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.
2017/12/20 18:29:02
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
kronk wrote: Lando should have been the Casino owner. Or, at least, in there gambling and/or cheating to get some fat cat's money.
Another missed opportunity!
Even though I really like the film, I kinda agree with this, although NOT the casino owner, but as that master code-breaker Finn and Rose were supposed to contact originally.
Remember that the whole point of the casino seen was to make a political statement about how all those rich people were rich because of the conflict between the FO and Resistance
"Good guy" Lando would not own such an establishment, but very easily could be there working some angle to help the Resistance by gambling and being a contact.
So yeah, a missed opportunity, just not the one you mention
kronk wrote: Lando should have been the Casino owner. Or, at least, in there gambling and/or cheating to get some fat cat's money.
Another missed opportunity!
Even though I really like the film, I kinda agree with this, although NOT the casino owner, but as that master code-breaker Finn and Rose were supposed to contact originally.
Remember that the whole point of the casino seen was to make a political statement about how all those rich people were rich because of the conflict between the FO and Resistance
"Good guy" Lando would not own such an establishment, but very easily could be there working some angle to help the Resistance by gambling and being a contact.
So yeah, a missed opportunity, just not the one you mention
-
This is exactly the kind of small-Galaxy incestuous dynasty stuff the entire movie railed against. Might as well have Rey's parents be Snoke (General Veers all along) and Aunt Beru. No one matters in this galaxy of quintillions except for a handful of people?
Compel wrote: It's almost like it's a film franchise with enjoyable and iconic characters that people want to see more of...
A dying franchise if they can't create new iconic characters and constantly revisit and water down original iconic characters. Why create new assets when you can exhaust and possibly damage existing ones?
If the scale and texture of the setting mean nothing to the content creators, why should it mean anything to the consumers? I'm not going to play in your sandbox when you keep breaking your very few shovels and pretend a sieve is a bucket.
This is especialy true when it appears like the FO purchased its arsenal from corporate interests inside the galaxy who were also selling to the Republic. Wouldn't people notice the vast armada being built above Kuat and the Core Worlds?
KDY had been building Star Destroyers, or something like them, for a long time; building some more wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
To draw an IRL comparison: Do you notice if Boeing builds a few more planes?
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2017/12/20 19:13:15
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Possible Spoilers Within!
Galef wrote: The moment Luke turned away from killing Ben is true to his very core as a character.
The problem isn't that Luke ultimately decided not to murder his nephew. The problem is that he decided to do it the first place. This is absolutely contrary to the resolution of his character arc in RotJ. To quote you, "If you can't see that, you don't know SW at all."
Now, I'm not saying it is totally impossible that Luke could come to that moment of activating his lightsaber right over his sleeping nephew with every intent to murder him. But if that's what happens then we need to see it explained because it is so antithetical to what we know about Luke. That's the heart of TLJ because he fulcrum on which the plot and themes depend is the relationship between Luke and Ben ... and, unfortunately, it's a failure. For example:
Totalwar1402 wrote: He must have been pretty evil for Luke to have considered doing that and his reaction "I am going to murder everyone in the Jedi Temple, ESPECIALLY the younglings, join an army of Nazis and destroy everything my family worked to restore!". This is an extreme over reaction.
Totalwar1402 makes a very good point here. If Ben was so evil that he would slaughter the padawans then why did Luke spare him? Or, if Luke was right to spare Ben, then why did Ben go on such a rampage?
These questions are not impossible to answer. But TLJ doesn't answer them. The strategy is to raise questions that will be answered in other media. In the video game industry, this is called Day One DLC.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/20 19:31:44
Wasn't the idea of the 3 points of view that, Luke considered it for the briefest of moments (potentially influenced by Snoke), then immediately stopped?
But by then it was too late.
2017/12/20 19:31:01
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
Generally speaking, the point of telling the same story multiple times (especially from the same character's POV) is to undermine the characters' credibility. Luke lied to Rey and then changes his story when Rey violently confronts him. Is there a reason we should believe Luke's second story,* considering it was extracted under duress from a known liar?
