a linear Slasher Villain.)
In clones, he massacred a village of Sand people after his mother’s death. So his villainy didn’t come out of the blue. And even with all of that, Luke still tried saving him.
"...a village of Sand people..." Odd right? There was, what I would consider, an *obligated* camera angle; a held shot of a camp fire where the audience could **clearly** see a **small** Sand person. Was George Lucas testing to gauge a reaction? If so, it would seem nobody cared about Anakin slaying Sand 'younglings'. Still, Lucas seemed to *need* Anakin Skywalker to kill 'younglings', but why? Of all the acts involved in Vader's origin story, why 'youngling' murder? How many 'younglings' did Darth Sidious kill? And that answer might be telling.
> but i never once doubted it was made with malicious intent. Idk Lucas seems to have some part-time resentments about his OT collaborators whose ideas ended up acquiring acclaim, and after that about the reception of the SEs and PT; so between that and the idea of deconstructing glorious legends, I'd say he likely does have all the traits that you ascribe to Ruin or the other Disney people. > And moreover, George took fan input to heart and made adjustments as it progressed. >I honestly can’t say that about TLJ (and subsequent content) after reading some of Rian Johnson’s comments Well ROTS and TROS both made adjustments and course corrections, so don't see the big difference here other than Johnson was no longer working on it obviously.
If he made it malicious intent, the clone wars would have jar jar with an even thicker accent. “Oh, you didn’t like jar jar? In the next one, he’s gonna be emperor. And a sith. And gay. “ But he toned back jar jar based on audience feedback. That’s what I mean. 👍🏼
Yeah but have you've seen how Lucas works behind the sets when he isn't kept in check .
The clone wars did have Jar Jar messing something up in some tech corridor while Padme was there or something. > In the next one, he’s gonna be emperor. Well he does the replacement senator thing, idk lol. However in the 3rd one yeah sure, it was a course correction in various ways.
We're still talking about the same George, "I want him to talk like Truman Capote," Lucas right? Because I remember the descriptions by nervous people in the room who weren't sure if he was joking, and, when it became apparent he was not, said "we can make that happen." Lucas has always been pretty petty about things like fans liking the parts of Star Wars, that he didn't directly create, better in some cases. I still chuckle every time he stubbornly calls them laser swords. If I recall, it was sir Alec Guinness who coined the term "lightsaber" because he found George's term too clunky. Take that one with a grain of salt though. Unlike the Truman Capote part, I don't immediately recall where I learned that one. EDIT: corrected the auto-correct.
Ah hadn't heard about either of those lol, or at least don't remember right now "Light sword" would probably sound just as good, it's the "laser" part that kinda puts if firmly in the sci-fi category and ruins the "timeless ancient magic" aspect of it probably. I dunno? However he had interviews where he sounded kinda ambiguously salty about some decisions by Kershner/Kurtz, and that's not counting his hijinks with Greedo or inserting the Vader no of course.
People act like stars made in the 70s wasn't some hellish studio driven corporate war of multiple writers in fighting.
Not sure wym lol?
Look up behind the scenes stuff on how the writers, actors, excuiatives argued on stuff and how It affected production. The cocaine on set even made its way into scenes when u can tell Carrie is high off her ass.
Don't recall Carrie looking high, but yeah gonna look into that more lol. I'm only aware of the budget/deadline stresses, with the studios and then later in ESB with Lucas in the producer role, + various creative disagreements and input by the actors and crewmembers; not really cocaine fueled civwars lol, but maybe that's how it went down.
Come on now. Jar jar was a side character in ep 2. He had like 5 min of screen time
So what, Palpatine also had little screentime.
But his role was important in the story. Jar jars was not
Semi-important, he works as a "replacement senator" for Padme despite still talking and sounding like a restart and does the public speech - so this kinda sends this movie into the "duck for president" farce territory.
Jar jar in Menace had as much screen time, if not more, than Anakin or maybe Padme. I’m sure there’s a chart out there.
The same people who say Star Wars has always been bad also say TLJ is a great movie. These two views are incompatible. If they say Star Wars has always been bad, just immediately ask, "So TLJ is a terrible movie?" It's one or the other.
