ST Franchise's Legacy vs. Short Term Profit

I'm not pretending to see no failings in the movies. I feel sorry for you that your opinion of them is so low. Your loss.

 

No, its every ones loss.

 

Next, some guy who thinks gingers are ugly is going to tell me I'm not mature enough to admit that redheads are unattractive. What is with dudes and their fetishes?

 

Bad logical argument.

We're talking about specific CGI effects in specific movies. Not all CGI effects in all movies.

We're also talking about technical work vs beauty. You can say that work is good or bad. Believing bad work is actually good doesn't make it good (if that was true, any student could argue THEY believe their Eassy that got an F was worth an A, and they'd be right). There is no good way you can argue that the Commander Cody head replacment or Palpatine lightsaber fight are examples of good CGI work.....they simply are not.

 

I don't deny the existence of cycles, but those cycles were decades long in their intervals; not a few years. The difference, though, is SW is a unified homogeneous brand, and such brands have a homogeneous image. One bad film can hurt the entire brand whereas it takes a series of bad animated films to ruin the heterogeneous Disney animation brand.They understand that quality sells tickets now, but anything--like a change of CEO, market, or general brand perception--can change that. Sadly. But this is more dangerous for SW because it's way harder to start fresh; all the films are too aesthetically similar.

Don't speak too soon.

 

They got through the PT fine. How much worse could it get?

 

It's still a good shot. I love the composition and design and overall feel. Just like in the OOT, I didn't care about the unrealistic elements within shots. That's not how I judge movies. I've been picking these apart since the OT came out. It's not going to ruin the shots, scenes or films now. Growing up with special effects far worse than ILM had to offer, you have to learn to judge on more than realism. I like big butts and I can not lie.

 

The PT had it's fans. Not only that, there is 10 years between the PT and the ST of no large scale use of the brand apart from toys and cartoons. That's enough rest for it to reset in the minds of the mainstream audience.

The big difference here is that with Disney and its assured continual use of the brand--if we were to have a PT again God forbid -- such a rest will never happen. Disney made Animated features continually between 1977 and the 89 Renaissance. That's great for separate films in the same tradition, but for ones in a supposed shared universe? You just risk hurting your brand even more.

 

There is a great article in the New York Times today that touches on a few of the subjects we've been talking about here. http://nyti.ms/1KHp7v2

 

Rather less dramatic then your usual banhammers.

 

Ah that makes sense cant burn through all your good material. Does December count as soon?

 

From the article: "Star Wars’ Doesn’t Belong to George Lucas. It Belongs to the Fans."
Do fans feel more or less control over the saga now that Lucasfilm has a parent company with shareholders? If Disney feels it is gifting us Star Wars from the clutches of the vile and greedy George Lucas, I'd consider it to be more of a trojan horse type gift myself.

 

I think the point is that Star Wars outgrew Lucas decades ago and that his business acumen is not unlike Disney's. It even points out Disney was his studio of choice when he was pitching the original Star Wars.

 

Do you think the same fans who said "Star Wars doesn't belong to George Lucas" are ever going to start saying "Star Wars doesn't belong to Lucasfilm" and "Star Wars doesn't belong to Disney?" I don't think so.