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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars8.htm

SW TLJ made $1.3 billion by April 19th. Is that particularly bad?

The main issues is that it sold terribly in China as a major market, and the toy sales are abysmal for a Star Wars film.

There's still also the issue of Disney still attempting to hopefully regain the cash they spent to gain the Star Wars license.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars8.htm

SW TLJ made $1.3 billion by April 19th. Is that particularly bad?

The main issues is that it sold terribly in China as a major market, and the toy sales are abysmal for a Star Wars film.

There's still also the issue of Disney still attempting to hopefully regain the cash they spent to gain the Star Wars license.

They only spent $4 bil for Lucasfilm. I hardly think Disney is worried about their investment.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
plot, consistency, attention to non-cinematic details, world building, or even characterization

Surely Roger Ebert wasn't the only critic who considered these elements to be important?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm not necessarily sure many of them were paid soldiers given that the Resistance is made up of individuals who weren't associated with a primary government.

From what I understand (this wasn't explained in the movies, obviously) the Resistance is made up of people who support the Republic but don't think the Republic takes the threat of the First Order seriously enough. They seem unlikely to be anything other than volunteers.

The movies do a bad job of explaining the Resistance in general, but they are essentially a PMC paid for by Leia and other wealthy members of the Republic that think its a worthwhile cause. They may largely be volunteers, but there's no way this isn't their primary occupation. There's no way they're all working full time jobs and moonlighting as fighter pilots.

If you are craving 'Star Wars' but don't like where the last two films have gone, try:

https://www.galacticoutlaws.com/

It is a pretty good alternate reality Star Wars.

The Republic is corrupt and oppresses its people, the Stormtroopers are the good guys, Jango Fett/Bobba Fett is awesome, the 'Rebellion' is a circus sideshow of idiots, the 'Force' is alien and scary as all get out, the Dark Side is the more 'common' variety, Yoda is a sadistic little sod that we all secretly suspect he is in the films...

It also mashes in Battle Star Galactica (mixing Cylon's and Battledroids together), James Bond, Warhammer 40k (there is a race of 'beastmen' who worship the '4 gods' and are generally bringers of 'chaos', coupled with a 'warp' and 'dark prophets' who led large elements of humanity off the deep end), and others.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
and the toy sales are abysmal for a Star Wars film.

I think toy play habits among kids has really changed over the years. Toys R Us going out of business is a testament to that. Yes, toys can still be bought online, but it was trips to the toy store as a kid that really got me excited to see what was out there.

Also, I have never seen, nor expect to see, many girls playing with Star Wars toys. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT, I just don't see them doing it. Action figures and guns and light sabers are more of a boy thing. I don't see many boys wanting to buy toys for Hunger Games, Divergent whatever, or films like that. So why would they for the new trilogy.

Kids kind of act out their imagination through their toys. I did. I didn't need to know what Darth Vader, Fett, or Storm Troopers looked like under their helmets. I decided all that. I also was more inclined to play with figures I felt a connection with, like Han and Luke. I rarely picked up Leia. And if I were a kid today, I wouldnt be picking up Rey very often. My other choices? A coward and 'the best pilot in the galaxy'? Lame. I mean, all the males in TLJ suck. The sellout Cato guy, Luke, there all neutered or douchebags. Why would I want to buy any of those to play with. To have them do what? Be the douchebags that they are? So Rey can shine even more? No.

So yeah, aside from the nostalgia that its Star Wars, they are not inspiring.

And thats what Kathleen Kennedy and Disney doesn't understand by alienating their hardcore 'fanboys' by trying to knock down walls and be more inclusive. They could have found a better way to merge everything but they gave the thumbs up to one group and the middle finger to the other.

 gorgon wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars8.htm

SW TLJ made $1.3 billion by April 19th. Is that particularly bad?

The main issues is that it sold terribly in China as a major market, and the toy sales are abysmal for a Star Wars film.

There's still also the issue of Disney still attempting to hopefully regain the cash they spent to gain the Star Wars license.

They only spent $4 bil for Lucasfilm. I hardly think Disney is worried about their investment.

Yeah, and they got half that investment back on TFA alone. I'm sure that they made back that $4bil long before TLJ.

-

 LunarSol wrote:
There's no way they're all working full time jobs and moonlighting as fighter pilots.

