I can’t lie, I sort of agree with your lecturer. I don’t loathe the sequels and I think the fandumb menace nonsense around them was stupid but some of the more broad criticisms do make sense. Episode 7 is a retelling of episode 4 and 9 is a clusterfuck of a film. I actually respect The Last Jedi from a filmmaking perspective however, many of its decisions were very creative and it could’ve resulted in an excellent trilogy if TROS actually stuck to it.
Yep after TROS I no longer felt invested in the ST. Now if the Rey movie reopens interesting ideas and continues something from the TLJ then maybe I’ll be vested again. All the arguments and discussion around TLJ felt so pointless after TROS.
I love the sequels but she isn't wrong. They are the product of a corporate approach to film making.
I would say that the proper answer to her is that for all of his independent vision in the face of conventional wisdom Lucas was still working inside of a corporate environment. He didn't have shareholders per se but from Jedi on his ability to license his products for merchandise was a major concern (Gary Kurtz who produced ANH and ESB was very explicit that this was one of the reasons he wasn't involved in RotJ). SW characters were heavily used in marketing throughout the prequel era to the point where you couldn't walk through any store without being reminded SW was a thing.
I would also argue that both TLJ and Andor are much more daring and provocative than anything Lucas did. TLJ questions a lot of the facile way in which Lucas dealt with fascism by challenging both the cult of the heroic rebel pilot and the rebel's obsession with traditionalism (be sure and cite Umberto Eco's essay Ur Fascism) while simultaneously affirming that both tradition and self sacrifice have value with the proper self awareness and responsibility. Andor is basically Albert Camus' Star Wars (I suggest reading both Resistance, Rebellion and Death and Letters to a German Friend and quoting both works).
There are also plenty of other examples of corporate films outside SW with strong messaging: Barbie is the most obvious recent example but really any good superhero movie from the last twenty years will do. Even the Snyder movies (which I enjoy but are generally considered bad outside the Snyderbro community) have a very definite authorial voice and PoV.
Don't challenge this, because your lecturer is right. The sequels had no unified vision because they were made in a board room that was also in the middle of playing musical chairs.
Many parts of the sequels simply do not make sense as a coherent story. Character arcs are forgotten, the plot meanders and the strings that ties the films together are thin at best.
Say what you will about the prequels- yes the acting was stiff and the dialogue flawed and cheesy- but the narrative is strong and the arc of Annakin to DV was really explored through the 3 films from start to finish.
Even as someone who defends aspects of all three Sequel movies, your teacher is right. It's not even a dig at their quality to call them corporate filmmaking.
I mean. I think your lecturer has a point?
Both the PT and OT have one singular thing binding them. A character focus on the Skywalkers. It was a story about them as a family, and episodes 7 and 8 tried to move away from them.
People didn't like the sudden shift away from what the main movie series had been about up to this point so they tried to course correct by having this found family narrative in the Rise of Skywalker, but it comes in too late to feel meaningfully earned.
We can argue back and forth on whether or not taking the focus away from the Skywalkers was a good or bad thing but it does mean on the whole the ST doesn't feel very cohesive with the PT and OT.
And of course there's the whole mess with bringing Palpatine back.
EDIT: Updated wording for clarity.
Who said anything about the force being only limited to the Skywalkers?
It’s not about “Who can use the force and who can’t”. It’s about the character focus on a family and like it or not, episodes 1-6 were focused on that family.
Dude. I didn’t say anything regarding the debate on how the force should work. I just said episodes 1 through 6 had a CHARACTER FOCUS on the Skywalkers.
That’s not the same thing!
Just because you have one special bloodline doesn’t mean other people can’t be special.
Ashoka, Obi-Wan, Kanan, Ezra. They’re all talented force users and they’re not part of some special bloodline.
I’m agreeing with the lecturers statement that the sequel trilogy doesn’t fit thematically with the PT and OT. The PT and OT were the story of the Skywalkers. The sequel trilogy doesn’t feel like it’s about the Skywalkers until the very end and doesn’t feel earned or cohesive with the PT and OT as a result.
I’ve since updated the original comment to make the point I was trying to make clearer.
I mean I’ve definitely disagreed with professors before and that’s okay. Especially with the arts, it often comes down to subjectivity. It’s one class, and there’s no reason to get bogged down in the weeds. It’s good for you to be challenged and for you to challenge the others, but it’s not worth getting angry over.
You could make the argument for most franchises made by major studios tbh. Most franchises fall apart once the primary driver is profit over an artists vision and this is somewhat inevitable when it comes to popular franchises. Disney et al. don't give a shit about quality or artistic merit, those things are very secondary to making money which is the primary purpose of those entities.
