gorgon wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.

I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.

Good thing that's what no one with any sense is saying.

Well, I was replying for Cabin Boy, but needed something relevant to the thread, so thought I would pay homage to the most prolific poster in the thread for maximum Solo thread relevance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At the time, his dance to Alley Cat was the height of comedic genius.


I guess liking things makes me a toxic, rabid fan, though. After all, it can't be that some movies are good and the audience responds to that, and some movies are unnecessarily provocative and the audience responds to that, too. No, all movies are merely tepid, and it is a flaw in one's character to care about them.

Way to not follow what I was saying. Liking things isn't toxic. Liking things that don't matter so much that you become so emotionally attached that you "Feel ill" when it's a "bad" one. is toxic. Liking it so much that when you don't like this newest one you attack the people involved in it's creation is toxic.

You were quite insistent that all fandoms are toxic, that all fans were toxic. If you are going to walk back your incindiary broad-brush painting this far, an apology is standard etiquette.

Im not walking back nothing. It's what the words mean. I am sorry you misread the things I was saying because you define fan and fandom differently than a dictionary?



If Fan is the shortened Fanatic then Fandom is a community of fanatics. What about that is healthy?

Do you not understand how language changes over time? What you just typed is as disingenuous as if you were explaining that you like to use a word that means "bundle of sticks" and can't see why people interpret in a way that isn't in the OED.

Also, you said all fandom is toxic. That is not limiting your statement to people who feel ill when watching bad franchise films* but rather including anyone who considers him or herself to be a fan rational aficionado or a member of the intended long term audience of a creative work.


*And really, feeling ill can be appropriate. Anyone who paid to see Batman and Robin shoukd feel ill.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Do you not understand how language changes over time? What you just typed is as disingenuous as if you were explaining that you like to use a word that means "bundle of sticks" and can't see why people interpret in a way that isn't in the OED.

This would be fair if it wasn't for context. If you and I were out camping and I asked you to bring me that "Bundle of sticks", then the word would have an obvious meaning that is not how the word has evolved over time. Likewise, in this discussion, when talking about the insane backlash of a group of people because they didn't like what happened in a movie what exactly do you think I was talking about when I said Fans were toxic? Do you REALLY think I meant having any kind of positive reaction to something is a problem?

When I said Fan you knew I wasn't talking about a machine with spinning blades designed to create a cool breeze right? Well, I obviously wasn't talking about people who just like a thing either.

Extend just the SLIGHTEST bit of reason my way please.

Also, you said all fandom is toxic. That is not limiting your statement to people who feel ill when watching bad franchise films* but rather including anyone who considers him or herself to be a fan rational aficionado or a member of the intended long term audience of a creative work.

I like A LOT of things. Pretty much everything Nathan Fillion does, Red Dwarf, Marvel films 99% of the time, the Fables comic series, Deadpool - especially when it was written by Daniel Way, etc etc etc...

I don't attribute myself to be a part of any group associated with liking any of those things. I don't label myself, or consider myself to be, a part of any "Fandom". Being a member of a "Fandom" is not as simple as liking a thing. It goes a step beyond into that fanatical territory. Is every individual inside a fandom the monsters who bully actresses and creators for "Ruining their childhood?" No. Obviously not. But those communities breed that attitude. It doesn't exist outside of the groups who care SO MUCH.

Close parallel. Is every organized church the West Burrows Baptist Church? Obviously not. But when you give up reasoning on a subject for emotional investment and surround yourself with a community of individuals who have done the same you create a breeding ground for toxic, outlandish, unreasonable backlash against those you perceive to have offended the thing you got emotionally invested in.

*And really, feeling ill can be appropriate. Anyone who paid to see Batman and Robin shoukd feel ill.

I THINK it was B&R, but I know George Clooney was offering to give everyone their 10.00 back if they gave him their movie ticket. He felt real bad about it.

In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

Because saying you dont like something or that it was made poorly is EXACTLY the same as changing a characters profile on a wiki to be full of racial slurrs.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

Because saying you dont like something or that it was made poorly is EXACTLY the same as changing a characters profile on a wiki to be full of racial slurrs.

And of course, EVERY SINGLE detractor of these catastrophically bad movies is a racist like these few imbeciles that edited wookiepedia or created the no-females cut of TLJ (as if the female characters were treated better, poor delusional fools).

Once again, Solo was a perfectly fine movie. Is it the Green Mile? No. Empire Strikes back? Nope. But it was fun to watch.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

Because saying you dont like something or that it was made poorly is EXACTLY the same as changing a characters profile on a wiki to be full of racial slurrs.

And of course, EVERY SINGLE detractor of these catastrophically bad movies is a racist like these few imbeciles that edited wookiepedia or created the no-females cut of TLJ (as if the female characters were treated better, poor delusional fools).

And once again, nobody said EVERY SINGLE detractor. People who dont like the pacing or the characerization, or the plot, or the plot holes are welcome to their opinion. Criticism is fine. Its not the general audience who didnt like the movies who did the horrible things. It was people who were so emotionally invested that the energy and effort spent to do the terrible things was worth it for them. The fanatics. The fans. The extremists within the fandom.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

IMO, the proper definition is 'either sullen teenagers looking for attention or grown men desperately trying to recapture their childhoods, spewing vile gak all over themselves and any forum they inhabit'.

Which is a different thing than fans who simply didn't like a given thing, and can behave like decent human beings when discussing it. Plenty of people fit in this category. However, the people described in the above definition absolutely exist, and I'm not sure why anyone outside of said 'toxic' group would deny this. Hateful, truly ugly gak is pretty easy to find on the internet.

I think you guys underestimate the general involvement people had with these old movies.
I would also argue that the "true" fans can be actually those eating up whatever.

Title is misleading. Taken from a RLM video. Worth a watch.


Anyhow, instead of escalating the heat level of the discussion, I will retreat in my realm and wait and see.

Personally, I am convinced that part of the fact that Solo will go out as one of the greatest bombs in film history is due not only to the lack of investment in a non-mainline story (otherwise R1 would have been a disaster) or mismanagement from Kennedy (without the reshoots the movie would have lost way less money). The negative reaction from TLJ is there, along with the record week-to-week drop with such movie.

We have to wait and see in 1.5 years.

Coupled with being sandwiched between the record breaking infinity war and the sequel to the highest grossing r- rated movie of all time with little to no promotional material.

Agree. All those things are factors. Some more than others.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
In the year of our Lord 2018, "toxic fanbase" is more often than not used for "fanbase that does not shut up and just consumes the pig slop we serve in silence and without complaining".

Because saying you dont like something or that it was made poorly is EXACTLY the same as changing a characters profile on a wiki to be full of racial slurrs.

And of course, EVERY SINGLE detractor of these catastrophically bad movies is a racist like these few imbeciles that edited wookiepedia or created the no-females cut of TLJ (as if the female characters were treated better, poor delusional fools).

And once again, nobody said EVERY SINGLE detractor. People who dont like the pacing or the characerization, or the plot, or the plot holes are welcome to their opinion. Criticism is fine. Its not the general audience who didnt like the movies who did the horrible things. It was people who were so emotionally invested that the energy and effort spent to do the terrible things was worth it for them. The fanatics. The fans. The extremists within the fandom.

citation needed. You can claim that all you like, but it could just as easily be KK herself who edited the wiki pages and posting terrible things to trans' instagram account then ordered her by contract to close her account if she wanted a role in ep 9. All publicity is good publicity after all.

Hahaha. Okay. So your argument now is that racists and sexists DON'T exist, the sw fandom is just a bunch of real nice people, and KK is a figure head in a publicity conspiracy that involves putting down those real nice people by fabricating evidence that racists and sexists exist. And further, that the conspiracy has backfired and Solo is doing exceptionally poorly because those real nice people got together to boycott.

Did i miss anything?

Just making sure i understand the full extent of your strawman.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Once again, Solo was a perfectly fine movie. Is it the Green Mile? No. Empire Strikes back? Nope. But it was fun to watch.

Agreed. I thought that Solo was a fine movie. It is the Star Wars spin off that I enjoyed the most. I love that he skirts through his adventures based on luck (and a bit of skill!)

Solo was subject to some of the worst release timing and marketing ever.

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha. Okay. So your argument now is that racists and sexists DON'T exist, the sw fandom is just a bunch of real nice people, and KK is a figure head in a publicity conspiracy that involves putting down those real nice people by fabricating evidence that racists and sexists exist. And further, that the conspiracy has backfired and Solo is doing exceptionally poorly because those real nice people got together to boycott.

Did i miss anything?

Just making sure i understand the full extent of your strawman.

Speaking of strawmen, you sure like making them.


The point that you missed is when it comes to tiko's twitter, we don't know who did it, so assuming it was a racist or sexist caused trans to leave the internet has absolutely no evidence to it. As all the media has been pushing the fans are sexists you'd think they'd be interviewing her about it to push the story further. But they're not, so that points to that narrative being a false one.

You'd think if a boycott from star wars fans can coast a major IP like star wars to bomb, they'd start trying to get them back to the theaters, but they're not, pointing to the boycott having little over all effect. Unless you're trying to state that the star wars fandom picks & chooses the box office winners & losers world wide. If that was the case every movie from now on would have star wars referrences in them, which we won't, so that points to that narrative being a false one.

Where is the evidence that star wars fans are any more racists or sexist then the society at large? are american star wars fans more/less sexists then america in general?

You can keep parroting the false narative that KK & lucas arts is pushing, but that doesn't make it true as it's clearly not.

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?

A great question, for Kathleen Kennedy to answer.

I don't think she deserves *TOO* much scorn, especially if you really liked Solo. At least she took decisive action before it was too late in order to right the ship.

Now you're just playing both sides. She hired Lord and Miller. She fired Lord and Miller. Yes, she also hired Ron Howard to fix and finish the film. But the film was a box office catastrophe. She actually didn't right the ship - especially from your POV, since you insist that Solo was, at best, a mediocre and forgettable movie. Ron Howard deserves credit for making a very good movie in a tough position. But the failure of that movie is down to Kathleen Kennedy.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha. Okay. So your argument now is that racists and sexists DON'T exist, the sw fandom is just a bunch of real nice people, and KK is a figure head in a publicity conspiracy that involves putting down those real nice people by fabricating evidence that racists and sexists exist. And further, that the conspiracy has backfired and Solo is doing exceptionally poorly because those real nice people got together to boycott.

Did i miss anything?

Just making sure i understand the full extent of your strawman.

Speaking of strawmen, you sure like making them.


The point that you missed is when it comes to tiko's twitter, we don't know who did it, so assuming it was a racist or sexist caused trans to leave the internet has absolutely no evidence to it.

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Do we have direct sources for the tweets?

I'm pretty sure John Boyega pretty outright confirmed it was people being jerks to her that caused her to leave.

Ahmed Best, who played Jar-Jar in the prequels has also directly pointed the various horribleness to him directed to him over the years over the character has caused him to consider suicide on, I think, multiple occasions.

In short, people suck.

 Compel wrote:
I'm pretty sure John Boyega pretty outright confirmed it was people being jerks to her that caused her to leave.

Ahmed Best, who played Jar-Jar in the prequels has also directly pointed the various horribleness to him directed to him over the years over the character has caused him to consider suicide on, I think, multiple occasions.

In short, people suck.

I have a lot of reservations on such claims, and I would like to see sources before being sure. Is true that people suck, I don't exclude this possibility but I wish we had more data than rumors.
Concerning Ahmed Best, I think that this sound more like bandwagoning, to be honest, since is happening now. Most people did not even know there was an actor behind Jar Jar. Many just believed it was CGIed in the scene (yeah... I know). All the hatred, justified or not, for the character, was absorbed by Lucas. I doubt many attacked Ahmed Best, because few suspected his existence.

Voss wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Hahaha. Okay. So your argument now is that racists and sexists DON'T exist, the sw fandom is just a bunch of real nice people, and KK is a figure head in a publicity conspiracy that involves putting down those real nice people by fabricating evidence that racists and sexists exist. And further, that the conspiracy has backfired and Solo is doing exceptionally poorly because those real nice people got together to boycott.

Did i miss anything?

Just making sure i understand the full extent of your strawman.

Speaking of strawmen, you sure like making them.


The point that you missed is when it comes to tiko's twitter, we don't know who did it, so assuming it was a racist or sexist caused trans to leave the internet has absolutely no evidence to it.

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Prove it.... shouldnt be difficult if there are as many as you state, I would be interested in seeing them too, in fact I will go a looking now, but still expect you to post links or pics as proof.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gone through 20+ pages now looking for proof that she was driven off in a manner any different to the norm that other people receive on Twatter, thus far all I have seen is a un sourced screenrant article about a group claiming responsibility.

Thus far all we have is others claiming why she left and nothing from her, so unreliable sources at best, lies at worst (looking at you Rian)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
now at 100 articles and so far i am seeing a pattern, KMT has made not statement and its just a storm of "conjecture" claiming that she left due to "harassment", which may be true, but lacks any citations or proof, we have the original article coming out from a 3rd party source and the rest of the "click bait" sites latching on to it, then a comment from Rian Johnson (a less than trustworthy source) about the subject.

Long story short there is zero credible evidence that she has left due to "harassment".

Do I believe she did, yep, is there any proof, nope, therefore it cant be credibly claimed that its the reason she left.

 Lance845 wrote:

And once again, nobody said EVERY SINGLE detractor. People who dont like the pacing or the characerization, or the plot, or the plot holes are welcome to their opinion. Criticism is fine. Its not the general audience who didnt like the movies who did the horrible things. It was people who were so emotionally invested that the energy and effort spent to do the terrible things was worth it for them. The fanatics. The fans. The extremists within the fandom.

But by your definition, every member of the fandom IS a fanatic, as 'fandom' derives from 'fan' which derives from 'fanatic'.

Which just demonstrates how far you've overreached in your definition; even you no longer truly agree with it.

sirlynchmob wrote:


lucas arts is pushing

LucasArts doesn't exist anymore. It was their computer game wing. It got shut down quite a few years ago. Before the sale to das haus von Maus.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

And once again, nobody said EVERY SINGLE detractor. People who dont like the pacing or the characerization, or the plot, or the plot holes are welcome to their opinion. Criticism is fine. Its not the general audience who didnt like the movies who did the horrible things. It was people who were so emotionally invested that the energy and effort spent to do the terrible things was worth it for them. The fanatics. The fans. The extremists within the fandom.

But by your definition, every member of the fandom IS a fanatic, as 'fandom' derives from 'fan' which derives from 'fanatic'.

Which just demonstrates how far you've overreached in your definition; even you no longer truly agree with it.

A fanatic can be a fan, but not all fans are fanatics, regardless of where the word is derived from, I enjoy Star Wars and could be called a fan, but I’m not fanatical about it, it’s clear however some are, same with Trek, 40k etc.

