That new star wars ... resistance. It was Resistance.

[keybounce]

So, I saw the first two episodes of that new star wars show. Where the kid gets recruited for the rebellion, while his dad's a senator?

Is there a trope page for "Idiot Dodgeball", where there are so many idiot balls flying around that the question is more "will anyone dodge the idiot ball"?

[The Glyphstone]

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotPlot

[Elanasaurus]

Resistance. Which is what I imagine you would be feeling toward the show.

[Metahuman1]

So apparently it reached a 96% score on Rotten Tomato's form Audiences. (A 91% critic score but we know by now I think that the critic score were Star Wars is concerned can be trusted exactly as far as you can throw Lucas Films physical HQ building with your bare hands.)



And I am seeing reports that further looking would tell anyone who cares to do further looking that of the 109 (at the time the people reporting this were checking it.) accounts that gave it a 5 star rating, 105 of them were made during October of 2018 (It's wee hours of the morning October 14th when I am posting this, I saw this at least 2 days ago Oct 12th, month's not even half over.), and all have relatively simple, common names and bare minimum information about themselves, and have not rated anything else.




Someone, in order to give the show positive buzz, appears to be using bots, or just making dummy accounts manually to artificially inflate the score. But because it's A) Such a bad show and B) there's so little in the way of other stuff posted about it form Audiences, it became VERY noticeable VERY quickly that this manipulation is going on.


I wonder whom might, just, just, might, possibly, have a motive to do that? Have a motive to claim that it's a super small minority of people who have problems at the moment with Star Wars, and that the overwhelming majority really do love it, so they should change nothing?

I wonder whom could possibly, conceivably be described to have those traits and have done or said such things?

[The Glyphstone]

Indian trolls trying to discredit American media studios to make Bollywood more popular, right?

[Lord Vukodlak]

Starwars Resistance is a kids show, for the 12 and under demographic its not intended to be "Clone Wars"

[GrayDeath]

So its not for 14 and lower (like CW) but m ore akin to catering for kids with even less demand for even remotely logical plots and mature stuff?

Big shock. WHoever thought that the downward spiral of SW quality would stop anyway? ^^

[Rakaydos]

So its not for 14 and lower (like CW) but m ore akin to catering for kids with even less demand for even remotely logical plots and mature stuff?

Big shock. WHoever thought that the downward spiral of SW quality would stop anyway? ^^
I'm waiting for The Mandalorian. We'll see how that one turns out.

[Blackhawk748]

Indian trolls trying to discredit American media studios to make Bollywood more popular, right?

And they're doing an excellent job

[Metahuman1]

The Glyphstone: I'm not even Indian but I'm insulted on behalf of Bollywood and Indain trolls at this point that you could even think of them as anything but the superior option to recent Star Wars offerings. :smallamused:


But seriously, either it's the same sort of "Fans" of Star Wars that recently got Lady Gaga in the news by bridging her movie positively and trying to run a negative Brigading campaign on Venom in an effort to drive traffic to her new movie.

Or.

It's one or two of these yutzez at Lucasfilm doing it to run damage control. My money is either on Chuck Wendig before he was terminated, whatever her name is heading up Kathleen Kennedy's Story Group, or Rian Johnson. Every one of them is precisely vindictive and amoral enough to do it and are on record as such.






Lord Vukodlak : That line of defense wasn't Valid When Teen Titans Go was using it. It's not Valid now.



GrayDeath: I gave up any hope of that when Kathleen Kennedy was renewed.



Rakaydos: They renewed Kennedy. The odds of the show being allowed to release with out ham handed political narratives replacing Plot and Characterization are slim to none. I wouldn't hold your breath.


Blackhawk748: They don't need to do the job at all. Hollywood and it's mindless supporters are doing an impeccable job of discrediting Hollywood all on there own.

[Anonymouswizard]

Starwars Resistance is a kids show, for the 12 and under demographic its not intended to be "Clone Wars"

Is there really a massive difference between 'under twelves' and 'under fourteens'? Considering the latter gave us Avatar: The Legend of Aang (I cannot type the American title without laughing), I'd expect that we could at the very least get some well written series that don't rely on the idiot ball. Plus at twelve/thirteen* I read Starship Troopers (I really should rereread it), I find the implication that kids can't handle or appreciate good writing and complexity a bit insulting.

'It's a kids' show' does not excuse bad writing. There are a large number of well written series for kids, especially animated shows, some better written than many adult shows (I literally finished my first watch of TLA a week ago, it is amazing). Demographic and writing quality are unrelated, although I will note that general tastes means that you can find a well written show for certain demographics highly annoying (thank you sister who's like a decade younger than me).

* I read it before I read Frankenstein for my English Literature GCSE, so before I was 14.

[Blackhawk748]

Blackhawk748: They don't need to do the job at all. Hollywood and it's mindless supporters are doing an impeccable job of discrediting Hollywood all on there own.

Them making some truly amazing martial arts movies that are simultaneously hilarious helps a bunch too. Personally, i can't wait for Bllywood to become the True Master of Film!


Avatar: The Legend of Aang

I was just coming here to point this out actually. Well, that and be snarky. Avatar: TLA, Teen Titans, and Justice League Unlimited where all meant for younger audiences, but they're still well written shows with decent plots and solid characters. To imply that 12 year olds don't realize people are being idiots is incredibly insulting to 12 year olds.

[Metahuman1]

Them making some truly amazing martial arts movies that are simultaneously hilarious helps a bunch too. Personally, i can't wait for Bllywood to become the True Master of Film!



I was just coming here to point this out actually. Well, that and be snarky. Avatar: TLA, Teen Titans, and Justice League Unlimited where all meant for younger audiences, but they're still well written shows with decent plots and solid characters. To imply that 12 year olds don't realize people are being idiots is incredibly insulting to 12 year olds.

Most certainly. Heck, I think Hollywood could really do with the competition. Having to compete with Japanese Anime has done wonders for making western animation get it's game face back on.




There are other exceptional shows that do this as well. Gargoyles and Samurai Jack instantly spring to mind. But yeah, the "it's for kids" defense doesn't even begin to hold water or have any business being invoked. It's an utterly illegitimate argument.

[Peelee]

Eh, I liked it better than the first episide of Clone Wars.

[Devonix]

So apparently it reached a 96% score on Rotten Tomato's form Audiences. (A 91% critic score but we know by now I think that the critic score were Star Wars is concerned can be trusted exactly as far as you can throw Lucas Films physical HQ building with your bare hands.)



And I am seeing reports that further looking would tell anyone who cares to do further looking that of the 109 (at the time the people reporting this were checking it.) accounts that gave it a 5 star rating, 105 of them were made during October of 2018 (It's wee hours of the morning October 14th when I am posting this, I saw this at least 2 days ago Oct 12th, month's not even half over.), and all have relatively simple, common names and bare minimum information about themselves, and have not rated anything else.




Someone, in order to give the show positive buzz, appears to be using bots, or just making dummy accounts manually to artificially inflate the score. But because it's A) Such a bad show and B) there's so little in the way of other stuff posted about it form Audiences, it became VERY noticeable VERY quickly that this manipulation is going on.


I wonder whom might, just, just, might, possibly, have a motive to do that? Have a motive to claim that it's a super small minority of people who have problems at the moment with Star Wars, and that the overwhelming majority really do love it, so they should change nothing?

I wonder whom could possibly, conceivably be described to have those traits and have done or said such things?


As always I place more faith in Critical ratings over audience ratings that are far less reliable. The only difference between me and you apparently in audience ratings is that I mistrust audience ratings for everything not just this.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I was just coming here to point this out actually. Well, that and be snarky. Avatar: TLA, Teen Titans, and Justice League Unlimited where all meant for younger audiences, but they're still well written shows with decent plots and solid characters. To imply that 12 year olds don't realize people are being idiots is incredibly insulting to 12 year olds.

None of those shows were targeted towards that age demographic. They were written to be friendly to that demographic but not directly towards that demographic. Not every cartoon gets to be Avatar, Young Justice or etc etc. Some kids enjoy because they enjoy watching idiots be idiots.

You can rag on Titans Go and how much it sucks all you want. (I personally do enjoy ragging on it and how much it sucks) But a lot of people do like it. Resistance is going after that same fan-base, so I see little point in getting bent out of shape about it. People act like Resistance got a better show canceled in its favor. Most of the reason I hate Teen Titans Go! is Young Justice was dropped in favor of that ****. *deep breathe* Young Justice is coming back


They're bringing back Clone Wars so we're still getting the good stuff, so the most you can say the return of Clone Wars means Resistance gets dumbed down so the two don't compete.

[Metahuman1]

As always I place more faith in Critical ratings over audience ratings that are far less reliable. The only difference between me and you apparently in audience ratings is that I mistrust audience ratings for everything not just this.

The critical ratings Panned Death Wish and Venom and could NOT stop singing the praises of A Star Is Born and The Last Jedi, and were frequently open with it being entirely political.

If that doesn't tell you you cant trust the pros in that industry as far as you can throw the building they went to see the movie in with your bare hands, I don't know what will.

Incidentally, brigading on Venom aside, The Audience score was fairly decent for Venom and Death Wish, less so for Last Jedi. I haven't admittedly checked A Star Is Born cause the only reason I care it exists is the Lady Gaga fans brigading Venom in bad faith, as I have been falsely accused of doing with The Last Jedi, and being given a complete pass, by the same media that made those accusations and still makes them to this day.


Though I'd be shocked to find its doing particularly well.





Edit: Swordsaged.


None of those shows were targeted towards that age demographic. They were written to be friendly to that demographic but not directly towards that demographic. Not every cartoon gets to be Avatar, Young Justice or etc etc. Some kids enjoy because they enjoy watching idiots be idiots.

You can rag on Titans Go and how much it sucks all you want. (I personally do enjoy ragging on it and how much it sucks) But a lot of people do like it. Resistance is going after that same fan-base, so I see little point in getting bent out of shape about it. People act like Resistance got a better show canceled in its favor. Most of the reason I hate Teen Titans Go! is Young Justice was dropped in favor of that ****.


They're bringing back Clone Wars so we're still getting the good stuff, so the most you can say the return of Clone Wars means Resistance gets dumbed down so the two don't compete.

A better show DID get canceled for it. We lost Rebels for it.

And we aren't getting a new Clone Wars series.

Were getting a limited run one off Miniseries to give Clone Wars the planned ending.

That will be locked behind a CBS All Access style pay wall for Disney's new all in house Streaming Service, and censored to fit Disney's sensibility's the moment.

There extremely light, up beat, family friendly, sensibility's.




And don't tell me there feeling like taking risks with the IP at the moment, or that the game of thrones guys won't let us down, and neither will Faloni. In the first case, if that was true, Abrams would not be back in charge of Episode 9. In the second case, if that was to be true, we'd have had to be rid of Kathleen Kennedy, lease she interfere to make sure a clear successor too her that the fans would like be discovered in them. The same goes for the Third Case. If that were true, Kennedy would have to be willing to risk loosing control of Lucasfilm again by allowing someone else to succeed with a project that she can't credibly steal all the credit for herself, and she's far to much of a vindictive, Machiavellian, sociopathic, egomaniacal narcissist to even consider permitting that.


So we did loose a better show for Resistance, were not getting a new one, and Resistance is every inch worthy of the same sort of loathing Teen Titans Go has so richly earned.

[Devonix]

The critical ratings Panned Death Wish and Venom and could NOT stop singing the praises of A Star Is Born and The Last Jedi, and were frequently open with it being entirely political.

