Not for me. I'm not getting any younger. If Marvel can have four movies a year theres no reason we can't get a Star Wars every year.Quoting TGM (view post)
But yes, get competent filmmakers that share your vision and let it go. No more of the director(s) who made one good movie getting the reigns of these massive productions. There are plenty of established directors who will play ball.
In Lucasfilm's defense, it took Marvel 15 films and 9 years to get this "right". Spider-man Homecoming was the first film where they let loose of the reigns. That's not say those first 15 films were not financially successful and solid entries, but more so on the balance on how to deal with their vision and allowing film makers to have their own creative control.
Most people dont know about the Ike Perlmutter debacle.
Spider-Man Homecoming is also one of the worst in the whole cinematic universe though. Not to mention, a pretty bad example of saying Marvel was finally letting a director really take the reigns and do their thing. Guardians of the Galaxy? Captain America? The Avengers? Iron Man 3? All feel like their director's direct vision, and it really wasn't until their successors in many occasions (GotG2, Age of Ultron) where it felt like the reigns were really being pulled back on them more.
And 15 movies to get it right? They've had hiccups here or there, more notably the further along they've gone with the whole deal, but for the most part, they've been getting it right since Iron Man 1.
Really, the way Marvel's been handled and how Star Wars has been handled are pretty incomparable thus far I'd say..
What's your definition of 'one of the worst'? IF it's anything other than that's the ranking of the films when you stack them all next to each other, then no... it's not. One of the 20 movies has to be the ranked 10th out of 20. That's just math.
Homecoming was when the movies stopped becoming formulaic copies of themselves (with the rare exception being Iron Man 3). Homecoming, Ragnarok, Black Panther Infinity War are all different breeds of movies compared to the ones that came before it.
I find this strain of the conversation rather irrelevant to the original topic. All those movies banked, whether or not they were received well by critics or fans. If Solo made a billion there wouldn't be anything put on hold.
Yeh it didn't bank because it wasn't that good, because Lucasfilm doesn't know what the fuck their doing, but Marvel does, and both studios are owned by Disney. So how is it irrelevant?
I don't think I can either agree with anything you just said, nor really understand how you can possibly think that, to be completely honest. o.O
If anything, Homecoming came out right smack dab in the middle of the MCU movies being even more formulaic than they've ever before been, starting with Ant-Man onward. Hence my growing frustration with so many of the later entries as a result.
And as for my "one of the worst" comments, Homecoming is easily bottom 5 MCU, IMO at least. So again, a strange one to point out at as being the movie where they finally "got it right".
It's not strange to point out when you don't think it's in the bottom 5. So it's strange for you to say it's strange when you can't easily see that.
As for it coming out in the middle of formulaic hell. Yeh, GotG2 suffers from it. And Homecoming was the first movie developed Ike Perlmutter free. Don't sit there and tell me that Ragnarok is formulaic because it's anything but. Ant-man suffered from pre-production hell too with the Wright stuff. So that's well understood (Also under Perlmutter).
Last edited by Dukefrukem; 06-20-2018 at 09:37 PM. Reason: i cant spell
Sometimes the question contains the answer.
The trouble with the whole idea of the Star Wars universe is that the underlying backdrop is, well, a random galaxy and generic sci-fi elements. Remove the Skywalker tale and the force, and there is nothing else really there to act as a unifying force for a CU. So, while of course it is possible to get good films out of it, I think the studio is wasting its time trying to copy Marvel, which has a mammoth bench of characters to work with while having a universe small enough to allow constant interactions between these characters, thus providing cohesion from an audience perspective.
Last 10 Movies Seen
(90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)
Run (2020) 64
The Whistlers (2019) 55
Pawn (2020) 62
Matilda (1996) 37
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) 61
Moby Dick (2011) 50
Soul (2020) 64
Heroic Duo (2003) 55
A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
As Tears Go By (1988) 65
Stuff at Letterboxd
Listening Habits at LastFM
That's a good point Trans. Star Wars just isn't that interesting without the Force.
Ragnarok is totally formulaic though, particularly with its use of humor throughout, taking what they started with Doctor Strange in regards to their new forced/subversive style of humor (an aspect which was further built upon in GotG2), and ramping it up to 100 by the time we got to Thor 3. It's not just formulaic, it's obnoxiously so.
But anyways, as to Star Wars, it's not just the quality of Solo that determined its lack of box office, but all the new Disney Star Wars movies so far. They've all been polarizing to some degree, but none more so than The Last Jedi. And by this point, people are losing their faith and even interest in the franchise as a result, hence them not returning in droves for Solo.
Marvel's mostly made more or less universally pleasing movies so far, so they don't have that bad report to deal with, even when they do release a less than stellar entry here or there.
Ironically, Lucasfilm's most blatant efforts to mimic Marvel's tropes also came in their most polarizing film to date. What they neglected to mimic though was actually making a good solid movie that leaves their audiences at large pleased and leaving the theater wanting more.
