MovieChat Forums > Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) Discussion > The critical difference between the fail...

The critical difference between the failures of the prequels and the sequels


The prequels disappointed, whereas the sequels have antagonised.

No matter the flaws of the prequels (and there were many) I was never insulted by them, either by the makers, the script or the press, and I was always left hoping the next one would be better and would fix the problems of the previous instalment.

And now? You'd have to go full ludovico on me to get me to see a Disney Star Wars.

And this is the difference. This is why Solo is bombing. If audiences were merely disappointed with TLJ they'd still be turning up but they're not, they're pissed off. And conversely, this is why TFA was so huge, because you had millions of people desperate for a Star Wars film to be good after 3 disappointments (so much so that many decided to simply give the film a pass for all its failings). This is how easy it is to make Star Wars movies. 3 poor movies in a row and the 4th earns $2B and gets the sympathy vote from audience and critics alike. Jesus Christ, is has taken serious effort to have a Star Wars movie lose money. And that might just be about the only interesting thing Disney have managed yet with Star Wars.



reply

And conversely, this is why TFA was so huge, because you had millions of people desperate for a Star Wars film to be good after 3 disappointments (so much so that many decided to simply give the film a pass for all its failings).


Except I didn't consider the Prequels to be "disappointments", as you put them. However, I DID consider TFA a disappointment and I was damned if I was going to give that POS a pass.

reply

I've said this in the past too. The prequels contradicted a lot of things in the OT, but the sequels seemed to undermine the OT.

On top of that, there are still some iconic aspects of the prequels: Darth Maul, Clone Wars, seeing the Jedi in their prime, Mace Windu, etc. The sequels don't seem to have much of an impact on the mythos. All the new characters and concepts are rehashed from what's come before and even people who love the new films don't seem to be latching on to any of the new stuff. Rey is popular at the moment, but since she's so shallow, I don't think she will have the staying power of Leia or even Padame. I'm not sure people will be talking about her 18 years from now whereas Darth Maul is still a hot topic 18 years later despite showing up for about 7 minutes in Phantom Menace.

reply

Not to mention, the entire premise doesn't even make sense. The "Resistance" (why the hell are they rebels when they're in charge?), the First Order coming out of nowhere and being unstoppable - "reigning" even - with their superweapon destroyed, all the New Republic planets being right next to each other like moons and apparently nowhere else, the entire galaxy doesn't give a shit about the First Order and the rebels are literally 15 people in a room at the end of TLJ, etc. etc. etc.

The world building is fucking abysmal, insulting. They basically just said "we want Rebels vs. Empire derrrrp" and shat out this contrived nonsense that falls apart the second you examine it.

reply

Yeah, the world building is lazy. How did the First Order gain power in a galaxy that should be very concerned if Empire 2.0 starts rearing its head? I dunno. Who is Snoke? Beats me. Why is no one helping the Resistance? No clue. What about Rey's parents? Yeah, they're just some junkers.

I've mentioned this in other threads but Star Wars movies tend to show different types of locations in every movie. Lucas made it a point to do so, so even in the prequels, we got to see new locations. I mean, as terrible as Jar-Jar was, that underwater city looked beautiful. What did TFA give us? Another desert planet and a cross between Hoth and a Death Star. TLJ at least gave us the mining planet with the red sand which made for some interesting visuals, so I'll give them a point there. Otherwise, nothing is new.

reply

[deleted]