I think that’s what your getting at though.

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Also quantifiably untrue according to the research I’m currently doing, TLJ detractors are a incredibly diverse group, just like the ones who like it, but hey... let’s not let facts get in the way of feels

You are correct Vulcan, Voss is wrong, it’s that simple.

 Formosa wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

And once again, nobody said EVERY SINGLE detractor. People who dont like the pacing or the characerization, or the plot, or the plot holes are welcome to their opinion. Criticism is fine. Its not the general audience who didnt like the movies who did the horrible things. It was people who were so emotionally invested that the energy and effort spent to do the terrible things was worth it for them. The fanatics. The fans. The extremists within the fandom.

But by your definition, every member of the fandom IS a fanatic, as 'fandom' derives from 'fan' which derives from 'fanatic'.

Which just demonstrates how far you've overreached in your definition; even you no longer truly agree with it.

A fanatic can be a fan, but not all fans are fanatics, regardless of where the word is derived from, I enjoy Star Wars and could be called a fan, but I’m not fanatical about it, it’s clear however some are, same with Trek, 40k etc.

I think that’s what your getting at though.

Exactly my point. Upthread Lance flat-out says that since 'fan' is a derivative of 'fanatic' it follows that the two mean exactly the same thing... and then contradicts himself by talking about the difference between 'fanatics' and 'fandom (the community of fans, or in his words the community of fanatics) in the quoted post.

He also claims upthread to not be a fan of anything, and not a member of any fandom... and yet posts here on a Warhammer/40K fan website quite regularly. Methinks he doth protest too much.

I think you read to much into what I do for my own enjoyment.

Finding a diverse group of people who are going to talk a lot of different opinions is much better then sitting in a echo chamber listening only to people who agree. This isn't my own source or outlet for discussion. It's just one that I enjoy.

Up thread I said Fan was derived from (and in fact I said it was shorthand for) fanatic. I stand by that. I didn't say fanatics and the fandom are different. I said any community of fans breeds the toxic mindset that creates the situations we have seen. Thus fandoms are toxic. Not unlike the echo chambers I just mentioned.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to follow the sentences I am laying out without adding your own implications or misconstruing them.


Fact: Ass hole have done gakky things.

Fact. They did those gakky things to these people, at least in part, because they were a part of a movie they didn't like.

I never said everyone. I never said all. I never said every person who liked SW was a big piece of gak. I never said if you don't like TLJ or whatever that it HAD to be because you were a racist sexist bigot. I never said every person who chooses to label themselves a fan was a fanatic.

What I said was Fandoms were toxic. They breed toxic behavior. The people who did these gakky things are the consequence of people caring so much about something that matters so little that they feel entitled to be monsters to people because their "Insert fan focus" was "attacked" when it "wasn't good enough".



Kind of surprised this thread didn't just die. It should probably be locked since it's just repeating itself now. On the other hand if it IS locked it's just going to get someone to make ANOTHER SW thread and it will just move over there. Might as well keep it in one place.

 Manchu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?

A great question, for Kathleen Kennedy to answer.

I don't think she deserves *TOO* much scorn, especially if you really liked Solo. At least she took decisive action before it was too late in order to right the ship.

Now you're just playing both sides. She hired Lord and Miller. She fired Lord and Miller. Yes, she also hired Ron Howard to fix and finish the film. But the film was a box office catastrophe. She actually didn't right the ship - especially from your POV, since you insist that Solo was, at best, a mediocre and forgettable movie. Ron Howard deserves credit for making a very good movie in a tough position. But the failure of that movie is down to Kathleen Kennedy.

I'm not playing both sides. I simply don't see any need to be absolutist about it, or to call for a pound of flesh from the woman. In business and life, it's not *only* about the mistakes you make, but how you recover from them. And while I do think Solo was mediocre and forgettable, it wasn't a disaster that harmed the brand. I'm sure she burned a lot of political capital convincing investors to spend all that additional money to almost completely reshoot a film that the studio probably already knew was going to get lukewarm interest with audiences. But if she'd been conservative and stayed the course with L&M (probably saving, what, $75-100 mil?) they might have approached breakeven with this film in the short term, AND done some long-term damage to the brand following on the heels of the divisive TLJ.

Maybe her overall grade for this effort ends up at a D-, but it could have been a Titanic level-disaster for Lucasfilm beyond just the box office. I don't think it's unreasonable to give her a single ounce of credit for avoiding the iceberg.

These rhetorical gymnastics are getting weird. Kathleen Kennedy is, to begin with, responsible for your hypothetical scenario in which Solo could have been "much worse." And the financial disaster of Solo actually *IS* bad for the brand. SW has never lost money before. And the reason it did this time is because it took (at least) $80 million to correct her mistake. Now, we know she decides who makes these films and how - Lord & Miller aren't the first guy's she's fired and Solo isn't the first Diseny SW picture to require extensive reshoots. I'm not sure, however, that she decides how many hundreds of millions the parent company can spend making these pictures. But even if she has the authority to say, yes we will spend $250 million on Solo, when that money has all been spent to get to a point where 70% needs to be reshot by a more experienced, efficient, and reliable director, do you think she still has the authority to unilaterally sign off on a further $80 million?

This whole line of discussion began with your question: "WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?" Again, a very good question - for Kathleen Kennedy to answer. There is no silver lining to a $250 million mistake with $80 million of damage control on top, that still resulted in brand damage. We have no idea whether L&M's Solo would have broken even and we can't know whether their movie would have damaged the brand as much as or more than Howard's Solo being a flop. All we know is Solo seemed fethed at every stage of its development, marketing, and release, all under the auspices of Ms. Kennedy.

She also oversaw a lot of money being made previous to 2017. But Solo was financially DOA. The quality of the film itself cannot have caused its performance because nobody showed up to begin with. Something was clearly already going very wrong, even as Ms. Kennedy was making financially successful SW movies. The patterns are there: rocky relationships with directors and lots of reshoots. The result today is that everyone knows that how SW can and should move forward is an open question.

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

You know it works both ways right, loads of far left bigots have also latched onto and abused Star Wars fans/actors, if you accept one, you must accept the other.

Saddest thing of it all is us that are stuck in the middle, the twitter trolls and the SJW’s are causing so many issues, I wish both would just leave.

 Formosa wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

You know it works both ways right, loads of far left bigots have also latched onto and abused Star Wars fans/actors, if you accept one, you must accept the other.

Saddest thing of it all is us that are stuck in the middle, the twitter trolls and the SJW’s are causing so many issues, I wish both would just leave.

Nobody said right or left!

Why the feth are you bringing politics into it?

The political divide is not simply about social issues. There are sexists and racists on the left too. And even if there were not. Even if he DID say that it was right wing idiots who did this dumb thing, then who the feth cares if the left ALSO has idiots. Each side can be judged for their idiots individually without having to pay lip services to the other sides idiots in the same statement every time. Please, take your political insecurity and leave it out of the discussion about Han Solo: A star Wars Story.

@Manchu — You could have saved yourself all that typing and just said “burn the witch.” Clearly anything more nuanced will be chalked up as “rhetorical gymnastics.”

Look, usually you have something interesting to say on topics, even when I don’t agree with you. But you’re holding on way too tightly with this SW stuff, and it’s just become far too difficult discussing any of it with you without things getting weird and ranty. What you want is an echo chamber. I’m not about to provide that, so I’m done here.

Your thinking on this issue is seriously compromised. I have not even said that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired much less called her a witch that should be burnt, whatever that is supposed to mean. I think you are using weasel words to willfully confuse legitimate criticism with misogyny - maybe to paint me as the bad guy, maybe to excuse your own convoluted attempt to argue simulatenously that Solo was poor movie but also that Kennedy somehow deserves praise for mismangaing its production, marketing, and release. And again, all of this stems from your own incredulous question - "WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?" Instead of jumping to the defense of the person who should answer your own question, which is exactly the correct question, why not actually address it?

Nothing I've written at all suggests I want an "echo chamber" but if you need cover to run away from bending over backwards to bizarrely hold Solo in contempt at the same time as arguing the person resposnible for its failure deserves credit, then I guess it's as good an excuse as any.

 Manchu wrote:
Your thinking on this issue is seriously compromised. I have not even said that Kathleen Kennedy should be fired much less called her a witch that should be burnt, whatever that is supposed to mean. I think you are using weasel words to willfully confuse legitimate criticism with misogyny - maybe to paint me as the bad guy, maybe to excuse your own convoluted attempt to argue simulatenously that Solo was poor movie but also that Kennedy somehow deserves praise for mismangaing its production, marketing, and release. And again, all of this stems from your own incredulous question - "WTF was up with hiring Lord and Miller in the first place?" Instead of jumping to the defense of the person who should answer your own question, which is exactly the correct question, why not actually address it?

Nothing I've written at all suggests I want an "echo chamber" but if you need cover to run away from bending over backwards to bizarrely hold Solo in contempt at the same time as arguing the person resposnible for its failure deserves credit, then I guess it's as good an excuse as any.

He was saying its not black and white. You can do things right while also doing some things wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.

That's a non sequitur. We aren't talking about whether Ron Howard successfully saved Solo as a movie - I obviously think he did but just as obviously Gorgon is not convinced. Rather, the point to hand was the origin of the garbage fire Howard was hired to put out, i.e., Kennedy hiring Lord and Miller. It doesn't matter whether Kennedy or Bob Iger or whoever eventually had to turn to Howard to salvage hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. The actual issue is, how did this catastrophe ever get rolling?

Did I ask this before, that since it’s obvious what kind of style Lord & Miller would bring to the movie, why where they even approached in the first place?

It's a great question. And it needs to be contextualized with the larger picture of late TFA reshoots, sidelining Gareth Edwards and putting Tony Gilroy in charge of reshooting large sections of Rogue One, and firing Colin Treverrow from Episode VIII. Speaking about the state of R1 before he came aboard, Gilroy said "they were in so much terrible, terrible, trouble that all you could do was improve their position." (BTW, he credited Iger rather than Kennedy for gambling on reshoots to save the picture.) I think Gorgon is totally right to use the expression "WTF" regarding Lord and Miller. But stepping back, I would also say more broadly WTF has been going on at LucasFilm?

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

I'm not saying she didn't get racists or sexists tweets, I'm saying your assumption on why she left is wrong, as it has yet to be proven. None of what you posted has any evidence to support it. There was a call for evidence of this targeted harrasment, I didn't see any links yet.Where are the studies? are gamers more/less racist than the nation average? are star wars fans?

Where is Tran during all this? Let's hear it from her instead of others who are speaking for her. I'll take her word on the matter before numerous imaginary people on the internet who have no quotes directly from her.

 Manchu wrote:
It's a great question. And it needs to be contextualized with the larger picture of late TFA reshoots, sidelining Gareth Edwards and putting Tony Gilroy in charge of reshooting large sections of Rogue One, and firing Colin Treverrow from Episode VIII. Speaking about the state of R1 before he came aboard, Gilroy said "they were in so much terrible, terrible, trouble that all you could do was improve their position." (BTW, he credited Iger rather than Kennedy for gambling on reshoots to save the picture.) I think Gorgon is totally right to use the expression "WTF" regarding Lord and Miller. But stepping back, I would also say more broadly WTF has been going on at LucasFilm?

That's a very good point.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

You know it works both ways right, loads of far left bigots have also latched onto and abused Star Wars fans/actors, if you accept one, you must accept the other.

Saddest thing of it all is us that are stuck in the middle, the twitter trolls and the SJW’s are causing so many issues, I wish both would just leave.

Nobody said right or left!

Why the feth are you bringing politics into it?

The political divide is not simply about social issues. There are sexists and racists on the left too. And even if there were not. Even if he DID say that it was right wing idiots who did this dumb thing, then who the feth cares if the left ALSO has idiots. Each side can be judged for their idiots individually without having to pay lip services to the other sides idiots in the same statement every time. Please, take your political insecurity and leave it out of the discussion about Han Solo: A star Wars Story.

I brought it into it did I, or does your rhetoric sound just like the far left fools who blame everything on “racism” or “sexism” without even attempting to understand context or intent.

If that’s not your intent, fine, it looks that way though.

 Formosa wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Voss wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Voss wrote:

Except for all the racist and sexists tweets to her twitter account. It wasn't *a* racist or sexist, it was a quite a few of them, who felt the best way to deal with their personal problems was to publically throw their issues at her via twitter. So... this 'no evidence' nonsense you're spouting is just incorrect.

Except now you're back to implying that those - what, dozen? two dozen? - racist sexist bigots are somehow representative of everyone who didn't like TLJ.

Not at all. I'm saying sirlynchmob's sudden narrative that those tweets didn't happen is blatantly untrue. *I* didn't like TLJ, because Johnson is a talentless hack at both writing and directing and produced a fairly crap movie. It has zero to do with race or gender.

But at the same time there is also no reason to ignore the actual fact that a lot of racist and sexist idiots are seizing on it as an excuse to vent about their worthless opinions. Or pretend, as that post did, that racist and sexist things didn't happen. Tran was targeted for being an Asian woman in a film a pile of idiots didn't like. Rather than just accepting the fact that they didn't like the film, like reasonable people, they lashed out at people bashed on their bigotry. That makes them unreasonable people.

You know it works both ways right, loads of far left bigots have also latched onto and abused Star Wars fans/actors, if you accept one, you must accept the other.

Saddest thing of it all is us that are stuck in the middle, the twitter trolls and the SJW’s are causing so many issues, I wish both would just leave.

Nobody said right or left!

Why the feth are you bringing politics into it?

The political divide is not simply about social issues. There are sexists and racists on the left too. And even if there were not. Even if he DID say that it was right wing idiots who did this dumb thing, then who the feth cares if the left ALSO has idiots. Each side can be judged for their idiots individually without having to pay lip services to the other sides idiots in the same statement every time. Please, take your political insecurity and leave it out of the discussion about Han Solo: A star Wars Story.

I brought it into it did I, or does your rhetoric sound just like the far left fools who blame everything on “racism” or “sexism” without even attempting to understand context or intent.

If that’s not your intent, fine, it looks that way though.

It's not. I have been described by a friend as a tyrannical libertarian (in that I think everyone should leave each other the feth alone and the government should live in absolute fear of it's people).

For every idiot on the left who screams about problems while suggesting solutions that have no fundamental basis in reality and no chance of ever actually functioning on any level, there is an idiot on the right who who plugs his ears and pretends problems don't exist. Both camps are full of morons. They're both embarrassments. And everything wrong with the country is both of your faults. I am not far anything.

Also, there is no context or intent that can be taken from the racial slurr and sexists messages that have been tossed around that don't mean racism and sexism. There is no good context for calling Tran a bunch of Chinese hate words (while shes not even actually Chinese)

The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

 Formosa wrote:
The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

Who gives a gak?

