STAR WARS : Episode IX December 20, 2019 6 6

[N e r V]

1 hour ago, jsilverjanet said:

I don't get this 

"I need to see it again"  mindset.

That's a flawed movie. Why waste your money on something that wasn't made correctly? The object of storytelling shouldn't be "read it once, then read it again and then you'll understand". This somehow has become Disney's signature movie. The are counting on multiple viewings from movie goers. The other day I saw an ad for Frozen that said "see it again" 

Has anyone ever read a book then read it again to understand it. No you read the next one. Unless it's great, will I see something again or read it again. Or even a TV show. Watch it back to back because it was so damn good. No you watch the next thing.

Ishtar failed because it didn't have the right marketing "see it again, it sucks even more the 2nd and 3rd viewings"

WTF

 

I would think that’s not a Star Wars or even a Disney thing but it’s more about marketing and who your audience is. Three of my favorite movies that came at the end of this year were Midway, Ford V Ferrari and Knives Out. None of which most of their audience will go to more than once even if they loved the movie. Just not the type of movies to get much on repeat business.

Kids movies like Frozen will get a lot of repeat business because that’s how kids function with movies they love. They like something they’ll watch it again and again.

Fan movies like Star Wars or the Marvel movies will always get a lot of repeat business because that’s simply how a large part of their base functions.

When Marvels Civil War movie came out I was talking with a guy that was going to see it for the 3rd time. After I watched it I was thinking afterwards I’m not really interested in seeing it again anytime soon (I thought it was super mediocre). I know for a fact though that EVERY Marvel movie that’s come out regardless of the quality will get a lot of repeat business. I can say that from friends, co-workers and any number of fan sites.

What has always amused me is the large number of people that say they are going to a movie again to see what they missed the first time? Unless some insufficiently_thoughtful_person had distracted you from watching the first time are you now looking for some deeper meaning in the movie? At least kids are straight up and go again to watch the CGI or things getting blown up...

[Buzzetta]

1 hour ago, jsilverjanet said:

I don't get this 

"I need to see it again"  mindset.

That's a flawed movie. Why waste your money on something that wasn't made correctly? The object of storytelling shouldn't be "read it once, then read it again and then you'll understand". This somehow has become Disney's signature movie. The are counting on multiple viewings from movie goers. The other day I saw an ad for Frozen that said "see it again" 

Has anyone ever read a book then read it again to understand it. No you read the next one. Unless it's great, will I see something again or read it again. Or even a TV show. Watch it back to back because it was so damn good. No you watch the next thing.

Ishtar failed because it didn't have the right marketing "see it again, it sucks even more the 2nd and 3rd viewings"

WTF

 

Maybe you are right with some movies but not with all. 

There are MANY movies, TV shows, and songs that you appreciate and experience more of with a second viewing. 

The TV show LOST immediately comes to mind as a show where the writers snuck so much foreshadowing into each character's development that you appreciate it on another level.  I remember watching the whole thing again and picking up on little nuances from visual to audio cues that were hinting toward things on a much greater scale revealed further down the line.  One the series was over I went back and watched it again. 

There are many songs that I have extended a greater understanding and appreciation for upon multiple listenings. 

It depends on the movie... 

[Buzzetta]

20 hours ago, speedcake said:

When you immediately poison the well by declaring "toxic" any and all criticism of the character or plot or writing, there isn't much reason to continue reading whatever argument or point the author is trying to make.

 

19 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I think you may be reading into the situation.

What the author is referring to is the toxic situation where some hardcore fans got so excited over her casting they attacked her online directly...

Kelly Marie Tran Speaks Out About Online Harassment: ‘I Won’t Be Marginalized’

...so it is just that situation referred to here. Unfortunately, any reasonable commentary on her performance can then turn into a sensitive situation because of THOSE toxic fans that made it such a sensitive situation. I wouldn't blame the actress for this.

Yeah, what people did to her was disgusting and embarrassing.  She signed on for a Star Wars movie.  Criticism will come at anyone no matter what job they do.  However, people went after her like it was a professional sport and in some of the most unnecessarily vicious ways imaginable.   Bosco is right.  People were so over the top that any legitimate criticism was lumped into it.   But yeah, a lot of the most vocal criticism was incredibly toxic and on a personal nature to her as an individual and not a character in a movie.  

