Dark Times are ahead for Star Wars

[Pali]

Marvel is a bad example. Its has a vast pool it can draw content from and can has change the formula slightly since age of ultron. More movies have more heroes in them and they are less origin films and more team up movies. Antman: had both Antman, and Falcon in it(Wasp was sort of in it?) Civil War: About 2/3rds of the avengers roster plus Black Panther, Spider-Man, and Antman. Guardians of the Galaxy had all the guardians plus Yondu and Mantis. Thor Ragarock had Hulk and Thor, and Valykrie. Black Panther made only have Black Panther, but the winter soldier could pop up.

You missed my point - Marvel's success hasn't just been about the roster, though that certainly hasn't hurt; their success has been that they are willing to experiment with the superhero genre in general and try out new styles of films involving superheroes, and many of the other highly successful superhero movies have done the same by crafting stories involving superheroes that are in many ways not truly superhero movies (Dark Knight, Logan, even Deadpool).  There is no reason Star Wars can't do the same, and it too has a huge roster of popular characters to draw from of create anew.
 

Also last time i check people are not too happy about the new Star Trek TV series.

Check again.  DSC's start was a little rough, but it's been doing a great job so far.

Again with me oversaturation of star wars will happen, but i do not care about that. I care about the quality of new generation of star wars. Rebels is a step in the right direction and i am very invested in the show. HELL i even posted all my star wars comics i own and none of them our legends accept Darth Maul son of Dathomir. I am hoping to pick up Crimson Empire for my birthday along with maybe the Dark Horse stories about Quilan Vos. Hell I even pre-order a digital copy of the Last Jedi because i really liked it, and by really liked it i mean that it is now my in my top 3 of star wars movies. I am invested heavily in both the new and old canon. I just want the new canon to be better and tell great stories, and make me invested. To some extend with Tarkin, TLJ, Rebel Dawn, Thrawn, Fallen Stars, Inferno Squadron(the book) Son of Dathomir, Vader Down, Darth Maul, Darth Vader and the Phasma book it succeeds, but with Shattered Empire, BF2 Campaign, Aftermath, and TFA it fails horribly.

I think you're forgetting just how much bad or mediocre Star Wars content there was with the old EU.  You freely admit that there have been plenty of stories you've enjoyed with the new, so why do some failures make you so certain that things are going horribly wrong?

Second: Toxcity is a problem with alot of communities, i mean look at Warhammer 40k. Fans of stuff do and say dumb things but they aren't indicative of the fan base.

So don't read too much into people complaining online?

The first point on the affects of SWBF2 EA while the stock value recover that is not the only consequence in the system. BF2 sold poorly, EA received bad PR that almost them their star wars licensee and then lawmakers got in on the situation. Saying that it was a nothing is(no offense) a Bullshit statement.

It wasn't nothing, agreed, but it wasn't the death knell for either EA or Star Wars - it'll make EA change their game up slightly in response, but otherwise it'll have minimal impact in the long run.  Most Star Wars games in the past weren't very good either - even Empire at War is simply an okay strategy game with some major weaknesses that only gets attention because it has the Star Wars license attached to it.

[Illidan Stormrage]

You missed my point - Marvel's success hasn't just been about the roster, though that certainly hasn't hurt; their success has been that they are willing to experiment with the superhero genre in general and try out new styles of films involving superheroes, and many of the other highly successful superhero movies have done the same by crafting stories involving superheroes that are in many ways not truly superhero movies (Dark Knight, Logan, even Deadpool).  There is no reason Star Wars can't do the same, and it too has a huge roster of popular characters to draw from of create anew.
 
I think you're forgetting just how much bad or mediocre Star Wars content there was with the old EU.  You freely admit that there have been plenty of stories you've enjoyed with the new, so why do some failures make you so certain that things are going horribly wrong?

