Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Financial success as the only metric for whether something is good or not is exactly the problem with TLJ. And Disney Star Wars in general.

It's not the only metric that matters. The problem really is that everyone that dislikes it seems to think that their opinion on it is the only one that matters. It's not.
Enough people disagree with the assessment that it's a failure that they are making a third in the trilogy and plan for more beyond that, so in the end... they will still make more movies and people will still keep disagreeing with the people trying to ruin everyone elses fun.
 
That is all fair. You are more than welcome to your opinion on something. I was meaning that its projecting hen you dislike something and try to support your dislike with cherry picked or made up facts. IE TLJ did poorly in China so it must have bombed overall... this is simply not true. TLJ was financially a major success.
That's a problem with perception. A lot of people do this not realizing, but you cannot judge a movie in a franchise on it's own, because often it's coasting on the success of the previous film. TLJ is a financial success, by most metrics, but it was riding TFA's success.

The real metric to see how well a franchise is doing to see what the movie AFTER the last one does. And Solo was a bomb. It cost Disney between 80 to 120 million And that's BEFORE the 80% of reshoots it had before it finally came out. TLJ damaged the franchise so hard that Disney had to change the name Solo in it's favoured Market (China) to Ranger Solo and remove all references to Star Wars, and it still failed.
 
That's a problem with perception. A lot of people do this not realizing, but you cannot judge a movie in a franchise on it's own, because often it's coasting on the success of the previous film. TLJ is a financial success, by most metrics, but it was riding TFA's success.

The real metric to see how well a franchise is doing to see what the movie AFTER the last one does. And Solo was a bomb. It cost Disney between 80 to 120 million And that's BEFORE the 80% of reshoots it had before it finally came out. TLJ damaged the franchise so hard that Disney had to change the name Solo in it's favoured Market (China) to Ranger Solo and remove all references to Star Wars, and it still failed.
That is still projecting, and still opinion. There is a multitude of reasons that go into why movies succeed or fail, and once again... sci fi rarely does well in china anyway. So China is a horrible marker for the success of a Sci Fi movie.

The only "Problem" with the new Star Wars is that some people dislike them and feel entitled to try and tell everyone and their dog why.

 
How am I projecting? I'm talking how the Movie industry works. These are all statements from people IN the business.

Just looking at the numbers,. Nothing else. I'm not even touching whether or not I like the series. TFA did wonderfully, because it was Star Wars, which the audience wanted. Because Rogue One was a decent (if unnecessary) movie (I saw all the beats comings) so TLJ was going to do good. It didn't do as well as TFA, but it made money. Then there was the backlash over the movie, and then Solo comes out and it bombs. It failed at the box office.

This is the time line of what happened. TLJ was, to put it politely, divisive. And that's ignoring the whole Twitter stuff, which frankly is just a drop in the bucket.
 
We all have opinions. Think what you like, but I'm done debating them.
I liked it. I will happily go to the next movie, and the one after that. I'd rather not be a hater.
 
I'm completely confused. Hater? Where did this come from? I dislike some the choices made, but hate? Really? That's all you took from this? Well, fair enough. I can't force anyone to look at facts. Also, I'm not telling anyone to not like Star Wars. I'm pointing out either my opinion, or well established facts of how the movie industry works.
 
Hater? Where did this come from?
I'm not referring to anyone in this thread, but there is a segment of almost all fandoms that takes any critique of the object of their affection as "hate." To wit: someone says they found Taylor Swift's last single to be less than stellar, outrage ensues and "you're not a true fan" and you're a "hater" and so on. Most of us here, I would assume, are more mature than that and can accept criticism of entertainments we enjoy. But it's a common phenomenon. I was looking at a YouTube review of the Justice League of America movie and the comment section was jammed with fans insulting anyone who didn't think the movie was the most magical celluloid experience of all time, and of course calling them "Marvel fanboys." :errr:
 
I said I'd rather not be a hater... not that you or anyone else here is a hater.

Also I don't take opinion as fact unless there is sources backing up and it's not stated in such a way as to sway another opinion. Facts are such that you present them and let others come to conclusions otherwise they are subjective. So please don't try the "listen to facts" card on me.
 