If that doesn't tell you you cant trust the pros in that industry as far as you can throw the building they went to see the movie in with your bare hands, I don't know what will.

Incidentally, brigading on Venom aside, The Audience score was fairly decent for Venom and Death Wish, less so for Last Jedi. I haven't admittedly checked A Star Is Born cause the only reason I care it exists is the Lady Gaga fans brigading Venom in bad faith, as I have been falsely accused of doing with The Last Jedi, and being given a complete pass, by the same media that made those accusations and still makes them to this day.


Though I'd be shocked to find its doing particularly well.

I trust that Critics will be honest in their ratings, because that's what they're hired for, to give their honest opinions. This doesn't mean that I will agree with a critic, just that I trust them.

A Critic giving something an A+ Is not a guarantee that I will like the movie, just that I trust that they liked the movie and will listen to the reasons they gave.

And this means that if I find a Critic that shares my views on things, and has similar tastes as I do I will trust that we are likely to enjoy similar movies.

Audience ratings are less trustworthy for that.

[Metahuman1]

I trust that Critics will be honest in their ratings, because that's what they're hired for, to give their honest opinions. This doesn't mean that I will agree with a critic, just that I trust them.

A Critic giving something an A+ Is not a guarantee that I will like the movie, just that I trust that they liked the movie and will listen to the reasons they gave.

And this means that if I find a Critic that shares my views on things, and has similar tastes as I do I will trust that we are likely to enjoy similar movies.

Audience ratings are less trustworthy for that.

Even when the critics do not talk about anything in the movie, and instead rant about how it offends there personal politics and that's there one and only reason for panning it or praising it, everything else including quality of the acting, script, choreography, sound design, pacing aesthetics, and just inability to have plot holes that you could throw Jupiter through with out touching the edges of them if you aimed a little bit first be damned.

Cause that's what the professionals have shown us they are going to do.

The fact that that's not suppose to be there job can just go straight to hell in there estimate.


It's not about it being a movie you will like or not. It's about them wearing on there sleeves that they have ulterior motives ruling all there ratings and reviews, and that that means they shouldn't be trusted. It would be like if a Doctor needed test subjects for a medical experiment he wanted to do, so he talks that up, despite the fact it won't even, by design, treat what the patient came in to get treated. That doctor would have his license yanked pretty quick in most places, because it's unacceptably unprofessional and the ulterior motive controlling him is similarly not ok.

But movie critics, for comparable behavior, demonstrated, get a pass? I call shenanigan's. They can't be trusted, even a little bit, anymore. Maybe 30-80 years ago they could, but not now, and not for some time it seems.

[Devonix]

Even when the critics do not talk about anything in the movie, and instead rant about how it offends there personal politics and that's there one and only reason for panning it or praising it, everything else including quality of the acting, script, choreography, sound design, pacing aesthetics, and just inability to have plot holes that you could throw Jupiter through with out touching the edges of them if you aimed a little bit first be damned.

Cause that's what the professionals have shown us they are going to do.

The fact that that's not suppose to be there job can just go straight to hell in there estimate.


It's not about it being a movie you will like or not. It's about them wearing on there sleeves that they have ulterior motives ruling all there ratings and reviews, and that that means they shouldn't be trusted. It would be like if a Doctor needed test subjects for a medical experiment he wanted to do, so he talks that up, despite the fact it won't even, by design, treat what the patient came in to get treated. That doctor would have his license yanked pretty quick in most places, because it's unacceptably unprofessional and the ulterior motive controlling him is similarly not ok.

But movie critics, for comparable behavior, demonstrated, get a pass? I call shenanigan's. They can't be trusted, even a little bit, anymore. Maybe 30-80 years ago they could, but not now, and not for some time it seems.


The two things are quite impossible to compare. Your example isn't Apples to Oranges. It's Apples to a slab of granite. Film Critics are there to give their opinions on art. Art is completely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer just your opinion on something.

The politics of a work are part of the work. Just as an audience member not liking a work because they believe it has an agenda is a reason that they don't like a movie it's the same reason a critic an like or not like a movie.

[Devonix]

A critic acting as if their beliefs,Political, Religious, or any other do not affect their views on a work of art. Is a critic not worth listening to, because they are lying.

[Metahuman1]

The two things are quite impossible to compare. Your example isn't Apples to Oranges. It's Apples to a slab of granite. Film Critics are there to give their opinions on art. Art is completely subjective, there is no right or wrong answer just your opinion on something.

The politics of a work are part of the work. Just as an audience member not liking a work because they believe it has an agenda is a reason that they don't like a movie it's the same reason a critic an like or not like a movie.

So in other words, your admitting that while you dislike my bad Dr. comparison, every other point I made was right and professional critics are no better in any way at all, than just the audience members on the same sites.

Thank you for reaching a point of agreement and understanding with me.

[Metahuman1]

A critic acting as if their beliefs,Political, Religious, or any other do not affect their views on a work of art. Is a critic not worth listening to, because they are lying.

1: Critics do that all the time. It's one of the first things the overwhelming majority of them will do when that question is raised, or when asked why they should be listened too over, say, me.

2: It's frequently not even there views on what's in the art. It's there views on what they decided was there, even when it runs objectively counter to what was ACTUALLY there.

Take Death Wish. The majority of bad guys the main character takes out are white, he interferes in a situation to keep a African American kid form getting kill BY the all of 2 or 3 African American dudes (and at least 1 or 2 of the White Dudes) he kills all movie long, and he get's all his guns illegally.


According to the overwhelming majority of critics, this movie as a fascist right wing gun nut racist fantasy. Nevermind who's mostly getting killed and why, and never mind

Nevermind that the people there claiming this is a fantasy of would have wanted to buy the guns legally and go to the trouble of filing for background checks for licenses and carry permits and that sort of thing, and that if he was racist or the movie was racist, the majority of bad guys killed would certainly not have been white guys.



And yet you tell me I should trust the same people making these claims as though they were credible. Rather than the audience score in direct opposition too it. the one that just said "Yeah it's a fun R-rated action movie, kind of a throw back in some aspects of style to the 80's, so good if your in the mood for that.".

[Keltest]

So in other words, your admitting that while you dislike my bad Dr. comparison, every other point I made was right and professional critics are no better in any way at all, than just the audience members on the same sites.

Thank you for reaching a point of agreement and understanding with me.

Audience reviews will frequently be given not based on an honest assessment of the work itself, but based on other factors, such as not liking the writer(s), the actors, the producing company, or other tangentially associates things about it. There are, for example, a lot of people who want to see the new star wars movies fail, and their existence makes it extremely difficult to tell whether the audience reviews are genuine or based on salty people who are saying they didn't like it because they don't want a new star wars movie that does well.

[Metahuman1]

Audience reviews will frequently be given not based on an honest assessment of the work itself, but based on other factors, such as not liking the writer(s), the actors, the producing company, or other tangentially associates things about it. There are, for example, a lot of people who want to see the new star wars movies fail, and their existence makes it extremely difficult to tell whether the audience reviews are genuine or based on salty people who are saying they didn't like it because they don't want a new star wars movie that does well.

And your stance is to ignore every other point and pretend this only effects the 1 side?

Please ignore that we know someone is using even worse illegitimate metrics to boost Resistances Score so that it looks better in the hopes of getting people to watch a bad show that had a bad trailer that was not well received.

Please also ignore that Uwe Bole, THAT Uwe Bole, did better in reviews with his most recent movie than The Last Jedi did, something that a year ago would have been unthinkable?

Please ignore the critics as I posted about above claiming there objectively honest out of one side of there mouths while simultaneously telling us bald faced lies about what movies like Death Wish are and are like and there quality and content and slamming them for what was in those lies that they told, not what was in the actual movies?


Audience ratings may be flawed, but there currently dramatically better than the alternative.

Oh, and an aside, Solo lost over 100 Million at the Box Office following The Last Jedi. Black Panther and Infinity War came out closer together than Solo and Last Jedi, both made billions, so I don't want to hear the idea that there's Star Wars fatigue. And there's been excitement for the idea of More Han Solo since those Young Han Solo novels came out in like the 80's, so don't give me that pathetic lame excuse either.

Solo's box office loss was direct backlash form The Last Jedi and Lucasfilm and Disney's spectacular failure to handle it like grown ups with 2 brain cells to rub together, let alone competent professionals.

So based on that much of your customer base just evaporating over it, I'd say those "people" presently look to be the majority of the customer base. Or former customer base, since Disney and Lucas film opted to not have them be customers anymore. That's how you grow your business, right, driving as many customers away as you possibly can? What do you mean that's not how that's suppose to work?

[Keltest]

And your stance is to ignore every other point and pretend this only effects the 1 side?

Please ignore that we know someone is using even worse illegitimate metrics to boost Resistances Score so that it looks better in the hopes of getting people to watch a bad show that had a bad trailer that was not well received.

Please also ignore that Uwe Bole, THAT Uwe Bole, did better in reviews with his most recent movie than The Last Jedi did, something that a year ago would have been unthinkable?

Please ignore the critics as I posted about above claiming there objectively honest out of one side of there mouths while simultaneously telling us bald faced lies about what movies like Death Wish are and are like and there quality and content and slamming them for what was in those lies that they told, not what was in the actual movies?


Audience ratings may be flawed, but there currently dramatically better than the alternative.

Oh, and an aside, Solo lost over 100 Million at the Box Office following The Last Jedi. Black Panther and Infinity War came out closer together than Solo and Last Jedi, both made billions, so I don't want to hear the idea that there's Star Wars fatigue. And there's been excitement for the idea of More Han Solo since those Young Han Solo novels came out in like the 80's, so don't give me that pathetic lame excuse either.

Solo's box office loss was direct backlash form The Last Jedi and Lucasfilm and Disney's spectacular failure to handle it like grown ups with 2 brain cells to rub together, let alone competent professionals.

So based on that much of your customer base just evaporating over it, I'd say those "people" presently look to be the majority of the customer base. Or former customer base, since Disney and Lucas film opted to not have them be customers anymore. That's how you grow your business, right, driving as many customers away as you possibly can? What do you mean that's not how that's suppose to work?

First off, I have no horse in this race. I have no interest in seeing the show. Im clearly not in the target demographic.

Secondly, I gave a couple examples of why audience reviews are unreliable off hand. Youre right, there is absolutely tampering in the other direction as well, which only reinforces the point that audience reviews are meaningless.

The point of critics is transparency. You know exactly who is talking and you have a good understanding of who they are, what they like and don't like, and can hold them accountable if and when their integrity fails. Don't like the critic? Ignore them then. They aren't meant to be somehow better judges of a movie than a random viewer, just that they are somebody with a known opinion and tastes who can usually be counted on to be honest about their impressions.

[Metahuman1]

First off, I have no horse in this race. I have no interest in seeing the show. Im clearly not in the target demographic.

Secondly, I gave a couple examples of why audience reviews are unreliable off hand. Youre right, there is absolutely tampering in the other direction as well, which only reinforces the point that audience reviews are meaningless.

The point of critics is transparency. You know exactly who is talking and you have a good understanding of who they are, what they like and don't like, and can hold them accountable if and when their integrity fails. Don't like the critic? Ignore them then. They aren't meant to be somehow better judges of a movie than a random viewer, just that they are somebody with a known opinion and tastes who can usually be counted on to be honest about their impressions.

So close, but failed to stick the landing.