If what your saying is true then Disney should then do different types of star wars stories like IDK Deathtroopers, a Empire story, the adventures of Shriv and Lando?
You have to understand that Disney will probably not got that route. If it was up to me i would flip the idea of the factions on their head. Maybe make it so the at in Episode 9 the IR comes to the rescue and saves the resistance. It be a great story and show the old vs the new factions. The han solo movie also isn't a original idea. I say if Disney really wants to take advantage of the universe then start having movies tell stories about places and characters we have not seen before set between movies. You have many creative ideas, but it seems they dont want to make creative ideas(except rogue one is pretty creative)

I mean IMO the new stuff is more connected, but that's more to do with the fact that the people in charge are wanting to keep the lore consistent and connected. Which is why Rogue One is connected to TLJ along with BF2. Its more streamline, but the problem it creates is a lack of interesting stories. This was a complaint i had about BF2's campaign. It took no risks, and it felt like it was retreading the same ground. We fought in the same battles from the books and comics which i dont care about. I dont want to see a video game version of Shattered Empire and Aftermath. I want a story that takes lore in new directions. for example make a video game set in wild space, or maybe a game in the outer rim about a smuggler(dash render 2.0 which i am fine with). Not everything needs to be connected. The reason i hate Aftermath and Shattered Empire is because it forces writers who want to write future stories be force to follow this. If i wanted to write about the post Jakku Empire i cant because the way they wrote those books made it so you cant. it also brings into question why make a 30 year gap if barely anything happens during most of that time? You cant be telling the Empire was not still fighting for at least another five years, because it would be impossible for the Empire to lose everything withing a year even with sabotage from within. You cant tell me after Jakku all Imperials(except the FO guys) were either executed, defected, or surrender all their ships, all their weapons, and all their military strength and were now force at the end of a gun to follow NR rules. The FO doesnt count in this scenario because they were off in their own thing and they were mostly just Scientists, a few part time warlords, and a couple battle commanders AKA less then 0.000001 percent of the Empire

[Pali]

If what your saying is true then Disney should then do different types of star wars stories like IDK Deathtroopers, a Empire story, the adventures of Shriv and Lando?
You have to understand that Disney will probably not got that route. If it was up to me i would flip the idea of the factions on their head. Maybe make it so the at in Episode 9 the IR comes to the rescue and saves the resistance. It be a great story and show the old vs the new factions. The han solo movie also isn't a original idea. I say if Disney really wants to take advantage of the universe then start having movies tell stories about places and characters we have not seen before set between movies. You have many creative ideas, but it seems they dont want to make creative ideas(except rogue one is pretty creative)

Re-read what you've posted here - you ask if Disney should do different types of stories, then you say they aren't doing them, then you say that they have with Rogue One.  You are all over the map here.

Give it time.  We are all of three movies in, not even a decade into Disney owning it - you can't expect over thirty years' of EU content to be matched by five or so years' of Disney content.  There will be more to come, and the spinoff movies are the perfect place for Disney to start getting experimental with the franchise, just as they already are with Marvel.

[Lord Xizer]

Give it time.  We are all of three movies in, not even a decade into Disney owning it - you can't expect over thirty years' of EU content to be matched by five or so years' of Disney content.  There will be more to come, and the spinoff movies are the perfect place for Disney to start getting experimental with the franchise, just as they already are with Marvel.

The bottom is going to drop out, I expect within the decade. Looking at cinema history you get timelines where things are popular and companies mass produce them as much as possible to cash in before the bottom drops out, generas can and DO die Pali, for the longest time Musicals, Westerns and Rome were being mass produced because EVERYONE went and saw them, in response studios mass produced them until the public interest went from invested to meh to box office poison. There is a reason you don't see more than the odd western now, a reason musicals have become a shadow of the power they once had in showings and why other than a short run on HBO and Gladiator you haven't seen successful Roman themed media. With Star Trek in many ways the franchise is largely a shadow of it's former self as well, sure there will always be a core fan base for it, but Star Trek is hardly the household staple it was a decade and a half ago. Marvel's time is fast approaching with the Superhero genera as well. It's just a question of when not if, that's simply fact and the older films have been largely ignored in showtimes on movie streaming sites as well. Whether illegal or sanctioned sites you can see hits of viewership decline steadily for the older films. The newer ones are entertaining and some may even last a decade, but 10 to 20 years down the road you'll be hard pressed to look back on the Marvel verse with great memory I think. They'll be along the same lines as the hundreds of Western shows that populated the 50s, a time piece but unremarkable in the long run, much the same way as making dozens of new SW films will do to the SW saga. Tell me details without looking them up on wiki about each Star Trek movie, summations, emotions conjured by the films moments and how they stand the test of time over a decade or more. I'd be fairly surprised if you could unless you were a die hard Trek fan, because the vast majority don't leave an impact. Compare this with when there were just the two trilogies. Both have moments people en masse remember and quote and all six films, flaws and all still resonate because sometimes it is better to do something for a time and LEAVE IT ALONE, go out on a high note, find a STOPPING point, this was something even the old EU didn't get right. There comes a point when as a writer, entertainer and creator you have to say, "It's done, we've done all we can with this and if we keep going we're recycling." It's one of the main reasons Seinfeld is a better example of self aware comedy than the Simpsons, it knew when to stop and say, "That's it." rather than drag on indefinitely to a slow and meaningless end. There is a certain beauty in finality and it is better to meet that finality with dignity on a high note than to become a mass produced money grab that dies out with a gradual whimper as opposed to shouts of we want more!

