ST The New Definitely Not Improved Even More Horrible Than The Last Two Rumors Thread

he has some Superman characteristics but more in terms of personality. But yeah still recall how people were mocked back pre-TLJ anytime anyone brought up Luke by the ST would be very powerful. And we ended up with teleporting Luke anyways.

it's very obvious that Kybo Ren was 0 match from Luke, one can easily see it from their few second fight and more reason as to why he was killed off.

TLJ kills off both masters on both sides just to bring back Palps and make the 2 "apprentices" having to fight him.

 

That Palpatine art is probably just from the action figure and reapplied by an artist in that style to the glasses. Don’t think we’re seeing anything new there.

I remember Snoke’s appearance being the biggest most spoilery thing you could’ve seen in the week leading up to TFA. Then it came out and it was like, “Oh okay. Cool.” People were arguing about Snoke being Plagueis right up until the end.

It’s probably not a big deal, but I’m really hoping he looks like he’s in really awful shape in the first half of the movie.

 

I'm like you in that way because I hold out hope even when I tell myself that I've completely given up. I took Luke as that way as well but I can see why one would assume that he had given up after Vader rejected him and took him to the Emperor anyway.

Wow, that's so amazing that you got to see it with your family back when it first came out. In a sense your experience is similar to mine because the first Star Wars film I saw in theaters was Revenge of the Sith so both of us were flung into the franchise through the last film of their respective trilogies. I was hooked as well and watched the OT after that and then finished up the PT.

Actually I agree with you that the likelihood of Vader turning seemed very slim. In part, because I think Vader had resigned himself to his fate and didn't think he could be redeemed. The only thing that gets him to change is when his son is on the brink of death and even that act isn't so much for redemption as much as it's to save his son.

Hmmm, now I'm curious as to what you see in their reactions that seems deeper than the superficial level. Especially if that has any impact on Leia's role in this final film in taking down Palpatine and her relationship with Ben and Rey.

That's true, Luke could easily have been killed from that experience. It's no wonder Leia told him to run far away because that was the more pragmatic choice.

Well, I think the ST is like that in part because it builds on two previous trilogies which are about the redemption of a central character. The OT may not have started like that but it certainly ended that way especially when you factor in the PT and why it was created. So it makes sense that the ST would then really hone in on the redemption aspect for the new Skywalker character. That was suggested from the very first scene of TFA with Lor San Tekka.

A lot of OT fans online have mentioned not being satisfied with Anakin's portrayal compared to how they pictured him. Many of them also say that his Clone Wars depiction was more along the lines of what they wanted or expected. I agree that it would have been better for a slightly older Anakin. GL had that in his first draft too where he was 12 I think. In many ways, there are a lot of elements from the first draft of TPM which I prefer over the final film.

Ironically enough, the romance in AOTC is one of the few things I actually liked. The execution isn't perfect and has a lot of issues but I still preferred the Anakin/Padme scenes over the whole Sifo-Dyas and Kamino subplot with Obi-Wan and Jango Fett. It wasn't a very compelling mystery especially when Lucas ended up dropping the whole mystery aspect for ROTS and never tied up Sifo-Dyas. Even Sifo-Dyas was a weird plotline since it was meant to be Sidious but then somebody made a typo and spelled Sifo-Dyas and Lucas liked it enough to keep it that way for the film.

Yes, you're right, it took Luke's near-death to bring Anakin back, otherwise his mere presence would have galvanized Anakin's return way back in TESB.

Is that true though because Obi-Wan and Yoda specifically warn Luke about the danger of the Emperor and how Luke can easily fall in the same footsteps as his father, not to mention the fact that Vader can't be redeemed. Yet, Luke dismisses all of this to an extent and even nearly falls into the Emperor's trap by falling to the dark side when Vader mentions Leia. And doesn't Yoda chide him for arrogance among impatience and other attributes in TESB? Much like his father before him.

What would you have preferred then for the execution of Kylo's character since the helmet symbolism doesn't work for you? I personally think there's been a lot of deep thought about it such as the latest interview in a magazine that talked about Kylo's helmet and the symbolism of it being put back together.

I actually think the moment was more startling because he is human. People automatically assume that such a dangerous character will have a deranged visage underneath like Vader's scarred face or Maul. Instead, it's a perfectly normal looking human which makes him even more unsettling in that sense. I remember people gasped out loud in the theater when Kylo unmasked himself because it was so surprising.