I keep hearing this, but I found him charisma-free and a poor substitute for Billy Dee Williams. The script has everyone, including Lando, tell us how cool Lando is, but it's not on the screen in anything he does.

He's excellent on Atlanta, which he also writes a lot of, but I'm not sure he's a great fit for the feel of Billy Dee's rendition of the character which is quite grand and broad.

 
How am I projecting? I'm talking how the Movie industry works. These are all statements from people IN the business.

Just looking at the numbers,. Nothing else. I'm not even touching whether or not I like the series. TFA did wonderfully, because it was Star Wars, which the audience wanted. Because Rogue One was a decent (if unnecessary) movie (I saw all the beats comings) so TLJ was going to do good. It didn't do as well as TFA, but it made money. Then there was the backlash over the movie, and then Solo comes out and it bombs. It failed at the box office.

Surely we all know that commerical success is no measure of quality otherwise we'd all have to agree that The Transformers films are the bomb and movies like Blade Runner and The Thing are shite.
 
Surely we all know that commerical success is no measure of quality otherwise we'd all have to agree that The Transformers films are the bomb and movies like Blade Runner and The Thing are shite.
But that's not even my argument on this. I don't care if you think that the Transformers are crap, it doesn't matter. THEY MADE SERIOUS MONEY, UNLIKE STAR WARS post The Last Jedi. That is FACT. I don't like it, but facts don't care.

There are videos of people walking through major stores in big cities where the Star Wars merchandise rots in clearance aisle and stores, YEARS after the movies came out, collecting dust. One of the biggest money makers for a company with a franchise to milk sitting on shelves UNSOLD. And Disney's real money maker is the Theme Parks, and I have friends in Galaxy's Edge and they love it.

There are no crowds, the line ups are under 30 minutes, it's wonderful for them, the lack of people of there makes it an enjoyable experience. But that's not what Disney wants, they want it packed, because the more people the more money they make.

And on a commercial level? Yes, Blade Runner and The Thing are crap. Because they didn't make enough money to make multiple sequels to them. Since the late 80's, Hollywood is BUILT on SEQUELS and REMAKES. Because that's what the audience wants. It doesn't matter if you think the crap on screen is good or not, the true measure of success for these movies is: Did it make enough money to make more of the same? And for Transformers the answer is YES.

Or at least it was... I'm not entirely sure what Hollywood is doing trying chasing a group of people who only post on social media. It's been proven that they don't buy anything.
 
Since the late 80's, Hollywood is BUILT on SEQUELS and REMAKES. Because that's what the audience wants.
I just want to address this. It's not that the audience wants sequels and remakes in the slightest. It's that the money in Hollywood wants a return on it's investment. Which means going for low risk, proven properties.

Very often, the money people, aka producers and executive producers, have little to no idea what a movie is about. Which is why Michael Crichton talks about seeing people literally rewrite the ending to The Andromeda Strain on the set in front of him. Because they thought it could do with tweaking.

Also, test audiences are a huge thing these days. Unfortunately, it seems the kind of people who know how to find out about and go to test screenings are also pretty jaded about movies. And they're a big part of why massive 11th hour reshoots are so prevalent in mega budget movies these days.

So Hollywood executives want a return on their $100,000,000. And that means meddling, reshoots, hype and the bottom line being all that matters.

Take Dredd. A fantastic mid budget action movie that both fans and critics got behind. Unfortunately, it underperformed at the box office. But since then, it's become a bit of a modern cult classic. Yet by the metric you use for success, it's a dismal failure. Despite being a critical and artistic success.

But then, that doesn't matter, because it's all about the money and the ongoing franchise.
 
You are welcome to your opinion. I really don't share it.
Yes, TLJ was still a success. while it was still in theaters it became the 9th highest grossing film of all time. Definitely not shabby at all.

Do you think TLJ is a GOOD movie? And if so - why? As a consumer - box-office receipts mean nothing to me (unless I'm part of the production). So while you keep saying "it made money" - well... I love "John Carter" - it was a box office flop. I love "Fight Club" - it was a box-office flop. I could probably name at least a dozen other box-office flops that were good movies for various reasons I could dive into.