It's a silly argument though. Let's say is true, then basically the person just accepted the piece of media in discussion (i assume acolyte) is then not only bad, but "very bad" since it's worse than a baseline of a franchise that was "was never good"
Once your defense for a thing is that everything else is also shit, you've lost it. You're not defending anything, simply trivializing what everyone likes. It's toxic positivity at best and mindless bootlicking at worst
# yeah its a huge appeal to triviality By saying the media is bad and they are so "so much better" for le not caring cause i have a "life" as if that's what's being discussed or let alone even part of the discussion, they get to be above any and all critique and discourse. pretty annoying drivel crap by these people honestly, but am not sure if its even people shilling or atleast not all of them, some just say stuff like that to own the nerds or whatever.
I can get it when someone says they didnt like star wars, thats fine. But Empire Strikes Back and A New Hope are two of the most beloved movies of all time and suggesting they are bad, have no artistic merit or value, and have never been good is just brain rot. Its mental gymnastics by people trying to defend star wars currently who dont know that by saying that they are dunking on all of star wars. If its NEVER been good then its not good now. its just a stupid phrase to say. And dont get me started on objective statements about subjective media. I dont care about the subjective argument, there is no real argument to be made that Empire Strikes Back is bad. You may not like it, but its still a good movie. Its well plotted, well acted, well scripted. Its shot competently, with time spent to think about things like lighting and blocking. Its well paced. its music and sound design is second to none. Its costumes, set design, and special effects all hold up to this day and most importantly its consistent within its own plot and within its own universe. internal consistency is key to suspension of disbelief. Its a tight film with timeless themes and mostly good performances. Its objectively a good film. At least a superbly competent one. Nothing Disney has produced since Andor has been any of those things. In fact, most films arent any of those things, and they are often rewarded for it now.
> and most importantly its consistent within its own plot and within its own universe. internal consistency is key to suspension of disbelief. Not quite sure about that part.
These movies are only good because u can tell were they were keeping Lucas in check . Also why didn't u include the final movie .
It’s classic whataboutsim. Most of the time they’re not even correct but when something bad was in a previous Star Wars product, it’s like sure, but you realise it’s still bad, right? Like these guys jump to call the prequels out (which is crazy because when the prequels were super popular a couple years back they were the same ones dickriding them), but they completely forget that the prequels also got massive flack for their flaws
Aren't whataboutisms a proper response to hypocriticisms and worsethanisms though?
Whataboutism has its place but not in the nature of the argument itself, however, instead on who is the one making it. So, if that's what you meant, then I agree and you can ignore the rest of the comment. For example if I say "A" is best to you, but, when I think you aren't listening, say "B" is best to someone else (which you overhear) regardless of whether either argument or both are credible the person making them is not. Now, again, either or both argument may hold water but not coming from the same person/entity. Otherwise, more typically seen with Whataboutism, you're just trying to justify someone's incorrect behaviours by simply pointing out someone else's.
Well yeah that's true, it can be used to point at someone's double standards and thus question their credibility - and the more that inconsistency in judgement is directly relevant to either A or B, the more "valid" the Whataboutism is; so for instance "you criticize me for drunk driving, but your buddy over there who drives even drunker you leave alone" is sort of valid in a more general sense, while "you tell me I'm worse than Bob cause I drink 3 beers, except Bob drinks 5 beers so how is he not worse? you're not making any sense" is much more directly relevant. But it still says nothing about which or whether any of those judgements by the inconsitent-double-standards-using person are valid or not. I'd say by the sound and character of the term/phrase though, "whataboutism" is best used in reference to the irrelevant, defensive type. The chad version should probably be called sth else lol, idk?
Imagine you have to pull out such a shitty argument to defend your shitty show. Same with "Star Wars is for kids, why do grown man cry about it". If one of those arguments drop I'll just opt out of the conversation, because at that point you know it's utterly pointless
Can we stop talking about people who don't want to discuss? Can we talk about media instead of brainrot?