There is enough transparency and accountability with the audience reviews. If there wasn't, I wouldn't know about either the tampering with Resistances Score, With A Star Is Born's score, or with The Last Jedi's score (They included Deadpool 2 reviews for awhile to boost it's numbers, stopping, as far as we know, only because they were publically caught, and still aren't counting any review for The Last Jedi under 1.5 stars, meaning the score should realistically be somewhere in the 20%-30% range.).

Accountability for Critics however? No, see, there professionals. Accountability would involve not getting in to review movies for free and ahead of the public. What we have is a situation were they can use some film school word salad if they feel like not moral virtue signaling about the movie instead and willfully sabotage it by giving dishonest reviews, and then hiding behind "Well, it's just my professional opinion." then turn around and give an interview before there next review about how "Professional Opinions are ALWAYS objective with professional film critics like them.". Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

And it seems there are people who will just support and go along with it.


Hell, just to hold them all to account, I'd have to memorize a list of easily thousands if not Tens' Of Thousands of names, and select likely fewer than 100 out of that whom can be generally trusted for the most part. That's frankly ridiculous for any person to have to do. And it's outright insane to claim that that is a reasonable amount of accountability for paid professionals trying to break the rules.

Better to just accept the better alternative, the one were if it's totally bogus I'll hear about it, like I have with the recent examples, and throw the largely rotten apple tree out.

[Devonix]

You don't need a thousand, or a hundred, or even ten film critics you can trust. If you're trying to decide if you might like something, you only need 1 or 2.

[Metahuman1]

You don't need a thousand, or a hundred, or even ten film critics you can trust. If you're trying to decide if you might like something, you only need 1 or 2.

And shifting through thousands and tens of thousands to find 1 or 2 good one's is so much better than just looking at the audience score and maybe doing a quick check for brigading tactics like have been used on Venom or Star Wars Resistance? Cause I gotta tell ya that latter one sounds much faster and with the rate the film critic industry seems to be all going all in on being "Woke", to use the term they seem to be using for it, much, MUCH more consistently reliable.

[Jayngfet]

The key here is that as far as paperwork is concerned TCW and Rebels were for boys 13-17 and Resistance is for kids under 12.

This is a strange decision because Resistance, to my knowledge, isn't on Disney Jr. So it's expected to be for kids but not kids that young, which is weird because that's their actual super young kid network. Instead, at least in Canada where I am, it's on the main non-extended cable network.

The thing is that this is counter productive because Disney Channel has spent the last couple of years trying to reorient itself as being both the hub for everything seriously going on on Disney TV before adult age(integrating other Disney XD shows like Star vs.), and being able to tackle more serious and mature dramatic issues(with shows like Andi Mack). Thus, Resistance even existing is a serious break from the narrative of what Disney XD and Disney Channel are meant to be and what the plans for Rebels were. Rebels was meant to go for a whole extra season and it's closer in tone to what XD wants.

Given Resistance has outsourced production and a lower budget, odds are good this wasn't much besides a ploy to free up Filoni's time and money to justify The Clone Wars, a series that's once again closer to what Disney Channel wants to be airing. But this has to feed Disney's highly expensive and ill advised streaming service so the company is throwing good money after bad here.

To sum it up Resistance is basically emblematic of Disney's stupid political games that most likely killed a more expensive series that in and of itself killed an even more expensive series so Disney can justify reviving that one ultra expensive series and then have another one that cost five times that on top of it, but only release those two money sinks on a platform nobody has yet in order to justify their political games of pulling from a platform everyone has they were making a profit off on an existing contract.

But don't worry if that doesn't work Disney has a backup plan in that they spent their entire company's assets acquiring a bunch of other shows that already exist in other places to broadcast them in that place nobody can watch them.

[Metahuman1]

The key here is that as far as paperwork is concerned TCW and Rebels were for boys 13-17 and Resistance is for kids under 12.

This is a strange decision because Resistance, to my knowledge, isn't on Disney Jr. So it's expected to be for kids but not kids that young, which is weird because that's their actual super young kid network. Instead, at least in Canada where I am, it's on the main non-extended cable network.

The thing is that this is counter productive because Disney Channel has spent the last couple of years trying to reorient itself as being both the hub for everything seriously going on on Disney TV before adult age(integrating other Disney XD shows like Star vs.), and being able to tackle more serious and mature dramatic issues(with shows like Andi Mack). Thus, Resistance even existing is a serious break from the narrative of what Disney XD and Disney Channel are meant to be and what the plans for Rebels were. Rebels was meant to go for a whole extra season and it's closer in tone to what XD wants.

Given Resistance has outsourced production and a lower budget, odds are good this wasn't much besides a ploy to free up Filoni's time and money to justify The Clone Wars, a series that's once again closer to what Disney Channel wants to be airing. But this has to feed Disney's highly expensive and ill advised streaming service so the company is throwing good money after bad here.

To sum it up Resistance is basically emblematic of Disney's stupid political games that most likely killed a more expensive series that in and of itself killed an even more expensive series so Disney can justify reviving that one ultra expensive series and then have another one that cost five times that on top of it, but only release those two money sinks on a platform nobody has yet in order to justify their political games of pulling from a platform everyone has they were making a profit off on an existing contract.

But don't worry if that doesn't work Disney has a backup plan in that they spent their entire company's assets acquiring a bunch of other shows that already exist in other places to broadcast them in that place nobody can watch them.

Just a small addendum: Were I'm at in The States, it's being Advertised Resistance is to be carried exclusively on the Disney XD channel. Which does not automatically come with most Cable or Satellite channels, and is firmly oriented at trying to target a 10 top Young Adult range audience.







Personally, at this point I don't wonder if part of how there handling this isn't Kennedy insisting it be so, but only so she can turn around when no one sees Clone Wars Finally and Resistance is a bomb, and dump it in Dave Faloni's lap and point at him and say "He did it!".

That way it's an excuse to get rid of him and put someone who's only job qualification being that they are unquestioningly loyal to her.

And in turn secure her position that much longer.

[Mechalich]

Given Resistance has outsourced production and a lower budget, odds are good this wasn't much besides a ploy to free up Filoni's time and money to justify The Clone Wars, a series that's once again closer to what Disney Channel wants to be airing. But this has to feed Disney's highly expensive and ill advised streaming service so the company is throwing good money after bad here.


It's amazing how low-quality Resistance looks, visually. It's bad all around, but it also very specifically looks cheap. I don't get that. Yes the 3DCG animation style does have limitations, but it doesn't have to look junky. Polygon Pictures is behind the animation production of both Clone Wars, Resistance, and several science fiction anime productions that all have vehicles moving in space, and Resistance looks so much worse than any of the others. I mean it looks measurably inferior to Sidonia season one, which was made four years ago and Polygon was still working out the kinks in their method and they had a cheap anime budget. This very much looks like a B-team project and it's clear that money was scrubbed out of the budget at many points (perhaps even C-team, if the A-team is working on Clone Wars and the B-team on the Godzilla films). The low-res backgrounds, for instance, are a clear sign.


To sum it up Resistance is basically emblematic of Disney's stupid political games that most likely killed a more expensive series that in and of itself killed an even more expensive series so Disney can justify reviving that one ultra expensive series and then have another one that cost five times that on top of it, but only release those two money sinks on a platform nobody has yet in order to justify their political games of pulling from a platform everyone has they were making a profit off on an existing contract.

This seems as good an explanation as any for making a show that clearly doesn't have the resources it truly needs to succeed. However, it seems like a really bad scenario overall. Honestly, if they weren't going to put the resources behind the show that it actually needs, then they shouldn't have made it at all.

[Devonix]

And shifting through thousands and tens of thousands to find 1 or 2 good one's is so much better than just looking at the audience score and maybe doing a quick check for brigading tactics like have been used on Venom or Star Wars Resistance? Cause I gotta tell ya that latter one sounds much faster and with the rate the film critic industry seems to be all going all in on being "Woke", to use the term they seem to be using for it, much, MUCH more consistently reliable.

If I went only by audience reviews All I'd be watching is stuff like The Transformers movies A bunch of Adam Sandler stuff. Sparkle ECT. There are plenty of god awful movies that people love. Hell we're constanly talking about why bad movies keep getting sequels. Well it's because a large majority of people go to see, crap.

[Peelee]

If I went only by audience reviews All I'd be watching is stuff like The Transformers movies A bunch of Adam Sandler stuff. Sparkle ECT. There are plenty of god awful movies that people love. Hell we're constanly talking about why bad movies keep getting sequels. Well it's because a large majority of people go to see, crap.

No, a profitable enough plurality. You never need most of the people, you only just need enough.

[Devonix]

No, a profitable enough plurality. You never need most of the people, you only just need enough.

True true. But what I mean is that there are plenty of films that we on these very boards have talked about as being bad that have gotten higher audience than critic scores. And Audience scores are also provably more open to manipulation than critical ones.

For the simple reasoning that every Critical rating has a person behind it with a record of voting, a record of employment. A Record period. While the Audience scores are far more random and unprovable as to how consistent they are with a person's actual opinion on a film.

Case in point, A Film critic has to see a film before they make their review, while an audience person putting a score on RT does not have to see the film.

[Metahuman1]

True true. But what I mean is that there are plenty of films that we on these very boards have talked about as being bad that have gotten higher audience than critic scores. And Audience scores are also provably more open to manipulation than critical ones.

For the simple reasoning that every Critical rating has a person behind it with a record of voting, a record of employment. A Record period. While the Audience scores are far more random and unprovable as to how consistent they are with a person's actual opinion on a film.

Case in point, A Film critic has to see a film before they make their review, while an audience person putting a score on RT does not have to see the film.

There less open, actually. With Critic scores, all you have to do is have the right politics as a person on twitter to get them to praise the movie like it's the second coming of Citizen Cain and Orson Wells has descended form acting heaven to make it happen. And then to catch it you either have to check with none critic sources (cause most of them are in solidarity with one another.) or go see the movie or show in question yourself to see if they had anything vaguely resembling a point, which defeats the whole purpose of paying them the least mind to begin with.



With audience scores, you have to use mass bots or brigading, and that **** leaves massive finger prints that are actually traceable in a way that matters. See Venom and Resistance as 2 examples just this month alone.

And don't tell me there not, believe me, if this crap was the least little bit difficult or technical to find, I'd NEVER have known about it.



So what it comes down too, even if I entertain the rest of the argument your trying to make, is that audience scores are, sometimes, wrong. (Cause there are a LOT of really good movies audiences LOVE! Something you seem to have forgotten about in your arguments against audience scores. Avengers, Winter Solider, The Original Star Wars Trilogy, The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, The Dark Knight, need I go on?)



But as has already been covered, professional critics lie. Very, very often. Frequently habitually bordering on compulsively.

So, given the choice between a source that is sometimes wrong.

And a source that lies. A lot. On purpose.



I'm very much inclined to take my chances with the former.

[Darth Credence]

I've seen the first two episodes of Resistance, and thus far I like it. I don't really like the main character right now, but I like most of the ancillary characters. This puts it about the same as Rebels, in that I didn't initially like Ezra but liked the others, and a bit ahead of The Clone Wars, as I didn't initially like anyone in that except Obi Wan. As far as openings go, I'd say that I liked Rebels' opening more, but The Clone Wars less. I am taking the Clone Wars movie as the opening episodes of that series, and it was, frankly, bad.
For this series, I am looking forward to a lot of piloting going on. I enjoyed the race scene in the premier, and hope to get a bunch more of that. I also hope the idiot star grows up fairly quickly and isn't a constant drain. The two vendors of parts are the highlight thus far, especially Jim Rash.
FTR, when it comes to the previous series, I would say that Rebels was more consistently good, while The Clone Wars had higher highs and lower lows. If I'm rewatching, I'll watch every episode of Rebels, while filtering out the bad ones in Clone Wars. But the best of The Clone Wars blows the best of Rebels away.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Just a small addendum: Were I'm at in The States, it's being Advertised Resistance is to be carried exclusively on the Disney XD channel.