I can't see outside of visual effects, anything about TLJ that is good where it matters. Directing was bad, Editing was bad. Acting was bad-to-okay depending on the character, writing was *abysmal*. Worse - it is apparent there is *zero* checks-and-balances in terms of story-editing to make it relevant *at all* to the previous movies. The structure is completely wrong - no one does ANYTHING that is not a coincidence, or it's not handed to them. Zero character development that is remotely memorable. etc. etc.

Edit: sorry I missed your post where you said you're done debating it. I only asked because of the odd insistence that box-office receipts are the only thing going for it as this indicator of quality - free of the context that Star Wars has its own gravity.
 
Last edited:
But that's not even my argument on this. I don't care if you think that the Transformers are crap, it doesn't matter. THEY MADE SERIOUS MONEY, UNLIKE STAR WARS post The Last Jedi. That is FACT. I don't like it, but facts don't care.

There are videos of people walking through major stores in big cities where the Star Wars merchandise rots in clearance aisle and stores, YEARS after the movies came out, collecting dust. One of the biggest money makers for a company with a franchise to milk sitting on shelves UNSOLD. And Disney's real money maker is the Theme Parks, and I have friends in Galaxy's Edge and they love it.

There are no crowds, the line ups are under 30 minutes, it's wonderful for them, the lack of people of there makes it an enjoyable experience. But that's not what Disney wants, they want it packed, because the more people the more money they make.

And on a commercial level? Yes, Blade Runner and The Thing are crap. Because they didn't make enough money to make multiple sequels to them. Since the late 80's, Hollywood is BUILT on SEQUELS and REMAKES. Because that's what the audience wants. It doesn't matter if you think the crap on screen is good or not, the true measure of success for these movies is: Did it make enough money to make more of the same? And for Transformers the answer is YES.

Or at least it was... I'm not entirely sure what Hollywood is doing trying chasing a group of people who only post on social media. It's been proven that they don't buy anything.

Repeating that the SW films are financial flops even when presented with clear evidence to the contrary shows that you are arguing from a personal animus against the films. You can dislike the films but you can’t deny the facts of their financial returns, which are substantial.

Pretending to be an expert movie mogul on the costs of film production and promotion (it is amazing how many internet experts in film production dislike SW) can’t change that.

It is those claiming that SW is some kind of flop who are one mistaking a vocal minority on social media for any kind of reflection of the mass audience.

There is no way that Disney would continue to produce SW films if they were the financial failures you insist. We will continue to see SW films produced for years. There may be an eventual crash of these big budget superhero and genre films like we saw the studios experience in the 70s but that will be due to over leveraging big-budget hits vs (real not imaginary) misses, the disappearance of DVD sales to cushion their profits, streaming revenues being a poor replacement for the same, etc.

You seem to be denying any difference between the studios, the mass audience and the quality of the films themselves. From the late 80s on there have continued to be great films made on a smaller scale by talented filmmakers in the US and around the world, as there always has been throughout the existence of the film industry. There is never a shortage of good films to watch. The issue today for American filmmakers is getting their films into theatres but the various streaming platforms seem to be a promising solution to that as these films don’t require the huge profits of the superhero films.

How much the studios make on a film has no effect on me or my opinion of a film. I’d prefer a filmmaker I like have success so they continue to make films. Although I enjoy big budget superhero films they are far from the only films I enjoy, or the only films worth making.

Your comments also ignore how a company like Blumhouse has been able to make huge profits, a much better ROI per film than the bigger studios so-called blockbusters, with low budget horror films and now also fund some of the better American filmmakers working today.
 
I don't think politics (an initialism comes to mind) has anything to do with their story choices. I won't go into it any further, but I think that's crap.
Tell me if I'm dancing near the line, mods.

You don't think Rey - for instance - is not representative of the political zeitgeist? There is *zero* character development of that character via her own agency. ZERO. That's not because the writers "forgot" (but I'll grant it could be they're suck-ass writers that aren't good writers) - it's because the idea of showing weakness, flaws, or anything resembling something needing to be overcome is anathema to "those people" that concept these stories.

And this is not just a Star Wars thing. I actually LIKE Daisy Ridley. I've seen her in other stuff that shows me she could pull off Rey - but the problem with the Rey character is it's flat, it does nothing but blunder from one revelation to the next at the whim of the script, where she collects cool powers, requires no training, no development and overcomes those that we presume have such skills - with relative ease and zero consequence.

