[deleted]
[deleted]
soon
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Rian Johnson Discussion > [deleted]
Despite the film making all that blockbuster cash, I think it's safe to say he won't be making the next trilogy.
share"Despite the film making all that blockbuster cash, I think it's safe to say he won't be making the next trilogy."
I think it's safe to say that you are utterly delusional.
[deleted]
"They (Lucasfilm) have already shown that they fire people both before projects, and during."
Only when the person they hired proves he isn't giving them what they wanted. With one finished and very successful movie by him, they know exactly what they are getting with Rian Johnson, and because they are smarter and wiser than the idiotic haters, they gave him the keys to the kingdom. Can't wait to see what he does next.
[deleted]
""Very successful" based on what? They want to make at least 1.5 billion dollars...that is very successful"
In the real world, as opposed to the idiotic delusions of trolls like you, "very successful" does not mean hitting that high a bar. I'm sure they would love to make that much, but they would make a hefty profit even being shy of the 1 billion mark.
"and they also want a large audience to return for another one. At this point, it's not likely either of those are going to happen."
Your evidence free bullshit speculation has been duly noted.
"Well, now you lose all credibility, because you are butthurt that you like a terrible movie and most people don't."
In the real world, as opposed to your idiotic delusional fantasies, the film is critically acclaimed and received a very positive A Cinemascore, meaning that most people really liked the movie. No one cares that a tiny bunch of whiny losers like you didn't like it. You people literally don't matter to anyone.
Yeah, I really don't think all the ad hominems are necessary.
As to landofree's point. This movie has to make around 800 mill to break even and while I am sure it will make a profit I don't think it will make the amount the execs want it to make during its theatrical run. Despite the critical acclaim, this is a very polarizing film. Arguably the most polarizing film since the prequels. They might still go ahead with a new Johnson trilogy but I think at this point they will opt for him to direct only, rather than write and direct.
Overall I think its too soon to tell at this point. If you look at a movie like Amazing Spiderman 2, that was a film that critics were split on, a small majority of audiences liked and it made a profit. And yet it got the reboot. With TLJ, majority of critics liked it, audiences are split on and it will likely make a profit. Both are IP's run by big studios.
And I think its important to take another thing into account. TFA did very well on all fronts. Its has its detractors but not nearly to the extent this one already has. And it seems like Disney still took that crticism to heart by going a wildly opposite route (story wise) as opposed to its predecessor. With the much heavier divisiveness this film is generating, I think its a fair bet that the studio and Abrams are going to approach episode 9's story from a "how can we fix this" point of view rather than just a "where do we go next" point of view.
Personally, I think they'll still go ahead with a new trilogy. What I think is definitely up in the air is whether or not Johnson will be writer/director, just director or not involved at all.
"Despite the critical acclaim, this is a very polarizing film. . .With TLJ, majority of critics liked it, audiences are split on. . ."
You are basing these assertions on nothing other than a loud minority of whiners on the Internet, which is hardly objective or scientific.
The movie got an "A" Cinemascore. This means that when you base your measure on ordinary people who have been verified to have seen the movie, are only allowed to "vote" once, and are not a self-selecting, the vast majority like it. Based on these objective facts, the movie is hardly polarizing.
I'm basing it on my perspective as a movie goer, everyone I've talked to, yes - comments and videos on the internet, audience score on RT, continually dropping imdb score, BO dropoff. But who knows, I might be wrong about how things play out. I'm pretty far removed from the film at this point and not emotionally invested in which way the wind blows for the future of the franchise one way or the other.
But you seem to pretty invested in it, and fairly angry with people who disagree with you to the point where you disregard evidence of dissenting opinion as "nothing other than a loud minority of whiners on the Internet, which is hardly objective or scientific." Which is an hilarious statement since the only thing objective or scientific when it comes to gauging a movies success is box office. So we'll see how that plays out.
in the meantime, why don't we both agree to disregard critic/audience opinion on the film since that can never be objective or scientific...because film is a subjective medium and opinions on films can only ever be subjective.