The politics of the PT and the decline of both the Jedi and the Republic are actually really well-done, especially now that we have seen that happen in real life. I'm in shock at all the real world parallels these days which has made the PT stand out even more to me and I've seen so many online articles stating the same thing the past few years. The broad story of the PT was never the problem, it was more the execution and some of the details that Lucas didn't think through like introducing a 10 year-old Anakin who was just an innocent boy but then jumping ahead 10 years later and never really showing his bond with Obi-Wan that much, amongst other things. Not to mention wasting the character of Darth Maul and really letting Padme's character be butchered in ROTS.

I think the Vader reveal made Luke feel pretty isolated especially from a friend like Han who never really believed in the Force anyway. He wouldn't have sympathized at all with Luke there. He even only tells Leia because he needs her to know that if he fails, she's the only one the Alliance has got left and in some ways, that encounter between them on Endor is a final affirmation of their relationship for him since she can never be a romantic interest for him now but he loves her nonetheless, now in a platonic way. So I think that's why he purposefully doesn't really tell anybody the truth, in part so that nobody can try and talk him out of it.

And can I just say that even though we don't seem to see eye to eye on the ST, I'm really enjoying conversing with you and hearing your perspective on the films. This is the type of discussion I wish we saw more of in this forum, where people talk to each other in a civilized manner and can disagree on things but also hear the other person out, rather than blindly thrashing around and attacking each other like our lives depend on defending the different camps we represent in the fandom.

 

It's this image from the first Battlefront game.

 

We're all very well aware that you think they're iconic. What we're debating is the reality of that sentiment amongst the larger public.

And something that you keep missing about people bringing up charcters like Wolverine or Darth Vader is because they became household names at an undeniably faster rate than the characters for the ST. The point that you're missing is that they didn't need decades to become iconic. They became iconic overnight, upon a surge of popularity. They reached the levels of popularity and being iconic upon audience's experiencing them for the first time, in the all the ways the ST characters aren't.

I saw all of the products because I grew up in the late 90's and 2000's as well. It doesn't change the fact that those characters were marketing tools, not icons embedded into pop culture like the X-Men or Spider-Man were. I already stated how they were licensing ornaments to sell products first to most people and characters second. People recognized them visually as being part of the same universe as more popular characters...that didn't mean the less popular characters were magically as iconic. People who saw Captain America's visage on products largely weren't aware of his WW2 origins or his role in the Marvel Universe, merely that he was a part of it. That was the norm for decades until the MCU.

In addition, the break between characters that were in the pop culture consciousness in the 60's was not something that lasted into the further decades, as Marvel themselves have stated several times throughout interviews. The hayday of Captain America, the Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer didn't sustain themselves amongst the average populace in the 70's, 80's, 90's or early 2000's...the way that X-Men and Spider-Man did.

Hence why the latter became icons, and the former faded into obscurity for decades outside of comic book fandom, with Marvel making several attempts to revive their popularity through failed runs and reboots like Heroes Reborn, especially during the 90's when comic sales were peaking and those characters were falling behind.

"Knowing every detail"? Read my post again. I literally mentioned him fighting Nazis and being frozen, two of the most basic aspects of Steve Roger's character. Knowing basic essentials like that is the precise difference between iconic characters and fads to sell products. Especially when it relates to your feeble defense of characters like Captain America overshadowing ST characters like Kylo Ren.

The reason I focus on the bolded, the 90's in particular, is because that was when financially and in terms of mainstream recognition, that was when Marvel was at the peak of mainstream success with its characters prior to the MCU. X-Men #2 in 1992 was and still is the single best-selling comic in history. It was one of the last instances of mainstream audiences who weren't the traditional comic book reader engaging with the characters of that brand, and vaulted them to popularity. Of course Thor and Captain America were popular when they came out, no one is arguing that---but to say they maintained icon status throughout the proceeding decades is laughable. Marvel themselves was desperate to launch them into mainstream popularity in the 90's and early 2000's, to replicate the success of their other heroes, and they still didn't have a presence outside of comic and geek fandom until the MCU. That's the primary difference you're ignoring: Spider-Man and X-Men maintained their iconic status for almost their entire existence, from inception to the present day. Captain America and Iron Man did not. They were "timeless" to readers, not to the general public. And the examples you brought up in an attempt to refute that are incredibly poor examples: Ultimates was popular with readers and only readers upon release, and the success of that run dropped sharply after its debut--the sluggish sales of which actually caused them to change the entire team of writers. A problem that Ultimate Spider-Man and Ultimate X-Men didn't have. And citing the two godawful animated adaptations that were made in an attempt to spread awareness of the comics at the time doesn't help either, especially given how they fell out of relevance seconds after they were released. Their sales and long-term reception reflect that. Citing New Avengers as some kind of contradiction, again, doesn't work because that was a success among comic readers, not the mainstream, as was much of the 2000's comic runs. And really? You're going to try to claim that the X-Men were lessened in iconic status or relevance by that time? House of M and Messiah Complex were around at the same time as New Avengers, and they were top sellers. "Less and less popular" is hardly how I'd describe them, and that's to say nothing of the characters' popularity in the X-Men films and cartoons still being released at the time. If the X-Men ever lost their relevance as far as comics went in recent years, that's exclusively due to Fox Studios and Ike Perlmutter enacting a scorched earth policy with the X-Men property after Disney bought Marvel, forcing the X-Men to be reduced in the role and relevance in modern comic book story arcs until this year's House of X revival in the wake of Disney's Fox Buyout. That was the reason the X-Men took a backseat in the comics for the last few years. It had nothing to do with iconic status or lessening public enthusiasm for the characters.

