4 ms·

Agreed. It's not about anything "woke" in the movies. It's about they were horrible movies or so enough people thought so they avoided or told their friends to

Agreed. It's not about anything "woke" in the movies. It's about they were horrible movies or so enough people thought so they avoided or told their friends to avoid or didn't see more than once. For me personally, I saw EP9 on opening day and with my brain off I managed to enjoy the spectacle while constantly having tell myself to just ignore all the issues and enjoy the ride. But on immediate reflection once it was over it was impossible to ignore all the issues. I tried to watch it again 6-8 months later and had to turn it off after about 10 minutes it was just so much nonsense.

fastball 6y ago
I think the claim here though is that part of the reason the story is incoherent and that you have a lot of the other problems is because they weren't focused on making a good Star Wars trilogy. If you listen to basically anything the head honcho for these films (Kathleen Kennedy) has said, you get the distinct feeling that she had a different objective than "make good cinema". As noted, this also seemed to be Rian Johnson's goal as well. It was not "make a compelling story within the Star Wars universe", it was "subvert expectations". Which in the end basically meant turning all the male characters into whinging losers / arrogant assholes while turning all the women into wise sages / over-powered wunderkinds who need no training and make no mistakes, even when they literally do: Leia and Holdo were the ones in charge when literally the entire rebel fleet was destroyed except for one ship with like 10 people on it, and the script gives them zero flack for this. And then of course you have the script letting said terrible leader become an awesome and amazing martyr by single-handedly destroying the huge and menacing enemy flagship in a way that was visually stunning (loved it in the cinema) but broke Star Wars canon in honestly a pretty staggering way (realized once my brain caught up with my eyes). This actually seems to rhyme a bit with the OP – you can't point out what terrible leaders they were in VIII because the leaders in question happened to be women (I say "happened to be", but it is also clear that the decision to put leadership of the good guys in the hands of women while leaving the leadership of the bad guys in the hands of men was a pretty deliberate move). Contrast this with The Mandalorian, which has strong and compelling female characters and is adored by audiences of all genders. Why? Because the agenda was not "subvert expectations", it was "make a good Star Wars story".
- staticman2 6y ago
  The goal is never to make good cinema because the companies are not owned or run by filmakers, they are owned by MBA types. It isn't some startling gotcha to point that out. "Good cinema" is subjective and meaningless, money can be quantified and is objectively reported as a number. Anyone claiming the goal is something other than money is projecting. I didn't like The Last Jedi but it got good reviews which shows how meaningless it is to argue about what is a "good Star Wars story" from a business perspective. Audience exit polls were also positive. As far as I can tell the goal was to make Star Wars stuff as quickly as possible, presumably set by the Disney CEO not Kennedy. Presumably because he cared more about showing he was making back the money buying Lucasfilm than quality. So they hired three writer directors and had them start banging out scripts immediately, instead of hiring a writer to outline movies in advance. And the movies (except Solo) made a ton of money and 2 out of 3 had good reviews and good exit polls. So they are "good" by any "objective" metric. I guess they've also been "good" for reactionary youtubers so the money trickles down. None of us know what Kathleen Kennedy's involvement was in private office meetings or what notes she gave. The Youtubers version of Kathleen Kennedy is a fictional character. People are projecting meaning into PR statements about diversity.
  - fastball 6y ago
    This is what Kathleen Kennedy had to say about the production of the Mandalorian, of which (thankfully) she played very little part in: > In March 2018. Kennedy added that the series was an opportunity for a diverse group of writers and directors to be hired to create Star Wars stories, after the franchise's films had been criticized for being written and directed by only white men. You don't need closed-room meeting comments to just look at her public comments and infer the motivations from there. Literally, go and look at any public comments she has made.
    - staticman2 6y ago
      By that logic I guess if an Apple executive states they are hiring a diverse group of people and improving their hiring practices in response to criticism (I bet they have stated this?) your conclusion is Apple doesn't want to make good phones. You might unpack why you see hiring a diverse group of people as the opposite of "making good product" but the long and short answer is you are the sort of reactionary I was talking about. Never mind the fact that all Star Wars directors so far have been white men, or facts at all, you are angry and upset because someone told you to feel that way and told you that article should make you angry.