[Slornie]

If what your saying is true then Disney should then do different types of star wars stories like IDK Deathtroopers, a Empire story, the adventures of Shriv and Lando?  You have to understand that Disney will probably not got that route.

Why won't they? As Pali said we're just over five years into Disney's ownership and less than four since the Story Group reset canon.  Sure they started out fairly safe by bringing back fan favourites to support a new cast in the sequel trilogy but then Rogue One was quite a departure from safe space, and there's no reason to think Lucasfilm doesn't have the same freedom to nurture creativity as Marvel has done since joining the Mouse House.

If it was up to me i would flip the idea of the factions on their head. Maybe make it so the at in Episode 9 the IR comes to the rescue and saves the resistance. It be a great story and show the old vs the new factions.

And this is why Disney have professional story writers.  What's an IR?  We've already got like three factions with limited back-story in the sequel trilogy (which you and others have complained vehemently about) so why on earth would you want them to go add another?  "Surprise Thrawn!" or "Surprise Pellaeon!" rolling in on a white horse (which I assume is what you're envisaging) would be pure fan-service to a relative minority of the intended audience and have no meaning to most moviegoers.  It would fall as flat as Bendict Cumberbatch's character reveal in Star Trek Into Darkness: Khan who? (Disclosure: As a Trek fan I actually really liked STID)

The han solo movie also isn't a original idea.

Please stop. The movie isn't out yet, we've had no trailer and know practically nothing about it.  You can't say it isn't an original idea (and really, what IS an original idea in movie terms now?) or that it's guaranteed to be rubbish or flop.

With Star Trek in many ways the franchise is largely a shadow of it's former self as well, sure there will always be a core fan base for it, but Star Trek is hardly the household staple it was a decade and a half ago.

To be fair Star Trek was never as much a household staple as Star Wars, certainly not in international terms.  And although I agree it did suffer from a measure of saturation and audience fatigue during the late 90s and early 2000s that was far more to do with having three full-on TV series on the go at once or immediately following one another than anything else.  Plus the relatively weak movie offerings following from the TNG era.  In fact if you read on some of the Trek-related community sites you'll find a lot of fans are actually clamouring for more "proper" Trek on TV (vs more movies), no matter whether they personally approve of the direction Discovery has taken the franchise.

[Illidan Stormrage]

And this is why Disney have professional story writers.  What's an IR?  We've already got like three factions with limited back-story in the sequel trilogy (which you and others have complained vehemently about) so why on earth would you want them to go add another?  "Surprise Thrawn!" or "Surprise Pellaeon!" rolling in on a white horse (which I assume is what you're envisaging) would be pure fan-service to a relative minority of the intended audience and have no meaning to most moviegoers.  It would fall as flat as Bendict Cumberbatch's character reveal in Star Trek Into Darkness: Khan who? (Disclosure: As a Trek fan I actually really liked STID)

Yeah because professional writers were the ones who came up with the idea of forces of destiny right? Professional writers were the ones who created Starkiller base. Professional writers were the ones who thought the movie Gestorm was cool and took the idea of weather satiletes and TADA! Operation: Cinder.
The quaility writers for star wars can be counted on one hand(one of them is Timothy Zahn)
Also keep in mind we still dont truly know the state of the galaxy and apparently their is a Imperial Remnant out there somwhere. Saying its fan serivice while true you could argue Luke appearing on crait was fan service. Again you can explain it in a prequel movie that be great

Please stop. The movie isn't out yet, we've had no trailer and know practically nothing about it.  You can't say it isn't an original idea (and really, what IS an original idea in movie terms now?) or that it's guaranteed to be rubbish or flop.

