Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When a new installment of an ongoing trilogy comes out, the audience usually has a general idea what the plot needs to cover going forward from the last episode.

TLJ failed to meaningfully advance anything established by TFA and instead spent its load undermining the plot hooks JJ set up in that film. So it’s pretty difficult to guess what we should expect this upcoming film to be about.

Sure, the white hats will fight the black hats. That’s setting rather than plot.

In order to have that setting, we could guess JJ needs to show us the rebuilding of the Resistance. But the trailer doesn’t reflect that, other than a buncha extras mobbing Billy Dee — which looked more like footage of him meeting cosplayers at Celebration than a scene in an adventure movie.

Instead, Disney gives us the most generic shots possible, almost as if they are not confident that we’ll remember who any of these characters are or what they did in previous films. They all look essentially the same as when they were introduced. They are all shown doing the same kinds of things they, or rather any character inna Star Wars movie, generally do. Remember Rey? Me neither.

More importantly, remember Rey’s story arc? Me neither.

This reminds me of Revenge of the Sith, where somebody realized that after two movies almost no story had been told and they better go ahead and put all the plot stuff they bizarrely cut from Eps 1 and 2 in favor of podracing and other video game cutscenes.

Except we all knew what Revenge of the Sith needed to be about. With Rise of Skywalker, it might as well be a literal reboot of TFA.

Ugh.... dakka. Why can't I just quit you.... Didn't watch the SR video. Appologies if the following doesn't pertain to it, but that Thumbnail reminds me I'm utterly tired of YouTube pushing self inflicted misery on what has been one of the consistently greatest eras of geek film ever. I should be happier than I've ever been but it seems misery is the only real only currency.

FWIW, Disney isn't going to kill theaters. It just owns enough varied properties to promote that it's better to use other outlets for smaller projects. When its got a Frozen, or Avengers or mainline Star Wars or Pixar or whatever; great, theaters, but there are tons of projects that will better reach their intended audience via other avenues.

What we're seeing is other companies catch up with what Netflix has been doing. Between Cloverfield Paradox and Roma, they've proven that smaller projects that would have been a risk in theaters can find an audience. Particularly in an era where box office sales have people on such a "if you're not first, you're nothing" mindset when it comes to going to movies, it makes a lot of sense to focus on shifting things like Solo to a better fitting distribution model.

None of this is new. Direct to video films have always been lesser projects looking to provide something to a more niche audience. TV series have always been about providing a way for super fans to continue to engage with characters they love in a disposable means.

This whole "keepers of the cannon" culture is just miserable and toxic. Sins Past is a terrible, terrible comic. The Night Gwen Stacy Died is a great one. That's all there is to it. The Little Mermaid is a great film regardless of how you feel about her daughter going to Ursulas sister or whatever to get fins to learn about her mom's family. Treating these fictional worlds as immutable realities tied to real rules is just.... just enjoy the good; discard the bad. Enjoy life. It's too short to worry so much about this nonsense.

 Galef wrote:
I found this quite interesting and could very well be true, especially if people continue to "boycott" these movies.

Spoiler:

-

I'll gladly suffer Disney being one of our dystopian corporate overlords if it means they finally kill off the movie theatre industry in its current form. People will say that if Disney lead us to a future where movie theatres don't get their 6-18 month timed exclusivity, ticket prices will go up a lot and still many theatres will have to close for lack of business - I say good(apart from the job losses, obviously). If your business model relies on being an exclusive outlet for something to remain viable, then it never really was viable in the first place. Level the playing field, let consumers access content in whatever way they choose, and structure the costs for each way accordingly. Will that mean people who prefer the "cinema experience" will end up paying loads more money? Sure, because their preference will no longer be subsidised by the tickets of people who don't share that preference. And hey, if the "cinema experience" is so great, they shouldn't have a problem paying what it's actually worth.

Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.

Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?

In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.

And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.

 Manchu wrote:
Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.

Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.

Voss wrote:

SamusDrake wrote:

Voss wrote:

Though that was a Lucas bit, and I doubt that the current studio/writers/directors care about some of the minor takeaways from the prequels.

