MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) Discussion > This is the truth why there's hate and l...

This is the truth why there's hate and love for this crap.


I'm in my forties. A kid in grade five asked me if I saw "Star Wars". To him, Star Wars and Last Jedi are the same. It's a movie his dad brought him to see and it was awesome. To me, it was the third rehash of things I've seen before. It was a movie targeting kids so I have no place comparing it to the original. The original took months of matte shooting just to make a ship fly but now we can use cgi to make 100 ships fly in less then a day. With the original you just knew ticket sales at best. Now, we know how many girls of what age with what dates, ethnicity, spending habits, income levels, geographic locations, confectionery cheque sizes etc etc. I didn't like it. But the kid loved it. Disney isn't stupid. As little long as a movie can withstand the criticism of anyone under 12 years old, it's going to make money. As for us older folk wanting quality for our standards, it will never happen.

reply

Do you not think there's maybe an age gap in like or hate?

reply

Fans hated it. But aren't we fans old and as dead as Luke?? It's time for our kids to take over and make their own mistakes.

reply

I'm a 40 year old fan and I liked it, but it wasn't great. Pretty sloppy and unfocused and had some real amateur crap in it.

reply

So in other words you're having a mid-life crisis and resent modernity.

reply

You are a prime example of how schools have degraded. This post is far too advanced for you. But nice try. Look up the word perspective after you attend business school. It's a prerequisite to this post.

reply

You're hit on part of the truth, and the truth that many fans don't want to admit is that these films are made for mainstream audiences, not the geeky fans.

Some of the fans act like they "own" the franchise and should be able to say how it goes, but that's bullshit. The primary aim of these films is to please mass audiences, the mainstream, the under-12s and their parents... the mundanes.

reply

To reflect this reality then Disney should be candid about their target audience and stop pretending that fans are one indivisible amorphous mass of people.

reply

All those little boys who play with Stormtrooper toys and the soccer moms who think Rey is a great role model for girls are fans, too!

Why should Disney show any preference to the obsessive geeks, or deference?

reply

Not deference just honesty.

You can't say "the fans love the movie" when you really mean that the kids and mum fans are wholesale loving the movie. They are fans but they are not the entire population of fans.

It's a cheap commercial PR tactic to generalise in order to boost perceptions of success (and displace criticism). They should stick to the facts.

reply

Oh son, you're not expecting a huge international corporation to suddenly start practicing truth in advertising, are you?

Really, if Disney is saying that the fans love this movie, it's truer than the average statement from a corporate spokesperson.

reply

There are more consumers than corporations. :)

Some interesting stats:

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens is widely predicted to become one of the highest grossing films of all time, with some experts suggesting that box-office revenues in excess of the current record, Avatar’s $2.78bn, are within its reach. Now, researchers have revealed who will be buying the tickets.

According to the cinema marketing data firm Movio Media, the average purchaser of an advance ticket for JJ Abrams’s space opera in the US is a 34-year-old male. And 70% of ticket holders are men between the ages of 18 and 49. According to Movio Media, the average advance ticket holder is a regular cinemagoer who usually travels to see big-budget fantasies such as Jurassic World or Avengers: Age of Ultron on opening night, and spends 2.6 times more than the national average amount on watching movies." (- https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/26/star-wars-the-force-awakens-jj-abrams-average-fan )

"Star Wars Consumer Insights

Who buys Star Wars? Star Wars consumers are generally higher income, Hispanic, and lower middle age. Star Wars consumers are more likely to purchase Star Wars during larger pantry stocking trips. Brands such as Borden, Maruchan Ramen, and Chef Boyardee also tend to be purchased in the same trip. Sample consumer insights data below." (- https://infoscout.co/brand/star_wars )

Also, according to the same market survey consumers of Star Wars tend to be male, 35-44 years, have kids, earn over $100k a year and have a significant college education.