What difference does it make whether the hate was sent somebodies way for bigotry or laughs? What difference does it make if the person caved under pressure or held their ground. The point is the people are monsters. Monsters Vulcan thinks are too insignificant to be worth mentioning and sirlynchmob thinks are actually a publicity stunt by KK. Remember when I mentioned that the one side likes to plug it's ears and pretend problems don't exist?

 Lance845 wrote:
I think you read to much into what I do for my own enjoyment.

Finding a diverse group of people who are going to talk a lot of different opinions is much better then sitting in a echo chamber listening only to people who agree. This isn't my own source or outlet for discussion. It's just one that I enjoy.

Up thread I said Fan was derived from (and in fact I said it was shorthand for) fanatic. I stand by that. I didn't say fanatics and the fandom are different. I said any community of fans breeds the toxic mindset that creates the situations we have seen. Thus fandoms are toxic. Not unlike the echo chambers I just mentioned.

I don't understand why it's so difficult for you to follow the sentences I am laying out without adding your own implications or misconstruing them.


Fact: Ass hole have done gakky things.

Fact. They did those gakky things to these people, at least in part, because they were a part of a movie they didn't like.

I never said everyone. I never said all. I never said every person who liked SW was a big piece of gak. I never said if you don't like TLJ or whatever that it HAD to be because you were a racist sexist bigot. I never said every person who chooses to label themselves a fan was a fanatic.

What I said was Fandoms were toxic. They breed toxic behavior. The people who did these gakky things are the consequence of people caring so much about something that matters so little that they feel entitled to be monsters to people because their "Insert fan focus" was "attacked" when it "wasn't good enough".



Kind of surprised this thread didn't just die. It should probably be locked since it's just repeating itself now. On the other hand if it IS locked it's just going to get someone to make ANOTHER SW thread and it will just move over there. Might as well keep it in one place.

No, you just repeated exactly what I said. The only difference is that now you contradict your statement about toxic fans being only a small part of the fandom. Now you say ALL fandom is toxic, period... which I suppose we could have all predicted.

Out of curiousity, what does Merriam-Webster say on the subject.

Fanatic: 1 : disapproving : a person exhibiting excessive enthusiasm and intense uncritical devotion toward some controversial matter (as in religion or politics) a religious fanatic [=extremist]
2 : a person who is extremely enthusiastic about and devoted to some interest or activity a boating/sports/racing fanatic She's a real fanatic when it comes to working out.

So your definition of "Fan" could easily fit the first definition, it does not address the second definition at all. So perhaps you can set down the overly broad brush for a moment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

Who gives a gak?

What difference does it make whether the hate was sent somebodies way for bigotry or laughs? What difference does it make if the person caved under pressure or held their ground. The point is the people are monsters. Monsters Vulcan thinks are too insignificant to be worth mentioning and sirlynchmob thinks are actually a publicity stunt by KK. Remember when I mentioned that the one side likes to plug it's ears and pretend problems don't exist?

I never said they weren't worth mentioning. I just object to them being cast as a majority of those who don't like TLJ.

ONCE AGAIN, nobody said the majority of the people who did not like TLJ were racists or sexists. When somebody points at the racists and sexists and say THESE PEOPLE dont like TLJ because THEY are racist and sexist, it has nothing to do with you unless you somehow relate to and agree with them. The only person clumping regular detractors in with them, on this forum, is you lumping yourselves in with them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It's a great question. And it needs to be contextualized with the larger picture of late TFA reshoots, sidelining Gareth Edwards and putting Tony Gilroy in charge of reshooting large sections of Rogue One, and firing Colin Treverrow from Episode VIII. Speaking about the state of R1 before he came aboard, Gilroy said "they were in so much terrible, terrible, trouble that all you could do was improve their position." (BTW, he credited Iger rather than Kennedy for gambling on reshoots to save the picture.) I think Gorgon is totally right to use the expression "WTF" regarding Lord and Miller. But stepping back, I would also say more broadly WTF has been going on at LucasFilm?

That's a very good point.

I feel like the problem facing Lucasfilm and Star Was in general is the proverbial "letting the kids run the candy store". The people being put in charge of it were kids during the earlier movies, and are now trying to recreate their childhood fantasies with the new movies, with all the problems that a ten-year-old's daydreams brings when trying craft cohesive, believable stories. That's why Solo was a bit of a letdown for me: it should have been a really good heist film set in the SW universe that just happened to have a young Han in it, but it focused far too much on explaining stuff about Han we either already knew or didn't really need to have explained.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

Who gives a gak?

What difference does it make whether the hate was sent somebodies way for bigotry or laughs? What difference does it make if the person caved under pressure or held their ground. The point is the people are monsters. Monsters Vulcan thinks are too insignificant to be worth mentioning and sirlynchmob thinks are actually a publicity stunt by KK. Remember when I mentioned that the one side likes to plug it's ears and pretend problems don't exist?

It makes a massive difference, one is racist/sexist, the other is stupid and ignorant, if you don’t attempt to understand the reasons behind something, however repugnant, you will always fail to combat it, these people are not monsters, they are people, de humanising them also helps nothing and reinforces thier behaviour.

It could have been a publicity stunt just as much as it could be true, I’ve done the research and found no credible evidence either way, until tran herself makes a statement all either side has is conjecture and shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

Along the same vein as plugging your ears and pretending there is no problem, the other side plugs their ears and screams that there is, as I like to say
“Lack is evidence is not evidence”
If you want to insist tran was driven from twitter, you need to cite a credible source, no one is arguing she was targeted by trolls, that’s clearly apparent, people are arguing that we still don’t know what the reasons of her leaving are with any degree of certainty.

If you can address this first, it will stand you in good stead to make the assertions with credibility.

 Formosa wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

Who gives a gak?

What difference does it make whether the hate was sent somebodies way for bigotry or laughs? What difference does it make if the person caved under pressure or held their ground. The point is the people are monsters. Monsters Vulcan thinks are too insignificant to be worth mentioning and sirlynchmob thinks are actually a publicity stunt by KK. Remember when I mentioned that the one side likes to plug it's ears and pretend problems don't exist?

It makes a massive difference, one is racist/sexist, the other is stupid and ignorant,

Racism and Sexism and all the bigotries ARE stupidity and ignorance.

if you don’t attempt to understand the reasons behind something, however repugnant, you will always fail to combat it, these people are not monsters, they are people, de humanising them also helps nothing and reinforces thier behaviour.

Sorry you feel that way. Hitler was a monster. The KKK are monsters. The alt-right are monsters. Anyone who lacks the basic empathy as an adult to move past their ignorance into some kind of basic human understanding is a monster. I don't have any particular issue with helping someone move away from being a monster into some semblance of being a human being. But, understanding why the West Burrows Baptist Church spews hate all over the place hasn't stopped them from doing it and if one day everyone involved in them died in some kind of fire the world would probably be a slightly better place.

It could have been a publicity stunt just as much as it could be true, I’ve done the research and found no credible evidence either way, until tran herself makes a statement all either side has is conjecture and shouldn’t pretend otherwise.

Ridiculous.

Along the same vein as plugging your ears and pretending there is no problem, the other side plugs their ears and screams that there is, as I like to say
“Lack is evidence is not evidence”
If you want to insist tran was driven from twitter, you need to cite a credible source, no one is arguing he was targeted by trolls, that’s clearly apparent, people are arguing that we still don’t know what the reasons of her leaving are with any degree of certainty.

Who cares if she was or was not driven from twitter? (Also, not that it matters, but wasn't it intagram?) I care SO LITTLE about Tran's actions since she hasn't done anything to hurt anyone. Tran isn't on trial here. She has nothing to answer for. What matters is the people whos comments and actions you can see that have been directed at her and others. Why are you worried about what Tran did? Who really gives a gak what her motivations were for HER actions. What matters is, regardless of whether it impacted her or not, people sent some horrific gak her way. For laughs or not doesn't matter. They did it.

If you can address this first, it will stand you in good stead to make the assertions with credibility.

I'm sorry if I ever gave you the impression otherwise, but your opinion of me means very little to me. In fact, it means nothing.

1: racism and sexism are not ignorance and stupidity, that’s your opinion and is not backed by facts, some very intelligent people are both.

2: hitler was a human, not a monster, we need to understand his very human goals and intentions in order to not repeat them, and no, someone who cannot move past thier ignorance is not a monster and again you should strive to understand them to better combat thier beliefs, or that is you showing ignorance, know your enemy in order to defeat them, make your enemy your friend in order to help them change, ignorance only leads to more ignorance.

3: you claim it’s ridiculous, so prove otherwise or concede the point that you don’t know and it’s just conjecture.

4: it matters as if she doesn’t care, there is no victim, if there is no victim then no one has been hurt and it’s all just empty words that we don’t agree with, they have freedom of speech, that includes all the horrible things we don’t like, the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them.

5: and here we have a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you are displaying an extremist mentality, black and white with no shades of grey, that’s not how the world works, it’s also displaying ignorance of the very kind you profess to find “montrous”, if you don’t like that, fine, I and others are not beholden you your feelings, you have no right to not be offended and also have no right to take offence for others.

If you cannot prove that Tran was personally affected by those comments, you have no credible reason to take offence on her behalf.

Racism and sexism are ignorance, as neither positions are supported by any evidence.

It is impossible to be a racist or a sexist without being ignorant.

 Formosa wrote:
1: racism and sexism are not ignorance and stupidity, that’s your opinion and is not backed by facts, some very intelligent people are both.

Please explain how someone could POSSIBLY be racist or sexist without being ignorant?

2: hitler was a human, not a monster, we need to understand his very human goals and intentions in order to not repeat them, and no, someone who cannot move past thier ignorance is not a monster and again you should strive to understand them to better combat thier beliefs, or that is you showing ignorance, know your enemy in order to defeat them, make your enemy your friend in order to help them change, ignorance only leads to more ignorance.

You don't combat ignorance by understanding ignorance. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. You combat ignorance with education. The bigots refuse education.

3: you claim it’s ridiculous, so prove otherwise or concede the point that you don’t know and it’s just conjecture.

Sorry, you misunderstood. It's ridiculous that you are fighting for answers about why a woman left a social media. What a ridiculous hill to fight for.

4: it matters as if she doesn’t care, there is no victim, if there is no victim then no one has been hurt and it’s all just empty words that we don’t agree with, they have freedom of speech, that includes all the horrible things we don’t like, the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them.

They do in fact have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. It just frees you from LEGAL consequence. There should absolutely be social and societal consequence.

5: and here we have a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you are displaying an extremist mentality, black and white with no shades of grey, that’s not how the world works, it’s also displaying ignorance of the very kind you profess to find “montrous”, if you don’t like that, fine, I and others are not beholden you your feelings, you have no right to not be offended and also have no right to take offence for others.

It's not extremist to see someone being racist and call them a racist. Correct, none of you are beholden to my feelings. Incorrect, I have every right to my own feelings and I can feel how ever I want about any situation I want to.

If you cannot prove that Tran was personally affected by those comments, you have no credible reason to take offence on her behalf.

I don't need Tran to be offended for me to be offended that racism is still a thing.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
The intent is clear, to get a response, they got that, the context is clear here too, they thought it was funny.

We don’t...

If she did close her account due to these reasons then all she has done is embolden these trolls, nothing more, nothing less, they don’t give two craps about racism or sexism, they care about the lols, fanatics of another kind, Star Wars is just the excuse.

Who gives a gak?

What difference does it make whether the hate was sent somebodies way for bigotry or laughs? What difference does it make if the person caved under pressure or held their ground. The point is the people are monsters. Monsters Vulcan thinks are too insignificant to be worth mentioning and sirlynchmob thinks are actually a publicity stunt by KK. Remember when I mentioned that the one side likes to plug it's ears and pretend problems don't exist?

It is a possibility, just as likely as what you're pushing. It's also likely she quit to not risk spoiling anything from ep 9.

No tran doesn't owe anyone any answers, but instead of waiting to hear what hers actually is, you're made up one for her, mansplainging to the worst degree. I agree you're plugging your ears, pushing your imagination, and the truth be damned. I'd rather wait and hear the truth, and she's the only one who knows what the truth is.

So because racists exists you think ranting about them on a star wars topics helps? You're starting to act like the little boy trying to save holland, you got your finger in this one little place while the rest of the damn spews water.

quite the odd reaction from someone who claims he's not for anything. You have a odd way of leaving each other alone when you speak for others and slander everyone else. So live up to your claim and leave me out of your delusional rantings.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
1: racism and sexism are not ignorance and stupidity, that’s your opinion and is not backed by facts, some very intelligent people are both.

Please explain how someone could POSSIBLY be racist or sexist without being ignorant?

2: hitler was a human, not a monster, we need to understand his very human goals and intentions in order to not repeat them, and no, someone who cannot move past thier ignorance is not a monster and again you should strive to understand them to better combat thier beliefs, or that is you showing ignorance, know your enemy in order to defeat them, make your enemy your friend in order to help them change, ignorance only leads to more ignorance.

You don't combat ignorance by understanding ignorance. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable. You combat ignorance with education. The bigots refuse education.

3: you claim it’s ridiculous, so prove otherwise or concede the point that you don’t know and it’s just conjecture.

Sorry, you misunderstood. It's ridiculous that you are fighting for answers about why a woman left a social media. What a ridiculous hill to fight for.

4: it matters as if she doesn’t care, there is no victim, if there is no victim then no one has been hurt and it’s all just empty words that we don’t agree with, they have freedom of speech, that includes all the horrible things we don’t like, the best thing to do with trolls is ignore them.

They do in fact have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence. It just frees you from LEGAL consequence. There should absolutely be social and societal consequence.

5: and here we have a perfect example of what I’m talking about, you are displaying an extremist mentality, black and white with no shades of grey, that’s not how the world works, it’s also displaying ignorance of the very kind you profess to find “montrous”, if you don’t like that, fine, I and others are not beholden you your feelings, you have no right to not be offended and also have no right to take offence for others.

It's not extremist to see someone being racist and call them a racist. Correct, none of you are beholden to my feelings. Incorrect, I have every right to my own feelings and I can feel how ever I want about any situation I want to.

If you cannot prove that Tran was personally affected by those comments, you have no credible reason to take offence on her behalf.

I don't need Tran to be offended for me to be offended that racism is still a thing.

1: very simply, a well educated and intelligent person can still hate black people for example and be racist, they could know all the reason why not to, and still hate them, racism being only for the stupid and ignorant is frankly untrue and gives a free pass to those that are neither.

2: you exactly combat with ignorance with understanding, part of education is Bringing understanding, so glad you agree with me here.

3: it is neither ridiculous to want more information on a subject, nor to want to know why something happened, you demonstrate exactly why I want said info.

