Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker Reactions: SPOILERS

[Professortango1]

I'm sure there were some who didn't like rose because of her race/gender. But lets be real, rose was just a bad character. That's why she wasn't given a big roll in the new film. And that is why most people had a problem. I'm glad she wasn't a factor in this movie. I thought she was super personable in interviews and media stuff leading up to 8 so I was looking forward to the character. Then it just fell flat for me. It has nothing to do with the actress, but everything to do with the part she was given.

The amount of hate the actress received and the vile comments were very clear. Disney didn't want to upset their fanbase, as toxic as many of them might be, and course corrected.

 

[erasure fan1]

The amount of hate the actress received and the vile comments were very clear. Disney didn't want to upset their fanbase, as toxic as many of them might be, and course corrected.

But that wasn't the main fanbase. That was a vocal group on the internet. As shown by the reception shes recieved at conventions and things. That was an opportunity for people with an agenda to spew their hate. And shame on Disney and Lucasfilm if they caved to random internet hate. I believe JJ saw the character as not needed because it wasn't a great character to begin with.

 

[Tony Perkis]

So it lost money? I'm confused. Did the movie make money for Disney?

$417 million.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Unified vision AND giving us something we haven't seen them do a million times. Its not a Boba Fett spin off. IG-88 isn't in it. It would have been so easy to just give fanbois regurgitated characters but this series gives us a new adventure with familiar elements.

I notice you didn’t quote the part where Erasure put you in your place?

That’s not as big of an insult as it seems...he’s very astute on these matters.

But I think you can elevate your insight into the mechanisms of Disney and it’s franchises. You’re capable of more than what been shown on this thread:

Last Jedi made what amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to what Star Wars has LOST in product since...

That franchise has made in the area of 100,000,000,000 in licensed product over its history. That’s a lot of zeros.

If last Jedi has contributed to a decline in that revenue - it has, by the way - then it’s not a “victory”

Think the rather lukewarm attendance in theme park lands designed around the sequels isn’t influenced by that? It has.

And then solo...”fatigue” from a general public that swallowed 22 marvel movies in 11 years...9 fast and furious...10 Harry Potter’s...6 hobbits...

Right...is that pee on my leg or is it raining??

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

$417 million.

Which is literally a p!zzz in the bucket for disney...

Bigger longterm money at stake with a divisive, sour tasting trilogy...

The two of you are really being too literal on the business side of this. I’m not gonna fight you here...I honestly don’t believe you’re looking at it objectively

 

[Tony Perkis]

Which is literally a p!zzz in the bucket for disney...

Bigger longterm money at stake with a divisive, sour tasting trilogy...

The two of you are really being too literal on the business side of this. I’m not gonna fight you here...I honestly don’t believe you’re looking at it objectively

You’re assigning blame based on entertainment preference, not on logic.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I notice you didn’t quote the part where Erasure put you in your place?

That’s not as big of an insult as it seems...he’s very astute on these matters.

But I think you can elevate your insight into the mechanisms of Disney and it’s franchises. You’re capable of more than what been shown on this thread:

Last Jedi made what amounts to a drop in the bucket compared to what Star Wars has LOST in product since...

That franchise has made in the area of 100,000,000,000 in licensed product over its history. That’s a lot of zeros.

If last Jedi has contributed to a decline in that revenue - it has, by the way - then it’s not a “victory”

Think the rather lukewarm attendance in theme park lands designed around the sequels isn’t influenced by that? It has.

And then solo...”fatigue” from a general public that swallowed 22 marvel movies in 11 years...9 fast and furious...10 Harry Potter’s...6 hobbits...

Right...is that pee on my leg or is it raining??

You’re still going on about calling fatigue a myth? The CEO of Disney directly blamed that specific reason for Solo’s failure.

Your analysis is based on personal opinion, not actual deductive reasoning. Therefore, flawed.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But that wasn't the main fanbase. That was a vocal group on the internet. As shown by the reception shes recieved at conventions and things. That was an opportunity for people with an agenda to spew their hate. And shame on Disney and Lucasfilm if they caved to random internet hate. I believe JJ saw the character as not needed because it wasn't a great character to begin with.

It’s amazing how a couple bigoted Twitter trolls (which is probably more of an indictment of the American POLITICAL climate and its current ugly, reactionary state as it is Star Wars angst) is being applied to all who didn’t like 8 and voted with their wallets after the first week to 2 weeks...

A lot of normal, non bigoted people hated 8...with a few reasons not related to race or gender:

The primary “conflict” was a car chase over gas...the rewrote the primary hero of the core mythos...they put yoda in as a clown...they killed the bad guy as a cheap “wow” trick....they used too much Fisher when she was DONE (before she was done)...they cut the good guys down to 15 people...the hodo was beyond pointless - and they killed an all time favorite minor character off screen for it...they did a pee joke...