And that's a lie, because I've seen parts of two episodes on the main Disney channel.

And it's painful to watch. The graphics are like five-six years back, the characters are bad and I spotted a couple plotholes just in the bits I watched. Although nothing tops Rebels in that regard, because when a six year old asks why the Imperials are too stupid to look at the security cameras and see the exact same people who just blew up stuff are walking around in the street in the same clothes...

[Olinser]

So apparently it reached a 96% score on Rotten Tomato's form Audiences. (A 91% critic score but we know by now I think that the critic score were Star Wars is concerned can be trusted exactly as far as you can throw Lucas Films physical HQ building with your bare hands.)



And I am seeing reports that further looking would tell anyone who cares to do further looking that of the 109 (at the time the people reporting this were checking it.) accounts that gave it a 5 star rating, 105 of them were made during October of 2018 (It's wee hours of the morning October 14th when I am posting this, I saw this at least 2 days ago Oct 12th, month's not even half over.), and all have relatively simple, common names and bare minimum information about themselves, and have not rated anything else.




Someone, in order to give the show positive buzz, appears to be using bots, or just making dummy accounts manually to artificially inflate the score. But because it's A) Such a bad show and B) there's so little in the way of other stuff posted about it form Audiences, it became VERY noticeable VERY quickly that this manipulation is going on.


I wonder whom might, just, just, might, possibly, have a motive to do that? Have a motive to claim that it's a super small minority of people who have problems at the moment with Star Wars, and that the overwhelming majority really do love it, so they should change nothing?

I wonder whom could possibly, conceivably be described to have those traits and have done or said such things?

Yeah.... 24 hours later its already down to 66% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

And remember this is the people that actually cared enough to watch it. I didn't even realize it was already coming out.

[Peelee]

Yeah.... 24 hours later its already down to 66% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

And remember this is the people that actually cared enough to watch it. I didn't even realize it was already coming out.

Same. I found out it was out from this thread.

[keybounce]

..., and Resistance is every inch worthy of the same sort of loathing Teen Titans Go has so richly earned.

Teen Titans Go might be misunderstood.

In the past, we had 7 minute reels from people like Warner Bros., full of silliness of various kinds.

Today, we have an 11 minute reel. Slightly different format, but basically the same thing -- silliness.

"Teen Titans Go" does not even pretend to take itself seriously, and does not expect us to take it seriously. This is why the silliness in it works.

"Star Wars Resistance" wants us to take it seriously. But at that point you have to have a serious plot.

The evil overlords list reminds us that if a small child can find a flaw in a plot, that plot needs to be rethought. I think it is time for script writers to take that attitude.

---

Do we need to move the discussion about critics to another thread? I'll be happy to make a thread for you if you want one.

EDIT: my problem with resistance has nothing to do with the low quality of the animation. By some standards, Samurai Jack had low-quality animation. No, my issue is strictly with the plot quality and believability, or lack thereof.

[Zevox]

And remember this is the people that actually cared enough to watch it. I didn't even realize it was already coming out.

Same. I found out it was out from this thread.
Third. I pretty much wrote the thing off the moment it was announced because it's set in the sequel era, and the movies have done a good job making me not care about that. It needed some pretty strong word of mouth to get my interest past that. Sounds like it's not getting that out of the gate at least. Though I guess we'll see whether that changes down the line - took a long time for me to be convinced to give Clone Wars a try, after all. I literally didn't see that until years after it was finished, on Netflix.

[Devonix]

Teen Titans Go might be misunderstood.

In the past, we had 7 minute reels from people like Warner Bros., full of silliness of various kinds.

Today, we have an 11 minute reel. Slightly different format, but basically the same thing -- silliness.

"Teen Titans Go" does not even pretend to take itself seriously, and does not expect us to take it seriously. This is why the silliness in it works.

"Star Wars Resistance" wants us to take it seriously. But at that point you have to have a serious plot.

The evil overlords list reminds us that if a small child can find a flaw in a plot, that plot needs to be rethought. I think it is time for script writers to take that attitude.

---

Do we need to move the discussion about critics to another thread? I'll be happy to make a thread for you if you want one.

EDIT: my problem with resistance has nothing to do with the low quality of the animation. By some standards, Samurai Jack had low-quality animation. No, my issue is strictly with the plot quality and believability, or lack thereof.

I agree I'm seeing in Resistance the same problem I had with Rebels. Tonal inconsistency and lack of a proper audience direction.

I'd be ok if it we're just a show for kids and silly with a lack of real threat. But they seem to also want to include larger threats.

[Sapphire Guard]

Does the XD in Disney XD stand for something or is it just a smiley face?

I think this show has a lot more resting on it that it intended to have. It wanted to just be a random kids show, but it's being given the weight of a kind of referendum on the ST era.

[Rogar Demonblud]

XD used to be short for Extra Disney, because it was a rarity for a channel to have a secondary channel. Now, it seems like everyone has a spin off channel or three.

[keybounce]

XD used to be a family/adult Disney channel.

You know, instead of children's stuff on plain disney, it was family stuff in the day time, and adult stuff at night.

Zorro was enjoyable.

[Jayngfet]

Resistance wouldn't have much of a problem if it didn't both try to be a for an audience who skews about five years younger than Star Wars's already young audience, while also trying to play the game of impressing adult canon nerds and integrating everything.

[Metahuman1]

And that's a lie, because I've seen parts of two episodes on the main Disney channel.



Really? PM me please what state your in, and north or south of that state. Vague enough that I'd never be able to actually track you down, but I can work form that to see if my current theory is correct.

My theory is that in the US, it's being done differently for some, likely idiotic and corporate and/or regulatory, reason. So, say, Florida might not be exactly the same as, say New York for instance.


Also, who's your provider? Maybe, say, Comcast and AT&T are running that ball differently?

I am not lying though. The part of the US, on the provider the house hold has, is advertising that it's exclusive to Disney XD.




keybounce:

Hold that thought. Don't know yet.

But I disagree that Teen Titans go is unfairly maligned.


Firstly those other silly cartoons didn't try to bait in the audience of more serious shows. I didn't turn on Loony Toons expecting to see Superman be a moron for 7 minutes.

Add that those shows also had MUCH more wit, generally better comedic timing and sense of how to exaggerate for comedic effect, and tended to be a LOT more charming and endearing than either resistance or Teen Titans Go have ever even imagined being.


If they wanted to do a silly skit show, don't use the cast form a more serious show (You can tell me there not when they stop calling themselves Robin, Raven, Cyborg, Beast Boy and Star Fire.), with the same look just crappier, and the same Voice Actors in those roles. If they'd done that, and then laid off the constant "Take THAT" straw manning of all valid critiques, People would be a whole hell of a lot less bothered by it as a whole.

Further move on by having this show and Leaving the much better show it got prematurely canceled alone to keep running.

But they didn't. They made the choice. This is the consequence.

Resistance, could perhaps have gotten away with being silly. But it needs to be kept shorter. 1 or 2 minute skits. I'd be a lot more forgiving of that, so I suspect would most other people. But they didn't.




Olinser:

Fourth. I saw the trailer whenever it wound up getting on Youtube and flying like a led balloon, didn't like it, disliked the trailer, and left a comment expressing that I did not like the animation quality's obvious down grade, and saw nothing in the way of action, humor or plot that perked by interest.

Then I saw this thread whenever I first posted in it.

That's about it. I was almost certainly never going to watch it, I've seen nothing here thus far that would even begin to change my mind.

That said, do we know if they removed the obvious fake accounts deliberately there to artificially boost it, or are there merely starting to be enough bad ratings to drag it back down? (Aside, and given that I expect a rather fair number of people did left 1 or 0.5 or 0 Star ratings, and those are NOT counted in while the five stars are, the five stars REALLY need to be purged.).





Sapphire Guard :

It's almost like Disney hasn't made a good decision with this property or any of the people working on it since Episode 8 was the next thing they were working on, perhaps even since before then. Like there were multiple chances to keep it from coming to this but they have arrogantly refused every, single, one, of, them, and spat in the faces of them an all who even acknowledged they existed on purpose

[Friv]

Metahuman1, you may want to consider whether your own biases are causing you to assume that all good reviews for this movie are bots, while the brigaded bad reviews for The Last Jedi are the real ones.

I mean, I also don't have a horse in this race, but you literally posted that a fired comics author is probably brigading bots in order to unfairly boost a show's audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. That is Flat Earth-level conspiracy flouting.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I've never made it a secret I live in the Dakotas, MH1. Fortunately, we don't have to deal with Comcast or AT&T, as they take one look at our regulatory environment (screw the big boys for as much as they're worth) and go away.

[Metahuman1]

Metahuman1, you may want to consider whether your own biases are causing you to assume that all good reviews for this movie are bots, while the brigaded bad reviews for The Last Jedi are the real ones.

I mean, I also don't have a horse in this race, but you literally posted that a fired comics author is probably brigading bots in order to unfairly boost a show's audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. That is Flat Earth-level conspiracy flouting.

So, 105 accounts spring into existence practically overnight with the bare minimum required to have an account on that site, give 5 star ratings to this one show at a time when Lucasfilm is so utterly desperate to get good press for Star Wars after renewing Kathleen Kennedy, that there acting as though the claim that every single person on Giantitp, and a variety of other websites, who have done anything other than praise The Last Jedi, is in fact not a human, but a Russian bot, and then those same 105 accounts stop doing anything else at all.

And that doesn't seem like it's maybe, just possibly, a touch suspicious?

Maybe he didn't. I said it's possible it's just one of these loyalists who keep defending the sequel trilogy. And as for Disney's and Lucasfilms staff, these are people, who while employed by Disney, are frequently going on slanderous rants were they drop massive amounts of profanity, at there customers. You cannot tell me that not 1 of that large group wouldn't be willing to find some time to pull this as a little stunt and decide it constitutes payback.



Also, for the record. I said exactly 105 out of 109 5 Star Reviews were Bots. Not All of them. And none of the 4 or 3 star reviews. I expect there's not many of those cause it's a crap show, but aside form that specific 105 5 star reviews, I have no cause to think there not legitimate.





Rogar Demonblud :

Well, I'm in Florida and we have both as a duopoly in my neck of the woods, so yeah, either of those 2 factors could be affecting what I'm seeing.

That said, no. It was not a lie. Now that we've cleared that up.

[Devonix]

So, 105 accounts spring into existence practically overnight with the bare minimum required to have an account on that site, give 5 star ratings to this one show at a time when Lucasfilm is so utterly desperate to get good press for Star Wars after renewing Kathleen Kennedy, that there acting as though the claim that every single person on Giantitp, and a variety of other websites, who have done anything other than praise The Last Jedi, is in fact not a human, but a Russian bot, and then those same 105 accounts stop doing anything else at all.

And that doesn't seem like it's maybe, just possibly, a touch suspicious?

Maybe he didn't. I said it's possible it's just one of these loyalists who keep defending the sequel trilogy. And as for Disney's and Lucasfilms staff, these are people, who while employed by Disney, are frequently going on slanderous rants were they drop massive amounts of profanity, at there customers. You cannot tell me that not 1 of that large group wouldn't be willing to find some time to pull this as a little stunt and decide it constitutes payback.