But that’s not what volunteers means in a military context. See e.g., American expats fighting in the Spanish Civil War.

The issue is not whether being in the Resistance is their primary occupation (as opposed to a hobby?) but whether they are mercenaries ready to defect when the tide turns or ideological true believers.

The latter is the sense in which they are volunteers.

I'm still not clear if $1.3 billion in four months is bad or good?

Actually I think the expectation is that it should be earning more. Based on what the film cost to make versus the return and so on.

Seems ridiculous when you are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars, but from everything I have read and hear, Disney is not only concerned about the performance at the peak of interest, but concern going forward. I am having a hard time imagining how future Star Wars movies are going to lure audiences when the very characters used to rope them in are all killed off.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm still not clear if $1.3 billion in four months is bad or good?

What's unclear? It's underwhelming, considering it was the most anticipated movie since its predecessor did much better business in 2015.

 gorgon wrote:
I hardly think Disney is worried about their investment.

I think they are worried and are right to be worried. The idea wasn't to earn back $4 billion (which they haven't yet) but to turn $4 billion into (at least) tens of billions, which seems more and more doubtful.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm still not clear if $1.3 billion in four months is bad or good?

it's good, but the forecast were for substantially better.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm still not clear if $1.3 billion in four months is bad or good?

Look at what Disney's stock price has done in recent years:

https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=DIS

Since 2015... do you think investors should be happy about this, or not?

For a company that has its hands in as much entertainment as it does, its amazing this isn't in the $200s.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Remember guys, any complaints you have about movie making problems are just pedantry, and your real problem is that you secretly, or not secretly, hate women.

That must be why both Black Panther (featuring no less than FOUR strong characters who happened to be women) and Wonder Woman (where the title character is a strong character who happens to be a woman) all got exactly the same type and level of criticism and critical review by the fans.

Oh, wait....

 Vulcan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Remember guys, any complaints you have about movie making problems are just pedantry, and your real problem is that you secretly, or not secretly, hate women.

That must be why both Black Panther (featuring no less than FOUR strong characters who happened to be women) and Wonder Woman (where the title character is a strong character who happens to be a woman) all got exactly the same type and level of criticism and critical review by the fans.

Oh, wait....

I think he was being sarcastic.

I know. But I think my counter to the 'you're all just misogynists' argument is pretty decisive, don't you?

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Remember guys, any complaints you have about movie making problems are just pedantry, and your real problem is that you secretly, or not secretly, hate women.

ya and it will be fun to see how they try to spin that for the solo movie.

oh you hated the solo movie, I guess you're just a man hating feminist. You just don't like strong male characters.

they won't be able to use the SJW handbook to defend this movie, if it's bad and it's reviews and ratings are bad, they're going to have to live with it.

LOL of course they won't, I can't wait to hear why I don't like solo.

First, let’s see whether Han is istrong in the movie ... or does he get Poe’d/Finn’d?

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
film education becomes a hammer in search of nails

I think the more apt cliche, as far as TLJ goes, is about forests and trees. However - I honestly don't think the issue is having some kind of overly sophisticated understanding of cinema. The positive reviews I have read don't make a convincing case on the basis of film criticism. Nor is it an issue of "what the film should have been" (according to those awful, misogynistic mega fans) versus what it is. A whole nation of people who don't care about SW gave it the most poignant review possible - less than two weeks running in Chinese theaters.

Which is funny, because I would have sworn Rose's rant about capitalism was intended to really appeal to them.

 Manchu wrote:
I think they are worried and are right to be worried. The idea wasn't to earn back $4 billion (which they haven't yet) but to turn $4 billion into (at least) tens of billions, which seems more and more doubtful.

They might not have made $4 billion on ticket sales, but that's not the point of Star Wars. The movies are almost a secondary element, little more than advertising for the merchandise sales. Except, unlike normal advertising, instead of paying to advertise to the customer you get the customers to hand over billions of dollars for the privilege of watching your toy commercials.

text removed.

Don't use language like this on dakka.

Reds8n

Ah yes, the classic "there aren't enough hot girls for me to look at" criticism. And people wonder why it's tempting to point out how much criticism of the movie is anti-SJW nonsense by people with an ideological agenda (and a pretty awful one) rather than legitimate flaws in the movie.