The editors and authors have publicly admitted that failed attempts to kickstarting these characters through solo books in the immediate preceeding era, being the 90's, was precisely why they launched the Ultimates as an ensemble project in the first place. They even marketed the book as a summer blockbuster in comic form that would introduce these characters to mainstream audiences that were engaging with the fresh Marvel continuity for the first time, creating a new pasture for characters that weren't as popular as the X-Men or Spider-Man, and hadn't been the subject of failed popularity attempts like Heroes Reborn.

That was the reason why that happened, and why individual X-Men or individual Fantastic Four members didn't get their own solo books. Those characters had already proven successful in sales in the previous era. Captain America and Iron Man didn't.

The interviews and sales figures for all of this is readily available with a Google Search. Try to educate yourself on some of it before calling anyone ridiculous. Your arguments will come off as less petty and misinformed as a result.

I used Batwoman because she's literally the most recent example. It has nothing to do with her being a gay woman, and neither are the plummeting viewership figures for her show. It was a potent example of a character who has been featured in mainstream news coverage for years, but doesn't translate to icon status when it comes to the general audience, as you tried and failed to demonstrate with Captain America. But, considering your forte on this thread is claiming sexism and bigotry when you're backed into an argumentative corner, I honestly shouldn't be surprised.

Oh, and the reason I didn't bring up Supergirl is because despite recent low ratings, that series actually had consistently strong viewing figures across its early to mid seasons....in stark contrast to Batwoman, which came out and swan-dived almost immediately.

Superhero video games sell well. That's been a trend since the Marvel Capcom games in the arcade...they're popular with people who play video games. That still doesn't translate to universal icon status. Gaming was nowhere close to the mainstream pastime that it is today, and Captain America and Iron Man were still nowhere near as popular in the public sphere as Spider-Man and the X-Men were at the time.

Where did I state that Rogue as an individual was more iconic than Kylo Ren or any of the other X-Men? I'm happy you're diffusing these arguments that literally no one is making.

And yeah, the core X-Men characters are the most popular and iconic because, surprise surprise, they get the bulk of the narrative focus and drama by the comics, cartoons and films. If anything, that means that Kylo Ren should be as popular as they were upon their mainstream explosion in the 90's because he has equal or greater importance in his own story.

That's how iconic characters are made: putting characters at the center stage of a story, and then executing them well. That's why X-Men hit it big in the 90's with mainstream audiences, why they were iconic upon release. And yet you claim comparing Kylo Ren to the X-Men in the 90's is in an unfair comparison, despite the fact that he has arguably greater importance in his own story. At least, that's how this conversation started before it got derailed.

If abiding by the facts, trends, and reality of the way characters have grown and sustained their popularity is "overlooking the context", I don't know what to tell you. Especially when every Pandora's Box you've opened in regards to Marvel has revealed how much context you yourself are ignoring, and how much you were ignoring when you made your laughable comparison between Kylo Ren and Captain America in the first place. And I never made the claim that the ST characters aren't recognizable...they just aren't iconic in the ways other users describe other characters in the pop culture landscape at the present, like those found in the MCU, raised to the laurels of popularity largely due to the efforts of the recent films, not their 80-year fanbase and reveling in adoration as icons, as you so laughably claim.

Toy sales were high when TFA came out and plummeted soon after TLJ was released. You're claiming that there isn't proof to claims that the characters aren't popular or resonating with audiences, and yet you ignore the last three years' worth of financial data that shows that toys for the new characters aren't selling. How consistent of you. Not to mention, you were the one that claimed several pages back on this thread that people don't buy toys anymore. If BB-8 toys were selling well at one point, something you consciously admit, then how does that support claims you've already made? Were you being disingenuous then, or are you just being indigenous now, selecting and ignoring statistical data whenever it's convenient at the same speed in which you chastise people for ignoring context? And I won't even get into the conversation of Galaxy's Edge---trying to equate Bob Iger's decision to model the parkland after the current slew of films as some kind of indication of the ST characters' popularity is absurd and hilarious. That was a predetermined decision before the park was even built and the new movies were even released---the idea to have all of these products synergize. Popularity is not a factor, doubly so when considering the embarrassingly-low attendance numbers the park has been receiving, while Harry Potter World continues to dominate across the street.