The advice here would be to not alienate or patronise the potentially hardcore male fans of older years. Fans are not chiefly women although they will likely make up a large proportion of the audience. So they shouldn't pander to the minority even if the PC guidebook mandates it. I'm guessing though that the very high Hispanic consumer segment found by Infoscout might encourage attempts at pushing diversity in actor ethnicities.

reply

Disney knows that the male hardcore fanboys will see the films many whether they like them or not, even if it's only so they can bitch about them online. A ticket sold is a ticket sold, whatever the reason it's bought!

There really is more money to be made by appealing to women and people outside the US, than appealing to the hardcore fanboys. The fanboys just aren't a big enough part of the audience of these films to be financially significant, and they can't be called "influencers" because no non-fanboy takes their opinions seriously. And the fanboys are so slow to adjust to reality, they spent so much time being the only people who had a serious interest in the decades between new films that they refuse to realize that Disney has totally changed the picture, and they're now out of the loop.

reply

And the fanboys are so slow to adjust to reality, they spent so much time being the only people who had a serious interest in the decades between new films ...


Not a fanboy myself, but doesn't the fact that they kept the flame alive all these years that you mention worthy of some kind of respect and/or recognition? If they hadn't kept it alive, there'd be no Star Wars any more. Disney wouldn't have purchased the franchise (and thus had the opportunity to profit from it) because there would have been little to no market left. To just change things wholesale and cut the loyal fans out of the loop seems ... unsporting. Loyalty should be rewarded, not discarded because it's no longer politically or economically expedient.

reply

Yes, fan service would be nice and much appreciated, but when it comes to a choice between giving the fans what they want or doing what the creative people want to do, they have to give the writers the freedom to go where the fans don't expect them to go.

reply

If someone wants to spend money to see it, aren't they a fan?

reply

Not necessarily. They may have been influenced by reviews or are new to the series and are curious. Some people don't watch a film for years after its release and then decide to watch it.

reply

Yeah, the new movies cannot hope to be fully comparable to the original trilogy of films. However, in my view this is limited to only a few areas:

- As you mentioned, craftmanship: Technicians will not spend nearly as much time on "real effects" and models as they did in the period around 1980. They are not compelled to be inventive when CGI can fill in or emulate a number of things.

- The originals had access to actors of the traditional stage tradition: Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, James Earl Jones and maybe a few others. Whilst it's true a few theatre actors appear in TLJ they are not necessarily of the calibre of those men, at least in the sense of lending their characters a stillness and measured intensity whilst depicting people of a bygone age as they might see themselves. If Jedi were an historical reality from the ancient world or from the period of Nineteenth Century gentry what would you expect? Not people of a modern, abbreviated sensibility.

- There will not be an original creative mind involved again - every movie since the originals riff off them as templates ready made for production with some tweaks here and there. George Lucas was a serious inventor and intellectual.

That said, I think the new films are well made. They sometimes suffer from feeling a bit detached whereas in the original films you felt a visceral sense that when a character was in jeopardy they definitely were in danger.

reply

There is one other thing that has been missing since the OT. And that forcing the viewer to also use their imagination. There were a lot of things talked about that we never saw. Like the clone wars, the republic senate, all these other star systems and things going on. Since the prequels we just get everything spoon fed to us(the viewer). In the last jedi a trick was most definitely missed to expand on lukes back story since we last saw him. They could have talked about him like we saw old ben talking about anakin. They talk of lukes legend but they didnt really touch on anything that he did after return. They could have built look up with a few stories here and there to more give us an idea of how the galaxy thought of luke "the legend" skywalker.

Nobody really talks about whats going on elsewhere in the galaxy. At least not in a way that gets your imagination going. IMO thats the thing that has been sorely missed since the OT. That nice blend of spectacle and wonder.

reply

Very good points. I don't mind a "new generation" of Star Wars. I do mind poor story telling.

reply

Id say that too is subjective. Theres a lot of good stories out there that people piss on because all the answers arent spoon fed to them. And Ill be honest, a lot of the things I see people complain about here are just that. "why didnt X do this?" "why did Y do that?" "I didnt like Z!".

