That’s exactly what the media gurus are claiming. With The Last Jedi winding down, this would be a good reason for the delay. And Disney IS trying to reach for a wider appeal than the regular fan base.
Interesting fact. All the Oscar Best Picture nominees combined made less money than 'Star Wars The Last Jedi’
Edited by Imperial Advisor Arem HeshvaunProbably yes.
Although expect it to be "overshadowed" by some random advert for a pair of trainers or something... /s
Is it particularly meaningful that a somewhat LCD mass market film with a built-in audience raked in more dollars than award winning/nominated films?
If it didn't then the studio was doing it completely wrong. Good films don't tend to make top dollar; passable films with mass appeal do.
15 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:Is it particularly meaningful that a somewhat LCD mass market film with a built-in audience raked in more dollars than award winning/nominated films?
If it didn't then the studio was doing it completely wrong. Good films don't tend to make top dollar; passable films with mass appeal do.
Fair comment although I would add, I have seen every SW film 3 times at the cinema (must go again, must go again!!) but only watched TLD once.
Im not anti Disney...I loved Rogue One...brilliant and thought TFA was decent. Really thought TLJ was a bit meh though.
TLJ was interesting in that it actually did occasionally have brilliant cinematography in it (in some ways better than any prior Star Wars film)... unfortunately it was also a hot mess and further cemented the idea that nothing anyone did in the OT actually mattered.
14 minutes ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:Is it particularly meaningful that a somewhat LCD mass market film with a built-in audience raked in more dollars than award winning/nominated films?
No, but it was/is interesting. Also it's relevant to the possibility that the next Star Wars would getting such massive exposure/marketing.
To the OP; no idea, but I'm sure I'll have the trailer rammed down my throat weeks/months before release.
Heh, i loved TLJ.
/dons flame-retardent suit and strolls away.
3 hours ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:TLJ was interesting in that it actually did occasionally have brilliant cinematography in it (in some ways better than any prior Star Wars film)... unfortunately it was also a hot mess and further cemented the idea that nothing anyone did in the OT actually mattered.
Well I would argue that it reflects real life. I recently turned 40 and I can honestly say that my parents generation didn’t accomplish any world changing events, heck even my grandparents gen with World War 2 didn’t really change anything. We still fight meaningless wars. It wasn’t the “war to end all wars”. My generation didn’t end global warming or gun violence or abuse against women. each generation tries to improve their situation, not the future. The last Jedi is pointing this out and saying to our youth to not count on your parents or grandparents. It’s up to you to change or fix the world. That’s what I got out of movie anyways. The galactic civil war changed nothing in the grand scheme of things, the empire lives on thru the first order. I think tlj reflects this.
Sounds like a ploy to entice people to watch the superbowl.
Was anyone really asking for this movie? I was/am a huge Han Solo fan (because of Harrison Ford) but I am not sure about this film. I know the much publicized re-shoots and director change don't help. Honestly I am actually surprised that during re-shoots Disney/Kathleen Kennedy didn't change the title to Hannah Solo. 
Honestly if you want a GREAT Han Solo story, find and read the Han Solo Trilogy written by A.C. Crispin. I would honestly compare my anticipation for the second and third books to my anticipation for the release of Star Wars Legion. I really hoped that A.C. Crispin's books were the inspiration for the film and not just a Disney cash grab, but we will see.
Edited by C3POFETT5 minutes ago, C3POFETT said:Was anyone really asking for this movie? I was/am a huge Han Solo fan (because of Harrison Ford) but I am not sure about this film. I know the much publicized re-shoots and director change don't help. Honestly I am actually surprised that during re-shoots Disney/Kathleen Kennedy didn't change the title to Hannah Solo.
Honestly if you want a GREAT Han Solo story, find and read the Han Solo Trilogy written by A.C. Crispin. I would honestly compare my anticipation for the second and third books to my anticipation for the release of Star Wars Legion. I really hoped that A.C. Crispin's books were the inspiration for the film and not just a Disney cash grab, but we will see.
Well, Disney was asking for it, because $$$.
We'll see how it goes, but I'd almost rather have movies about new characters in the Star Wars universe than every movie involving one or more of the characters from the OT, Prequels, or even the Sequels. End of the day? I'm going to see it early in the release cycle, and own it. Why? Because it's Star Wars, and even if it isn't the greatest Star War movie ever released, hopefully it will at least be fun.
I’m hoping for a Vader movie, a bounty hunter movie and an Obi Wan movie. I’d also love a film set between a new hope and empire strikes back that follows either a squadron of rebels or tie pilots and focus on the fleets and dog fighting.
3 hours ago, C3POFETT said:Was anyone really asking for this movie? I was/am a huge Han Solo fan (because of Harrison Ford) but I am not sure about this film. I know the much publicized re-shoots and director change don't help. Honestly I am actually surprised that during re-shoots Disney/Kathleen Kennedy didn't change the title to Hannah Solo.
Honestly if you want a GREAT Han Solo story, find and read the Han Solo Trilogy written by A.C. Crispin. I would honestly compare my anticipation for the second and third books to my anticipation for the release of Star Wars Legion. I really hoped that A.C. Crispin's books were the inspiration for the film and not just a Disney cash grab, but we will see.
The whole appeal of Han as a character was mostly due to Harrisons charisma. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Han. All of Harrisons characters are like extensions of himself, Deckard is lonely alcoholic cop Harrison, Solo is rogue scoundrel Harrison...etc
Monday on good morning America apparently for the trailer debut
4 hours ago, Rammstein117 said:The whole appeal of Han as a character was mostly due to Harrisons charisma. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Han. All of Harrisons characters are like extensions of himself, Deckard is lonely alcoholic cop Harrison, Solo is rogue scoundrel Harrison...etc
I totally get where you're coming from. It's like imaging anyone but Ford playing Indiana Jones. I'm trying to look at it like James Bond. I think Connery's Bond is the best but I still like Craig or Brosnan.
