Slashdot Mirror
'Solo' Will Lose $50+ Million In First Defeat For Disney's 'Star Wars' Empire (hollywoodreporter.com)
Zorro shares a report from The Hollywood Reporter: To borrow one of Han Solo's lines from Star Wars: The Force Awakens, "That's not how the Force works!" It's an apt way to sum up the troubled performance of Solo: A Star Wars Story. In one of the biggest box-office surprises in recent times, Solo is badly underperforming and will become the first of the Star Wars movies made by Disney and Lucasfilm to lose money. Wall Street analyst Barton Crockett says Solo will lose more than $50 million. Industry financing sources, however, say that figure could come in at $80 million or higher, although no one knows the exact terms of Disney's deals for home entertainment and television, among other ancillary revenues.
Is weak with this one.
Wall Street analyst Barton Crockett says Solo will lose more than $50 million. Industry financing sources, however, say that figure could come in at $80 million or higher, although no one knows the exact terms of Disney's deals for home entertainment and television, among other ancillary revenues.
In other words Solo will still make money even if only by the skin of it's teeth, this article claiming Disney will lose money on it is clickbait and ... damn .... I just fell for it ....
In the long run it will make hundreds of millions in DVD sales and TV rights world wide. And that's not counting merchandise.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
I'm not really sure where the negative vibes came from; I thought it was better than "The Last Jedi" and a lot better than "Infinity Wars".
Ron Howard did a credible job as director (you can see what was done before him).
I think it really comes down to "Jedi Fatigue" and a really stupid release date (against "Infinity Wars" and "Deadpool 2").
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
Telling a completely new story in a great universe? Great idea.
Telling a derivative story in a great universe? Good idea.
Shooting a remake of a great movie? Decent idea.
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
The Star Trek remakes got away with it because the roles made the actors more than the actors made the roles (though they're still boring movies).
But Han Solo was cool because Harrison Ford is a top-end actor who absolutely nailed the character of Han Solo. A Han Solo movie without Harrison Ford is basically a movie of going "Boy, that character isn't nearly as interesting as I remember. And that guy still isn't Harrison Ford!"
It's not like there were a lack of stories to tell in the Star Wars universe.
I stole this Sig
Stick to Mickey Mouse and Snow White, Disney!
So box office returns are below estimates. But we still have to go through the PPV, the DVD/BD disc releases, streaming service, TV, then there's all the merchandise/toys, etc. etc.
When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
Marketing has little to nothing to do with it, but at least that's less stupid than the SW Fatigue shtick. Star Wars fans would have thrown money at the franchise forever without a second thought if they hadn't put social evangelists in charge and allowed them to burn it down.
--- Mercutio was right.
The costs:
Initial production budget was 250 mil. The movie was 80% done when the directors were fired and the new one re-shot most of the movie. So I'm adding 150 mil. The promotional budget for these movies is about the same as the production, so another 250 mil. Totaling 650 mil.
The revenue:
264 mil so far, not likely to go up by much. The second week's drop was quite heavy, so I expect 300 mil in total. Of which Disney's share is anyone's guess. Roughly half, 150 mil. Pathetic. Toy sales, TV rights, DVDs? Can't be much, judging by what The Last Jedi did. It basically broke Toys'R'Us! No one but ultra-geeks and collectors were exited about those toys. The regular fans, the general public, kids... are either "Meh" about it or actively hate Disney's Star Wars. The Last Jedi killed the golden goose.
The big picture:
Disney paid cool 4 billion for the franchise. A completely safe long-term investment in index funds will bring 5-10% annually. Therefore, Star Wars needs to bring 600 million to 1 billion every year to be on par. Disney needs The Force Awakens kind of film every year. So far, the investment has been a colossal failure. Disney can eat the loss because of the Marvel movies, theme parks, etc, but Star Wars will be a case study in failure for years to come.
The only 'live' actor in the Star War series is Han Solo, and that is because of Harrison Ford.
Without Harrison Ford there will be no Han Solo, period.
Go to youtube. There are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of videos that detailed what went wrong. For one thing, there was an active boycott of Solo (otherwise known as Soylo now among fans for the apparent reveal by the writer that Lando is a pansexual right before the release of the movie). This also probably killed the movie for countless red-state movie goers who were already incensed at the blatant SJW preaching that The Last Jedi seemed to do.
Really though, the stage was set for Solo's downfall with the poor movie (look at Rotten Tomato reviews) of The Last Jedi Returns. Sargon of Akkad has a video called "Gender Wars" that received a million views. How many of those did not buy a ticket to Solo? The Last Jedi is where the bridges were burned, and Solo is the consequence of that. Not that Solo is bad movie (though it has been described as mediocre at best).
