I find it truly fascinating, the amount of butthurt that is displayed is by the TLJ fanboys toward those who hated the movie. I don't think there was this much consternation over the prequels.

It's like, deep down, they know what a clusterfuck TLJ was and they feel the need to shout down critical opinions and throw around ad hominem attacks. There's a guy on another board who thinks he needs to respond to any negative opinion, and even goes after the people who liked the movie for not liking it enough.

Well, when I make the decision to watch a movie I expect it to be good...

Ad hominem attacks like calling anyone who disagrees with you "fanboys" and making generalizations about their motives, and how it can't possibly because they just actually like the film, and disagree with your opinion?

And there's always been back-and-forth about the prequels. Of course, anyone who like the prequels often got dismissed as a "fanboy" as well.

Is "good" the exact level you expect it to be? Do you get upset when a film falls outside those expectations by being too good, even great?

Or is maybe that Draven talking about expectations in character and plot, like what the person he was responding to was talking about, instead of something vague like level of quality? Did you not grasp that meaning from his post?

There's this really stupid line that the defenders of TLJ keep repeating about criticism of the movie is somehow invalid because it wasn't the movie we were expecting.

The same could be said of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull or Alien3 or Terminator Genesys or the last two Song of Ice and Fire novels.

I went into TFA with a blank slate, and thought the movie was flawed by mostly enjoyable. It set a number of things up that Johnson chose to abandon, so yes, it sure didn't live up to my expectations. And on top of that, it delivered a really boring, trite story that didn't know what it was or where it was going. It was a complete and utter storytelling misfire on every level that irrevocably damaged both the sequel trilogy and the franchise.

Totally agree. Throughout this entire thread there haven't been any real posts of people stating that they hated this movie because it wasn't the movie they wanted. But almost every detractor has stated how out of character major characters were written.

And pretending as if everyone thought TLJ was great and the detractors are just a small minority is ridiculous. It might be a small minority of the general population that watched the movie but nothing in the entire history of the franchise has been this divisive. Not even the PT. You can't read any article on TLJ without it mentioning how divisive of a movie it was. It really has truly split the fan base and I don't think it is hyperbole to say that it has damaged the franchise as a whole. I do believe that it damaged the box office of Solo how much no one knows. It's release date was the major reason I think. But we'll see for sure when Eps IX is released.

There's this really stupid line that detractors of TLJ keep repeating about Johnson being subversive just for the sake of it which made TLJ a terrible movie.

The same could be said of Mullholland Drive or No Country For Old Men or Chinatown.

TFA set up plot points that TLJ answered in creative and profound, if somewhat unexpected ways that added interesting texture to the main characters of this trilogy. On top of that, it honored the full breadth of the character of Luke as presented in the original trilogy (not just some idealized notion in fanboys minds) and especially the ever-important and eternal mentor/mentee relationship with Yoda. It was a new and interesting storytelling adventure that ushered in expanded ideas that are keeping the franchise fresh.

I feel like Episode IX will benefit from having time to let Star Wars rest for a bit. It’ll be a year and a half between Solo coming out and it’s release. I still feel like Solo suffered more from it’s release date not because of people not liking The Last Jedi.

I would have expected Solo to have done at least as well as Rogue One.

I think the backlash against TLJ is really limited to the hardcore fandom; the fanboys are split, but I think the more general movie-going audience and casual Star Wars fans were satisfied with it. It's nearly impossible to measure these things.

I'm sure a lot of TLJ haters probably sat out Solo, but I'd be shocked if it was enough to make a dent at the box office. But if that is the primary reason, Mickey Mouse should be shitting bricks.

Maybe the audience didn't want to see Han Solo recast. Or TFA soured Star Wars fans on the character by showing him as a failure who lost Leia and the Millennium Falcon, and was ultimately murdered by his emo asshole son.

Or audiences didn't want to see Han Solo portrayed by anyone other than Harrison Ford.

The promotion was too little, too late? We didn't see a trailer or any advertising until a couple of months before it release. Maybe folks weren't hyped enough for it? There really should have been a teaser trailer in front of TLJ.