This is not the actors fault. This is the writers fault. And yes, the writers/production team are working off of an agenda in varying degrees that have *nothing* to do with the material.
 
Do you think TLJ is a GOOD movie? And if so - why? As a consumer - box-office receipts mean nothing to me (unless I'm part of the production). So while you keep saying "it made money" - well... I love "John Carter" - it was a box office flop. I love "Fight Club" - it was a box-office flop. I could probably name at least a dozen other box-office flops that were good movies for various reasons I could dive into.

I can't see outside of visual effects, anything about TLJ that is good where it matters. Directing was bad, Editing was bad. Acting was bad-to-okay depending on the character, writing was *abysmal*. Worse - it is apparent there is *zero* checks-and-balances in terms of story-editing to make it relevant *at all* to the previous movies. The structure is completely wrong - no one does ANYTHING that is not a coincidence, or it's not handed to them. Zero character development that is remotely memorable. etc. etc.

I think your hate for the films is so clear and often for very personal and even (largely exaggerated) political reasons that there is nothing any of us could present reasons that you’d accept, but I will give it a (brief) shot:

I enjoyed TLJ because it was a fun popcorn sf adventure for the whole family.

Critiques of character motivations based on OCD ‘canon’ concerns, structural critiques for a film IP that has at best been a picturesque in the best films seem to me to be a misapplication of appropriate standards to the very genre that film operates in.

If you applied the original trilogy to the same rigour you’d find as many issues and holes:

I certainly don’t know what you mean by claiming the new films are poorly edited. The first SW is a mess in terms of editing. Only Empire is well edited in the entire film franchise. The more recent films are competent, hardly remarkable, but far from ‘bad.’ But none of these modern big budget films are well edited.
 
Last edited:
Tell me if I'm dancing near the line, mods.

You don't think Rey - for instance - is not representative of the political zeitgeist? There is *zero* character development of that character via her own agency. ZERO. That's not because the writers "forgot" (but I'll grant it could be they're suck-ass writers that aren't good writers) - it's because the idea of showing weakness, flaws, or anything resembling something needing to be overcome is anathema to "those people" that concept these stories.

And this is not just a Star Wars thing. I actually LIKE Daisy Ridley. I've seen her in other stuff that shows me she could pull off Rey - but the problem with the Rey character is it's flat, it does nothing but blunder from one revelation to the next at the whim of the script, where she collects cool powers, requires no training, no development and overcomes those that we presume have such skills - with relative ease and zero consequence.

This is not the actors fault. This is the writers fault. And yes, the writers/production team are working off of an agenda in varying degrees that have *nothing* to do with the material.

I think that if you only a hammer everything around you starts to look like a nail.
 
Ah, so it's coincidentally bad? LOL

No I think your critique is over-reaching and reflects your own obsessions with silly American culture war issues more than anything in the film itself.
 
No I think your critique is over-reaching and reflects your own obsessions with silly American culture war issues more than anything in the film itself.
TLJ was shit. I walked out of the cinema wanting my money and my two hours back. It started with a "Yo Mama" joke and went downhill from there. Though the final image of the kid and the broom was cool, the rest of the movie failed in just about every way it's possible for a movie to fail.
 
I think your hate for the films is so clear and often for very personal and even (largely imaginary) political reasons that there is nothing any of us could present reasons that you’d accept, but I will give it a (brief) shot:

At no point did you see me point at the internal guts of the movie and say THIS is political. I'm saying political ideologies informed the creators on how the movie is put together. I'm extremely aware of my biases and if you *really* believe I'm that biased - then you'd have to explain why I *still* consume some Star Wars products. Whereas when I can point to some brands where I absolutely consume nothing from them for the reasons you're pretending consume me (See Blizzard).

TLJ because it was a fun popcorn sf adventure for the whole family.

Fair enough. You have different standards than I do. My son got up and walked out less than 2-minutes into the movie. My daughter laughed through the whole thing. They're independent thinkers with their own tastes in everything. I stuck it out. We're all different but again - standards are standards. I take issue that just because I'm OLD and those of us that grew up on Star Wars we're somehow not allowed to be included in consideration as an audience??? that seems wildly odd to me. We're the one that take our whole family to these these things. We're the primary consumers and spenders.