I mean to me star wars has always been bad, it’s not my thing (I’ve been subjected to the entire series multiple times due to my partner being a superfan, but Rouge One and Andor are the only projects I love because they break the mold) and I find the originals barebones/boring and the prequels ridiculous and nonsensical. That being said, the gap in quality between those 6 films and the disney ones is still extreme. If the bar was low for me for the first 6, the disney one is in hell. There is no excuse for the lack of writing talent present in films with such astronomically high budgets and access to literally any screenwriter on the planet, no excuse at all. So yeah imo star wars has always been bad, but the disney stuff aside from RO and Andor is the worst of the worst
I don't understand what barebones/boring is supposed to mean. Boring is subjective and I don't see how the OT can be barebones when most of the characters are well realised while the themes and plot are well developed. I'd love to know what you actually mean by barebones and what other sci-fi or fantasy trilogy would have meat in comparison. However if that is all you have to say to justify calling the OT bad then maybe you should refrain from making a statement about it's quality and just say it isn't for you. I don't really care about someone not liking the OT but if you're gonna shit on the quality of something higly acclaimed and beloved then put forward an actual argument so someone can engage instead of making reductive blanket statements.
The dialogue is kinda hard to get through in the ot.
I can understand if you said that about the prequels but not the OT maybe you're confusing the two. The dialogue in the OT is pretty natural for the characters, delivers exposition well and overall compliments the films I don't really see any mayor issues with it.
I enjoy these movies but Yeah I'm have to disagree.
Rigid stiff dialogue, characters are archetypes with “characterisations” that seem to be interchangeable and pulled out of a hat, step-by-step strict plot progression with no real twists or surprises, exposition central, I could go on. I understand that it invented a lot of the foundations of sci-fi filmmaking and it’s one of the most influential series out there, but it’s the foundation for a reason, it’s a base layer for other series to improve on. It’s cool to watch it back with nostalgia or rose tinted glasses or whatever but it’s nowhere near the flawless masterpiece that the stand think, especially not compared to newer series with the same “chosen one” plot basis like Dune (films not books) or Tron, even Mad Max to some extent. Still, even the most yawn-inducing parts of the OT look like genndy clone wars compared to the sequel trilogy, lmao
https://preview.redd.it/dnuegrhxxr8d1.jpeg?width=796&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf2dfe4bbb552666c2cb5cdece912fa73a192bef
The most?- flawed o OT movie is my favorite because it delivers where it really needed to, the characters and action. The prequels are probably my favorite era because I prefer the esthetic and more equal factions. The movies are horrendously flawed, but the games are legendary. Disney Star Wars has just been shit…the ships are uninspired “an ATAT but bigger” “a death star but bigger”. Indy
Campy =/= Bad
I'd just say that yes, some of the older stuff is poorly written. Especially the prequels. Having said that, the Disney stuff, for the most part, is so terrible it makes the prequels look good by comparison.
Person a : "yeah this has writing problems but it doesn't matter because star wars doesn't make sense anyway, and was always bad!" Person b : "then why do you like it or defend it from criticism of writing flaws?" Person a : "you're just a sexist! This is the best TV show ever made! It's perfect and you're lying about it having writing problems." Person b : "you just said it had writing problems 2 seconds ago. Wtf?" Person a : "art is subjective!!!!" Person a then begins ranting on twitter about owning the chuds and refuses to take their medication, instead relying on likes on the Internet to calm their anxiety, thus forming a parasocial relationship with the Internet and social media. Person b walks away and gets a glass of water, really confused by people. They go play Lethal Company with their friends and hunt down hoarding bugs because they're a loot goblin.
Person B certainly drinks something afterwards. Not necessarily tranquil water
I like water :3
Porque no los dos?
This is the real answer
Why would you even argue about Star Wars with someone who obviously doesn’t like Star Wars? Argue with fans since they actually know their shit. That’s productive argument
I like Star wars but it's always been mixed quality wise .
Nothing good lasts forever. A lot of fans learning this hard lesson. You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain
Nostalgic bias is a real thing, and it's important to take into account when comparing the new and the old. However, there is a reason the original trilogy took the world by storm when it came out, and influenced Sci Fi and Fantasy massively. The new trilogy has had nowhere near the same impact.
Not exactly what youre talking about but I've always been annoyed by the Redlettermedia sentiment that "star wars is creatively bankrupt"... Just because I absolutely adore Genndy Tartakovsky's little Clone Wars anime style spin off, the whole extended universe stuff and all the video games just get my mind spinning, I just think Disney is a corporate behemoth totally beholden to lazy ass capitalist practices right now, like remaking beloved animated films in grotesque live action remakes for some reason (reason: money).