Rian Johnson is the one obsessed with being subsersive, no? It's not like anyone is pulling this notion out og thin air.

And those aren't entries in franchises. They are their own stories.

...if only.

If only all criticism wasn't glibly dismissed out of hand...

I think we've really reached an impasse with this movie, where people see things in it that the other side doesn't.

If you saw a movie that was a "new and interesting storytelling adventure that ushered in expanded ideas that are keeping the franchise fresh," and I saw a movie that handwaved away established plot threads and reset the franchise back to the Empire vs Rebellion paradigm of the previoys trilogy, I'm not sure we even saw the same movie, so it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful dialog.

Which is probably a perfect analogy for the era we're living in.

I really think it was mostly the release date that caused Solo to suffer at the box office. It was a bad time to have it out while Infinity War was dominating the box office and when Deadpool 2 released only a week prior. I do somewhat think that it may have also been not a film that was as in demand by a lot of people than Disney/Lucasfilm anticipated.

Truth be told though I really did like Solo a lot and feel like it took a lot of flack for being a failure of a movie because of its underperformance at the box office and a lot of people who were seemingly eager to hate it for various reasons. I’m actually looking forward to buying and watching it again when it’s out on Blu-ray.

When you're dealing with a franchise, you really sort of have to "play it safe."

There are a lot of things you can do, but if you wander too far outside of the mandate, you get stuff like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

To keep using Indiana Jones as an example, Temple of Doom didn't really play it safe, I suppose. It was still an Indiana Jones movie, but it wasn't just a rehash of Raiders of the Lost Ark. And, oddly enough, a lot of people didn't like that movie, though I loved it.

Getting back to Solo, there really isn't a lot of leeway there. We know who the character is, and that he's going to end up playing a role in the OT, so there's not a lot of space to maneuver there.

Overall, I thought the story felt appropriate. Does that mean it was "safe?" It took a few chances here and there, like how I wasn't expecting to Han to meet Chewie in a dungeon and almost get eaten by him. I thought it added a clever twist to the established idea that Han freed Chewie from a slave prison when he was an Imperial soldier. It was unexpected, but didn't distract from the story or established characters, though I do look at Chewie a bit differently knowing he used to eat people.

Getting back to TLJ, I thought it was the ultimate playing it safe movie. It was fairly non-committal with regards to Snoke and Rey, just sort of writing them off as *meh, who cares* and resetting the franchise back to a Rebellion, an Empire, a new new hope, and a new Darth Vader. It took all of the new pieces and rearranged them back to 1977.

I really liked Solo, even though the trailers did nothing for me and I really wasn't hyped for it. The movie is not for everyone as it really harkens back to the 1977 Star Wars as just a fun/adventure film (I grew up with the OT, so Solo is probably the best SW film since 1983, IMO, but I could totally understand someone younger then me who grew up on the PT or even the ST feeling differently). I think Disney and the fans need to 'unlearn what they have learned' and realize that not every future SW film is going to appeal to them.

I think if Disney didn't think of every SW movie as a mega blockbuster, and reduced the budget some, then a movie like Solo wouldn't have been a financial disaster. The same goes with the fans after Episode 9, as you have to kind of pick and choose what appeals to you. The Standalones seem to appeal to me more, whereas the Saga movies may appeal to someone else more. The Rian Johnson of Game of Thrones Creators Trilogy will be for some fans, while a Kenobi or Boba Fett Standalone maybe for other fans.

Disney and the fans have to stop thinking every movie is going to make a Billion Dollars and it's like streamlining a business to make it more profitable.

I don't know if that is "Disney" overall because they don't have that mindset with Marvel. I don't think they make Ant-Man and Doctor Strange thinking they'd pull Avengers or Iron Man level money.

Maybe it really is all Kennedy's fault.

You could be right about Kennedy as Solo should be an eye opener to them for future SW movies. No matter what the reason is for it tanking, the only thing I take from it is that SW is not Teflon anymore and not every movie is guaranteed box office hit.

