Star Wars Episode VIII - The Last Jedi *spoilers from Post 2857*

Tony EH

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This may be a silly thing to suggest in these days of relentless pre-release deconstruction of family blockbusters, but... can we at least wait to see the damn cutesie sci-fi birds in context before drawing any definitive conclusions? :pac:

Agreed.

However, ignoring the obvious toy angle and the demographic for that particular toy that is absolutely inherent in that thing is sticking one's head in the sand.

It's not a "conclusion", but the intent is blindingly obvious.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Agreed.

However, ignoring the obvious toy angle and the demographic for that particular toy that is absolutely inherent in that thing is sticking one's head in the sand.

It's not a "conclusion", but the intent is blindingly obvious.

Someone came at Rian Johnson on twitter saying the porgs were just obvious placement to sell merch/he was made put them in there. He responded.

https://twitter.com/rianjohnson/status/895653655403036672

david75

Tbh I don't see the point in being annoyed about merch.
Star Wars invented that whole game. Every single figure and vehicle will be available in countless sizes and formats and it sells. I've many friends all grown adults who collect this stuff often in multiples to both open and keep in box.
Disney/LFL is hardly just pitching to little kids.

Nobody cried fowl (badum dish) when BB8 rolled onto the screen and went on to sell a billion toys.

Writing a films credibility off because of a little bird is a bit much no?

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Someone came at Rian Johnson on twitter saying the porgs were just obvious placement to sell merch/he was made put them in there. He responded.

https://twitter.com/rianjohnson/status/895653655403036672

"The world you want play with" came after the film though and with subsequent films, it became almost front and centre.

Contrary to popular belief, the original 'Star Wars' wasn't designed with toys in mind. Lucas simply wanted to make a good film. In fact, there were no toys planned at all. Kids got an empty box for Christmas 1977, with a promise of 12 plastic figures arriving later. They were supposed to be a one off thing. Nobody knew that the 3 3/4 inch line would go through teh roof. It's only later films and particularly 'Return of the Jedi' where toy marketing became so important.

Now that the mouse owns Star Wars, the toy marketing is nuts.

And I like Star Wars toys. I'm sitting, typing this with several Stormtroopers point guns at me, reminding me that I should probably grow up at some stage.

But, it still doesn't mean that I won't see though something like a Porg.

Inviere

As long as they don't become this generations Jar Jar, they won't bother me...tbh, the Ewoks don't really bother me either.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

"The world you want play with" came after the film though and with subsequent films, it became almost front and centre.

Contrary to popular belief, the original 'Star Wars' wasn't designed with toys in mind. Lucas simply wanted to make a good film. In fact, there were no toys planned at all. Kids got an empty box for Christmas 1977, with a promise of 12 plastic figures arriving later. They were supposed to be a one off thing. Nobody knew that the 3 3/4 inch line would go through teh roof. It's only later films and particularly 'Return of the Jedi' where toy marketing became so important.

Now that the mouse owns Star Wars, the toy marketing is nuts.

And I like Star Wars toys. I'm sitting, typing this with several Stormtroopers point guns at me, reminding me that I should probably grow up at some stage.

But, it still doesn't mean that I won't see though something like a Porg.

Acollector recently pointed out to me that Disney have totally reigned in on licensing SW and improved the quality of the product and the licences they choose for star wars. Its simply not the case that theres more star wars stuff now that disney owns it. it maybe feels like that because we're getting one film a year though.i can get you a list of the toys being released this force friday next month and its actually really limited. not the blitzkreig youd imagine at all.

J Mysterio

I like Ewoks. These could be good craic too, not prejudging. I expect a range of creatures in Star Wars - cute ones, ugly ones, etc. Who knows... they could be duplicitous little bastards, hence Chewie eating them?

It's also true to say it's a good thing about Star Wars that people of all ages can enjoy the film and that there's something for everyone. I remember watching all the Star Wars with my little sister and I enjoyed her delight at various amusing creatures etc.

david75

the ewoks are murderous little savages that eat people..they also have an indepth shamanistic culture..never understood people having a problem with them

Tony EH

Because they nearly destroy the credibility of 'Return of the Jedi'.

Imagine how much better that film would have been if it was Wookies, instead of teddy bears as originally intended?

It was just awful to have these things defeat the Emperor's "crack troops" on Endor. It makes no sense at all. Even as a child I thought that was dumb.

The only way you can take the Ewoks seriously is if you think of them as chimps or something. Stronger than a man etc.

But, even then, it's a tall ask.

david75

Tony EH wrote: »

Because they nearly destroy the credibility of 'Return of the Jedi'.

