Poll: Who should own the Falcon at the end of Episode 9?

I can partially understand that in terms of box office performance, but I'm talking about people who legitimately went out and watched the movie. Of those people, I haven't talked to anyone who had a glowing perception of it, including those that held a neutral or even positive view of TLJ. I'm not saying that such people don't exist (you clearly like it for example), but they seem to be very few and far between. It simply isn't a memorable movie. Even a movie like Episode I, which is often criticized, was still very memorable. It had epic moments and characters mixed in with its flaws. Solo just doesn't seem to have a wow factor to it. You don't see it passionately talked about and analyzed. It is simply there. It's most notable achievement is that it is the first Star Wars movie in history to lose money at the box office, that is the legacy it leaves behind.

 

@Aginor The Farce Awakens was much more of a fan-service than Rogue One was.

TFA was made purely to get Original Trilogy purists excited with the samey storyline and character genesis, riding on the wave of so-called ‘nostalgia’ from the original film.

Rogue One on the other hand was a masterpiece that not only helped to explain a massive plot hole that existed ever since Episode IV came out, but also brought about a grimdark side to the franchise that was previously only examined in Episode III (and even Episode III didn’t kill off all the main characters as some had to survive for later on).

@NIGHTBRINGER Solo doesn’t rank at the top for me as you know, but I still thought some of the characters were well-played and thought out, that’s why I mentioned it as a possible addition to the True Star Wars collection. Donald Glover was perfect as a young Lando, Beckett was pretty decent as a trademark mercenary who cares for nobody but himself (who rid the galaxy of Aurra Sing), Qi’ra was good as a manipulative female who was good at taking advantage of others’ greed and trust to help herself climb the ladder of power and I personally liked how the young Han had some of the tricks of the trade that Harrison Ford Han had, but not all of them and he messed up several times - much to learn, he still had - which makes sense because he doesn’t yet have the experience that older Han had. To be honest seeing him have doses of bad luck and mucking things up was actually one of the things which made me like Solo more than I was expecting - I was just expecting the young Han to wing everything like older Han did in the Original Trilogy.

In terms of the L3 crisis, I think it would have been better to have had Rio Durant (the alien with the 4 arms) as either Lando’s gambling buddy who tags along for the ride in place of L3 or have him appear earlier on in the film as he actually did but survive the train heist so that he would have been in the film for longer - I thought he was funnier than L3 with his quips and jokes.

 

This, absolutely this - I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I wish I could like it twice.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRUE FAN! It’s fine to have a personal headcanon of what you want to apply to your own mini Star Wars universe. If you don’t like some part of Star Wars fine, don’t watch it. Your view of Star Wars is your own. However, the important thing is that this applies to you and you only. Someone else might have a different opinion to you. Deal with it. It does not make them any more or less of a fan than you, no matter how many so called ‘facts’ you throw at them to explain why they are apparently wrong. This is not an objective matter. If you want to use these things to justify your own opinions that’s fine, if unnecessary. But the moment to try to use them to say why other people are “wrong” to like what they like on this inherently subjective matter, is the moment in which all you do is expose a pathetic need for validation.

It doesn’t just stop at Star Wars either. There’s a good article/rant here which while in the context of Transformers articulates the point very well. There is no hierarchy in fandom. You like what you like. Others like what they like. That is all.

Just to be clear, this isn’t aimed at anyone in particular on the forum, so I’m sorry if it comes across that way. Instead it’s just a general decrying of an aspect of fandom that seems to be prevalent amongst the internet at large, and a reminder for us all when we discuss these sorts of things. With a bit of luck, none of this should ever need to become relevant here

 

I agree with this too wholeheartedly. I’ve been on the receiving end of such ‘You’re not a true fan’ cobblers for years (not on this forum, elsewhere, and certainly before the Disney takeover as well as during its reign) simply because I like Episodes I-III so much more than IV-VI. Indeed there are some Original Trilogy purist sods who still target Prequel fans with these same old words, but most of them have come to respect Episodes I-III more recently.

I apologise if I have caused any offence myself - I honestly didn’t intend to accuse anyone of not being a ‘true fan’ in anything I have said.

 

I like spaceships that shoot lasers.

And dinosaurs.

 

I think the distinction about labeling a person a true fan or not versus labeling a movie a true SW movie or not is important enough to repeat again. One could view the "you're not a true fan" as a personal attack, (and although it is a rather mild attack, it can and very likely will escalate, especially on the internet). However, stating one's opinion on whether a SW movie is a true SW movie or not is a very different thing. Such a distinction is purely a personal view of the subject matter being discussed and has nothing to do with the person you are discussing it with (who may very well feel oppositely).

My view of the movies is that the true SW movies are those made by George Lucas. He created it and it was his vision brought to life. Perhaps if Disney had respected his story world and stayed true to it, I might feel differently. The path Disney has taken is very different from what Lucas had laid out, so in my eyes it is a different entity entirely.

As for these movies being an official Star Wars product (which they are), that is inconsequential to me in this context as it is simply a byproduct of Disney having enough money to purchase the franchise. If they purchased Tolkien's IP and started to churn out a bunch of new material that didn't fit with Tolkien's image, it wouldn't be "real" in my eyes either. I simply place greater importance on creative ownership than legal/financial ownership when I assess the status of the SW movies. The ownership rights simply give them the legal right to churn out any and all material as they see fit (and prevent others from doing so), but each of us can choose what to accept and what not to. However, this is obviously a personal point of view, each of you is entitled to make up your own mind on the topic. So legally, the movies are official, but they are not in line with what Lucas had carefully (can sometimes not carefully) crafted. To be honest, I've seen unofficial fan made creations that are much more true to what Lucas had created. In this context, "Official" and "True" are not one and the same for me.

 

There is some truth to that. The possibility is definitely there, but is it anymore problematic than any other criticism that can be levied at a subject? For example...


1. I am a fan of X
2. X is smart and intelligent
3. --> so I am a smart
4. Y is simple/stupid
5. Person Z is fan of Y
6. --> so Person Z is simple/stupid


Realistically, most forms of subject matter criticism can be easily transferred over to personal criticisms either by error or deliberate conscious choice. I see your perspective, however at some point, fear of offending someone begins to suffocate the ability to critically analyze a piece of subject matter. Anything can be made personal and it will always fall to the posters to navigate that minefield.


On a similar note, what does "true fan" actually mean?

• someone that really likes something?
• someone that has significant subject knowledge within the context of that specific franchise?
• someone that engages in that particular franchise/team/etc frequently?
• someone that self identifies as a true fan?

Personally I can see a problem with any one of those definitions listed above. How are "true fans" vs. "fans" vs. "casuals" distinguished from one another? Where is the cutoff and how can one determine that? For instance, someone who vehemently follows a sports team through the whole season and knows all the players and key stats could be said to be a true fan, while someone who tunes in only if the team makes the playoffs would be a casual fan (in this case a bandwagon jumper). However even this exists along a spectrum. For example, how many games would one have to watch 50%, 75%, 90%, etc?

(philosophical musings are concluded, for now)

 

Very true and I'd even go further to say that it would not be limited to fringe cases but instead would apply to most cases. We all see the world through our own personal lens and it is pretty rare when we are able step back and admit that the fault lied with us and not our "adversary". It's so easy to internally shift blame to someone else without even knowing it. I think all of us are guilty of it at one time or another (I know I certainly am).