>I think, quite frankly, you need to start thinking like someone who is (presumably) an adult taking (presumably) a college level course, and not a fan arguing with other fans online.
>Lately, she has shifted to using the Sequels as an example of what she calls ‘corporate filmmaking’, and drawing comparisons on how they ‘don’t thematically line up with the prior works’ (1 - 6) and as a text ying yang film to film in theme.
I agree with the first part of this statement, especially in regards to Abrams films. I don't think thematic mismatch with the originals is necessarily the issue, nor do I think every element of the sequels exemplifies "corporate filmmaking", in many ways they don't. But without clear examples presented with good faith levels of context, which given you are pissed off at your instructor and asking reddit how to debate them, I doubt you are giving.
>None of them are big prequel fans, but when I challenge them they all point to those films having a unifying theme, a driving force from one man’s vision, that artistically gives them more ‘merit’ (whatever that means) than 7 - 9.
>They’ve also been drawing a comparison between the PT and ST, and how the ST is supposedly a reaction to fan backlash. They say that the PT lacks good direction, bad performances and poor writing, but extensively wax poetic about what it has to say about democracy, dictatorships, how people can be made to happily wave away their freedom and how institutions can become stagnant.
To me it sounds like your classmates are handling this course of study much better than you, being able to put aside their personal preferences about whether they arbitrarily like or dislike a film in order to analyze specific aspects of it.
>How can I challenge this?
You don't. People who try to challenge their college lecturers over disagreements like this are annoying and often waste the very limited class time on aspects of the topic that are not relevant to the discussion.
>I’ve pointed to 8 for its excellent deconstruction of Luke Skywalker, and thematic connections to 1 - 6, and while my lecturer agrees, they all feel the supposed pivot in 9 robs the trilogy of all lasting resonance beyond the performances.
It sounds like they conceded to one of the main counterarguments already, showing they're being fairly reasonable about this. I think saying that 9 robs it of ALL lasting resonance is a bit harsh, but in the context of the topic of the lecture it's not a totally wrong conclusion.
>I’ve pointed to Lucas extensive merchandising and poor track record with women characters, and most agree at least on the merch, but feel one man’s vision that can be called poor beats a trilogy that supposedly has ‘nothing meaningful to say by the end’
Merchandising is not really relevant, this is a media analysis course and that is not part of the actual media. Not sure what his "poor track record with women characters", which boils down to some pervy costumes and a bad ending to Padme's story, has to do with this either. Lots of auteur filmmakers going purely off their own artistic whims have similar problems.
Yo, I left my Reddit logged in and my buddy posted this as a joke when I told him I agreed with my lecturer. Told me he wanted to ‘blow up my mentions’. Lmao
I actually agree with you wholeheartedly
So you're angry that your media literacy teacher and the majority of your class agrees that the ST is corporate filmmaking and you disagree?
I'm sorry but this seems like a you problem, sometimes we have to admit we are wrong, it's a growing experience we all have to, or at least should, go through.
For example, I can not stand Radiohead and REM and in my teens I would angrily tell anyone who asked that they were moaning depressing shit and beige guitar pop respectively, I now accept that they are talented bands and they just aren't for me.
>So you're angry that your media literacy teacher and the majority of your class agrees that the ST is corporate filmmaking and you disagree?
Also, it's an example meant to demonstrate a concept for learning purposes. Anyone with collegiate level critical thinking skills should be able to look past an example they take issue with the usage of and focus on the underlying concept being communicated.
And sometimes we have to stand our ground when we disagree. Even when it's the minority view or argued against an authority.
An argument being advocated by an influential figure (like an instructor) is not evidence for that argument. (Appeal to authority)
An argument being advocated by the majority is not evidence for the argument (appeal to the people).
And since we're talking about a series of movies, it can all definitely be argued, since evidence is mostly going to come down to framing.
OFC, but just because you feel you are right doesn't make it so, when it comes to subjective opinion if you find yourself holding the minority position then you should be able to say to yourself, "ok I still disagree but I guess that's just me" not "I am angry, they are wrong and I am right". The latter is a little bit of an immature position imo.
Maybe, but I think that response comes from the majority position holders believing they are right just because they are the majority, and in this case a subjective opinion being taught by a college instructor as though it were the correct, objective, and academic position to hold.
In an academic setting studying subjective things though you have to accept the majority position is correct to an extent, I mean, you can still disagree with it but arguing about it is at worst disruptive to the class and at best a pointless exercise in egocentrism. Absolute refusal to put your personal feelings aside and accept the majority position makes for a poor student of anything artistic imo.