It is clear that Kathleen Kennedy wanted to inject her politics heavily into The Last Jedi. In an interview she specifically said that she did not feel like she needed to cater to the fan base. The director Rian Johnson and writer John Kasden have been treating fans inhospitably in rather poor attempts to defend their story decisions.
Kathleen Kennedy made a Star Wars film that she and her fellow feminists wanted to see. Not what the traditional fan base was looking for (e.g. how the Luke Skywalker character was treated in The Last Jedi and the nonsensical Mary Sue aspects).
It appears there are not as many feminists interested in Star Wars as there was with the traditional demographic.
Shooting a movie with an iconic character, defined by an iconic actor? Terrible idea.
True Grit. Iconic character: Rooster Cogburn. Iconic actor: John Wayne in 1969. The 2010 remake had a good script and good actors. In particular Jeff Bridges as Cogburn. So like any other movie the script and the actors seem to be the key factors in success.
OK that's a remake not delving into an established character's past. Perhaps a more appropriate counterargument would involve a different Harrison Ford role, Indiana Jones. In Last Crusade we have River Phoenix playing a young Indiana Jones and revealing part of Jone's mysterious background. I thought those scenes worked well, again it may be all about the script and the actors. With a good script could River Phoenix have pulled off a respectable full length movie exploring Jone's youth? The Last Crusade scenes suggest that would be entire plausible.
When Rogue One came out, I was skeptical that a spinoff movie could be any good, so I didn't see it at first. I was impressed by it, so figured Solo might be a safer bet than I'd ordinarily expect. Now with the fan reaction, I'm not so sure. Perhaps the reason Rogue One succeeded where Solo did not is that the former stars all-new characters (with some classic characters in ancillary roles) whereas Solo puts classic characters front and center, played by new actors. I.e. don't fuck with viewers' nostalgia. The Boba Fett movie will probably crash and burn, similarly.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
The trilogy grossed over $2.9 billion, but the studio claimed "horrendous losses" and tried to weasel out of paying anyone.
Finally... Lando. With Donald Glover looking stylish as Solo's pal/frenemy, the movie promises that we'll watch the fateful sabacc game where Han won the Falcon from him...
i don't get it, that was the best star war movie ever - why it should loose money?!
The movies are an advertisement for the merchandise. Reinvigorated sales of the Millennium Falcon merchandise is the real goal here. :-)
and branded products (Toys, T-Shirts, etc) they'll still make a small fortune on this movie.
Actually, by significance, you should put this one first on the list.
Even more so as George Lucas himself came up with the idea of merchandising with the first movie in the series (he on purpose kept the right on merch for himself and that's how he became so much financially successful),
and as the franchise is currently owned by Disney who are (Jedi- ?) masters of the merchandising revenue.
Disney will end up making gobs of money, if only due to the giant flood of tie-in products on the shelves, but probably even for the mass of avarege people who are just happy to enjoy any so-so summer (Also docker leverages the capabilties system of the kernel)movie.
No matter how much nerd-rage is going on by an extremely vocal but relatively small community of geeks complaining "#NotMyHan" on forums and youtube channels.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
yeah, disney brain washing kids with SJW propaganda.... Disney can go to hell!
Studios like to play all sorts of games to hide profits, dodge taxes and avoid royalty payments. Like charging themselves to distribute their own movies and a host of other little games that can make a profitable film look like a loser.
The Force aWakens
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"How can a movie that grossed $475 million on a $32 million budget not turn a profit? It comes down to Tinseltown accounting. As Planet Money explained in an interview with Edward Jay Epstein in 2010, studios typically set up a separate "corporation" for each movie they produce. Like any company, it calculates profits by subtracting expenses from revenues. Erase any possible profit, the studio charges this "movie corporation" a big fee that overshadows the film's revenue. For accounting purposes, the movie is a money "loser" and there are no profits to distribute.
Confused? Imagine you're running a lemonade stand with your buddy Steve. Your mom says you have to share half your profits with your sister. But you don't wanna! So you pretend your buddy Steve is actually a corporation -- call him Steve, Inc -- charging you rent for the stand, the spoon, etc. "Dang, mom, I don't have any profits, I had to pay it all to Steve, Inc!" you say when you come home. But the money isn't gone. It's as good as yours -- in your best friend's pocket."
https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...
It wasn't a terrible movie
Being not terrible is not a reason to be a box office it. It is a $150 million mediocre movie. The characters aren't that engaging. The plot isn't that engaging. Han comes off as a gullible doofus. L3 was just pathetic especially the whole "death" scene. And, Lando crying over L3 like it was his lover? Really? The explanation of the Kessel run was pretty lame too, especially with the "carbon bergs the size of planets".