And by the way, Star Wars' pop culture appeal is as big as the big religions like Christianity. So never underestimate the power of mass delusion. When it comes to the opening night of a Star Wars film, it takes a while for the frenzy to wear off. And since Cinemascore gauges initial audience reaction only, I would argue that their rating system is even more flawed. They are not polling people who have had time to digest what they just saw. Just look up The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. Both have a score of A-. So unless you're going to tell me that this is an accurate score and completely representative of most moviegoers thoughts on those films now or even a few months after they were released, I'd say you lose this argument.
"I'm basing it on my perspective as a movie goer, everyone I've talked to, yes - comments and videos on the internet, audience score on RT, continually dropping imdb score, BO dropoff."
In other words, you base your claims on complete garbage data. Got it.
"Which is an hilarious statement since the only thing objective or scientific when it comes to gauging a movies success is box office. "
Consensus of professional critics is a better gauge of quality, so since it inconveniently goes against what you choose to believe, you dismiss it.
"in the meantime, why don't we both agree to disregard critic/audience opinion on the film since that can never be objective or scientific...because film is a subjective medium and opinions on films can only ever be subjective. "
Nope. Art is not completely subjective. It certainly has a subjective element and people can reasonably disagree about how much weight to give it, but it is not a case of "anything goes" nor a case of everyone's opinion being equally valid. Some people have better taste and perception. Period.
"And since Cinemascore gauges initial audience reaction only, I would argue that their rating system is even more flawed. They are not polling people who have had time to digest what they just saw. Just look up The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones. Both have a score of A-."
This is the only valid point you made in your entire post, but you took it too far.
No, internet scores are completely and utterly bogus and only a moron takes them seriously. Even the former editor and chief of Rotten Tomatoes has said they are not a serious means of measuring true audience reaction. Anyone can vote on RT and the IMDB without ever having seen the movie, and vote multiple times. Both sites typically show audience scores and reviews before a movie has even hit theaters. Furthermore, they are self-selecting and amplify the views of motivated, vocal minorities out of proportion to their representation in society.
Nevermind the scores, read the comments on different boards and you'll see the outrage. Too many people feel betrayed.
Over 59,000 and counting signatures on a petition to remove this film from canon to be delivered to Disney. Star Wars isn't just a movie that fans watch, but to experience.
The critics are out of touch and disliked the original movie in 1977. Most gave it 2 stars and didn't recommend people see it. Stars slowly increased as the years went by because it was popular with the public. Critics have free screenings or pay to see them only once. Fans will see a movie multiple times if they like it and buy merchandise.
There was a lot to like about this film, but Jake Skywalker and not addressing Episode 7 questions ruined it.
"Nevermind the scores, read the comments on different boards and you'll see the outrage. Too many people feel betrayed."
Too many idiots, many offering critiques based on misogyny and alt-right racism, are outraged. Those people don't matter.
"Over 59,000 and counting signatures on a petition to remove this film from canon to be delivered to Disney. "
Yes, there are many idiots in the world. For instance, anyone who signs an internet petition for anything.
"The critics are out of touch and disliked the original movie in 1977."
Excuse me, but I was alive then and very aware of the many rave reviews the movie got upon its original release. Time magazine gave it the headline "Best Movie of the Year," my local newspaper from a major city couldn't stop singing its praises, and it was nominated for Best Picture by several organizations, including the Oscars.
"Those people don't matter."
Those people are bigots and misogynistic idiots. Disney is just trying to increase the target audience in order to make more money. It's NOT a social agenda.
My problem with the movie is the lazy writing and the director's lack of respect towards Lucas, Hamill, Abrams, the fans and the saga. HIS vision is "progress". Really? Lucas' vision is what people have loved for 40 years. Show some %%&#%^ respect!
"...anyone who signs an internet petition for anything."
I have to disagree with you on this one. Sometimes it works. Mail works much better, though. I literally had a TV show introduce a plot based on a "joke" complaint letter my two friends and I wrote. Go figure! They really read that stuff.
I saw the movie in 1977, too. Apparently, your local critics were smarter than mine. Three local newspapers had 2 star reviews. The local TV news critics were negative. They said the only good thing about the movie were the robots, music and FX. Siskel & Ebert both gave it a thumbs down. Many critics rewrote their reviews and added stars a few years later. I literally lost faith in critics because of their negativity towards an obviously great movie.
