|
Post by otherscott on May 30, 2018 9:26:31 GMT -8
I watched this last night, and it was pretty good! I don't really have the same concerns as Jeremy about the Star Wars universe getting milked dry because I think it's more flexible in terms of types of stories it can tell than the Marvel universe. No matter where you go in the Marvel Universe, it's going to be a superhero story. You wouldn't really be able to pull off stuff like Rogue One. And this was really the first Star Wars movie that was intended to be pure popcorn, whereas that describes almost all the Marvel movies.
In terms of why the audiences were so low, I don't think it has anything to do with "boycotts". I just don't think the Star Wars audience or general audience was that hyped up for it. It was a prequel about an already well developed character where we already knew the gist of what was going to happen, plus most of the Star Wars fans I've talked to weren't all that excited with the trailer. I mean, for goodness sakes the trailer has a scene where Chewy is hanging out a window about to be hit by a rock outcropping. Obviously there's no real danger there, it's Chewy! What type of suspense were you even trying to build?
I think this was more of a combination failure of this being a mostly unnecessary movie along with poor marketing, Disney probably just thought "it's Star Wars, it'll sell itself".
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2018 13:52:34 GMT -8
I watched this last night, and it was pretty good! I don't really have the same concerns as Jeremy about the Star Wars universe getting milked dry because I think it's more flexible in terms of types of stories it can tell than the Marvel universe. No matter where you go in the Marvel Universe, it's going to be a superhero story. You wouldn't really be able to pull off stuff like Rogue One. And this was really the first Star Wars movie that was intended to be pure popcorn, whereas that describes almost all the Marvel movies. It's more flexible in terms of type, but it's not quite as flexible in tone. The troubled production of Solo is proof that Disney has a firm thumb on the direction of Star Wars, and doesn't want to deviate from what they believe to be its core appealing factors. Marvel, on the other hand, may hew its films to formula, but they've really allowed them to loosen up in recent years. (Especially notable in Guardians Vol. 2, where James Gunn was apparently allowed to be as off-the-wall as he wanted.) Still, we're rather early in the Disney era of Star Wars, so maybe the franchise will head into more unexpected directions in future films. I'm at least curious to see how they'll try to sustain momentum after Episode IX wraps.
|
|
|
Post by Zarnium on May 30, 2018 14:04:12 GMT -8
I'm going to see Solo sooner or later, though personally, I don't usually like prequels of this nature all that much. Or if I do, it's in spite of the fact that they're prequels. Han is already a fully-developed character, doing a prequel movie for him doesn't really add much to the mythos, IMO.
What I'd like to see going forward are movies that take place in the Star Wars universe, but don't have anything to do with the plots or characters of existing movies. Not a direct prequel, not a direct sequel, doesn't have any characters from other movies, doesn't directly involve the Rebels, Empire/First Order, or Jedi. Something wholly original, but that retains the Star Wars universe as a setting and aesthetic. Also, maybe don't use a barren desert planet as a default location, for once.
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Post by PBTD on May 30, 2018 14:17:44 GMT -8
I've come to the realization that the swift, ridiculously so, cancellation of their highest rated television series - Roseanne - in the wake of Baar's tweet is, intentional or not, a response to the claims that Star Wars is hurting due to fan backlash towards the "SJW agenda" and Kathleen Kennedy. Whether or not it's true, Disney has made it clear they are willing to take significant financial hits to keep their image as socially acceptable and as inclusive as possible. They are fighting a losing battle, and I'm glad because I've gotten to the point seeing these videos on my feed and reading these comments that I'm just disgusted with how many intolerant fans there really are. Nobody likes being pandered to, but based on what I've come to understand their claims are ridiculously exaggerated.
If anything, this "backlash" has made me much more curious about TFA and TLJ. What made me disinterested in the first place is not particularly enjoying the first six films as I got older, and so "more of the same" did not tickle my fancy. But if it's this divisive, well, there may be something I can appreciate about it after all.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on May 30, 2018 15:19:07 GMT -8
I really don't think the Star Wars situation and the Roseanne debacle are at all connected. You don't need to be concerned with social justice to know that Roseanne's tweet was disgusting and wholly inappropriate. ABC and Disney would be facing a massive backlash if they kept airing her show. They did the smart thing, and the right thing.
Scott is correct in saying that Disney got a little too confident in assuming audiences would automatically flock to any film that has "Star Wars" in the title. That, plus all the reasons I've outlined, explains why the film underperformed over the weekend.
Also, you should definitely check out TFA and TLJ; they're really good films even if you're not a huge Star Wars fan.
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Post by PBTD on May 30, 2018 15:28:44 GMT -8
In the extremely off chance they did make a dent in the low box office and Episode 9 does poorly, it suggests Disney won't bat an eye. I just find it extremely hilarious how naive they all are. What is it about crowds that makes people so delusional?