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
L3, really? Enfys is a teenage POC, really?
But I'm a white man.
Heart, brain and wallet.
They are as shoes and thieves not murderers.
Prison maybe.
My own opinion is that "Solo" is flopping because people have finally realized the series is never going to get any better.
Some background: I saw the original "Star Wars" in college. It was a jaw-dropping movie, (unless you're old enough to remember what science fiction / fantasy movies were like before the release of SW, you really can't appreciate how amazing an experience it was to see it in the theater), and "The Empire Strikes Back" was even better. But "Return of the Jedi" was a let down, in large part because Lucas had full creative control and couldn't resist inserting "cutesy" characters like Ewoks into the story, and adding a ridiculously sappy ending.
Still, two out of three wasn't bad. And then came episodes 1 through 3, which conclusively proved that Lucas knew how to build a universe, but had no clue how to write a good story. So now it's two out of six, but there was still hope after Lucas sold the franchise to Disney. Maybe (I thought), having some new people in charge might revitalize the SW universe.
"The Force Awakens" was a reasonable reboot. J.J. Abrams isn't a great director, but he's a competent one, and he avoided a lot of pitfalls by recycling the plot of the original movie. "Rogue One" was a competent one-shot, but nothing special. Now's it four out of eight good films if you're generous.
Then came "The Last Jedi", and the painful realization that really, really bad would be the new normal for Disney, and that future "Star Wars" movies would be micro-managed by Disney execs and designed to sell overpriced merchandise. And that, for me, was the end of it. When I walked out the "The Last Jedi", I knew I wouldn't be paying to see another Star Wars movie in the theater again. Most "Star Wars" movies have ranged from mediocre to bad, and it is never going to change. Disney will never let go. It'll just be bad formula movies from now on.
I am indifferent to "Solo", which by all accounts is another painfully mediocre film. I might watch it when it hits cable, but I have about as much desire to see another "Star Wars" movie in the theater as I do to see another "Mission Impossible" or "Transformers" movie, i.e. none at all. And given how "Solo" is doing, I suspect I have a lot of company.
Disney could view this as a moment to learn about franchise fatigue, how fans are getting sick of their injection of weird feminist politics into SW, how they need to focus on better writing and directing, etc.
Instead I guarantee you that Kathleen Kennedy will spin this as "People aren't interested in seeing movies with white male heroes anymore."
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Much like the proposed Boba Fett movie. When it comes down to it, no one really cared how Han became the Han we saw in the Star Wars Universe and killing him off did more to enrage fans about a prequel than it did to excite them about it. And those toys are going to end up in the clearance aisle in Walmart before the end of the Summer.
Star Wars and Star Trek need to stop.
It isn't that these new movies are bad or worse then before. But Star Wares and Star Trek were stories, characters and a fictional universe of a different era.
Prequels are especially tricky. Because we are applying our 40+ years of change of culture, and applying it to a story set 20+ years before the first movie.
The 2018 idea of the Rogue Anti-Hero is different then the 1978 Rogue Anti-Hero. Then trying to place this Anti-hero in a story before his first appearance. Just makes the feel of the story inconsistent.
These characters are fictional characters, made primary to entertain us. They do this by exaggerating traits that we expect to see. In Episode IV we didn't watch Han Solo deal with the contract and payment negotiation with Obewan. Or the days of just handing around shipping goods, playing chess with Chewy. As far as we see it. Han is always on the edge of disaster.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I saw it, and I was entertained.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Eventually the cash cow runs out of milk.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Solo is being punished for the steaming pile of sh*t Disney served us with Force Awakens and The Last Jedi. Seriously, who's the idiot that thought it would be a good idea to kill off Solo and Skywalker after fans have waited 30 years for the conclusion to the story?
Know movie for fun.
Dont place SJW politics all over plot.
Trust in fans and what they liked to buy with past movies.
Dont add SJW emotions to movie that is to be fun for all.
Make sure script and speaking fits in with what fans expect given past history of movies.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
But how much of that revenue will be made up for in sales of the "Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian" action figure?
So ypu're an incel now?
Why were you modded down? Interesting and thoughtful post with more than a shred of truth.
It shows how the mod system of Slashdot is used to suppress opinions and ideas. Well I guess I will have to crapflood Slashdot for a couple of days to punish them for a poor mod system. People can burn up their mod points modding down my bullshit. Disrupting Slashdot is a good thing when no respect is given to thoughtful users.
