1 was answered in TFA. If it wasn't, that meant Luke knew Han was going to die and let it happen anyway.
[Reply]

So?

That doesn't mean they aren't good movies.

Nothing Disney made was going to have the same cultural impact the originals did. Silly to hold them to that standard.
[Reply]

Nothing says you have to defend shitty movies to the death, yet that seems to be a favorite CP media forum activity.
[Reply]

As is shitting on them until you're blue in the face.

Darkness rises, and light to meet it.
[Reply]

Yet you wanted to bet $500 dollars that this film would exceed $1.5 billion dollars.

You're moving the goalposts.
[Reply]

In Australian dollars, it did!
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

[Reply]

thanks for the info

How does anyone trust the studios to be honest?
[Reply]

Generally speaking, movie stars, just like songwriters, producers and artists, have Audit Rights, which must be exercised within 3 years.

That said, the finance departments for film, especially, can often be “creative” with their write offs, which is why many don’t see much backend percentage, even with successful movies.

Back when I was at Paramount, I hired a Controller that was formerly with Disney film finance and some of the stories were crazy.


[Reply]

I can tell you this from personal experience: Certain studios ALWAYS deliver statements that are wrong. ALWAYS. And if you don’t correct the Byzantine mistakes then they just pocket the money until a final settlement.

Them: Here is your statement, we owe you $X.

Me: But the statement is all wrong, you owe 5x that amount.

Them: [Blank Stare]

Me: [Squinty Eyes]

Them: Ohhhhhh! You’re right! How did we miss that?


Others will short pay on purpose with the end goal of using a percentage to litigate and still pay less than is owed. More than one studio head has famously said that litigation is a legitimate revenue stream.
[Reply]

Yes.

Yes it did.

Wait/wut?

It certainly destroyed whatever hullabaloo JJ was trying to construct, thank god.

Now, let's discuss the force.

You have, in the past, lamented the PT, because of the way it treated the force( Midichlorians ). And you absolutely stated that one of the reasons that you liked the OT and the force in particular, was because "ANYONE could have it". Those were your EXACT WORDS.


See what's happening here, is that the movies, and Johnson's story in particular, aren't jiving with your conceptions and/or how you have digested the Clone Wars and Rebels cartoons, respectively.
If ANYTHING, those two vehicles should NOT be held to any kind of guidepost standard in regards to what constitutes the movie galaxy/canon. Those things are sideshows for kids, and they tend to handle things in a manner that a child of Disney-esque "rearing" can digest.
The bottom line here is that JJ simply "made a SW movie", and pretty damned weak one at that.
Johnson, on the other hand, mercifully shit-kicked JJ's lack of vision out the airlock, drew heavily on long-accepted EU concepts, and told a story that hurt many fast-food brained asses, while simultaneously cutting through a pile of disorganized shit and finally drop-kicking our two main characters( Rey and Ren )in to the limelight where the remaining story will be based around THEIR relationships and the outcome which will determine the fate of the galaxy at-large.

EVERYONE was told at the beginning:

The OT folks are here( story-wise )to pass the torch; nothing more, nothing less. This was NEVER intended to be about THEM. Ford got his long-wanted wish, and Hamill went out in a final showdown and act of sacrifice that was absolutely befitting of a Jedi Master who had suffered great loss.

I'm done with this shit.

Mark my words:

By the time Episode 9 is in the can and has been viewed by the masses, The Last Jedi will be looked upon in an ENTIRELY different light by the people who are currently displeased with it.
[Reply]

When did it (TLJ) say that everyone could be a "force user"? Having access to the force and using the force are two completely different things. It reafirmed that the force surrounds all living things, but i still get the impression that only some are able to "wield" it. How does this go against the canon of the original trilogy?
[Reply]

Some? In the past two movies, we've seen two "nobodies" wield The Force: Rey and the kid at the end of the movie.

That's exactly what RJ has done: Democratization of The Force.

You no longer need to be anyone "special" or anyone of special lineage.

The Jedi identified children that could use The Force at a very young age, brought them to the Jedi Temple and trained them.

Now, you've got Rey, the kid at the end and who knows who else.
[Reply]

And frankly, Snoke( Emperor minion whose past was introduced in at least one of the novels between films; he was just a kid that Palpatine half-assed "trained" and set to watch over a private storehouse on Jakku ) and Phasma( super-trooper, genetic enhancements(?)) aren't the most interesting or even IMPORTANT characters in the grand scheme of things.

This was ALL ABOUT getting Ren and Rey to their respective positions as the only two force-wielding avatars of the dark and light respectively. Yes, Leia still exists at the end of TLJ, but "Leia the force-wielder" was never meant to be a centerpiece in the grand struggle of light vs. dark. It was never that way in the EU, and it won't be that way in the new canon, either.

Especially now that Carrie Fisher has left us. I'm pretty interested to see how THAT is going to play out, to say the least.
[Reply]