4: there are societal consequences, the legal system, if a crime has been committed then it should be reported and dealt with accordingly, I put no trust in “social” repercussions, mob rule and court of public opinion are poor alternatives.

5: it is extremist to call someone racist when you don’t actually know if they are racist, guilty until proven innocent eh? And yep you can feel how you please, but that’s where it ends, no one is forced to care how you feel and again you have no right to take offence for others, that’s their right.

Lastly, you haven’t proven racism, all you have said is racist comment were made, making racist comments does not make you racist, it’s infantile to think so, if your offended racism is still a thing then go and do something about it, I have, this just smacks of virtue signaling.

 Formosa wrote:

1: very simply, a well educated and intelligent person can still hate black people for example and be racist, they could know all the reason why not to, and still hate them, racism being only for the stupid and ignorant is frankly untrue and gives a free pass to those that are neither.

If you hate people despite accepting there is no reason to, you are stupid.

Guys please take this tangent to another thread, in the Off Topic subforum. Thanks!

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Did I ask this before, that since it’s obvious what kind of style Lord & Miller would bring to the movie, why where they even approached in the first place?

I think because of connections one side, and because they wanted on their hands a number of directors "young" enough to be bullied into what the studio wants.
Who knows, maybe that crazy diamond of the Talented Mr. Johnson is doing everyting as a rebellion. The hero that we deserve

Billy Dee Williams is on board for Episode IX

Of course he is, they need an original cast member to kill off...

Poor Denis Lawson, overlooked for death yet again...

 Riquende wrote:
Poor Denis Lawson, overlooked for death yet again...

...they just can't catch him. Faulty starship, my arse.

Any takers on the the final movie resulting in the destruction of C-3PO and R2-D2. A final insult to the original trilogy but cementing the idea that the whole 9 story arc was the story of the droids? (Not that they've feature that much in the latest adventures....)

 Riquende wrote:
Poor Denis Lawson, overlooked for death yet again...

speaking of overlooked people, you'd think they'd let David Prowse get a cameo in, with a speaking role.

He really is the living proof that lucasfilms has a long toxic history of attacking it's fans.

I wonder what horrors they're going to do to Lando. I'd love to see Lando ***** slap Finn, and say, dude I was the man, stop acting like the comic relief and grab your gun.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Billy Dee Williams is on board for Episode IX

Oh yeah. Lando was long my favourite Star Wars character. I was introduced to the Star Wars by comics before I saw the movies, and they took place between ESB and RotJ. So it was Lando flying the Millenium Falcon around. And when I saw the first movie, I was bit confused. "Where is Lando? Is this 'Han' character who they are always talking about in the comics but who is never shown? Whadda loser."

Can't wait how they kill him off in some horrible fashion

I suspect Lando will take over from Leia?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect Lando will take over from Leia?

Or he will provide them with a safe place to crash while they recoup and maybe help broker some alliances with others to get them resupplied and remaned.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I suspect Lando will take over from Leia?

Or he will provide them with a safe place to crash while they recoup and maybe help broker some alliances with others to get them resupplied and remaned.

Likely this, it mirrors his original appearence in ESB and they're shown that they want to repeat scenes and themes from OT.
Lando might even be the Emperor! Apparently, old Empire still exists, in rump form.

I think he will be a used-Starship salesperson who they go to to get help, and he re-buffs them saying that is all behind him now. He has child-support payments now and can barely even afford a good cape anymore. Thus, the last hero from the Original trilogy is discredited and their legacy destroyed.

What's that you say?.... A different director? Oh, I have no idea.

Billy Dee was in Undercover Brother in 2002. Everyone should go see it!

 Easy E wrote:
He has child-support payments now...

... supporting a half-human, half-toaster child...

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Riquende wrote:
Poor Denis Lawson, overlooked for death yet again...

speaking of overlooked people, you'd think they'd let David Prowse get a cameo in, with a speaking role.

He really is the living proof that lucasfilms has a long toxic history of attacking it's fans.

I wonder what horrors they're going to do to Lando. I'd love to see Lando ***** slap Finn, and say, dude I was the man, stop acting like the comic relief and grab your gun.

Unfortunately, David Prowse is neither physically nor mentally up to that task these days. He has difficulty remembering many things and the the brummie accent just wouldn't work anyway.
(he no longer does con appearances for these reasons, too).

 chromedog wrote:
...and the the brummie accent just wouldn't work anyway.

Brummie? Brummie?! Prowse is from Bristol!

's alla same, tho innit?

As much as I want to play (and am entitled to) the Buckinghamshire-raised received pronunciation "all you others are frightful oiks" card; Dave Prowse is a West Country farmer, not a brummie.

It’s out on digital and I’ve just watched it again.

It remains pretty ace!

I honestly had fun, and so did the wife. We both like the non-trilogy movies better than Episodes 7/8.

Agreed. Rogue One and Solo are better than TFA and TLJ.

I would (and have) watched Rogue One again, and will watch Solo again. I have no need to see the Nu-Trilogy films again.

I just watched Solo the other day, and I have to say I really liked it. Made me regret not seeing it in the theater. Its a shame they probably wont make a sequel. I though everyone on the cast did a good job, and that Solo's actor did better than I though he would based on rumors.

My one complaint is that it felt like the could have expanded on Beckett's crew, perhaps have the first part of the movie have been a separate film, focusing on Han in the Army and forming a relationship with Beckett.

Still though I liked it, I liked it much much much more than Episodes 7 and 8.

If it does well on home release, pretty sure we’ll see a sequel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, now watching the extras.

Man, they put some genuine craftsmanship into this, and the amount of practical effects is really quite something. I do recommend watching them, especially to marvel at just how much Ron Howard managed in a very short timescale.

I won't be racing out to purchase Solo, but I would watch it again.

I maintain my main criticism that the movie goes inverse though - the best action and most interesting portions are up front, and the movie gets progressively less interesting/boring as it finishes. Bizarre that.

 Elbows wrote:
I won't be racing out to purchase Solo, but I would watch it again.

I maintain my main criticism that the movie goes inverse though - the best action and most interesting portions are up front, and the movie gets progressively less interesting/boring as it finishes. Bizarre that.

\

Wow, I could not disagree more with this. I thought everything up to and including the train heist was complete garbage and everything afterward was quite good. Different strokes I guess.

Elbows - I can follow your point insomuch as the scale of the action is smaller toward the end of the picture. But I thought that was appropriate because the final issues of the plot were intimate questions about personl loyalty.

I'd second that, the various double crossings are the highlight of the film.

Of course, the thing I found was, while it's pretty obvious that everyone short of Chewie is going to start double crossing people, I never did work out who was going to doublecross whom in what ways.

I finally saw this for the first time a week ago. I thought it was okay, or at least acceptable. Until they brought back a character i've always felt should stay dead, cause he was never interesting and a 1 dimensional character who was literally maimed dead in a past movie. As soon as this character showed up my jaw just about hit he floor in horror and disgust. I almost feel like saying I wish Lucas never sold SW to Disney, i'd almost rather have no new SW films than see them turn into absurd fan fiction stylings.

Yeah I was on the fence about Qi’ra throughout. It was esepcially enjoyable because I really liked the relationship between her and Han. When she tells him to go ahead and she’ll catch up, it was like, oh damn I have seen enough 80s movies to know you ain’t coming baby.

 Thargrim wrote:
i'd almost rather have no new SW films than see them turn into absurd fan fiction stylings.

The kicker is, the particular thing you have in mind was done by LucasFilm prior to the sale.

Yeah if that happened in a cartoon/comic or book then I was definitely unaware of it becoming some kind of canon thing. I consider myself a casual SW fan at best. Whatever free time I get i'm not gonna spend on reading books or watching cartoons to try and keep up to date. I've got too much stuff to paint and build, there's an immense amount of things i'd rather be doing.

It was a major plot arc in the Clone Wars TV show. I agree with you about the character being terrible and bringing him back being dumb. But I had known about it for years so it wasn’t a make-me-want-to-puke gut punch when I saw him in Solo. To the contrary, it seemed like a neat way to weave a common thread through what, at the time, was going to be a series of one-off movies culminating with a film about Obi-Wan Kenobi.

 Thargrim wrote:
Yeah if that happened in a cartoon/comic or book then I was definitely unaware of it becoming some kind of canon thing. I consider myself a casual SW fan at best. Whatever free time I get i'm not gonna spend on reading books or watching cartoons to try and keep up to date. I've got too much stuff to paint and build, there's an immense amount of things i'd rather be doing.

Don’t write off The Clone Wars. It’s a superb series which adds a new richness to the setting.

 Thargrim wrote:
I finally saw this for the first time a week ago. I thought it was okay, or at least acceptable. Until they brought back a character i've always felt should stay dead, cause he was never interesting and a 1 dimensional character who was literally maimed dead in a past movie. As soon as this character showed up my jaw just about hit he floor in horror and disgust. I almost feel like saying I wish Lucas never sold SW to Disney, i'd almost rather have no new SW films than see them turn into absurd fan fiction stylings.

In Disney's defense (I NEVER thought I'd be saying that in relation to Star Wars), LucasFilm had already brought that particular character back during the Clone Wars animated series... well before the Disney buyout.

EDIT: And I see I've been beaten to the punch several times over...

Frankly, Maul has been an excellent story thread throughout the Clone Wars and into Rebels. Granted, his surviving in the first place was a little hamfisted, but once you get past that he was a genuinely interesting character.

The awful waste of him in TPM made his salvaging infinitely more palatable though.

Indeed. He was one of the most interesting parts of TPM. Frankly he should have been a recurring villain in the Prequels. An antagonist for Obi-wan and Anakin to go after because he killed Qui-gon.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. He was one of the most interesting parts of TPM. Frankly he should have been a recurring villain in the Prequels. An antagonist for Obi-wan and Anakin to go after because he killed Qui-gon.

One of the biggest problems with episodes i/2/3 is that each movie introduces the most visually interesting, Darth Vader esc, villain in the prequels and then immediately kills them off in the same movie before they get to do anything that really matters. The only recurring villain is Duku. An old confused looking guy.

It would have been so much better if Maul stayed alive and one after the other kept killing important people in Anakin and Obis lives. You could even see Anakins fall towards the Darkside as Obi becomes more and more zen about it while Anakin builds up more and more hate until Maul threatens Padame and Anakin looses his gak completely and falls. Just a horrible assassin that dogs them throughout their lives picking off person after person and always getting away leaving them frustrated and left to deal with the aftermath.

It would have been so much better of a reason and we could see the emotional toll Maul has on Anakin over the years. AND it would have perfectly reflected Yodas words. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Would have been great.

 Manchu wrote:
Elbows - I can follow your point insomuch as the scale of the action is smaller toward the end of the picture. But I thought that was appropriate because the final issues of the plot were intimate questions about personl loyalty.

Sure, and I'd be okay with that if I thought the story wasn't pretty garbage and the acting extremely "meh". If they were better actors, characters, and a convincing/useful story I could have been on board with that. As it was the movie lost my interest more and more as it went on. It's still about 714% better than Last Jedi, but didn't keep me entertained/interested like Rogue One.

My disappointment with R1 is well-documented on Dakka Dakka, so I won’t belabor the issue further.

Solo succeeded in telling a low-key story about whether you can trust anyone in a dangerous world. I’m grateful it didn’t go off the rails chasing some kind of faux epic conclusion like R1.

Deleted Scenes.

There’s a fair few of them, but typically nothing that particularly adds to the narrative.

Extended stuff on Minban, and finding out why Han was stationed there are particularly enjoyable.

Though curiously, none really covering stuff post-Minban.

Do they actually bother to cut the deleted scenes back into the film?

Like, I get why they've kept them separate in the past since they used to be half finished scenes that were often missing some effects or audio, or had been cut because the acting didn't quite work, but these days they're typically fully-realised sequences that just get chopped for time and I've no interest in flicking through a bunch of disjointed bits & bobs.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
I finally saw this for the first time a week ago. I thought it was okay, or at least acceptable. Until they brought back a character i've always felt should stay dead, cause he was never interesting and a 1 dimensional character who was literally maimed dead in a past movie. As soon as this character showed up my jaw just about hit he floor in horror and disgust. I almost feel like saying I wish Lucas never sold SW to Disney, i'd almost rather have no new SW films than see them turn into absurd fan fiction stylings.

In Disney's defense (I NEVER thought I'd be saying that in relation to Star Wars), LucasFilm had already brought that particular character back during the Clone Wars animated series... well before the Disney buyout.

EDIT: And I see I've been beaten to the punch several times over...

AND MARVEL comics managed to resurrect him first - TCW just followed up on that and fleshed it out a lot more.
TCW is ALL lucasfilm, btw, not Disney. I grow tired of telling people this, but although Disney OWN LFL and Marvel, they don't tell either company how to run themselves or make their movies. And George STILL has input on all LFL productions as a "consultant". He's no more gone than Jar-Jar Binks.

He is also in the Lego SW films

I think it was actually Dark Horse comics. And IIRC it was a What If type book.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. He was one of the most interesting parts of TPM. Frankly he should have been a recurring villain in the Prequels. An antagonist for Obi-wan and Anakin to go after because he killed Qui-gon.

One of the biggest problems with episodes i/2/3 is that each movie introduces the most visually interesting, Darth Vader esc, villain in the prequels and then immediately kills them off in the same movie before they get to do anything that really matters. The only recurring villain is Duku. An old confused looking guy.

It would have been so much better if Maul stayed alive and one after the other kept killing important people in Anakin and Obis lives. You could even see Anakins fall towards the Darkside as Obi becomes more and more zen about it while Anakin builds up more and more hate until Maul threatens Padame and Anakin looses his gak completely and falls. Just a horrible assassin that dogs them throughout their lives picking off person after person and always getting away leaving them frustrated and left to deal with the aftermath.

It would have been so much better of a reason and we could see the emotional toll Maul has on Anakin over the years. AND it would have perfectly reflected Yodas words. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to the Dark Side. Would have been great.

I assume he's killed off because George didn't want their to be an obvious Sith running around in the years between 1 and 2. Granted, that's just another problem created by the decision to introduce Anakin as a child and its super weird that Yoda and Windu seem excessively aware that there's a greater threat and DON'T seem particularly concerned about it between movies, but I'm sure its still why he's killed off.

I don't love including him in the movies again. The EU is absolutely loaded with silly stuff like this and Boba surviving and IG88 taking over the second Death Star and mostly using it to troll Palpatine. As much as I love the EU I've also always kind of enjoyed that there's a fairly pure line of storytelling in the setting that mostly ignores this. I don't really need characters back from the dead in the film chronology even if they're technically around in the extended stuff.

That said, Maul's story is certainly improved by his return, particularly with where it goes in Rebels. I'm just not excited about seeing him in films.