I don't believe we could call the Clone Wars TV show a minor takeaway, of which the droids were the main antagonists. So popular they bought them back for an episode in Rebels.

'We' aren't calling the cartoon any such thing. Just the idea that using a droid army is ineffective because they aren't very good.

Kylo also entertained the thought of using a clone army in Force Awakens...

A clone army is not a droid army, so I'm not clear on the relevance of this statement.

Basically - in a nutshell, I was referring to a possible hint that the Droid vs Clone war thing might rear its head once again in Episode 9; I assumed you were suggesting that the clone war part of the prequel era was a "minor takeaway".

 Elemental wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.

Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?

In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.

And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.

This does honestly happen all the time here. I would have thought the masses would be happy nothing was given away. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I’m unhappy with RJ, but I have faith in JJ. He isn’t giving me the SW trilogy, but he gives enjoyable Sci-Fi flicks.

Yep I think there was just enough in the trailer. Hell its safe to say I’ve watched the trailer a fair few times and god damn now I can’t wait.

 Sobekta wrote:
I really think that star wars reflects what's wrong with modern Hollywood. A writer can't just write a good story anymore. I mean sure a writer can pour his passion, his skill, his heart and soul into a strory.

Then its taken to a room full of heartless, soulless creatures in suits who have no storytelling talent called a "market research department" that demand a plethora of changes to appeal to group x and not offend group y and to pacify group z.

Next it's taken to another group of creatures whose humanity is possibly open to question called a "merchandizing department" that demand a new cool vehicle or robot or weapon they can have toys of on the shelves in time for Christmas.

Naturally it must then be submitted to the review of the clearly inhuman "legal department" that demands ten thousand tiny changes for "legal reasons".

Oh, and of course finally it has to pass the Chinese governmental censorship board nowadays.

When star wars was made you could just make the best damn movie you could and let history decide if it was a great movie or not. Now people who wouldn't know creativity or anything else that can't be reduced to figures on a profit\loss column have dictatorial control over every character, word, image and idea in a movie...

That's why movies like star wars can't be made any more.

So that's your take coming off TLJ? That it was a lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise?

Because I don't know where to even start with that. I don't think even TLJ's loudest detractors would say that was the case. That film was the clearest individual vision from a director in the series since Lucas himself. Had executives dictated all the beats, the result would probably have been a less divisive film.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:

 Captain Joystick wrote:
Do they typically do that kind of thing for Star Wars movies though? The OT trailers didn't really stop and explain the premise (ANH's trailer sold it on tie fighters and gunfights), and of the Prequels only AotC's really did the 'cut dialogue together to prime us on the plot' thing, while the other two only really pushed the fact that this was the beginning of star wars.

Continuing that, the sequel trailers have all been very deliberate about not giving away the plot - or even misdirecting, surely at least some of us here were among the people who were convinced Finn was going to be a Jedi right up until actually seeing it?

In fact, the only one I think really bothered to explain its premise was Rogue One, which they kind of had to.

And if they had given away the plot, we all know the Dakka anti-fans would simply switch over to complaining about the trailer giving away the whole plot, and waxing rhapsodic about how spoiled plot event X killed their dog and peed through their letterbox.

Yeah, I don't think they can win with trailers anymore. Fan bases are at once too cynical and too obsessive. Show too much and it's 'they've given away the whole movie' and people go in with the whole movie 'worked out' in their heads. Keep things under wraps and it's 'what is this even about' and 'it looks like a mess', and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.

Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Movie theaters are already changing. I just saw Alien (1979) on the big screen last week for its 40th anniversary. Showing classics that anyone can see at home on home media is not going to electrify the industry. But the cinema owners already realize they shouldn’t only be the vehicles for essentially previewing Disney home media.

If you get the chance to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in theaters, it's worth the time. It was a different experience on the big screen compared to the TV.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oi, show some respect, that's Martin Scorsese you're talking to!