I'm not sure where you're getting this stuff about the Jedi from.
"...but they were actually pretty awful all round"
They were? They seem to be universally loved by "good characters" in the universe. Let's see why you say the are "pretty awful"
"They considered themselves superior and claimed ownership of the Force, used it to manipulate people without a second thought"
Sure seems like they would have been running the Republic's government if they thought they were both superior and were happy to "manipulate people without a second though". But no, instead of pursuing power in the Republic they acted as servants of it.
"...and didn't seem to care at all about injustices like slavery."
Slavery was illegal in the Republic ( http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki... ) so while it did exist in a few backwaters like Tatooine, this does not mean that the Jedi didn't care about it any more than the Republic didn't. They were a relatively small order patrolling the bulk of the galaxy and by their own admission, couldnt get to everything. In fact, "When the Old Republic outlawed slavery, the Jedi set about to free those held..." (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi_Order).
"Luke tried to emulate them but made the same mistakes, resulting in Kylo Ren."
Specifically, what mistakes were made? The only one I know of was pulling his light saber out for a moment when he sensed the Dark side's influence on Ren.
Don't get me wrong, what you're throwing out here is certainly an interesting narrative, it just doesn't fit the facts.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I'm sure if they lost money its not as much as people think.
Because people stopped reading all the EU books because they had inter-species romantic relationships? In the Wraith Squadron series "Face" ended up marrying a Twi'leki. Pansexualty is not a new concept in Star Wars
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
This was just bad timing more then a bad movie. I saw it and it was an enjoyable heist film set in the Star Wars universe. I think whoever in Marvel decided that Infinity War, then Deadpool 2, then Solo should all be released within two weeks of each other (4/27, 5/10, 5/24) made a major goof.
Something had to give, and it was Solo
Calvin:Do you believe in the devil? Hobbes:I'm not sure man needs the help.
Shut the fuck up.
Sounds like Fox when they handed the Fantastic Four reboot to a newbie with a couple of indie credits under his belt. That bomb plus TLJ may have discouraged studios from handing huge franchise movies to directors who only had experience with low budget, low special effects films - until Ryan Coogler had to come in and fuck all that up with Black Panther. Now studios will go on, trusting $300 million movies to directors with a couple of movies and TV credits to their name - thanks Ryan!
I haven't seen the new Solo movie yet but I have to admit I wasn't full of enthusiasm for it because Han Solo was played by an actor who really didn't seem to fit the role well. I think the portrayal in the Trailers hurt the movie the most. And it's not impossible to find good match-ups, I remember watching the Chronicles of Young Indiana Jones when I was younger and that actor was a good match up compared to older Indiana Jones.
A movie that was strategically conceived to milk a franchise to death did that! Goodbye Start Wars and good riddance, now that the Mouse has you by the balls.
That is all.
The problem really was that it was $250 million film that should have been a $100 million budget film.
It basically had the same budget as TFA and Rogue for a film that should have been a smaller scale piece.
If I had done a solo movie
You do $100 million film set the damn thing on Kashykk with wookies galore less cgi, more guys in furry suits.
Show how Solo and Chewbacca met and have the climax of the movie having Han win the Falcon.
This is a dating site. SJW stands for Single Jewish Woman.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
1) I don't care to know about Han Solo's past. Just like I don't care to know about emo-Vader.
2) Star Wars needs a break. I have serious Star Wars fatigue. I like Rogue One. I even like TLJ despite everything (Rose/Fin, get off my lawn Luke, Leia in space, etc.) There are just too many films and television properties in the SW universe to keep up.
3) As long as Harrison Ford is still alive he's Han Solo, Indiana Jones, and Deckard. I can't imagine anyone else doing those characters except for Harrison Ford.
4) I've moved on. Can we get a good Last Starfighter remake? Maybe a limited run series like Battlestar Galactica. Or how about Babylon 5?
It would be that: first you have to have a good story.
Big name actors, special effects, respected franchises, and all that are great - but if you don't have a good story, you have nothing worth watching.
I need to care about the characters. The character's actions, and the story line, have to make sense.
Incoherent stories slapped together by marketing research, committees, focus groups, and agenda driven feminists; just don't cut it.
When it comes to stories: Pixar blows Disney out of the water.
I think there are valid non-Fanboi reasons to not love The Last Jedi. My primary reason was that I couldn't figure out who the main character was (it seemed like 3 to me) and that there wasn't an obvious dilemma and resolution.
I expect Star Wars movies to be 4.5 or 5 star 90%+ Rotten Tomato movies; anything less is a disappointment. The Last Jedi was 3 star 60% for me.