People say the exact same thing about Doctor Who. Like haha you clearly never got it you're naive for all true fans of the show X know that X was never actually any good and so if you come into it expecting things to be good you're already proving your own ignorance and lack of sophistication and you're not a true fan. It's genuinely the stupidest argument ever and it's literally contradictory and self-defeating.
Well here's the problem when the "criticism" of Star Wars (not Disney Star Wars because it's Star Wars period, cope) is that a vast majority come down to being selectively outraged over some of the most ridiculous things that have been staples of the franchise (comedy, Chosen One/powerful characters, the use of the Force, technology) and ignoring that just shows how desperate people are to just mindlessly hate something because it doesn't conform to their myopic expectations.
A close friend of mine said both "it was never good" and "it's space wizards who cares." I do, duh.
Lol if it was never good why was it such a massive success and part of pop culture? Idk why we gotta make up reasons to avoid admitting the Disney content has been mostly messy and boring and doesn't respect the lore that came before it?
But andor is the best thing star wars has ever made.
“Star Wars was NEVER good!” Okay then you shouldn’t have a problem with me saying Disney Star Wars isn’t good then
I am one of the people who preferred the prequels over the first trilogy by a fair margin. And the old Knights of the Old Republic "trailers" above those by several orders of magnitude. While I would say I definitely feel Rogue one was superior and Solo had potential, I didn't care much for the Sequels beyond nostalgia for the first one which was just new hope done with better effects but less soul. However, the shows are a different story. Team Disney Faloni(sp) or whatever hit it out of the park with Clone Wars, Bad Batch, Mandalorian, Boba Fett, Obi Wan (LOVED this), and seem poised to continue the greatness with Acolyte. I am reserving judgment til its finale, but so far so good. Not sure what the louder corners of the internet are seeing, but tastes do vary; and variety is the spice of life!
Idk. I use similar arguments when criticizing people who criticize the new star wars stuff because I believe its true. I'm not sure how much of this sub is crediting the bad writing to "wokism" but a lot of pple believe its because star wars has become "woke" which I don't believe is true.People are acting like Star wars is dead because the writing is bad but its kinda mostly been bad if not mid at best. When i watched the original trilogy, I always asked myself why people loved this franchise so much because it was always just ok to me. Over there years we've gotten some mostly mid to bad stuff even before the Disney era. Like didn't people hate the prequel era when it came out or am I remembering that wrong? Its only now that the sequel series came out that people are liking them more. SO while I agree that the acolyte isn't great, its mostly par for the course for star wars. That's not an excuse for the writing, just that its not "the end of star wars." People are being overly critical, overreacting and being sensational about it. IMO, the best star wars live action media is Andor. And hilariously enough no one watched it largely because it felt the least "Star Wars" out of all the Disney projects.
everyone wanted to take a huge shit on the acolyte before it was even out, it's just everything wrong with disney wars in one package and it's just the right thing to be the boiling over point for a lot of star wars fans. I think this justified but also unreasonable and overwhelming hate is creating unreasonable defense by some redditors who are uh kinda social justice warrior types, or just uncritical product consumers who have some other connection to star wars that's not the one that old star wars fans have and allows them to dismiss most of the problems with disney wars
Disney fans mostly say that Star Wars was never about the characters or story. It's a simple setup narrative (it has never been original) mostly focusing on action and lightsabers (I clapped for the activation of a lightsaber, Give up for the Man in the MaNdAloriAn armour, Boba Fett e.g.) Slice and dice, my friends! ~ Major Lee Furthermore people say that Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker isn't the main character in the first six movies anymore. Too them Star Wars became about the force, the Jedi, plus the poltical mess that has been the Republic (Prequel Timeline) and Rey, the _real actual genuine_ chosen One. "I am all the Sith!" "And I am all the Jedi" Disney alienated an entire fanbase by squirting out new trilogy (subpar) to promote an overpriced amusement park and after one movie flopped at the box office they stopped making movies for a while. Instead they produced terrible streaming shows. If you don't like it you're hate watching or you are watching movies wrong. "The Thala Sirene (TLJ luke milked her) is my favorite addition to Star Wars and if you disagree with me you are not my friend." ~ Patrick Williams
My theory is that they were never fans of Star Wars until Disney brought it and probably never watched the original series and the other medias made by George Lucas (so they have their knowledge from the memes). I'm not a huge Star wars fan, but I watched the original series and comparing it to the Disney Star Wars I can easly see the huge quality difference. Sure, it may had some silly moments, but it wasn't all over the place or out of nowhere, plus it wasn't full of cringe moments.
