>>115071296>but you're assessing these movies based off of their financial successes
Yes. When nobody is buying your props, especially not kids, then you are too shit even.
Movies were always advertising for toys. This is indisputable. That's their purpose and the current trilogy failed completely even at being an advert. It managed to become a case of anti-advertising in fact.>also your other arguments for the prequels all boil down to how they inspired other, better content. this isn't fair to the sequels as they haven't been around long enough
Prequel trilogy was already dishing out great derivative works within the same year of movie releases and within 2 years of their release.
LucasArts actually knew what they were doing and had many things prepared upfront.
The new trilogy doesn't have shit planned out and the Disney management doesn't know shit.
They could have filled LucasArts with the past Star Wars veterans and used George Lucas' advisory to make more billions and they'd have plans and management settled for many products without having to waste years on R&D and planning, instead they kept Kathleen Retardbrain and filled the brand's quarters with dumbfaggot retard hires from Tumblr and Twatter with barely any veterans being employed until they finally started being brought in after Kathleen Kennedy already fucked up everything.
So no, it's far from unfair to compare derivative capacity, especially since the derivative capacity for PT was still based on some very good charcters and cast while the ST has the worst character writing and development in Star Wars history that makes the shitshow that is EU look good in comparison.