Setting that aside, let's consider his second story. He had been worried about Ben for a while before that fateful night. Luke and Ben had fallen out to the point that Ben had moved out of the temple. Luke chose to confront Ben at a time when Ben was asleep. At this point, Luke draws and activates his lightsaber. This adds up to a carefully considered premeditated murder attempt rather than a fleeting temptation.
* It's also worth considering that even though Rey concludes that Ben failed Luke, rather than vice versa, when Luke and Kylo have their showdown in Act III, Luke says he failed Ben.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/20 19:37:08
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.
The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62. Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/20 19:48:48
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
2017/12/20 19:45:32
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Possible Spoilers Within!
Sorry, no. If Boeing were building more bombers and advanced fighters and not selling them to the US Government, there would be a LOT of questions.
Did you know that Boeing is selling F/A-18s to Australia? There may have been a lot of questions involved in the approval of the sale, but I'll bet you didn't hear about them; or the construction of the fighters.
The B-52 comparison doesn't work, because they stopped getting built in '62. Once KDY started building Star Destroyer analogs it never stopped.
And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order. And if KDY is building Star Destroyers after a major disarmament treaty, why isn't that raising eyebrows?
Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?
A: A Maniraptor
2017/12/20 19:59:28
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Possible Spoilers Within!
And this is all known and above the board- unlike what is alleged for the First Order. And if KDY is building Star Destroyers after a major disarmament treaty, why isn't that raising eyebrows?
They don't really cover if they were or weren't raising eyebrows, did they?
Besides, in the great big SW universe, by the time you found out they made 10x Dreadnought class ships for the First Order, it's too late to do anything to KDY, right? I guess you can stop payment for services rendered to that point...
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2017/12/20 20:07:14
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
I would have liked Lando being the code breaker they were after. Since they don't ever actually get to talk to him it would even do a decent job of continuing the movie's themes of yanking the story away from the original cast.
2017/12/20 20:10:35
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
LunarSol wrote: I would have liked Lando being the code breaker they were after. Since they don't ever actually get to talk to him it would even do a decent job of continuing the movie's themes of yanking the story away from the original cast.
Ah, like Lando would take the place of the play-boy, Bond-type super-spy, but instead that had to team up with Slicer DJ.
I like it!
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2017/12/20 20:18:34
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
"No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche. The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.
The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services. These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable.
But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the film goer will go out an affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YT videos, podcasts, and blogs.
In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.
I think this, on an admittedly much smaller scale, is what George Lucas realized in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. I think Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies. It was what we now call an IP.
Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise. What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.
The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/20 20:20:40
Manchu - why would you make something bad when you could make it good? There is certainly more money to be made when fans love your movie rather than when they hate it...This is just an assumption...it is possible that making the movie terrible and the social media riot that ensues might make them more money in the long run. I just don't know.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
2017/12/20 20:43:07
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie. We're all just assuming that Disney can do this but its track record so far is mixed at best. We need to really consider the possibility that making a good Star Wars movie is actually very tough and maybe ANH and ESB were fortunate flukes whereas all other SW movies are the norm. It could be the case that making a good SW movie is beyond Disney's capability and/or intention.
Second, and more importantly, the main point is that these movies don't need to be good. And if it is really tough to make a good movie then why bother trying when you don't actually need to?
Third, one thing that makes a movie feel satisfying is having a beginning and a middle and an end - conflicts are set up clearly and just as clearly resolved. But the point of these movies is not to leave you satisfied. Disney wants to leave you hungry for more. So the films are intentionally incomplete. Raising issues without resolving them doesn't mean a movie has to be bad but it does condone and encourage sloppy storytelling, which tends to make for bad movies.
Fourth, even bad press is good press. We have learned this from Ghostbusters 2016 and Donald Trump. There is so much noise in the market. No one is even looking for signal anymore. All that matters is that your noise is the loudest noise. If people don't like your movie, blame it on misogyny, racism, internet trolls.
