Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The I've Seen Rogue One Thread (spoilers OBV)


603 replies to this topic

#426
Jacen123

Jacen123

    Woggle-Bug

  • Member
  • 36,805 posts

I finally got myself to the theater to watch this a second time.  It was nice timing since I had the entire IMAX theater to myself so I got a perfect seat and didn't have any distractions.  I really like the movie and it is great to see what is essentially the EU come to life on the big screen, but it definitely does feel very different than the saga movies have, which is, I think, why it took me so long to get back to see it again.

 

I noticed a lot more of the easter eggs in it this time, though I still missed Chopper's appearance.  It was also a lot nicer this time not waiting for certain scenes to occur only for them not to, primarily in the battle on Scarif.  It also helped being more familiar with the names of the primary characters besides Jyn, which helped in following some of the conversations a bit more closely.



#427
Metropolis

Metropolis

    Member

  • Member
  • 14,557 posts
I had the day off yesterday and didn't manage to go see it again. That's probably my last attempt until it comes out on Blu ray. Making R1 the only Star Wars movie I've only seen once in theatres.(Save the Special Editions of ANH and ESB) Hell my mother took me to see ROTJ 3 times back in '83. I didn't ask to go see movies back then so she had no problem taking me. Heck she thought the Ewoks were cute.

#428
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Making R1 the only Star Wars movie I've only seen once in theatres.

 

Myself as well.  I made a half-hearted attempt to see it a second time with my sister since she hadn't seen it yet, but she never had the time and I didn't push it.



#429
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

Seen it twice myself, once by myself and once with my parents. Yeah, even though I liked it I've really had no desire to go and see again ever since. I guess I'll wait for the Blu-Ray.

It's funny because I went to see Revenge of the Sith about four or five times a decade ago. Also used to do all-night marathons, but such an idea seems off-putting to me now.

Ah, to be young again . . .



#430
Lord Darth Hunter

Lord Darth Hunter

    Sith Lord of Crystal Lake

  • Member
  • 4,434 posts
It's funny you say that because I was wondering the same thing. I saw all the OT and PT films at least 3 times in the theater. ROTJ I must've seen about 7 times and ROTS I believe I might even have hit 6 times. So when TFA came out last year and I found myself only seeing it twice and never caring to see it again, even in DVD form, I thought it was because I felt it was a bad movie. It was very disapppointing. But now, I loved R1. It was exactly the type of SW movie I felt TFA should've been. And yet after my first viewing I haven't bothered to see it in the theater again. So the realization has set in that good or bad, I'm at the age where seeing films in theaters more than once is going to take quite a lot. It's scary because if R1 couldn't make me go back, I struggle to think what will.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#431
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 19,078 posts

Yeah, I saw TFA twice, but really R1 isn't enough to get me to take the time or spend the money.  Not that it wasn't good, I'm just an adult with responsibilities.  And that's okay with me.

 

:shrug:



#432
DANA-kin Skywalker

DANA-kin Skywalker

    American

  • Member
  • 8,781 posts

Yeah, I saw TFA twice, but really R1 isn't enough to get me to take the time or spend the money.  Not that it wasn't good, I'm just an adult with responsibilities.  And that's okay with me.
 
:shrug:

These movies used to be an event, when a new one comes out on average once every seven years. Now we are getting at least one new movie a year until we are all dead. This novelty will wear itself out eventually, and I think it already has started to. The first to drop off are people like yourself, a potential "repeat customer" with a time budget.

The next to drop off: potential repeat customer who's just not that into it anymore
Followed by: The I'm getting tired of the same thing every year customer

#433
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts
So like what has happened with Marvel movies?
  • Dark Wader and DANA-kin Skywalker +1 this

#434
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

 

Yeah, I saw TFA twice, but really R1 isn't enough to get me to take the time or spend the money.  Not that it wasn't good, I'm just an adult with responsibilities.  And that's okay with me.
 
:shrug:

These movies used to be an event, when a new one comes out on average once every seven years. Now we are getting at least one new movie a year until we are all dead. This novelty will wear itself out eventually, and I think it already has started to. The first to drop off are people like yourself, a potential "repeat customer" with a time budget.

The next to drop off: potential repeat customer who's just not that into it anymore
Followed by: The I'm getting tired of the same thing every year customer

 

I can't agree with you there.