Otherwise there is no real point to the study of anything artistic. If you want to hold and champion a minority position then it's on you to produce compelling arguments as to why you feel that that is the correct position, in an academic setting "I think I'm right and think you are wrong" is not going to get you good grades. I will add that even if you fail to convince anyone but can come up with good valid and well thought out arguments as to why you hold the minority opinion then it's a poor educator that won't give you merit for it.
I find it hard to argue that you can't see some effects of corporate filmmaking in the sequel trilogy.
1. The use of nostalgia in 7
2. Some noticeable drops in quality from the rush for 9 to be released in time (I think even if you like 9 it is hard to argue the released product is not a downgrade from the novelisation which was allowed more time).
One of the big problems of the prequel trilogy is that George basically used it as a vessel to develop new technology and one could argue that the quality of the films came second. I guess you can also argue that 3 was a downgrade form the Matthew Stover novelisation, but that's believed to be because of George surrounding himself with yes-men rather than corporate pressure specifically.
Tbh I kinda agree too but personally when I think of “corporate filmmaking” I think of marvel movies this is in no way to say marvel movies are bad at all tho but they are very corporate feeling at times
It's hard to argue with that beyond pointing out that for most people having something to say is way less important than being good action movies. The major films are usually devoid of any thematic point or that point is simple to the level of being essentially worthless. The PT and OT are hardly better. Their main points are that Democracy is vulnerable to attacks from within and that fascism is bad, respectfully. Hardly ground breaking stuff.
The PT sucks because it is one man's vision but that one man was blinded by his inability to accept his own limits and by not really having the energy to make the films actually hold any substance.
Unfortunately, she's right, and the movies themselves agree, or at least TLJ does. Rose's whole rant about war profiteers supporting conflicts so they can make bank was literally a jab at Disney.
Yeah, it’s a fair comparison. In fact, most of the major blockbusters franchises can be categorised as the same too. And that’s not necessarily bad thing too, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan used blockbusters as a way to build relationships with studios to get their passion project funded, for example Jurassic Park and Dark Knight Trilogy.
It’s just exceptionally stupid to deride the sequels as a “corporate trilogy” when that was George Lucas’s governing motivation with the original films anyway.
Yes the very first Star Wars was relatively experimental and an actual risk, and nearly took Lucas to the hospital with stress and overwork, but after that the writing was on the wall and Lucas never made any bones about harnessing the incredibly lucrative merchandising, particularly directed towards children, that was at the heart of much of the rest of it even they were still good stories.
Star Wars is exceedingly corporate, even in its politics, and it’s not even vaguely subtle about any of it. This professor sounds very boring and a bit of an idiot, maybe even a redditor.
edit: use your words, turds. downvoting is boring.
Ok, I'll bite. That's true, all of the movies have a corporate element to them, that they need to make money and advertise toys, but the OT and PT have more to them.
The OT: Greatness can come from anywhere. The humblest farm boys and most selfish smugglers can become the greatest heroes. The evilest villains can still be redeemed (sometimes). The most advanced army ever can still be brought to its knees by its own hubris and some well motivated teddy bears. Richard Nixon sucks.
The PT: Evil can come from anywhere, and it often comes in a pleasing form. Most people are willing to become or allow evil if they feel threatened enough. Liberty often dies to thunderous applause.
The ST: The myth of the OT is something to aspire to, but it is just a myth, but it's still important. And evil often comes back.
Not saying there isn't a theme to the ST, but it's super muddled and is mostly just a rehash and reference to the OT.
You're asking the wrong sub. r/starwarscantina would be the place to go if you want good rebuttals to what you're lecturer is talking about.
They're no more or less corporate than the films under Lucas. Abraham and Johnson were granted a large amount of autonomy for how their entries would go. Now, one might argue on the lack of collaboration between Abrams and Johnson, but that doesn't make the movies corporate.
I'd need to know by how she in particular believes that the sequels contradicted the themes of Lucas' 6 films to argue on that. Or the evidence that they're a response to fan backlash.
I'd also need to know what she considers this supposed pivot in 9. With more specifics I'd be willing to bet I can provide a solid alternate take.
>I’ve pointed to 8 for its excellent deconstruction of Luke Skywalker
Yeah nah. There was nothing excellent about how they handled his character in last jedi. There are ways to do the jaded older protagonist well, such as into the spider-verse. But they didn't do a good job, or even an okay job, with Luke.
>I am so angry
Why? The sequals are a mixed bag for most, and it's not just because the protagonist was a women, or one of the supporting casts was black. A mediocre trilogy is not something you should care that much about if others don't care for it.
Using the word nothing is a hyperbolic. There was plenty of excellent ideas surrounding Luke in TLJ, some of it went too far but it made sense. People disagreed with the interpretation of the character but that’s subjective and totally fine. It doesn’t mean that the subversion didn’t work in context just because it was painful to see a childhood hero fall so low.
