Signs that you've been conditioned to accept mediocrity in a Star Wars film:
Relieved that it didn't sukk as much as Last Jedi. As if any movie could.
Happy that it wasn't so bad.
Happy that it was okay.
Feeling that any Star Wars movie is better than no Star Wars movie.
You hated the actor, the SFX, the robot, the script, the plot, some other characters, the music... But, you still liked the movie.
Yea I think your right. Disney has conditioned us to just settle fo less with the assumption being what they give us is better then nothing at all, until we realize were paying for it it it will carry on this way.
shareWTF? Hardly anyone likes this film, most of the comments on this board are critical! Which means that nobody here has "accepted" it except a few trolls who are just saying it to shock.
What's the matter, are you disappointed that the critical comments lack fervor or something?
They may not be trolls. I know uber SW fans who like the film even though they had complaints about it.
shareDo you know anyone who loved it?
Bet you don't!
Unfortunately, I do. But, he also loved The Last Jedi until he finally came to his senses. I think there may be SW fans who love the brand without admitting to themselves that the brand is being ruined by Di$ney.
shareThere really is no accounting for taste!
I can't imagine anyone really loving this movie except maybe a hormonal fangirl who doesn't know SW. I mean it wasn't terrible, it just wasn't... much.
No good-looking guys in the movie so you're not going to get a hormonal fangirl liking it either.
In other words, it was mediocre.
No, whatshisname is an attractive enough young man, he just wasn't Han.
I imagine at least a few hormonal fangurls have taken an interest, but I'm not going to check.
He's very plain so I doubt it. No buzz about him on the internet.
Lucas was better at casting men who girls/women fawned over like Christensen, young Mark Hamill, Ford, MacGregor, Neeson and Billy Dee Williams. If Kennedy wants to get more females in the theater, she should cast better looking guys.
I admit that the new SW films have been very deficient in the field of Hot Guys.
Oscar Isaac is the only attractive man in the whole shebang, and he's also no Han Solo. I think they intended Darth Emo to be attractive, but I can't look at him without wanting to stick his head in the toilet and hold him down with my full weight, so if they meant him to be the hottie of the series they've definitely failed.
Oh well, at least Marvel is coming through on that front.
There was some buzz about Darth Emo when Force Awakens came out although nowhere near the level of Hamill or Christensen. Emo isn't conventionally attractive, but some women find him sexy while men find him repulsive.
share[deleted]
The weird thing is that apologists of the Disney Star Wars often say stuff like "it's just a Star Wars movie" or "the originals were bad too". Apparently these people are huge fans of movies they don't think are very good.
shareYeah the level of mental gymnastics on display by apologists is laughable.
shareAnti-Disney sentiments have no merit. Even if you don't like the new movies, the prequels "lowered the bar" long before Disney owned the franchise.
shareAnd even they didn't "ruin" Star Wars.
shareNot sure I agree with that. Obviously, the franchise is still alive and well and in no danger of becoming irrelevant. But the prequels were not well-received.
shareAs disappointed as I was with the prequel experience, and so were my friends, I don't kid myself on that they weren't popular on release and there was still a lot of goodwill for the franchise when it was coming to its prequel trilogy conclusion. They got mainly positive reviews at the time. There was enver anything like the pre-emptive opposition to every aspecet of every film before, during and after their releas in the post Lucas era.
"There was never anything like the pre-emptive opposition to every aspecet of every film before, during and after their release in the post Lucas era."
True dat. The prequels hard a hard job meeting expectations. TPM probly the most anticipated sequel of all time. They just about did it , at least the 12 year olds (target age for accordint to lucas) who hadnt seen the originals were happy.
But I have never seen so much hate like these last 4 films are getting, every topic on every board are just shitting on diusnay or the directors or the film in general - no ones "talking" about the films.
"pre emptive" is the key , you were right there. people dont want to like them , because .. i dunno because itll never be up to expectation?