 

Just because Lucas dragged that crap out 3 years between the OT movies, then a 16 year break, and another 3 years in between the PT movies doesn't mean they are any more of an "event."   Actually, there was no excuse for that, and that is one of the things I disliked most about how Lucas handled those movies. Oh, and then there was that live action series that never happend because El Cheapo Lucas couldn't motivate himself to make it happen.  I say it was the best outcome for Disney to take them over.   So far, I think they are 2 for 2 in making Star Wars movies far superior to any of the PT movies, at a minimum.

 

But I will grant you that no one ever asked for a young Han Solo movie, and to me, that is not exactly an event I am looking forward to.


  • DANA-kin Skywalker +1 this

#435
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,421 posts

I dunno, I think we need a bit more time before we can say Disney are handling it better than Lucas. Yeah they're 2 for 2 at the moment, and while they're definitely better films than the prequels it's worth noting that Lucas didn't think he was putting out sh*t either. It's just he & probably 90% of the population disagreed on whether they were good. It's not really fair to say he was cheap either - my understanding is that he helped finance a lot of the Clone Wars cartoon to ensure the animation was top notch - you can see a dramatic difference between it & Rebels for example. I believe that's also why the TV show never got off the ground before the sale, it would have cost too much to do it properly (at the time). 

 

Disney are really smart at the moment in that they realise it's better for them to take a hands off approach and leave Lucasfilm & Marvel to dictate the trajectories of their own franchises. It's raking them in cash. But when that stops, or someone else takes over and decides to step in and meddle around, then we'll see. The fact that only 2 years in and some are starting to feel it's too much isn't a great sign. 



#436
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

I don't hate the prequels, personally.  But I also think TFA and R1 are better than any of the PT films, and when they were released, I think it is fair to say they were every bit as events as the PT.  And I don't see how 1 movie per year has anything to do with a movie being good or not.  Three years in between movies these days is too long to go in between sequels, if you want your franchise to be relevant. But I can see how over-saturation can be a problem.  

 

I know I often compare Star Wars with Star Trek, and I know I am probably 1 of 3 or 4 people on Nightly that even cares about Star Trek anymore...it's basically a dead franchise at this point, but I think that this is a good analogy in this case.

 

 In 1990-2005, Star Trek was ubiquitous.  That was when most of Star Trek was produced: you had TNG (seasons 4-7), followed by DS9 (7 seasons) and VOY (7 seasons), Enterprise (4 seasons), and 1990-2002 had 5 movies (ST 6-Nemesis).  Total saturation was reached probably by around 1998, but the franchise somehow limped along until 2005 when they pulled the plug on the TNG films and Enterprise.  People did get sick of Star Trek because it became too familiar,  and too much was just rehashing what came before. So, they took a 5 year break, and soft-rebooted the franchise.  The result was 3 films between 2009 and 2016,  with 1 pretty decent film that proved reasonably popular and is credited for reinvigorating the franchise tempoarily, one crappy film, and another decent film that basically everyone forgot about six months afterwards.  Nothing really outstanding, with 3 to 4 years in between each film.

 

Were they events?  Maybe when they debuted, but only for maybe a few weeks, because especially with Into Darkness, once buzz got around about it's flaws, it soon became heavily criticized.  ST Beyond, like I said, did respectable initially, but the public was largely indifferent. ST 2009 probably enjoyed the most success, but that is probably mostly due to curiosity and people wanted to see how the reboot handled the franchise.  

 

Bottom line: Star Trek became a pop corn flick movie franchise people discard like a finished soda can.  I think one of the things that hurt these movies the most is the long wait in between films.  With Star Wars, we put up with it for the OT, because those films really did take that long to film, edit, etc.  With the PT, it was doable to put out 1 film at least every 2 years, but Lucas dragged them out for whatever reason.  It was like he was relying more on the time between the films to make them an event, than the actual substance of the films themselves.

 

While  Star Trek reached saturation in the 90s and 2000s, the Star Trek reboot films, wen the other extreme, and waited too long in between films.  It's like they were taking a page out of Lucas' book, and intentionally delaying production in between films to create a buzz.  And that's not even delving in to the upcoming "is it going or not going to happen" Star Trek Discovery that has been plagued with delays, the stupidest business decision ever of making it exclusive to CBS all access, the loss of it's show runner due to interference from the suits at CBS, and now we don't currently have an idea when it will air.  That dead dog has been dragged around so much, I don't know many people truly excited about it anymore.  I know I couldn't give 2 craps, and I am like the biggest Star Trek nerd around. 