I'm glad you liked it.
Greed is the root of all evil.
The correct statement you wanted to say was:
Star Trek was a politically and socially non-aligned series authored by writers who sought to imagine and invent varied social and political situations in Star Trek with each episode and challenge both their own creativity as well as the mental clogs of the viewers.
Star Trek was written such that you had episodes where evil acts resulted in positive consequences, good acts resulted in bad consequences, good in good, bad in bad, neutral, all shades, and many times also non-resolved and overly complex situations.
So what made Star Trek great was that it was a non-conforming playground for a bunch of creative and motivated writers to apply and develop sociology, political sciences, and psychology, with focus on variety.
The new Star Trek today or the Disney Wars, are all afflicted by a time of conformity, of socio-political jerking, of social justice crap as well as nationalist crap both of which are their own brand of cancerous retardation.
That's why they are shit and can't be compared. The new shit is made to pander, not to engineer non-aligned creative and experimental thinking applied into story by a group of writers left to themselves and told "write something interesting" rather than "write to pander to X and Y and write according to our formula."
That's what happens when you put the biggest pothead in Hollywood in a Star Wars movie - nobody can take it seriously.
The film is expected to gross $400 million.
Production costs are started at $250 million with marketing costs stated at $150 million. There's some scuttle butt that the production costs were actually higher but ignore that.
So $400 million to make and market.
Disney gets less than half of global box office and about half to a little over half of domestic box office. It varies because typically the studio gets more to all on the first 2-3 weeks for domestic screenings and the theaters get everything after that (so theaters love slow burn hits while studios love to have almost everyone see the film immediately).
So anyway... Disney gets half the gross which is projected to make $400 million or $200 million.
That's a $200 million loss- not a $50 milion loss.
Plus merchandising sales are apparently still in the toilet.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The original Star Trek was full of "socio-political jerking, of social justice crap as well as nationalist crap both of which are their own brand of cancerous retardation"
But they were different issues of the time.
This problem is Star Trek and Star Was has too much history to express today's topic and problems.
Lets target misogyny as an issue for today. In the original Star Trek many statements, by the actors, and actions would by today's standard be considered misogynistic while back then it was fairly progressive. In 50 years things that are common for us to do and say will probably be insulting too, while they may be doing things that will insult our current taboos. Keeping Star x around and trying to make characters created that fit the ideas and problems of a half century ago, just will not work.
They can create a new Science fiction universe Like Star Trek or Star Wars, but base it off what is current.
While not a great example "The Orville" Is a lot like Star Trek and is more Star Trek then ST:D. However it isn't bogged down by Cannon Such as Teleporters, and a bunch of Tech-Talk solutions to problems from past series. The characters and their problems are based more on current problems of the day. And havn't been written as some future super human.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I think they're both examples of retrofuturism. Past visions of the future.
A lot of things from Star Wars and old SciFi just don't make any sense anymore. We have to actively ignore that a robot or AI could do a job much better, safer, and with less trouble than having humans do the job. Like a gunner on a Star Destroyer. Or a interpreter droid. In the 70's, droids were boxy clunky things. In RogueOne, no one blinked when a bot caught a grenade mid-air and casually tossed it back with perfect timing. Or perfectly aimed without looking and shot a guy. Of course robots can do that, they've seen the boston dynamic videos. But that raises the question of why the fuck don't droids do everything? Especially when troopers can't aim. Space-opera sci-fi these days is clinging onto a bit of retrofuturism.
Dune at least had a good explanation for why that would happen; lingering taboos after universal devastation/enslavement.
But we could work with this:
The characters are AI programs on a drone carrier deep in enemy territory. But we don't tell the audience. They're kept in the dark as much as possible about the nature of the characters and we just throw a TON of equivalents and euphemism at them. The actors/characters are all metaphorical. They need a pilot to fly ships, they need a gunner to aim the cannon, they need a navigator to plot the course. They're all AI running on the ship's mainframe, but in the show they're actors doing the job. We get that old-timey space-opera feel of people going places and doing things out in space while keeping up with technological trends. (And ignoring a lot of the difficulties of keeping people alive in space).
The Force ... uh ... Worsens?
Knowledge Brings Fear
Seemed like a fail of a dumb idea when announced, why is anyone surprised?
What seems far dumber: Boba Fett. Let's watch!