"Old Man yells at Cloud"

Just to be clear, neither HBMC nor I asked for the trailer to give everything away. The issue is, it gives nothing away. I have no clue whatsoever what this film will even be about, except in the broadest, most meaningless sense that the characters who fight each other will continue to do so, some with lightsabers, others not. So in other words, I know it is a Star Wars film but how it relates to the larger trilogy it is supposed to wrap up? This trailer isn’t interested in that.

and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.

You forgot "and then criticise the movie because it didn't fit those expectations, even though it hadn't done anything to create them outside of their own head."

 gorgon wrote:


Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.

Oh it's been like this since at least Empire strikes back (for Star Wars "fans") - some of whom wanted "Splinter of the mind's eye" as the "proper" sequel (it was written to be one, but one that could be shot if the first one HADN'T been as big a success as it had been. It could be shot on one soundstage for a fraction of the budget. Mimban got recycled years later for one scene in Solo.)

 chromedog wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


Something just ain't right in fan culture. It wasn't always like this.

Oh it's been like this since at least Empire strikes back (for Star Wars "fans") - some of whom wanted "Splinter of the mind's eye" as the "proper" sequel (it was written to be one, but one that could be shot if the first one HADN'T been as big a success as it had been. It could be shot on one soundstage for a fraction of the budget. Mimban got recycled years later for one scene in Solo.)

Yeah, these things have always been around. What's largely changed is the ability for individuals to dominate the conversation through raw dedication to doing so. Being able to shout opinions without actually engaging with people creates discussions that are largely about shouting past one another. Extreme opinions draw attention and in a global shouting match, getting attention is really the only goal. I mean, who's ever replied to "that was great!" or "not as good as the last one"? You get responses from it actively ruining your life and explaining how you saw the movie out in the street kicking puppies. The comments section is probably the worst innovation the internet has seen unfortunately. I cannot recall a meaningful conversation I've seen in one. Just a mix of mindless versions of "Great!" and 1 or 2 people making absolute certain that their negative opinion is the final word on the matter.

While I have no faith in JJ Abrams, I have to admit he learned and corrected one big mistake he made in TFA: there looks to be a plethora of new or obscure ship designs, and apparently a large enough space battle not to feel like a sub-brush fire skirmish.

I am just here hoping the ninth movie is satisifying and doesn't feth up. TLJ wasn't horrible, it was just poorly paced, and had some questionable decisions. Overall the movie was beautifully shot and almost every shot could be a screen cap for a desktop background, I think it high merits of artistic value but very little story beats that made the audience happy. Like the last fight between Luke and Ben was a fantastic fight and beautifully well shot and directed. It seems to me that Ryan was better with shooting action than telling a story. Which honestly he should've of been both the principal director and then the writer, that just colored it a bit too much, he doesn't nearly have the experience to do so as a writer or a director.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oi, show some respect, that's Martin Scorsese you're talking to!

"Old Man yells at Cloud"

Yeah, on the one hand, I see where he was coming from, but on the other hand he's essentially been making variations of the same movie for like 30 years so who is he to judge?

Manchu, I really don't think people understand what we were getting at. I mean the replies have gone from "But we don't want the trailer to give everything away!" (which we never said) to "But if they gave stuff away you'd just be complaining about that!" (which has to be some kind of logical fallacy). I say we just cut our losses, wave out little Disney flags, and be happy consumers.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, on the one hand, I see where he was coming from...

Really? Because it seems to me like they are comments from a man who forgot history. They've called it an 'invasion', as if comic book/superhero movies are taking over and pushing everything out of the cinema. It's absolute nonsense. Around 30-ish films are coming out in the US in October. One of them is a comic book film (Joker).

And as I said, they're forgetting history. They're forgetting that between 1930 and the end of the 1950's we got well over one thousand Western films and there were, at times, over one hundred Western TV shows on air.

A year with 6 comic-book films? That's nothing.

gorgon wrote:.. TLJ... was a lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise?

Because I don't know where to even start with that. I don't think even TLJ's loudest detractors would say that was the case. That film was the clearest individual vision from a director in the series since Lucas himself. Had executives dictated all the beats, the result would probably have been a less divisive film.

