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.

Space Opera isn't necessarily "light". It means an SF with a grand scale.

Classic examples include EE Doc Smith's "Lensman" series, Iain M Banks "Culture" series, and of course Star Wars.

 sebster wrote:


I am not calling you a liar.

LOL, you're a riot, I'll say I'm not calling you a liar, then go and call 1/2 of you liars.

somewhere between a third to half. Noting those numbers I've given are somewhere between a guess and completely made up.

I'm not trying to poop on your parade here, but you need to understand how your coming across. and understand some people get defensive and hostile when called liars.

person A "I don't like pizza"
You: "your just making that up"

sounds pretty rude right? it's like you just called them a liar.

Here's a helpful suggestion for you: Just state why you like the movies and quit being patronizing by looking for reasons of those who don't like the movie by claiming they're wrong.


I was done with the movie by the casino scene, I had stopped enjoying the movie and was ready to leave. My daughter who sat through TFA (age 4) and R1 (age 5)didn't for this movie (age 6), she checked out just before they went to hoth 2.0. only my boy seemed to enjoy it. so from my family that's 1 out of 3 stars. ergo the movie was bad and failed to entertain 66% of us. But my boy might not of enjoyed it that much, because yesterday he was telling me how dumb the jedi were for not seeing order 66 coming, and wanted to see ep3 so he could see them pay for it (age 9)

does my 6 yo need a reason? or is it just Determinism and her response is predetermined?

For those without kids, having them sit through a movie is a sign they liked it, when they're bored they'll start talking, squirming, and requesting numerous bathroom breaks or snacks so they can get out of there.

Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.

Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.

Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.

Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.

Search your feelings. You know what is true.

 sebster wrote:

Sure, and the complaint I've agreed with several times, and made myself, is that important setting detail isn't included in the films themselves. However, this is very different to the argument you made, that the events in the films could not have happened. That complaint is false, the background is actually pretty solid. It just should have been in the movies.

I don't care. Not in the movie; not in the discussion. Is that simple.

You can acknowledge something as an incredible piece of engineering, while recognising that it would be possible for an organisation smaller than the whole galaxy to create it. The US Nimitz class carriers are stunning to see, and only one country has ships even close to that size. But if they wanted to commit the resources there's quite a few other countries that could build ships that size, or bigger.

But they don't want to commit. You just self defeated your point. The FO has to build super-dreadnought, destroyers and whantot. It just does not hold water. Is too much stuff to build for a lesser organisation.

Doing things on a greater scale is a regular part of process improvement.

This is not an answer or an argument and I don't understand why is here.

Sorry, are you saying Starkiller can only shoot once? Didn't you notice how the weapon fired, and was in the process of recharging to shoot again? What are you talking about here?

No FTL travel implied. Consumes suns. What do you think?

If we can't use historical comparisons to decide on the plausibility of rapid expansion... what are we using? What basis are you using to say an empire can't expand rapidly in a 30 year period? Nothing other than you saying "I don't like that".

You cannot us the conquering with horses, footsoldiers and iron of a part of europe space battles. And even in this case, the position the Republic was in is not equivalent.
Just stop. It makes no sense and derails the discussion.

Yeah, how crazy it is to have a movie where the good guys make a big mistake and this leaves them vulnerable to a usurping evil force. What horrible, terrible, core plot of thousands of movies.

Well written movies have the villain out-wit the good guys, not people get the idiot ball for plot convenience. Is contrived, and put you out of the movie.

Don't use words you don't understand.

A leitmotif is something that recurs (originally, in a musical sense). Is usually used for thematic reasons, here I used it as if something bigger. Is a recurring occurrence that these people write crap. It was not intended to be used to describe the themes of the movie (because if it has themes, it contradicts them one scene later).
Also, I am afraid you are not in the position to play it like you are the smartest dude in the room my friend, regardless how much delusional you are about it.
You failed to grasp basic elements in the OT (Like when Luke became a Jedi) and then doubled down. I start to wonder why I have to discuss movies with you in the first place.

You need to read the thread.

Ironic

I have said, repeatedly, that the reason I am in this thread is to figure out those motives. But I have given an answer, which I'll repeat for you now, noting I don't think this answer is entirely satisfactory

Nice dodge here my dude. I ask again - what are these hidden reasons?