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Spoiler Alert! I went in to the movie expecting it to be pretty bad, but they did a better job than I expected. I figured the Kessel Run would be a big theme in the movie, so they could finally explain the "6 parsecs" claim. I think it was pretty obviuos that whoever wrote that line had no idea what they were talking about. I figured somewhere someone would try to make something up to explain it, and it's popped into my head many times over the past 30 years and I wondered about ways they could do it. I was unimpressed whith how they did. But when Solo said "I just did the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs" I laughed pretty hard. In a half full theater, I was the only one that laughed. To me that line alone was worth the price of admission. I assume it's like a fish story where it gets exaggerated a little more every time it's told.
Lol - did you slip a copypasta in there about "docker"?
Guys, haven't you seen this infographic? https://img.4plebs.org/boards/... I thought this was common knowledge, because it raised quite a noise on the youtube Star Wars channels, which are critical of Disney's direction. Also on those channels, it's common knowledge that the merchandise of TLJ remained in the stores. So much is still there, on discount, that there is very little merchandise released now for Solo - the stores don't want to take the same risk.
Here are come channels for your entertainment: Geeks + Gamers, Mindless Entertainment, Comicbookpro Secrets, Ivan Ortega, WorldClassBulshitters, Tha Gospel According to Mark with a Cee, That Star Wars Girl. Those will lead you to other similar channels, it's a tightly knit community. Hilarious, insightful, creative (Ivan Ortega is making a re-cut of TLJ, "fixing it"). Even if you don't agree with these people, they'll make you think.
Entitled "Solo"!
In all seriousness, I saw the movie, and unless you're a dedicated Star Wars nerd looking to learn a little more Star Wars trivia to stump your friends with, it won't hurt to miss it. I just wonder if Enfys Nest becomes an important character later, or even if she might be Rey's mom.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Dead Pool 2 was hilarious. Superhero movies are like Black Mirror episodes: they are a lot more enjoyable once you realize they are all supposed to be comedies! (My friend used to claim all the Schwarzenegger movies were comedies.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
In 50 years things that are common for us to do and say will probably be insulting too, while they may be doing things that will insult our current taboos.
I doubt it, on account of the fact that Progressives are going to end up crashing civilization against the rocks in the next decade or so. There's no way to predict social norms once we're freed from the church of Progress.
Up to now "Progress" has been pretty easy to predict: "If it's a social norm, destroy it." This can't continue forever. What happens when we exist in the perfect chaos desired by frothing at the mouth liberals?
Hrm, so we have:
Disney/Lucafilm are systematically trying to turn Star Wars in to something for SJW Women. They must not have done the market research to see that its white dudes who are most willing to shell out money to go see Star Wars in a theatre. The sad part is I don't think Lucas himself would've done any better, given the atrocities of 1 2 & 3. Perhaps there is no hope at all for the Star Wars we all grew up to love, and it's time to let it die.
Avengers can stop too. If movies come out too often then it ruins them. Star Wars was noted for long periods of time between movies. It's absurd that a new movie of a certain franchise shows up before the previous movie has even made it onto television. There are people I know who just give up on them, why see movie #10 when they haven't yet had time to get around to movies #7 through 9?
This movie is going down as one of the most underrated. Rian Johnson hurt it tremendously. As soon as I heard a non-Abrams was directing VIII I predicted volatility and fail.
... [bloviating, etc]'), I felt like, "Oh wow, I don't think I realized how bad the progressives are".
... homosexuals are depicted as having longer/happier marriages when statistics collides spectacularly into that. In this movie you don't see positive depictions of these SJW characters.
...".
The SJWs who made the movie haven't forgotten about ordinary people, and they held back on their deviance to keep their jobs / profits. And their strategic advances in the film were misfires. When L3-37 starts attacking men/white people indiscriminately (e.g. 'get out of my chair you pretentious
Hollywood celebrates the growing number of homosexuals in their movies, but often they're represented in ways that are awful to the point where it is hard to see any qualities in their characters at all. There are exceptions of course
Lando's peculiar label of the month just surfaces as a bunch of buffoonery, like a Frank Oz muppet or something. My inclination watching him was not, "Oh yeah, he's living the good life
Overall the movie contrasts the glorious ideas of the Enlightenment with the shortcomings of actuality and life. There's a lot of reminders about how often success hinges more on absurdity and will than anything else, and how a single hair-brained guy can accomplish more than all the communified misfits of the universe. These themes are much less clear in the prequel trilogy that debases itself into preaching about the Iraq war while shaming/triumphing about perfecting society.
Kind of a shame.
I think "Rogue One" and "Solo" are the best Star Wars movies since "Return of the Jedi."
For context, I saw ROTJ on opening weekend in 1983, at age 16.
The Force is Weak.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
They can create a new Science fiction universe Like Star Trek or Star Wars, but base it off what is current.
The hundred dollar question is: CAN THEY?