You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

Maul's cameo works on two levels I think. If you're a fan, have spent time with some of the EU properties and are aware of his back story, you can let yourself have a little self-satisfied nod because you knew he was still around.

If you're just a fan of the movies, or if this is your first SW, your reaction is going to be either "wait, he died!" or "who's that?!" Either way that's a great little moment to throw in at the end of the movie, to either expand on in a sequel or send the curious off into the EU for the first time.

 chromedog wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Thargrim wrote:
I finally saw this for the first time a week ago. I thought it was okay, or at least acceptable. Until they brought back a character i've always felt should stay dead, cause he was never interesting and a 1 dimensional character who was literally maimed dead in a past movie. As soon as this character showed up my jaw just about hit he floor in horror and disgust. I almost feel like saying I wish Lucas never sold SW to Disney, i'd almost rather have no new SW films than see them turn into absurd fan fiction stylings.

In Disney's defense (I NEVER thought I'd be saying that in relation to Star Wars), LucasFilm had already brought that particular character back during the Clone Wars animated series... well before the Disney buyout.

EDIT: And I see I've been beaten to the punch several times over...

AND MARVEL comics managed to resurrect him first - TCW just followed up on that and fleshed it out a lot more.
TCW is ALL lucasfilm, btw, not Disney. I grow tired of telling people this, but although Disney OWN LFL and Marvel, they don't tell either company how to run themselves or make their movies. And George STILL has input on all LFL productions as a "consultant". He's no more gone than Jar-Jar Binks.

Darkhorse, not marvel. Marvel didnt reaquire the sw comic liscene until after disney aquired lucas film (for what should be obvious reasons).

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

Whether someone chooses to see them or not has no bearing on whether it's part of the story, and TCW has always been considered canon. Rebels as well.

Canon is canon.

Clone Wars is just as valid as the movies.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Maul's cameo works on two levels I think. If you're a fan, have spent time with some of the EU properties and are aware of his back story, you can let yourself have a little self-satisfied nod because you knew he was still around.

If you're just a fan of the movies, or if this is your first SW, your reaction is going to be either "wait, he died!" or "who's that?!" Either way that's a great little moment to throw in at the end of the movie, to either expand on in a sequel or send the curious off into the EU for the first time.

This is a good point. There's no narrative break in this cameo. They just reveal that a character you thought had been chopped in half is alive with robot legs. Most people really don't need an explanation of how he survived, got his legs, what have you. One could argue that that's the primary reason that Solo itself didn't draw as much attention as fans expected; most people don't really need an explanation of how Han got his stuff.

My gripe isn't really with the cameo itself, but the kind of cameo it is. Character obviously killed off is reconned to have survived years later is something I don't really like, but accept as an often necessary tool of disposable long form storytelling. I just liked that Star Wars didn't have a ton of this in the films, though in fairness its probably just a result of these "Star Wars Stories" being something of a theatrical release of an EU product in the first place. Any criticism I have of the Maul reveal probably extends to the Solo as a whole.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Maul's cameo works on two levels I think. If you're a fan, have spent time with some of the EU properties and are aware of his back story, you can let yourself have a little self-satisfied nod because you knew he was still around.

If you're just a fan of the movies, or if this is your first SW, your reaction is going to be either "wait, he died!" or "who's that?!" Either way that's a great little moment to throw in at the end of the movie, to either expand on in a sequel or send the curious off into the EU for the first time.

This is a good point. There's no narrative break in this cameo. They just reveal that a character you thought had been chopped in half is alive with robot legs. Most people really don't need an explanation of how he survived, got his legs, what have you. One could argue that that's the primary reason that Solo itself didn't draw as much attention as fans expected; most people don't really need an explanation of how Han got his stuff.

My gripe isn't really with the cameo itself, but the kind of cameo it is. Character obviously killed off is reconned to have survived years later is something I don't really like, but accept as an often necessary tool of disposable long form storytelling. I just liked that Star Wars didn't have a ton of this in the films, though in fairness its probably just a result of these "Star Wars Stories" being something of a theatrical release of an EU product in the first place. Any criticism I have of the Maul reveal probably extends to the Solo as a whole.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with Solo, since Maul was brought back YEARS ago in TCW series.

And "obviously killed off" is a funny thing. As any RPG player will tell you, it ain't dead unless you have the body and can pump some extra shots into it for good measure. And even then, you never know...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Canon is canon.

Not really. I mean, sure that can be a rule. For writers. Or IP managers. But the movie going public does not give a feth about such rules. You are never going to get the same number of people to see a Star Wars TV cartoon as will go see the movies. And so the movie going people are going tl be straight up confused. I talked to a number of Star Wars fans, but fans of the movies only, who were totally confused by the cameo in question and who can blame them.

Then don’t complain a given movie doesn’t explain something when it’s explained elsewhere within the canon.

You might as well complain a sequel doesn’t explain a backstory, because you’ve not watched the preceding entries.

But that’s exactly the problem. People don’t go to movies to find out what happens after the events of some comic book.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Maul's cameo works on two levels I think. If you're a fan, have spent time with some of the EU properties and are aware of his back story, you can let yourself have a little self-satisfied nod because you knew he was still around.

If you're just a fan of the movies, or if this is your first SW, your reaction is going to be either "wait, he died!" or "who's that?!" Either way that's a great little moment to throw in at the end of the movie, to either expand on in a sequel or send the curious off into the EU for the first time.

This is a good point. There's no narrative break in this cameo. They just reveal that a character you thought had been chopped in half is alive with robot legs. Most people really don't need an explanation of how he survived, got his legs, what have you. One could argue that that's the primary reason that Solo itself didn't draw as much attention as fans expected; most people don't really need an explanation of how Han got his stuff.

My gripe isn't really with the cameo itself, but the kind of cameo it is. Character obviously killed off is reconned to have survived years later is something I don't really like, but accept as an often necessary tool of disposable long form storytelling. I just liked that Star Wars didn't have a ton of this in the films, though in fairness its probably just a result of these "Star Wars Stories" being something of a theatrical release of an EU product in the first place. Any criticism I have of the Maul reveal probably extends to the Solo as a whole.

Which doesn't really have anything to do with Solo, since Maul was brought back YEARS ago in TCW series.

And "obviously killed off" is a funny thing. As any RPG player will tell you, it ain't dead unless you have the body and can pump some extra shots into it for good measure. And even then, you never know...

It's not a funny thing, that's the point and the problem. Long form storytelling almost always requires some retcons, but when chopping someone in two only means they're "probably" dead, you quickly lose the narrative weight death should carry. You get to a place where comic books are, where every death is an obvious stunt and mostly just annoys the audience while they wait for the retcon. Star Wars IS absolutely loaded with this kind of stuff, but its generally been regulated to the EU. That's why no one expected to see Han return in Ep 8 with robot legs, despite basically suffering the same fate as Maul.

I really feel you’re grasping at straws, or being deliberately obtuse.

I dare say the majority of folk that go to see Marvel Movies aren’t up on the comics, like at all. And as such, didn’t seek out the movies because of the comics.

Yet there’ll be those then wanting to know more, who’ll seek out the comics.

Same with Star Wars. Don’t complain something hasn’t been answered when it’s the viewer refusing to watch where the answer is. And Clone Wars isn’t exactly some obscure ‘one off’ TV disaster. It’s a very well regarded and much loved series, which adds considerable narrative flesh.

You're not thinking like a nonSW fan.

A well regarded and much loved series that they haven't heard of is the best description for the overwhelming majority of the cinema going public.

Can you refuse to watch something you're completely unaware exists?

Once you’re aware of it? Yes you can.

Star Wars is now multimedia.

There’s 10 movies, with the 11th on the way. 5 complete seasons of Clone Wars, 1 incomplete season of Clone Wars and new episodes coming, four complete seasons of Rebels, comics and novels up the wazoo.

That’s how they’ve chosen to market it. Seeing Maul in Solo generates ‘whaaaaaa!’, and from there, increased sales across the other mediums.

Or a quick Google search on the way through the foyer...

Reading about it is one thing, seeing it is another.

It’s not going to work on everyone, but enough to generate additional revenues.

Deliberately obstuse is the perfect description of an apologist defending a scene that confused most of the audience by pointing to ancillary cartoons and comics.

I mean, I both LOVED the film and already knew about this character’s unlikely resurrection, and even I can acknowledge the cameo was tone deaf vis a vis the general audience.

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

When Disney took over they publicly stated the Clone Wars were part of canon. Just because lots of people didn't watch it, doesn't mean it's not part of the story. Consider the MCU; I imagine there are quite a few people who haven't seen ALL the movies, but catch the Avenger films.

Of course, MCU does a better job covering the necessary story bits than Disney Wars has...

The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

On that we agree. It weakened the character's position, in my opinion. "My reputation alone isn't strong enough to encourage you to play along; I must threaten you into submission!"

Of course, Maul wasn't a particularly subtle character even while he was assembling his criminal cartel. This... might actually be perfectly in character for him. Sigh.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsabre during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

I felt the same way too. Then I was talking with someone who really likes the SW movies but never watched any of the shows. He asked me if that was who he thought it was (Darth Maul). Apparently the only reason he recognized him at all as Maul and not just another alien of the same species was the lighting up the light sabre. I had to tell him about how he got his robot legs and what not.

Basically, it wasn't for us in the know. It was for everyone who didn't watch those shows.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

I don't when anyone can see me!


Fun story: When I worked at Borders, we sold the $100 lightsabers that make noise when you hit things. Every time a customer so much as blinked towards one, employees would rush over to give demonstrations, usually duels that spilled up or down the stairs. The worst offender was the grandfatherly sales manager, who would keep on demonstrating how to use the lightsaber even long after the customer had stopped asking if he or she could have a turn and walked off.

Also, they were apparently super easy to steal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're telling me that if you had a light saber you wouldn't be switching it in and off again dozens of times a day just for the fzzzzh noise?

PS: You didn't describe the noise as a snap-hiss!!!!! Liked and subscribed.

 Manchu wrote:
Deliberately obstuse is the perfect description of an apologist defending a scene that confused most of the audience by pointing to ancillary cartoons and comics.

I mean, I both LOVED the film and already knew about this character’s unlikely resurrection, and even I can acknowledge the cameo was tone deaf vis a vis the general audience.

Well, here is the thing.

Solo, and I think side movies in general, really aren't targeted towards the general audience. Thats what the main storyline movies are for.

Solo is for the people who are into the deeper background. Same with Rogue One. Rogue One was dripping with references to the non-movie media, and assumed up front that you knew when it was set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vulcan wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The real problem with the Maul scene is not that he lives, but that he feels the need to ignite his lightsaber during a Skype chat with an employee. Who does that?

On that we agree. It weakened the character's position, in my opinion. "My reputation alone isn't strong enough to encourage you to play along; I must threaten you into submission!"

Of course, Maul wasn't a particularly subtle character even while he was assembling his criminal cartel. This... might actually be perfectly in character for him. Sigh.

Nah, its perfectly in-character for a Sith/wanna-be/has-been Sith. Its all about asserting your power and dominance. A lightsabre is the perfect tool for that. Its a frighteningly powerful weapon wielded by people who, as far as the galaxy at large is concerned, are the stuff of legends, and probably the nightmares of anybody who comes in contact with them.

Same reason Darth Vader dramatically ignited his lightsabre when he boarded the ship in Rogue One. It would make more sense to have it ready before he got there, because you're going into a fight. But no! You must not only crush the enemy utterly, you must do it in the most grandiose and terrifying fashion possible! Also its why Darth Vader toyed with Luke during the duel on Bespin, and only got serious at the end. It was all about flair and intimidation rather than simply getting the job done.

Really the only Sith who ever shows any restraint and subtlety is the Emperor. Even Dookou was extremely dramatic in an over the top fashion, though it was aloof and dignified.

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

So because I have yet to read Silmarillion that's not part of LOTR cannon?

The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

You are giving the Maul thing more credit then it's due. I believe they said they had a lot of ideas on the table for who would be in the hologram. They settled on Maul because it would be cool. This is especially believable with how much changed with the reshoots. Entire actors, practical effects, and plot were changed.

The major unresolved question at the end of Solo is the identity of the overboss, who is revelaed to be Maul. As a crime lord, Maul could play a role in a Boba Fett movie. As the guy who killed Obi-Wan’s mentor, and whom Obi-Wan “killed,” he could play a role in an Obi-Wan movie. I don’t think they just threw Darth Maul in for gaks and giggles, considering his reveal is treated as a significant dramatic moment.

 Manchu wrote:
But that’s exactly the problem. People don’t go to movies to find out what happens after the events of some comic book.

 Manchu wrote:
The issue is not what is or isn’t canon. It’s whether the audience has enough information to understand important developments in the plot. I suspect Maul appears in Solo to set up a through-line connecting Solo, a Boba Fett film, and a movie about Obi-Wan. The reason he ignites his lightsaber is to tell the audience “this is a bad guy - see, he has a RED lightsaber.” In Star Wars, holograms are generally bluish. But Maul’s hologram specifically shows the lightsaber is red. I think it was also to make clear to people that this guy is that guy Darth Maul, remember from that Phantom Menace movie we haven’t talked about in a while. unfortunately, the last time most people saw this character he had been chopped in half. How or why he is alive in this movie was a mystery to a lot of people and, honestly, no one should have to look at wookiepedia to figure it out. It was a risky allusion but one the studio clearly felt would pay off in future spin-off films, as Maul seems to be set up in Solo as the main antagonist in those films.

Solo and R1 are definitely targeted at general audiences. You don’t spend hindreds of millions of dollars to make movies for people who closley follow TV shows, novels, or comics - nor could you expect that more niche audience to generate billions of dollars in ticket sales.

But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

 Yodhrin wrote:


But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

There is a difference between referencing previous films in a series and other media connected to those films.

For example, lets say the films are adaptations of a book series. Naturally, some of the stuff has to be cut in the transition from book to screen. By the logic of MDG, it would be perfectly acceptable for the second film to reference something that happened in the first book but which was cut and didn't appear in the first film. So, as an example, in The Two Towers Frodo and Sam talk about the time that Tom Bombadil saved them from the barrow wights and how he wasn't affected by the One Ring.

because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything

Once upon a time, before meta-referential cinematic universes, this is how movies were. No, for real! Movies used to be expected to tell a relatively novel, complete story in about 90-130 minutes. The result was movies like Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Now we have Alien: Covenant, The Predator, and Terminator: Genisys. Hooray?

OK well, I actually don’t want to get into a crotchety old man rant here. The Maul reference in Solo is a MCU trick. It’s a way of potentially connecting otherwise unrelated stories that take place in the same setting. But Maul is a risky pick because a lot of people, quite understandably, don’t even know who he is (hence the lightsaber gag) and many of those who do are like, but he died.

