I totally get your point, but I guess to me expanded stories aren't really an indicator of how long-lasting or impactful a story is. To me expanded stories are more like a fun encore, a way to absorb a bit more of what you love. There are plenty of culturally impactful stories that have no expanded lore. Like, does The Dark Knight have expanded lore? If so, it doesn't seem to be a big factor in its longevity.

Growing up, I followed a relatively small amount of EU stuff. Sometimes EU stories would help flesh out the world and characters. For instance, Tales of the Bounty Hunters definitely had a huge impact on my perception of characters like Boba Fett and IG-88 (who's essentially a non-character in the movie). But I never needed those stories to enjoy Star Wars. Without them I would have just given IG-88 a personality with my action figures. That's honestly what I remember more than the EU stories. I remember making up my own adventures with toys, roleplaying as Jedi, that sort of stuff. And most of my friends enjoyed Star Wars the same way. I'd venture to guess the vast majority of (casual) Star Wars fans don't consume much EU stuff anyway, so I'm not sure the lack of Sequel Trilogy EU stuff really matters that much.

And to be fair, they'll probably do Clone Wars style shows and games and novels and whatnot in the future to help flesh out the era. The Clone Wars didn't even come out until several years after Revenge of the Sith. The Mandalorian is already starting to do that, by showing us the New Republic and the origins of Snoke (and by extension Palpatine's return). And the Rogue Squadron movie seems to be taking place after the Sequels, and will presumably build on that part of the universe. They could potentially do stuff before TFA, between TLJ and TROS, and after TROS. I agree that the Sequel era is less rich than the Prequel era, but that doesn't mean you can't tell fun stories there.

I think part of the reason the Sequel era is less rich is because of the simpler 'return-to-form' approach Disney took with the movies. Part of the reason the Prequels feel rich in lore is because they had overly complicated politics, and because not everything was properly explained. Like, the whole plot about who commissioned the creation of the Clones (who was Sifo Dias and all) was just dropped. They almost needed side material to explain and flesh out everything. Not to mention Anakin's fall was rushed, so that lent itself to more expanded stories. I'd actually argue a lot of the Prequels' perceived 'rich lore' stemmed from bad and incomplete storytelling in the movies, which left a lot to the imagination (and thus a lot to explore in expanded stories). I admire how ambitious Lucas was with those movies...but ideally they probably should have been more streamlined and self-contained.

The Sequels took things back to being more of a simplistic straightforward fairy-tail with very clear heroes and villains. There might be some things that don't make sense, but there's also not a huge need to embellish the world with a bunch of expanded stories in the same way there was with the prequels. But there's still plenty of fun stuff they could do. A lot of the OT EU stories are just stuff like "here's a story about Bossk". They can easily do that sort of stuff with the ST too.

I tend to agree. I've thought before that the MCU is this generation's Star Wars. It's sort of replaced Star Wars as the big fun pulpy adventure saga. Especially with the existence of Guardians...I remember a lot of "this is the new Star Wars" talk when the first film released, and I still think that argument holds up seven years later.

 

I think you're confusing quantity for quality.

Like, no, the Sequel Trilogy didn't have a tie-in cartoon, but it did have another billion dollar movie between its first and second installments*. Guess which one Disney would rather have. And, yeah, its not set during the ST continuity (unlike the PT cartoon), but the point is they were creating content and expanding the universe. I think it's disingenuous to argue the era of the ST was a "dry spell" just because they had a bigger picture approach rather than an era specific one.



*But then, yes, also Solo after that. Hey, they can't all be winners.

 

The OT is the original idea, created by a loving team of wonderful crafting filmmakers. The Prequels are the silly, zanny, sunbow cartoon remake version. It's really silly, and a lot of it doesn't make logical sense, but it's still a lot of fun to watch. It was a lot of fun to watch back then, and now. It has a lot of good ideas, most of them are just poorly executed. The Sequel Trilogy, however, is the big Hollywood remake. It's designed to run/survive on nostalgia mostly. Which, there really is nothing wrong with that, a lot of movies do that. But, Nostalgia has the problem with being geared more towards adults, and far less towards children, who don't have any connection to the originals. They are sequels to movies that came out almost 40 years ago. They rely heavily on having watched these movies from 40 years ago. It's not really going to work as a film series by itself. The prequel trilogy worked as a trilogy by itself. The sequels probably won't make too much sense if you don't know who Han, Leia, or Luke even are. Which would be the perspective of a child watching it 10 years from now for the first time, if they were to start with the sequels

However, Rogue One and Solo, are going to work a whole lot better down the road for future generations. Considering that they are standalone stories, that fit in to the other movies, but one could easily enjoy these films 30 years from now without any knowledge of Star Wars.