Yeah their is no trailer, dispite the fact this comes out In MAY. Its also had problems on set and Disney excpects it to fail. The problems on set were wayyyy worse then rogue one.

Re-read what you've posted here - you ask if Disney should do different types of stories, then you say they aren't doing them, then you say that they have with Rogue One.  You are all over the map here.

Yeah i did and it was to make a point. I want stories that are different. I dont need a orgin for Han Solo, i dont need to know what Boba Fett did in bewteen 4-5. I want stories that take me places new and to meet new characters while keep familiaty. Rogue One did that. Except now we are getting movie nobody really wanted. Where are the other more creative ideas? I dont need a Kenobi movie now since rebels tide up his and Maul's story. I would like maybe a Vader movie where he is a being of pure rage because we have years and time we can use to tell stories.  We have wild space, Thrawn, plenty of sources to drawn form and we are sticking way to close to the orginal triology(My only real complain about the spinoffs)

[Pali]

The bottom is going to drop out, I expect within the decade. Looking at cinema history you get timelines where things are popular and companies mass produce them as much as possible to cash in before the bottom drops out, generas can and DO die Pali, for the longest time Musicals, Westerns and Rome were being mass produced because EVERYONE went and saw them, in response studios mass produced them until the public interest went from invested to meh to box office poison. There is a reason you don't see more than the odd western now, a reason musicals have become a shadow of the power they once had in showings and why other than a short run on HBO and Gladiator you haven't seen successful Roman themed media.

And yet each of these has made comebacks in recent years, with "La La Land" nearly winning best picture, with "There Will Be Blood" (and even "Logan"), with the recent Spartacus series.  Yes, they were overdone, but that was because EVERYONE was doing them, not because 1 movie was coming out each year.  I agree that superhero movies are reaching the oversaturation point, but so does Marvel, which is why they're being more experimental as they go.

With Star Trek in many ways the franchise is largely a shadow of it's former self as well, sure there will always be a core fan base for it, but Star Trek is hardly the household staple it was a decade and a half ago.

Granted, but in five years?  That may not still be the case, if DSC remains successful.

Marvel's time is fast approaching with the Superhero genera as well. It's just a question of when not if, that's simply fact and the older films have been largely ignored in showtimes on movie streaming sites as well. Whether illegal or sanctioned sites you can see hits of viewership decline steadily for the older films.

Can you actually provide some numbers to support this claim? edit: I ask this because I can easily provide numbers showing that Marvel's box office results have overall been improving over time, not diminishing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?view=main&id=marvelcomics.htm&p=.htm shows the peak with Avengers 1, but Avengers 2 outperformed the other movies, Iron Man 3 outperformed the other Iron Man movies, Guardians 2 outperformed Guardians 1, Ragnarok outperformed the other Thor movies, Civil War the other Cap movies... they've made MORE money as they've gone on, not less.

The newer ones are entertaining and some may even last a decade, but 10 to 20 years down the road you'll be hard pressed to look back on the Marvel verse with great memory I think. They'll be along the same lines as the hundreds of Western shows that populated the 50s, a time piece but unremarkable in the long run, much the same way as making dozens of new SW films will do to the SW saga. Tell me details without looking them up on wiki about each Star Trek movie, summations, emotions conjured by the films moments and how they stand the test of time over a decade or more. I'd be fairly surprised if you could unless you were a die hard Trek fan, because the vast majority don't leave an impact.

Yeah, die hard Star Trek fan, so I can indeed do that.

Compare this with when there were just the two trilogies. Both have moments people en masse remember and quote and all six films, flaws and all still resonate because sometimes it is better to do something for a time and LEAVE IT ALONE, go out on a high note, find a STOPPING point, this was something even the old EU didn't get right.