>There was plenty of excellent ideas
An idea is only worth it's execution, and they executed those ideas poorly across the board.
>People disagreed with the interpretation of the character but that’s subjective and totally fine. It doesn’t mean that the subversion didn’t work in context just because it was painful to see a childhood hero fall so low.
When 99% os people, including the actor, feels like it was a bad interpretation, then you haven't done a good job.
To me, it wasn't that he had fallen so low, it was that he was unrecognizable from when we last saw him in 3. Nothing remained about Luke except the name. Not his optimism, nor the wisdom he showed in 3. Nothing of his personality remained. If he didn't have the name Luke, no one would have thought that they were the same character. And that was the big problem.
Just for comparsion, because I fucking love that movie, we have Peter parker from into the spider verse, our friendly neighboorhood spider-man. When we meet him, he's older, out of shape, and jaded as hell. But he still has his quick wit, humor, and desire to do good. You can tell a few seconds after meeting him that yea, this is Peter parker. I never felt that with Luke in the last Jedi.
Appeal to majority and popularity fallacy does not make a good argument. Even if the 99% statistic is hyperbolic as well. A more accurate statement could be when a majority of people. Including a bogus statistic only detracts from the points you’re making.
As a film, Johnson made it exactly how he intended and critically it did well. It also was well received by approximately half the audience initially. As a film on its own it works on ROTS/ESB/Andor level where tonally seems inconsistent with majority of pulp SW content. However like those projects it challenges conventions and are character driven narratives.
TLJ succeeds in developing the central characters of Rey and Kylo. They form an emotional bound beyond their force dayd through similar (though not exact) familial trauma. They both are/feel alienated by their family and failed by the institutions they aligned with. In the end instead of embracing a way forward in spite of those institutions, they return to them and continue the galactic conflict. TLJ succeeds in this regard, the rest of the story is secondary. Unfortunately the set up was wasted in TROS by a predictable though well acted redemption arc.
The lecturer isn't necessarily wrong. Individually, Force Awakens and Last Jedi are strong movies and high quality, in my opinion anyway. Let's not talk about Rise of Skywalker 😂 But I'll go to bat every time to say that those two are great movies and much of the hate they get is simply disguised misogyny and racism (to be clear: Not everyone that doesn't like them is a racist or misogynist, I know lots of people who just plain don't like Star Wars period. That's fine, not everything is for everyone. I'm talking about the deep down *hate* the new movies get, the *hate* in the bones of the "critics.")
But they're not a thematically coherent trilogy the way the first two trilogies are. Rey's journey in 7 and 8 works, but the Resistance's story through all three films feels disjointed, Finn's journey is all over the place, Poe does a lot but doesn't actually *go* anywhere as a character. The third movie shoehorns a bunch of characters that don't need to be in it for no appreciable reason. Kylo Ren's journey makes sense. But all together it feels like the first movie was deliberately made safely to make it more of a box office success (the story is a retread of A New Hope, but done well and with variations and resonances with New Hope that I think set up Last Jedi great).
Last Jedi was riskier and turned out to be a great movie in my view (taking the theme of trying to break the cycle that has plagued the Star Wars universe from the Old Republic thousands of years ago to now, break that and begin a new world instead of simply rebuilding the old one) but drew a ton of hate. Rise of Skywalker feels like a corporate attempt to please all fans, but in the end pleased none and undid what thematic cohesion the first two had built.
Your professor might have a point, but I don't see how the Sequels didn't have a message. Ultimately, it was that no matter your family history or expectations, you can rise above them and choose your own destiny. There's also a good bit of "found family" thrown in there for good measure.
I feel like it gets kinda undermined by Rey taking the last name Skywalker in the end, since she's now taking her spot in this great legacy as opposed to just accepting herself for who she is.
But the family that took her in was the Resistance. I'd argue it would make more sense for her to take the Solo surname, since Han and Leia were in very parental roles whole Luke was more just a jaded mentor.
But who did Rey have a closer bond to? I think it's hard to argue that she had more of a bond with Luke than she did with Han or Leia, but she didn't take the name Rey Solo or Rey Organa. honestly I would've actually really liked Rey Solo, she rejected the legacy of her grandfather and claimed the name of an old smuggler who set her on the right path, a man who when the chips were down always came back to fighting for the good guys.
I also would've appreciated it because it would've also shown a modicum of respect for Rey's parentage as stated in The Last Jedi - Solo might as well be a family of no ones.
I can’t lie, I sort of agree with your lecturer. I don’t loathe the sequels and I think the fandumb menace nonsense around them was stupid but some of the more broad criticisms do make sense. Episode 7 is a retelling of episode 4 and 9 is a clusterfuck of a film. I actually respect The Last Jedi from a filmmaking perspective however, many of its decisions were very creative and it could’ve resulted in an excellent trilogy if TROS actually stuck to it.