Theres a few points that you just need to go with in this movie. You can make the connections easy enough, but if you are so inclined you could go the other way. "Why would luke try to kill ben? Thats not like the hero that we saw in the OT!" And thats true, from a certain point of view. Young luke was full of hope and drive to save his father. Old luke had been beaten down by failure and seeing ben as this future evil caused a moment of fear that led to him drawing his saber. People say thing is out of character, but its really not. Luke at the end of return is still conflicted, still emotional and still has a lot to learn. But he has no one to teach him anymore. So he goes on doing the best he can. In short this is the same luke who tried to kill the emperor in a rage. It was only a moment, but its still there. And so having that still be a part of him when he sees what ben will become, he sees the past and fear takes over for a moment and what does fear lead to?

reply

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering

reply

- There will not be an original creative mind involved again - every movie since the originals riff off them as templates ready made for production with some tweaks here and there. George Lucas was a serious inventor and intellectual.


George Lucas openly riffed and remixed the Flash Gordon from his childhood. He sought the license for Flash Gordon in the years before Star Wars because that's what it was going to be instead. When he couldn't get the license, he started changing the story so it looked different and had different names. He didn't have to change it much, because Flash has space ship battles, a moving weaponized planet capable of destroying other planets, a princess, an Emperor, etc.

Even the opening scroll is taken right from the Flash serials: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnOL8Fx3Tvc&t=24s

Yes that's super original and inventive and intellectual, right?

Kids these days even slam Disney for selling Star Wars toys, yet Lucas specifically took lower royalties for Star Wars so that he could keep the merchandising rights, and that's what made him so rich.

"Letting the past die" and "kill it if you must" should not include complete blindness to the past.

reply

During the making of the original trilogy, he combined ideas from the "Flash Gordon" serial, "The Hidden Fortress", "Buck Rogers" serial, "The Fighting Devils Dogs" serial, " Once Upon a Time in the West", "Lost Horizon", "The Dam Busters" to name a few motion picture media. He was also influenced by a host of historical and literary sources like Joseph Campbell's "The Hero with a Thousand Faces", the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy by JRR Tolkien, Isaac Asimov's concept of a galactic empire appearing in his "Foundation" books, Arthurian mythology, Frank Herbet's "Dune", and possible influence of the comicbook series saga by Jack Kirby called "New Gods" (appeared from 1971 to 1975); historically you have the World War 2, Vietnam War, Roman Empire, ancient Eastern philosophy and ancient Middle East culture. So quite a range of interests and ideas from that collection of sources. Having studied a range of similar subjects myself I can attest to the amount of detail and deeply interesting subjects and concepts that can be found in those areas that Lucas was drawn towards.

Seeking to emulate these influences is not necessarily a bad thing. Clearly it was not a mundane copying and combination process that resulted in the original trilogy.

Yeah, Lucas was concerned that he wouldn't be able to continue making the films so struck a deal that was attractive to the studio and left him an avenue to obtain needed funds as well as possibly make other films. He was certainly very successful as a result of those decisions as you say. Merchandising became very important early on - when you think about it every action figute or mug or lunch box is an advertisement and a reminder about the movie, not merely fun objects that run on consumer desire.

Yeah, never forget the past because it provides context. Again, however, Lucas with some editorial help from his movie buddies created something quite interesting unlike these days where recycling is the main game.

reply

Good point about the toys as advertising, considering Star Wars was not the modern juggernaut we now have.

I still take issue with you helping to expand the point about recycling old ideas, which is practically the root of all storytelling, but yet saying "unlike these days where recycling is the main game." To elevate influence as an art (which it is) while simultaneously pointing out influence as a weakness is very odd.

Yes, there is a pretty fine line between influence and theft, not to mention a somewhat subjective line.