Hi. I'm one of those loudest detractors and, you're right, I would never characterise TLJ as a "lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise". I also completely agree with you that it was the most individual vision from a director since Lucas himself.

Of course, that's the bloody problem in the first place!

TLJ is so singular, and so set-apart from the film that came before it, that it's clear that there was no plan at Lucasfilm. Kathleen "The Force is Female" Kennedy doesn't have the same creative vision and organisational skills as Disney's other big studio head, Kevin Feige. Without a "Kevin Feige of Star Wars", everything Disney has made for Star Wars has been basically random. The fact that they've managed to turn out some actual good (Rogue One, Rebels) seems less by design and more by the "broken clock is right twice a day" notion.

So we just have to wait until Disney comes to it senses and puts Dave Filoni, the heir apparent to Lucas, who actually cut his teeth working under Lucas, to become the one running the show.

Yodhrin wrote:Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.

I've never seen someone so against the entire concept of cinema releases. Cinema releases is how movies make their money, and whilst I can certainly see the argument that people should be able to choose the method in which they engage with entertainment, I don't really mind that "going to the movies" is the first point of entry for most movies. I've never looked at it as timed exclusivity.

And I also look at it from the perspective of what we used to have. What we used to have was a movie that came out, and then anywhere up to 3 years later you'd be able to rent it at a video store, and then after that window was over you could buy something. Now most movies are on sale within 6-8 months of their initial box-office release. Endgame came out earlier in the year and I already own it on Blu-Ray. Far From Home was out a few months ago it's released on Blu-Ray today. This is an improvement.

And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former...". Can you elaborate?

 Azreal13 wrote:

and they'll probably STILL try to figure out all the beats of the story and head into theaters with those even less accurate expectations.

You forgot "and then criticise the movie because it didn't fit those expectations, even though it hadn't done anything to create them outside of their own head."

That was implied.

Hi. I'm one of those loudest detractors and, you're right, I would never characterise TLJ as a "lowest-common-denominator, created-in-committee, sell-some-stuff exercise". I also completely agree with you that it was the most individual vision from a director since Lucas himself.

Of course, that's the bloody problem in the first place!

TLJ is so singular, and so set-apart from the film that came before it, that it's clear that there was no plan at Lucasfilm. Kathleen "The Force is Female" Kennedy doesn't have the same creative vision and organisational skills as Disney's other big studio head, Kevin Feige. Without a "Kevin Feige of Star Wars", everything Disney has made for Star Wars has been basically random. The fact that they've managed to turn out some actual good (Rogue One, Rebels) seems less by design and more by the "broken clock is right twice a day" notion.

So we just have to wait until Disney comes to it senses and puts Dave Filoni, the heir apparent to Lucas, who actually cut his teeth working under Lucas, to become the one running the show.

I actually think the issue isn't just Kathleen Kennedy and more of "These writers don't write too well." That and not having a plan as you say, TLJ was well shot, but it lacked subsistence. If they had a good leader and had planned out how the story would go it wouldn't be so up and down for star wars... I can name on my one hand (check the names) who could lead the effort but even then thats wishlisting. The Reawaken series has so far been a blunder.

Its the same issue that was with ghostbusters 2016, they tried to be a reintroduction flagship series, but it failed because the directors, writers were poorly chosen as were the heads.

In terms of good directors, you have Denis Villeneuve, Tajiti Wataka, Edgar Wright, and James Gunn, all proven directors who have exceptional writing skill organizations.

Kennedy could be doing a great job if she chose the right

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say we just cut our losses, wave out little Disney flags, and be happy consumers.

Yes, that’s enough thought crime for one day, right?

 Manchu wrote:
Just to be clear, neither HBMC nor I asked for the trailer to give everything away. The issue is, it gives nothing away. I have no clue whatsoever what this film will even be about, except in the broadest, most meaningless sense that the characters who fight each other will continue to do so, some with lightsabers, others not. So in other words, I know it is a Star Wars film but how it relates to the larger trilogy it is supposed to wrap up? This trailer isn’t interested in that.