It could be a good thing in the long run because it will force them to change their model after Episode 9 (I firmly believe every future SW movie they were thinking about is up in the air now). There is nothing wrong if the movies don't make a billion dollars, and don't dominate the box office for 6 weeks like the old days. If Solo had a 100 million dollar budget (and no production problems) and the movie had some better luck (came out in December, better marketing, wasn't facing some TLJ backlash) it makes a profit and then they can start to plan for future SW films with respect to the Solo/Rogue One model, not the TFA model that makes 2 billion dollars.

Ah, I see you're still not understanding it's about specific plot and character expectations, not about vague expectations of quality.

It's about judging a film based on its own merits, what it's trying to be, not what you wanted it to be. Take Alien 3 as an example. In the lead up to the release, there was a teaser trailer that heavily implied it would take place on Earth.

Now, Alien 3 is a deeply flawed film, but it's not a bad film simply because it didn't take place on Earth. It failed on its own merits.

And while you, specifically, may not have been judging the film this way, some detractors are. Just in this thread, I was discussing with Mike86 about how Luke's Force projection and death were meaningful, and how the film establishes Force projection as a power only masters of the Force can harness, and this was the response:
He's not judging the film based on the merits of what it presented, but based on his personal expectations/wishes/predictions of plot and character.

If it's not being pulled from thin air, it's not being pulled from what Rian Johnson himself has said either:
https://www.slashfilm.com/subverting...-expectations/
He's given a solid storytelling reason for every decision he made in the film, whether it was to advance the plot or a character in a specific, compelling way. He's never said he set out to be subversive, but it's what makes a compelling story. Just giving the audience everything they already expect is just boring, as many sequels have discovered the hard way.

Like you dismiss mine? I work hard at my responses, I think about them, and try and be reasonable and fair. Meanwhile you're advancing a persecution complex simply because people dare respond to the negative remarks.

This is what people who don't want their views challenged anymore say.

Pssst, We're talking about TLJ here, not TFA, which is the movie that did what you describe.

The problem with Crystal Skull wasn't that it "wandered outside the mandate." If anything, it was pretty close to the other films, but just horribly executed. Jones makes a daring escape? Par for the course. That he does it in a fridge and survives a nuclear explosion? Dumb execution.

I don't think you understand what "non-comittal" means. It would mean, not making a commitment on those characters, nothing definitive. For Snoke, he killed him off. That's pretty definitive. For Rey, he answered the question of her parentage, instead of deferring the answer to the next movie. That's a commitment. The fact that you don't like those definitive decisions doesn't make them "non-committal."

In a way, I think the success of Rogue One was kind of a curse, because Disney started expecting those returns for every Star Wars film or maybe even looked at that as the floor. Now Solo still should have performed better, don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Rogue One, but I had to explain to my wife, a casual fan, a few times where it fell in the timeline and whatnot, and then when The Last Jedi came out, she was confused about it being back in the timeline of the episodes.

For what it's worth, she loved TFA, RO, and especially TLJ, and hated Solo. She does hate the milk scene, though.

It hasn't been. Some of us have actually been discussing the details and analyzing the film on its own merits.

It's only an impasse if you're not willing to discuss why you saw what you saw, either good or bad, in the context of film criticism.

I didn't though. I was lampooning your post, because I find that approach to film discussion absurd and pointless. If you've read through the thread, you'd know that I have mixed feelings about TLJ, but I've delved into why specific elements were effective or not effective. I've criticized some aspects and defended others. For example, here's the post where I detailed what I appreciated about the filmmaking choices with Snoke's death. I think that kind of post can foster meaningful dialog. Statements like, "TLJ sucked because Snoke went out like a bitch" (paraphrased from recently in this thread), don't foster anything.

They can't pull their Jedi mind tricks on fans with movies that bad.

There's a great parody out there waiting to be made with Mickey Mouse as Darth Vader.

Watched this for the 2nd time last night after seeing it opening week. My thoughts on it are about the same. It has some really great set pieces, wonderful to look at, no story, and 1/2 the movie could be cut without impacting what little plot there is.

Fun enough watch, but disappointing if you have any expectations out of this new trilogy.

Not sure what anyone expects of these, as it is obvious they have no real story to tell or real reason to exist beyond the fact that they are ATMs.