And young children clearly don't resonate with them enough to buy toys based off of them. They'd rather buy Marvel or Power Rangers toys, two brands that continue to make a healthy profit as SW declines. Power Rangers in particular was the #1 selling action figure brand in the year TLJ came out, so much so that Hasbro ended up acquring the license in order to offset their losses with plummeting Star Wars toy sales.

You can accuse me of having blinders or being ignorant or whatever, but the proof is in the numbers, statistics, and audience feedback to these films. And I'm not the one letting my interactions on Reddit and Twitter color my perception of reality that Kylo and his accompanying mannequins in the ST cast are bastions of popularity in modern pop culture across the world. Nothing statistical or factual supports that in 2019, outside of blind infatuation of the characters and the refusal to acknowledge proof. The only "bias" I have is the ability to recognize bad writing when I see it (something that the ST has that by the truckloads). I suppose I should join a Reylo forum and fix that.

 

They really do not wanna release an image of palpatine from this movie. So they are using other images.

 

Try looking at it another way. Many of the people expressing negative opinions have been Star Wars fans since day one, for over 40 years. It was their love of SW, as much as anyone's, that got us to this point in the first place. After 40 years of devotion, these fans suddenly feel completely betrayed and disrespected by the way the new movies have been made. They are the ones you should actually feel sympathy for... They are the ones who got the bad end of this deal. Not the people who loved the movie, or just liked it, and now have to put up with negative reviews from other fans. They are the people who don't need you to fight for them. Dealing with others' differing opinions is part of life. This is not a case of real fans vs haters. It's real fans vs real fans.

When TPM came out, I loved it. And I hated to see how so many of my fellow SW fans hated that movie. But I didn't try to silence them, I encouraged them to voice their opinions, because I knew that as good as TPM was to me, if it was as divisive as it was, it was the movie, not the fans, who were wrong. It didn't change my view of TPM, but I truly felt bad for them, because I knew that there WAS something about the PT that was different, and I understood what those fans felt was missing. And I believe Lucas did his best to rectify that situation as the PT saga unfolded. If you look at ROTS, very few of the criticisms of the PT were repeated in that film.

 

None of the ST characters are iconic- to start with, the design for Kylo Ren's mask is the lamest ever, a knockoff on Revan and a poor man's version of art and understanding of mythic archetypes compared to Grievous, Maul or Vader

 

Yeah I think you've missed the point of what I was saying here. This is what I said earlier:

"I feel like you're missing my point. I'm not saying that people can't express their negative opinions. My engagement with and support of people posting them shows that. I'm someone with negative opinions of the ST. I'm talking about repetition and veracity which can create an overwhelmingly negative atmosphere that becomes exclusionary."

Again, I think you've issued the point of what I'm saying. Basically none of what you said here applies to what I said.

 

You don't like the repetitive criticism because it creates an environment that makes it harder for the people who liked the movie, no?

 

None of that means I want to silence other people points of view. I want people to be conscious that if the criticism becomes repetitive and overwhelming the atmosphere of the entire place naturally excludes people who want to be more positive. It's about creating an atmosphere where everyone can enjoy themselves.

 

I know for me it becomes tiring.

There has to become a time when eventually you gotta ask yourself...what am I doing? and that is for post over positive and over negative opinions.

 

Genuine, non-hostile curiosity here. What would your solution be to this problem, then? What is the correct course of action to improve the environment around here? You've stated that silencing people isn't your intention, so the solution obviously isn't for people to stop complaining. What part of their behavior should they change, then? The nature of their complaints, the wording, the frequency?

And do you see that kind of environment permeating the most recent pages of this thread? Is it an improvement, or an exact replication of what you're talking about? I ask this because from what I see, most of it as healthy and constructive discourse between fans. Sure, a lot of it is negative, but its constructive negativity, with people writing out concise and well-worded reasons for their contempt for the new films. devoid of personal or character attacks. I see that as a positive environment myself, but I am curious about what your suggestions for improvement might be.