They should've stopped with the OT then, because I don't think the prequels were Star Wars's best chance at going out on a high note - I'd say the sequels so far have been far superior to the prequels, and I'm far happier with them being the swan song for the franchise if that's how things turn out.

i did and it was to make a point. I want stories that are different. I dont need a orgin for Han Solo, i dont need to know what Boba Fett did in bewteen 4-5. I want stories that take me places new and to meet new characters while keep familiaty. Rogue One did that. Except now we are getting movie nobody really wanted. Where are the other more creative ideas? I dont need a Kenobi movie now since rebels tide up his and Maul's story. I would like maybe a Vader movie where he is a being of pure rage because we have years and time we can use to tell stories.  We have wild space, Thrawn, plenty of sources to drawn form and we are sticking way to close to the orginal triology(My only real complain about the spinoffs)

You are being incredibly self-contradictory here: you want stories that are about different characters we don't know - except the characters we do know you want them to tell stories about.  You want original stories, except you want adaptations of stories you already like.  Make a choice.  You have no idea what the story will be for the Han Solo or Kenobi movies, both of which "nobody really wanted" is absolutely NOT true for as plenty of people have been requesting exactly those stories, so how can you already judge them to not be original?  Simply because they include a character or two you know, which is what you've been asking for?

[Illidan Stormrage]

You are being incredibly self-contradictory here: you want stories that are about different characters we don't know - except the characters we do know you want them to tell stories about.  You want original stories, except you want adaptations of stories you already like.  Make a choice.  You have no idea what the story will be for the Han Solo or Kenobi movies, both of which "nobody really wanted" is absolutely NOT true for as plenty of people have been requesting exactly those stories, so how can you already judge them to not be original?  Simply because they include a character or two you know, which is what you've been asking for?

People requested the Kenobi movie they could see both Darth Maul and Obi Wan could face off for the last time. Now that Maul is dead canonically in the duel in rebels most people dropped off the idea of a Kenobi movie. The other reason was because we had stupid theories like Rey Kenobi which people bought into which made people want it more. Now that is off the table their is no reason to do a Kenobi movie as both Mr.Sunday Movies, Star Wars Only, and many of friends.
Also where is my self-contradictory? If your talking about me saying I "Maybe" want a Darth Vader movie then you did not read my comment. I was saying that Vader was one of the only characters you can really get away with this(maybe Boba Fett but it have to be like a bounty hunter movei with Bossk, Dengar and maybe Cad Bane). Vader is someone who has many intresting both canon and legends stories. The thing also about Vader is he is terrifying and really is one of the greatest bad guys on all time. A moive about him is possible because that gap bewteen 3-4 provides many oppotunities for creative stories. Also more people want this because of Rogue One showing what Vader can truly do. Keep in mind i put this as a "maybe" meaning i would be fine if they did it(its not a orgin film, but maybe a story that could show how ruthless and capable vader is). Han Solo is different. The Han Solo movie should not happen becuase of a few reasons.
1. Its impossible to replace Harrison Ford and not many people will be happy with how they portray him. While i am all for taking Disney taking risks i am not for them taking stupid risks. Han Solo is a character more treatable to TV Show(non-live action) or a series of books.
2. It is simply to familiar. I need new characters and keep in mind Kira(Emila Clarks Character) is the only new protagonist. Han Solo, Lando, and Chewbaca are all central characters to OT. I dont need their orgins.
3. It is predictable. We know we are going to see Han win the Falcon, we know we are going to see how Chewbaca met Han, we know we are going to see Kessel, we know we are going to see the Kessel Run, and we know we are going to see Lando, the hutts and the underworld. Nothing new can really be shown. However i will credit them on something this movie is doing right, apparently the Pyke Syndicate is going to be in the film along with Corrilean Hounds, and Mibamm. Thats a great way to win over me into seeing this moive. (but to be fair i will see star wars most of the time.)
4. Their are better alternatives such as
Bounty Hunter movie: Made up of the best of best bounty Hunters including Dengar, Bossk, and Boba Fett(this is one exception to my rule on new stories)
A Imperial Movie: We have secene small little things in the movie about the Empire, but really like how Rogue One showed us the Evil of the rebellion, this film should convey the good of the Empire.
A movie involing Mandolirians: These guys are basically spartans and with that notion comes great potential in a Mandolorian War film.
The Old Republic: Lets face it, this time needs some lore and hopefully we will see that down the line.
A Snoke Movie?: Who the hell is Snoke?
A movie about the Chiss and Thrawn: This will happen because people will evenutally ask for it.
A top gun style starfighter movie: Rogue Squadron, the 181st, or a completely new fighter unit. This would be a nice idea since space battles are always fun to watch.