Also, stop poisoning the well. You are implying a lot of things and then retreat when people get too much aware. Your are incredibly dishonest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.

Nope. Posters have been implied being X and Y and to have "hidden reasons" that they "cannot understand" to dislike the movie.
All written with a badly dissimulated contempt. So is not "in our head".

 Easy E wrote:
Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.

Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.

Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.

Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.

Search your feelings. You know what is true.

I think you are absolutely correct.

My family and I came to the film expecting an exciting Star Wars spectacular, without much preconceptions about what this might mean in terms of character and plot development. We got what we expected and enjoyed it.

Clearly a lot of people had a stronger vision for what they wanted to be in the film, and it wasn't delivered, and they were disappointed.

Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star.

1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.

2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.

3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.

4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.

As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.

So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".

An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.

That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.

So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".

I would definitely be an outlier in your theory. I enjoyed the movie, but I also had like a dozen theories in my head going in based on tons of outside movie stuff, like Clone Wars and Rebels stuff.
None of my theories panned out....yet.
I still quite enjoyed the movie, particularly more the second time.

-

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star.

1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.

2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.

3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.

4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.

Ehh - Pluto which is technically not a planet - it's smaller than earth moon but we will use that as a guide at 1477 miles in diametre. I do not support the idiotic attempts by people to figure the size of starkiller by doing pixel comparisons that show no figure of scale and also - a 650 diameter planet is just silly - That's nearly 3 times smaller than earths moon.
If star killer is the size of pluto it has a trench around it probably 100-200 miles wide and hundreds of miles deep around the entire planet...That kind of work alone I feel would be nearly double the work to complete a death-star and that doesn't include the materials they would need to collect and mine to create the weapon itself.

The death-star was roughly 120 miles in diameter - it's not even close on the construction scale. It might be easier to maintain but you first have to build it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.

That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.

This vaguely reminds me of something from the old EU. Remember the Star Wars book about the zombie outbreak? There were a lot of people who were onboard with zombies in the Star Wars setting.


I've always felt that a good setting was bigger than the stories set in it. Star Wars had a great fairy tale story, but it was only possible because of the setting. No matter how much I loved Vader, Han and Leia, they were still just people, and their stories were told already; it was the setting that gave rise to them that captured my imagination.

Some people in this thread have stated that they don't feel the setting is important. That's fine. Viva la difference. But at the same time, would they have had a lesser experience if the new film had made the effort to stay consistent with the setting? It's not like the Star Wars universe is just one tossed out background out of hundreds--it's literally the most valuable sci fi setting ever created.

 Xenomancers wrote:
An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.

That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.

They made 700m less than the first movie.

EDIT: also, nevermind. It turns out we watched the movie wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-last-jedi-backlash-provides-a-useful-primer-in-how-not-to-watch-a-movie/2018/01/04/6fa9a72c-f142-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.f25e3a4221c1

At least the comments are refreshing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Starkiller base may have actually been less resource intensive to build than the Death Star.
1) It made use of an already existing planetary body, rather than building a moon-sized space station.

The difference in order of magnitude is enormous. Remove stuff (and is not only removal, thr cannon and thr "belt" are built) is not easy or free of cost, time, resources.

2) It made use of an external power supply, stars, rather than needing to house generators sufficient in power to provide it's weapon with the energy it required.

This does not make the building per se easier. Also, I ask again... Is the Stakiller implied to FTL travel? If not, its construction is not even the biggest problem.

3) The planet was extremely rich in kyber crystals, allowing the planet itself to provide the resources required to build it.

Not in the movie. Discarded.

4) The natural magnetic field of the planet was used to help contain the energy stored from the stars prior to firing. This means less resources spent on creating artificial containment fields.

What is this? Wookepedia?

Rewatched TFA yesterday.

Maz really did a 180° from movie to movie.

"The only fight that matters is the fight againsg the dark side, the first order."


"Lol yeah I could save the resistance fleet, but I won't cause I'm busy. Get the other guy to do it. He's sexy."

 Easy E wrote:
Guys, this is a Star Wars movie, not the US politics thread. Let's tone it down a notch. No one is calling anyone, anything except in your own head. Stop.

