Sequel Trilogy doesn't have to be better than OT

I don't think there's any question that the filmmakers are trying to make the best Star Wars movie possible.

But can it be better than the OT? I guess that depends on how you define "better". It can't make you feel the same sense of wonder you felt watching Star Wars for the first time as a five-year-old. That would be asking too much. But it can be a great movie. It can be, and even exceed, what most people wanted from the PT.

One thing is for certain, Disney needs it to be great. They have a lot riding on it, and everyone involved seems convinced it will deliver.

For me, I want it to remove the taint that the PT put on the franchise. To put it simply, I want to leave the theater thinking two things: I can't wait to see that again, and May 2017 can't get here fast enough.

But honestly, I'll settle for not embarrassing.

 

Disney needs it to be very good for their investment to pay off.

I wouldn't be surprised to see, if the movie is even close to being as good as the OT, the entire film industry heap accolades on par with Lord of the Rings and The Dark Knight - near universal praise, Oscar nominations, etc in addition to box office success. I'm thinking all it really needs to be is better than the PT to be hailed as a great achievement in film-making. The bar is set low, it will probably be over-praised.

 

The ST will surpass ESB by leaps and bounds. The greatest scene will be when Kylo cuts Rey's limbs off and it will surpass "Luke I am your father" scene.

 

I've always said the Dark Knight isn't just a good comic/sci-fi movie....it's just a great movie in general. If 7 comes even close to being that great of an overall film (I'm optimistic it will) my mind will be blown. I'm going to watch any SW movie 30 times in the first year anyway, but watching a DC movie that many only comes once in a dark night. If 7 gets that close I will know no other media.

 

wut...

 

Setting your standards too low already.

 

I agree with this. It doesn't have to be better just... a worthy successor. Something that keeps us involved but more importantly makes sense, not just a continuation for the sake of continuing.

 

Disney does not need to make any additional STAR WARS movies to get a return on their investment. Merchandising alone will do that.

The Pixar Cars movie by itself - before the sequel was made - brought in $2 billion a year. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/business/la-fi-ct-cars2-20110621)

I wouldn't it put it past Disney to have already made their money back since the purchase of LucasFilm. I'm sure STAR WARS generates more than $2 billion a year in merchandising.

 

For me, whenever this question keeps popping up, I end up jumping to James Bond for parallels. They make a couple really, really good spy movies right off the bat in the 60's. Then they keep making them over the decades, sometimes one a year, sometimes a lot of time passes in between. They make some good ones, and they make some bad ones, but when they make a really good one, its totally worth it. I will put up with "Die Another Day" so that I can see "Goldeneye". I will put up with Quantum of Solace to see Skyfall. Do I think Goldeneye and Skyfall are as good as From Russia With Love or Goldfinger? Probably not. I don't think it matters. I'm just glad they keep making good movies.

People want TFA to be good. I get that. I do also. If it isn't though, does that mean a good Star Wars movie is never made again? I doubt it. They are going to make these forever.

 

It won't be. You know why? One word: Nostalgia.

 

Anyone notice how every Star Wars movie is worse than the last? Will this curse continue?

 

With that logic, The Empire Strikes Back is "worst" than the original Star Wars.

 

It is. Its still a legendary movie but A New Hope was lightning in a bottle, they worked extremely hard to get Empire as good as it was.

 

Just a reminder: Kershner & Kurtz were the driving Forces behind ESB to make it better than good which Lucas was not happy about because the film went over budget.
Lucas had this "it's good enough" mentality which may have been good from an economic point of view but that's not exactly the base to create some legacy, and I think the contrast between ESB and ROJ (Kurtz & Kersh gone) is a testament to that.

I'd also say LotR was the big (and unexpected) success it was because of all the passion and devotion everyone involved in the production invested into this trilogy, you could see and feel it on the big screen. Here, too, they wanted the films to be better than "just good".

Unless the ST is produced with the K & K ambition, chances it could fail increase accordingly.

Let's make a sequel film to the OT = bad

Let's make the sequel to the OT the best Star Wars film ever = good

 

What happened to Gary Kurtz without Lucas in his life? He ended up bankrupt and eating out of the garbage at Walmart while Lucas created job opportunities for THOUSANDS of dwarves