Yep after TROS I no longer felt invested in the ST. Now if the Rey movie reopens interesting ideas and continues something from the TLJ then maybe I’ll be vested again. All the arguments and discussion around TLJ felt so pointless after TROS.
I love the sequels but she isn't wrong. They are the product of a corporate approach to film making. I would say that the proper answer to her is that for all of his independent vision in the face of conventional wisdom Lucas was still working inside of a corporate environment. He didn't have shareholders per se but from Jedi on his ability to license his products for merchandise was a major concern (Gary Kurtz who produced ANH and ESB was very explicit that this was one of the reasons he wasn't involved in RotJ). SW characters were heavily used in marketing throughout the prequel era to the point where you couldn't walk through any store without being reminded SW was a thing. I would also argue that both TLJ and Andor are much more daring and provocative than anything Lucas did. TLJ questions a lot of the facile way in which Lucas dealt with fascism by challenging both the cult of the heroic rebel pilot and the rebel's obsession with traditionalism (be sure and cite Umberto Eco's essay Ur Fascism) while simultaneously affirming that both tradition and self sacrifice have value with the proper self awareness and responsibility. Andor is basically Albert Camus' Star Wars (I suggest reading both Resistance, Rebellion and Death and Letters to a German Friend and quoting both works). There are also plenty of other examples of corporate films outside SW with strong messaging: Barbie is the most obvious recent example but really any good superhero movie from the last twenty years will do. Even the Snyder movies (which I enjoy but are generally considered bad outside the Snyderbro community) have a very definite authorial voice and PoV.
She's correct on the corporate thing.
Teacher's right
Don't challenge this, because your lecturer is right. The sequels had no unified vision because they were made in a board room that was also in the middle of playing musical chairs. Many parts of the sequels simply do not make sense as a coherent story. Character arcs are forgotten, the plot meanders and the strings that ties the films together are thin at best. Say what you will about the prequels- yes the acting was stiff and the dialogue flawed and cheesy- but the narrative is strong and the arc of Annakin to DV was really explored through the 3 films from start to finish.
Even as someone who defends aspects of all three Sequel movies, your teacher is right. It's not even a dig at their quality to call them corporate filmmaking.
I mean. I think your lecturer has a point? Both the PT and OT have one singular thing binding them. A character focus on the Skywalkers. It was a story about them as a family, and episodes 7 and 8 tried to move away from them. People didn't like the sudden shift away from what the main movie series had been about up to this point so they tried to course correct by having this found family narrative in the Rise of Skywalker, but it comes in too late to feel meaningfully earned. We can argue back and forth on whether or not taking the focus away from the Skywalkers was a good or bad thing but it does mean on the whole the ST doesn't feel very cohesive with the PT and OT. And of course there's the whole mess with bringing Palpatine back. EDIT: Updated wording for clarity.
[удалено]
Who said anything about the force being only limited to the Skywalkers? It’s not about “Who can use the force and who can’t”. It’s about the character focus on a family and like it or not, episodes 1-6 were focused on that family.
[удалено]
Dude. I didn’t say anything regarding the debate on how the force should work. I just said episodes 1 through 6 had a CHARACTER FOCUS on the Skywalkers. That’s not the same thing!
[удалено]
Just because you have one special bloodline doesn’t mean other people can’t be special. Ashoka, Obi-Wan, Kanan, Ezra. They’re all talented force users and they’re not part of some special bloodline.
[удалено]
I’m agreeing with the lecturers statement that the sequel trilogy doesn’t fit thematically with the PT and OT. The PT and OT were the story of the Skywalkers. The sequel trilogy doesn’t feel like it’s about the Skywalkers until the very end and doesn’t feel earned or cohesive with the PT and OT as a result. I’ve since updated the original comment to make the point I was trying to make clearer.
I mean I’ve definitely disagreed with professors before and that’s okay. Especially with the arts, it often comes down to subjectivity. It’s one class, and there’s no reason to get bogged down in the weeds. It’s good for you to be challenged and for you to challenge the others, but it’s not worth getting angry over.
You could use most of Disney for this
You could make the argument for most franchises made by major studios tbh. Most franchises fall apart once the primary driver is profit over an artists vision and this is somewhat inevitable when it comes to popular franchises. Disney et al. don't give a shit about quality or artistic merit, those things are very secondary to making money which is the primary purpose of those entities.