And yeah, I think I will watch them
|
|
|
Star Wars
May 30, 2018 19:06:36 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on May 30, 2018 19:06:36 GMT -8
Episodes 7 and 8 are much, much better than those prequels, and equal to, or better than, Return of the Jedi. The Force Awakens actually DOES hew pretty closely to formula, particularly the story beats and setting of A New Hope, but with a more diverse cast. Re: The Last Jedi, I would argue it features the richest, most nuanced performances in the entire series (those of Adam Driver and Mark Hamill), the most artful cinematography and art direction in the entire series, and the most moral complexity.
And I sort of disagree with the idea of the Marvel movies being any more formulaic or samey than the Star Wars flicks. I mean, they may mostly, ostensibly, be "superhero" movies, but where SW is virtually always space opera, the Marvel Universe encompasses comedic action flicks about arms manufacturers (Iron Man), Norse-mythology-driven intergalactic fantasy (Thor), heist flicks (Ant Man), spy thrillers (The Winter Soldier), surreal mysticism (Doctor Strange), farcical space opera (GotG), high school dramedy (Spider-Man: Homecoming), etc. I don't think the SW franchise has shown anywhere near that level of flexibility in terms of content. And I say that as someone who only REALLY enjoyed about one-third of the 18 Marvel flicks.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on May 31, 2018 10:41:39 GMT -8
I guess it depends if you want to talk about flexibility of genre or flexibility of storytelling. No matter what, Marvel movies are in some way about the ability of one special person - or group of people - to overcome some sort of internal and external difficulties to save the world. That's true of whatever genre the movie hides in.
The Star Wars movies don't have to be about that. That's ostensibly what Episodes IV-VI, and VII as well which was following that formula, were about. Rogue One and VIII have elements of that, but only elements. And really Solo is sort of about that, but only when you connect it to the original trilogy.
But it has the potential to be something different. The prequels were disappointing partially because they were about something completely different and they just failed to execute. There's so much flexibility in Star Wars to nail whatever theme they want, and capture whatever type of human and whatever side of human nature they want to. I want to see them take some advantage of that.
|
|
Quiara
Grade School
Posts: 775
|
Post by Quiara on May 31, 2018 11:28:21 GMT -8
But it has the potential to be something different. The prequels were disappointing partially because they were about something completely different and they just failed to execute. There's so much flexibility in Star Wars to nail whatever theme they want, and capture whatever type of human and whatever side of human nature they want to. I want to see them take some advantage of that. Wasn't part of why the prequels flopped that they were about something completely different?
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Star Wars
Jun 1, 2018 10:56:52 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by PBTD on Jun 1, 2018 10:56:52 GMT -8
Based on what I'm seeing, any deviation from the formula including the themes is met with hostility by a decently large yet still minority group of fans. So yes, it's possible the larger focus on politics and Anakin's very different portrayal as opposed to Luke is part of what some fans despise about the prequels.
|
|
PBTD
Newbie
Posts: 44
|
Star Wars
Jun 4, 2018 5:13:11 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by PBTD on Jun 4, 2018 5:13:11 GMT -8
60% drop in second weekend. Looking like a disaster if only about half way to breaking even.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 4, 2018 10:00:07 GMT -8
It's actually not much of a drop compared to the second weekend of The Last Jedi, which also saw a precipitous dip from the first week to the second. (Although that's only limiting weekends to three days - Solo looks much worse when comparing its four-day opening with the four-day second weekend for TLJ.)
The film won't come close to being labeled a disaster (it's already passed the break-even point if you include worldwide sales), but it will likely temper Disney's expectations for the series. Which is good, because the moment a franchise begins to "sell itself" is usually the moment it starts to go downhill.
|
|
|
Star Wars
Jun 4, 2018 16:50:08 GMT -8
via mobile
Post by ThirdMan on Jun 4, 2018 16:50:08 GMT -8
Oh, I think many folks are referring to it as a commercial disaster. But that's because the budget on the thing, particularly with the change of directors and re-writes/re-shoots, was huge.
But like you said, it's probably a good thing for Disney to consider whether these spinoff films and prequels are really necessary and/or worth the monetary investment. Rogue One's commercial performance may have been a bit misleading.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Jun 4, 2018 18:32:25 GMT -8
I wonder if the take-away from this is really just how to space these movies out. If you want to build these Star Wars movies up as "an event", it might be worthwhile to not have them air within 6 months of each other. I think if you had a new Star Wars movie every two years you'd really see the audiences flock to it, but you also have to balance that against the fact that there's more opportunity for profit the more movies there are.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Jun 4, 2018 19:53:12 GMT -8
Well, we've got over 18 months till the next Star Wars film is released, and if that film makes a box-office killing (and I'd be shocked if it doesn't), maybe the studio will see fit to slow down the franchise.
Although the fact that they have nine more films in the pipeline right now makes me think otherwise.
|
|