fastball 6y ago

I think the claim here though is that part of the reason the story is incoherent and that you have a lot of the other problems is because they weren't focused on making a good Star Wars trilogy. If you listen to basically anything the head honcho for these films (Kathleen Kennedy) has said, you get the distinct feeling that she had a different objective than "make good cinema". As noted, this also seemed to be Rian Johnson's goal as well. It was not "make a compelling story within the Star Wars universe", it was "subvert expectations". Which in the end basically meant turning all the male characters into whinging losers / arrogant assholes while turning all the women into wise sages / over-powered wunderkinds who need no training and make no mistakes, even when they literally do: Leia and Holdo were the ones in charge when literally the entire rebel fleet was destroyed except for one ship with like 10 people on it, and the script gives them zero flack for this. And then of course you have the script letting said terrible leader become an awesome and amazing martyr by single-handedly destroying the huge and menacing enemy flagship in a way that was visually stunning (loved it in the cinema) but broke Star Wars canon in honestly a pretty staggering way (realized once my brain caught up with my eyes). This actually seems to rhyme a bit with the OP – you can't point out what terrible leaders they were in VIII because the leaders in question happened to be women (I say "happened to be", but it is also clear that the decision to put leadership of the good guys in the hands of women while leaving the leadership of the bad guys in the hands of men was a pretty deliberate move). Contrast this with The Mandalorian, which has strong and compelling female characters and is adored by audiences of all genders. Why? Because the agenda was not "subvert expectations", it was "make a good Star Wars story".

staticman2 6y ago
The goal is never to make good cinema because the companies are not owned or run by filmakers, they are owned by MBA types. It isn't some startling gotcha to point that out. "Good cinema" is subjective and meaningless, money can be quantified and is objectively reported as a number. Anyone claiming the goal is something other than money is projecting. I didn't like The Last Jedi but it got good reviews which shows how meaningless it is to argue about what is a "good Star Wars story" from a business perspective. Audience exit polls were also positive. As far as I can tell the goal was to make Star Wars stuff as quickly as possible, presumably set by the Disney CEO not Kennedy. Presumably because he cared more about showing he was making back the money buying Lucasfilm than quality. So they hired three writer directors and had them start banging out scripts immediately, instead of hiring a writer to outline movies in advance. And the movies (except Solo) made a ton of money and 2 out of 3 had good reviews and good exit polls. So they are "good" by any "objective" metric. I guess they've also been "good" for reactionary youtubers so the money trickles down. None of us know what Kathleen Kennedy's involvement was in private office meetings or what notes she gave. The Youtubers version of Kathleen Kennedy is a fictional character. People are projecting meaning into PR statements about diversity.
- fastball 6y ago
  This is what Kathleen Kennedy had to say about the production of the Mandalorian, of which (thankfully) she played very little part in: > In March 2018. Kennedy added that the series was an opportunity for a diverse group of writers and directors to be hired to create Star Wars stories, after the franchise's films had been criticized for being written and directed by only white men. You don't need closed-room meeting comments to just look at her public comments and infer the motivations from there. Literally, go and look at any public comments she has made.
  - staticman2 6y ago
    By that logic I guess if an Apple executive states they are hiring a diverse group of people and improving their hiring practices in response to criticism (I bet they have stated this?) your conclusion is Apple doesn't want to make good phones. You might unpack why you see hiring a diverse group of people as the opposite of "making good product" but the long and short answer is you are the sort of reactionary I was talking about. Never mind the fact that all Star Wars directors so far have been white men, or facts at all, you are angry and upset because someone told you to feel that way and told you that article should make you angry.