This isn't just a problem with the Sequel Trilogy, but almost every rebooted/sequel film series for a movie that came out so many years from now. The ones being made for nostalgia. Some will work just fine 30 years from now, like the Michael Bay Transformers movies. Others, not so well, like the Terminator movies. (The latest 3.)

The MCU in contrast, seems to work a lot better as standalone films (Other than Infinity Wars and Endgame.), and these films can be for the most part, watched on their own. I think one could easily enjoy Captain America 2 by itself, as an example. You know, without any prior knowledge of the MCU. It's something one could catch on TV 30 years from now for the first time, and enjoy. That is why I ultimately think the MCU will be doing better.

Guardians Of The Galaxy (Both of them.) Are far better Star Wars movies, than the ST, maybe even the PT as well. They certainly have more engaging, interesting characters. Characters you get to learn more about rather quickly through 20+ movies. MCU sends out loads of movies, up to 3 a year (For over 10 years.). Star Wars released 1 movie a year for the last 5.

If anything, I think the MCU actually does the pulp serial adventure better. Both as standalone stories, and as a continuous film series. They work better as standalones than the sequel trilogy does, and they work very well as a saga as well. what are there, 23 of them now? Only film series that have more than that, would be Bond, and Barbie. Bond, not being a very kid friendly film series, and Barbie being geared mostly towards 5-8 year olds.

The MCU is something that families get together to watch the latest installment of. Something people will continue to go to theaters for. Star Wars has become more loved for it's cartoons, and TV shows, than it's movies. Something people can watch today, tomorrow, or three years from now. The MCU movies are only on screen for a short period of time. I think the MCU will easily replace Star Wars for the next generation. Star Wars will not be forgotten, but it will no longer be that thing, everyone loved, that defined pop culture for a generation or two. The MCU will be doing that now.

 

There will be virtually no marketability for the ST by itself. I’m not even sure there has been any marketability for the PT by itself. It all just gets lumped in as Star Wars. You come for the excellence and stay for the mediocrity.

 

I was going to disagree with the first, but the second has me liking your post.

To be clear, the only reason we all care about the PT is because of GT Clone Wars Cartoon and the later DF cannon Clone Wars Cartoon. The PT is really poorly done, and outside diehards no one would have cared if it wasn't for the cartoons revitalizing it.

The ST will likely have some diehards. My daughter, age 9, unprompted asked me a question yesterday about the "Rey Trilogy" and whether Rey would end up dying like Obi-Wan and Luke would in the next trilogy. I suspect that she's an example of the possible long term fan of the ST. But unless Disney circles back to the ST like they did the PT, I'd imagine the ST will stay relevant only as long as Galaxy's Edge has an ST theme.

I think others in this thread hit on something. The MCU really stole the thunder from Star Wars for the modern generation. Iron Man to Endgame really is something special. Like a once in a generation cultural event. It really changed the rules on how you do things in cinema and I have no doubt that they'll be a cultural touchstone for decades to come.

 

It still gets me that they blame Star Wars fatigue because of 5 movies in as many years... but not the the MCU which would give us up to 3 movies in 1 year.

It’s not fatigue; it’s quality.

The MCU generated more content that more people liked.

 

Yeah, there needs to be more talk about why the MCU worked over the course of 23 or so movies, 2-3 times a year, but Star Wars struggled with a once a year release schedule and the Wizarding World tanked 2 movies into it's next saga. Add on the DCEU tanking, and the Monsterverse dying 1-2 movies out of the gate. The only other meaningful franchise running is the Fast and Furious Universe, and we'll see how much longer that lasts.

What the MCU pulled off is difficult and can't be easily replicated. Star Wars especially needs to do something completely different in the future. Mandalorian is a very good start.

 

There needs to be more talk about it?
Isn’t that all we do?

 

I think the answer is Marvel is just that good. It's not a knock against Star Wars or any other franchise that they can't keep up with something that no one else can replicate.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say Star Wars struggled. 5 movies totaling more than 5 billion dollars in 5 years is a feat in and of itself. I think they were right to switch gears to less frequent releases, but they were still killing it compared to anyone other than Marvel.

 

Part of it might be Marvel's planned out, long-form approach to storytelling. Like it or not, it seems like this generation prefers serialized ongoing storytelling to make-it-up-as-you-go storytelling. Which is what the Star Wars Sequels movies infamously did...they were more focused on making each movie a standalone experience. It's interesting to note that The Mandalorian (Disney's first attempt at more serialized Star Wars storytelling) seems to be the most popular thing they've done.