[fantastic_four]

The better the art, the less likely you are to absorb it on a single reading or viewing.  If you can read most Shakespeare once and get everything there is to get about it you're either a genius or you're kidding yourself.  Try reading a Dickinson poem once and getting the whole thing on that first read--it's not going to happen.  It's difficult or impossible to absorb almost ANY great work on a single reading/viewing, so the idea that anything you can't read or see once and get in its entirety is the mark of an inferior work is absolutely, positively wrong.

That doesn't directly imply that an overly-complex, arcane plot or story is inherently superior.  But simplicity itself isn't a virtue.

Edited December 27, 2019 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

13 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

 

Yeah, what people did to her was disgusting and embarrassing.  She signed on for a Star Wars movie.  Criticism will come at anyone no matter what job they do.  However, people went after her like it was a professional sport and in some of the most unnecessarily vicious ways imaginable.   Bosco is right.  People were so over the top that any legitimate criticism was lumped into it.   But yeah, a lot of the most vocal criticism was incredibly toxic and on a personal nature to her as an individual and not a character in a movie.  

I feel bad for her on two fronts.  I think a very small groups of loud, obnoxious fans mistreated her.  On the other hand, they hired a talented, attractive, seemingly nice actress, and gave her a poorly written role, that was featured in a dead end plot tangent.  To top it all off the costuming and makeup department did not help.

[N e r V]

3 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Rise of Skywalker: The Mighty 86%

I think critics value (if they ever had much) has long passed diluted today with the internet age in which anyone can became a critic.

Even going back decades ago with the poster bringing up Ishtar which was not only known as a box office failure but also its polarizing effect with critics with some calling it the worst and others saying it was one of the best films of that year...WTF?
 

I lost it years ago when I started reading a review for a science fiction film in which the reviewer started off that he wasn’t a fan of science fiction films but here goes...

Needless to say he hated the film. That film was Avatar I believe.

[jsilverjanet]

43 minutes ago, N e r V said:

What has always amused me is the large number of people that say they are going to a movie again to see what they missed the first time? Unless some insufficiently_thoughtful_person had distracted you from watching the first time are you now looking for some deeper meaning in the movie? At least kids are straight up and go again to watch the CGI or things getting blown up...

This +1,000,000

32 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

Maybe you are right with some movies but not with all. 

There are MANY movies, TV shows, and songs that you appreciate and experience more of with a second viewing. 

The TV show LOST immediately comes to mind as a show where the writers snuck so much foreshadowing into each character's development that you appreciate it on another level.  I remember watching the whole thing again and picking up on little nuances from visual to audio cues that were hinting toward things on a much greater scale revealed further down the line.  One the series was over I went back and watched it again. 

There are many songs that I have extended a greater understanding and appreciation for upon multiple listenings. 

It depends on the movie... 

I agree with Lost etc. However that's different. There is some quality there etc. I'm not saying you can't go back and rewatch certain movies (Fight Club is great to see a 2nd time) however if I need to see something because I'm not sure I liked it or not, or because it didn't make sense is dumb. The movie probably wasn't very good and you are only going back a second time to justify it.

 

[jsilverjanet]

14 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

The better the art, the less likely you are to absorb it on a single reading or viewing.  If you can read most Shakespeare once and get everything there is to get about it you're either a genius or you're kidding yourself.  Try reading a Dickinson poem once and getting the whole thing on that first read--it's not going to happen.  It's difficult or impossible to absorb almost ANY great work on a single reading/viewing, so the idea that anything you can't read or see once and get in its entirety is the mark of an inferior work is absolutely, positively wrong.

That doesn't directly imply that an overly-complex, arcane plot or story is inherently superior.  But simplicity itself isn't a virtue.

missed my point. This isn't Shakespeare. If it wasn't good the first time around, it probably won't be better the second time. When did I have to learn to like something by watching it over and over again. Either I liked it or didn't. . 

This movie isn't a product of being to complex. It's an issue of did i understand what i watched. If I didn't then the director, editor or writer did a poor job. 

We've all seen plenty of movies that fall under this category but Disney/Marvel/Super Hero movies are the only ones that we give a second chance because we think "we are the ones that made the mistake"

I call that BS

[N e r V]

17 minutes ago, drotto said:

I feel bad for her on two fronts.  I think a very small groups of loud, obnoxious fans mistreated her.  On the other hand, they hired a talented, attractive, seemingly nice actress, and gave her a poorly written role, that was featured in a dead end plot tangent.  To top it all off the costuming and makeup department did not help.