SW won for best music, costume and FX. No other major Oscar awards. Sci-fi was considered low quality B-movie garbage before SW with the exception of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Too bad because it was the best picture of the year.
[deleted]
"Siskel & Ebert both gave it a thumbs down. "
1. Siskel and Ebert didn't have a movie review show in 1977.
2. Both of them gave rave reviews to the original Star Wars, as did most critics.
"Siskel and Ebert didn't have a movie review show in 1977."
Yeah, they did. It was called "Sneak Previews" and aired on PBS. I loved that show! They hit the big time and moved to commercial TV.
"Both of them gave rave reviews to the original Star Wars, as did most critics."
Nope. They originally gave two thumbs down on their show. Completely annoyed me. Many critics did revised reviews when TESB came out three years later and SW was rereleased back in the theaters. The same happened when ROAJ came out with even better reviews and another rerelease. At the time, Lucas believed his movies should only be shown on the large screen. He took forever to release them on VHS.
I've been looking for the original 1977 "Sneak Previews" TV review. Anything later would be a revised opinion. For the original reviews, the best thing to do is to literally research the May 1977 archives and go to the Museum of the Moving Image.
"Nope. They originally gave two thumbs down on their show. "
Google is your friend. Both of them gave the movie positive reviews. Look it up. I have no idea what reality you think you are living in.
Please link to the original May 1977 video of "Sneak Previews" because that is the specific episode I'm talking about. Unfortunately, nobody has uploaded that episode to youtube yet so google is not always our friend.
The reviews you're reading came after SW's success.
Revisionist garbage. An Ebert review is even dated January 1, 1977. The film wasn't released until months AFTER that date. He must have been psychic. LOL.
You were obviously wrong about their TV show existing in 1977. No reason for me to disparage two critics that I liked.
"Please link to the original May 1977 video of "Sneak Previews" because that is the specific episode I'm talking about. "
That's your responsibility, not mine. I've found two archived reviews from the both of them and they are both positive. That the newspaper site put the wrong date on Ebert's review decades after it was published is meaningless--the evidence is out there that they both liked the movie.
So the proof to the contrary needs to come from you. Until then, I'm justified in thinking you are the one who is putting revisionist garbage out there.
Big Deal! Undated reviews written AFTER SW already became popular which is what I originally wrote.
You're obviously a very small person who can't admit when you're wrong like a Siskel and Ebert TV show existing in 1977... and their reviews.
Very small, indeed!
Excuse me, cupcake, but all the evidence supports me and you have absolutely nothing you can cite in your favor. That means you have lost the argument by any rational standard.
shareCupcake? Admit you're a Trekkie!
"Siskel and Ebert didn't have a movie review show in 1977."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneak_Previews
1977 negative reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5uxB7AeiY
I note with great satisfaction and no surprise that you have cited absolutely nothing to support the case that Siskel and Ebert ever gave a bad review of the first Star Wars movie.
What's especially irrational about your post is that the second video (which does not even try to support your case) features a review by John Simon and both Siskel and Ebert were brought on to an episode of Nightline to DEFEND the Star Wars movies against him. No one would have thought to invite them if they had panned the movie.
You've got nothing. Grow up and admit it.
I originally posted that critics revised their reviews after SW became popular including Siskel & Ebert.
I wrote in previous posts: "Most gave it 2 stars and didn't recommend people see it. Stars slowly increased as the years went by because it was popular with the public...Many critics rewrote their reviews and added stars a few years later."
See below for proof and now you owe me an apology.
2003 online posts on a SW fan site with various posters:
"Someone told me that Siskel and Ebert (on the show in 1977), gave the original Star Wars two thumbs down. Has anyone ever heard, or has any proof of this? I also remember reading that George Lucas himself has said that none of the Star Wars movies have been well-reviewed. So people who have read the reviews back in the day..."
"This is true from what I remember, though one reviewer did say Mark Hamil was as "cute as a button", honest that is what he said."