Also, regarding context... Lucas and his peers were at a time in motion picture history when they COULD be more inventive. These days it's a bit difficult to be inventive and daring and new, considering how much has been already done in film.

There's a reason why so many huge filmmakers came from that time period. They were in the right places at the right time. Lucas was buddies with Spielberg, Coppola, De Palma, Scorcese, and others.

Compare all this to live theater, which is still big business. Where is all the inventiveness and creativity? Theater has been around even longer, so it's pretty rare to see anything truly new and unique. Even the stuff Hamilton got famous for doing was nothing new, just remixed in a successful way and making it entertaining.

reply

By recycling I mean mundane duplication. As I've found lately this is often the case because productions don't invest in originality for one reason or another - it's not storytelling to steal popular motifs and art or even closely model scenes or cliches ultimately to conform or look good or compete with other films. You notice these things when you've seen a lot of media.

A story can have similar themes to another, regale us about the same characters or adapt stories but you know when several elements line up together and someone is trying to exploit the success of another (without attribution). B-grade movies are notoriously known for this but many big budget films are also guilty.

It's certainly hard now because "it's all been done", I agree. We're not seeing a lot of inventiveness. It might take an impetus from the literary world or something that occurs in real life that has significant ramifications in some area for inspiration in the arts world to occur.

reply

Oh and let me just add: It was still pretty cheap blatantly stealing the iconic opening scroll for Flash Gordon and turning it into "the iconic opening scroll for Star Wars." Borrowing and influence is one thing, but that was just cheap.

That scroll style was well known to old Flash Gordon fans in 1977. When that came onscreen, it was basically a message to other fans that this is a new version of Flash Gordon with a new name.

If someone did something similar today and co-opted something so iconic, I bet money you'd label it lazy recycling, if not outright theft. If someone else decided to take it from Star Wars and use it for a new fantasy-sci-fi saga, I bet you'd cry foul.

reply

Example of Flash Gordon text scroll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_ihQCcqFAY

"Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" was the second and last instance in which it was used in a Flash Gordon serial. The studio Universal introduced scrolling text for serials in 1938:

"Exposition of what led up to the previous episode's cliffhanger was usually displayed on placards with a photograph of one of the characters on it. In 1938, Universal brought the first "scrolling text" exposition to the serial, which George Lucas first used in Star Wars in 1977 and then in all of the following Star Wars films. As this would have required subcontracting the optical effects, Republic saved money by not using it." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film )

Omgosh! Scrolling text in other serials from the same period! -

"The Green Hornet Strikes Again": https://youtu.be/aDKUgLkvNQE?list=PLeCRINwoI8VYA5HNmf4F8cVj8J3rxKEC7

"Buck Rodgers": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp8Py-ENZgA

"Sky Raiders": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_cvpnG-4Nc

So, it can be said that scrolling text was a studio convention applied to several serials and by no means a signature device unique (or intended to be unique) to Flash Gordon films.

There was a lot of strategic cost cutting and duplication in the days of Flash Gordon serials just as there is recycling left, right and centre in films today:

"The major studios had their own retinues of actors and writers, their own prop departments, existing sets, stock footage, and music libraries. The early independent studios had none of these, except for being able to rent the sets of independent producers of western features.

The firms saved money by reusing the same cliffhangers, stunt and special effect sequences over the years. Mines or tunnels flooded often, even in Flash Gordon, and the same model cars and trains went off the same cliffs and bridges. Republic had a Packard limousine and a Ford Woodie station wagon used in serial after serial so they could match the shots with the stock footage from the model or previous stunt driving. Three different serials had them chasing the Art Deco sound truck, required for location shooting, for various reasons. Male fistfighters all wore hats so that the change from actor to stunt double would not be caught so easily. A rubber liner on the hatband of the stuntman's fedora would make a seal on the stuntman's head, so the hat would stay on during fight scenes." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_film )

Flash Gordon eventually was remade in 1980...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OROLRvKamdE

Very entertaining trailer, passable movie, hip music of the period.