 

34 minutes ago, Buzzetta said:

 

Yeah, what people did to her was disgusting and embarrassing.  She signed on for a Star Wars movie.  Criticism will come at anyone no matter what job they do.  However, people went after her like it was a professional sport and in some of the most unnecessarily vicious ways imaginable.   Bosco is right.  People were so over the top that any legitimate criticism was lumped into it.   But yeah, a lot of the most vocal criticism was incredibly toxic and on a personal nature to her as an individual and not a character in a movie.  

Seth Macfarlane commented at SDCC one year about the perils of the internet being your judge, jury and executioner regardless of what you do. It’s pretty instant as well. If enough people don’t like you or the part you’re playing you’ll know about it in a not so polite manner. 

Edited December 27, 2019 by N e r V

[jsilverjanet]

a rose by any other name...

[MetalPSI]

People can do what they want in regards to watching whatever, however many times, giving their money, over and over.

I wish I had that kind of disposable income. I've seen Aliens, Ghostbusters and Beetlejuice a bazillion times each. Why? My family owned the VHS tapes and couldn't afford to go to the theater or rent movies every weekend. Hell, felt like those tapes were on a loop.

I'm in the wrong business, the way people throw their money away, especially in these times. I need to get in on that.

 

Then we have the internet. Like the internet should have any influence. Anyone been online before 2002 here? Ever hang out in IRC? Yeah, people online are exactly how they are in real life. You have your same whiny, obnoxious attention seeking rabble. Ignoring them online is just as easy as real life. What the studios are buying into with the online culture is MONEY.

Maybe one day art will overtake greed, as it once was. Until then, we are going to get unoriginal garbage. Every story ever told has already been written and rewritten, the only thing we can do is try to support those unique perspectives that sometimes manage to shine through. This movie is the complete opposite of that, which is why it sucked. 

[jsilverjanet]

I can't wait for the robots to take over and deal with these fools

[MetalPSI]

1 minute ago, jsilverjanet said:

I can't wait for the robots to take over and deal with these fools

If Facebook is any indication, there will be absolutely no struggle

[bentbryan]

Speaking of the interwebz...the last few days I’ve been looking thru FB and YouTube videos of reactions/reviews to TROS.  The true gold can be found in the comments sections. I can’t take credit for this analogy but I feel it’s accurate:

Facebook comments:  the car has slammed the brakes, skidding off to the side of the road.

Twitter comments: the car has slammed the brakes, skidded off the road and smashed into a telephone pole. 
 

YouTube comments: the car has slammed the brakes, hit something and is now cartwheeling down the road, ejecting passengers in all directions. 

[Bosco685]

 

[bentbryan]

Ouch 

[paperheart]

if you disregard the fact that Rogue One had been in theaters for 11 days and TLJ 12 days by 12/26 vs 7 days for ROS...   Rogue One made $310MM after day 7 and TLJ made $323MM after day 7; if ROS does as well as those you're looking at $600MM+ US.  Fun with numbers, anyone can play.

[Bosco685]

47 minutes ago, paperheart said:

if you disregard the fact that Rogue One had been in theaters for 11 days and TLJ 12 days by 12/26 vs 7 days for ROS...   Rogue One made $310MM after day 7 and TLJ made $323MM after day 7; if ROS does as well as those you're looking at $600MM+ US.  Fun with numbers, anyone can play.

You could be right about that 'fun with numbers' comment.

By Day 7 Rogue One had made $222M domestically. Not $310M. Even if using Day 8 as 'after Day 7' then Rogue One and The Last Jedi made $244.9M and $321.4M, respectively. Going by both Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers, which mirror one another.

[jcjames]

6 hours ago, N e r V said:

...

What has always amused me is the large number of people that say they are going to a movie again to see what they missed the first time? Unless some insufficiently_thoughtful_person had distracted you from watching the first time are you now looking for some deeper meaning in the movie? At least kids are straight up and go again to watch the CGI or things getting blown up...

LOL! I know someone who was sitting next to someone who's phone went off at very the moment Kylo told Rey who her father was.... so he missed that part and so he didn't know until the very end and even then was slightly confused by the way Palpatine was talking to her because he missed that part. LOL!
 

[fastballspecial]

2 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

You could be right about that 'fun with numbers' comment.

By Day 7 Rogue One had made $222M domestically. Not $310M. Even if using Day 8 as 'after Day 7' then Rogue One and The Last Jedi made $244.9M and $321.4M, respectively. Going by both Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers, which mirror one another.

I am sure timing helps as well, but Rogue One was so much better then the other 3.