 

But that's only one billion more than what it cost Disney to get it in the first place, and that's not counting other expenses like the production of the films and the marketing. (and Star Wars merchandise sales are lowest they've ever been in movie years)

I'd argue people are fine with a "make it up as you go" story if the story is clearly that. But I wouldn't consider any of the sequel films "standalone experiences." TFA was one big mystery box supported entirely by the promise of future developments and exploration, TLJ was a systematic breaking down of all those elements and expectations in a completely reactionary, not-self-contained-at-all way, and TROS was clean-up for TLJ that pandered hard to nostalgia just to stay afloat. Even their spinoffs weren't standalone. Nothing Disney has produced thus far is capable of being appreciated in a vacuum because it's all dependent on knowledge of previous lore. That's not even a criticism, since there's nothing especially wrong with that approach, it's just how it is.

 

Sorry, I'm confused. Star Wars movies are and have always been serialized storytelling.

What Disney paid for Lucasfilm has got nothing to do with Star Wars box office performance against other franchises. We're talking about tickets sold to the public in a specific marketplace, not profit made after the fact.

But Disney's got nothing to worry about on the profit front, either. If Lucasfilm could have been expected to generate 4 billion in profit from five movies, it would have been worth more than the 4 billion price. It was a long term investment.

EDIT TO ADD: As an example of what profit expectations for a movie are, The Last Jedi had the highest dollar amount of profit of any movie from 2017 and its profit was $417.5 million.

The most profitable movie of 2018 was Black Panther with $476.8 million

Disney knows how movie money works. They couldn't possibly have expected to recoup $4 billion in box office alone this quickly when they handed over that check to George Lucas. Big hit movies regularly return less than half-a-billion in profit. It was a long-term investment, and not something that really factors in to the discussion of the performance of the individual movies.

So they're doing fine.

 

To some extent they are, but Disney didn't plan the new series of movies out, like Marvel tends to.

 

Well, pre-planning isn't a prerequisite of serialization. Just installments.

I don't really know that a lack of a plan hurt them that much. The OT wasn't planned, and it worked (mostly) fine. TFA and TLJ work great as duology. The lack of a plan didn't really become a problem until TRoS, but, much like the Force powers discussion, that's a "that movie" problem. There were a thousand ways to create a satisfying conclusion to the trilogy after TLJ. They just choked at the buzzer.

 

Well yeah. But MORE!!!

What I mean though is that before people in Hollywood try a new cinematic universe, I'd like to see them look at what worked and how.

I don't think that's the whole story. The MCU definitely had a myth arc driving things, with a definitive end point in mind. But some of their worst movies have been the ones that had to carry specific plot moments. They've learned how to balance letting a movie be it's own thing vs. advancing the overall story. Thor Ragnarok is up there with the best of the MCU movies, and there is no way that could have been made early in the run. Marvel took a while to learn to really trust the directors to pick up the ball and advance it without forcing a singular view on them.

Yeah, the movies were profitable. I don't think anyone can debate that. And there's a lot of data to support that Disney has ultimately turned a profit on the Star Wars franchise. I'm not sure profitable and successful are the same thing though. When Disney management is talking about movie fatigue, that shows something has gone wrong. Star Wars has really taken to the Disney+ model so I definitely think there's gas in the tank yet, but it seems like the movie format isn't quite working out.

 

I think those people are just doing what gets them views.

Everyone saying people only care about the prequels because of the clone wars is mistaken. I know a lot of people in my personal life who have barely seen the clone wars and rate the prequels among their favourite Star Wars films.

 

Oh, but they try. Lord how they try.

I think the problem comes down to them not being willing to break away from the Skywalker story in the theater. Marvel works because all the movies they put out, while connected, are ultimately these different sub-franchises. They're set in the Marvel universe, and ultimately connected, but they're very easy to view individually. When you go see Ant-Man, you don't need to know what happened in Guardians. You just need to do the homework before one of the big team-up movies. But Star Wars movies didn't give you that space. It was all directly tied into a single main plot, and I think that caused the fatigue more than anything.

I think something like Mandalorian would have worked a lot better in between Sequel movies - something set in the universe but that had nothing to do with Luke and his pals or their mission. But they insisted on giving us things directly tied into the OT's story. None of it could just breathe and be its own thing. All of it required you do the homework and know where exactly you were in a single timeline. I think that was a bit much for the general public.

Hopefully they've learned that lesson, moreso than a theater vs. streaming lesson.

 

The big advantage with the MCU is that Marvel sold the movie rights for all their famous heroes, meaning nobodies like Iron Man and Captain America had to stand on their own two feet instead of riding on anyone's coattails. I think that's why a lot of other franchises fail: they just expect brand recognition to keep printing money, like media is any old disopsable product you continuously re-buy.

(Strange to think that a little over a decade ago "I Am Iron Man" meant the Black Sabbath song)

 

They did try to go MCU with Solo.... Pffft.

 

Eh, Solo is still connected to the main Skywalker story though. It deliberately gives you the origins of Luke's best pal and future brother-in-law. And it continues this unnecessary telling by making sure it creates plot points out of throw away lines from the OT that no one necessarily needed to see as a film.