Also, for the record. I said exactly 105 out of 109 5 Star Reviews were Bots. Not All of them. And none of the 4 or 3 star reviews. I expect there's not many of those cause it's a crap show, but aside form that specific 105 5 star reviews, I have no cause to think there not legitimate.




Hmm... It's almost as if audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable...

[Metahuman1]

Hmm... It's almost as if audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes are unreliable...

It's almost as if this kind of unacceptable interference can be caught on the audience scores, but to catch it on the critic scores, you have to spend full price to go see it and defeat the whole point, or trust the audience scores more.

[Keltest]

It's almost as if this kind of unacceptable interference can be caught on the audience scores, but to catch it on the critic scores, you have to spend full price to go see it and defeat the whole point, or trust the audience scores more.

That's why you find a critic who's opinions typically align with your own instead of just blindly trusting every critic you hear. Yeah, it takes a little more effort to do so than it does to just look at an audience score, but once you do you will get significantly better results.

[Metahuman1]

I did that once. Had a nice little community of them. They had a REALLY big scandal not that long ago. I see no reason to start shuffling through tens or hundreds of thousands of people whom, when cited, will be dismissed out of hand anyway by anyone who doesn't like even objectively valid points they raise and wish to ignore them (the majority of the people whom will offer more than token defense of The Last Jedi for a start.), when I can just be mindful of audience scores and what the Brigading situation looks like with them for a movie and put one and one together based on that.

[Keltest]

I did that once. Had a nice little community of them. They had a REALLY big scandal not that long ago. I see no reason to start shuffling through tens or hundreds of thousands of people whom, when cited, will be dismissed out of hand anyway by anyone who doesn't like even objectively valid points they raise and wish to ignore them (the majority of the people whom will offer more than token defense of The Last Jedi for a start.), when I can just be mindful of audience scores and what the Brigading situation looks like with them for a movie and put one and one together based on that.

So you would prefer to trust the judgment of hordes of random, anonymous people who may or may not even all exist than finding a couple of people who's tastes are similar to your own?

I wont tell you that you aren't allowed to do that, but that seems like it would lead to nothing but frustration. The point of a critic isn't to decide whether a movie is good, but whether or not you personally would enjoy it. Being "good" is such a malleable metric that its almost meaningless, while being enjoyable is, at least at a personal level, much easier to judge.

[Devonix]

So you would prefer to trust the judgment of hordes of random, anonymous people who may or may not even all exist than finding a couple of people who's tastes are similar to your own?

I wont tell you that you aren't allowed to do that, but that seems like it would lead to nothing but frustration. The point of a critic isn't to decide whether a movie is good, but whether or not you personally would enjoy it. Being "good" is such a malleable metric that its almost meaningless, while being enjoyable is, at least at a personal level, much easier to judge.

It's rather easy. If they agree with you then they're real and human and 100 percent trustworthy. If they disagree with you then they're paid off or bots.

[Z3ro]

So you would prefer to trust the judgment of hordes of random, anonymous people who may or may not even all exist than finding a couple of people who's tastes are similar to your own?

I wont tell you that you aren't allowed to do that, but that seems like it would lead to nothing but frustration. The point of a critic isn't to decide whether a movie is good, but whether or not you personally would enjoy it. Being "good" is such a malleable metric that its almost meaningless, while being enjoyable is, at least at a personal level, much easier to judge.

This is the part I don't get. Part of why you trust a critic is not just to tell you why they liked/disliked it, but why. There are movies for everyone that are considered good they dislike, and vice-versa. But you only know why if you dig into the movie, which is a critic's whole job. Boiling down the good/bad of a movie to a single score, no matter how good it is, doesn't do that.


I see no reason to start shuffling through tens or hundreds of thousands of people whom, when cited, will be dismissed out of hand anyway by anyone who doesn't like even objectively valid points they raise and wish to ignore them

I don't understand; the movie is for you. What do you care if I or anyone else dismisses the critic that told you it would be good? Either you enjoyed it or you didn't, the integrity of the critic has no bearing on that. I'm baffled by this argument. Unless you're talking about something else entirely?

[Darth Credence]

The third episode is available to stream on Sling - I don't know if it is available elsewhere or not. Basic plot is that Kaz doesn't want to work, and he finds a group of racers who invite him to come play. Of course there is more to it than that, but that's the setup.
I enjoyed the episode (even though the junk dealers weren't in it), and it is starting to become clear where the show is going. It looks like it is going to be about Kaz slowly learning how to get along without his wealthy family, while the Resistance/First Order stuff stays in the background a lot at first. As this is a show for kids, that makes sense to me. I liked the other flight crew, and I really liked the interactions with Kaz and Yeager. If this continues along the path it is on, I think it will settle down into a decent show. Heck, if Kaz grows up enough, I might even start to like him.

[Friv]

I don't understand; the movie is for you. What do you care if I or anyone else dismisses the critic that told you it would be good? Either you enjoyed it or you didn't, the integrity of the critic has no bearing on that. I'm baffled by this argument. Unless you're talking about something else entirely?

I think the part that you're missing is the terror that, if other people like a thing that you don't like, they will continue making the thing that you don't like instead of throwing it all in the trash and returning to only making the thing that you do like.

And if people are tricked by the nefarious forces of Big [Insert Conspiracy Theory Here], then they will continue to make the thing that you don't like even though everyone real only likes the things that you like and dislikes the things that you don't like. If you don't take a stand against [Insert Conspiracy Theory Here] right now, people will come to believe that They are right, and all of your beloved properties will forever be tainted by [Insert Social Issue Here].

Rather than just shrugging and saying, "Nah, that one wasn't for me" and moving on, people get extremely, wildly over-invested in specific properties, and then campaign and rage against any aspect of the property that doesn't align with their personal vision of what the property should be. You can't have any aspect of the property not be tailor-made for you! That opens the doors to all of the property not being tailor-made for you. And you have to believe that the silent hordes are on your side, because if they aren't then you aren't likely to win, and winning is what matters.

[keybounce]

So I had a chance to see the next 2 episodes.

I'm done with season one. Someone let me know, when season 2 comes around, if the writing is any better.

[Litwin]

I sure as heck hope season 2 writing is going to be better. It often times is when it comes to series like this so I'm keeping hope. That being said, I thought season 1 was very watchable.

[Devonix]

I've pretty much decided that good or bad this show isn't for me. And will let it carry on. Peaking back in if someone says something interesting happened.

[Elanasaurus]

Nice job on the thread title, by the way.

[Metahuman1]

I don't understand; the movie is for you. What do you care if I or anyone else dismisses the critic that told you it would be good? Either you enjoyed it or you didn't, the integrity of the critic has no bearing on that. I'm baffled by this argument. Unless you're talking about something else entirely?


Brazenly unacceptable double standards that dictate that anyone who doesn't agree with a specific list of opinions is both a Nazi and not actually a human but a spam bot?

From people whom are using Spam Bots to try and salvage there credibility?

And people whom are giving them a blatant pass on it after demonizing me for about a year now based on an accusation with precious little evidence too it of the exact same behavior that's now being given a pass?




Tell me, any, particular, reason, most of a year of that shouldn't be rubbing me the wrong way?

[Z3ro]

Brazenly unacceptable double standards that dictate that anyone who doesn't agree with a specific list of opinions is both a Nazi and not actually a human but a spam bot?

From people whom are using Spam Bots to try and salvage there credibility?

And people whom are giving them a blatant pass on it after demonizing me for about a year now based on an accusation with precious little evidence too it of the exact same behavior that's now being given a pass?




Tell me, any, particular, reason, most of a year of that shouldn't be rubbing me the wrong way?

But how does that affect your enjoyment of the movie? I really don't understand here; all the things you mention have no impact on the quality of your experience. Or are you saying these things are affecting your enjoyment of a particular piece of media?

[Devonix]

May I ask what behavior is being given a pass?

[Friv]

May I ask what behavior is being given a pass?

Metahuman believes that a number of accounts (about a hundred, IIRC) were created in order to artificially give Resistance a higher audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. This is possible. Metahuman also believes that these hundred accounts are an organized conspiracy by Disney, and specifically by the conveniently exact people at Disney that Metahuman already dislikes, in order to bolster support for a failing show. This is ridiculous.

Metahuman is angry because back when The Last Jedi came out, some people bragged about creating bots in order to brigade the ratings for that movie and artificially lower it. He feels that, since this is a thing that provably happened, anyone who references it is saying that everyone who disliked The Last Jedi is one of those bots. This is not unlike someone saying "A dog stole my bacon", and you saying, "Hey, I like bacon! How dare you call me a dog!"

Finally, Metahuman is saying that casting doubt on his conspiracy theory while accepting that the review-bombing of The Last Jedi happened is a cruel double-standard that everyone is unfairly inflicting on him.

Any questions?

[Mordar]

So in other words, your admitting that while you dislike my bad Dr. comparison, every other point I made was right and professional critics are no better in any way at all, than just the audience members on the same sites.

Thank you for reaching a point of agreement and understanding with me.

I like critical reviews because the critics see far more movies than I ever could (or would want to), and have a greater level of experience than I. When they are good at their jobs they explain why they liked/disliked elements of the movie, not just that they liked/disliked it.

I like "real" critical reviews best - those affiliated with established, for-profit institutions like newspapers, magazines and very limited websites.

And I like genre film critics that evidence they "get" the genre best of the real critics.

Of course, critical reviews are most capable of being swayed by things that don't overtly matter to me (like sound editing, which clearly matters subvertly) and/or the possibility of professional peer pressure.


Audience reviews will frequently be given not based on an honest assessment of the work itself, but based on other factors, such as not liking the writer(s), the actors, the producing company, or other tangentially associates things about it. There are, for example, a lot of people who want to see the new star wars movies fail, and their existence makes it extremely difficult to tell whether the audience reviews are genuine or based on salty people who are saying they didn't like it because they don't want a new star wars movie that does well.

I disagree in part - at least for audience reviews that actually see the movie. Sure, a review might be impacted by a bad seat, or burnt popcorn, or doffusi on their phones during the movie...but I think it is a more visceral (if often less nuanced) opinion of the film and simply a measure of "did [person] enjoy the experience?".

Of course, audience reviews are most capable of being manipulated by bots or spamming or whatever, so a degree of salt is required...and the newer/more hotbutton the movie, the larger number of grains.


I think the part that you're missing is the terror that, if other people like a thing that you don't like, they will continue making the thing that you don't like instead of throwing it all in the trash and returning to only making the thing that you do like.

[SNIP conspiracy theory stuff which has some real value...but doesn't apply to my point here]

Rather than just shrugging and saying, "Nah, that one wasn't for me" and moving on, people get extremely, wildly over-invested in specific properties, and then campaign and rage against any aspect of the property that doesn't align with their personal vision of what the property should be. You can't have any aspect of the property not be tailor-made for you! That opens the doors to all of the property not being tailor-made for you. And you have to believe that the silent hordes are on your side, because if they aren't then you aren't likely to win, and winning is what matters.

So in the days before MCU...and LotR...and many other successful, mainstreamed genre films...those of us who wanted epic fantasy, science fiction or super hero movies had to be content with the fact that they didn't exist. That we had to live on schlock fare that barely makes the level of "B movie" or dated but wonderful stuff often featuring Ray Harryhausen's work.

Star Wars burst on to the screen and we had hope...but even then, the hope withered with few exceptions (Indiana Jones, Batmam, a few others) and we got mostly bombs reverting back to schlock form. We got a little bit of sci-fi mixed with horror here and there (Aliens!), but if it wasn't Star Wars or Star Trek it got short changed and went straight to B-schlock. Studios either didn't get or didn't care that these genres are different than other formulaic mainstream movies. Sure, they can be formulaic, but it is a different formula!