Sebs, like all analysts is trying to get to the "root" of the issue. Many times, people tell you symptoms and not the root. As he says, this is basic human brain interaction. Your frontal brain is focused on the "What", while your deep brain (limbic maybe?) is focused on the why. The deep brain does nto control language and therefore makes it hard to express deep felt feeling in language. This is nuero-science, and not up for debate. Getting all bent out of shape because Sebs is trying to understand the "Why" that your brain has a hard time expressing is not going to help anyone.

Now, after great thought, I can see why some would like this movie. The same way I see how many would love other movies. However, the need to subvert expectation and the (un)intended context that created in the subtext of the film made me react negatively to it. The subtext I took away from it goes against my own personal ethos and what I thought I had understood about the ethos of Star Wars. That was my reaction deep brain reasoning. When it came to the "what" I really struggle to explain what exactly made me feel this way.

Now, intellectually I understand why they made the choices they did and what they were trying to accomplish. However, my heart (Deep brain) rejects those choices based on my feelings.

Search your feelings. You know what is true.

Nice post.

If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way. People in Hollywood don't keep bashing superhero movies and these megafranchises because of the genres -- it's because they see studios increasingly unwilling to take chances on fresh ideas and instead focusing more on serving the equivalent of safe restaurant chain food to audiences increasingly trained to expect it. It's a bad self-reinforcing loop.

Fortunately, television has become somewhat of a refuge for creative types, and as I said previously, it was my Twin Peaks experience in 2017 that got me to take a very hard look at myself and how I experience entertainment.

The troubling part to me is that this behavior isn't exclusive to entertainment, as you perhaps unintentionally suggested in your political reference. When I see people discuss directors and say "he/she hates these characters/this franchise/etc.," (and this is definitely a thing I see on forums and social media) it seems awfully similar to someone on one side of the political aisle saying that someone the other side "hates America/this group/etc." simply because of a different viewpoint. That's a poisonous mind set -- "if you disagree with me, you hate me and/or the things I value, and are actively trying to harm my pursuit of happiness." And people weren't always like this...not to this degree at least.

Can anyone honestly say that this thread DOESN'T have some resemblence to the extinct U.S. politics thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:
I'm not trying to poop on your parade here, but you need to understand how your coming across. and understand some people get defensive and hostile when called liars.

person A "I don't like pizza"
You: "your just making that up"

sounds pretty rude right? it's like you just called them a liar.

That's not what sebster is saying. And to be fair, some of the posts in this thread start more like this:

Person A: "Pizza is objectively terrible."

The opening of a conversation has a lot to do with how the rest follows.

 gorgon wrote:


If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way.

I agree on many of the following points but I am a bit perplexed by this. I think that attribute the dislike to the audience expectations is very reductive and playing at the same tune of that sellout journalist I linked.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
An example of a space spectacular is something like geostorm or independence day. Both of these films sucked something royal but they had the futuristic action.

That's the kind of movie you make for a space spectacular. You don't invest 4 billion dollars in an entrenched and beloved lore to make space spectaculars. Disney found it would be profitable though - so they did it. They make their money ether way.

This vaguely reminds me of something from the old EU. Remember the Star Wars book about the zombie outbreak? There were a lot of people who were onboard with zombies in the Star Wars setting.


I've always felt that a good setting was bigger than the stories set in it. Star Wars had a great fairy tale story, but it was only possible because of the setting. No matter how much I loved Vader, Han and Leia, they were still just people, and their stories were told already; it was the setting that gave rise to them that captured my imagination.

Some people in this thread have stated that they don't feel the setting is important. That's fine. Viva la difference. But at the same time, would they have had a lesser experience if the new film had made the effort to stay consistent with the setting? It's not like the Star Wars universe is just one tossed out background out of hundreds--it's literally the most valuable sci fi setting ever created.

Absolutely the most valuable setting ever. Much like 40k is the most value setting in wargamming. It's not the best game by a mile - even the players will tell you that. It's all about the lore and the factions. Disney is too stupid to understand that. Do you think anyone would give a dang about 40k if they say...removed space marines from the lore and all that was left to oppose the xenos/choas was a small group of sisters of battle? Aint no one got time for that!