My guess is... no, not anymore, they can't.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I didn't think very highly of neither The Force Awakens nor The Last Jedi. ( They sucked hard imo )
Because of that, I didn't even bother to go see Solo.
These need a decent story behind them and not just flashy CGI. Crap with a Star Wars title is still crap.
It's one thing to read it in a book. It's quite another to be grossed out on screen.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Were you equally grossed out by the Elf/human relationships in Lotr? Or elf/dwarf in the Hobbit? John C Reillys character in Guardians of the Galaxy (pink wife)? Kirk sleeping with anything female in the Star Trek remakes? Several relationships in The Orville? These "gross" relationships have been on the screen in very popular films and tv, for years already.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Star Wars and Star Trek need to stop. It isn't that these new movies are bad or worse then before. But Star Wars and Star Trek were stories, characters and a fictional universe of a different era.
I think the problem is that all the good stuff in Star Wars was the original content of the first two films. Ever since then it's been 8 films of rehashing the same story or simply explaining the characters of the first two films over and over and over again. It's just tedious.
Disney needs to let go completely and start creating completely new stories and characters in the Star Wars Universe. I thought they might do it in TLJ when Kylo kills Snoke and asks Rey to join forces to burn this shit and start again fresh. That right there was the path to success for Disney had they pursued that story line, but they chose to revert back to cliche good vs evil crap we've been hearing for 40 years.
I'm not paying money for that.
They'll continue doing what they think is profitable...
FTFY.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
You are confusing a progressive idea, with extremists in the progressive movement. They are extremists in nearly any type of view.
So 50 years ago, a progressive Idea is that a woman can hold a job, and be married. The extremist position is that Woman should have all the jobs and the Men must stay at home and do the house work.
In a country that ideals itself on the idea of freedom, social norms for the sake they are social norms shouldn't be regulated or controlled.
There are a lot of social norms that have been changed, and doesn't create more chaos, because such change isn't managed by the extremist, but by more tempered minds of the general population.
Also just labeling an idea as progressive doesn't automatically categorize it as a good idea or a bad one. Eugenics was a progressive idea back in the 1940's that was a bad idea. Equal rights while much harder to implement is a good one.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
But it wasn't particularly GOOD.
I'm sure Ron Howard saved what he could.
Nobody goes to movies to have identity politics shoved down their throats, and this is the result of a policy of shoving identity politics into the faces of a populace that is already over saturated.
Keep punching down to make yourself feel better.
If they hadn't wasted a bunch of money by firing the original directors and essentially making the movie twice, it would have been a $150 million movie instead of a $250 million dollar movie. At that cost level it would have merely been a break-even disappointment rather than a big money loser.
It was the middle part of a trilogy. Those never have clear resolutions; it's in the nature of a trilogy.
Good point. I'm now looking forward to he next part :-)
Greed is the root of all evil.
The fans concerns and complaints after The Last Jedi was met with derision by Kennedy and her crew, who dismissed the long time fans in favor of what they believed was a brave new world of political activism, that even though set in a Universe far far away, and long long ago, this universe emulates far left Social Justice warrior identity politics of the US and GB today. Weird. So fans en masse neglected to go.
Soylo even had a few tricks up it's sleeves such as a droid with a sexual identity, social Justice warrior mindset, and with a terrible attitude. This character was so annoying that apparently audiences cheered when it was destroyed.
Then in a creepshow to end all creep shows, one of the Writers smugly bragged that one of the Characters, Lando was pansexual. https://www.usatoday.com/story...
Let that sink in a moment. A Star Wars Character that enjoys dipping his wick in little boys, little girls, dead people, Car exhausts, cows, sheeps, dogs, chickens.
Now I'm pretty liberal about this wick dipping business, but I'm old fashioned enough that I kinda think that humans should stick with other humans, and of an age where consent can be given. Just sayin'.
The problem you see, is that Social Justice Warriors are happy to complain about Start Wars - and everthing else it would appear - but if they even go to the movies, they don't do what has made LucasFilms and the Star Wars Franchise a mint in the past. And they don't buy the promotional items. Old School Star Wars fans, male and female, go to the movies often several times. They buy the promotional paraphernalia. They write the fanfics.
And what they do not want is 21st century far left identity politics. Star Wars is a couple hour escape from reality, not a couple hours of virtue signaling and destruction of the canon narrative. So they stayed away. All around the world.
Meanwhile,the people who made it flop apparently believe that the reason it flopped was because audiences are tired of White male characters. Apparently both racism and sexism is the new rule.