Swords-and-Sorcery suffered even more...despite Conan being well received in certain areas, it didn't even spawn other serious efforts in the arena...and here the B-movie treatment generally stood for "Bare Breasts" and we got Sword and the Sorcerer, Deathstalker or other R-rated films. Then the direct to video market became viable, and 99% of the sci fi or fantasy went that direction...and with tiny budgets you get crap effects and a mixed bag of writing, directing and acting. Still, a few franchises tried and were endearing if never actually good (Beastmaster, for one). Finally a D&D branded movie was released...and hope again turned to ashes as what we thought might be a chance to see our kind of stories on screen was destroyed by half-assed efforts, attempts to shoehorn in buddy cop tropes and a weak story.

Burton's Batman hit and was successful...and again we got B-movie followups, sadly several of them sequels to Batman. Maybe the cost of special effects was too high, or maybe studios didn't believe in the spending power of nerdy white kids, so we didn't see much else until the MCU started up.

But the massive success of Star Wars - even the variable quality of the prequels - forced studios to recognize that those marginalized nerdy white kids (a) had a lot more money to spend than the studios thought, (b) were far from the only people that wanted to see good fantastic action and world-building, and (c) weren't as rare or marginalized as the studios thought. That kind of revelation allowed Peter Jackson to make 3 great movies and 1 okay movie split into three parts. And it allowed Game of Thrones to be a filmed thing. And taking a flyer on Iron Man catalyzed efforts that created the MCU.

So we are reveling in these times...but know the fear and consequence of failure. Sci-fi still struggles to move beyond 2 franchises. Swords-and-sorcery hinges on just one now...and it is arguably tainted (not by Martin, but by the nature of shows on HBO). Neither have generated the quality or success of the MCU. So when we see one of the pillars potentially morphing into a vehicle for purposes other than sci-fi epic/space opera/adventure, we see what might be the end of one of the few chances to see things we really like on screen.1

If we go to a romcom and it disappoints...that's no big deal because there will be another one within 2 weeks to take its place. Or a horror film, or a spy thriller, or a blast-em-all action movie. I like all of those types, and I never fear that because the new Halloween stank (it didn't, it was pretty good) that studios will stop making slasher films. But if Star Wars fails, or changes into something only distantly related, what do I have to fall back on? When GoT ends will my only substitute be a bad copy of Wheel of Time, or a version of Falcon Crest dressed up in plate mail and corsets?

For me, it is opportunity cost. The studios aren't cranking out SciFi or Fantasy. They will only spend X amount of their time and money on these genres, and that means if I don't like the one offering every other year or so, I'm SOL. That's why *I* am invested in Star Wars. That's why I am passionate about it.

I liked TFA a lot. I like Rey. I like Kylo Ren as a fragmented "bad guy". I HATED TLJ. I'm not a bot. If the things I disliked about TLJ continue and/or grow, I will lose Star Wars. It won't lose me...I don't matter much in that way. I just have to hope that if that happens, other new space opera will be available.

1 - yup, I know it has always had layers and messages. They were never the purpose, though. And it isn't even a question of the layers and messages but of the execution and prioritization

tl;dr: It doesn't have to be tailor-made. I don't have to win. I just have to not lose the rare opportunity. If I go to Baskin Robbins and they're out of Jamocha Almond Fudge I can go back tomorrow (or to the Baskin Robbins/Dunkin Donuts down the way) and get it then instead. Not the case with quality sci-fi movies, especially when even these days the studios are more and more risk averse.

- M

[GloatingSwine]

But the massive success of Star Wars - even the variable quality of the prequels - forced studios to recognize that those marginalized nerdy white kids (a) had a lot more money to spend than the studios thought, (b) were far from the only people that wanted to see good fantastic action and world-building, and (c) weren't as rare or marginalized as the studios thought.

See, this is the misconception that drives a lot of the wangst from the dimmer corners of the internet.

The massive success of Star Wars proved* to studios that space pew pew fantasies had popularity that stretched considerably beyond marginalised nerdy white kids.

It's not that marginalised nerds are sufficiently numerous and willing to part with cash to sustain global megafranchises, it's that the things they like aren't necessarily marginal and normal people like them in sufficient quantities to sustain global megafranchises.

* Or rather reminded them, the old adventure serials that inspired it were also popular and mainstream.

There's also an undercurrent of marginalised nerdy white kids being upset that although the things they like are popular they themselves have not been swept to popularity as a result of them being really attached to those things.

[Mordar]

See, this is the misconception that drives a lot of the wangst from the dimmer corners of the internet.

The massive success of Star Wars proved* to studios that space pew pew fantasies had popularity that stretched considerably beyond marginalised nerdy white kids.

It's not that marginalised nerds are sufficiently numerous and willing to part with cash to sustain global megafranchises, it's that the things they like aren't necessarily marginal and normal people like them in sufficient quantities to sustain global megafranchises.

* Or rather reminded them, the old adventure serials that inspired it were also popular and mainstream.

There's also an undercurrent of marginalised nerdy white kids being upset that although the things they like are popular they themselves have not been swept to popularity as a result of them being really attached to those things.

Would that misconception be (a) or (b)? I'm afraid you missed (b) in the middle...but I think you'll also find that a ton of producers/advertisers have recognized that groups they previously thought too small to target have more spending power than they ever considered. So while there is expansion of things traditionally "nerd" into mainstream culture, particularly over the last decade, there is also now an expectation that those niche audiences have enough money to spend to be worth chasing.

No one group (unless you consider "First-world consumers" to be one group) can create or sustain a megafranchise, certainly. But I think you've flopped something around here - in 1977 it wasn't that the MNWK (min-wick? manwank?) didn't want the other kids in their sandbox...it was all the other kids didn't know there was anything in the sandbox they wanted to play with. That might be different now (see below) but that is my recollection of the time. However, the merchandise was still pretty strongly MNWK, at least in my experience...I can think back to who had the Star Wars lunch boxes and folders and who didn't. And none of the cool kids were rocking R2D2 shirts.

The serials were mainstream and appended to the real movies people were going to see...or aired at noon or midnight on Saturday when the hip kids were playing sports or out on dates. There's a reason most of the best Sci-Fi/Fantasy were "pulp"...publishers didn't count them as real books that real people would pay real money to buy. Westerns were a special case (even if they were the exact same stories we'd want to see as sci-fi or fantasy!) because they had become mainstream. Remember, the greatest sci-fi show of its time had to scrimp and steal to get just short of 3 seasons. Shatner had a great quote about how other shows spent more on catering each episode than Star Trek had for the whole show. No, I'm going to hold to Jaws and Star Wars as creating the blockbuster film, and Star Wars putting sci-fi in front of everyone.

I also agree with you that there are some MNWK (certainly not always W, but we're doing this acronym now) that don't want the other kids in their sandbox. I'd speculate that it is because the rabid MNWKs see such fandom as part of their identity, and if other people like it, they lose their identity. We see tons of evidence of this at the comic book store, the RPG convention and probably GameStop too (heck, it is probably the reason for GamerGate and the comic version). However, I still hold they are the exception, not the rule. I wonder at the relative contributions of my statement and yours to the mix - I think they both participate, for sure.

- M

[GloatingSwine]

Would that misconception be (a) or (b)?

A and C.

You can even see the effect of it not being the nerd market being larger or richer than expected in the comics industry.

Over the last 40-50 years comics have progressively retreated from the mainstream, where they used to be reasonably priced and available everywhere in supermarkets and newsstands, they're now basically only available from specialist retailers and have attempted to sell the individual monthly issue as a premium product, driving up the cover price because high quality paper and inks are not economical for a 35 page magazine.

The result? Actual comic sales winnowed away, both major publishers have faced bankruptcy and been acquired by media conglomerates.

And it's not because normal people aren't willing to engage with the sequential art format either. Manga properties like One Piece or Attack on Titan sell in the millions, at the graphic novel price point.

So whilst the actual IPs have never been stronger, starting from Batman in '89 they've had increasingly popular presentation in movies and TV, and the format remains popular, comics sales barely move. Because they've designed a market that can only put those comics in the hands of that marginal audience of nerdy white boys (and mostly middle aged ones at that) and doubles down on squeezing that audience at the expense of reaching out (variant covers, eternal #1 issues to fool collectors, etc).

And that's not a big market, it's exactly as marginal a market as it is suspected to be.

As loud as some people can be on the internet when fictional worlds turn out not to revolve around them, financially and statistically they are a very small part of the market and reaching beyond them is the path to success.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Plus, while TLJ doesn't reach the lofty box office heights of Empire (when adjusted for inflation), it still comes in at #43 domestic box office for all the movies in Hollywood's history, well ahead of Clones. I'm pretty confident that Star Wars has not "failed" from a financial standpoint.

Granted, maybe it was all Indian bots driving up those ticket sales!

[Mordar]

A and C.

I think you've got a misconception about C...and it makes me wonder if my trying to be clever was an error. C is a by-product of B.

We could argue about A (nerds have lots of money to spend), we agree about B...and my intent for C was to say that because B is true, C is valid. The stuff that some people thought only nerds liked other people liked too. Effectively, if studios thought only nerds liked X, Y and Z...and previously non-nerd identified people also liked X, Y and Z maybe they are nerds too, but just a different flavor.


You can even see the effect of it not being the nerd market being larger or richer than expected in the comics industry.

Over the last 40-50 years comics have progressively retreated from the mainstream, where they used to be reasonably priced and available everywhere in supermarkets and newsstands, they're now basically only available from specialist retailers and have attempted to sell the individual monthly issue as a premium product, driving up the cover price because high quality paper and inks are not economical for a 35 page magazine.

The result? Actual comic sales winnowed away, both major publishers have faced bankruptcy and been acquired by media conglomerates.

It isn't over the last 40 years, it is the last 20 and change. The reason? They were too successful, and didn't handle it well. Sales were climbing, values of older books were climbing, premium/variant/polybagged books were becoming a thing. The "mainstream" recognized the value of the medium and wanted in (B and C)...and so did the speculators. The glut of cash fueled a ton of new publishers, the retail side saw an explosion of direct-sales shops...and the publishers shifted to a direct-sales only model...and cut their own throats. Excluding other advertisers from paying the production costs of the comics themselves forced the rapid rise in cover price (clearly along with profit taking), so even those potential new readers who did have access to books were getting priced out of the market, so no longer was there fresh blood coming into the hobby. Speculation destroys the potential value of collectibles, as print runs prevented rarity, so the speculators quickly dried up. No more deals to get thousands of copies into Hy-Vee, Snyders Drug or Waldenbooks (and no more Waldenbooks...). Throat cut, industry bleeding out. See also: baseball cards, Dragon magazine, etc.

Perhaps by now the same issue that has ravaged print magazines would also have taken its toll on comics, but the success-that-fueled-death certainly expedited the process.


And it's not because normal people aren't willing to engage with the sequential art format either. Manga properties like One Piece or Attack on Titan sell in the millions, at the graphic novel price point.

I'm pretty curious about this. What are the demos of people buying these? I know who I see in Barnes and Nobel in these sections, and they are a specialist demographic. Sales numbers are supposedly very difficult to pin down...is the US market on these really bigger than 199x comic books? Or are international sales driving this truck?