 

So I think there is a case to be made that these days, especially thanks to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, if you are waiting more than 2 years in between sequels, you are not doing yourself any favors.  Star Wars really does need a film a year, or at the very least, an episode film every 2 years.  That all said, I wish we would have got an Obi Wan film instead of an upcoming Han Solo film.  That may actually be good, or it could be the first stumble of the Disney era Star Wars films.  I, for one, never wanted such a film, and am not excited about it in the least. 



#437
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,421 posts

I agree with you on TFA & R1 feeling like event films and I'm not saying a film a year has anything to do with the quality, but I can see how releasing that many can potentially lead to over saturation of the franchise and how it might not feel like an event further down the line. I totally get what you're saying, I just personally don't personally feel he did a bad job pacing the films either. I don't think he necessarily held out by not releasing them, he just didn't do it until he felt like he had something worth putting out. It wasn't. But he probably thinks they are. 

 

Right now I think Disney are doing great and I've got a lot of faith in what is in store, but my point is more we need a little more time to really compare if Star Wars is better under them than Lucas. 



#438
Mara Jade Skywalker

Mara Jade Skywalker

    Unpaid Disney Shill

  • Members
  • 34,732 posts
Disney isn't making decisions about LFL. Disney treats Lucasfilm the same way it does Marvel and Pixar, with a hands off approach. Just FYI.

#439
Filthy Jawa

Filthy Jawa

    Bring back Mandard!

  • Member
  • 8,677 posts
I think the point is that Disney is the owner. It's not George with final say on things anymore, it's whoever Disney decides is running Lucasfilm.
  • El Chalupacabra +1 this

#440
DANA-kin Skywalker

DANA-kin Skywalker

    American

  • Member
  • 8,781 posts
Re: Lucas vs Disney

Yeah, Disney is 2 for 2 IMO, but I think 2 films is still too small a sample size to say they are definitely doing it better than Lucas. Plus I honestly think time won't be too kind to R1 because of character issues and such. Yes, definitely better than episodes 1-3, but all these new movies had to be was competent to achieve that. I really need to see episode 8 before I feel comfortable saying "yeah Disney's doing it better". I'd like to see more originality.

Re: (Driver) franchise saturation similar to Marvel movies

Well, in a word yes. Lol
It Seems to be a byproduct of a business model they have in place. It may happen sooner, maybe later, but I think it will definitely happen.
Good news for Disney. Star Wars fans are great business. They will see a movie 5 times if they love it, and 2 times if they don't, so the saturation point may take a while.
Bad news for Disney. Unlike marvel, there isn't as much variability available. So, retread and repitition is the threat here, so the saturation point make come sooner.

Re: (el chalup) star wars no longer/still is an "event"

I really like your follow-up post. I agree with so much of what you said, I don't know were we actually disagree. I guess you aren't going to get star wars fatigue? Because that's all I was alluding too for myself. If that's not the case for you...then great. I wish I could say the same. To me, it's becoming just another movie. During the prequel era, even though the movies were IMO lame, it was still exciting because we were getting a new star wars movie. I just don't feel that anymore...and it has nothing to do with the quality of the movies, but the quantity. That's me.
  • Dark Wader +1 this

#441
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

I think the point is that Disney is the owner. It's not George with final say on things anymore, it's whoever Disney decides is running Lucasfilm.

That's Kathleen Kennedy, who Lucas himself blessed as the only person for the job, who has singlehandedly taken over and done everything we've seen Star Wars related since the sale-- like hire JJ Abrams.
 
People like to say OMNG DISNEY IS TERRIBLE, but they are the biggest studio out there for a reason. Pixar, Marvel, Miramax, ESPN, Touchstone, the Muppet Empire-- they own these things and they let the people who always ran them continue to do so. 
 
It's not just some whim where Bob Iger says OH HAY LET'S MAKE A STAR WARS MOVIE. They let professionals do their job. Given the track record of most of these brands, I'd say the plan works fine.

Edited by Driver, 28 January 2017 - 11:03 AM.

  • pavonis and Kyrian +1 this

#442
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

Kathleen Kennedy is the Antichrist.