[Pali]

(but to be fair i will see star wars most of the time.)

And this is why they have little to worry about when it comes to pleasing the hardcore fanbase.

This conversation is going in circles.  I think I'm done with it.

[AppTRL]

And this is why they have little to worry about when it comes to pleasing the hardcore fanbase.

This conversation is going in circles.  I think I'm done with it.

Ya, this thread was exhausting to just read. Severe case of tunnel vision tbh.

[Lord Xizer]

This is my feelings on the matter. There comes a time when something needs to end.

[Admiral Stephen]

Disney had better be careful with the next few Star Wars movies they make. They may be in dangerous territory with some of the fan base. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, I see that only 49% of audience members liked The Last Jedi. Critics seemed to like the film (91%), but a lot of fans really seemed to not like it. So it does seem to be a little more than the hardcore fans like ourselves who are a bit weary of Disney.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/

[Illidan Stormrage]

And this is why they have little to worry about when it comes to pleasing the hardcore fanbase.

This conversation is going in circles.  I think I'm done with it.

You clearly did not understand why i said that. I said that because my patience is alot better then other star wars fans and because i have not been overly pissed off yet(though i might skip a Obi Wan movie, or Episode 9). Using me as a representation of all star wars fans is a weak argument.

I think you're forgetting just how much bad or mediocre Star Wars content there was with the old EU.  You freely admit that there have been plenty of stories you've enjoyed with the new, so why do some failures make you so certain that things are going horribly wrong?

So don't read too much into people complaining online?

To address this point: The EU has alot of bad and mediocre stories, because it is so damn big. Hundreds of books, comics, and short stories. Canon has good stories becasuse it is so damn small, but it does have very very bad stories and terrible writing. Some failures also show a sign in a decline in quality.

2nd point: their is a difference between toxicity and legitament critism. Fans have legititament critisms and they should at least be reconized. Toxcity would be more death threats, insults, and all around hate. If i call something stupid and ilogical based on facts and lofic it is not toxcity its critism.

[GreyStar]

Disney had better be careful with the next few Star Wars movies they make. They may be in dangerous territory with some of the fan base. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, I see that only 49% of audience members liked The Last Jedi. Critics seemed to like the film (91%), but a lot of fans really seemed to not like it. So it does seem to be a little more than the hardcore fans like ourselves who are a bit weary of Disney.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi/

Just using the stats when it suits your case. There’s been reports of review bombing attempts for the Last Jedi because it had asian, black, and female protagonists. So the reviews on RT are not completely credibile for that reason, and also because people likely to review a movie are ones more concerned with quality to begin with, while many average movie goers, even if they hate a movie, simply don’t.

For example, I’ve spent hours extolling my hatred for TFA, dedciated a few days worth of my life to it. And never have I once gave it a bad review on any offical site. So yeah, the stats aren’t always reliable.

Secondly, and the real reason that your post irks me so nuch, is the complete and utter fact that it’s cherry picking stats. TFA has after the year since it’s release an 88% approval rating by audience, and somehow a 93% by critics. And that movie was terrible. Great for Mr. Peutro who has a compelling arguement for liking the movie, but overall terrible. So can you really trust the stats when you consider all that?

[Pali]

Secondly, and the real reason that your post irks me so nuch, is the complete and utter fact that it’s cherry picking stats. TFA has after the year since it’s release an 88% approval rating by audience, and somehow a 93% by critics. And that movie was terrible. Great for Mr. Peutro who has a compelling arguement for liking the movie, but overall terrible. So can you really trust the stats when you consider all that?

The reason for this is that a movie being terrible is a subjective judgment, not an objective one.  It's very possible you're simply in the 12% that don't like the movie, if we are charitable and assume that the 88% approval rating accurately reflects general opinion.  There's nothing wrong with holding a minority opinion regarding art, but don't mistake your own opinion of a piece of art as being an objective fact regarding that piece.  If I had to give TFA a thumbs up or thumbs down, I'd definitely give it a thumbs up - it's a flawed film in some ways, as is any film to some degree, but I'd never call it terrible. edit: In short, this is simply a difference of opinion, and neither of our judgments of the movie are objectively correct or incorrect.