So whilst the actual IPs have never been stronger, starting from Batman in '89 they've had increasingly popular presentation in movies and TV, and the format remains popular, comics sales barely move. Because they've designed a market that can only put those comics in the hands of that marginal audience of nerdy white boys (and mostly middle aged ones at that) and doubles down on squeezing that audience at the expense of reaching out (variant covers, eternal #1 issues to fool collectors, etc).

And that's not a big market, it's exactly as marginal a market as it is suspected to be.

Certain selected IPs, anyway. I'd argue that is isn't as marginal a market as it is suspected to be, but rather it's as marginal a market as the industry constrained it to be, with the additional pressure of underestimating the impact of the gaming boom. Aside: A successful (as far as such a thing can be these days) brick-and-mortar comic store owner made a great point to me...he said "We're not competing with the other 3 comic book stores in town. We're competing with GameStop. We're competing with League of Legends. We're competing with WoW. And we're going to lose eventually, because those are the things that get the new customers."


As loud as some people can be on the internet when fictional worlds turn out not to revolve around them, financially and statistically they are a very small part of the market and reaching beyond them is the path to success.

Depending on the property, absolutely. For a Star Wars, yes. For a Dungeons and Dragons, maybe. And for the "hardcore" MNWK, always.

All of that being said, TLJ (while profitable and successful) did underperform - TFA was 8.4:1, TLJ was 4.2:1. Solo significantly underperformed at 1.6:1, and assuming the standard benchmark of needing 2:1 to break even, that's big bad.. Something's going on, and it isn't fatigue...or if it is, that arm of Disney should ask the MCU arm how they keep releasing movies every 12 months or less that don't suffer from the same fatigue. There is no chance it is just group A causing this. But maybe they are the canary in the coal mine.

- M

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Maybe, just maybe, a film being a fresh new genre gives it mass appeal, and it's impossible to capture lightning in a bottle twice, or maybe Star Wars has for some unknown reason gained a reputation of being niche and nerdy. (It certainly couldn't be the labyrinthine, massive, and sometimes contradictory sprawl known as the EU. I cannot for the life of me fathom how someone seriously believes you could have made an EU trilogy that had mass appeal.)

The great paradox of Star Wars is that the more you make, the nerdier it gets, which limits its appeal inherently to casual viewers. That's why its apex was A New Hope; adjusted for inflation, each successive movie in the series made a lower box office than the prior entries. This trend continued until Revenge of the Sith, interestingly. But it makes sense: A New Hope was a strange, fantastical film with unexplained lines and references to unrevealed mysteries. As things get explained, that magic gets worn away.

Bonus: when Star Wars "fails", most other franchises would gladly take profits like that.

[Peelee]

Maybe, just maybe, a film being a fresh new genre gives it mass appeal, and it's impossible to capture lightning in a bottle twice, or maybe Star Wars has for some unknown reason gained a reputation of being niche and nerdy. (It certainly couldn't be the labyrinthine, massive, and sometimes contradictory sprawl known as the EU. I cannot for the life of me fathom how someone seriously believes you could have made an EU trilogy that had mass appeal.)

Oh come now. The vast, vast majority of filmgoers barely even know about the EU, much less the messes it contained.

[Mordar]

Bonus: when Star Wars "fails", most other franchises would gladly take profits like that.

TLJ, probably. Solo, no. The guideline is that if the box office isn't at least twice the production budget the film is a financial failure.

- M

[GloatingSwine]

It isn't over the last 40 years, it is the last 20 and change. The reason? They were too successful, and didn't handle it well. Sales were climbing, values of older books were climbing, premium/variant/polybagged books were becoming a thing. The "mainstream" recognized the value of the medium and wanted in (B and C)...and so did the speculators. The glut of cash fueled a ton of new publishers, the retail side saw an explosion of direct-sales shops...and the publishers shifted to a direct-sales only model...and cut their own throats. Excluding other advertisers from paying the production costs of the comics themselves forced the rapid rise in cover price (clearly along with profit taking), so even those potential new readers who did have access to books were getting priced out of the market, so no longer was there fresh blood coming into the hobby. Speculation destroys the potential value of collectibles, as print runs prevented rarity, so the speculators quickly dried up. No more deals to get thousands of copies into Hy-Vee, Snyders Drug or Waldenbooks (and no more Waldenbooks...). Throat cut, industry bleeding out. See also: baseball cards, Dragon magazine, etc.


I think you're overestmating how successful comics were and underestimating how long the problems have been going on in the market.

DC was on the verge of being flogged off by Warners as early as '84 because they just weren't making money. They nearly sold the entire IP stable to Marvel.

A decade later, that point you're identifying as the start of the slide Marvel themselves were bankrupt for the first but not the last time, and that was the year of the big speculator crash ('96). The market didn't recover from the crash in large part because it was never a healthy market to begin with. The real consumer value wasn't there even before it, Diamond was already starting to strangle the market before it happened.


I'm pretty curious about this. What are the demos of people buying these? I know who I see in Barnes and Nobel in these sections, and they are a specialist demographic. Sales numbers are supposedly very difficult to pin down...is the US market on these really bigger than 199x comic books? Or are international sales driving this truck?

International sales are a fairly significant factor, because manga has a wider reach than US comics do (Superhero comics never really broke into Europe the way they did in the English speaking market, but manga has to a much greater extent).


Certain selected IPs, anyway. I'd argue that is isn't as marginal a market as it is suspected to be, but rather it's as marginal a market as the industry constrained it to be, with the additional pressure of underestimating the impact of the gaming boom. Aside: A successful (as far as such a thing can be these days) brick-and-mortar comic store owner made a great point to me...he said "We're not competing with the other 3 comic book stores in town. We're competing with GameStop. We're competing with League of Legends. We're competing with WoW. And we're going to lose eventually, because those are the things that get the new customers."

My old local comic shop before I moved never tried to compete with the other comic shop in town (which was next door and a much more traditional comic shop).

The owner competed with bookshops. Made the store look and feel like a branch of Waterstones, with art based displays in the window, graphic novels at the front and single issues way at the back, and prided himself on the fact that no matter who walked through the door, even if they were some lost pensioner who didn't know what the shop was, he could find a comic book they would enjoy and sell it to them.

They're still there, still going strong because he reached out to the real mainstream. Thinking comics are going to lose their market to games is making the same category error in thinking that the market can only be white and nerdy.

The market can be everyone, you just have to convince them to walk in your store not go to Amazon.


All of that being said, TLJ (while profitable and successful) did underperform - TFA was 8.4:1, TLJ was 4.2:1. Solo significantly underperformed at 1.6:1, and assuming the standard benchmark of needing 2:1 to break even, that's big bad.. Something's going on, and it isn't fatigue...or if it is, that arm of Disney should ask the MCU arm how they keep releasing movies every 12 months or less that don't suffer from the same fatigue. There is no chance it is just group A causing this. But maybe they are the canary in the coal mine.

TLJ's market drop compared to TFA was proportionally the same as between ANH special edition and ESB's, and the same as between TPM and Clones. People saying it "underperformed" simply don't have all the information. That kind of market decline is what you expect from the second entry in a Star Wars trilogy if you look at the history of the franchise. And it's still in the top ten highest grossing movies of all time in the US. Any argument that it is a sign that Star Wars is "doing badly" is not founded in reality.

Also, Solo was the picture of a troubled production, going through directors like mexican food through incautious tourists and requiring many many acting coaches for its lead. It was basically sent out to die whilst Infinity War was still sucking all the oxygen out of the room and just before Incredibles 2 (the highest grossing non PG-13 movie ever that people had been waiting 13 years for).

(Also it was prequel backstory for a character who was not amenable to backstory in the first place. Han starts the trilogy as a self centred cynic and gradually grows not to be. If you do a backstory it has to be the story of "how the protagonist learns to be an *******". And that's a story that only really works in comedy)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Oh come now. The vast, vast majority of filmgoers barely even know about the EU, much less the messes it contained.
My point is that archiving the EU was the only viable way to make a SW film with mass appeal, which runs contrary to the wishes of the demographic we're discussing here.

[Peelee]

My point is that archiving the EU was the only viable way to make a SW film with mass appeal, which runs contrary to the wishes of the demographic we're discussing here.

True enough. Picking and choosing the good parts from the EU would have been a good idea, though.

[Olinser]

My point is that archiving the EU was the only viable way to make a SW film with mass appeal, which runs contrary to the wishes of the demographic we're discussing here.

No, it was not.

Thrawn, the Old Republic, or out in the Outer Rim away from the New Republic were all 100% viable options that require no knowledge of the EU and are easily accessible to non-Star Wars fans.

So many people were just assuming they'd start with Thrawn that Disney had to make an explicit announcement that they weren't doing it.

And now they're in the worst of both worlds. They jettisoned the extensive world-building of the EU and wrote a brand new timeline, but didn't want to be bothered explaining little details like how exactly the First Order even exists or is so powerful.

[Mechalich]

True enough. Picking and choosing the good parts from the EU would have been a good idea, though.

Quite. Or more simply, they could have archived only the post-ROTJ EU and kept all of the Prequel Era and Old Republic stuff, none of which had any impact on storytelling direction for the ST whatsoever. And by the time that decision was made, nearly half of the EU canon (http://eleven-thirtyeight.com/2014/04/go-figure-casualties-of-the-canon/) (full disclosure, I'm the author of that article), was pre-ROTJ.

[Peelee]

full disclosure, I'm the author of that article

Oh cool! I'll try to give that a read through when I get a chance!

[Mordar]

I think you're overestmating how successful comics were and underestimating how long the problems have been going on in the market.

DC was on the verge of being flogged off by Warners as early as '84 because they just weren't making money. They nearly sold the entire IP stable to Marvel.

A decade later, that point you're identifying as the start of the slide Marvel themselves were bankrupt for the first but not the last time, and that was the year of the big speculator crash ('96). The market didn't recover from the crash in large part because it was never a healthy market to begin with. The real consumer value wasn't there even before it, Diamond was already starting to strangle the market before it happened.

From the data I can see, 1990-95 look extremely strong, particularly for Marvel and Image and the other new houses. The dynamics in the market reacting to that strength really look to me to be a major contributor to the inability to recover when the bubble burst, at least in the near term. Distribution strangled, like you said, costs were escalated, and it is hard to get advertisers after you kicked them out...and now can't show them you are a good venue for their ads.


My old local comic shop before I moved never tried to compete with the other comic shop in town (which was next door and a much more traditional comic shop).

The owner competed with bookshops. Made the store look and feel like a branch of Waterstones, with art based displays in the window, graphic novels at the front and single issues way at the back, and prided himself on the fact that no matter who walked through the door, even if they were some lost pensioner who didn't know what the shop was, he could find a comic book they would enjoy and sell it to them.

They're still there, still going strong because he reached out to the real mainstream. Thinking comics are going to lose their market to games is making the same category error in thinking that the market can only be white and nerdy.

The market can be everyone, you just have to convince them to walk in your store not go to Amazon.

It certainly wasn't just games, but readership in general is down...magazine and newspaper sales are horrible. I hear there is some recovery (Walking Dead seemed to help a lot), but it is still very hard, at least here, to reach out to the mainstream when you are a niche specialty kind of shop. Add in mall failures and you don't even have that venue for accidental foot traffic. The store I am referencing has diversified a lot, and is the market share leader in a community of about 1 million residents...and he is still worried for the future of the medium. Maybe that's just his way.


TLJ's market drop compared to TFA was proportionally the same as between ANH special edition and ESB's, and the same as between TPM and Clones. People saying it "underperformed" simply don't have all the information. That kind of market decline is what you expect from the second entry in a Star Wars trilogy if you look at the history of the franchise. And it's still in the top ten highest grossing movies of all time in the US. Any argument that it is a sign that Star Wars is "doing badly" is not founded in reality.