People don't like the new movies because the main goal is to make money. Lucas' goal was to create art, deliver a message and create heroes, etc. Even if you hated the prequels, they were experimental films (- lie the OT - with Lucas trying to deliver something new and exciting for the fans.
You're correct that the Disney SW will never meet expectations unless you lower them and accept any garbage with a Star Wars label slapped on them.
Actually. Lucas's intention with Star Wars was to make a movie for kids which would generate enough money for him to be able to work independently of the hollywood entertainment industry and so that he could finance his own "small, art films" without any interference. It was for this reason he retained the sequel and merchandising rights. He was only interested in doing this after seeing how much money there was to be made from "warm, fuzzy" populist material, which he made only on strong recommendation from Coppola after THX-1138, the kind of challenging art film Lucas wanted to make, failed and took their production company down with it.
He was angry that Empire cost more than Star Wars in order for it to look better than the first film since it reduced the amount of profit he could make. Which is why Return Of The Jedi looks like a step backwards in terms of artistry.
Without bashing the prequels, the experimentation in them was about how to not make pictures in the conventional way. What we saw in them is not what you'd call experimental. Only the methods were experimental. Visually speaking, the movies are blocked out like television and are pretty un-kinetic outside the special effects sequences.
This doesn't make George Lucas any less of an artist than he's always been. But the efforts to beatify him as only interested in art are totally absurd.
Star Wars was made for young adults and teenagers who waited on line for hours to see it. Just google the photos from 1977 to see who was overwhelmingly on those lines. I stood on one for 3 hours. It wasn't made for 7 years olds even though they could enjoy the movies as well. Many kids were inducted into the fandom by the original fans who later had children of their own.
Star Wars was an independent experimental film as well as an art film. At the time, the SFX was completely ground-breaking because of its realism. Lucas had even outdone "2001, a Space Odyssey".
Lucas SW films are amazing visually. Costume designs (esp. Vader, stormtroopers, Jawas, droids, Fett), props (esp. lightsabers) vehicles (esp. landspeeders, speeder bikes, X-wings), planets, death star, etc. Add the great musical score, concepts, story and writing. Art is also self-expression and delivers a message which these films did.
The prequels experimentation was about shooting the first major movie digitally and CGI. He had said CGI allowed him to create the SFX that he couldn't do conventionally. Lucas was talking also about replacing actors with CGI. That may have been the reason why we had a CGI JarJar.
Lucas' company created photoshop and Pixar which he later sold for less money than they were worth. A nice chunk of his Disney money went to recently building a museum. It's not always just about money. Lucas is a control freak and perfectionist which is why he would want total control.
In my original post, I said Lucas' goal were several including artistic - not only artistic. There is little to no artistic creativity with Disney, just copying from the OT in order to make money "on a sure thing".
I don't see any logic in your "no artistic creativity with "Disney" (Disney doesn't produce the films), just copying from the OT in order to make money". Unless I also consider PT Lucas lacking in creativity by copying the OT in the Phantom Menace going to Tatooine and rescuing a queen/princess, then blowing up death st.. sorry, droid control ship while a land battle waged between the primitives and the technological forces.
The artistry and technical brilliance of LFL and ILM, which originated in the OT is still evident in Star Wars.
Different colour/shape star ships doesn't equate to the difference between artistry and no artistry.
I don't see what the corporations that Lucas started up and invested in, like Pixar, has to do with arguing that "Disney's Star Wars" has no artistry.
"Disney doesn't produce the films"
The Force Awakens, etc. are Disney produced and distributed films.
I've already explained in detail what I meant by creativity and artistry in my thread. Visually, the OT is visually, musically and conceptually new and innovative. The PT used the OT as a springboard to further add new designs, concepts, etc.
Disney SW basically reuses the OT designs, concepts, writing, etc. with little originality. There was a reason why millions of fans complained about The Last Jedi being a rehash of A New Hope.