"Roger Ebert does not have a clue about films or filmmaking. The number of times he changed his mind on films is vast. It was not just Star Wars. Also, the number of negative reviews after the intitial release of Star Wars was substantial. This number would gradually decrease over the next few years. "
"Here's a snippet from Siskel's review: He gives some praise: "striking visual tricks . . . Lucas' scriptwriting . . . weird-looking aliens," then adds, "On the debit side are the film's human performances. Save for Alec Guiness, the cast is unmemorable." I think the ultimate rating was a thumbs down...I didn't have the full review, just those snippets in a 20th Anniversary STAR WARS magazine."
If you compare those snippets to Ebert's 1/1/77 online review you'll notice they aren't the same.
Anyway I was looking for this link because I had mentioned bad reviews 2 years ago with another poster except he/she was not as hardheaded as you.
http://boards.theforce.net/threads/siskel-and-eberts-first-review-of-star-wars.11787317/
Enjoy your humble pie. And I want my apology.
You apparently have no concept of what it means to offer evidence to support your case, because absolutely nothing in your post qualifies.
All you did is cite other people with vague, half-formed memories that are similar to yours. That is not evidence of anything other than, perhaps, a shared delusion.
Evidence would be you citing an actual bad review from Siskel and Ebert that was different from subsequent reviews published later. Or actual footage from their review show with both giving thumbs down ratings.
But you can't. I think it is because these reviews never existed in the first place.
As it is, all that can be found out there is Siskel and Ebert giving Star Wars a positive review and later enthusiastically defending the movie against snobs like Simon.
And most reviews that I can find are not two stars, but very positive. That's why the movie was nominated for so many Best Picture of the Year awards. In fact, in another video interview with Simon where Siskel and Ebert defend Star Wars against him, Simon complains that Star Wars received too many rave reviews from critics. This contradicts your narrative that it was never well received.
So again, I don't give a crap about your memories, or senile George Lucas's memories, or the memories of butthurt fans. I care about facts. Nothing else.
It's more than obvious that you weren't born when SW was originally released or you would've known about the majority of negative reviews and Sneak Previews airing in 1977.
You're a sore loser and a liar. Don't choke on your humble pie.
I was 14 when the movie came out, idiot, and I saw it in the theater twice.
Again: you have zero evidence to support your case. Zero.
But keep making a fool of yourself in a public space. You are quite good at it.
You're lying or you would know what happened personally at that time and you don't.
You're probably 14 now since that fits your present behavior.
Your denial is a strange statement about your mental health and connection to reality. Get some help.
All I ask for is evidence. Since you have absolutely none, you are forced by your delusion to make shit up. How pathetic.
MagneticMonopole:
"1. Siskel and Ebert didn't have a movie review show in 1977.
2. Both of them gave rave reviews to the original Star Wars, as did most critics."
1. Sneak Previews 1975-1996
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075583/
2. http://boards.theforce.net/threads/siskel-and-eberts-first-review-of-star-wars.11787317/
LOL! What makes you such a loser is the inability to admit when you're wrong. That's something for you to work on before you reach adulthood.
Again: you have absolutely no evidence to support your delusion. Evidence would mean citing a bad review either of them actually gave for the first film.
You can't do it, because those reviews don't exist.
You are really embarrassing yourself.
[deleted]
Thanks.
shareAll of your counterpoints are laughably wrong and I think you know that.
Tell me this is garbage data
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/23/the-audience-strikes-back-last-jedis-77-fri-to-fri-plunge-is-worst-ever-for-a-star-wars-pic/#6d6f41ce57fa
You lose because ya basic.
"All of your counterpoints are laughably wrong and I think you know that. "
My counterpoints blew you out of the water, which is why you didn't address them. You can't.
"You lose because ya basic. "
Your data, as usual, is garbage. There are many reasons outside of this minor backlash why the movie was going to drop significantly. One of my favorite movie pundits was warning about this long before it actually happened, and the pipsqueak backlash was among the least significant reasons he gave.
I saw the movie again on Christmas day and the theater was just as packed, if not more so, than when I saw it on the opening weekend at the same time.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"A hefty profit is not 1 billion. "
Find me an expert on film economics who has said in print that the film would not make a decent profit from 1 billion. Your troll bullshit means nothing to me.