I recently came across a Star Wars character called something like Doctor Aphra. I have been a SW fan for a long time but I never heard of this character. So like people ITT suggest, I went to Wookiepedia and encountered this huge wall of text and, my God, it was impenetrable. I could not bring myself to care at all. Imagine hinging your thematic through-line in a loosely connected cinematic universe series of spin-offs, which cost about a billion dollars to make, to this kind of off-putting experience. This sassy line “it’s not the studio’s problem” is nonsense. Yes, of course it is the studio’s problem.

The fact that Lucasfilm felt like it had to reach for Darth Maul to fill this role feels like evidence that the Star Wars IP is smaller and more boring than I previously assumed.

Considering that the Star Wars IP has pretty much devolved around the actions of a single bloodline (and only really three generations of it, at that), I'd say it IS a lot smaller than you assumed.

That doesn't make it boring, necessarily.

Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

 Frazzled wrote:
Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

Smart move to slow down the release rate. There's no need to churn them out, the franchise has the legs for the long haul and releasing them at a sprinting pace risks oversaturating the market.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Disney has now announced they are scaling on SW movies, focusing on the primary ones.

Smart move to slow down the release rate. There's no need to churn them out, the franchise has the legs for the long haul and releasing them at a sprinting pace risks oversaturating the market.

Conversely, its a shame because the main arc ones have been gak and the side arc ones have been decent. I wasn't enthused for the Boba or Obi films that have been mooted but the current trilogy has really lessened my enthusiasm for the whole universe.

I’m still saddened by the box office performance of Solo. It didn’t deserve that.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’m still saddened by the box office performance of Solo. It didn’t deserve that.

I will confess I didnt see Solo at the Theatre (the first film I dint since RotJ) and I do regret it, but I had no confidence after the other film and had heard such bad things I thought I would give it a miss. I watched the release of the BRay version and was really overall happy, a pretty decent film overall. But I am not going to see part 9 as I cant imagine for a second that it wont be gak.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well, here is the thing.

Solo, and I think side movies in general, really aren't targeted towards the general audience. Thats what the main storyline movies are for.

Solo is for the people who are into the deeper background. Same with Rogue One. Rogue One was dripping with references to the non-movie media, and assumed up front that you knew when it was set.

While I completely agree with this, the unfortunate truth is that Solo was expected to perform as well as something designed for the general audience and its failure is largely a failure of expectations.

Solo was greatly enjoyed by my wife and daughter, who know nearly nothing about Star Wars. They also enjoyed SW8.

In both cases for the obvious reasons that both films are exciting SF big screen with great SFX and blah blah blah (many people will disagree with this analysis, of course.)

I think the reasons for Solo's failure are nothing to do with it being a "side story" and thereby failing to attract a general audience. They are because it was too soon after SW8, and had to compete with several other major releases (super hero films etc.)

Also there is some evidence that superfans stayed away in order to punish Disney for the crime of SW8. (This may turn out to have been a strategic error.)

Coupled with reduced ticket sales, the fact that Solo was a very expensive production pushed it over the edge.

Disney's takeaway from this should be to produce fewer films and in particular to waste less money on reshooting them in the production phase. With modern filming, production re-shoots also lead to expensive post-production re-working of effects.

I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:


But as MDG says, that's a ludicrous standard, because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything, ever, since there's no guarantee someone's seen preceding films in the franchise either. It's also not just "some comic book" - Maul was brought back over multiple episodes of TCW years ago now, went on to have a substantial arc on the show, and was given another substantial arc on Rebels. Star Wars is a multimedia franchise and has been for decades, and if the creators fancy chucking in a few references that might confuse Billy Bob who saw Episode 1 once in 1999 and vaguely remembers seeing Maul "killed", that's their right and not their problem.

Also, it doesn't seem to factor into your scenario that some people who're momentarily confused might react to that confusion by seeking out and enjoying the stories that explain the gap(ie, probably the main reason they bothered to insert the lightsaber to emphasise that yes, casual cinemagoer, that's Maul in the first place).

EDIT: And hold on, your entirely plausible theory about why Maul was introduced even further undermines your point - the end of this film is the "shocking reveal" moment, then if he were to come back in future films as an antagonist you can throw a quick recap monologue/flashback sequence in there. "Oh wow, I thought he was dead!" doesn't need any more context in this film if he's planned to be a major part of the sequels(not that I believe it needs that even if he's not).

There is a difference between referencing previous films in a series and other media connected to those films.

For example, lets say the films are adaptations of a book series. Naturally, some of the stuff has to be cut in the transition from book to screen. By the logic of MDG, it would be perfectly acceptable for the second film to reference something that happened in the first book but which was cut and didn't appear in the first film. So, as an example, in The Two Towers Frodo and Sam talk about the time that Tom Bombadil saved them from the barrow wights and how he wasn't affected by the One Ring.

First of all - not in a multimedia franchise there isn't. If the creators say that the non-film elements are as valid and vital a part of the overall story as the films, they are, end of story, and they can reference any part of the overarching narrative they like.

Your comparison is a nonsense, because we're not talking about referencing material from a book that a film was adapted from, we're talking about referencing material from an entirely different story told within the same overall setting, but which some people have decided isn't allowed to be considered "proper" because it uses a different medium.

 Manchu wrote:

because then you have to construct every single movie with absolutely zero references to anything

Once upon a time, before meta-referential cinematic universes, this is how movies were. No, for real! Movies used to be expected to tell a relatively novel, complete story in about 90-130 minutes. The result was movies like Alien, Predator, and Terminator. Now we have Alien: Covenant, The Predator, and Terminator: Genisys. Hooray?

OK well, I actually don’t want to get into a crotchety old man rant here. The Maul reference in Solo is a MCU trick. It’s a way of potentially connecting otherwise unrelated stories that take place in the same setting. But Maul is a risky pick because a lot of people, quite understandably, don’t even know who he is (hence the lightsaber gag) and many of those who do are like, but he died.

I recently came across a Star Wars character called something like Doctor Aphra. I have been a SW fan for a long time but I never heard of this character. So like people ITT suggest, I went to Wookiepedia and encountered this huge wall of text and, my God, it was impenetrable. I could not bring myself to care at all. Imagine hinging your thematic through-line in a loosely connected cinematic universe series of spin-offs, which cost about a billion dollars to make, to this kind of off-putting experience. This sassy line “it’s not the studio’s problem” is nonsense. Yes, of course it is the studio’s problem.

The fact that Lucasfilm felt like it had to reach for Darth Maul to fill this role feels like evidence that the Star Wars IP is smaller and more boring than I previously assumed.

You mean the wildly, overwhelmingly, monstrously successful MCU, that kind of "trick"? The MCU that continually throws in references to things that only dedicated, hardcore fans would pick up on, or which most audience members might only have the vaguest, most passing of familiarities with, and yet somehow manage to not collapse under an avalanche of riotously confused cinemagoers who just can't get over a minor moment of uncertainty? It's almost as if all this whole affair is evidence of is that you've taken a vaguely bizarre dislike to this one very specific thing and are wildly grasping for any justification other than "I just don't like it so there neener neener".

What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

I think it was mostly the second, all by its lonesome. Most of the irrationally angry fans who worked themselves into a frenzy probably actually did go see Solo, even if only to find more things to complain about.

But TLJ being a fairly dull, overly long and lackluster movie probably diminished some of the casual audience. But not as much as the pretty relentless media coverage that the production was constantly troubled and this that and the other director and the lead actor had to be spoon-fed dialogue and all the other accusations. That definitely had an impact, one that carried over to reviewers and from there to general audiences.

That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

 Manchu wrote:
What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

And neither is this, as far as just about everyone except yourself seems to be concerned. You could excise the Maul appearance from Solo entirely and leave Qi'ra's boss implied, or replace him with any generic menacing baddie boss figure hologram, and have zero impact on the tale told within the confines of Solo - just because it wasn't actually placed midway through the end credits doesn't mean it's any more consequential to the plot of this film than Thor's Hammer or Stark sparring with General Ross in a bar, it's just a brief "oho, look what we have in store for you!" moment; to normal moviegoers it will say nothing more than "ooh, new baddie with a red saber", to casual fans it might prompt an "oh wait, I thought he was dead?" followed by some listicle site's "so&so Explained" article and then a TCW/Rebels binge, and for hardcore types who watch or at least keep up with everything it creates fuel for speculation about the potential for direct sequels or maybe a linked narrative thread through the Solo/Fett/Obi Wan films and so on.

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Agreed - exectly how i feel - my friends and I simply could not be bothered to watch Solo becuase I didn't want to waste money on it after TLJ.

Even after Bats vs Superman I wanted to see what tehy did because depsite Eisenstein trying everything he could to ruin that movie I liked elements - there was simply nothing good in the TLJ.

Contray to the oft repeated myth (repeated above) about "superfans" many of those who I spoke to who were not bothered either way about SW just thought it was a very bad movie.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What a weird, irrelevant response.

MCU movies do have easter eggs meant to tickle fans who have mastered the trivia. But those easter eggs are not major plot points.

And neither is this, as far as just about everyone except yourself seems to be concerned. You could excise the Maul appearance from Solo entirely and leave Qi'ra's boss implied, or replace him with any generic menacing baddie boss figure hologram, and have zero impact on the tale told within the confines of Solo - just because it wasn't actually placed midway through the end credits doesn't mean it's any more consequential to the plot of this film than Thor's Hammer or Stark sparring with General Ross in a bar, it's just a brief "oho, look what we have in store for you!" moment; to normal moviegoers it will say nothing more than "ooh, new baddie with a red saber", to casual fans it might prompt an "oh wait, I thought he was dead?" followed by some listicle site's "so&so Explained" article and then a TCW/Rebels binge, and for hardcore types who watch or at least keep up with everything it creates fuel for speculation about the potential for direct sequels or maybe a linked narrative thread through the Solo/Fett/Obi Wan films and so on.

This.

Entirely this.

So much this, I’ve actuallt agreed with Yodhrin on something :p

That’s pretty This!

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

So because I have yet to read Silmarillion that's not part of LOTR cannon?

Offtopic road!
Lot of the Tolkienists are of opinion that only Middle-Earth canon is the LOTR book and its appendices. Hobbit is seen un-canonical (in fact Tolkien edited it in later printings to make it bit more canonical). Silmarillion was put together by Christopher and Guy Kay and as published it was more like 'interpretation' of Tolkiens ideas.

Backfire wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You make a good point. Darth Maul died in a movie, came back in a cartoon show, and appears without further explanation in another movie. The strong implication being, episodes of a TV show are as relevant as movies. Which is just incorrect. There are a lot of people, like Thargrim above, who will see a movie but who are not going to watch TV shows much less read novels and comic books.

So because I have yet to read Silmarillion that's not part of LOTR cannon?

Offtopic road!
Lot of the Tolkienists are of opinion that only Middle-Earth canon is the LOTR book and its appendices. Hobbit is seen un-canonical (in fact Tolkien edited it in later printings to make it bit more canonical). Silmarillion was put together by Christopher and Guy Kay and as published it was more like 'interpretation' of Tolkiens ideas.

That's a shame. The Silmarillion is by far my favorite of the three Tolkien works I've read, with LOTR my least favorite. It's less a narrative than a Codex: Middle Earth Elves, but it has a lot more fantasy elements and more interesting characters drawn much more succinctly. And the original Hobbit was a better read. (Has anyone ever rewritten an early novel to fit in a later series and had it not turn out clunky?)

However, you should not have to have read Silmarillion to understand LOTR. (In fact, I recommend you don't read it until after you finish LOTR because it will strip away all of the mystery and epic nature of LOTR.). I feel that it's important for any story to be self contained, at least within the single primary narrative (main series, for example). Any time you have to jump media to understand the story, it's a disaster and asking far too much of the customer. You shouldn't have to watch a TV series to understand a movie, nor watch a movie to understand a TV series, and throwing comics or novels into the mix, which share different types of information with totally different viewpoints, can shatter the spell of the narrative.

And you don't HAVE to watch the Clone Wars or Rebels series to understand Solo or that, somehow, Maul managed to survive to be in the movie.

 Vulcan wrote:
And you don't HAVE to watch the Clone Wars or Rebels series to understand Solo or that, somehow, Maul managed to survive to be in the movie.

Indeed. Its just a hook to get people to maybe look up the other stuff.

Now if Maul had been a major character in Solo, maybe then we could complain about him being tossed in there. But as it is its maybe 10-15 seconds of screentime. A cameo appearance.

Given that SW movies are supposedly going to be slowing down and the fact that Disney is going to be doing some Marvel tv shows with their big name actors I wonder if we would ever see Solo continue on the small screen?

A short series with Maul and Qi'ra would be pretty awesome and probably tell a better tale than could be made through a movie anyway. In fact, a lot of Star Wars would work much better on tv as there is so much more time to work on smaller stories. In my opinion, TLJ would have been fantastic a a mini-series as it had a very Battlestar Galactica vibe but had to rush through everything too fast.

Guess we will have to wait to see what Favreau's show will end up like but I hope it is the start of something awesome...

Wasn’t there some chatter about a live tv show?

Somebody posted a deleted scene on youtube where young solo is piloting a crashing tie craft (fighter? bomber?) and a subsequent court martial type scene. It's supposed to be between the recruiter calling him 'Solo' and his first scene as an infantry grunt.

I thought it would have been kinda cool if that could have left that in.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn’t there some chatter about a live tv show?

It was announced at the same time as Reisistance but there has been no further detail.

 ingtaer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn’t there some chatter about a live tv show?

It was announced at the same time as Reisistance but there has been no further detail.

It's also been in the works in one form or another for like.... 20 years.

 Lance845 wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Wasn’t there some chatter about a live tv show?

It was announced at the same time as Reisistance but there has been no further detail.

It's also been in the works in one form or another for like.... 20 years.

With the announcement of the film slow down I think it could be another 20 years.

 Commander Cain wrote:
In my opinion, TLJ would have been fantastic a a mini-series as it had a very Battlestar Galactica vibe but had to rush through everything too fast.

Well they did blatantly rip of the episode "33" but managed to take all the style, pace and tension out of it. I can;t see how they rushed it - they had endless tedious shots os small dots moving slowly, oh so slowly across the starscape like an old Windows screensaver.

Small screen is very popular for actors at the moment and some big budgets.

 privateer4hire wrote:
Somebody posted a deleted scene on youtube where young solo is piloting a crashing tie craft (fighter? bomber?) and a subsequent court martial type scene. It's supposed to be between the recruiter calling him 'Solo' and his first scene as an infantry grunt.

I thought it would have been kinda cool if that could have left that in.

Yeah it's in the extras deleted scenes the CGI is incomplete (as it is for most of deleted scenes) but with a few tweaks it should have been left in and wouldn't overly affect the running time. The snowball fight deleted scene is just weird it almost looks ad libbed with Woody Harrelson just standing looking on not sure whats going on.