>I think, quite frankly, you need to start thinking like someone who is (presumably) an adult taking (presumably) a college level course, and not a fan arguing with other fans online. >Lately, she has shifted to using the Sequels as an example of what she calls ‘corporate filmmaking’, and drawing comparisons on how they ‘don’t thematically line up with the prior works’ (1 - 6) and as a text ying yang film to film in theme. I agree with the first part of this statement, especially in regards to Abrams films. I don't think thematic mismatch with the originals is necessarily the issue, nor do I think every element of the sequels exemplifies "corporate filmmaking", in many ways they don't. But without clear examples presented with good faith levels of context, which given you are pissed off at your instructor and asking reddit how to debate them, I doubt you are giving. >None of them are big prequel fans, but when I challenge them they all point to those films having a unifying theme, a driving force from one man’s vision, that artistically gives them more ‘merit’ (whatever that means) than 7 - 9. >They’ve also been drawing a comparison between the PT and ST, and how the ST is supposedly a reaction to fan backlash. They say that the PT lacks good direction, bad performances and poor writing, but extensively wax poetic about what it has to say about democracy, dictatorships, how people can be made to happily wave away their freedom and how institutions can become stagnant. To me it sounds like your classmates are handling this course of study much better than you, being able to put aside their personal preferences about whether they arbitrarily like or dislike a film in order to analyze specific aspects of it. >How can I challenge this? You don't. People who try to challenge their college lecturers over disagreements like this are annoying and often waste the very limited class time on aspects of the topic that are not relevant to the discussion. >I’ve pointed to 8 for its excellent deconstruction of Luke Skywalker, and thematic connections to 1 - 6, and while my lecturer agrees, they all feel the supposed pivot in 9 robs the trilogy of all lasting resonance beyond the performances. It sounds like they conceded to one of the main counterarguments already, showing they're being fairly reasonable about this. I think saying that 9 robs it of ALL lasting resonance is a bit harsh, but in the context of the topic of the lecture it's not a totally wrong conclusion. >I’ve pointed to Lucas extensive merchandising and poor track record with women characters, and most agree at least on the merch, but feel one man’s vision that can be called poor beats a trilogy that supposedly has ‘nothing meaningful to say by the end’ Merchandising is not really relevant, this is a media analysis course and that is not part of the actual media. Not sure what his "poor track record with women characters", which boils down to some pervy costumes and a bad ending to Padme's story, has to do with this either. Lots of auteur filmmakers going purely off their own artistic whims have similar problems.
Yo, I left my Reddit logged in and my buddy posted this as a joke when I told him I agreed with my lecturer. Told me he wanted to ‘blow up my mentions’. Lmao I actually agree with you wholeheartedly
It's a fair comparison. They were rushed to make back the 4 billion spent on the IP and made with next to no plan at all.
I like the Sequels more then most of the films Lucas did, but your lecturer is correct about most of this.
So you're angry that your media literacy teacher and the majority of your class agrees that the ST is corporate filmmaking and you disagree? I'm sorry but this seems like a you problem, sometimes we have to admit we are wrong, it's a growing experience we all have to, or at least should, go through. For example, I can not stand Radiohead and REM and in my teens I would angrily tell anyone who asked that they were moaning depressing shit and beige guitar pop respectively, I now accept that they are talented bands and they just aren't for me.
>So you're angry that your media literacy teacher and the majority of your class agrees that the ST is corporate filmmaking and you disagree? Also, it's an example meant to demonstrate a concept for learning purposes. Anyone with collegiate level critical thinking skills should be able to look past an example they take issue with the usage of and focus on the underlying concept being communicated.
And sometimes we have to stand our ground when we disagree. Even when it's the minority view or argued against an authority. An argument being advocated by an influential figure (like an instructor) is not evidence for that argument. (Appeal to authority) An argument being advocated by the majority is not evidence for the argument (appeal to the people). And since we're talking about a series of movies, it can all definitely be argued, since evidence is mostly going to come down to framing.
OFC, but just because you feel you are right doesn't make it so, when it comes to subjective opinion if you find yourself holding the minority position then you should be able to say to yourself, "ok I still disagree but I guess that's just me" not "I am angry, they are wrong and I am right". The latter is a little bit of an immature position imo.
Maybe, but I think that response comes from the majority position holders believing they are right just because they are the majority, and in this case a subjective opinion being taught by a college instructor as though it were the correct, objective, and academic position to hold.
In an academic setting studying subjective things though you have to accept the majority position is correct to an extent, I mean, you can still disagree with it but arguing about it is at worst disruptive to the class and at best a pointless exercise in egocentrism. Absolute refusal to put your personal feelings aside and accept the majority position makes for a poor student of anything artistic imo. Otherwise there is no real point to the study of anything artistic. If you want to hold and champion a minority position then it's on you to produce compelling arguments as to why you feel that that is the correct position, in an academic setting "I think I'm right and think you are wrong" is not going to get you good grades. I will add that even if you fail to convince anyone but can come up with good valid and well thought out arguments as to why you hold the minority opinion then it's a poor educator that won't give you merit for it.
