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.

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

Theaters should push back.

Personally no real desire to see this. I may rent later. Way more jazzed about Murder on the Orient Express.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For the local Cineworld? Not a problem. but if you're running a small cinema in a small town, you're not going to want to hand over a third of your usual take (see the previous discussion about making the money on snacks), and if everyone in your local area will have seen the film in a fortnight, then having to keep it on for another two weeks is likely to result in an empty cinema once the novelty has worn off. Even if you're only replacing it with some low-budget horror film or a re-run of It's a Wonderful Life, that may well draw in higher audiences.

Holy crap! Someone needs to make a low budget horror version of It's a Wonderful Life, stat!


Frazzled, why? It's just Clue on a Train. ...okay, now I get it.

I'm pretty sure I know the end of MotOE, but it looks like the enjoyment comes from watching the performances, not just from trying to beat Branagh's moustache to guessing who did it.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
I'm pretty sure I know the end of MotOE, but it looks like the enjoyment comes from watching the performances, not just from trying to beat Branagh's moustache to guessing who did it.

exactly!

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

A... 1% increase over what they agreed to for the last one, and agreeing to show star wars for 4 weeks in the dead zone of movie releases. How onerous indeed.

Frazzled wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

Theaters should push back.

They probably should but the truth is they could put a clause in saying employees aren't allowed to wear pants and audiences would still go in droves because Star Wars.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
For the local Cineworld? Not a problem. but if you're running a small cinema in a small town, you're not going to want to hand over a third of your usual take (see the previous discussion about making the money on snacks), and if everyone in your local area will have seen the film in a fortnight, then having to keep it on for another two weeks is likely to result in an empty cinema once the novelty has worn off. Even if you're only replacing it with some low-budget horror film or a re-run of It's a Wonderful Life, that may well draw in higher audiences.

Which is why your popcorn and drink, which cost wholesale pennies, sell for ridiculous amount. That’s how cinema’s make their profit.

Star Wars is a popular film with most demographics. Parents are happy enough to go see it, because at least it’s not a seizure inducing flicker fest animation. Kids want to see it because the films are fun. The more people you get in, the more people buy your confectionary etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just been thinking (yes, you can smell burning).

Episodes VII and IX have a very important job to do, other than bring their respective arcs to a full narrative completion.

See, once upon a time there was the Expanded Universe. Sadly, it quickly lost its way and got very crap very quickly. But as well as continuing the saga, it also did an awful lot of back filling.

The earliest stuff of course is now regarded as The Old Republic. Strictly speaking, those tales are now of uncertain canon. Yes, Disney has wiped that slate clean (and not unfairly so in many instance). But until something is put in to officially replace it, it’s still possible to regard it as canon without running into too many continuity issues from Disney’s Stable.

Already we’ve seen some firm favourites return. Of particular note is Grand Admiral Thrawn, who’s shown up in a refreshed and revised version in the frankly superb Star Wars Rebels.

His tale has changed somewhat, but the character hasn’t. He’s still a patron of the arts, still regarding understanding art as the best way to understand your enemy (though I suspect the contents of the Tate Moden might give him an embolism). He’s just ‘happening’ at an earlier stage.

And that to me is what Episdoes VIII and IX need to leave us with at their legacy. New and interesting plot seeds. Hints at what came before Episode I.

Stuff like ‘why are the Jedi and Sith order so split?’ How did The Republic come to be? What was their before The Republic? How did the Jedi come to claim their position as ultimate arbiters of Justice?

Just a tease. A glimpse. Something to suggest that that history can be codified, if one was to filter out fact from legend.

We’ve seen the merest sliver of a hint in the trailers - Luke’s books. The ones in that tree. We’re also lead to believe that Ach’To was the first Jedi temple.

So clearly, there’s breadcrumbs to be followed after the fall of The Empire.

If Disney are to pump out films for at east the next 10 years, they need to be sowing the seeds now. They pulled off Rogue One nicely, and I’ve got hope for Solo. But they can’t stay in that time period forever.

Sow them seeds Disney. Make the narrative bloom.

 Ahtman wrote:
Apparently Disney is imposing some ridiculous demands on theater owners if they want to show The Last Jedi.

It's called a monopoly

Voss wrote:
TFA was just boring, uninteresting characters with no backstory doing laps in a kiddie pool. (Huzzah, a...janitor in a stormtrooper suit finds he's not a very good mass murderer!)