Do I have to continue??

It’s silly to not at least acknowledge the cause and effect here. A few spiteful internet cowards are not powerful enough to bring Star Wars down.

Lucas tried that kinda excuse too...did it work? His prequels are now “good”?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You’re assigning blame based on entertainment preference, not on logic.

That is BUSINESS logic...can I ask what you do? What’s your experience?

 

[Tony Perkis]

It’s amazing how a couple bigoted Twitter trolls (which is probably more of an indictment of the American POLITICAL climate and its current ugly, reactionary state as it is Star Wars angst) is being applied to all who didn’t like 8 and voted with their wallets after the first week to 2 weeks...

A lot of normal, non bigoted people hated 8...with a few reasons not related to race or gender:

The primary “conflict” was a car chase over gas...the rewrote the primary hero of the core mythos...they put yoda in as a clown...they killed the bad guy as a cheap “wow” trick....they used too much Fisher when she was DONE (before she was done)...they cut the good guys down to 15 people...the hodo was beyond pointless - and they killed an all time favorite minor character off screen for it...they did a pee joke...

Do I have to continue??

It’s silly to not at least acknowledge the cause and effect here. A few spiteful internet cowards are not powerful enough to bring Star Wars down.

Lucas tried that kinda excuse too...did it work? His prequels are now “good”?

We have a poster on this very thread who decried whenever a male character has depth and is flawed.

Bigotry and sexism exist in this thread, let alone in modern society.

 

[Tony Perkis]

That is BUSINESS logic...can I ask what you do? What’s your experience?

I’m in product implementation.

I have told you, repeatedly, when I critique something, I’m looking at it from the vantage point of a film fan. I don’t care at all about Disney’s impact. A conglomerate’s perspective is irrelevant to my thoughts. I don’t care.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We have a poster on this very thread who decried whenever a male character has depth and is flawed.

Bigotey and sexism exist in this thread, let alone in modern society.

It certainly does exist in society...it’s being “promoted” in many ways now that’s both embarrassing and scary...

If you’re referrring to Scorp...I think you’re misinterpreting it a bit.

I think the point is that not EVERY character and story thread in a Star Wars movie has to try and “correct” grievances that honestly were never a problem in Star Wars. Fisher was badass in 1977 and 1980...that was never “regressive”...and though the main leads were white males...by empire they began to shoot the characters kinda “faceless”...characterized by their emotions in speech more than their skin tone...it really is a story you can just watch.

Maybe they could have had more females and races then...but it is NOT an oppressive franchise. The stuff that had come after even in the EU has fantastic characters who don’t look like Indiana Jones.

You’ll see when the Ashoka movie comes out...I promise.

But the other thing...as Flynn has stressed repeatedly...is that those bigots do not represent the fanbase overall problems with 8. That’s an easy way to dismiss legit criticism.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m in product implementation.

I have told you, repeatedly, when I critique something, I’m looking at it from the vantage point of a film fan. I don’t care at all about Disney’s impact. A conglomerate’s perspective is irrelevant to my thoughts. I don’t care.

Disney is one of the 4 biggest entertainment conglomerates on earth with a market cap of $263 billion dollars.

I think you understand it permeates everything...including how we have to view “their product”

Simplifying it doesn’t give enough thought to the how and WHY they make what they make...including movies.

That’s why 8 was retconned...it ended up being financially “unacceptable”

 

[MisterPenguin]

Since marketing is not included in a film's stated budget and the production company gets roughly have the BO, then as a rule of thumb, to figure the net profit of the film, you add 50% to the budget and subtract that from half the BO gross. This means for Star Wars films...

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Since marketing is not included in a film's stated budget and the production company gets roughly have the BO, then as a rule of thumb, to figure the net profit of the film, you add 50% to the budget and subtract that from half the BO gross. This means for Star Wars films.

Great, now that you've posted that people will say that anything less than the 2250 ROI % of a New Hope means that the Star Wars franchise is dead

I wonder if those numbers take into account that Disney pays themselves for the special effects work, due to owning ILM.

 

[spacemt354]

You’re still going on about calling fatigue a myth? The CEO of Disney directly blamed that specific reason for Solo’s failure.

Just because Iger blames it on fatigue doesn't mean it's the reason. A CEO of any company is going to try and spin reasons for why a film loses money. I find the fatigue excuse doesn't add up when people readily have consumed 3 Marvel films per year for the last 3 years, and are consuming Mandalorian and RoS in the same week. If the product is good people will come.