Fifth, filmmaking is not about long term profits. Successful films don't need to be memorable. Managing an IP isn't even about long term profits. I don't think anyone at Disney knows how to make a movie that people will still care about in five years much less thirty five years.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/12/20 20:48:07
Manchu wrote: First, let's acknowledge that we're assuming that Disney can actually make a good Star Wars movie. We're all just assuming that Disney can do this but its track record so far is mixed at best. We need to really consider the possibility that making a good Star Wars movie is actually very tough and maybe ANH and ESB were fortunate flukes whereas all other SW movies are the norm. It could be the case that making a good SW movie is beyond Disney's capability and/or intention.
That is an extremely good point and an interesting thought, Manchu.
DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
2017/12/20 20:59:40
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
That's a lot of text built on the assumption that the movie IS in fact bad...
FWIW though, the idea that the film itself doesn't need to be profitable was built into the the very first Star Wars movie. Lucas at this point somewhat historically passed on a good percentage of his cut of the film profits to retain the rights to make toys and stuff and no filmmaker has been offered that deal since.
I also don't think the prequel movies did as much for the value of the IP as the promise of the prequel movies did. If that was the goal, Disney wisely bid their time and waited for the prequel's abysmal reception to drain the IP of a lot of its value before scooping it up.
Just before Episode I was probably the peak value of the IP. The novels were great, the comics were great, the videogames were phenomenal, and even redone toys were a big commodity. That dried up pretty quickly after Episode I to the point where the well was running pretty dry by the mid to late 2000's.
2017/12/20 21:01:55
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
Manchu wrote: "No one said 'no' to George" is the most widely accepted explanation of why the Prequels were garbage. I have another, not mutually exclusive theory but let me start by saying, The Last Jedi is not bad because Rian Johnson had carte blanche. The Prequel Trilogy was funded by Lucasfilm, a company owned and run by George Lucas. Rian Johnson, by contrast, was answerable to a committee of Disney employees headed by an executive specially responsible for managing the Star Wars IP, a.k.a., Kathleen Kennedy (formerly of Lucasfilm Ltd.). Now, I can believe there was a strategy to have The Last Jedi ride on Rian Johnson's reputation, hence him getting the writer credit. That way, if The Last Jedi failed he could be blamed while Disney and Kathleen Kennedy enjoyed "plausible deniability." But there's no way in hell the House of Mouse gave real power to Johnson.
The Last Jedi isn't bad because no one said 'no' to Johnson. It's bad because it doesn't need to be good. The Original Trilogy was made for a market where the film itself was the main product. In those days, even a sequel to Star Wars needed to be able to stand on its own because profit was a function of how well the sequel actually performed. This is no longer the case. Filmmaking today is more risky, because it's more expensive, than ever before. The upshot, however, is that companies can use films to seed other marketing channels - not just action figures and lunch boxes but also TV networks and streaming services. These channels are less expensive and risky than filmmaking and, potentially, much more profitable.
But wouldn't a good movie make these subsidiary marketing channels more potentially profitable? One would think so! But in reality, the profitability of said channels depend on their content. The other thing about our market is, it's content-saturated. Audiences (customers) need a clear reason to dial into Streaming Service X instead of, or at least in addition to, Streaming Service Y. That's why it's important for these films to be intentionally incomplete. The strategy is to raise issues in the film that are not addressed in the film in order that the film goer will go out an affirmatively engage with the IP more broadly: not just in terms of traditional products like novels and comic books but also more widely, such as YT videos, podcasts, and blogs.
In this way, the customers are encouraged to voluntarily become increasingly invested in the IP. You won't only go see the next Star Wars movie, or Marvel movie, you'll also become enmeshed in a whole way of life ("geek culture") that makes you more likely to spend on licensed products, that makes you more susceptible to certain kinds of advertising (selling non-SW products by referencing SW), that makes you more likely to engage in the corporation's other IPs.