It's their money. But smart people trying to sell things should make things others want to buy. If Disney wants to make a movie called Queen of the Femniverse, shouwing white men being skewered and flayed alive, and women cheering and screaming in pleasure at the sight - well they can. It probably won't work. But its their money.
But it takes a willful act of stupidity to destroy a golden goose franchise in order to get rid of it's core audience.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Shoes?
Pretty sure that was supposed to be assholes by Samsung, Android and dictionaries (and small stupid touch keyboards) work in mysterious ways.
Luke Sywalker: coward, failure. "Saved" by Rey.
How was Luke "saved" by Rey? Luke went to the island to die. Luke never left the island. Yes, he helped his sister in the end but he did it his own way.
Poe: risk taker, mutineer, failure. Saved by Holdo.
How was Poe "saved" by Holdo? He explicitly does not do anything that he (as a flight officer) should do. The only person that might have saved Poe was Leia who stuns him instead of killing him outright when he mutinies. And Poe isn't a smuggler like Han; he, again, is an officer of the Rebellion.
Finn: coward, failure. Saved by Rose.
Did you watch the first film? Finn was a coward running away from the First Order. His character is always looking for a way out for himself.
Snoke: Psychopathic tyrant, failure.
As was the Emperor before him.
Hux: Evil bastard, failure.
Just like the successful Grand Moff Tarkin and the whiny Admiral Motti? The only different is Hux is a combination of the two.
Kylo: Trained force user beaten by an untrained one, failure.
While heavily injured and bleeding all of the battlefield. Sure.
Rose: Nobody turned hero.
You mean like a moisture farmer from Tattoine who saved the Rebellion? You mean like a shady smuggler who saved the Rebellion many times? What about a non-descript utility droid that seems to know how to do everything.
Holdo: Saved the rebellion.
Yes and if her character was a man would you say the same thing? What does that say about you if the gender matters to you?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You mean how Luke was also beaten by Kylo Ren.
OR
Luke didn't want to harm either of them and had to hold back. One of these doesn't fit your narrative. In Empire you could argue that Luke held his own against Vader after a few weeks of training but that isn't the reality. Vader was toying with him the whole time.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yeah, Vader let Luke cut his hand off just to make him feel powerful. Idiot.
In my version of history Vader did not have his hand cut off until ROTJ after Luke "completed" his training according to Yoda. Also in ROTJ, the all mighty Emperor Palpatine who took out the entire Jedi order in the prequels was easily thrown to his death by Vader. The emperor couldn't sense Vader's change or heart or force pull himself to safety. But that's my version. Are we talking about the same original trilogy? What is your version of history?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Luke didn't get any more training from Yoda after he left for Bespin. It's clear in ROTJ that he is only now returning to complete his training and Yoda tells him it is already complete--yet he scoffs when Luke says, "so I am a Jedi!"
We don't know what training Luke got between ESB and ROTJ. We only know it wasn't from Yoda. We also don't know for sure how much time has passed. I'm sure somewhere through novels or comics it was filled in but it wasn't told in the movies. We do know that Luke's powers and training have grown enough for him to build his own lightsaber.
Vader was toying with Luke in Cloud City but it's Luke's temptation to anger that lets him beat Vader in ROTJ, it was not Vader letting Luke win.
My point was that the original trilogy was not exactly clear when it came how powerful each Force sensitive character was. The Emperor was supposed to be much more powerful than Vader but was easily killed by him. I don't know if Lucas had decided or planned out each character either. Of course much of the universe written after ROTJ was negated by Lucas when he did the prequels.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
How can they possibly know how a cult film will perform in the future? There's every probability that it WILL do well down the line. I mean, seriously, do you really think *any* Star Wars fan is not going to bother seeing it after having seen all of the others? Even if it sucked? I think it is more likely that they're pulling these figures out of a hat (but with all the attendant paperwork to make it look as though it was thoroughly researched) in order to get a mucky big tax write off. Disney is a huge operation, after all, and certainly could use an eighty million loss on the books to lower their tax status! At least I think so...
You really are an idiot.
Please show me anywhere in the film where Luke got his training between ESB and ROTJ and if he received additional training. It is not told in the film. You can't, can you? Shadows Of the Empire which fills what happened in the Star Wars universe between ESB and ROTJ wasn't started until 1996 (15 years after ROTJ was released). Most of Luke's additional knowledge came from a book he found in Ben's hut on Tattoine specifically how to construct a lightsaber. But NONE of that was told in the film. It wasn't told till 15 years after the film. Or is your knowledge of Star Wars lacking?
According to Kasdan and Lucas, about a year.
Citation Needed. And was that IN THE FILM when ROTJ was released?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Economic bust - doesn't surprise me.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"