It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asherian Command wrote:

I actually think the issue isn't just Kathleen Kennedy and more of "These writers don't write too well." That and not having a plan as you say, TLJ was well shot, but it lacked subsistence. If they had a good leader and had planned out how the story would go it wouldn't be so up and down for star wars... I can name on my one hand (check the names) who could lead the effort but even then thats wishlisting. The Reawaken series has so far been a blunder.

Its the same issue that was with ghostbusters 2016, they tried to be a reintroduction flagship series, but it failed because the directors, writers were poorly chosen as were the heads.

In terms of good directors, you have Denis Villeneuve, Tajiti Wataka, Edgar Wright, and James Gunn, all proven directors who have exceptional writing skill organizations.

Kennedy could be doing a great job if she chose the right

IMO issue is lack of strong hand at the helm of production. TFA was made as safe as possible. They chose a director who had name recognition and made the movie as close to the original as they could without being a complete knock-off and script is like straight off a market research committee. Then the pendulum went to other direction and they gave lots of artistic freedom for director of TLJ but not enough time to smooth out the kinks because they wanted to put these movies out ASAP to make money. So instead of being super-safe, TLJ took risks everywhere, not all of which paid off because much of the dialogue was so draft-like.

I don't see 'lack of planning ahead' necessarily such a big deal. I don't know if they did map out whole story progression for the trilogy but based on what I have read about process of writing TFA, they did not. But Lucas also made most of the OT on the fly. Similarly, Tolkien had no idea what he was doing when he began to write sequel for his fairytale hit 'Hobbit'. Hey, Bilbo found this magic ring, maybe there is something more to it. Sometimes you just need the story grow and find itself. But it's a process which takes time.

Backfire wrote:
It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.

It is immediately obvious that you are wrong for the simple reason that anyone could have “deduced” (read: assumed) that about the movie with or without seeing any trailer because “the good guys try to stop the baddies” is the basic, generic plot of every Star Wars film.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:Thing is the only change I actually care about is the one they will never, ever make on their own; removing their timed exclusivity. If people want to go to the cinema and watch a new film or, indeed, a classic one, more power to them. If cinemas want to offer that service, fantastic, have at it. But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former, and I shouldn't have my options limited to "endure an experience you dislike, almost certainly diminishing your enjoyment of the story" or "wait X months and risk having the whole story spoiled by some random online comment" in order to make the latter a viable business.

I've never seen someone so against the entire concept of cinema releases. Cinema releases is how movies make their money, and whilst I can certainly see the argument that people should be able to choose the method in which they engage with entertainment, I don't really mind that "going to the movies" is the first point of entry for most movies. I've never looked at it as timed exclusivity.

I suppose it depends on whether you enjoy going to the cinema. For me, with a spectrum disorder, it's almost always a torture session; no control of the volume, no control over how many people are there even if I carefully pick a showing that should be fairly empty, and that's just the "me stuff' - Solo was also a dire experience simply because of how modern multiplexes work(they shove a queue of movies on the digital projector and then the minimum wage till-jockey goes back to the concessions stand, which is a problem when some films need specific brightness and lens considerations). The whole affair was just about tolerable back when there was maybe one or two movies a year I actually wanted to see, and before the internet became such a ubiquitous and unavoidable part of life that seeing spoilers before the home media/streaming release are a virtual certainty unless you become a digital hermit, but these days it's rubbish. To give a topical example - if I actually gave a gak about RoS, my choices would be to go and see it in the cinema, or stop participating in any of the Star Wars-related tabletop and RPG groups I enjoy until next summer, or to accept I'd know the whole film inside & out before actually getting to see it. None of those options are ones I'd take given an actual choice.

And I have no problem with cinema releases, they can release all the films in cinemas they like - so long as they release them on other formats at the same time, and let people choose how to consume the product.

And I also look at it from the perspective of what we used to have. What we used to have was a movie that came out, and then anywhere up to 3 years later you'd be able to rent it at a video store, and then after that window was over you could buy something. Now most movies are on sale within 6-8 months of their initial box-office release. Endgame came out earlier in the year and I already own it on Blu-Ray. Far From Home was out a few months ago it's released on Blu-Ray today. This is an improvement.