Your overall point, however, I fully agree with - user/audience approval ratings online for films, games, or what-have-you are going to be heavily weighted by extreme opinions, and it is a mistake to assume that those opinions are all approaching the subject from the same perspective, share the same concerns, or accurately reflect the percentage of the audience that shares such an opinion.

edit:

This is my feelings on the matter. There comes a time when something needs to end.

There have been 3 Star Wars films released in the last decade, versus enough superhero films that a best 50 list from the 2002-2012 decade can be made - and that is from an article from the same year Avengers came out, which was arguably before or right as Marvel really hit its stride. http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-20120827-top-superhero-movies-pictures-photogallery.html  Respectfully, but Star Wars has a LONG way to go before it reaches the exhaustion point that superhero films may be approaching.  Edit: Narrow it to just the last three years and the big companies and we've had 7 Marvel movies and 4 DC, versus 3 Star Wars.  In 2018 alone we will have 1 Star Wars versus 3 Marvel and 1 DC.  Superhero movies are coming out at a 4-1 rate compared to Star Wars movies even if we compare only the big names for the last three years and the near future.

[Illidan Stormrage]

Just using the stats when it suits your case. There’s been reports of review bombing attempts for the Last Jedi because it had asian, black, and female protagonists. So the reviews on RT are not completely credibile for that reason, and also because people likely to review a movie are ones more concerned with quality to begin with, while many average movie goers, even if they hate a movie, simply don’t.

Secondly, and the real reason that your post irks me so nuch, is the complete and utter fact that it’s cherry picking stats. TFA has after the year since it’s release an 88% approval rating by audience, and somehow a 93% by critics. And that movie was terrible. Great for Mr. Peutro who has a compelling arguement for liking the movie, but overall terrible. So can you really trust the stats when you consider all that?

Can i point out that reports are reports. Your complain Xizer is using something that stats that are not "completely accurate" and then you use something that is not completely true. As someone who knows how rotten tomatoes works they have a system in place to both detect bots, and troll posts. So no, you are incorrect, but i will see at least maybe 1-5% of the reviews could be trolls. However that is not enough to lower the films audience score that low, so yes acutal people that are not s posted legit reviews that gave it a low score.

As for TFA this is a simple reason. If was given the benefit of the doubt, people say okay that's cool and they get a chance and most like it(I did not because the more i watched it the more it bother me, compare to TLJ which i liked even more every time i see it) So yeah the reviews are 100% accurate but they represent alot of perple

[Admiral Stephen]

Just using the stats when it suits your case. There’s been reports of review bombing attempts for the Last Jedi because it had asian, black, and female protagonists. So the reviews on RT are not completely credibile for that reason, and also because people likely to review a movie are ones more concerned with quality to begin with, while many average movie goers, even if they hate a movie, simply don’t.

For example, I’ve spent hours extolling my hatred for TFA, dedciated a few days worth of my life to it. And never have I once gave it a bad review on any offical site. So yeah, the stats aren’t always reliable.

Secondly, and the real reason that your post irks me so nuch, is the complete and utter fact that it’s cherry picking stats. TFA has after the year since it’s release an 88% approval rating by audience, and somehow a 93% by critics. And that movie was terrible. Great for Mr. Peutro who has a compelling arguement for liking the movie, but overall terrible. So can you really trust the stats when you consider all that?

Can i point out that reports are reports. Your complain Xizer is using something that stats that are not "completely accurate" and then you use something that is not completely true. As someone who knows how rotten tomatoes works they have a system in place to both detect bots, and troll posts. So no, you are incorrect, but i will see at least maybe 1-5% of the reviews could be trolls. However that is not enough to lower the films audience score that low, so yes acutal people that are not s posted legit reviews that gave it a low score.

As for TFA this is a simple reason. If was given the benefit of the doubt, people say okay that's cool and they get a chance and most like it(I did not because the more i watched it the more it bother me, compare to TLJ which i liked even more every time i see it) So yeah the reviews are 100% accurate but they represent alot of perple

I've read those same reports, but there's no way that score isn't at least somewhat reflective of what the audience thinks. I wasn't the biggest fan of either TFA or TLJ (I did like Rouge One), but I was one of those who did think TLJ could have been waaayyy better than it turned out to be. I feel Disney missed a huge opportunity with TLJ. I think there are fans out there that were hoping for way more from TLJ after TFA left so much unanswered, and their reviews are reflecting that.