Imagine how much better that film would have been if it was Wookies, instead of teddy bears as originally intended?

It was just awful to have these things defeat the Emperor's "crack troops" on Endor. It makes no sense at all. Even as a child I thought that was dumb.

The only way you can take the Ewoks seriously is if you think of them as chimps or something. Stronger than a man etc.

But, even then, it's a tall ask.

thats a fair view and while it would have been awesome if it had been the wookies, its ewoks and the whole idea that its the smallest most seemingly insignificant ones that can topple an empire..

Turtyturd

J Mysterio wrote: »

I like Ewoks. These could be good craic too, not prejudging. I expect a range of creatures in Star Wars - cute ones, ugly ones, etc. Who knows... they could be duplicitous little bastards, hence Chewie eating them?

It's also true to say it's a good thing about Star Wars that people of all ages can enjoy the film and that there's something for everyone. I remember watching all the Star Wars with my little sister and I enjoyed her delight at various amusing creatures etc.

That's always something that I loved about the originals, and in particular Jabba's palace in Return of the Jedi. There's just so much going on there visually and so many characters that stuck out as a kid. Excuse the names or lack of

Jabba, his pet, and his interpreter
The Gamoreon Guards
Leia dressed a Bossh
The band
The Rancor
The Sarlaac
That cow looking guy with three eyes who almost everyone had a figure of growing up.

A lot of the 'cool' looking characters were background/minor ones and the mystery surrounding them added to their coolness (Boba Fett). Even though it's only a still image that has been released the Porg seems very front and centre to deliberately sell merchandise.

.ak

Tony EH wrote: »

It's more a crusade against bottom tier marketing ploys than "anything not absolutely dark and grim". Porgs are toy merch. Nothing more.

When I see something like that in any film, it's hard not to be cynical about it.

C'mon, nearly every Frank Oz creation had a stupid/goggly-eye/sorta cute vibe off it. It's pure Star Wars. And sure, it's pure merch, but it doesn't harm the film or the Star Wars universe in anyway.

It's not like they got Ed Sheeran to play them or anything...

Is it? I usually see frivolus nothingness in most of the Hollywood product. Everybody has their quip ready. Nobody cares what happens to them. Everything's grand. Hey, a funny line!!! I'm being entertained cos I can laugh at the funny line!

Guess you're going to see the wrong movies, but if you look at the trend and what's vogue in cinema things are certainly far darker and more sombre than they were 10 years ago. Just look at the Dark Knight series vs Batman 10 years earlier, or Dunkirk vs Saving Private Ryan... Yes, I know I've picked Nolan movies there but you get the idea.

.ak

Tony EH wrote: »

"The world you want play with" came after the film though and with subsequent films, it became almost front and centre.

Contrary to popular belief, the original 'Star Wars' wasn't designed with toys in mind. Lucas simply wanted to make a good film. In fact, there were no toys planned at all. Kids got an empty box for Christmas 1977, with a promise of 12 plastic figures arriving later. They were supposed to be a one off thing. Nobody knew that the 3 3/4 inch line would go through teh roof. It's only later films and particularly 'Return of the Jedi' where toy marketing became so important.

Now that the mouse owns Star Wars, the toy marketing is nuts.

And I like Star Wars toys. I'm sitting, typing this with several Stormtroopers point guns at me, reminding me that I should probably grow up at some stage.

But, it still doesn't mean that I won't see though something like a Porg.

Sorry but the above is not true at all.

Lucas, when he first pitched Star Wars to Fox, they didn't really want to commit to the movie, and his salary was only garnered due to his success with Graffiti. He was offered 500k, but refused and took 150k for merch rights and sequel rights.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-star-wars-made-george-lucas-a-billionaire-2015-12?r=US&IR=T

Thanks to the success of American Graffiti, Lucas was entitled to a salary of $500,000 for directing what was now being called simply "Star Wars." Instead of accepting the nearly 300% pay raise, George approached the Fox executives with a proposition. George generously offered to keep his salary at $150,000 in exchange for two seemingly insignificant requests: #1) That he retain all merchandising rights, and #2) that he would retain the rights to any sequels. As crazy as it sounds now, at the time this was actually a fantastic deal for the studio. Fox had previously lost a fortune in the merchandising business with monumental failure of 1967's Doctor Dolittle, so they weren't exactly dying to get back into that world. Moreover, merchandise just wasn't a meaningful revenue stream in general back then. As for sequel rights, these were also not an important factor for Fox considering the fact that no executive thought the movie had a snowball's chance in hell of making money the first time around. So off George went to finalize his script with $150,000 and a what seemed like an incredibly naive contract in his pocket.