I find it hard to argue that you can't see some effects of corporate filmmaking in the sequel trilogy. 1. The use of nostalgia in 7 2. Some noticeable drops in quality from the rush for 9 to be released in time (I think even if you like 9 it is hard to argue the released product is not a downgrade from the novelisation which was allowed more time). One of the big problems of the prequel trilogy is that George basically used it as a vessel to develop new technology and one could argue that the quality of the films came second. I guess you can also argue that 3 was a downgrade form the Matthew Stover novelisation, but that's believed to be because of George surrounding himself with yes-men rather than corporate pressure specifically.
Tbh I kinda agree too but personally when I think of “corporate filmmaking” I think of marvel movies this is in no way to say marvel movies are bad at all tho but they are very corporate feeling at times
It's hard to argue with that beyond pointing out that for most people having something to say is way less important than being good action movies. The major films are usually devoid of any thematic point or that point is simple to the level of being essentially worthless. The PT and OT are hardly better. Their main points are that Democracy is vulnerable to attacks from within and that fascism is bad, respectfully. Hardly ground breaking stuff. The PT sucks because it is one man's vision but that one man was blinded by his inability to accept his own limits and by not really having the energy to make the films actually hold any substance.
Bruh it was literally corporate product pushed out before they had a plan in place 😂
Unfortunately, she's right, and the movies themselves agree, or at least TLJ does. Rose's whole rant about war profiteers supporting conflicts so they can make bank was literally a jab at Disney.
This professor isn't wrong. Disney is a mega corporation, every movie they make is due to "corporate filmmaking"
Yeah, it’s a fair comparison. In fact, most of the major blockbusters franchises can be categorised as the same too. And that’s not necessarily bad thing too, filmmakers like Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan used blockbusters as a way to build relationships with studios to get their passion project funded, for example Jurassic Park and Dark Knight Trilogy.
It’s just exceptionally stupid to deride the sequels as a “corporate trilogy” when that was George Lucas’s governing motivation with the original films anyway. Yes the very first Star Wars was relatively experimental and an actual risk, and nearly took Lucas to the hospital with stress and overwork, but after that the writing was on the wall and Lucas never made any bones about harnessing the incredibly lucrative merchandising, particularly directed towards children, that was at the heart of much of the rest of it even they were still good stories. Star Wars is exceedingly corporate, even in its politics, and it’s not even vaguely subtle about any of it. This professor sounds very boring and a bit of an idiot, maybe even a redditor. edit: use your words, turds. downvoting is boring.
Ok, I'll bite. That's true, all of the movies have a corporate element to them, that they need to make money and advertise toys, but the OT and PT have more to them. The OT: Greatness can come from anywhere. The humblest farm boys and most selfish smugglers can become the greatest heroes. The evilest villains can still be redeemed (sometimes). The most advanced army ever can still be brought to its knees by its own hubris and some well motivated teddy bears. Richard Nixon sucks. The PT: Evil can come from anywhere, and it often comes in a pleasing form. Most people are willing to become or allow evil if they feel threatened enough. Liberty often dies to thunderous applause. The ST: The myth of the OT is something to aspire to, but it is just a myth, but it's still important. And evil often comes back. Not saying there isn't a theme to the ST, but it's super muddled and is mostly just a rehash and reference to the OT.
Don't let it get to your head. I had a lecturer who had the same opinion of any movie with a well-known lead actor.
You're asking the wrong sub. r/starwarscantina would be the place to go if you want good rebuttals to what you're lecturer is talking about. They're no more or less corporate than the films under Lucas. Abraham and Johnson were granted a large amount of autonomy for how their entries would go. Now, one might argue on the lack of collaboration between Abrams and Johnson, but that doesn't make the movies corporate. I'd need to know by how she in particular believes that the sequels contradicted the themes of Lucas' 6 films to argue on that. Or the evidence that they're a response to fan backlash. I'd also need to know what she considers this supposed pivot in 9. With more specifics I'd be willing to bet I can provide a solid alternate take.
>I’ve pointed to 8 for its excellent deconstruction of Luke Skywalker Yeah nah. There was nothing excellent about how they handled his character in last jedi. There are ways to do the jaded older protagonist well, such as into the spider-verse. But they didn't do a good job, or even an okay job, with Luke. >I am so angry Why? The sequals are a mixed bag for most, and it's not just because the protagonist was a women, or one of the supporting casts was black. A mediocre trilogy is not something you should care that much about if others don't care for it.