Critiques of character motivations based on OCD ‘canon’ concerns, structural critiques for a film IP that has at best been a picturesque in the best films seem to me to be a misapplication of appropriate standards to the very genre that film operates in. If you applied the original trilogy to the same rigour you’d find as many issues and holes.

Yet you categorize my criticism as ****HATE****... I only spoke about story structure - it's structured like a COMEDY not the Heroes Journey, Adventure. I criticized the lack of character development - there is NONE. I criticized the story itself - it has gaping plot-holes, it creates more plot-holes in the established continuity of Star Wars - only the movies. I'm not even talking about the EU. I'm strictly speaking about the movies.

And yes there are issues with the OT - but they pretty much nail everything else. The character development is good - across the board for the main characters and villains. The structure conforms to the classic Heroes Journey. It's pulling directly from the pulp movies and novels with dashes of Kurosawa in there. The dialogue in the original is bad... but it's the establishing movie, it has less weight on it. Empire and Jedi were better in some respects.

I can punch holes in the prequels too. But there are some real gems in there. Force Awakens - it's Ep. IV re-skinned (which is not bad) - it's rendered bad by the lack of sinew in connection to TLJ. A trilogy is a structure. It can't be a good trilogy if they're not connected.

Yet... you make some fairly bold claims about my "hate"... it's a movie. I don't *really* hate any form of entertainment. I'm just talking shop within the parameters of this forum. May wanna ease back on your perception of me.
 
No I think your critique is over-reaching and reflects your own obsessions with silly American culture war issues more than anything in the film itself.
Except... I cited specific claims about the movie that have nothing to do with "silly American culture war issues". That's not allowed here, remember? I'm still having the conversation... I'm not tossing perjorative intimations around or pretending to know the motives of anyone in this discussion.

You are.
 
People need to remember that the Original Star Wars (1977) is not considered a movie that would be considered High Art. It's considered a milestone of cinema because Lucas was able to push the envelope of a B movie with A level special effects (and truly deserves all the kudos for that), but plot and character it is a fairy tale or pulp fiction sort of movie. Heck, it's never been great Science Fiction. Babylon 5 and Farscape are much better representations of that genre. And I believe Lucas when he said this was always written for the younger audience.

Harlan Ellison wrote his essay titled "Luke Skywalker is a Nerd and Darth Vader Sucks Runny Eggs". Alex Guinness called it "fairy tale rubbish". I enjoy it for what it is, but when people dislike the new trilogy I can see many things in the original and prequel trilogy that can equally be called out on the same level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJS
Valid points. But then this is the opening to start comparing the very things I'm citing. Which I'm down for.

It honestly doesn't matter to me what the creators intended - once it hits the consumers, it's ours. This is precisely what my wife and I tell her clients (I help with developmental editing for novels) so they can make sure any messaging they intend/not intend is understood. No going back and retconning after the fact outside of continuity. If you wanna do that - write the follow up with the understanding it might impact the perception of the previous work. And vice versa.

Welcome to storytelling 101.
 
I consider "hater" to be a thought-terminating cliche. Once someone uses that word, I usually walk away from any conversation I am having with them.
Thats what I already had done. Lol
Do you think TLJ is a GOOD movie? And if so - why? As a consumer - box-office receipts mean nothing to me (unless I'm part of the production). So while you keep saying "it made money" - well... I love "John Carter" - it was a box office flop. I love "Fight Club" - it was a box-office flop. I could probably name at least a dozen other box-office flops that were good movies for various reasons I could dive into.

I can't see outside of visual effects, anything about TLJ that is good where it matters. Directing was bad, Editing was bad. Acting was bad-to-okay depending on the character, writing was *abysmal*. Worse - it is apparent there is *zero* checks-and-balances in terms of story-editing to make it relevant *at all* to the previous movies. The structure is completely wrong - no one does ANYTHING that is not a coincidence, or it's not handed to them. Zero character development that is remotely memorable. etc. etc.

Edit: sorry I missed your post where you said you're done debating it. I only asked because of the odd insistence that box-office receipts are the only thing going for it as this indicator of quality - free of the context that Star Wars has its own gravity.