"Different colour/shape star ships doesn't equate to the difference between artistry and no artistry."
Actually it does. To be an artist is to be creative. You can't be creative if you're only copying designs, music, etc. from the OT instead of developing brand new work.
And Disney is copying when it makes no sense. For instance, the same X-wings and other ship designs are used in Disney SW even though 30+ years have passed. Realistically, designs would've changed with new technological developments the same way the military vehicles look different between WW2 and the Vietnam War. Notice how Lucas made sure to have a different look between his OT and PT movies to reflect the difference in years.
You stated that Lucas' motivation was all about money. I brought up Pixar, etc. to demonstrate that he's not only about money.
Lucasfilm produces the movies. Their parent company Disney distributes them.
Even if your definition of what's creative and what isn't creative was accurate, how come Episodes VII and VIII are much more satisfying and entertaining films than any of the prequels?
"And Disney is copying when it makes no sense. For instance, the same X-wings and other ship designs are used in Disney SW even though 30+ years have passed."
I don't buy that as a necessity. That's just really mundane reasoning to my mind. The movies seem to be about certain people being mired in conflict. The First Order being devoted to Imperial ethos and culture. The resistance being the rebels who believed business was unfinished. I see no reason to shoehorn in some sort of aesthetic revolution or radical evolution of design into that equation.
As it happens. The way that movies are made today means that even though the basic designs are common, the action involving these machines distinguishes them quite vividly from the spacecraft in the previous era.
"You stated that Lucas' motivation was all about money."
Regarding why he chose to develop Star Wars in the seventies, money to finance his "own" movie was his stated intention. You're jumping ahead to Pixar which had nothing whatsoever to do with Star Wars films.
"Lucasfilm produces the movies. Their parent company Disney distributes them."
Lucasfilm is owned by Disney, therefore Disney produces the movies.
"...Episodes VII and VIII are much more satisfying and entertaining films than any of the prequels?"
Perhaps for you. Many fans hate Disney SW and especially VIII. There are many people who like the prequels more than Disney SW.
Anyway, my comments were never about the enjoyment of SW which is subjective. It's about the overall quality of Disney SW vs Lucas SW.
"...The First Order being devoted to Imperial ethos and culture. The resistance being the rebels who believed business was unfinished...."
In other words, recycling the plot from the OT instead of coming up with an original one. Seriously, if you want to watch the same OT plot with the same OT designs, characters, scenes, etc., you might as well just watch the OT instead of a mediocre rehash.
"I see no reason to shoehorn in some sort of aesthetic revolution or radical evolution of design into that equation. "
Aesthetic revolution or radical evolution of design was always a part of Lucas SW which was my point. Did Disney condition you to accept their much lowered bar re: design, etc.?
"the action involving these machines distinguishes them quite vividly from the spacecraft in the previous era. "
Bull! That's Disney justification for not changing the designs. Would a WW2 propeller plane go as fast as an F-16? Industrial design has everything to do with performance.
The real reason they didn't change the design is because Disney wants to recreate the popular OT universe because they think that will make them the most money and they don't want to take any risk by creating something original. Bean counters in charge of an artform (books, films, music, fashion, etc.) strangles it.
Lucas said he wanted to make experimental movies and create heroes for a new generation. He wanted money to be able to independently make more of them in the future.
You want to take the x-wings out of star wars???
If Disney had done that you'd be screaming the other way about it.
Why can't Disney design a ship that's so amazing, it makes the X-wings look dated and dull by comparison? Go to the next level.
An example of going to the next level at least conceptually is in the Terminator movies. In the first Terminator movie, Arnold Swartzeneggar's character was a great villain especially in his relentless pursuit. I didn't think he could be topped.
Amazingly, the filmmakers were able to top him in the sequel with a shape-shifting villain who was not only more relentless, but had great SFX.