 

I would argue that the constant defending of TLJ is no different that the constant criticism. Both are completely appropriate, and if someone feels as though having to deal with constnt opposing opinions creates an atmosphere they don't like, that's on them and them alone. Unfortunately, when it comes to forums like this, expressing your opinion once doesn't really accomplish very much. These forums are an ongoing conversation. If all the critics expressed their opinions once and then felt as though they were being heard, the exact opposite would happen. They would be ignored and forgotten amongst all the positive posts, and it would constantly paint a picture of a satisfied fan base. It would very quickly result in a false picture of reality. Again, this is an ongoing conversation we are all having. You can't ask someone to express themselves and then step away.

To put it dramatically, some of us see this as a fight for the soul of the future of the franchise.

 

Bravo I was going to respond to some of these posts but you have handled it all beautifully. To give an example of toys not selling Lego has been having issues moving the ST merchandise and stores suffered massive sales declines during TLJ and Solo, I know people that work there. The reason we have the 700$ Falcon is because that's what people wanted to buy so no we have a Star Destroyer companies are going back to the old stuff because it's what sells. You can also discuss the declining sales of the Nu Canon material as well something that was doing very well especially the comics during TFA have been plummeting in September barely cracking the top 50.

I lived through the 90s and 2000s and I didn't even remotely like Captain America till the Ultimates I always thought he was super lame and I was into comics, it was all Ultimate Marvel and X-Men stuff then Civil War.

Here is a CNBC article discussing Toys and the modes decline in 2019 due to people purchasing a lot in 2018 due to Toys are us closing and are expected to increase back to previous levels in 2020 so clearly the Toy industry isn't irrelevant as some like to say https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/23/toy-sales-are-expected-to-make-a-comeback-this-year-npd-says.html

People are allowed their opinions and can love what they love but as you say numbers and facts don't lie. I love the movie 2 Fast 2 Furious the thing is absolutely terrible with awful dialogue worst of the series and nothing but nonsense but it's stupid fun and I enjoy it for that. I wish I could do that with the ST but as you have pointed out compared to the other trilogies the structure of the story and how it's written is incredibly poor that I don't enjoy it anymore. I will give the ST is better than the PT in much of the dialogue but there are still a few truly awful lines.

The simple matter is that the ST is not generating the interest and the revenue for Disney that they have wanted since they purchased Star Wars. Galaxy's edge being one of them I was so ready to go pay the premium to stay at a Star Wars hotel and now I just don't care. Great for my pocked book though.

In many ways Kylo and Rey come off as YA characters in many aspects and when you look at how those franchises have fared in terms of longevity and profitability the Hunger Games became less and less profitable with declining acclaim and Divergent got straight up canceled as did most YA properties due to issue people have with the characters and storytelling. The ST is going to be a flash in the pan like many things but it won't have the WW staying power that the OT and it's characters have had.

 

Probably self-moderation to be honest. The problem is the frequency and the repetition. My posting here should suggest that I have no problem with constructive criticism and discussion. I've also defending those who are negative from unfair attacks. However when the same criticisms are made over and over and over again you really do question whether you want to come here when it just brings you down.

 

This thread the last few pages reads like this.

 

No one is saying you can only express your opinion once. But there are some discussions and criticism that are so often repeated that they aren't constructive at all at this point. There is a reason why many positive people have left this place. Repeating the same criticisms over and over and over isn't going to achieve anything - it just makes the entire place get bogged down in constant negativity and drives people away.

 

I can't "like" this enough.

So...you don't want to silence anyone, you just don't want anyone to say anything critical about the current ST films as they relate to the upcoming film or about the leaks?

Agreed. I wasn't aware this forum was intended to be a "positive comments only echo chamber."

 

I don't believe you could have come away from what I said with that impression.

I certainly don't want to create that.

Again, not what I'm saying. I don't think what I said can be construed to "don't be negative" unless you're being incredibly reductive.

 

The reasons the same complaints keep popping up is because they are shared by many people, they are valid, and they are relevant to the discussion when they are made because they come in response to the same "positive" arguments that get made repeatedly.

 

Part of the problem is that I don't think people let things slide when it might be an idea to. I've been trying to do this myself lately, because I've noticed that I was getting into a lot of repetitive discussions. Someone will say something positive about Han, or whatever, and then invariably people will come and say how Han was ruined for them, as were all the other characters, etc, etc. The same discussion that's been had a thousand times then ensues, and because there are more negative people here than not it ends in the same points being made and a net negative atmosphere.

 

Are you simultaneously imploring those who crow about their positive spins based largely or sometimes even wholly on head canon to stop being so repetitively positive?

There would be very little to discuss if nobody ever repeated an idea.


To be blunt, it's a two way street. It feels like you're advocating for a one way street.