You're definition of formulaic, or what you think is formulaic is off. Ragnarok was universally praised for doing something different with the Thor franchise. Comparing it to Doctor strange (again under Perlmutter and almost a carbon copy if Iron Man) is not the point to make at all because those movies are astoundingly different. There's barely any humor in Doctor Strange.
To answer your question without being a snotty fuck, though...we agree. Regardless of what we or critics think of the MCU movies, Marvel was right to make sure their directors toe the line until the masses were hooked. Disney thought just slapping "Star Wars" on anything directed by anyone would be enough, and duh, it isn't. You cannot just hand off massive productions to rookies. Its a rarity that that works out. The old Star Wars brand in the olden times was established, this 21st century version is not. Yes they've had some hits, but good will only goes so far.
Edit: Critical reception to either SW or MCU is irrelevant when they make a billion. Completely irrelevant.
This is all partially why I find these anthology movies so uninteresting. There's just not that much to really explore with these films. They all more or less have the same look and aesthetic, with the same imagery of troopers and the same ships and such. Marvel provides a lot of opportunity to explore unique worlds with unique looks and characters, but Star Wars is mostly just the same.
Granted, the prequels did a good job trying to deviate at times a little, showing the early stages on the universe and how different it all looked and operated in the earlier days, but Disney's shown no interest in exploring anything new or different from the typical same old iconic imagery that we're all already familiar with, despite such a passage of time, but in universe, and IRL.
But that's partly why Marvel can work with multiple movies in a year, while its probably better for Star Wars to stay on the backburner some. Keep it fresh and feeling special by only giving it to us once every few years, if not decades. Because by releasing a new entry every hear, they really quickly exposed just how little there is to continue to wow us with on a yearly basis.
Agree to disagree.
A lot about Solo was mismanaged, not just the directors, but also the marketing and release date.
And also I think Rogue One coasted into a lot of money after The Force Awakens in a slightly similar way to how Alice in Wonderland coasted into the wake of Avatar, where people were still riding the hype high of a huge and long-promised release, and then another film comes along that pledges to appeal to that exact thirst (Rogue one with its brand, Alice with the promise of then-new 3D spectacle). Rogue One also has the benefit of a memorable final five minutes, which made for some cheap but effective word-of-mouth.
I don't think it's as simple as making a good movie, although that obviously can (and should) be a factor.
That goes back to my original point that it took 15 films and 9 years for Marvel to get it right.
Duke, if it really took them that long to get it right, they would've never even made it to 15 films in the first place. :\
But that's why I put it in quotes. I was taking the financials out of it.
Another question that could be asked, is it really necessary for all this expanded universe stuff to be done in movies anyways? What was so wrong with exploring the expanded universe in comics, novels, video games, and other media, and leaving the movies for the main entries of the series?
Nothing at all. I think fans want this don't they?
Personally, I want a Shadows of the Empire or Jedi Temple movie. Something with Kyle Katan.
Nothing is necessary. Its all about the buck.
All Marvel movies are formulaic. Every single one of them. It's just some of them have the sheen of directorial voice to distract from the fact (Thor 3, GotG, IM3). I do think it odd to think S:H is the turning point because (a) it is just as formulaic as all the rest, and Watt has no real personality as a director, and (b) it was followed by Black Panther, my pick for the most boring Marvel movie of them all, and it's not even close.
Last 10 Movies Seen
(90+ = canonical, 80-89 = brilliant, 70-79 = strongly recommended, 60-69 = good, 50-59 = mixed, 40-49 = below average with some good points, 30-39 = poor, 20-29 = bad, 10-19 = terrible, 0-9 = soul-crushingly inept in every way)
Run (2020) 64
The Whistlers (2019) 55
Pawn (2020) 62
Matilda (1996) 37
The Town that Dreaded Sundown (1976) 61
Moby Dick (2011) 50
Soul (2020) 64
Heroic Duo (2003) 55
A Moment of Romance (1990) 61
As Tears Go By (1988) 65
Stuff at Letterboxd
Listening Habits at LastFM
This page made my head hurt a little but one or two sensible points were raised and this is one. The Marvel universe, like all comic-book multiverses, is a mish mash of different genres, characters and settings. The Star Wars universe is by its definition more limited. There has to be some type of struggle between the light and the dark sides and there have to be Jedis at some point because they're the one thing that makes it stand out from any other futuristic setting. It would be like building an entire cinematic universe (to use the parlance of our times) out of Green Lantern stories.
That being said, the Star Wars expanded universe is vast. I've never read too much of that stuff but it was incredibly arrogant of Disney to throw it all in the garbage can inmediately.
Last edited by Grouchy; 06-21-2018 at 02:11 AM.
Posting Permissions
forum
Reply With Quote