I think this, on an admittedly much smaller scale, is what George Lucas realized in the mid 1990s when he decided to make the Prequels Trilogy. Some of you may remember Shadows of the Empire. This was a neat experiment where Lucasfilm generated all the licensed products (novel, video game, action figures, comic books, even a soundtrack) that traditionally go along with a Star Wars movie - except there was no movie. I think Lucas concluded from this experiment that not only was there extensive market appetite for more Star Wars but also that it didn't depend on a film. In effect, Star Wars was no longer a series of movies. It was what we now call an IP.
Armed with that knowledge, Lucas proceeded to make the hugely profitable but critically panned Prequel Trilogy. Far from being a failure, the Prequels demonstrated the point of the Shadows of the Empire experiment on a much larger scale. In the 1980s or 1990s, making a widely loathed movie like the Phantom Menace (much less two further, also hated sequels to the Phantom Menace) would have sunk any franchise. What happened instead was Star Wars increased in value such that Disney bought it for $4 billion.
The unspoken promise was that Disney would make good Star Wars movies. But why would we have ever fallen for that? Lucas not only sold Disney the Star Wars IP; he sold it to them by demonstrating how it could make them tremendous amounts of money regardless of quality.
Judging from anecdotal evidence, there is a limit to the effectiveness of this strategy. I suspect there will be a backlash to the disappointment and the volume of Star Wars; I expect the third movie to have a smaller opening weekend and equal multiplier unless it is actually good (not likely). Star Wars films will be less and less event films until they hit equilibrium, perhaps around Marvel levels of success, with crappier films pulling in Thor 1 and 2 numbers. Meanwhile, the conscious disregard for the "rules" of Star Wars will have an effect on the lifestyle-ability of the franchise. We're at Season 12 Simpsons level of indifference to the source material in Star Wars now. Why should consumers buy the latest Star Wars Star Charts when they know it will all be garbage next film? Incredible Cross Sections? LOL, not so incredible any more. Novels? They'll be contradicted the next time a writer or director decides he doesn't care about the integrity of the whole as much as he cares about finishing this script right now.
Personally, I stopped buying Star Wars product regularly when the prequels killed my enthusiasm. TFA cemented Star Wars as a done setting where anything goes if it gets us a shiny trailer. These movies have drastically reduced my spending on the IP. I know others who feel the same way. There are only so many crappy movies an IP can survive.
LunarSol wrote: That's a lot of text built on the assumption that the movie IS in fact bad...
The points remain valid even for those who only think TLJ was "not good."
IMO this conversation, and other conversations like it I am reading elsewhere, are very familiar - they remind me of how conflicted and defensive people were when the prequels came out.
LunarSol wrote: FWIW though, the idea that the film itself doesn't need to be profitable was built into the the very first Star Wars movie.
This reveals that you missed my point. I didn't say the films didn't need to be profitable. I said they no longer are the main product (so don't need to be good movies). Also, ANH needed to be profitable. That's exactly why Lucas was willing to trade out his earnings to make it possible to fund.
LunarSol wrote: Just before Episode I was probably the peak value of the IP.
That's definitely not true. The prequels dramatically increased the value of the IP.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/20 21:10:45
And I'm not just saying that because he's a Mod and he made me say this.
I do have a minor disagreement though. Nolan has shown us that it's possible to make good films and a gak load of cash at the same time. Dunkirk was awesome and that made $500 million from a $100 million production budget. Yeah, not in the same league as Star Wars, but a healthy profit none the less.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
If Nolan can do it, why can't Star Wars?
I've said before that because the Star Wars brand is so strong, Disney can afford to take a risk and roll the dice.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
2017/12/20 21:05:47
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.
There were a few great ones and a lot of "I find these locations and characters comforting" novels. Keep in mind the second trilogy was the one where KJA introduced Kip Durron and the Starcrusher, so we knew right away what we were in for.
Were they though? Or is that nostalgia? Some of them certainly were, but I dont think the lot of them were.
Enough of them were solid that the whole thing was largely worthwhile at least. There were definite duds, but Rogue Squadron and Teras Kasi were released a year apart so there's probably never been a moment of perfection in the brand.
2017/12/20 21:08:41
Subject: The Last Jedi - Movie Discussion - WARNING - Guaranteed Spoilers Within