BTW, I enjoy X-wings and can see them in the OT anytime. I don't need to see them repeated ad nauseum in every Disney SW because they lack creatively and courage to be original and innovative. Lucas didn't have them in the PT which was fine with me. The PT had other designs that I enjoyed.
But THX was a great movie. Not financially great, but that as you said was never the intention of Lucas to begin with. But artistically great. Too bad he didnt make any more of those types of movies.
shareAs disappointed as I was with the prequel experience, and so were my friends, I don't kid myself on that they weren't popular on release and there was still a lot of goodwill for the franchise when it was coming to its prequel trilogy conclusion. They got mainly positive reviews at the time. There was enver anything like the pre-emptive opposition to every aspecet of every film before, during and after their releas in the post Lucas era.
What utopian town do you hail from? I can agree that dislike for them has increased over time, but
1. What does that matter?
2. Their original reception was not that warm to begin with. The only one that has good reviews is the last one, which is ironic because I'd argue it's one of the most divisive of the trilogy.
The internet wasn't as prevalent then so it hadn't skewed the agenda as it does now. Prequel "hatred" only became that when the internet started to really expand and put a powerful tool into the hands of people who already had too much time on them.
As much as I was disappointed then, I cringe at the entitled commentary and memery that came along later and pervades regarding the sequel trilogy. I won't change my mind about the films, ever, but I discovered a fair amount of sympathy for the prequel's biggest fans even regarding the supposed unanimity about how those film's sucked. It never was unanimous. Now, as a confirmed fan of the sequel trilogy, I see the same BS regarding how divisive the new films are.
A movie that gets criticised for opposite reasons e.g. I hate the way - they tell me/didn't tell me - never show me/keep on showing me is not really that divisive . If the haters are divided, it tells you more about the haters than it does the film. (Haters won't recognise this though. In my experience they are happy to count people with opposing demands to theirs as part of the "many people" who need to be catered for. I recommend they are catered for with some heavy psychedelics. Might give them the required perspective)
Who is "the Internet" what is its agenda? Even you called both trilogies divisive, so there's not some big mass movement or agenda - as there is no one large mass group with an agenda.
Of course you hear about the dislike of them more now. Even you said it yourself – the Internet is so much bigger and there are a lot more people on it now.
You almost make it sound like people are allowed to dislike something. You are pretty much dismissing any criticism of both the prequels and sequels as "BS".
The internet is not a proportional representation of the public. Not fifteen years ago and not today.
But people with an agenda will gladly adopt whatever ill will is on the internet to support their position even if the reasons that other people are unhappy are opposed to their own. e.g. I hate the way they can't be bothered explaining things / I hate the way they explaining things to me. I hate this multicultural, social engineering BS / These movies are racist. They play safe by having OT characters/They've done OT characters wrong.
It's the haters that would appear to be far more divided than people are in general. Yet they can't help themselves but be completely uncritical when lumping all negative comment in together as if it's representative of a polarising of opinion. To be polarising, there needs to be two positions which are equal and opposite. There's no such situation with Star Wars at the moment. Yet people maintain there is purely to enhance the stature of their position.
"You are pretty much dismissing any criticism of both the prequels and sequels as "BS"."
That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. But it's depressingly familiar these days. You challenge the arguments that support people's opinions and they start crying that people cannot accept criticism or that they dismiss criticism.
>Feeling that any Star Wars movie is better than no Star Wars movie.
I'd rather have a Star Wars movie that wasn't a waste of time and money.
I don't know. I couldn't finish watching. Maybe it got better in the last 40 minutes but I was bored out of my mind...
I find it incredible that with all of their resources this is the best Disney could do. Bland, tasteless and texture-less.
I made the mistake of criticizing a Disney movie before on the internet and within hours, someone in a Mickey Mouse costume showed up at my door and started beating me with a crowbar while making that high pitched "ha-ha!" giggle the whole time. So yes, I loved this masterpiece of cinema.
shareLOL.
shareSigns that you've been conditioned to accept mediocrity: Disney is involved in production.