I did think it was a good movie. I also really don't need to justify why I liked it.

What I am getting at is simply this. It's okay to dislike something, but don't make up "facts" to try and convince me that why I like something is wrong. One movie failing after TLJ is not a trend, and it proves nothing, nor does the reasons everyone states it was a bad movie prove it actually was. All it proves is that due to subjective opinion many people on here did not like it... nothing more, nothing less. Meanwhile enough people like me did like it well enough to make it a financial success.

Simple.
 
Don’t throw all us old guys into the “we hate Disney Star Wars”. I’m 46 and like or love all of them.
 
Don’t throw all us old guys into the “we hate Disney Star Wars”. I’m 46 and like or love all of them.
Oh, I clearly hate Star Ware because I have facts pertaining to the failure that no one clearly want to explore. Fine: Here's some articles.

Star Wars Merchandise Sales STILL declining as three months ago: https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/star-wars-merchandise-sales-declining/

Disney's Galaxy's Edge not doing so hot, they fired the woman running the division: https://cosmicbook.news/disney-fires-exec-star-wars-galaxys-edge

China Removing The Last Jedi after two weeks: https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/star-wars-the-last-jedi-pulled-from-china-after-just-two-weeks This is NOT a success story.

Solo is a failure: https://screenrant.com/solo-box-office-bomb-disney-lawrence-kasdan/ and https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2483299/solo-a-star-wars-story-writer-says-the-studio-blew-it

Do you want to list the Star Wars movie and show CANCELLATIONS? We just have an article where the Game of Thrones showrunners dropped their movie. The Obi-Wan movie down graded to a TV show for Disney+, the remake of the Boba Fett show into the Mandolarian which I freely admit interests me, but I will likely not be able to afford the 7-15 bucks for a SINGLE show. Ryan Johnson's trilogy which has somehow, magically stopped being mentioned by Disney, especially at the last Investor's Call.

These are FACTS. I HATE THAT MY FAVOURITE FRANCHISE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS BURNING AND EVERYONE FROM THE MEDIA HAS THEIR HEADS SO DEEP INTO THE GROND THAT THE BURNING OF THE HOUSE AROUND THEM FEELS LIKE A HEATING PAD ON THE ASS!

But you know what? People are simply going to say 'But these are just ONE site' or some such, and they still won't believe. Fine, you win. Is that what you want? (The general You, not anyone specific.)
 
To me, I'm fine with people not liking a particular movie, and even wanting to passionately argue about it with others (as long as the others are willing and its healthy debating).

However, the dangerous part is when people start looking for stats to back their opinions up--things like box office ranking, sales figures, the success or failure of merchandise. The problem with this is, people with a strong love or hate of something will start looking at facts with a biased or pointed opinions, and it will be very difficult to be objective about their analysis. It's confirmation bias--you want the stats to back up your opinions to validate the argument or to enjoy schadenfreude when something fails and they didn't accommodate your desires. You'll fall into the trap of looking for the news outlet that validates your opinion, etc. You may be able to not submit to this weakness, but the people who actually get angry about this type of thing are probably not the best arbiters of statistical objectivity.

If I was going to ask for a statistical analysis -- I'd ask somebody who doesn't care about the subject matter to look at figures, an expert statistician, to compare to prior figures, account for changes in the environment--for example, the value of dollars now vs.the past, or how the media markets have changed over the years (less people go to the movies now than 20 years ago). And I would ask them to account for as much public information is available about the company finances, practices, etc. I'd ask them to look at the exit polls and find the best statistical models for ranking opinions to determine how the public perceives it as well.

Unfortunately, those people get paid to do that by clients, and it's a lot of work. Which is why you don't see much of this type of analysis on message boards. Which is why I think it is preferable to stick to arguing about why you didn't like it and not try to argue that it's a financial failure.
 
These are FACTS. I HATE THAT MY FAVOURITE FRANCHISE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD IS BURNING AND EVERYONE FROM THE MEDIA HAS THEIR HEADS SO DEEP INTO THE GROND THAT THE BURNING OF THE HOUSE AROUND THEM FEELS LIKE A HEATING PAD ON THE ASS!