Using the word nothing is a hyperbolic. There was plenty of excellent ideas surrounding Luke in TLJ, some of it went too far but it made sense. People disagreed with the interpretation of the character but that’s subjective and totally fine. It doesn’t mean that the subversion didn’t work in context just because it was painful to see a childhood hero fall so low.
>There was plenty of excellent ideas An idea is only worth it's execution, and they executed those ideas poorly across the board. >People disagreed with the interpretation of the character but that’s subjective and totally fine. It doesn’t mean that the subversion didn’t work in context just because it was painful to see a childhood hero fall so low. When 99% os people, including the actor, feels like it was a bad interpretation, then you haven't done a good job. To me, it wasn't that he had fallen so low, it was that he was unrecognizable from when we last saw him in 3. Nothing remained about Luke except the name. Not his optimism, nor the wisdom he showed in 3. Nothing of his personality remained. If he didn't have the name Luke, no one would have thought that they were the same character. And that was the big problem. Just for comparsion, because I fucking love that movie, we have Peter parker from into the spider verse, our friendly neighboorhood spider-man. When we meet him, he's older, out of shape, and jaded as hell. But he still has his quick wit, humor, and desire to do good. You can tell a few seconds after meeting him that yea, this is Peter parker. I never felt that with Luke in the last Jedi.
Appeal to majority and popularity fallacy does not make a good argument. Even if the 99% statistic is hyperbolic as well. A more accurate statement could be when a majority of people. Including a bogus statistic only detracts from the points you’re making. As a film, Johnson made it exactly how he intended and critically it did well. It also was well received by approximately half the audience initially. As a film on its own it works on ROTS/ESB/Andor level where tonally seems inconsistent with majority of pulp SW content. However like those projects it challenges conventions and are character driven narratives. TLJ succeeds in developing the central characters of Rey and Kylo. They form an emotional bound beyond their force dayd through similar (though not exact) familial trauma. They both are/feel alienated by their family and failed by the institutions they aligned with. In the end instead of embracing a way forward in spite of those institutions, they return to them and continue the galactic conflict. TLJ succeeds in this regard, the rest of the story is secondary. Unfortunately the set up was wasted in TROS by a predictable though well acted redemption arc.
The lecturer isn't necessarily wrong. Individually, Force Awakens and Last Jedi are strong movies and high quality, in my opinion anyway. Let's not talk about Rise of Skywalker 😂 But I'll go to bat every time to say that those two are great movies and much of the hate they get is simply disguised misogyny and racism (to be clear: Not everyone that doesn't like them is a racist or misogynist, I know lots of people who just plain don't like Star Wars period. That's fine, not everything is for everyone. I'm talking about the deep down *hate* the new movies get, the *hate* in the bones of the "critics.") But they're not a thematically coherent trilogy the way the first two trilogies are. Rey's journey in 7 and 8 works, but the Resistance's story through all three films feels disjointed, Finn's journey is all over the place, Poe does a lot but doesn't actually *go* anywhere as a character. The third movie shoehorns a bunch of characters that don't need to be in it for no appreciable reason. Kylo Ren's journey makes sense. But all together it feels like the first movie was deliberately made safely to make it more of a box office success (the story is a retread of A New Hope, but done well and with variations and resonances with New Hope that I think set up Last Jedi great). Last Jedi was riskier and turned out to be a great movie in my view (taking the theme of trying to break the cycle that has plagued the Star Wars universe from the Old Republic thousands of years ago to now, break that and begin a new world instead of simply rebuilding the old one) but drew a ton of hate. Rise of Skywalker feels like a corporate attempt to please all fans, but in the end pleased none and undid what thematic cohesion the first two had built.
Your professor might have a point, but I don't see how the Sequels didn't have a message. Ultimately, it was that no matter your family history or expectations, you can rise above them and choose your own destiny. There's also a good bit of "found family" thrown in there for good measure.
I feel like it gets kinda undermined by Rey taking the last name Skywalker in the end, since she's now taking her spot in this great legacy as opposed to just accepting herself for who she is.
I disagree, I see it as her honoring the family that took her in.
But the family that took her in was the Resistance. I'd argue it would make more sense for her to take the Solo surname, since Han and Leia were in very parental roles whole Luke was more just a jaded mentor.
But who did Rey have a closer bond to? I think it's hard to argue that she had more of a bond with Luke than she did with Han or Leia, but she didn't take the name Rey Solo or Rey Organa. honestly I would've actually really liked Rey Solo, she rejected the legacy of her grandfather and claimed the name of an old smuggler who set her on the right path, a man who when the chips were down always came back to fighting for the good guys. I also would've appreciated it because it would've also shown a modicum of respect for Rey's parentage as stated in The Last Jedi - Solo might as well be a family of no ones.
The problem is it comes in far too late for it to feel earned.