Solo was a story that not a lot of people were asking for, the production was a mess, the marketing did not do it justice, and it came out after a sea of other scifi films like Infinity War, Deadpool, etc.

If fatigue played a role, in my opinion, it was moreso because of movie fatigue rather than "Star Wars" fatigue. That was actually the reason why I didn't see it in theaters because I had already seen 2 films that month and didn't feel like seeing Solo because it didn't look worth it so I waited till netflix.

 

[Joesixtoe]

Unfortunately, JJ kind of boxed in the new trilogy. The first movie had Han Solo take over as a lead once he arrived on screen. Rather than establish these new characters, they were there to find Han and to join him on his adventure. Then Han dies. JJ then sets up that Rey finds Luke. So now Johnson HAS to include Luke as a somewhat major character.

The new trilogy should have taken its time establishing these characters. A small cameo from old friends here and there, but don't make them the main characters. Then, the end of episode 8 should have had the characters in over their head and a few old friends come out of the shadows of the plot to join the fight. Then, in episode 9, we're watching the characters we've been following for 2 films and love joined by the characters we remember from years ago and were hungry for. Instead, we got a trilogy with Han, Luke, and Leia as major characters. The only new character who is fleshed out and enjoyable is Kylo Ren, and that's because there was no villain to bring back. Oh wait, JJ's asking me to hold his member berry beer.

I think they should have the Original familiar characters in the 1st film and then slowly give the reigns over to the new cast. I heard this is how cobra kai did it. Had Daniel and the dude he fought in part 1 as the main characters at first and slowly brought in the new, and now the new are the main characters. Don't kill the past as Rian said, but respect it while easing in the new.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Just because Iger blames it on fatigue doesn't mean it's the reason. A CEO of any company is going to try and spin reasons for why a film loses money. I find the fatigue excuse doesn't add up when people readily have consumed 3 Marvel films per year for the last 3 years, and are consuming Mandalorian and RoS in the same week. If the product is good people will come.

Solo was a story that not a lot of people were asking for, the production was a mess, the marketing did not do it justice, and it came out after a sea of other scifi films like Infinity War, Deadpool, etc.

If fatigue played a role, in my opinion, it was moreso because of movie fatigue rather than "Star Wars" fatigue. That was actually the reason why I didn't see it in theaters because I had already seen 2 films that month and didn't feel like seeing Solo because it didn't look worth it so I waited till netflix.

Well... sorta fatigue. And bad corporate decisions.

Obviously Iger didn't want to be crass and start throwing people under the bus and embarrassing themselves by saying, "We hired directors who we thought they knew what they were doing but it turned out they didn't have a clue. That's bad on us, too. And then to save face, we forced a good director to push out a product before it was ready and we lost the actors because of other contracts they had and it was already costing us twice as much as it should and thus, probably wouldn't see a profit. And so we hoped the brand and nostalgia would save it..."

But nostalgia and fandom didn't save it, because, on the audience side, it was a bit of fatigue and they weren't going to go crazy over an unfinished product.

 

[erasure fan1]

I think they should have the Original familiar characters in the 1st film and then slowly give the reigns over to the new cast. I heard this is how cobra kai did it. Had Daniel and the dude he fought in part 1 as the main characters at first and slowly brought in the new, and now the new are the main characters. Don't kill the past as Rian said, but respect it while easing in the new.

Yes. You give the beloved characters their time to shine once again in the first movie. Have the new characters learning and helping during this time while we get to know them. By the 2nd movie things are more 50/50 with the new becoming an integral part of the story. In the last episode, you can pass the reins off to the new. If that was the case in the first 2 parts of this trilogy, even if the rise of skywalker was almost exactly the same, it has a much bigger and better impact in my opinion.

 

[spacemt354]

Well... sorta fatigue. And bad corporate decisions.

Obviously Iger didn't want to be crass and start throwing people under the bus and embarrassing themselves by saying, "We hired directors who we thought they knew what they were doing but it turned out they didn't have a clue. That's bad on us, too. And then to save face, we forced a good director to push out a product before it was ready and we lost the actors because of other contracts they had and it was already costing us twice as much as it should and thus, probably wouldn't see a profit. And so we hoped the brand and nostalgia would save it..."

But nostalgia and fandom didn't save it, because, on the audience side, it was a bit of fatigue and they weren't going to go crazy over an unfinished product.

That's my point - he's not going to come out and spill the real truth, so "fatigue" sounds better. But not fatigue of product. Poor quality comes first, then general audience disinterest and fatigue.

If the film looked fantastic and didn't have any of those other issues, it would have seen success regardless of the 5 month gap.