There is no arc, there is no vision, its just whatever they can piece together to tick the boxes of what they think people want in a star wars movie.

At least the prequel trilogy felt like there was an initial idea/arc, even though he had to shift/abandon most of it by the last movie because everyone hated the new stuff.

The original films are still fun to watch, and these new ones dont change that. Until they allow a SW story to come about organically (Rogue One was close), its a little silly to expect more of these movies.

At least the movies had an idea that was bad and changed because it was bad? I don't understand how that compares Prequel Apples to Last Jedi Oranges.

I think his point is that the PT (while flawed in terms of execution) still had a consistent narrative throughout, a consistent arc and consistent theme because Lucas was writing all 3 movies, compared to the ST where Abrams and Rian Johnson are sort of putting their own stamp on each movie. The one thing interesting about the PT is how each main character (Padme, Obiwan, Palpatine) really plays a role in the downfall of Anakin.

What Lucas changed in the PT wasn't anything in terms of the narrative, arc or theme, but specific things that backfired. I'm sure Jar Jar would have been a main character with much more screentime in AOTC/ROTS if there wasn't a backlash from the fans. The character is essentially MIA in ROTS as I believe he has one scene to greet Anakin/Obiwan/Palpatine at the beginning of the movie.

But Lucas pretty much stuck to his guns in terms of the story he was telling about Anakin and the fall of the Republic/Rise of the Empire, and that is why the Trilogy works from a storytelling point of view. Sadly, Anakin was miscast and the execution and overuse of CGI just makes the Trilogy a big what if......

Thanks, you pretty much nailed what I was trying to say. You are also right that he didnt really change the narrative. Some of the elements were shifted as he adjusted to the backlash and he definitely tried to up some of the fan service stuff by the time we got to the 3rd one.

I really wish that we could have seen what the PT would have been with a different director, because the story was there.

Or maybe it was because the end point of the narrative was known, and Lucas was working within the constraints of getting everything and everyone to line up with the beginning of the original trilogy (with some fudging).

Also, I think some people underestimate how inconsistent the original trilogy is in terms of plot. Luke's father was killed by Vader... no wait, Luke's father is Vader. Vader is the last of that "religion"... no wait, The Emperor is a force user as well, and Vader's master. Vader is Grand Moff Tarkin's lap dog... no wait, he's pretty much second to only The Emperor and all other officers bow to him. Luke and Leia are romantic interests... no wait Leia and Han like each other two, love triangle! ... no wait, Leia is Luke's sister, love triangle solved. Obi Wan will train Luke to be a Jedi... no wait, he's dead, so ummm, Obi-Wan's former master Yoda will train Luke ... no wait, after Luke ran off he doesn't need anymore training.

Not to mention that ESB is pretty much a plot that doesn't advance the Rebels vs Empire plot any. The Rebels run at the beginning, and the Millennium Falcon is being pursued by them for the rest of the film, while Luke is off on a remote planet with an older Jedi. Sound familiar?

I think most fans (not all) know that the OT was written on the fly but there is a big difference. Star Wars was written in 1977 as a standalone movie (Lucas had ideas for sequels but the movie stands on it own from start to finish). So once Star Wars was a big hit in 1977 then he could write his Trilogy, or 9 part Saga, or 12 part Saga so things were going to change (I know that Lucas said if he knew Star Wars was going to be successful then he would have never blown up the Deathstar until ROTJ). I actually think it's pretty remarkable that the OT holds together (despite some obvious plot holes) as a Trilogy.

The PT and ST knew they were going be Trilogies before they were even written, and that is really the point. As I said, the PT has MAJOR execution problems, but the narrative/storyline is actually really good and interesting, IMO and does flow within the 3 movies. The ST is essentially being written by 2 different people, so obviously their visions aren't going to jive with each other if there was no plan from the get go. I will continue to say that the ST will essentially look like 3 standalone movies when it is all said and done (It will resemble the Indiana Jones Trilogy more then the SW Trilogy), and that is where Disney/Lucasfilm sort of dropped the ball. You can have different directors (I like that JJ and Rian Johnson's style are different), but they should have had one person who was writing the overall arc of the Trilogy like Lucas did before.