You are welcome to like and dislike whatever you want, but when you twist facts in order to score points it's a pretty good sign you should stop. Finn wasn't a janitor. He was a stormtrooper who commanded the sanitation section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Sebster above makes the most important point of all. TFA had engaging characters, R1 did not. And even if we could hem and haw on everything else, this gap trumps. Maybe the twist is, characterization in TFA really leans on the charismatic performances of the actors. But however a film gets there, it has to do it - and R1 didn't, for a variety of reasons.

And that's a really good point that a lot of the appeal of the central characters in TFA awakens comes from the performances rather than the script.

I do think Edwards and Kennedy had a little tug of war; or rather, towards release, Kennedy came to the conclusion that her people should have been exerting more control throughout. I am not in the camp, however, that imagines some pre-reshoot masterpiece ruined by Disney.

Yeah, cool. I didn't mean to suggest there was no control issues or that they didn't have some impact. I think there were basic issues in the bones of the movie.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sebster's is one opinion.

The only one that counts

I found the R1 characters more appealing and human.

Thing is, people will talk about Finn and Rey, and even Poe. The R1 characters are referred to as 'the R1 characters'.

People say they like the R1 characters more, and that's perfectly fine as an opinion, but let's be honest about what people are saying when they claim that - they mean 'I didn't like TFA characters'. Which again is also fine, but what they most definitely do not mean is 'I liked the R1 characters and think about them and remember their names' because that is not a thing.

 sebster wrote:
[
Thing is, people will talk about Finn and Rey, and even Poe. The R1 characters are referred to as 'the R1 characters'.

People say they like the R1 characters more, and that's perfectly fine as an opinion, but let's be honest about what people are saying when they claim that - they mean 'I didn't like TFA characters'. Which again is also fine, but what they most definitely do not mean is 'I liked the R1 characters and think about them and remember their names' because that is not a thing.

TBH, I found the TFA characters just as one-dimensional and forgettable as the R1 ones. If you hadn't mentioned their names right here I wouldn't have been able to name them, whereas storywise I preferred R1 to TFA, as it wasn't just a rehash of ANH with lesser versions of the original characters.

Well, R1 was a one-n-done movie, while TFA is clearly part of a bigger narrative.
Therefore
A) you do not get enough time to develop so many characters in R1 because its story needs to come to a complete close and
B) TFA has nothing to do but develop characters and setup open-ended arcs.

Disagree. TFA may be part of a larger saga but, like R1 (or any movie) it had to present the audience with a complete plot, which it did. Furthermore, assuming your point is valid for the sake of argument, if a movie like R1 doesn't have time to develop its characters properly then clearly it should not load up on so many characters. So it comes out to, R1 did have time for characterization and failed at it or R1 didn't have time for characterization but nonetheless insisted on a big cast and therefore failed.

I liked the sassy droid in R1. If given the chance, I'd sit next to him at family reunions and get the low-down on my aunts and uncles.

bonus: he can single-handedly defeat a regiment of storm troopers

 Manchu wrote:
Disagree. TFA may be part of a larger saga but, like R1 (or any movie) it had to present the audience with a complete plot, which it did. Furthermore, assuming your point is valid for the sake of argument, if a movie like R1 doesn't have time to develop its characters properly then clearly it should not load up on so many characters. So it comes out to, R1 did have time for characterization and failed at it or R1 didn't have time for characterization but nonetheless insisted on a big cast and therefore failed.

I think we are misunderstanding each other. I was arguing that R1 put less focus on the characters due to the story (i.e it didn't NEED complex characters*...at all), while TFA put more focus on the characters because it can spend 3 movies developing its story and the arcs of its characters.
At no point am I suggesting either movie "failed". IMO, both movies succeeded in their respective aim and I enjoy both of them for it.

*R1 didn't need complex characters because its story is meant to show how a diverse group can come together to defeat a larger evil, even if that defeat has a high cost.

At the end of the day, though, this all comes down to whether you are trying to find flaws with the movie. Some are, and thus they WILL find them. Others, like myself, aren't looking for the flaws and are willing to suspend disbelief when the flaws become known.
Sometimes those flaws actually make it more believable since life itself sometimes doesn't make sense either.

-

See above, where I argued that R1 didn't need a half-hearted daddy/daughter subplot. And yet they included one all the same!

You don't have to hunt for the flaws of R1. They are right up front in the audiences' faces. I think you are talking about suspension of critical thought, not suspension of disbelief.

 Manchu wrote:
See above, where I argued that R1 didn't need a half-hearted daddy/daughter subplot. And yet they included one all the same!

You don't have to hunt for the flaws of R1. They are right up front in the audiences' faces. I think you are talking about suspension of critical thought, not suspension of disbelief.

Maybe its just me, but I am starting to get a sense you're not a fan of R1.

