But their existence doesn't negate the point I was making: These titles don't have to be shitty by nature of their distance from their creators. It's up to how the whole thing is executed.
Sure, it's possible, but usually doesn't turn out well, or is at least fraught and naturally unpalatable unless it's a series or medium meant to be communal, or continued and passed to others from the beginning, like Star Trek (I'm trying to think of a prominent counterexample besides Aliens, and we saw what happened after that). Also, as you point out numerous times, the franchise-zation or perception that something is a pure cash grab is a huge turn off unless it happens to be fantastic, and even then it can be a hurdle.
We've seen this done well with Star Wars in the old EU, most notably the (old, yeesh) Thrawn Trilogy, but the EU naturally occupied a space that was 2nd order of importance, no big deal if it wasn't great, but great if it was, more like the comics model.
The fact that the MCU is among the only breakout successful formulas for adaptation likely isn't a fluke. Not only were they brands that have decades of sustainability on them, audiences were primed for the structure of endless franchise iteration that's inherent to comics.
That's gold, Jerry. Armed with that, they sidestepped the "should this exist?" puzzle right out of the gate. Star Wars can't claim to have done that, and neither has Terminator. Hence this discussion.
It took a long time and the right people to unlock that potential though (imagine us talking about video game movies this way someday; comic movies weren't in such a different place). I think another issue you touch on is Marvel is made up of hundreds of unique main characters and stories with tons of history to draw on while Star Wars and Terminator would be like one or maybe a few books they're trying to extrapolate into a universe. That's why the Marvel model didn't take off for Star Wars, though other than the aptly named Solo they didn't really try the solo film route for other popular characters.
It's the same reason Sony trying to do their own shared universe with just Spider-Man, Rhino: The Movie!, seemed so misguided and anemic from conception (if you don't have the universe you want, make a universe out of what you have?). Of course, then Venom happens so we're going to have to endure some form of this project.
I disagree with this mode of thinking. People don't know what they want until they experience it.
So we're told, I happen to be skeptical of that line because it's usually employed by writers that just presented something I know that I DON'T want. =) I agree though, the best work has to surprise you somehow, but not in an unearned, gimmicky way; it also has to be grounded, so it seems audacious but then makes complete sense and is even better the more you think about it (that's more the contradiction I mean, meticulous with flourish). You just didn't see it coming. Stories that can spin you around like that are the best, but too often this mindset leads to throwing random crap at the wall that doesn't stick (e.g. The Terminator franchise).
Anything that tries to tick all of those boxes is pure folly, and it's what's led us to the state that we're in with entertainment—everything for everybody is nothing for no one.
I don't know, I agree with that at the movies, it's all too big and universal now, or super small and indie, there's no more middle ground/class anymore. But elsewhere, particularly streaming television and movies, something for everyone has literally become like a specific show for everyone. There's probably a show about guys debating media on message boards in development as we speak (if not, call me, baby)!
As for trying to tick every box, I mean that not so much to be universally appealing as to do something the best it can be done and more. To quote another cliche, anything can be done well. If you can tick all the right boxes AND surprise the audience with something even better than they imagined, basically meet expectations and then exceed them... Congratulations, you're probably Kevin Feige making billions off a bunch of C-list superheroes.
You're right, it's not just story. Story certainly didn't put Star Wars on the map. The lightsaber and hyperspace were far more influential than the story. But story encompasses the direction they're taking things, and I erroneously used that as shorthand to refer to the quality of the whole production.
Well, it's a pretty good dig because they pretty clearly didn't know where they were taking this and were just making it up as they went along, so I guess we'll see where JJ decides to land this thing and if it's going to be bumpy as hell. I'm scared of how he's going to try to surprise us, especially considering how much they're outwardly revealing. Like either it's going to get completely bonkers, or, "This is it, that's all we got."
What's worse, they safely thwart the re-heated Emperor and live happily ever, SAGA RESPECTFULLY CONCLUDED! Or we go all Luuke vs. Kylo Vader Resurrection and Rey is a gender-swapped Palpatine clone meant to be the Emperor's new host body but will travel back in time and become Anakin's mother instead? You just didn't know you wanted this! =)
First reactions are in for Disney's "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker," which had its world premiere Monday night in Los Angeles.
variety.com
Hmmm, based on these impressions it doesn't look like they're going the simple route at least.
Brass tacks, they can't compete with such a gilded memory, and shouldn't attempt it. But they ARE going to go down that route, and it doesn't necessarily have to be shitty. I just think adhering so closely to the grain of the original (TFA, for example) is the wrong first step to take. Franchises should identify the bones of what worked, then be brave enough to strike out and do something that feels new beyond the inertia of the old. You know,
bold. Like The Last Jedi
So bold Rian Johnson wrote the whole script in
ALL CAPS ARIAL BOLD on his computer! Kill the past, even if you have to repeat the throne room scene from the last
Jedi (get it) again in the process, and JJ will literally just bring the past back to life anyway, "You killed my thinly veiled, off-brand Emperor knock off, huh? Well, how about this for killing the past, I'm bringing back the original fucking Emperor now! Revive the past, motherfuckers! This is me being
BOLD!"
I've read that a lot of the incongruities in the direction and tone of the story were caused by disagreements between JJ and the Lucasfilm Story Group, there's basically a whole behind the scenes saga where he cut them and their ideas out of the first movie (and he was too big to control and backed by Iger), so then they gutted his vision with Johnson in the second movie, but now he's unexpectedly getting the last word, so it actually wouldn't be that surprising if he outright rebuked TLJ. It's a more interesting war than anything in the actual movies!