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
As time goes on, I'm noting a bit of a pattern in opinions among people I talk to. It seems that how well you like the movie is inversely proportional to the number of Star Wars characters you know by name. It's universally panned by my X-wing group, but generally was enjoyed by any randoms I talk to.

So I think that Easy E's assessment of its subtext running counter to the perceived ethos of Star Wars may be a good point, as my experience is that people who just wanted a Space Fantasy spectacular had fun, but people with investment in the setting range from "Disapointed" to "Livid".

I agree. The people who dislike it the most are clearly people who have read lots of the novels, watched the cartoon series, and know lots of character names that don't appear in the core films.

 gorgon wrote:

If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way. People in Hollywood don't keep bashing superhero movies and these megafranchises because of the genres -- it's because they see studios increasingly unwilling to take chances on fresh ideas and instead focusing more on serving the equivalent of safe restaurant chain food to audiences increasingly trained to expect it. It's a bad self-reinforcing loop.

I don't think that's quite right, but it might depend on what superhero films and franchises you're thinking of. Broadly speaking, the only films that I can really think of that sort of cover that are the 3 new Star Wars films (yes, including TLJ) and, well, Superman Returns. I might be misunderstanding your frame of reference though.

Like, the Transformers franchise doesn't really work as that example, because the whole thing is, in practical effect, there is no fan service, or at least, as the franchise continues on. If anything, it's the opposite, with many of the 'G1' fans abandoning the series relatively early on in its franchise when they saw the lack of 'memberberries.' - It became its own monster (beloved in China), very very quickly.

Conversely, the Turtles series, again started with the 'meh old fans' then in the sequel tried to bring them back, but by then, the fans from the 90's had essentially written it off. - I've still not seen the sequel, even though I'm relatively sure I'd enjoy it.


The Last Jedi, no I think it's something else that's a problem and yeah, I don't agree with the concept of "everyone who dislikes The Last Jedi you're a mysoginist," though I completely believe they do exist and have been their typical terrible selves threatening people.
- But then, well, I would say that I wasn't a mysoginist, wouldn't I?

I think there's definitely a thing of people being ok with The Force Awakens, really liking Rogue One, but strongly disliking The Last Jedi, so such pithy 'conclusions' just don't ring right to me.

It isn't that people have got more whiny.

It's simply that everyone expresses complaints more easily than praise. Modern social media/forums/IMDB etc give everyone easy access to do their complaining in an echo chamber which amplifies it.

The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

Does that mean everyone likes it? Of course not. The x% of people who didn't like it just are making a lot more noise than the y% of people who did. That's just the way of the world.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

The Last Jedi has record-worthy weekly drops. Probably because of the word of mouth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/24/with-69-2nd-weekend-decline-last-jedi-drops-further-into-the-star-wars-cellar/#1b65ef9c66bc

Is expected to get 600-700m less than the previous main trilogy movie.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

Eh. Much more that it wouldn't have been a best-selling film if it had come in blockbuster season rather than the nadir of the year and if it hadn't had the Star Wars tag on it.

You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.

Disney coerced the theatres into deals more convenient for the Mouse.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-lays-down-the-law-for-theaters-on-star-wars-the-last-jedi-1509528603

Yeah of course they will make money, especially playing this dirty, but investors will notice the drop from the previous movie.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.

Right, but that isn't a quality thing. Disney simply demanded that movie theaters give them a larger percentage of ticket sales or they wouldn't get the film. At all.
Because Disney + Star Wars can simply make that kind of demand, regardless of the film, and long before even preview screenings.

It will be interesting to see what the deals, ticket sales and overall reaction on Solo will be, because that's coming out square in the middle of a lot of competition and has a lot of bad press associated with the production of the film and the director changes.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 gorgon wrote:


If we're doing 'deeper dives', I'll add that a big reason why I enjoyed the film is because some of the themes deal with things that have been on my mind a lot. I am convinced that audiences have become overly impatient and egocentric, gorged on 'memberberries and fan service, with a tendency to get ugly when they don't get their way.

I agree on many of the following points but I am a bit perplexed by this. I think that attribute the dislike to the audience expectations is very reductive and playing at the same tune of that sellout journalist I linked.

