On 6/22/2018 at 6:22 PM, ViscerothSWG said:I found a source.
This gives SWG ships a better chance to be released sooner. Less movie ships to force into the line up. So it's bittersweet for me.
*fewer movie ships
Sole reason Solo flopped
On 6/22/2018 at 11:52 PM, Animewarsdude said:Still have Resistance this Fall, and that live action show starting next year.
Hopefully that means there will be less problems behind the scenes then.
*fewer problems
8 hours ago, Forgottenlore said:But that’s just it, virtually everyone who has actually SEEN Solo has liked it, it’s only the people like you that are bad mouthing the franchise based on the previous movie.
If you didn’t like Rogue One I can see not going to see Solo. If you didn’t like TFA or TLJ I can see not going to see ep9, but if you have liked RO(which you said you did) but are refusing to go see Solo because of the latest trilogy film, that doesn’t make sense. What you’re doing is telling them to not make more Rogue One style movies and stick with the trilogies, because TLJ still made money.
13 hours ago, Cr0aker said:Have to say I'm a pretty big Star Wars geek.
Not what I would call bad mouthing the franchise. I don't see where all the hate for not being excited enough to see it opening weekend comes from. Even if I point out they are batting (IMO) 1 for 3 (and a big gap between 1 and 2/3).
I was more offering insight as to why I didn't rush out to see Solo. I will probably still see it, just not as likely in theaters. This is a busy time of the year for me. If Disney expects me (as a fan of the franchise) to want to see what they produce in the theater, it has to be worth it. I rarely (1-2 /year) see movies in theaters anymore. Confidence in make a decent film has been eroded. If Disney wants to compete for my $$, they need to deliver.
- TFA was new and exciting enough to draw out new and old fans, but the protagonist and antagonist
are
weak and the plot (obviously) recycled.
- Rogue One was good and great fan service to older(ish) fans so I was willing to give TLJ a chance (still didn't see TLJ opening night like the prior 2).
- TLJ was built on TFA so I was willing to give it even more of a break because reboots (not new stories within a genre/franchise) are usually weaker. This was also Disney's first try at introducing a story line that did not have to exactly mirror the OT or play in the OT's sandbox. Let's just say I enjoyed the HISHE video's of TLJ... but the movie, no.
Solo might be a great movie and restore my faith in the development team at Disney... but it sure hasn't drawn me out to see it yet. From what I hear, it is a decent movie. I just don't go to see decent movies in theaters.
Disney isn't stupid and is re-evaluating how to proceed before consumer confidence is overly damaged. The issue I see with Disney is that they are rushing the production schedule and when problems crop up, as they always do, they had to double down on removing the 'cheap' part of the equation. Now they have a very expensive "Solo", as they wanted fast and at least a decent quality . This has so far has translated into a possible loss for Solo. I Sure As Heck would not want to explain to my investors how I lost money on a Star Wars film . Especially when the cause is directly linked to how weak VIII was, how close the release dates were to a (IMO) bad Star Wars film, and releasing on a Holiday weekend known for drawing people outside with friends and family. Rushing the film was a bad decision, after a (IMO) very bad decision.
I anticipate that they will slow down and give more time to the develop a solid script/plot and spend the needed time to produce and post-produce the next few films.
Edited by Cr0aker
50 minutes ago, Frimmel said:Which part is confusing to you? Do you miss the irony of TLJ telling us to let the past die and no one went to see the movie set in the "past" of Star Wars? Or do you not understand that after the cinematic travesty of TLJ and the bad-mouthing of fans who didn't like TLJ a ticket to "Solo" is just something I'm not buying.
I'm confused by the part where people who didn't like a film set in the future of Star Wars are using the fact that Solo is set in the past of Star Wars as a reason not to watch it.
9 minutes ago, mazz0 said:?
!
Just now, FTS Gecko said:!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ maybe
58 minutes ago, Frimmel said:Which part is confusing to you? Do you miss the irony of TLJ telling us to let the past die and no one went to see the movie set in the "past" of Star Wars? Or do you not understand that after the cinematic travesty of TLJ and the bad-mouthing of fans who didn't like TLJ a ticket to "Solo" is just something I'm not buying.
You’re voting to have either no more Star Wars or Star Wars with lower budgets. I loved the new stuff so far, but even if I didn’t you better believe I’m buying those tickets. Because if people stop doing that the entire IP suffers and could eventually fail.