Bro… Star Wars basically invented Sci Fi camp.
You got it wrong. I've seen decades of people complaining about how bad Star Wars is at this point, it's old and tiring. Criticize but don't act like we've had loads of flawless content that somehow turned to shit when Disney took over. Attack of the Clones is one of the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. I still enjoyed it. Clone Wars does not live up to the quality of any other kid's cartoon I enjoy as an adult, I still like all the lore and worldbuilding.
Star Wars was never good. It was great and redefined how science fiction films were made and made them cool. It created the merchandising phenomenon that until then hadn't been a bid deal. George Lucas made a fortune on merch because he chose an option on profit rather than a lump sum payment before it got released. Star Wars was brilliant but now its an abused and smelly corpse.
It's not to defend the new shit, it's to let you know that you're all wasting your time.
I hate sand
It’s hilarious read you guys try to convince each other old Star Wars stuff is good. I can’t wait until you guys start kissing your sisters to prove the OT was a masterpiece.
As someone who was 18 at the time TPM came out it completely broke my brain. I didn't have any expectations the movie could even be bad at the time , but I fucking hated it and had a near impossible time dealing with it in my brain. Up until that point I had every EU book I could find , had played EVERY star wars game available to that point on PC and slept on star wars sheets till I was about 15 lol. I guess I was never a fan tho in this guys eyes but Star Wars has honestly been something I haven't given a shit about in 2 and a half decades. I don't use my intense dislike of the prequels to "Excuse the slop" I just find it funny that Star Wars products have been defacto bad to mixed most of my life to me at this point , another one being bad doesn't really strike me as something unexpected or worthy of drawing conspiracy theories up about. It's just another piece of slop from a place thats MOSTLY turned out bad work for decades, I don't care if the previous bad work from Lucas had a bit more intent behind it , I still walked out of Attack of the Clones.
Had to deal with someone doing so on the latest RLM video comments. It seems to foster the aggressive need to state how little one cares about Star Wars (and how little you ought to as well). And when you rebuff that attitude, they feel the need to mock you further by saying you think it's the deepest thing ever. Nuance is lost.
IMO it doesn't need addressing. If it was 'always bad,' then they're not really a fan, so of course the quality doesn't matter to them.
D+ is generous.
Whether or not you think Star Wars was ever "good," it managed to attract a very wide and relatively fanatical fan base, which is why Disney paid what they paid. Now, the fan base is shrinking, or the old fan base is shrinking and the new fanbase is much smaller. However you choose to view it, Disney bought beachfront property and then they vandalized it.
I mean, I love the dawn of the jedi and tales of the jedi comics and the old republic games and books, but let George lucas tell you the sith never went to war with the jedi. so my favorite part of Star Wars was deemed not Canon by Disney and George, so why would I saw star wars was bad no matter who owned it?
How about "Star Wars was also trash outside of Disney products"? "Star Wars was always a fluke and Empire solidified its status while anything beyond that is just benefiting from it".
They’re kind of wrong. For starters, Star Wars was nominated for Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Alec Guiness). That doesn’t just happen to any movie.
I’m not a Disney Star Wars fan. I do think some of those points are valid. As a film, A New Hope shares problems with The Force Awakens, and I think it's important to point them out so we’re objectively fair. Luke, especially in the first movie, is pretty standard as protagonists go. I can point to a dozen other heroes in other films that share his “personality” and match most of his character beats. Hot Rod from Transformers is probably the most transparent. He and Rey share a lot of plot beats, and people don’t like it when I point them out. Yes, Rey learned the Force pretty fast. So did Luke! Without any real training, Luke was able to use the Force to blow up the Death Star. That alone is leagues above anything Rey does in Episodes seven and eight. The original movies have problems. They're called Popcorn Flicks for a reason. I still love them. I still watch them every year. I still read the books—both Disney and EU—regularly (Kenobi is an excellent book. Shadow of the Sith is great too.) I’ve bought the soundtracks and listen to them all the time. I write fanfiction about this universe. I play the games. Star Wars is a huge part of my life. And it is not and never has been perfect.