Inversely while I'm not a super fan of Rey for Mary Sueism, the only one I didn't like was-well all the lame bad guys.

Except of course for this guy:

 Frazzled wrote:

Except of course for this guy:

Spoiler:

Which is really funny, considering one of the biggest complaints of TFA is that this scene SHOULD have been with Phasma instead.
A fact that Lucasfilm has clearly taken notice of since we know Fin and Phasma go head-to-head in TLJ.

@Manchu: Not every story has to be concise. R1 can have a weak subplot just to add a bit a flavor. The main thing we as the audience are supposed to take from it are that these are real people with real backgrounds, even if we don't get the whole picture.
At any rate, I don't think you and I will even agree. I like Star Wars movies and can get over the flaws therefore, I have bias. You are clearly more critical of them (R1 in particular)
All I know is that my wife isn't a Star Wars fan, but she''' watch R1 over and over. That has to say something about the movie's "success" (or my wife's taste).

Thats because R1 is a war movie, in space. Star Wars is really just a B movie serial (that was the whole point of it). It wasn't meant to be deep.

As far as anecdotes go, several non-SW fans who know me (but not one another) told me they fell asleep during R1.

 Manchu wrote:
As far as anecdotes go, several non-SW fans who know me (but not one another) told me they fell asleep during R1.

That's ok. Some people even slept through blade runner.z

I guess the noise couldn't have been as bad as you thought.

I still find it quite interesting that these movies (R1 & TFA particularly) are so incredibly polarizing.
There are people who love both, people who hate both and people who love one, but hate the other.
It's really fascinating.

-

 Galef wrote:
I still find it quite interesting that these movies (R1 & TFA particularly) are so incredibly polarizing.
There are people who love both, people who hate both and people who love one, but hate the other.
It's really fascinating.

-

I like both, but prefer R1. TFW only really gave me new Stormtroopers that I liked. As to the earlier mentioned stuppidity of the Empire in R1, for what ever reason I am more able to accept that the Empire has idiots like that than I am able to accept that a Remnants Group like the Order is able to produce, and maintain that level of equipment and use those sort of numbers. Even with the books to 'explain' that it was because a bunch of worlds and companies support the Empire more than the New Republic its still not any better.

Again, I don't think R1 is a terrible movie. Just like there are "good bad movies" - movies that you can enjoy despite their poor production values, terrible acting, cheesy plots and dialog, dimestore special effects, etc. - there are also "bad good movies." R1 is a bad good movie. In contrast to bad movies, R1 is a beautiful looking picture - the photography and production design are truly wonderful. The score is absolutely mediocre but does its job. The dialog is fine, sometimes even witty. But the plot is needlessly convoluted and the characters are barely sketched, which sucks because the story counts on the audience caring about them. Furthermore, the tone was all over the place. Spoof Troopers that fall like flies don't belong in a gritty movie about underdogs taking on the man.

Id make the argument that Spoof Troopers should never have existed in Star Wars period as it makes the Empire seem like it was never really a threat.

I completely agree.

 sebster wrote:

Voss wrote:
TFA was just boring, uninteresting characters with no backstory doing laps in a kiddie pool. (Huzzah, a...janitor in a stormtrooper suit finds he's not a very good mass murderer!)

You are welcome to like and dislike whatever you want, but when you twist facts in order to score points it's a pretty good sign you should stop. Finn wasn't a janitor. He was a stormtrooper who commanded the sanitation section.

That is simply not what is presented in the film. He very shamefully admits to Han that he's not a soldier, that he just works sanitation.
And the Order bigwigs talk about their brainwashing not holding. It seems pretty clear from what is presented in the film that he's a janitor, one of the civilians they've done mind jobs on to fill stormtrooper suits.

 Manchu wrote:
Again, I don't think R1 is a terrible movie. Just like there are "good bad movies" - movies that you can enjoy despite their poor production values, terrible acting, cheesy plots and dialog, dimestore special effects, etc. - there are also "bad good movies." R1 is a bad good movie. In contrast to bad movies, R1 is a beautiful looking picture - the photography and production design are truly wonderful. The score is absolutely mediocre but does its job. The dialog is fine, sometimes even witty. But the plot is needlessly convoluted and the characters are barely sketched, which sucks because the story counts on the audience caring about them. Furthermore, the tone was all over the place. Spoof Troopers that fall like flies don't belong in a gritty movie about underdogs taking on the man.

Except the spoof troopers killed everyone but the two heroes, despite getting air support.

How is that different then the Dirty Dozen, the Guns of Navarone, or Where Eagles Dare? The BGs actually could shoot

Spoof Troopers = Storm Troopers that can't shoot past Plot Armor, I take it?