17 minutes ago, TasteTheRainbow said:You’re voting to have either no more Star Wars or Star Wars with lower budgets. I loved the new stuff so far, but even if I didn’t you better believe I’m buying those tickets. Because if people stop doing that the entire IP suffers and could eventually fail.
If the stories are horrible and the creators don't seem to get Star Wars then why should I care what the budgets are and whether or not there is any more Star Wars? They turned Luke Skywalker into a man who would murder a sleeping kid and then sit at home while the evil his evil created goes about doing evil. Why should I care if such storyteller's fail? I hope they fail because that sort of nihilism should have no place in our modern myths and those responsible shouldn't even be allowed to organize a bedtime story let alone given any sum of money to make a film.
So yes, I'm voting for no more Star Wars if TLJ is exemplar of the Star Wars I'll be getting.
He did not murder a sleeping kid, lol. What movie were you watching?
So you’re fine with the whole IP dying off because you personally didn’t understand a couple movies? That seems incredibly selfish.
Just now, TasteTheRainbow said:He did not murder a sleeping kid, lol. What movie were you watching?
So you’re fine with the whole IP dying off because you personally didn’t understand a couple movies? That seems incredibly selfish.
I understood the movie fine. I didn't write that he murdered a sleeping kid.
23 minutes ago, Frimmel said:They turned Luke Skywalker into a man who would murder a sleeping kid
What comment were you reading?
I'm not here to spend money on bad Star Wars or Star Wars I'm not interested in so you can enjoy bad Star Wars. I am not obligated as a fan to eat whatever turd-burger they serve to me. I'm not obligated to think "Well maybe this time it will be different." I gave them three chances and they've given me two films that made me downright angry and one that was cool for about three minutes at the very end.
Then they insulted me and called me names for not liking TLJ. It might be selfish but it is okay to look out for yourself and to stop patronizing artists who don't create things you enjoy and who insult you when you don't enjoy the things they've created.
I also figure if I stop being a fan of these new movies I don't have to be guilty when some idiot I've never met and have no authority, control, or even mild influence over is mean to someone on social media.
1 hour ago, Frimmel said:I understood the movie fine. I didn't write that he murdered a sleeping kid.
What comment were you reading?
I'm not here to spend money on bad Star Wars or Star Wars I'm not interested in so you can enjoy bad Star Wars. I am not obligated as a fan to eat whatever turd-burger they serve to me. I'm not obligated to think "Well maybe this time it will be different." I gave them three chances and they've given me two films that made me downright angry and one that was cool for about three minutes at the very end.
Then they insulted me and called me names for not liking TLJ. It might be selfish but it is okay to look out for yourself and to stop patronizing artists who don't create things you enjoy and who insult you when you don't enjoy the things they've created.
I also figure if I stop being a fan of these new movies I don't have to be guilty when some idiot I've never met and have no authority, control, or even mild influence over is mean to someone on social media.
They turned him into a man who might (we only know he thought about it) kill a sleeping child for the greater good. What's wrong with that? I might kill a sleeping child for the greater good.
2 hours ago, Cr0aker said:how close the release dates were to a (IMO) bad Star Wars film,
Yeah, I think releasing the movies so close together was a bad decision. Even if everyone liked TLJ, you'd still see a drop-off among people who only go to the theaters 1-2 times a year.
2 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:So you’re fine with the whole IP dying off because you personally didn’t understand a couple movies? That seems incredibly selfish.
That seems like an awful lot of responsibility to place on a fan. It's the responsibility of producers to release content that attracts consumers. The consumer has no moral obligation to ensure that a particular franchise succeeds if other franchises are more appealing to him.
I really enjoy playing Lord of the Rings Online, and if I find someone who may be interested in it, I'll certainly recommend it. But if they decide against playing, should I mercilessly shame them until they give in, just because I selfishly want Standing Stone to produce new content faster?
12 minutes ago, mazz0 said:They turned him into a man who might (we only know he thought about it) kill a sleeping child for the greater good. What's wrong with that? I might kill a sleeping child for the greater good.
I guess it depends on what the basis of your morality is. As far as I can tell, always in motion is the future, and therefore the child's fall is not yet certain, however probable it may be. Since he has not yet committed a crime, executing him would be unjust.
2 hours ago, TasteTheRainbow said:So you’re fine with the whole IP dying off because you personally didn’t understand a couple movies? That seems incredibly selfish.