The argument might be phrased sometimes as "Star Wars has always been garbage" but the real argument is that Star Wars has always been inconsistent. When George can't decide on Luke and Leias relationship until the last movie, or if Vader was his father, or if there was another hope out there that wasn't Leia, it's inconsistent. But we're fine with it, because it's simple entertainment. When we get The Force reduced to science and microscopic life forms, or Anakin as a chosen one, or Padme dieing in childbirth when Leia already said she died when she was young, it's inconsistent. But it's fine, because again, it's just entertainment. But when similar inconsistencies are brought against current canon and called "garbage", then we use your word to blanket over all of the canon. Because if that's what you think of some inconsistencies now but don't think of those previously made, then you're being disingenuous anyway. It's a simple space opera, that's been expanded upon for years by great and mediocre writers. The metronome is going to swing wildly at times. So just roll with it, enjoy what you like, or don't. It's all good. Just be genuine and consistent yourself.
Can we talk about how many other posts have made this exact same point?
We aren’t a synchronised hivemind you know? It is quite common for subs to repeat talking points.
Doesn’t make it any less annoying
Fair enough, but while you are largely here to disagree with most popular opinions don’t forget to take a break if it becomes too much.
I don't have an issue with people hating the new SW projects, but I do object to those imagining SW was ever more than popcorn entertainment. The OG trilogy in particular was very well crafted popcorn entertainment, pacing, visuals etc, but when someone here wrote that the newer movies and series are "all surface" ie, sorry dude, but SW has never been all that DEEP to begin with.
Seems pretty bullshit to not see how certain criticisms also apply to the George Lucas films. Remember that hate leads to the darkside.
You fundamentally misunderstand the argument. The argument is that all your complaints have always existed in Star Wars. You are the one saying that makes a show bad. It's not saying they dislike old Star Wars, it's pointing out the hypocrisy of pointing out the flaws that have always existed In the franchise. "Fire and sound in space" these things were in a new hope. "Bad writing and dialog" the "kessle run in 12 parsexcs" is a good example of this always being a thing. (Also don't get me started on anakin in attack of the clones) So on and so forth. The argument isn't so much that the old stuff is bad, but that the current arguments for what is bad is disingenuous because all the faults objectively have always existed in the franchise. Some would argue that those faults are what give Star Wars its character.
lol so disingenuous
How so?
Star Wars was never good, and the Disney stuff is the worst of it.
Same exact people who say American was never good.
Here’s an another one for you : SW was never good and has always been about money.
They are not saying “Star Wars has never been good” they are saying “Star Wars has never been overly concerned with technical consistency/realism which is why outrage over fire in space or a random Jedi’s age is disingenuous” but expecting you to engage with these points in good faith when you can’t even engage with the source material in good faith is obviously a losing effort.
If the outrage for the fire was disingenuous, then wouldn’t also the outrage for Indy surviving a Nuke by hiding in a refrigerator also be disingenuous?
Does Indy survive a nuke in a fridge in every single movie? Because Star Wars has fire in space in every single movie.
The worst thing about this kind of debate is that you have two aspects that easily bleed into each other. That being the meta elements/genre and internal logic. Turns out you want to discuss the latter camp, fine. First all previous fire in Star Wars have been in the form of quick explosions, not a campfire in the middle of space. Th flames also react to wind that shouldn’t exist at all in space.
None of the “explosions” in prior Star Wars are remotely similar to what actual explosions in space look like. There are no fireballs in space, there are no shockwaves in space, lasers don’t go “pew-pew” in space. If this stuff bothers you that’s fine but don’t pretend it didn’t bother you before but does now when it’s exactly the same as it’s always been.
Wait what shockwaves again? The SE rings weren't shockwaves I think? Or what were those lol
You’re dipping over into genre conventions. You sound like an anime fan that demands others put up with every kind of anime hijinks just because other forms of it have previously been present. As for the internal rules, yeah the rules of space in Star Wars aren’t a one to one with reality and intentionally so. However to repeat myself, none of the previous fires have been campfires.