However, no sequels were made unlike Star Wars which continues to this day. So Star Wars is the better "Saturday matinee" adventure story of the two. Star Wars is the movie "serial" of today or one of many given the success of Marvel movies for example. But serialisation in the form of sequals risks dumbing down the original films and interesting concepts of each narrative.

reply

"Omgosh! Scrolling text in other serials from the same period! -"


Okay, I definitely didn't realize it was one of those "everyone was doing it" things. Thanks for sharing.

But Lucas was still open about seeking to make Flash Gordon, and when he couldn't get the license, he changed the story and characters slightly into Star Wars, and added more influences from other properties.

The story he wanted to adapt is seriously very similar to A New Hope, including Mongo being a traveling weaponized planet ran by Emperor Ming, Flash heads to Mongo with Dale and Dr. Zarkov (Leia and Kenobi) to stop Ming from destroying Earth. Flash of course is a simple young guy from Earth who gets wrapped up in these galactic wars... in the stars.

In other serials, there is a cloud city, there is a part where Flash and Prince Barin (Han Solo) dress up in the outfits of Ming's soldiers to sneak around without being caught. Prince Thun is a lion man and an ally of Flash, very similar to Chewbacca. There's a lot of material in the serials and comics obviously, since they went on so long.

If the internet existed in 1977, you can bet money that Flash Gordon fans would be calling A New Hope a ripoff. So many OVERLY VOCAL people couldn't handle the intentional homage of The Force Awakens, deciding to spend the last 2 years slamming it with extreme language like "a shot for shot remake" of A New Hope. That is hilariously far from the truth, but I still saw the sentiment over and over and over since December 2015.

Personally, I respect influence and I am also a screenwriter, so I have plenty that can be pitched as "X meets Y." I'm submitting an animated sci-fi to a screenplay contest this month, and the movie is definitely "A Bug's Life meets Independence Day."

reply

I'm 34 and I enjoyed the movie. It was entertaining and not boring, that's all you can expect nowadays with the crap they are churning out.

reply

You could be right. Lower my expectations. Movies are about money not art anymore. Not for a long time.

reply

Movies haven't been about art for decades. Same thing happened to the video game industry.

I'm going to go see this again with my grandkids, so yeah, might lower my expectations as well. Will be interesting to see what they think of it.

reply

I also feel like absolutely everything is being dumbed down too probably for the younger generations. However, usually when I pass this comment, I am accused if being an old fuddy duddy and just a product of my generation. Music has suffered the worst I feel, it's purely commercial crap now and even alternative and rock is very mediocre.

reply

Lucas said this when he was releasing the prequels. The fans grow up, star wars does not. Star wars is for 12 year olds. Its a big metaphor for life and the things that a 12 year old will soon come into contact with.

As adults we can enjoy the story, or we can piss and moan that its not for us anymore. But its not. We had our time, and for better or worse the next generation is who these movies are for.

Theres also one last thing that many people arent willing to admit, this isnt how they thought the story would go. They either had their own mind made up of what happened after return, or they were very invested in the EU. Its like people moaning about a movie based a book. It never lives up to everyones idea of what it should be.

reply

Empire doesn't seem like a film aimed at strictly at 12 year olds. Sometimes I think Lucas is full of it.

reply

Sorry no, I meant the original star wars. Lucas wasnt happy with empire, as irvin made it his own and wouldnt really take instruction from lucas. Which is way lucas then brought in marquand because he was easier to control.

reply

Yep, it's no accident that the most beloved Star Wars had the least Lucas control. When Lucas took total control, we got the prequels.

reply

I'm 41 and remember seeing RotJ in the theater. I grew up watching the originals on Betamax over and over again. I loved TLJ, so to each their own, I guess. I despised the TFA, though. Both of these movies are dividing fans.

reply