The TV show is being run by Jon Favreau so it's in good hands. It's set 7 years after RoTJ so hopefully it will show the rise of the First Order and give a bit of back story to Snoke although it's rumoured to be set on a post Empire Mandalore. A post Solo TV show could work Emilia Clarke is out of a job soon and Ray Park won't say no to a steady pay cheque.

I think Solo would have done much better is it had been released after Rogue One and before TLJ.

I think it would have done even better if it had been released right after TFA.

Or not in the week after infinity war and before deadpool 2.

Yeah. I don't know who made the boneheaded decision to release anything anywhere near Infinity War and Deadpool 2. Nothing besides a full on star wars movie could, maybe, compete with that. Not a stand-alone that the market was lukewarm on.

They could have released it earlier or later in the summer. Labor day might not have been a terrible idea.

I just don't get why they didn't decide to do. "Christmas time is Star Wars time" and release it at the same point as TLJ.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yeah. I don't know who made the boneheaded decision to release anything anywhere near Infinity War and Deadpool 2. Nothing besides a full on star wars movie could, maybe, compete with that. Not a stand-alone that the market was lukewarm on.

They could have released it earlier or later in the summer. Labor day might not have been a terrible idea.

No no. It’s about Han, not Luke.....

I thank you.

 Compel wrote:
I just don't get why they didn't decide to do. "Christmas time is Star Wars time" and release it at the same point as TLJ.

That conversation was probably had in the company as well.

So I noticed Solo is available on demand. I am still not going to rent it.

When it's on tv some day I might.

As for Darth Maul, I feel like it's fan service. They really should have left him dead. I don't watch the cartoons so I have no idea what he's been up to there, but the universe is a big place. Let him RIP and create a new character.

It is amazing though, how cool some of the villains look in Star Wars, and how classic they are when we have seen so little of them. Not just Boba and Darth Maul, but also Bossk, IG-88, and so on. I really don't need background stories on these guys. And some times, its a little ridiculous. Like the band in the cantina in A New Hope. I happen to read up on them one day while on wiki, and was surprised all the attention to detail that was given. And the fluff was like, oh they were some really popular band on tour or some crap like that. I felt the cantina was nothing more than a dive bar, and if those guys could get off Tatooine they would have. But instead they were stuck on a miserable rock when I am sure there were better places in the galaxy to play, they just couldn't afford to get off it.

If they were playing in a stadium, sure, rock band status.

So sometimes I just roll my eyes at the background.

Most of the background lore wasn't really a part of the production of the original movies. They're very much a product of people endlessly rewatching the films and demanding endless details made up after the fact and further endless demands that the logic remains air tight. My head hurts so much when it comes to things like the two women in the Cantina who are pretending to be famous con artists and if you think that's bad, look up Willrow Hood and WEEP for humanity.

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

TLJ making a huge amount of money can be attributed to momentum. People were pumped for it after seeing TFA, so they all went to see TLJ. That would have happened no matter how good a movie is.

Sequels tend to ride the success of the preceding movie when it comes to the box office. Its only after the fact that the true success of a sequel can be measured.

 Grey Templar wrote:
TLJ making a huge amount of money can be attributed to momentum. People were pumped for it after seeing TFA, so they all went to see TLJ. That would have happened no matter how good a movie is.

Sequels tend to ride the success of the preceding movie when it comes to the box office. Its only after the fact that the true success of a sequel can be measured.

Agreed, my friends and I wasted time and money watching that drek.

And No we are not "Superfans" or "racists" or any of the usual labels that are slapped on anyone who dares say anything bad about this film. e went to be entertained - we were not. At all.

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

However, the huge decline in toys sales and other merchandising sales indicates that the hardcore fans really made the franchise as a whole profitable as opposed to individual movies. It wouldn't matter if Solo was a box office flop if kids/collectors still wanted the toys.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

However, the huge decline in toys sales and other merchandising sales indicates that the hardcore fans really made the franchise as a whole profitable as opposed to individual movies. It wouldn't matter if Solo was a box office flop if kids/collectors still wanted the toys.

Say what you want about the prequels, but at least the designs for them and the ideas for toys they had were a hell of a lot more interesting than the re-hash equivalents in the newest trilogy. The droid army and the GAR both had enough variation and meaning in the conflict that it felt like the title "Star Wars", not the current weak fart of an attempt between the practically non-existent Resistance and First Order. Removed - BrookM

KTG17 wrote:Like the band in the cantina in A New Hope. I happen to read up on them one day while on wiki, and was surprised all the attention to detail that was given. And the fluff was like, oh they were some really popular band on tour or some crap like that...

Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes! (I might have the apostrophe wrong)

LunarSol wrote:My head hurts so much when it comes to things like the two women in the Cantina who are pretending to be famous con artists ...

Ha! Shada Dukal and one of the other Mistryl Shadow Guard pretending to be the Tonnika sisters!

Yes those did both come from memory, I didn't even have to check the Tales of the Mos Eisley Cantina that is one of the few SW publications I still own.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

However, the huge decline in toys sales and other merchandising sales indicates that the hardcore fans really made the franchise as a whole profitable as opposed to individual movies. It wouldn't matter if Solo was a box office flop if kids/collectors still wanted the toys.

Toys in terms of production values are worse, but the price higher.

 Grey Templar wrote:
TLJ making a huge amount of money can be attributed to momentum. People were pumped for it after seeing TFA, so they all went to see TLJ. That would have happened no matter how good a movie is.

Sequels tend to ride the success of the preceding movie when it comes to the box office. Its only after the fact that the true success of a sequel can be measured.

That does not explain high praise from people who have seen it. Yes loud complains too but a) how much of that is same group making lots of noise b) unhappy ones are always louder than happy ones

tneva82 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TLJ making a huge amount of money can be attributed to momentum. People were pumped for it after seeing TFA, so they all went to see TLJ. That would have happened no matter how good a movie is.

Sequels tend to ride the success of the preceding movie when it comes to the box office. Its only after the fact that the true success of a sequel can be measured.

That does not explain high praise from people who have seen it. Yes loud complains too but a) how much of that is same group making lots of noise b) unhappy ones are always louder than happy ones

People like different things - but unlike those who dare critisce this film the people who like it are not accused of things or pigeon holed into being "Superfans" - even if they have only seen a couple of SW films .

.......and of course we also had copy paste reviews praising the film by the bucket load.

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

Yeah, it made a lot of money. TFA made more, as I recall, something like $1.4 billion in profit. Ticket sales for TLJ dropped off MUCH faster than ticket sales for TFA did. And then we have poor Solo taking it in the neck and pretty much breaking even.

Episode IX is going to tell the tale, as to whether chasing away all the fans in the hope of attracting a new audience will work. I know what I expect, but hey, I've been wrong before. It's possible I'm wrong here too.

Whatever the case, you're not getting me into the theater opening night even at gunpoint. Ain't happening. You can't PAY me enough. (Well, you could, but it'll take five figures.... and the first one won't be a one.) Which will make the second time in my adult life (Solo was the first) that I'll be missing opening night at a SW film. And Solo I would have gone if someone else had bought the ticket...

 Vulcan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

Yeah, it made a lot of money. TFA made more, as I recall, something like $1.4 billion in profit. Ticket sales for TLJ dropped off MUCH faster than ticket sales for TFA did. And then we have poor Solo taking it in the neck and pretty much breaking even.

Episode IX is going to tell the tale, as to whether chasing away all the fans in the hope of attracting a new audience will work. I know what I expect, but hey, I've been wrong before. It's possible I'm wrong here too.

Whatever the case, you're not getting me into the theater opening night even at gunpoint. Ain't happening. You can't PAY me enough. (Well, you could, but it'll take five figures.... and the first one won't be a one.) Which will make the second time in my adult life (Solo was the first) that I'll be missing opening night at a SW film. And Solo I would have gone if someone else had bought the ticket...

Whatever one thinks of JJ Abrams, I think he's a legitimate fan, and criticisms about retreading old ground etc aside, did enough in TFA to balance pleasing the new and old audiences.

I also think he's probably aware of the missteps that Johnson took with TLJ, and will do what he can to correct them.

All told, I'm confident we'll get a better film, just not so much that it will be an all time great.

Was there any reason JJ Abrams couldn’t have done TLJ? Was he doing something else at the time?

Not sure. They oddly had it set up where all three were going to be directed by different people.

But that's how the original trilogy was done and it was stronger for it.

A New Hope - George Lucas
Empire - Irvin Kershner
Jedi - Richard Marquand

Compare that to Episodes 1 - 3 which are all Lucas.

I guess the idea was to get different directors take on it. JJ Abrams was only ever supposed to direct TFA he mapped out all 3 films but Johnson largely discarded that with TLJ. With the departure of Trevorrow it gave Abrams an opportunity to step back in. He gave some story about wanting to out do himself and TFA but there's probably an element of trying to reset things to his original ideas for the series before Johnson messed around with it.

JJ Abrams and "ideas" in the same sentence? I don't buy it.

 DaveC wrote:
But that's how the original trilogy was done and it was stronger for it.

A New Hope - George Lucas
Empire - Irvin Kershner
Jedi - Richard Marquand

Compare that to Episodes 1 - 3 which are all Lucas.

I guess the idea was to get different directors take on it. JJ Abrams was only ever supposed to direct TFA he mapped out all 3 films but Johnson largely discarded that with TLJ. With the departure of Trevorrow it gave Abrams an opportunity to step back in. He gave some story about wanting to out do himself and TFA but there's probably an element of trying to reset things to his original ideas for the series before Johnson messed around with it.

The different directors in the OT was mostly down to EpIV nearly driving Lucas into an early grave though, rather than any sort of design. Plus I don't think anyone can argue that Lucas didn't have huge input.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
That’s definitely true. I still read comments about bad acting even despite the acting in the final product being OK to great. Those leaks and rumors were very harmful.

But I think TLJ really hurt the brand. Yes, you have people like me who really hate the movie - and most people don’t care to that level, they’re not even capable of caring that much about some Star Wars movie. That right there is a big part of the issue: people who can take or leave SW, i.e. the vast majority of people, were not motivated by it to go see more SW. Contrast to Black Panther and Infinity War, which drove interest in the MCU brand. People who walked out of TLJ not hating TLJ also were not biting at the bit to see another SW film any time soon. When people left the theater after seeing TFA, however, many were ready for another SW picture ASAP.

Then again as much as I hate to say it TLJ not only made huge bucks but also reviews seems to have been pretty darn high outside hardcore fans...Maybe Disney considers hardcore fans acceptable casualties as they form too small minority to affect.

https://mashable.com/2017/12/20/last-jedi-poll/?europe=true#MgkSOueDSiqg

And when you make about billion profit...

Hate to say it but while Disney has put SW out of my interest list it works for them. What do they care about my feelings when they gain more than 1 customer instead.

Yeah, it made a lot of money. TFA made more, as I recall, something like $1.4 billion in profit. Ticket sales for TLJ dropped off MUCH faster than ticket sales for TFA did. And then we have poor Solo taking it in the neck and pretty much breaking even.

Episode IX is going to tell the tale, as to whether chasing away all the fans in the hope of attracting a new audience will work. I know what I expect, but hey, I've been wrong before. It's possible I'm wrong here too.

Whatever the case, you're not getting me into the theater opening night even at gunpoint. Ain't happening. You can't PAY me enough. (Well, you could, but it'll take five figures.... and the first one won't be a one.) Which will make the second time in my adult life (Solo was the first) that I'll be missing opening night at a SW film. And Solo I would have gone if someone else had bought the ticket...

Whatever one thinks of JJ Abrams, I think he's a legitimate fan, and criticisms about retreading old ground etc aside, did enough in TFA to balance pleasing the new and old audiences.

I also think he's probably aware of the missteps that Johnson took with TLJ, and will do what he can to correct them.

All told, I'm confident we'll get a better film, just not so much that it will be an all time great.

Short of the movie being marketed as "Episode VIII - What we should have done the first time around" I don't see much that can be done to salvage the wreckage Rian Johnson left of the Star Wars saga. The Resistance is CRUSHED. Done. Finished. Over. Sure, the First Order suffered some setbacks, but the balance of capabilities against the Resistance is even worse at the end of the movie than at the beginning. Their political position isn't much better. And the First Order still has ALL of their manufacturing capability untouched.

It's not even the U.S. vs. Japan, it's the U.S. vs Jamaica now. And there's no believable way that can be made to work as a realistic conflict.

The thread's about Solo.

It just came out on disc in the UK, but I haven't got Rogue One so I think I'll buy that first.

Have to say, I think Solo has a lot more re-watch potential than R1. I’d buy Solo, and just stream R1.

Amusingly, R1 is £6.99 on DVD and £9.99 to buy a streaming licence from Amazon Prime TV.

It is still available on Netflix here in the States.

Finally saw it on rental. The acting was good, and lots of double crosses. However I felt like it was really missing that StarWars spark. I don't know, it just felt meh.

 Vulcan wrote:

Short of the movie being marketed as "Episode VIII - What we should have done the first time around" I don't see much that can be done to salvage the wreckage Rian Johnson left of the Star Wars saga. The Resistance is CRUSHED. Done. Finished. Over. Sure, the First Order suffered some setbacks, but the balance of capabilities against the Resistance is even worse at the end of the movie than at the beginning. Their political position isn't much better. And the First Order still has ALL of their manufacturing capability untouched.

It's not even the U.S. vs. Japan, it's the U.S. vs Jamaica now. And there's no believable way that can be made to work as a realistic conflict.

No, First Order has not yet conquered important parts of the galaxy. All the inner worlds and the factions therein all untouched save the Republic which was decapitated in TFA. Episode 9 will probably feature Resistance trying to convince them to take up arms against First Order.

Unfortunately the movies did not make this very clear. Exposition has been real bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:

Whatever one thinks of JJ Abrams, I think he's a legitimate fan, and criticisms about retreading old ground etc aside, did enough in TFA to balance pleasing the new and old audiences.

I also think he's probably aware of the missteps that Johnson took with TLJ, and will do what he can to correct them.

The problem is that the 'issues' of the TLJ mostly stem up from how TFA set up the new saga. Namely, minimal exposition, unimaginative plotline and poor definition of characters. RJ took risks with the story to get it interesting again, sure they didn't all work out but result was more interesting and surprising movie than bland and boring TFA.

JJ Abrams is very much a scene driven director, and he is completely the wrong guy to handle setting intensive stories like Star Wars. We saw that in how he did in Star Trek.

Alas, I think that the criticism towards TLJ and Abrams handling it will result to last episode being bland and boring and unsurprising, just like TFA.