See above; that reduction has been accompanied by the rise of the internet, so while you don't have to wait as long between the cinema release and the home media/streaming release, the chances you'll have the story spoiled in the meantime has risen dramatically unless you're willing to shut down social media and avoid anywhere where the film might be discussed for those 6-8 months. Some people don't care about spoilers, but plenty do.

And, if I'm honest, I'm not sure what you mean by "But I shouldn't have to pay to subsidise the former...". Can you elaborate?

Sure. A lot of people, myself included(though I accept not typically with my level of vehemence), don't care for the cinema. Right now, we still often have to force ourselves to go to the cinema anyway, or else people who do like the cinema will go and then ruin the story for us by just casually dropping spoilers all over the place based on what they consider to be a reasonable timeframe after the film's release(typically a week or two in the cinema). That means ticket prices are based on a volume of attendees that doesn't accurately reflect the number of people who want to buy a movie ticket. If films were available on streaming etc at the same time as they are in the cinema, I would wager that the number of people who actually bother to go to the cinema and pay over the odds for a ticket when they could simply fire up their streaming service and watch it at home on a nice big telly would plummet, and so cinemas would have to radically raise ticket prices.

So, right now, people who don't want to attend the cinema but are "incentivized" to by the timed exclusivity are subsidising the ticket prices of people who actually do prefer going to the cinema, keeping their ticket prices artificially low.

I'm sympathetic to Yodhrin's point, for most movies I far prefer to watch them at home where I can be more comfortable etc.

There are some 'event' films that I'm glad I saw on the big screen but unless I'm really motivated to avoid a film being spoiled then I'm always able to convince myself to wait.

This year in the cinema I've only seen Captain Marvel (right at the end of the run to get it out of the way before Endgame), Endgame, Far From Home (big Spiderman fan etc) and will see Episode 9. Anything else I'll get round to eventually.

 Manchu wrote:

Backfire wrote:
It's really very easy to deduce what's this movie is about from the trailer. Resistance is going to mobilize great big fleet for one final attempt to stop the First Order, and also they go out for a quest to uncover some ancient plot which may or may not have been happening behind the scenes.
Personally the trailer didn't leave me super-excited, but you are just trying to find fault where there is none.

It is immediately obvious that you are wrong for the simple reason that anyone could have “deduced” (read: assumed) that about the movie with or without seeing any trailer because “the good guys try to stop the baddies” is the basic, generic plot of every Star Wars film.

The space horse cavalry charge across the outside of a Star Destroyer was inconceivable though! Consider my expectations subverted yet again.

True. Also inconceivable: C-3P0 calling a bunch of strangers his friends.

We never needed to see how the Rebellion got the team back together between movies so I don't feel the need to do that for the Resistance, that's strictly comic book and novel faire, and it just so happens comic books and novels are coming out right now to cover it.

Manchu wrote:True. Also inconceivable: C-3P0 calling a bunch of strangers his friends.

I'm pretty sure we've established that he considers BB-8 a friend, he's been fighting alongside the rest of the resistance kids in the intervening year since TLJ, and even before that he heard Poe, Finn, and Rose discuss their casino getaway vacation and didn't out them to Holdo. Surely, you don't mean R2?

warboss wrote:The space horse cavalry charge across the outside of a Star Destroyer was inconceivable though! Consider my expectations subverted yet again.

I can absolutely buy a space horse cavalry fight on the surface of a first order star warship, presuming they're close to that ice outpost and there's some kind of atmosphere.

What I need though, is some explanation as to why they thought to bring space horses to a fleet battle.

 Captain Joystick wrote:

What I need though, is some explanation as to why they thought to bring space horses to a fleet battle.

Two words. Rose. Tico. While the rest of the 11 remaining rebels have been busy trying to free the galaxy from the tyranny of the First Order, she's been busy doing more guerrila raids for SpacePETA.