[deleted]
You're just a nutcase. By your idiotic metric, almost every movie is a failure.
There is no rational producer on the planet who would be disappointed with "just" 1 billion at the box office. 1 billion is extremely rare.
[deleted]
Again, you are as much of a clueless lunatic as the DC comic book movie idiots who fight with Marvel fans claiming that Thor and Spiderman were box office failures.
You have supplied absolutely no "math" or evidence to back up your ridiculous claims, and you never, ever will.
[deleted]
"So, do the work and go look for it like I did."
It took me all of sixty seconds to expose you as a lying sack of human excrement--obviously you were pulling everything you posted out of your behind.
The consensus rule of thumb from movie financial experts is that to start making a profit, a movie has to make back 2 to 3 times its production budget in total box office. This figure accounts for both marketing expenditures and the fact that ticket sales that are non-domestic have a lower return.
The production costs for The Last Jedi were $200 million. Right now, it's world wide gross is approaching $800 million. So it has already made a very nice profit and will continue to do so.
How does it feel making a complete fool of yourself in a public space? You probably do it so often you stopped feeling anything, is my guess.
[deleted]
"Your "financial experts" (aka. your imagination) are wrong, and therefore you are."
Prove it. You can't, because everything you write comes out of your ass.
Suck on this, drooling moron:
ttps://io9.gizmodo.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable
You give people what they need not what they want in show business . It’s how the Simpson’s has lasted 30 years. In time TLJ will gain favor from the haters.
share[deleted]
You’re right about the viewership declining, I havnt watched the Simpson’s in years. I was thinking more about the concept itself than the numbers. Good counter argument though.
share[deleted]
You and others have been vindicated on this argument. This movie is a failure.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robcain/2017/12/23/the-audience-strikes-back-last-jedis-77-fri-to-fri-plunge-is-worst-ever-for-a-star-wars-pic/#6d6f41ce57fa
[deleted]
[deleted]
I really want to see this "The People Vs. Rian Johnson" movie... I think they should interview everyone they can get their hands on... the 35 - 50 year old upset fans, the young average moviegoers... any execs... actors, directors, producers, writers, etc...
it'll be great to see just how absurd it is... the whole fuss over a Disney movie... the intersection of a tired- but-well-branded series, with modern blockbuster marketing and the internet ranking systems and social media...
it'll be interesting to see whether or not fans become aware of how ridiculous it is for them to be so invested in this series at this late stage (after decades of complaining)... i the past I wouldn't have thought that that realisation would come as they are fanatics.. but now... I'm not too sure... Actual starwars fans are in revolt against this movie... I think they are finally realising the cultish nature of "fandom" and how they have been exploited and taken for granted...
The thing is movies, like any art, do not belong to "the fans"... they never did, they never will... at the most it is something shared by the the creators (the director primarily) and the audience (individually and as a whole, not just the pure/loyal/actual fans)...
To "The People", that is the audience, Star Wars is like any other big movie... not that big a deal, just a commercialised product... but to fans it is an existential crisis... it's a little pityful, but also relatable and it's hard not to feel empathy and sadness for their loss... the loss of innocence as well as the how late it has come...
[deleted]
makes sense
shareI would rather have Rian Johnson than Jar Jar Abrams any day.
share[deleted]
I don't really care for JJ Abrams movies. But the Last Jedi is a most incompetent Blockbuster movie i have ever seen in my life. The Force Awaken might have been a Rehash of A New Hope. But it least it didn't have a subplot that featured characters (Finn and Rose) that literally accomplished nothing.
share[deleted]
the force awakens was much much better than the last jedi , even if you feel it was a rehash , it was still entertaining
shareBeing a rehash was the least of its problems. Every time I see Finn going toe to toe with Kylo Ren, blocking his saber strikes, etc., I get sick to my stomach. Or watching Rey use Jedi mind tricks without a lick of training. That movie turned the force into a joke and as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist, I'm striking it from the canon. That's how much I hate it.
share[deleted]