#43 in adjusted dollars (yup, that's still really good...I, at least, am not suggesting it was a failure). The production budget went from TFA at $240M to TLJ at $315. Studio investment went up by a third. The expectation was that it would perform better than it did. As I have said, it still did well...but not to market targets or studio hopes. Claiming it was just sequel drop off seems disingenuous considering MCU sequel performance, where at least 4 of the sub-franchises have greater ticket sales on sequels than on the initial movies.

Again, yes, by common metrics it did very well...4:1 is something the average studio will be thrilled to take on the average picture all day long. But it is a noteworthy decline. And then...


Also, Solo was the picture of a troubled production, going through directors like mexican food through incautious tourists and requiring many many acting coaches for its lead. It was basically sent out to die whilst Infinity War was still sucking all the oxygen out of the room and just before Incredibles 2 (the highest grossing non PG-13 movie ever that people had been waiting 13 years for).

(Also it was prequel backstory for a character who was not amenable to backstory in the first place. Han starts the trilogy as a self centred cynic and gradually grows not to be. If you do a backstory it has to be the story of "how the protagonist learns to be an *******". And that's a story that only really works in comedy)

You're right, obviously, that Solo was in trouble from about 10 minutes after TLJ hit. The news of the reshoots, the rescue director and the coaching all spelled trouble. But still, it was expected to be able to perform in the gap between Infinity War and Incredibles when the release date was decided. But the combination of news of production trouble and TLJ word of mouth (and who knows what ever other factors) kicked it right in the teeth. Maybe Infinity War had more legs than they thought. But if you think Disney threw in the towel on the $250M production and intentionally killed it by putting in that release slot, expecting to take a massive bath on it I think you underestimate the studio's valuation. I could be completely wrong here...and I know late release date changes are never a good thing...but the studio spent at least $400M to create and promote the movie. I can't imagine they'd throw that away if they expected this level of underperformance when they could have moved it to the fall.

- M

[Peelee]

Three episodes in, and I've gotten used to the whole younger demographic thing. Im enjoying it more. Although it shouldn't have been called Resistance, IMO.

[Olinser]

From the data I can see, 1990-95 look extremely strong, particularly for Marvel and Image and the other new houses. The dynamics in the market reacting to that strength really look to me to be a major contributor to the inability to recover when the bubble burst, at least in the near term. Distribution strangled, like you said, costs were escalated, and it is hard to get advertisers after you kicked them out...and now can't show them you are a good venue for their ads.



It certainly wasn't just games, but readership in general is down...magazine and newspaper sales are horrible. I hear there is some recovery (Walking Dead seemed to help a lot), but it is still very hard, at least here, to reach out to the mainstream when you are a niche specialty kind of shop. Add in mall failures and you don't even have that venue for accidental foot traffic. The store I am referencing has diversified a lot, and is the market share leader in a community of about 1 million residents...and he is still worried for the future of the medium. Maybe that's just his way.



#43 in adjusted dollars (yup, that's still really good...I, at least, am not suggesting it was a failure). The production budget went from TFA at $240M to TLJ at $315. Studio investment went up by a third. The expectation was that it would perform better than it did. As I have said, it still did well...but not to market targets or studio hopes. Claiming it was just sequel drop off seems disingenuous considering MCU sequel performance, where at least 4 of the sub-franchises have greater ticket sales on sequels than on the initial movies.

Again, yes, by common metrics it did very well...4:1 is something the average studio will be thrilled to take on the average picture all day long. But it is a noteworthy decline. And then...



You're right, obviously, that Solo was in trouble from about 10 minutes after TLJ hit. The news of the reshoots, the rescue director and the coaching all spelled trouble. But still, it was expected to be able to perform in the gap between Infinity War and Incredibles when the release date was decided. But the combination of news of production trouble and TLJ word of mouth (and who knows what ever other factors) kicked it right in the teeth. Maybe Infinity War had more legs than they thought. But if you think Disney threw in the towel on the $250M production and intentionally killed it by putting in that release slot, expecting to take a massive bath on it I think you underestimate the studio's valuation. I could be completely wrong here...and I know late release date changes are never a good thing...but the studio spent at least $400M to create and promote the movie. I can't imagine they'd throw that away if they expected this level of underperformance when they could have moved it to the fall.

- M

Solo was just another indication of how poorly Disney has managed the Star Wars movie universe in general.

Although the director wasn't 'fired', Rogue One ALSO had extensive reshoots and rewrites from a completely different director after it was completed. Gareth Edwards made the 'finished' film, but then Tony Gilroy was brought in to direct all of the reshoots.

Several big scenes were NOT in the initial version of the movie - the entire space battle, Vader's attack, the entire ending of the movie, and I believe Peter Cushing's appearance were all added or altered during the reshoots.

So while yes, Solo was a pretty unmitigated disaster, it was just a continuation of what Disney had been doing all along - giving relatively new directors total control over the movie with no real supervision, and then belatedly realizing they hadn't made a good movie and they had to 'fix' it with huge reshoots and a different director.

[Rogar Demonblud]

You're right, obviously, that Solo was in trouble from about 10 minutes after TLJ hit. The news of the reshoots, the rescue director and the coaching all spelled trouble. But still, it was expected to be able to perform in the gap between Infinity War and Incredibles when the release date was decided. But the combination of news of production trouble and TLJ word of mouth (and who knows what ever other factors) kicked it right in the teeth. Maybe Infinity War had more legs than they thought. But if you think Disney threw in the towel on the $250M production and intentionally killed it by putting in that release slot, expecting to take a massive bath on it I think you underestimate the studio's valuation. I could be completely wrong here...and I know late release date changes are never a good thing...but the studio spent at least $400M to create and promote the movie. I can't imagine they'd throw that away if they expected this level of underperformance when they could have moved it to the fall.

- M

The problem is they set it in May because that's the traditional Star Wars slot (the OT are a big chunk of the reasons why summer blockbuster season starts in May), and from the interviews it seems the execs just expected everyone else to bow to the awesome that is Star Wars and just hand over their audiences. I have little doubt that if Solo was releasing in December to take advantage of the holiday bump, we'd be expecting pretty good results. If nothing else, that 'panicked rush to fix stuff' vibe wouldn't be there.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Solo also suffered backlash from the "STAR WARS IS RUINED SJW MESS FOREVER" trolls, so.

[Olinser]

Solo also suffered backlash from the "STAR WARS IS RUINED SJW MESS FOREVER" trolls, so.

Right. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that prominent Disney representatives publicly and repeatedly insulted anybody that didn't like the movie for reasons that never once included the word 'SJW'. Nope it was just trolls. /eyeroll

[Devonix]

Right. It couldn't POSSIBLY be that prominent Disney representatives publicly and repeatedly insulted anybody that didn't like the movie for reasons that never once included the word 'SJW'. Nope it was just trolls. /eyeroll

I just never understand this line of thinking. If you never talked about SJWs or had legitimate reasons for your dislike of something. Why do you feel insulted when someone talks about what other people did.

If someone is taking about group A and I'm in group B why would I care if they call to task something group A did wrong?

As an example I didn't like the Ghostbusters reboot at all. My reasoning being that I simply don't like Paul Feig and Malissa Macarthy's brand of humor. Now when people talk about other people who didn't like it for..."Reasons". I don't get upset because I know my reasons are valid, and there are plenty of other people with valid reasons. But I also know there are people who disliked it for "reasons" and I know this because I was absolutely shocked that some of my friends actually had those reasons and had to ask why they thought that.

[Olinser]

I just never understand this line of thinking. If you never talked about SJWs or had legitimate reasons for your dislike of something. Why do you feel insulted when someone talks about what other people did.

If someone is taking about group A and I'm in group B why would I care if they call to task something group A did wrong?

As an example I didn't like the Ghostbusters reboot at all. My reasoning being that I simply don't like Paul Feig and Malissa Macarthy's brand of humor. Now when people talk about other people who didn't like it for..."Reasons". I don't get upset because I know my reasons are valid, and there are plenty of other people with valid reasons. But I also know there are people who disliked it for "reasons" and I know this because I was absolutely shocked that some of my friends actually had those reasons and had to ask why they thought that.

Thanks for classic concern trolling. It's one of the standard steps in Last Jedi 'discussion', where defenders of the movie generalize that the 'fans' are toxic manbabies, and when called out on it, trying to claim that we 'all know' who they were talking about when they made a sweeping smear of a huge group of people.

Why? Because it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to have any extended group discussion about the problems with Last Jedi without somebody screaming about how toxic the 'fan base' is, whining about Kelly Marie Tran getting 'bullied' off social media and demanding that you admit how 'toxic' the fans are, publicly denounce them and prove you aren't one of them - all the while never actually answering your actual criticisms of the film. I stopped playing that game months ago.

[Devonix]

Thanks for classic concern trolling. It's one of the standard steps in Last Jedi 'discussion', where defenders of the movie generalize that the 'fans' are toxic manbabies, and when called out on it, trying to claim that we 'all know' who they were talking about when they made a sweeping smear of a huge group of people.

Why? Because it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to have any extended group discussion about the problems with Last Jedi without somebody screaming about how toxic the 'fan base' is, whining about Kelly Marie Tran getting 'bullied' off social media and demanding that you admit how 'toxic' the fans are, publicly denounce them and prove you aren't one of them - all the while never actually answering your actual criticisms of the film. I stopped playing that game months ago.

I promise you. I don't concern troll. Any concern I show for someone is genuine. I've not called you a toxic manbaby and if you want to discuss things about the film. I've always treated the people with actual problems about the movie, like people. Of course not everyone, not even the majority of the people who dislike it are what you describe. Yeah I love the movie, but yes it does have issues that have nothing to do with anything but the film. I'm not generalizing you, don't assume I am.

I attack arguments, not people.

[keybounce]

Three episodes in, and I've gotten used to the whole younger demographic thing. Im enjoying it more. Although it shouldn't have been called Resistance, IMO.

Just letting you know, I did see this discussion of Resistance in this thread for ... "resistence"? ...

Let me fix that spelling. Sheesh.

[Peelee]

Just letting you know, I did see this discussion of Resistance in this thread for ... "resistence"? ...

Let me fix that spelling. Sheesh.

Heh, I just noticed that.

But yeah, it's not about the Resistance. It should be called "The Adventures of Kaz" or something.

[Dargaron]

Heh, I just noticed that.

But yeah, it's not about the Resistance. It should be called "The Adventures of Kaz" or something.

Who knows, maybe the bad guys will be foiled by redirecting an electric charge into rubber, or something.

Then they'd literally be saved by The Resistance.

[keybounce]

Or, it could be about a new dance / martial arts pose.

Then it could be the Resi Stance.

(how long can we keep this sillyness up?)

[Peelee]

Or, it could be about a new dance / martial arts pose.

Then it could be the Resi Stance.

(how long can we keep this sillyness up?)

They could turn it into a remake of A Bug's Life, with the subtitle "Resist Ants."

[Darth Credence]

Well, it's starting to tie in to the name of the show now. Some actual spying going on, and a hint as to why the Resistance is interested in having a spy there in the first place. The show is getting better, episode by episode. It still plays a lot to young kids, and a chunk of this one looked like it was set up to be easily translated into a flash game on Disney.com, but it was still a good time.

[No brains]

They could turn it into a remake of A Bug's Life, with the subtitle "Resist Ants."

It ends up being about someone with the pseudonym Ra Zizz Tanz. Maybe they fake being a sand person.