[Lord Xizer]

And yet each of these has made comebacks in recent years, with "La La Land" nearly winning best picture, with "There Will Be Blood" (and even "Logan"), with the recent Spartacus series.  Yes, they were overdone, but that was because EVERYONE was doing them, not because 1 movie was coming out each year.  I agree that superhero movies are reaching the oversaturation point, but so does Marvel, which is why they're being more experimental as they go.

Granted, but in five years?  That may not still be the case, if DSC remains successful.

Can you actually provide some numbers to support this claim? edit: I ask this because I can easily provide numbers showing that Marvel's box office results have overall been improving over time, not diminishing: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?view=main&id=marvelcomics.htm&p=.htm shows the peak with Avengers 1, but Avengers 2 outperformed the other movies, Iron Man 3 outperformed the other Iron Man movies, Guardians 2 outperformed Guardians 1, Ragnarok outperformed the other Thor movies, Civil War the other Cap movies... they've made MORE money as they've gone on, not less.

Yeah, die hard Star Trek fan, so I can indeed do that.

They should've stopped with the OT then, because I don't think the prequels were Star Wars's best chance at going out on a high note - I'd say the sequels so far have been far superior to the prequels, and I'm far happier with them being the swan song for the franchise if that's how things turn out.

You're missing the basic point here, while also confirming my point on the Westerns and Rome/ with very few exceptions spaced out over the last two decades you can count on one hand successful or remotely memorable films that fall into that genera and equally few TV series with nearly every one being about dying out AS a theme. You even admit to beginning to feel the superhero  oversaturation. The same forces that pushed these genera to deaths door are being reflected directly in the superhero genera and Disney is planning MULTIPLE film releases PER year of SW. TFA didn't do great because it was a superior film, it did so because of nostalgia, not having direct competition and a decad break in SW. While TLJ got many views it received a 49% rating because unlike TFA it didn't have the gap. And that is now, wait til  we have 3 or more films a year. SW will cease being a phenomenon and become mundane mass produced normalcy  until it dies from lack of profit.

[Slornie]

The same forces that pushed these genera to deaths door are being reflected directly in the superhero genera and Disney is planning MULTIPLE film releases PER year of SW. TFA didn't do great because it was a superior film, it did so because of nostalgia, not having direct competition and a decad break in SW. While TLJ got many views it received a 49% rating because unlike TFA it didn't have the gap. And that is now, wait til  we have 3 or more films a year. SW will cease being a phenomenon and become mundane mass produced normalcy  until it dies from lack of profit.

Disney will have to really ramp up production if they're going to manage multiple SW films per year, and so far I've seen no evidence of that being the likely outcome.  So far they've managed one per year for three years (soon to be four years), and we've only got firm details of a fifth film (Episode IX).  We've no idea when or over how long Rian Johnson's trilogy will emerge, and only really have rumours about potential further spin-offs (e.g. Obi-Wan? Yoda? Boba Fett?).

And even if they do manage to accomplish that rate of release it's still a long way short of that seen in the superhero superhero/comic genre over recent and coming years:

2016
Deadpool
Batman v Superman
Captain America 3
X-Men Apocalypse
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2?)
Suicide Squad
Doctor Strange

2017
Logan
Power Rangers
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Wonder Woman
Spider Man
Thor 3
Justice League

2018
Black Panther
Avengers Infinity War
Deadpool 2
Ant Man 2
X-Men Dark Phoenix
Aquaman

And that's just from skimming through Wikipedia's year-in-film pages for names I recognise, not accounting for animated films like Lego Batman, Incredibles 2, other similar sci-fi action movies or video game-related franchises like the upcoming Tomb Raider (again).

[Mr.Puerto]

I've read those same reports, but there's no way that score isn't at least somewhat reflective of what the audience thinks. I wasn't the biggest fan of either TFA or TLJ (I did like Rouge One), but I was one of those who did think TLJ could have been waaayyy better than it turned out to be. I feel Disney missed a huge opportunity with TLJ. I think there are fans out there that were hoping for way more from TLJ after TFA left so much unanswered, and their reviews are reflecting that.

If you look at the reviews it’s almost obvious that bots where used to give TLJ bad reviews so there’s no way to solve it and make sure it was accurate