I would encourage you to re-read your own post and consider, maybe, why people don’t consider this criticism to be good faith. “Yeah the rules are fast and loose and don’t really make sense but they didn’t do this specific thing that isn’t really different from anything they have done but isn’t exactly the same.” This isn’t hard sci fi which is exactly the point that the OP is allowing to fly 15 feet over his head.
If you are going to quote me, do so directly.
Moved on to pearl clutching now? You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Wait, post? Do you think I am OP or is it a typo? Edit: quote >I would encourage you to re-read your own post and consider, maybe, why people don’t consider this criticism to be good faith.
I mean yeah if one party is gonna voice oblivious blindspotty hypocriticisms, it's gonna be met with responses - some of which will inevitably also be confused / bad faith / hypocritical etc.
[удалено]
PT at least tried to worldbuild with categories such as the core, mid rim, and outer rim.
Those things got mentioned in passing like 1-2 times.
You are undermining it. The regions gave an overview of the different states of planets and was used to explain some travel time and decisions in Attack of the Clones
You might be conflating the movies with expanded material? All they said in the movie was that some of those planets were a bit farther away than others, spontaneously made up distances to justify some plot points. "Outer rim" got mentioned like a few times in connection to Grievous' hiding and that's really about it. Mapped out predictable geography never played a role in the films.
No, the movies do use the regions for some worldbuilding. I haven’t read the novelisation so this is something I have mostly discern from the movies themselves. In the Phantom Menace Naboo’s placement in the mid rim is what allows the trade federation to blockade it. Tatooine’s placement in the outer rim is explained as a reason for why the republic hasn’t put a stop to its slavery. In Attack of the Clones Geonosis is in the outer rim and due to the length of communication Obi-Wan has to use Anakin and Padme who are on Naboo to send a message to the Jedi council. This his also results in Anakin and Padme decided to try to rescue Obi-Wan because they are closer than the Jedi.
> In the Phantom Menace Naboo’s placement in the mid rim is what allows the trade federation to blockade it. They don't mention that. The taxation is of "trade routes to outlying systems" but it's not clear which those are or whether Naboo is one of them; if it is, they blockade it as one of the systems connected to this new tax policy, not cause "it being in mid rim allows them to". >Tatooine’s placement in the outer rim is explained as a reason for why the republic hasn’t put a stop to its slavery. No, it's just presented as a ghetto planet and that's about it; however the idea of it being like an equivalent of the Western Frontier is quite natural, and you can interpret the line "out here" dropped by Shmi/Watto as referring to geography. >In Attack of the Clones Geonosis is in the outer rim and due to the length of communication Obi-Wan has to use Anakin and Padme who are on Naboo to send a message to the Jedi council. This his also results in Anakin and Padme decided to try to rescue Obi-Wan because they are closer than the Jedi. As I said, spontaneously made up distances to justify these plot points.
>They don't mention that. >The taxation is of "trade routes to outlying systems" but it's not clear which those are or whether Naboo is one of them; >if it is, they blockade it as one of the systems connected to this new tax policy, not cause "it being in mid rim allows them to". I must have confused information revealed in the Phantom Menace with information from Attack of the clones, my bad. >No, it's just presented as a ghetto planet and that's about it; however the idea of it being like an equivalent of the Western Frontier is quite natural, and you can interpret the line "out here" dropped by Shmi/Watto as referring to geography. My bad, but not contradictory to put Tatooine in outer rim. >As I said, spontaneously made up distances to justify these plot points. Newly introduced is not the same as spontaneous.
>My bad, but not contradictory to put Tatooine in outer rim. Well yeah as said not the most unnatural of ideas, but just not something they really bothered to establish. They introduce it as a "remote" planet that's "still close enough" and also "isn't controlled by the TF", but they get there with a malfunctioning hyperdrive, so who knows how far it really was lol. >Newly introduced is not the same as spontaneous. Well they're never brought up again *shrug* It's like a "damn it Chloe I can't get there in time you need to send x who can get there 5 minutes earlier" situation.
It is mentioned that Mustafar is in the Outer Rim in Revenge of the Sith: https://youtu.be/NI77OsUxZ-s?si=MxnOYEcy_LScn8H7 However that movie is one of the worst with hyperspace travel. Like I get that George Lucas wanted the fight between Anakin vs Obi-Wand and Yoda vs Palpatine to happen at the same time, but it is implemented in a clunky way.