12 hours ago, Extropia said:Heh, i loved TLJ.
/dons flame-retardent suit and strolls away.
STOP, DROP AND ROLL !!!
?
14 hours ago, C3POFETT said:Honestly I am actually surprised that during re-shoots Disney/Kathleen Kennedy didn't change the title to Hannah Solo.
Dude.
Uncalled for. Lets not bring the whole Female protagonists debate into this.
21 hours ago, GreatMazinkaiser said:TLJ was interesting in that it actually did occasionally have brilliant cinematography in it (in some ways better than any prior Star Wars film)... unfortunately it was also a hot mess and further cemented the idea that nothing anyone did in the OT actually mattered.
The problem is that this trilogy also has to matter. I liked various, but one of the issues with it was that everything after the films was essentially a long mopping up period... until the Yuuzhan Vong turned up, and they were just bad. The type of story changes significantly (the Republic is in the ascendancy, a lot more political stuff etc). This makes sense... but isn't what most people go to a Star Wars film for. Add on top of that the very long period between the original trilogy and the current one, meaning you can't fall back on those events too much, and... you kind of have to treat the original events as irrelevant. The gap between the films cover the same length of time that in the EU covered everything up until after the Yuuzhan Vong war... by which time much of what the characters did in the original trilogy was irrelevant.
13 hours ago, Rammstein117 said:The whole appeal of Han as a character was mostly due to Harrisons charisma. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing Han. All of Harrisons characters are like extensions of himself, Deckard is lonely alcoholic cop Harrison, Solo is rogue scoundrel Harrison...etc
I am worried about this. Firstly, I am wanting to see more new stuff and new characters (I like Rogue One, probably my favourite of the new films), secondly... the comments I have heard about the lead's acting are not filling me with confidence, and thirdly, as you say, it is hard to imagine Han Solo not as Harrison Ford. I think the guy they have chosen looks good as a young Solo... but that isn't going to make him (or the film) any good in of itself.
I will be happy to have my misgivings proved wrong if they are though. I presume it will be a fun enough film in itself.
8 hours ago, VictoryLeo said:I totally get where you're coming from. It's like imaging anyone but Ford playing Indiana Jones. I'm trying to look at it like James Bond. I think Connery's Bond is the best but I still like Craig or Brosnan.
Bond... is complicated of course. We are now used to the actor changing, but when they first lost Connery they were worried about what would happen (they don't reveal the change into as late as they possibly can in the film). The timeline also makes no sense. I think the presumption is that Connery through Brosnan are the same person... but then he was around for far too long to be realistic, and I know some people think they are meant to be different people with the same "code" name (and rough personality, apparently). But then some plot lines definitely connect Connery Lazenby and Moore as being the same character. And Daniel Craig was meant to be a full up reboot... but then Skyfall confused matters by making various references to the exploits of previous Bonds (it was deliberately very nostalgic, due to the themes of the film and the fact it was the 50th anniversary film), meaning it looks like the events of the previous films were in his past... but then also reinvents some of the older characters and introduces them anew.
To be fair, Craig's Bond was already a little confused timeline wise anyway, as even though it was meant to be a reboot, we still had Judi Dench playing M, suggesting a continuity from the Brosnan era.
Basically Bond continuity... is a mess and best not thought about. I really have put too much thought into it as my previous paragraph shows.
18 hours ago, ninclouse2000 said:Well I would argue that it reflects real life. I recently turned 40 and I can honestly say that my parents generation didn’t accomplish any world changing events, heck even my grandparents gen with World War 2 didn’t really change anything. We still fight meaningless wars. It wasn’t the “war to end all wars”. My generation didn’t end global warming or gun violence or abuse against women. each generation tries to improve their situation, not the future. The last Jedi is pointing this out and saying to our youth to not count on your parents or grandparents. It’s up to you to change or fix the world. That’s what I got out of movie anyways. The galactic civil war changed nothing in the grand scheme of things, the empire lives on thru the first order. I think tlj reflects this.
I dunno, the whole mythic arc more or less got dumped in the trash... in a more verisimilitude vein the third trilogy just established that either a) the Republic wasn't worth restoring or b) the former Rebels are incapable of governing.
We could've had the New Republic vs. the First Order and it'd've made way more sense, but instead we have a rootless rebellion against an Imperial remnant that suddenly controls everything for no apparent reason.
That kid from Happy Days is practically trolling us. ?
We get the teaser Sunday. Sigh. Full trailer Monday morning after the Super Bowl.
11 hours ago, Funk Fu master said:Dude.
Uncalled for. Lets not bring the whole Female protagonists debate into this.
It was said as a joke.
I have posted in more than one thread praising FFG for the inclusion of female characters in the Star Wars Universe and also commenting that hopefully we will see a female villain.
You took it to that place not me. Sorry I didn't put an emoji in there for you.
1 hour ago, C3POFETT said:It was said as a joke.
I have posted in more than one thread praising FFG for the inclusion of female characters in the Star Wars Universe and also commenting that hopefully we will see a female villain.
You took it to that place not me. Sorry I didn't put an emoji in there for you.
Apologies mate, I have just seen more than enough anti-female discussions on the boards lately, I wanted to stamp out another flame before it managed to spark up.
And yes, unfortunately its hard to tell inflection in a text post, so an emoji or Jk would have helped.
Anyway, Emillia Clarke is going to be in it and she's baddass (I actually liked her Sarah Conner in Genesys *ducks*) so thats another potential role model for my daughter
....you must like ducks too much...
On 01/02/2018 at 9:26 PM, Sk3tch said:Monday on good morning America apparently for the trailer debut
Called it.