Statistically speaking, no way all three SW films will be good

[BadrHari]

Every franchise that has multiple sequels just get worse and worse as they go.... New writers / directors enter the franchise with their own 'creative' ideas and then a new film is put out there where they want to top the previous ones, and they always fail....

Terminator 3,4,5
Pirates 3
Spider-Man 3 and the reboot
Iron Man 3
Batman & Robin
Alien 3, 4 & AvP
Predators, AvP
and so so so much more......

Statistically speaking, we would be LUCKY to get 2 out of 3 great Star Wars Episode films. But its not likely to happen. Some filmmaker will have his own ideas that will suck, but it will go forward anyway to create 'mixed reviews' type of thing...

It would be wise if there was just ONE guy that could take charge of the entire trilogy.. As fans, we wanted JJ Abrams to be that guy with the backing of Lawrence Kasdan. But the idea of keep switching writers & directors will hurt the franchise just like Terminator franchise w/o James Cameron..

Dont get me wrong, Lucas was washed up before he made Prequels and that was def the wrong guy and all three turned out to suck, but putting a variety of ppl behind each film just seems like Disney is trying to earn back its 4 billion investment.

 

[Snow Queen]

They managed it fine with the original trilogy.

 

[kedrell]

Look, if you didn't like Iron Man 3 or TASM1 then you are welcome to that opinion. But they are both significantly minority opinions, just to be clear and I personally disagree with both. TASM1 to me is still the best Spider-man movie to date(I realize most would say SM2). I also thought Terminator 3 was pretty good as well, even if it did have a strong comedy streak to it.


Mixed reviews is what TASM2 and MoS got. A 50/50 split. T3, TASM1 and IM3 were not in that realm, hating whining fanboys be damned. All 3 are in the 70% range on RT. Not that RT is irrefutable or anything but it's just a small piece of evidence. Beyond online fanboys I've seen no real evidence of any significant problem the GA had with any of these 3 films. They liked all 3.

Now T3 and IM3 at the time were my least favorite of their respective franchises(T5 and especially T4 are worlds worse than T3 now though) but I still thought they were good movies and most people seemed to have agreed.

This ridiculous mindset that there's only greatness or crap needs to stop. Movies can fail to be great yet still be good and worthwhile. All 3 of these that I mentioned I'd describe them as such.

 

[Sithborg]

I trust Kathleen Kennedy.

 

[BadrHari]

They managed it fine with the original trilogy.

But you had a prime George Lucas running the show with a tight creative control around his films (except for first one of course).

But my point is when you always bring new people to the table, they will have new ideas and not all will work.

 

[BadrHari]

Look, if you didn't like Iron Man 3 or TASM1 then you are welcome to that opinion. But they are both significantly minority opinions, just to be clear and I personally disagree with both. TASM1 to me is still the best Spider-man movie to date(I realize most would say SM2). I also thought Terminator 3 was pretty good as well, even if it did have a strong comedy streak to it.


Mixed reviews is what TASM2 and MoS got. A 50/50 split. T3, TASM1 and IM3 were not in that realm, hating whining fanboys be damned.

Now T3 and IM3 at the time were my least favorite of their respective franchises but I still thought they were good movies and most people seemed to have agreed.

This ridiculous mindset that there's only greatness or crap needs to stop. Movies can fail to be great yet still be good and worthwhile. All 3 of these that I mentioned I'd describe them as such.

No offense (I love your avatar, btw) - but you're getting 'guilty pleasures' and 'good movies' confused.

 

[Snow Queen]

But you had a prime George Lucas running the show with a tight creative control around his films (except for first one of course).

But my point is when you always bring new people to the table, they will have new ideas and not all will work.

And now you have Kathleen Kennedy having creative control. Directors will get some amount of creative freedom, but it's still gotta go through her first.

 

[Gianakin_]

No offense (I love your avatar, btw) - but you're getting 'guilty pleasures' and 'good movies' confused.

Lol, so true.

 

[kedrell]

No offense (I love your avatar, btw) - but you're getting 'guilty pleasures' and 'good movies' confused.

Lol, so true.

Thanks on the avvy compliment.

As for the rest, no I gotta disagree there. I don't even believe in the concept of a guilty pleasure movie. And I certainly have never understood the so-bad-it's-good concept. If a movie is entertaining then it has succeeded. That is it's ONLY job so far as I can see. A bad movie by definition then is one which failed to make me glad that I saw it. And even then such a movie can have good parts in it that simply fail to overcome the bad parts which cuts down the grade I'd give it.


Now a movie can fail to achieve what it set out to achieve yet still succeed in being enjoyable on accident. But in such a circumstance I'd still call it a good movie. Whether is achieved that by blunder or design makes little difference to me. I simply take the final product as it is on it's terms.