What exactly was Hornaday selling out to? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that she was selling out by simply explaining what film critics do, and a pretty standard approach to film criticism (it was Ebert's, Kael's, and Sarris's as well) or are you just making this claim because she liked it? Is your thought that she was somehow paid by Disney to write it? If so, and if you have evidence, the WP would like to know as it is expressly against their rules of employment. As it is with most major newspapers.

A couple things to keep in mind with critics: 1) they have likely seen more films than you ever will in your lifetime and they watch a lot of movies that they would not choose to because their editors assign them their "stories" (unlike us who watch movies we want to watch). 2) many of the critics who work for major publications have studied film as an academic discipline for years with degrees in the field. It doesn't make their opinion of any given film more or less valuable than yours, but it does change how one approaches a movie. 3) film reviewers' pieces are quite distinct from academic analyses. I teach film, and I routinely get asked to peer review academic pieces for journal articles. Let me just say, If you think the praise for this film has been glowing from the film critics, wait 3-6 months until the journal essays start trickling out. It's actually a bit weird because most of the time the films being discussed there are either foreign, old, or small indies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

Eh. Much more that it wouldn't have been a best-selling film if it had come in blockbuster season rather than the nadir of the year and if it hadn't had the Star Wars tag on it.

Quality has nothing to do with popularity. If it did, McDonalds and Subway would be the best haute cuisine diners and Transformers would be routinely nominated for best picture. And Justin Bieber would be the pinnacle of musical art.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:


The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

The Last Jedi has record-worthy weekly drops. Probably because of the word of mouth.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/24/with-69-2nd-weekend-decline-last-jedi-drops-further-into-the-star-wars-cellar/#1b65ef9c66bc

Is expected to get 600-700m less than the previous main trilogy movie.

Yeah, I think that the early success was from hype over Lukes return, it being a main series Star Wars film, and hope of it delivering on the tantalizing hints dropped by TFA. It will be interesting to see how the next two films (Solo and Episode IX) do, after this film "Subverted" those points.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It isn't that people have got more whiny.

It's simply that everyone expresses complaints more easily than praise. Modern social media/forums/IMDB etc give everyone easy access to do their complaining in an echo chamber which amplifies it.

The Last Jedi wouldn't have become the best-selling film of 2017 in 2 weeks if it wasn't a great film that loads of people really like.

Does that mean everyone likes it? Of course not. The x% of people who didn't like it just are making a lot more noise than the y% of people who did. That's just the way of the world.

Sure it would, name recognition will draw in more people than a solid story. TLJ is pretty much riding the wave of TFA, because people wanted to see what happened next. The real test of time will be the opening for IX, how many still care to see how the story ends.

So far though TLF hasn't even earned more than the phantom menance to put some perspective on it, and it's not even 1/2 way to nearing a new hopes earnings. It still needs another billion just to match TFA.

TFA is at 88% rotten tomatoes, 49% for TLJ based on people not critics.

So we can get plenty of objective data to say TLJ is not doing well.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


What exactly was Hornaday selling out to? Do you have any evidence to support your claim that she was selling out by simply explaining what film critics do, and a pretty standard approach to film criticism (it was Ebert's, Kael's, and Sarris's as well) or are you just making this claim because she liked it? Is your thought that she was somehow paid by Disney to write it? If so, and if you have evidence, the WP would like to know as it is expressly against their rules of employment. As it is with most major newspapers.

I have no evidence about Hornaday being paid by Disney but she is part of a very disturbing trend of critics and experts jumping of a bandwagon of audience-bashing. Taking into account the priorities of the audience one could justify some bashing *but* I observed such phenomenon for mediocre movies like TLJ and Ghostbusters. Movies that did not resonate with the audience like the narrative wanted them to be.
And let's be honest, the article has faulty premises. Yes, you should not demand specific happening or elements from a movie but she is creating a strawman because this does not mean the movie should not make sense.
So if she is not a sellout for Disney, she is one on a ideological level - she wants the movie to succeed for what it represents and if the audience wants a non-cynical, logic story, well is to blame. She dos not come out as objective to me, regardless the money involved.
If you don't believe my idea of "critics hamfisting narratives", look back some page ago for the other critic linked. That woman is a professional, too.