 Vulcan wrote:


It's not even the U.S. vs. Japan, it's the U.S. vs Jamaica now. And there's no believable way that can be made to work as a realistic conflict.

Don't be silly. Its not vs. Jamaica. Its vs. maybe two dozen refugees in a boat.

But honestly at no point was a realistic conflict ever in the cards. The one and only time the setting even veered toward that was Empire. And even the OT ended with Teddy bears killing armored soldiers with rocks, and the Imperial fleet (and I don't care about expanded novels or whatever) shrugging and leaving/giving up rather than slaughtering the remaining rebel ships and then jockeying for the throne. The imperial mechanisms of power were still in place and largely untouched, and done right, no one would even know the Emperor was dead until a 'legitimate heir' made themselves legitimate, or the whole thing fell apart in a civil war between military factions.

Episode 9 is largely going to involve the Remaining Named Characters doing everything themselves. I'm sure they'll find some way to shove in a fleet battle, but the audience stakes and investment for whoever is on those ships is going to be absurdly low.

Voss wrote:


Episode 9 is largely going to involve the Remaining Named Characters doing everything themselves. I'm sure they'll find some way to shove in a fleet battle, but the audience stakes and investment for whoever is on those ships is going to be absurdly low.

So just like in ROTJ. Where the only person the majority of the audience knew in the space battle was Lando, but this time it will be Poe. Maybe Chewie as well.

Backfire wrote:
The problem is that the 'issues' of the TLJ mostly stem up from how TFA set up the new saga. Namely, minimal exposition, unimaginative plotline and poor definition of characters. RJ took risks with the story to get it interesting again, sure they didn't all work out but result was more interesting and surprising movie than bland and boring TFA.

While I agree TFA was bland and, to an extent, predictable which makes it boring, and TLJ did indeed do new things... subverting everything in sight for the sake of subversion, completely ignoring plot hooks set in the previous movie, making every single character unlikeable in one way or another - the less said about 'token comic relief black guy' Finn the better - and reducing the good guys down to 'no change in Hades' at the end of the movie is not what I call good Star Wars. To be frank, I don't consider it good storytelling at all.

But hey, your taste is different. If you enjoy it and want to see more just like it, be my guest. Me and my money will be elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Voss wrote:


Episode 9 is largely going to involve the Remaining Named Characters doing everything themselves. I'm sure they'll find some way to shove in a fleet battle, but the audience stakes and investment for whoever is on those ships is going to be absurdly low.

So just like in ROTJ. Where the only person the majority of the audience knew in the space battle was Lando, but this time it will be Poe. Maybe Chewie as well.

Don't forget Wedge Antillies! Trust me, most of the audience of RotJ watched ANH and ESB... many of them quite a few times. They remember Wedge; one of five survivors of the Battle of Yavin and one of the few Rogue Squadron pilots to leave Hoth.

 Vulcan wrote:

Backfire wrote:
The problem is that the 'issues' of the TLJ mostly stem up from how TFA set up the new saga. Namely, minimal exposition, unimaginative plotline and poor definition of characters. RJ took risks with the story to get it interesting again, sure they didn't all work out but result was more interesting and surprising movie than bland and boring TFA.

While I agree TFA was bland and, to an extent, predictable which makes it boring, and TLJ did indeed do new things... subverting everything in sight for the sake of subversion, completely ignoring plot hooks set in the previous movie, making every single character unlikeable in one way or another - the less said about 'token comic relief black guy' Finn the better - and reducing the good guys down to 'no change in Hades' at the end of the movie is not what I call good Star Wars. To be frank, I don't consider it good storytelling at all.

Only plot hook which was ignored in TLJ was Knights of Ren, and that was probably deliberate so they could be saved for the last movie. However they should have been at least mentioned, to build up expectation for the last movie, because now audience won't remember them. Kylo Ren could have said "Gather Knights of Ren!" and marched off the bridge in movie's end or something.
I agree about character issues, however they were largely inherited from TFA. Finn was bumbling idiot in the first movie already, if anything TLJ made him (slightly) less so. Problem is that the characters' concept doesn't seem to allow much development - when you're janitor with basic infantry training and other character is already written up as Force user of the series, it's hard to go up from there...
People were complaining about Luke but the way first movie set up things, it was basically impossible to go any other route. It was obvious that Luke did not want to get involved with what was going on. Otherwise he would have already.

Voss wrote:

Episode 9 is largely going to involve the Remaining Named Characters doing everything themselves. I'm sure they'll find some way to shove in a fleet battle, but the audience stakes and investment for whoever is on those ships is going to be absurdly low.

Obvious thing they could do is to have Resistance trying to organize rest of the Galaxy to face First Order one last time, then have gigantic space battle where some of the reluctant allies show up in nick of time to save the day. It is easy to see where Lando would fit in there - he would be leader of one these factions.

However what will probably happen is that First Order starts to build new Planet killer and heroes destroy it in daring infiltration mission, supported by cute but fierce indigenous alien species, climaxing with final lightsaber fight whilst the station blows up around them...

Backfire wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

Backfire wrote:
The problem is that the 'issues' of the TLJ mostly stem up from how TFA set up the new saga. Namely, minimal exposition, unimaginative plotline and poor definition of characters. RJ took risks with the story to get it interesting again, sure they didn't all work out but result was more interesting and surprising movie than bland and boring TFA.

While I agree TFA was bland and, to an extent, predictable which makes it boring, and TLJ did indeed do new things... subverting everything in sight for the sake of subversion, completely ignoring plot hooks set in the previous movie, making every single character unlikeable in one way or another - the less said about 'token comic relief black guy' Finn the better - and reducing the good guys down to 'no change in Hades' at the end of the movie is not what I call good Star Wars. To be frank, I don't consider it good storytelling at all.

Only plot hook which was ignored in TLJ was Knights of Ren, and that was probably deliberate so they could be saved for the last movie. However they should have been at least mentioned, to build up expectation for the last movie, because now audience won't remember them. Kylo Ren could have said "Gather Knights of Ren!" and marched off the bridge in movie's end or something.
I agree about character issues, however they were largely inherited from TFA. Finn was bumbling idiot in the first movie already, if anything TLJ made him (slightly) less so. Problem is that the characters' concept doesn't seem to allow much development - when you're janitor with basic infantry training and other character is already written up as Force user of the series, it's hard to go up from there...
People were complaining about Luke but the way first movie set up things, it was basically impossible to go any other route. It was obvious that Luke did not want to get involved with what was going on. Otherwise he would have already.

Some of the issues with TLJ(Space Chase and Admiral Incoherent Makes Poe Understand Traditional Heroism Is Badwrong aside) are with execution rather than concept. Luke is a good example - in TFA it's specifically called out that he left the map behind; he might have wanted to withdraw from the day-to-day affairs of the galaxy, but he made sure they could find him if he was really needed. Him being a reluctant grumpy hermit isn't the issue, Yoda was that at first, it's that his initial reaction is completely inconsistent with the hook in TFA - for no reason other than Johnson wanted to be an edgelord who "subverted expectations" with stuff like the scene where he chucks the saber away - and he remains in "grumpy hermit" mode for almost the whole movie.

Luke didn't leave the map to find him behind. Leia knew he had gone searching for the origins of the Jedi at some lost temple and was tracking down a map to that temple. It wasn't a map to Luke, just a map to the only place he could be.

Yes, its kind of dumb and no, TFA doesn't explain it well at all.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

TLJ is the reason I didn’t see Solo in theaters. I can’t speak for everyone, but that was the cause for me. I MIGHT see 9 in theaters if enough of you guys who disliked TLJ say that 9 fixes it.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
I don't think the release cadence has anything to do with the underperformance, although articles circulating online do confirm that's Disney's thinking.

I remain convinced the controversial reception to TLJ is the root cause, I think that killed enough enthusiasm in the fan base, either to not watch Solo at all or at least not worry about a cinema outing, that the box office got hurt. Compounded by the negative rumours that dogged the production, an already gun shy SW fan was never going to rush out and watch.

Which is a shame, the movie embodies what a SW movie should be about as well as any of the new batch, and deserved better. Here's to it doing well on home release.

TLJ is the reason I didn’t see Solo in theaters. I can’t speak for everyone, but that was the cause for me. I MIGHT see 9 in theaters if enough of you guys who disliked TLJ say that 9 fixes it.

Oh, haven't you heard? Nobody disliked TLJ. It was all Russian trolls, apparently

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/04/after-russian-trolls-tarnished-the-last-jedi-is-it-safe-to-like-star-wars-again

Huh. While Russian trolls MAY have also added negative reviews for TLJ, I can honestly say my opinion of it was my own after my best friend said it was on par w/ESB. I went in expecting a good movie, and got a turd. Not because of race or gender bs, but because it was a legitimately unenjoyable mess that focused on killing off the Skywalker lineage/Jedi and Sith ways more than anything else.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/04/after-russian-trolls-tarnished-the-last-jedi-is-it-safe-to-like-star-wars-again

Huh. This does not shock me.

TLJ was still kind of blarg though.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/04/after-russian-trolls-tarnished-the-last-jedi-is-it-safe-to-like-star-wars-again

Huh. This does not shock me.

TLJ was still kind of blarg though.

Turns out it's a very flawed academic.

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9knx14/more_than_half_of_the_fan_backlash_directed_at/

Generally though.. The movie was still bad, it's certainly not like it needed extra attention pushed to it to convince people.

Also.. I can't seem to remember, since I had re-watched Solo because someone dragged me along.. Why was there so much focus on that golden dice chain? Did I miss some sort of weird symbolism attached to them?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/04/after-russian-trolls-tarnished-the-last-jedi-is-it-safe-to-like-star-wars-again

Seriously thats the latest defence of this POS film - the Russians made my friends and I feel bored and frustrated with the plot, characters and pace... sheesh - what else did they do - shoot JR and Mr Burns.

The amount of money Disney must be sepnding to get these stories out there....

 LordofHats wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/oct/04/after-russian-trolls-tarnished-the-last-jedi-is-it-safe-to-like-star-wars-again

Huh. This does not shock me.

TLJ was still kind of blarg though.

That's the worst part, isn't it? If I want to talk about the legit problems with the movie I get assigned to a side in a shouting match, if I want to talk about the implications it has for Luke, the Force, things I like, I get assigned a side in the same shouting match.

If I want to talk about Solo, or that Mandalorian project, or Guardians of the Galaxy, or Fury Road, it turns into a TLJ shouting match.

So if somebody says oh hey, that guy who keeps changing the subject day after day after day isn't actually as sadly obsessed as he's making it out to be: he's being paid to act that way, or he's a robot - I may not necessarily believe that, but I had to think about it for a hot minute.

And honestly, the study is being overblown by clickbait articles: it acknowledges its own limited test set, and is primarily about breaking down the minority of bad faith actors caught within that test set into different categories.

Even though it "acknowledges its own limited test set", it's still a shocking piece of work from an academic perspective. Both the datasets and an adequate explanation of the criteria used when the author was categorising tweets are entirely absent, and the broad claims made which the clickbait articles are drawing upon aren't even slightly supported by the information that is there. Not to mention that his own bias is evident even in the construction of the study - of all the categories into which he assigns "negative" tweets, none are "constructive criticism" or "disappointment" or anything like that, they're all assigned as either politically motivated, trolls, russian trolls, or bigots.

Basically, even with a dataset so limited and arbitrary as "I grabbed a bunch of tweets @'ing Rian Johnson between these two dates(when did I grab them? did I grab all tweets between those dates or just some? did I do this before or after Johnson purged his own feed a while ago? lul who cares brah)", and a pretty evident bias in intent and methodology, the guy manages to prove....what everyone already knew; there are a few arseholes out there on the internet. He conclusively demonstrates a grand total of one Russian troll in a sample of nearly 1000 twitter accounts, and a dozen more "suspected"(by his standards).

It's a grotesque sham of a paper, even by the often wavy-gravy standards of media analysis, and it's extremely telling which outlets and "personalities" are going loud with its laughable headline claims.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Huh. While Russian trolls MAY have also added negative reviews for TLJ, I can honestly say my opinion of it was my own after my best friend said it was on par w/ESB. I went in expecting a good movie, and got a turd. Not because of race or gender bs, but because it was a legitimately unenjoyable mess that focused on killing off the Skywalker lineage/Jedi and Sith ways more than anything else.

The Empire Strikes Back is a hot mess of a movie. Try giving it the same critical eye you gave The Last Jedi and you'll see the turd your nostalgia has been polishing all these years. I did and I made to the end of Battle of Hoth before turning off the movie. If the internet had existed back then I doubt it would have been praised.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Huh. While Russian trolls MAY have also added negative reviews for TLJ, I can honestly say my opinion of it was my own after my best friend said it was on par w/ESB. I went in expecting a good movie, and got a turd. Not because of race or gender bs, but because it was a legitimately unenjoyable mess that focused on killing off the Skywalker lineage/Jedi and Sith ways more than anything else.

So much this, plus it was just utterly boring.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Huh. While Russian trolls MAY have also added negative reviews for TLJ, I can honestly say my opinion of it was my own after my best friend said it was on par w/ESB. I went in expecting a good movie, and got a turd. Not because of race or gender bs, but because it was a legitimately unenjoyable mess that focused on killing off the Skywalker lineage/Jedi and Sith ways more than anything else.

The Empire Strikes Back is a hot mess of a movie. Try giving it the same critical eye you gave The Last Jedi and you'll see the turd your nostalgia has been polishing all these years. I did and I made to the end of Battle of Hoth before turning off the movie. If the internet had existed back then I doubt it would have been praised.

The trick is, we don't dislike TLJ because we nitpicked it to death. We nitpicked it to death because we didn't like it. Since ESB entertained us instead of insulted us, we didn't nitpick it to death.

And even then, I'd love to hear exactly how Empire is "a hot mess", the reasoning behind that statement would undoubtedly be more entertaining than TLJ

 Vulcan wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Huh. While Russian trolls MAY have also added negative reviews for TLJ, I can honestly say my opinion of it was my own after my best friend said it was on par w/ESB. I went in expecting a good movie, and got a turd. Not because of race or gender bs, but because it was a legitimately unenjoyable mess that focused on killing off the Skywalker lineage/Jedi and Sith ways more than anything else.

The Empire Strikes Back is a hot mess of a movie. Try giving it the same critical eye you gave The Last Jedi and you'll see the turd your nostalgia has been polishing all these years. I did and I made to the end of Battle of Hoth before turning off the movie. If the internet had existed back then I doubt it would have been praised.

The trick is, we don't dislike TLJ because we nitpicked it to death. We nitpicked it to death because we didn't like it. Since ESB entertained us instead of insulted us, we didn't nitpick it to death.

I would LOVE to hear more about your fragile ego that is insulted by a movie. Seriously? The MOVIE insulted you?

We seem to be well off the topic.