 

[Gianakin_]

I just don't like the "your opinion is in the minority" argument.

 

[kedrell]

Well, it's true. Whether you like it of not is another matter. I HATE The Dark Knight with a passion and consider it to be one of the biggest P.o.S.'s in recent memory but I'm not going to cite how bad it is in a thread like this(though I'd really WANT to) because like BadrHari with those 3 on his list, my own opinion is decidedly in the minority regarding that film. I just think those 3 were poor examples of the trend he was talking about.

If one is going to try and make this larger argument about the odds of one of the 3 SW sequels being bad, it'd be best to stick to films where the general consensus supports said argument rather than just relying on the personal preference of the one making the argument in the first place, no?

Hell, even Spider-man 3 might not technically qualify for his list since it's in the 60%'s on RT. I mean, I didn't like it but who's to say the majority of the GA didn't? I guess you could say that the fact that they rebooted after it is strong evidence that it does deserve to be on this list and you'd not be wrong, IMO.

 

[Gianakin_]

Statistically almost every franchise has at least one sub par installment, and not just compared to the other movies of said franchise. Whether or not it's the installment someone like BadrHari mentions is another matter.

However, the 3 movies he's listed... well, he's kinda factually right. History hasn't been kind to any of them. IM3 to a lesser extent, maybe, but they don't hold up anymore.

And it's funny that you mentioned MoS with TASM2. If anything, MoS = TASM1 in terms of reviews and lukewarm reception. TASM2, is largely considered a bad movie, akin to SM3 and Batman and Robin due to the cheesiness.

 

[kedrell]

I don't see evidence of that much at all. History hasn't really been kind or harsh to them. They are basically 3 'also rans'. They came, did good business and people liked them and then they left and now they aren't discussed much any more. That is the fate of almost ALL films in the fullness of time. It's not an indication of anything more than that they aren't any sort of classics. Cinema is chock full of good-yet-not-classic movies. That doesn't make them bad.

Return of the Jedi was in many ways seen as the least of the OT due to the Ewoks mostly. It's still a good movie overall but it was in many ways a falling off of quality still. Just because a movie dips in quality doesn't mean it's automatically a bad movie. This all or nothing mind set of some film fans I find puzzling.

 

[Gianakin_]

But that's the thing. YOU think they're good movies. And since you brought up the "opinion minority" thing, you'll find that history remembers them as not good movies. Granted, it's too early for TASM1 and IM3 to be added to the annals of history, but T3 is considered an embarrassment to the franchise, with fans arguing whether that or TS is not-that-bad. The key thing here is that the original perception is irrelevant. Yes, the TASM1/IM3 reception was good/amazing correspondingly and people did find them good movies. But as time goes by, the collective opinion on a movie shifts. And that's what we have here.

And yes, RotJ isn't considered but, just worse than the other 2. Like TDKR.

I also think that cinema is full of good-not-classics. And when you talk to people about those movies, that's what they'll call them.

 

[kedrell]

A movie doesn't need to be some classic in order to be good. The classics are the greats(and I'm not calling any of these 3 THAT) and to expect that over and over again simply isn't realistic, IMO. I reasonably can expect excellence and for a movie to not be bad but expecting greatness is not something I can demand. Sometimes we get it and sometimes(most of the time, in fact) we don't. If I had to limit myself to movies that achieved greatness then the que of movies I like to watch would be a very short list indeed.

And original perceptions are irrelevant only if another perception has taken it's place. At best these 3 had simply faded and as you said, are not talked about much any more. That's not the same as the perception changing to dislike as time goes by. There's also the squeaky wheel phenomenon made more prevalent by the advent of the internet. People who dislike a movie that is otherwise not dwelt on much by the GA can give a false impression that their opinions are the majority when they are the only one's talking about a film that has been somewhat forgotten by everybody else. This doesn't mean they are now the majority somehow. They are still likely in the minority. It's just that the majority who would disagree with them don't care enough to chime in anyway.

A movie being forgotten =/= bad movie necessarily so much as it = not a great movie. That's why initial perceptions matter because in most cases those are the only perceptions people will ever have about a movie.

 

[Gianakin_]

No, no, no, I'm not saying those movies have faded. I'm saying they're straight up not considered good anymore.

And I've already agreed on the good and classic differentiation.

 

[kedrell]

Then I'm saying those who consider them not good are that squeaky wheel I talked about. They aren't any majority or anything like that, but since they are the only ones still talking about these movies they tend to dominate the conversations about them. The actual majorities have pretty much settled their feelings on them and simply don't think about these movies all that much anymore. But that's not the same as the majority actually revising it's opinion on a by gone movie. Honestly off the top of my head I can't think of a movie that was well received initially yet with time the majority of audiences turned sour on it. The GA tend not to dwell on these things enough to qualify for that. The vast majority of the time they simply forget the movies and that's not the same thing as turning sour on them.