I thought the Last Jedi was OK. It had awesome stuff. All the scenes with Rey, Luke and Ren were really cool. The casino scenes were pointless and stupid. The duel between Phasma and Finn came too soon and lacked gravitas. I started to appreciate the movie a little bit more when I realised that, as a kid, I would have loved it. As an adult, the morality play was too heavy handed in the casino scene and many of the characters were caricatural, but children movie's characters frequently are. Watching back the original trilogy, the characters were just as caricatural. The morality play was just as heavy handed. As a children movie, it's pretty damn good. It as great artistic direction, the characters are rather compelling, it presents good morals and as fairly decent action parts.

Watch Maz's scenes in TFA and then watch her guest appearance in TLJ.

 Peregrine wrote:
The movies are almost a secondary element, little more than advertising for the merchandise sales.

True enough but even merchandise sales seem to be suffering.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The movies are almost a secondary element, little more than advertising for the merchandise sales.

True enough but even merchandise sales seem to be suffering.

Perhaps, but it makes a huge difference in answering the question of whether Disney got a sufficient return on their investment to justify the purchase price. And I know that we as fans would prefer a sustainable long term approach over Disney milking the cash cow to death until they replace the IP with the next big thing, but can you really make that argument from the point of view of Disney executives? If Disney pays $4 billion for the IP and makes $20 billion before the franchise dies can you really call that a failure?

It really depends on how long the long run ends up being, especially in terms of how quickly the IP is worn thin.

 Vulcan wrote:
I know. But I think my counter to the 'you're all just misogynists' argument is pretty decisive, don't you?

Not sure - which side of the argument are you on?

I really enjoyed Black Panther and Wonder Woman - not because they had black or female leads but because they were really enjoyable films - equality is only truly achieved when the fact that there was a black, white, blue, pink, male , female or other lead was not actually relevant or even commented on.

The constant defence of TLJ as being somehow a new thing in having a female lead in a action film and that critics of the film - even if you outlined the exact reasons why you felt that the plot, characters and pacing were very poor - was a result of obvious or hidden (even to the commenter) sexist tendencies was as weak as the film itself.

As an adult, the morality play was too heavy handed in the casino scene and many of the characters were caricatural, but children movie's characters frequently are

I found their moral stance very odd in the film - occasionally the people who made it try and crowbar in some grey areas

- like "oHH no the Rebels (which are also the government until one day before the film) buy weapons from the same people as the bad guys" - wow social commentary mastery - not.

There is also the issue of suicide to save your friends is good, except its not - but then it is again - but only if certain people do it - and en then maybe.

And its better to let some magic horses out for a brief ride than help some slave children.

 Manchu wrote:
It really depends on how long the long run ends up being, especially in terms of how quickly the IP is worn thin.

Of course, and none of us have all of the numbers to do more than speculate. My point was just that adding up ticket sales alone doesn't show the entire picture, and that Disney's goal of making a profitable business transaction is not necessarily aligned with the fans' goal of having good Star Wars movies for a long time. If Disney kills the franchise within 10 years by shoveling out half-finished garbage but makes obscene amounts of money from merchandise sales over that time period then perhaps Disney's shareholders are still satisfied with the outcome of their investment. In fact the shareholders might be happier with that outcome than with a sustainable long-term plan, as it gives immediate profits in their pockets and once Star Wars is dead Disney can just move on to milking the cash cow of the next big thing. A sustainable plan, on the other hand, takes much longer to get profits in shareholder pockets and who cares if Star Wars is still around in 50 years when the primary shareholders might not even be alive anymore at that point.

The argument about SW TLF isn't whether it's half-arsed. The argument is whether it's terrible or really rather good. From that perspective it isn't a half-arsed attempt at a blockbuster, it's a fully-arsed blockbuster which somehow divided the audience.

I think the SW franchise is a two-edged sword. Disney have to keep producing the blockbusters to enable the spin-off films (Rogue One, Solo) to find an audience. The question is whether the new style Disney blockbusters can find an audience beyond the hardcore fans who seem to have hated TLJ.

Or maybe it's super-fans who will be the main audience for the spin-offs.

I think the biggest "problem" for me was I wanted simple morality play narratives of good vs. evil and I got Nihilism instead.

In this movie, essentially "Nothing Mattered". It didn;t matter what you did, it just didn't matter.



This movie only succeeded on one level. It was Theatre of the Absurd. If that was the intention, then congrats. You win and I bow to your mastery of creating Star Seinfeld.