To be fair (and I'm saying that as someone who loved The Last Jedi and the direction Disney is taking with the franchise) if people don't like where the franchise is going, it's okay for them to stop buying into it. They don't have to pay for something they don't like so that others can continue to enjoy it. Star Wars will move on without them, just like they are moving on with their life.
My problem is when people take it to the next step and want to see it burn, putting effort to see it fail. As if the franchise can't possibly continue if it's not to their liking. Sadly, those toxic fans is what is putting shadows on other fans that don't like where the franchise is going without being big babies about it.
It's perfectly fine to not like the Disney Star Wars universe and to stop buying into it, as long as you respect the other fans that do like it. Nobody likes to see something they love being constantly spit on and insulted.
10 minutes ago, mazz0 said:They turned him into a man who might (we only know he thought about it) kill a sleeping child for the greater good. What's wrong with that? I might kill a sleeping child for the greater good.
The punishment doesn't come before there is a crime.
2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:I guess it depends on what the basis of your morality is. As far as I can tell, always in motion is the future, and therefore the child's fall is not yet certain, however probable it may be. Since he has not yet committed a crime, executing him would be unjust.
That's the dark side of fear and hate. And the wise Jedi master doesn't for an instant consider giving in to fear. That's for the rest of us. The inspiration not to do that is what we seek (well it seems just I seek) in these films. And why does every film series need to be a trilogy? Because of ROTJ. Bag on the ewoks and re-hashing the Death Star all you want but ROTJ gave us this:
TLJ takes that man and turns him into a whining old wreck feeling sorry for himself. Efff that with telephone pole.
3 minutes ago, Frimmel said:TLJ takes that man and turns him into a whining old wreck feeling sorry for himself. Efff that with telephone pole.
To be honest, I actually need to disagree with the majority here. I want there to BE some sort of objective standard, and I expect good Jedi like Luke or Obi-wan to be closer to it than others, but if they never fall short of the standard, I don't think the movies would be as interesting.
2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:I guess it depends on what the basis of your morality is. As far as I can tell, always in motion is the future, and therefore the child's fall is not yet certain, however probable it may be. Since he has not yet committed a crime, executing him would be unjust.
And that's why he didn't actually do it. When Luke saw what evil and chaos Ben would unleash on the galaxy, he acted on pure instinct and lighted his lightsaber to strike him down (classic dilemma of: Would you kill Hitler when he was still a painter if you had the chance?), but as soon as he realized what he just did, he stopped and was field with shame and guilt. If Ben didn't woke up and see him standing there with his lightsaber on, it would have stopped there, Luke would have found another solution. Because just like he could not kill his father, he could not kill his nephew. But Luke has always been emotional, that's his big weakness. And seeing his uncle ready about to kill him (even though it would not have happened) was the final push for Ben to become Snoke apprentice. So Luke is filled with the guilt of almost killing his nephew, the guilt of failing his sister with his son, and the guilt of the impulsive Skywalker blood running in him, always being in confrontation with the call of the dark side.
1 minute ago, Red Castle said:And that's why he didn't actually do it. When Luke saw what evil and chaos Ben would unleash on the galaxy, he acted on pure instinct and lighted his lightsaber to strike him down (classic dilemma of: Would you kill Hitler when he was still a painter if you had the chance?), but as soon as he realized what he just did, he stopped and was field with shame and guilt. If Ben didn't woke up and see him standing there with his lightsaber on, it would have stopped there, Luke would have found another solution. Because just like he could not kill his father, he could not kill his nephew. But Luke has always been emotional, that's his big weakness. And seeing his uncle ready about to kill him (even though it would not have happened) was the final push for Ben to become Snoke apprentice. So Luke is filled with the guilt of almost killing his nephew, the guilt of failing his sister with his son, and the guilt of the impulsive Skywalker blood running in him, always being in confrontation with the call of the dark side.
Exactly. Even in RotJ, we see Luke tempted into anger in attacking Vader, and he nearly succumbs before he masters himself and shuts off his lightsaber. He makes the right call in the end, but the danger is still there.
12 minutes ago, Frimmel said:The punishment doesn't come before there is a crime.
That's the dark side of fear and hate. And the wise Jedi master doesn't for an instant consider giving in to fear. That's for the rest of us. The inspiration not to do that is what we seek (well it seems just I seek) in these films. And why does every film series need to be a trilogy? Because of ROTJ. Bag on the ewoks and re-hashing the Death Star all you want but ROTJ gave us this:
TLJ takes that man and turns him into a whining old wreck feeling sorry for himself. Efff that with telephone pole.