 

[Rowsdower!]

There have been plenty of film franchises where the third installment was fine:

Star Wars (ROTJ loses some points for the Ewoks, but other than that, it's good)

LOTR (many feel the third film is the best)

Back to the Future (the third film is a blast)

The Dark Knight Trilogy (I know some people here hate TDKR, but the movie was generally well-received and it made a ton of money)

Iron Man (The third film may have been the weakest of the bunch but I wouldn't call it bad)

Indiana Jones (the third film might be the best in the series)


I'm not worried about the first film lacking quality here unless the first two films are bad (e.g., the SW prequels).

 

[kedrell]

Both IM2 & IM3 are considered good by most but at the same time neither of them is considered to be as good as the first one, which was great.

 

[BadrHari]

There have been plenty of film franchises where the third installment was fine:

Star Wars (ROTJ loses some points for the Ewoks, but other than that, it's good)

LOTR (many feel the third film is the best)

Back to the Future (the third film is a blast)

The Dark Knight Trilogy (I know some people here hate TDKR, but the movie was generally well-received and it made a ton of money)

Iron Man (The third film may have been the weakest of the bunch but I wouldn't call it bad)

Indiana Jones (the third film might be the best in the series)


I'm not worried about the first film lacking quality here unless the first two films are bad (e.g., the SW prequels).

BTTF, LOTR, and Star Wars OT are the only franchises to have a perfect trilogy....

Indiana Jones , Temple of Doom was meh......I guess it could pass as a legit good movie, but the fourth killed that franchise, now Chris Pratt has to rescue it.

TDKR was awful. 2 and a half hour film with 20 minutes of actual Batman on screen. Robin was just a line at the end. Bane turned out to be nothing more than a henchman with a weak backstory. The plotholes were giant.

Just because a film made a lot of money doesn't mean its good...Look at Transformers 3 and The Phantom Menace.

Iron Man 3 was bad. Like really, really bad.... Mandarin was a punchline. Everyone wore the suit. There is a stupid kid in the film for absolutely no reason. Tony was barely in the suit. Remote control Iron Man the whole movie? Terrible.... And Betty has super powers ?!? Just awful..

 

[Gianakin_]

Then I'm saying those who consider them not good are that squeaky wheel I talked about. They aren't any majority or anything like that, but since they are the only ones still talking about these movies they tend to dominate the conversations about them. The actual majorities have pretty much settled their feelings on them and simply don't think about these movies all that much anymore. But that's not the same as the majority actually revising it's opinion on a by gone movie. Honestly off the top of my head I can't think of a movie that was well received initially yet with time the majority of audiences turned sour on it. The GA tend not to dwell on these things enough to qualify for that. The vast majority of the time they simply forget the movies and that's not the same thing as turning sour on them.

Well, then there's our disagreement. I think the squeaky wheel are those who consider them good movies.

 

[kedrell]

^Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one I guess.

BTTF, LOTR, and Star Wars OT are the only franchises to have a perfect trilogy....

Of those 3 I'd say only LOTR qualifies as a trilogy without much blemish(the only time I use the word perfect when describing ANY movie is when I'm talking about Jaws). BttF2 was a sizeable downgrade from BttF1, IMO though BttF3 was a return to form.
And RotJ had the Ewoks bringing it down as I and others have pointed out.

 

[Snow Queen]

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[Gianakin_]

Of those 3 I'd say only LOTR qualifies as a trilogy without much blemish(the only time I use the word perfect when describing ANY movie is when I'm talking about Jaws). BttF2 was a sizeable downgrade from BttF1, IMO though BttF3 was a return to form.

Eh, I thought BttF3, while enjoyable, was easily the weakest of the bunch.

And, honestly, the only trilogy to have kept its installments' quality to a similar level (making it "perfect") would be the Evil Dead one. All the others have varied levels of quality, imo, without implying I don't like their installments more than each Evil Dead movie.

 

[kedrell]

Eh, I thought BttF3, while enjoyable, was easily the weakest of the bunch.

And, honestly, the only trilogy to have kept its installments' quality to a similar level (making it "perfect") would be the Evil Dead one. All the others have varied levels of quality, imo, without implying I don't like their installments more than each Evil Dead movie.

What I liked about BttF3 was how it went in it's own direction. BttF2 was just too much like BttF1 to the point that I started to hate BttF2 for all the damn copying and pasting that was going on. Then they had to have things in it like the thrice explained sports betting scheme which just started to piss me off as well. It's not a disaster but I'd say it dipped in quality significantly.