Out of curiosity, when did you start getting disappointed by the Star Wars franchise? The Phantom Menace? The Special Editions?

Just trying to get perspective here. I have a Starlog magazine from around the time Return of the Jedi came out with letters from fans bemoaning the handling of the third part of the trilogy.
 
Chris,

I really don’t care if the merchandising is worse than three years ago. Why would that affect how I think about the movies? OK, maybe a sizeable percentage of the population doesn’t like Star Wars anymore. It doesn’t mean I have to go along.

My other favorite property of all time is G.I.Joe. That is nowhere near as popular as it used to be in the 80s and I still love it. My attitudes are not affected by what other people think.
 
Have you heard that just in case the English-speaking market fails them, Disney is hedging its bets by remaking all the films, starting with the original, in Spanish?
princesa-lola-juan.jpg
homie-juan-kenobi.jpg
darth-vato.jpg
chuy-f84b22443a.jpg
loco-skywalker.jpg

 
Last edited:
I did think it was a good movie. I also really don't need to justify why I liked it.

Fair enough. But the discussion does seem to be about this topic. I can accept this... but then you follow up with this...

What I am getting at is simply this. It's okay to dislike something, but don't make up "facts" to try and convince me that why I like something is wrong.

I'm not trying to convince you of *anything*. I merely asked what your criteria was for "GOOD" - which you clearly don't seem to be interested in clarifying. I stated *MY* reasons why I didn't think it was "GOOD" under the assumption *WE* (collectively) were having a conversation.

I didn't say you're *WRONG* or *EVIL* or any other hyperbolic stance on your attitude, or your "opinion". I was engaging in discussion. Please do me at least the courtesy of giving me the benefit of the doubt. And frankly I'm speaking partially from a professional opinion. I *do* practice a profession that does story-development for a living. While you can dismiss it as "Just your opinion, man" (sorry - I hear that as The Dude) - y'know, in the interest of talking shop, not all opinions are the same. My opinion on the NBA isn't the same value as someone that does analyst work for sports. - and I'm not even trying to make an argument from authority here, I'm merely trying to have that discussion which you're passive-aggressively shutting down because you ( and others) are projecting some animus on me that *doesn't exist*.

One movie failing after TLJ is not a trend, and it proves nothing, nor does the reasons everyone states it was a bad movie prove it actually was. All it proves is that due to subjective opinion many people on here did not like it... nothing more, nothing less. Meanwhile enough people like me did like it well enough to make it a financial success.

Simple.

Not simple. You just made it "not simple". Had you left it alone with "Not interested in discussing these 'opinions' that would have been fine. But then you make these sideways insinuations and qualifiers about your assumptions on our motives for simply having a discussion, who are *willing* to get into details about it - then slide away? Kind of a crummy way to conduct interpersonal relations. I mean - while *I* can say I'm a fan... but the insinuation is *I* (and Chris) have this unreasonable animus towards a piece of entertainment - but I'm certainly willing to discuss WHY. You (and others) don't seem to be wanting that...- and to be clear : We're talking about a *movie* - instead make these side-bar crazy projections at *us* personally, which only exist in your mind.

I mean... I know how I *feel*. I feel like I'm talking Star Wars. I have this same discussion with my friends in person who LOVE the new trilogy - but don't make such aspersions at me... because you know... it's a movie franchise.

I don't own stock in Disney. I'm just a Star Wars/Movie/Good fan. In that order. I love Good things. I personally like you (and everyone here) - I'd appreciate everyone be given the benefit of the doubt in speaking in good faith - let's not devolve into rhetorical dickery to not engage. Just stick with "you're not interested." I'm cool with that. Not cool with the insinuations I, or Chris Brady are "haters" or trying to fabricate facts blah blah blah. It diverts from the intent *I* am trying to have - a discussion about Star Wars - good, bad, ugly. Glorious and vomitous and everything in-between.

Of course if that's not going to happen, or you *really* don't want to have that discussion (with me or anyone else willing to talk about it) - there's an easy solution to that which doesn't involve me having to shut up. Right?
 
SWEET! A Mickey Buck!