To be fair, rewind that scene a little further and you see that Luke was just about to kill his father. During all the movie he thinks he can turn Vader to the light side, but when Vader threatens to turn his sister to the dark side, Luke gets blinded by is emotion, by anger, and would have killed his father right away. Just look at his face when Vader is down with his hand chopped. Doesn't it reminds you of what what happened with young Ben? But he come back to his senses and don't kill his father, just like he came to his senses and didn't kill Ben.
That's the triumph of the OT. He doesn't give in to the anger. He faces the dark side for real and in danger of his life (not in some cave or temple) and doesn't give in. And by not giving in encourages his father to stand up and make a claim for his own redemption.
That's a guy who's going to EVER think he needs to murder his sleeping nephew? He's learned this lesson. And then he's not going to go out and try to save him? Not try to save others? Not try and correct his mistake? There's characters being fallible or coming up short and there's the nihilism in TLJ.
Edited by Frimmel2 minutes ago, Frimmel said:That's the triumph of the OT. He doesn't give in to the anger. He faces the dark side for real and in danger of his life (not in some cave or temple) and doesn't give in. And by not giving in encourages his father to stand up and make a claim for his own redemption.
That's a guy who's going to EVER think he needs to murder his sleeping nephew? He's learned this lesson. And then he's not going to go out and try to save him? Not try to save others? Not try and correct his mistake? There's characters being fallible or coming up short and there's the nihilism in TLJ.
Right, because that's the way temptation works: you reject it once and then never have to deal with it again your entire life.
42 minutes ago, JJ48 said:Yeah, I think releasing the movies so close together was a bad decision. Even if everyone liked TLJ, you'd still see a drop-off among people who only go to the theaters 1-2 times a year.
That seems like an awful lot of responsibility to place on a fan. It's the responsibility of producers to release content that attracts consumers. The consumer has no moral obligation to ensure that a particular franchise succeeds if other franchises are more appealing to him.
I really enjoy playing Lord of the Rings Online, and if I find someone who may be interested in it, I'll certainly recommend it. But if they decide against playing, should I mercilessly shame them until they give in, just because I selfishly want Standing Stone to produce new content faster?
I guess it depends on what the basis of your morality is. As far as I can tell, always in motion is the future, and therefore the child's fall is not yet certain, however probable it may be. Since he has not yet committed a crime, executing him would be unjust.
Maybe so (though I would counter that seeing things before thy happen is a Jedi trait), and that’s no doubt something that went through Luke’s mind when he thought about it (remember we don’t know that he would have gone through with it).
41 minutes ago, Frimmel said:The punishment doesn't come before there is a crime.
It’s nothing to do with punishment.
19 minutes ago, Frimmel said:That's the triumph of the OT. He doesn't give in to the anger. He faces the dark side for real and in danger of his life (not in some cave or temple) and doesn't give in. And by not giving in encourages his father to stand up and make a claim for his own redemption.
That's a guy who's going to EVER think he needs to murder his sleeping nephew? He's learned this lesson. And then he's not going to go out and try to save him? Not try to save others? Not try and correct his mistake? There's characters being fallible or coming up short and there's the nihilism in TLJ.
He does give in. He did his **** best to kill papa after that Leia comment. He just backed off of that path a bit later. You know, EXACTLY like in TLJ flashbacks.
The idea that a decision, once made, prevents future distantly-related decisions is ludicrous. The assumption that he didn’t try to save Ben is, again, ludicrous. Even the idea hat he wasn’t under the same Snoke influence as seen at that moment is kind of hard for me to swallow.
He spent minute with Vader. He spent decades with Ben. His behavior in that first event shouldn’t really have any bearing on that second relationship.
3 minutes ago, mazz0 said:It’s nothing to do with punishment.
Okay, then what is killing someone who hasn't done anything wrong yet on the justification that they'll do something wrong? Sure looks like capitol punishment before the crime to me.
18 minutes ago, JJ48 said:Right, because that's the way temptation works: you reject it once and then never have to deal with it again your entire life.
Yup. Especially if there’s a Sith Lord out there corrupting everyone who is force sensitive and trying to drive a wedge between you and this apprentice. Doesn’t matter because you kicked that habit one time in your 20’s.