5 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

I think it was this topic...

... anyway.

Rogue One.

Y-Wings.

Bombs "Drop" from Level Flight. Not Dive-Bombed. (Center Frame, Orange/pink dot falling from Y-Wing at bottom of shield ring)

Implications of TLJ Ships thread, but thanks!

Edit: On second thought, it may have been 'I have a question on episode 8' thread in off-topic. . .

8 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

No problem. I take medication that keeps me cool as a cucumber. Lol. Can’t make me mad!

I disagree on the target audience thing. I think the target audience is everyone. When “Star Wars” came out, everyone went to see it. ****. Even Queen sang about Star Wars (he didn’t like it). It always felt like the “Star Wars is for kids” thing didn’t come along until the prequels came out and their quality came into question.

Actually, George Lucas said how the film was always intended for around 12 year olds, and ended up attracting everybody because it is so incredibly good, and with time it stopped being just to 12 year olds, and became to everyone as those who were 12 year old fans were now adults by the prequels, so there is a darker tone to it (slightly for episode 1 and 2) but still some aspects to attract younger audiences (comedy and visual effects and cool battles and explosions) and it’s still what happens with the new ones, we have mire comedy ofc, but that’s how they are balancing for the audience on the darker themes of the movie that may not make a child like it. Luke almost killing his nephew and the entirity of his dilemma is not as attractive if you are very young. A guy almost killing his mom is also quite dark for a child. So the humour is to make it more enjoyable for the child, because this is who it was always meant to be to, but you also have to try and please the old fans and the people who grew up with it

10 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Actually, George Lucas said how the film was always intended for around 12 year olds

I did a quick google-fu and it seems the first time that he said it was meant for 12 year olds was in ‘05, which would have been when people were really thrashing his movies. If he said it in ‘77 or ‘80, I’d stand corrected. As it is, it sounds like a reaction to having your movies getting made fun of. I think if I were a director getting my movies ripped apart by longtime fans, I’d probably argue the same way.

Even so, aiming for the early teen demographic is probably best for any medium. Not exactly a target audience of “kid” though. A 12 year old is the end of the child range and into adolescence. But I’m having some PTSD from developmental psychology class, so I’ll stop there. Lol.

Either way, calling something a movie for kids doesn’t excuse quality issues.

Still chatting about TLJ?

So 2017!

24 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Still chatting about TLJ?

So 2017!

Still in cinemas, it’s a bianually qualifying film for my purpuoses

53 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Still in cinemas, it’s a bianually qualifying film for my purpuoses

Only because Disney forced Cinemas into bad theater deals.

For those that didn't know, Disney demanded that theaters showing episode 8 give them 65% instead of 55% of ticket sales, they were required to hold their largest theater exclusively for the movie for at least 4 weeks, and if they don't do either of them, they get a fine of another 5%. This was all prior to the release of the movie. Makes me wonder if they knew there might be some backlash.

1 hour ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

Only because Disney forced Cinemas into bad theater deals.

For those that didn't know, Disney demanded that theaters showing episode 8 give them 65% instead of 55% of ticket sales, they were required to hold their largest theater exclusively for the movie for at least 4 weeks, and if they don't do either of them, they get a fine of another 5%. This was all prior to the release of the movie. Makes me wonder if they knew there might be some backlash.

Honestly makes me think they were trusting so much it’d give a crapload of money that they wanted the most money possible

22 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Honestly makes me think they were trusting so much it’d give a crapload of money that they wanted the most money possible

Quite possible. While we have a number of multiplexes in my area, there's a few 1 or 2 screen theaters as well. I like visiting the smaller theaters so it kind of irked me when this came out. If the movie is doing well, it'll stay in theaters longer. Artificially keeping it in theaters seems scummy to me.

will it though? a bad film may stay in the cinema for 4-5 weeks in progressively smaller screens, with this a film may go from largest screen to not played skipping the smaller screens

5 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

As it is, it sounds like a reaction to having your movies getting made fun of. I think if I were a director getting my movies ripped apart by longtime fans, I’d probably argue the same way.

A la Tommy Wiseau of “The Room”

https://slate.com/arts/2018/01/the-last-jedi-is-a-star-wars-movie-about-fandom-and-the-lure-of-myth.html?via=recirc_recent

6 hours ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

For those that didn't know, Disney demanded that theaters showing episode 8 give them 65% instead of 55% of ticket sales, they were required to hold their largest theater exclusively for the movie for at least 4 weeks, and if they don't do either of them, they get a fine of another 5%. This was all prior to the release of the movie. Makes me wonder if they knew there might be some backlash.

That's Disney leveraging their market power. Theaters can't afford to not have Disney movies, and so they can't afford to say no to Disney's terms. No Star Wars, Marvel, or Pixar would be a tremendous bite out of a theater's wallet.

Besides, TLJ is rolling in money - highest domestic gross of 2017 despite just two weeks in theaters, second fastest film to $500 million (after TFA), second highest grossing Star Wars (after TFA, and technically not until yesterday's receipts are counted). It's crossed $1,000,000,000 in 18 days.

1 hour ago, svelok said:

That's Disney leveraging their market power. Theaters can't afford to not have Disney movies, and so they can't afford to say no to Disney's terms. No Star Wars, Marvel, or Pixar would be a tremendous bite out of a theater's wallet.

Correct. Which means that the theaters are being coerced into bad deals. I'm not a theater owner, but if I were one, I'd like to be able to show the movies I want when I want and for whatever length of time I want. A big multiplex probably doesn't care much. A small mom and pop theater does. Reducing their cut of the take by 10% can be huge.

Because the movie business is an oligopoly, Disney setting a precedent that they control who gets to show what movie when is going to have long term effects when other theaters start deciding they're going to alter the deals.

Again, it all seems scummy. This movie could make 5 billion in sales. It doesn't forgive Disney for bullying theaters into contracts.

Edit: I will note, I'm not a contract lawyer (though I do write contracts and do contract negotiations). I don't know the ins and outs of the deal, only what the articles detailed. From what has been presented, I see Disney as in the wrong and a step in the wrong direction.

1 minute ago, ricefrisbeetreats said:

Again, it all seems scummy. This movie could make 5 billion in sales. It doesn't forgive Disney for bullying theaters into contracts.

I wasn't commenting on anything like that, just on the suggestion that it was Disney thinking backlash is coming. It fits into the overall pattern of behavior Disney has engaged in over the past few years.

But on that note, it's not unethical, it's just use of market power . Disney is a prime candidate for scrutiny by federal regulators, in my opinion.

10 minutes ago, svelok said:

I wasn't commenting on anything like that, just on the suggestion that it was Disney thinking backlash is coming. It fits into the overall pattern of behavior Disney has engaged in over the past few years.

But on that note, it's not unethical, it's just use of market power . Disney is a prime candidate for scrutiny by federal regulators, in my opinion.

100% agree. I don't think they're doing anything unethical according to the law, yet. I just don't like their practices. Then again, I was working for a company that literally got torn apart because they did what Disney did on a WAY smaller scale and I thought the company in question was being **** then, so I'm not sure why this should be any different especially with the FOX acquisition.

The idea they "locked in" theaters ahead of time because of potential backlash was more of a thought experiment. I'm pretty sure that's not what happened and it's just Disney thinking they can tell other people how to run their business.

I'm 100% fine with Disney getting knocked down a peg or two.