If I had that and $7 I could buy a hot cup of "Shut the Hell Up" at Starbucks! hahaha
 
Fair enough. But the discussion does seem to be about this topic. I can accept this... but then you follow up with this...



I'm not trying to convince you of *anything*. I merely asked what your criteria was for "GOOD" - which you clearly don't seem to be interested in clarifying. I stated *MY* reasons why I didn't think it was "GOOD" under the assumption *WE* (collectively) were having a conversation.

I didn't say you're *WRONG* or *EVIL* or any other hyperbolic stance on your attitude, or your "opinion". I was engaging in discussion. Please do me at least the courtesy of giving me the benefit of the doubt. And frankly I'm speaking partially from a professional opinion. I *do* practice a profession that does story-development for a living. While you can dismiss it as "Just your opinion, man" (sorry - I hear that as The Dude) - y'know, in the interest of talking shop, not all opinions are the same. My opinion on the NBA isn't the same value as someone that does analyst work for sports. - and I'm not even trying to make an argument from authority here, I'm merely trying to have that discussion which you're passive-aggressively shutting down because you ( and others) are projecting some animus on me that *doesn't exist*.



Not simple. You just made it "not simple". Had you left it alone with "Not interested in discussing these 'opinions' that would have been fine. But then you make these sideways insinuations and qualifiers about your assumptions on our motives for simply having a discussion, who are *willing* to get into details about it - then slide away? Kind of a crummy way to conduct interpersonal relations. I mean - while *I* can say I'm a fan... but the insinuation is *I* (and Chris) have this unreasonable animus towards a piece of entertainment - but I'm certainly willing to discuss WHY. You (and others) don't seem to be wanting that...- and to be clear : We're talking about a *movie* - instead make these side-bar crazy projections at *us* personally, which only exist in your mind.

I mean... I know how I *feel*. I feel like I'm talking Star Wars. I have this same discussion with my friends in person who LOVE the new trilogy - but don't make such aspersions at me... because you know... it's a movie franchise.

I don't own stock in Disney. I'm just a Star Wars/Movie/Good fan. In that order. I love Good things. I personally like you (and everyone here) - I'd appreciate everyone be given the benefit of the doubt in speaking in good faith - let's not devolve into rhetorical dickery to not engage. Just stick with "you're not interested." I'm cool with that. Not cool with the insinuations I, or Chris Brady are "haters" or trying to fabricate facts blah blah blah. It diverts from the intent *I* am trying to have - a discussion about Star Wars - good, bad, ugly. Glorious and vomitous and everything in-between.

Of course if that's not going to happen, or you *really* don't want to have that discussion (with me or anyone else willing to talk about it) - there's an easy solution to that which doesn't involve me having to shut up. Right?
You are making many assumptions icluding that I was directing this at you.
If thats how you wish to see it. Oh well. No skin off my nose.

Oh... And I said I dont want to be a hater. Not that YOU are a hater.

Go get aggressive with someone else. I have better things to do than engage in a tit for tat where I defend things I never said or intended.
 
You are making many assumptions icluding that I was directing this at you.
If thats how you wish to see it. Oh well. No skin off my nose.

Oh... And I said I dont want to be a hater. Not that YOU are a hater.

Go get aggressive with someone else. I have better things to do than engage in a tit for tat where I defend things I never said or intended.

Well you know... you quoted me and literally responded:

It's okay to dislike something, but don't make up "facts" to try and convince me that why I like something is wrong.

So either you didn't mean to quote me - which is fair. Or I simply take you at your word - which by this quote, in this case, is something *I* am not doing or even trying to do. I'm just talking Star Wars.

If I'm not the target, and that was your intent - JUST SAY SO and don't respond to me as such. Pretty easy. Part of speaking in good faith is putting yourself in the other person's shoes. If you can read what I'm saying - when I'm literally saying "hey - can't we just talk about it?" and you're saying "I don't want to talk about" --- but then you start qualifying your talking about it by making general statements directly at me by your own verbiage - that's what "you" means when you respond to a quote - which is what you did, if you're remotely acting in good faith, you can easily understand why I responded as such.

And hey - if you don't care, neither do I. Go be passive-aggressive with someone else. But I suspect you're far more emotionally invested in Star Wars and what people say about Star Wars than I am. /shrug
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top