A couple things to keep in mind with critics: 1) they have likely seen more films than you ever will in your lifetime and they watch a lot of movies that they would not choose to because their editors assign them their "stories" (unlike us who watch movies we want to watch).

Nice angle on the assignment, this is something one not in the field do not take in consideration. I have the luxury of being more passionate about what I write on a professional level. See below for the rest, answered with (2)

2) many of the critics who work for major publications have studied film as an academic discipline for years with degrees in the field. It doesn't make their opinion of any given film more or less valuable than yours, but it does change how one approaches a movie.

On principle, the fact that she is a critic makes her opinion more accountable than mine about movies, in the very last. As a scientist I have to face this kind of problem with people like anti-vaxxers and similar skeptics. My opinion in the matter counts more than theirs (sorry if this hurts someone's feeling), and Hornaday opinion on film theory counts more than mine.
This of course, is valid for critics with an academic (or equivalent) background, and not to many "alternative" ones without background that become youtubers and review stuff because OMG I AM SUCH A NERD.
Nonetheless, I cannot help to notice trends and to read the motivations online about the defenders of this movie. Not much logic, much box-checking and political angles. This, discounting authentic "fix" articles taking on a specific plot hole or problem people constantly report. Or sudden appearance of pieces stating that "at least the new movies are not the prequels, amrite?"
Many critics come from humanities if I am not mistaken and, basing my experience on ex-girlfriends, sister, and so on, I find humanities nowadays a festering ground of incredibly biased worldwiews.
Also, I don't want to sound dismissing but I have to bring on the table experiments and evidence to make a statement. This of course dismissing scientific frauds and other plagues affecting modern science, but better to avoid a 7265472547625393729797 words rant from my part in that regard.
What has a film critic to bring as a support of his statements?
(for this reason, I have to stop calling the critic a sellout. Better a bandwagoner? I will go for bandwagoner.)

3) film reviewers' pieces are quite distinct from academic analyses. I teach film, and I routinely get asked to peer review academic pieces for journal articles. Let me just say, If you think the praise for this film has been glowing from the film critics, wait 3-6 months until the journal essays start trickling out. It's actually a bit weird because most of the time the films being discussed there are either foreign, old, or small indies.

I have to ask to elaborate on this. Not to be confrontational but to be sure what you are meaning.

Voss wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You also have to realize that they made more profit per ticket with TLJ compared to TFA. I read something about a 2-3% required increase in Disney profit per ticket sold.

Right, but that isn't a quality thing. Disney simply demanded that movie theaters give them a larger percentage of ticket sales or they wouldn't get the film. At all.
Because Disney + Star Wars can simply make that kind of demand, regardless of the film, and long before even preview screenings.

It will be interesting to see what the deals, ticket sales and overall reaction on Solo will be, because that's coming out square in the middle of a lot of competition and has a lot of bad press associated with the production of the film and the director changes.

Hard to really say...They are going to ramp up the advertising. People will feel the spark of nostalgia and want to believe it will be a good film - It will make a billion in a week - almost automatically. Will it come close to R1? I think less.

Episode 9 will likely not do as well as ether main act film ether.

@kianwang: our discussion has gotten a bit big, so I'll try to post it like this. If anything doesn't make sense, please PM me.

1) film critics routinely differ from audiences. You mention Ghostbusters. I would point you to The American, No Country for Old Men, and There Will Be Blood. Most of the time the critical reception for movies is actually lower than the audience reception. They have different eyes and hearts and opinions. Que sera. Don't accuse somebody of selling out or taking money for something if you have no evidence of it. It makes you, not your target look bad.

2) the critics' opinions on whether or not you will like a given film is what I was meaning as purely subjective. If it is a good film or not is a bit more (or at least can be a bit more based on formative criteria) objective. Your subjective experiences with ex girlfriends and sisters should probably be best left outside of the discussion about who/what the arts are unless you want me to chime in with what my biology professor wife says about stuff (you don't).

3) as a science based guy, I know it may shock you, but the arts have peer reviewed journals too. It goes through the same process (often times, strangely, and horribly, through the same people--yeah, I have to edit your poorly written claptrap too) of being sent out to other university professors. It takes a while for them to look it over, evaluate what you wrote, judge what you wrote, and edit. To put it a different way, it is the difference between publishing in Scientific American vs, the AAAS.