#443
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts
I think Star Wars is still an event. I mean come on, TFA references are everywhere and it was highly anticipated when it came out. I think this is.just because R1 seems.more.forgettble, although I think.it.still got the proper amount of respect and attention that it deserved. It's a side.story,.After all. I think 8 and 9 could be in danger, but hey we're all still talking about 8 so...

#444
Driver

Driver

    Tank

  • Supporters
  • 6,591 posts

Kathleen Kennedy is the Antichrist.


Dude, enough. That's a ****ty thing to say about somebody who has worked her ass off for decades. She's produced every classic Speilberg ever made. We get it, you're mad about the EU. Is there a way for you to be part of these conversations and contribute without using every single post to say the same thing?

I say this as a friend, it's tired. Stop it. Your opinion is valid, but you're not having a conversation a lot of the time, you're just trolling over and over.


Edited by Driver, 28 January 2017 - 11:51 AM.

  • The Maker, Mara Jade Skywalker, pavonis and 6 others like this

#445
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,421 posts

Re: Lucas vs Disney

Yeah, Disney is 2 for 2 IMO, but I think 2 films is still too small a sample size to say they are definitely doing it better than Lucas. Plus I honestly think time won't be too kind to R1 because of character issues and such. Yes, definitely better than episodes 1-3, but all these new movies had to be was competent to achieve that. I really need to see episode 8 before I feel comfortable saying "yeah Disney's doing it better". I'd like to see more originality.
 

Yeah that's what I was getting at, just didn't articulate it as well. We're comparing Lucas's 35 years to Disney's 2. 


  • DANA-kin Skywalker +1 this

#446
Mara Jade Skywalker

Mara Jade Skywalker

    Unpaid Disney Shill

  • Members
  • 34,732 posts
Thank you, Driver, for saying everything I wanted to say.

I will add: Disney does not make decisions about Lucasfilm. George picked Kathleen Kennedy to succeed him. George decided to sell to Disney because he knew the franchise was in good hands and Disney would be hands off. Kennedy hired Abrams, Rian Johnson, Gareth Edwards, etc etc, not to mention Kiri Hart and other creative executives on the Story Group. Pretty much every executive was there before the sale.

I'm not even touching the Kathleen Kennedy thing. There's nothing to say to someone who legitimately thinks that. Have fun shooting yourself in the foot.
  • DANA-kin Skywalker and Pharoah JZA +1 this

#447
DANA-kin Skywalker

DANA-kin Skywalker

    American

  • Member
  • 8,781 posts
Kathleen Kennedy is amazing. Stephen Spielberg is amazing. Amblin entertainment produced a ****-ton of amazing movies, including some of my favorites growing up. I don't get the hate.

#448
RamonAtila

RamonAtila

    Member

  • Members
  • 885 posts
Because people see Kathleen Kennedy and they think she's gonna make SW all girly.

#449
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

 

Kathleen Kennedy is the Antichrist.


Dude, enough. That's a ****ty thing to say about somebody who has worked her ass off for decades. She's produced every classic Speilberg ever made. We get it, you're mad about the EU. Is there a way for you to be part of these conversations and contribute without using every single post to say the same thing?

I say this as a friend, it's tired. Stop it. Your opinion is valid, but you're not having a conversation a lot of the time, you're just trolling over and over.

 

QFT!

 

Kathleen Kennedy has worked on all of my all time favorite movies, including the Indy & BTTF Movies as well as many modern classics, like Poltergeist, ET, Roger Rabbit, and Schindler's list.  I wonder how much better the PT would have been, had she been there to help GL.  In fact, I think she is the unsung hero of producers.  Until recent years, a lot of people, including myself, never heard of her.  Makes me question how much work was actually hers in many of those movies that Speilberg and GL get all the credit and glory for.



#450
Mara Jade Skywalker

Mara Jade Skywalker

    Unpaid Disney Shill

  • Members
  • 34,732 posts
It's really disgusting to hear certain elements of fandom bash Kathleen Kennedy. Especially when they assert she slept her way to the top instead of Spielberg noting an innate talent and promoting her. Yet they have no problem believing that Spielberg helped the careers of people like Abrams.

And then there's people calling her the Anti-Christ and the Devil because they're mad about the Expanded Universe. It's so gross. I can't stand what Troy Denning did to Star Wars literature but I have nothing against the man personally.

Oops, I guess I did have something to say about Kathleen Kennedy. My damn feminism is showing again.
  • Jacen123 and Driver +1 this



Reply to this topic