Discussion – tfa – tlj – st criticism discussion thread page 656 jedi council forums

This study’s first two pages have as much value as a thorough analytical post from one of us here, in this thread. And it even admits it. It uses phrases such as "we don’t think so", "that we think are largely or totally off base", "if the franchise was able to survive Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones, we have a hard time believing Last Jedi could have done that much damage", "We think the movie’s biggest problem was its marketing", and many more.

I can’t stress enough how subjective all these claims are (especially the one that is baffled about how TPM and AOTC did not kill the franchise, newsflash: because they were not invalidating the franchise).

This is not a scientific proof. It’s an interpretation. Even the graph used on this short version of that "analysis" does not show much. I am sorry, but unless there is a POLL, with opinions of people and feedback as to why they didn’t go to the movie theater to watch Solo, any study that merely points out what happened, and not why it happened, is personally not going to convince me one bit. I already know that Solo bombed, and I can easily see what happened with Disney shares and share values. Funny that the study uses the RT critics score as a metric.

Realism it always confined to one’s subconscious rules of accepted realism in fantasy. There are limits to escapism, and these vary according to people’s preferences in entertainment. Which is why I find it funny when fans demean others for not appreciating more realistic takes on a story, when they themselves don’t realize that there is no such thing as a truly realistic fantasy and everything is about escapist preferences.

Take Game of Thrones for instance. It’s praised for being an ultra-realistic fantasy. More than half of its prominent female characters get raped at some point, because you know, it’s “realistic”. But you don’t really see the male characters having the same treatment, despite male rape victims also being a very “realistic” thing in war and outside of war. I suppose it would turn off a significant chunk of the male audience if they saw a character like Jon Snow being sexually assaulted. It would probably ruin their escapist fantasy.

I’m sure if a SW movie featured its mains being sexually assaulted, it would ruin the experience of many. But hey, it would be “realistic”. I guess. The point is, when people tune in to Star Wars, they are looking for a safe, mostly family-friendly, escapist fantasy that doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable or depressed about real life. If TLJ still worked for you in that regard, more power to you. But for those who came out of the movie feeling like their childhood hero was too depressing to watch, or that Reylo felt too uncomfortable, then the movie failed at entertaining them, no matter how “realistic” you claim it was.

Realism it always confined to one’s subconscious rules of accepted realism in fantasy. There are limits to escapism, and these vary according to people’s preferences in entertainment. Which is why I find it funny when fans demean others for not appreciating more realistic takes on a story, when they themselves don’t realize that there is no such thing as a truly realistic fantasy and everything is about escapist preferences.

Take Game of Thrones for instance. It’s praised for being an ultra-realistic fantasy. More than half of its prominent female characters get raped at some point, because you know, it’s “realistic”. But you don’t really see the male characters having the same treatment, despite male rape victims also being a very “realistic” thing in war and outside of war. I suppose it would turn off a significant chunk of the male audience if they saw a character like Jon Snow being sexually assaulted. It would probably ruin their escapist fantasy.

I’m sure if a SW movie featured its mains being sexually assaulted, it would ruin the experience of many. But hey, it would be “realistic”. I guess. The point is, when people tune in to Star Wars, they are looking for a safe, mostly family-friendly, escapist fantasy that doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable or depressed about real life. If TLJ still worked for you in that regard, more power to you. But for those who came out of the movie feeling like their childhood hero was too depressing to watch, or that Reylo felt too uncomfortable, then the movie failed at entertaining them, no matter how “realistic” you claim it was.

I suppose you can always find real life examples of people who felt like the most altruistic beings ever, but tons of **** happened to them and they slowly grew to become the monsters they were once fighting against. That happens, sure. However, unless you’re following every story beat of their downfall from grace in a Tragic Hero type of narrative, that character change will always feel too drastic and hard to grasp if it comes out of the blue just to fit the writer’s narrative goals.

That aside, entertainment doesn’t exist just to merely lecture people on reality. More than “realistic” writing, the popularity of SW comes from how it managed to construct an exciting and safe fantasy story that was enough divorced from reality to make it feel inviting, but not too distanced from it to make it feel completely alien. And in this world, the characters are a fundamental part of its appeal and if you “ruin” them – making them less entertaining, or too unlikable – you ruin the fantasy, you ruin the entertainment.

John Scalzi’s Redshirts is a study in meta fandom that is (even) more on the nose than The Orville or Galaxy Quest, who do not break the fourth wall in their effort to honor And roast their source during their emulation. I am not convinced that Rian Johnson intended to roast Star Wars. A roast is compassionate, affectionate, understanding and fond. I’m certain he thought he was honoring Star Wars at select points. At other select points (several), my impression is that he was not honoring, nor roasting, but something else. Something that was personal, something that was not in the service of the greater whole. In some of these instances, he may be toying with the audience in a cat and mouse fashion, untouchable, knowing, and ‘artistically malicious’. It has the final effect of having been meta, even if he does not technically break the fourth wall.

The ‘your mom’ segment, to my sense, was not honoring, not roasting, but a personal artistic project where he felt the oats of untouchable license to toy with the viewer in a way malicious to the whole. There are a handful of other specific segments like this. The commonest explanation for this is he was "trolling" the audience. Trolling does not have to be malicious and can be affectionate. It does not have to be affectionate and can be malicious. Malicious trolling is not usually passed off or excused as "trolling". There are other words for that. "Your Snoke theory sucks" does not recommend itself to be affectionate trolling.