That's a massive variance, that's career suicide stuff if it didn't go right. You can be damn sure Lucas was intending to make Star Wars an absolute merch-spinner. Sorry that doesn't fit you're narrative, but it's a known fact about the original movie.

Listen, don't get me wrong, I'm a massive fan of Star Wars and I love all things to do with the dark side of the movies; Sith, Empire etc. I'd love if it the movies went down the road of KoTOR, but the reality is it's a family adventure, and has to appeal to everyone, and that means it's not a movie just for you. It's fantasy, so you gotta live with it, roll with it, and realize yes it can be kiddy at times but so what?

Saying things like the Ewok's ruined the 'credibility' of RoTJ... Really? They really had that much of an impact on the movie it ruined the 'credibility' of a laser-sword wielding wizard trying to turn his cyborg-dad back to a good guy? You're taking it all too seriously. It's a bit of fun, that's all.

Tony EH

.ak wrote: »

C'mon, nearly every Frank Oz creation had a stupid/goggly-eye/sorta cute vibe off it. It's pure Star Wars. And sure, it's pure merch, but it doesn't harm the film or the Star Wars universe in anyway.

None of which are as deliberate efforts at toys like that porg thing. It's simply disingenuous not to awknowledge the reasons why that thing exists. If you're happy with it, fine.

.ak wrote: »

Guess you're going to see the wrong movies, but if you look at the trend and what's vogue in cinema things are certainly far darker and more sombre than they were 10 years ago. Just look at the Dark Knight series vs Batman 10 years earlier, or Dunkirk vs Saving Private Ryan... Yes, I know I've picked Nolan movies there but you get the idea.

You're stretching here. I would expect films that cover the most devastating war in European history to be dark at the very least.

Tony EH

.ak wrote: »

Sorry but the above is not true at all.

Lucas, when he first pitched Star Wars to Fox, they didn't really want to commit to the movie, and his salary was only garnered due to his success with Graffiti. He was offered 500k, but refused and took 150k for merch rights and sequel rights.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-star-wars-made-george-lucas-a-billionaire-2015-12?r=US&IR=T



That's a massive variance, that's career suicide stuff if it didn't go right. You can be damn sure Lucas was intending to make Star Wars an absolute merch-spinner. Sorry that doesn't fit you're narrative, but it's a known fact about the original movie.

Lucas, nor anyone else, had any idea of the massive toy explosion that the 1977 film would result in. It's ridiculous to suggest that toys were front and centre in anybody's mind when they made 'Star Wars'.

However, this "Porg" is absolutely "toy first" in it's concept.

.ak wrote: »

Listen, don't get me wrong, I'm a massive fan of Star Wars and I love all things to do with the dark side of the movies; Sith, Empire etc. I'd love if it the movies went down the road of KoTOR, but the reality is it's a family adventure, and has to appeal to everyone, and that means it's not a movie just for you. It's fantasy, so you gotta live with it, roll with it, and realize yes it can be kiddy at times but so what?

None of which I disagree with (although I know nothing really about KoTOR). However, that doesn't mean I'm going to close my eyes to t obvious nature of something like that Porg.

Am I saying it's going to ruin the film? No. But, I'm not going to be willfully bilnd about it either. I know why it's there.

.ak wrote: »

Saying things like the Ewok's ruined the 'credibility' of RoTJ... Really? They really had that much of an impact on the movie it ruined the 'credibility' of a laser-sword wielding wizard trying to turn his cyborg-dad back to a good guy? You're taking it all too seriously. It's a bit of fun, that's all.

All of those other things are central to film's story. If one can't get on board with those, you may as well not bother watching at all. However, the idea that teddy bears could defeat a supposedly highly trained miltary outfit stretches the credibilty too far.

Every fantasy has limits and one's own personal meter is a guage as to what those limits are. The Ewoks really push it for me.

For some people a "laser-sword wielding wizard" is too much.

david75

all this...over a bird..seriously..

Tony EH

Ahem..."toy". :P

Hey, discussions grow. What are you gonna do.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

david75

i know..just think its a bit cynical to be losing our minds saying a bird is being placed to specifically sell toys..nobody saw BB8?

Tony EH

I don't think anybody is losing their minds.

BB8 was central to the story and is actually a well designed robot.

I doubt any progs will be.

Jesus...I hope not.

DivingDuck

Aren't the Ewoks just a standard (if fluffier) expression of the age-old theme of "be careful who you trod on; you never know who will be your downfall"? That they were able to do so much damage to the Empire despite being written off as non-threatening is the same as all those movies where the humans inexplicably win against the aliens or the sidekick/nerd saves the day. It's a pretty common device to underscore how the arrogance of the ruling power contributes to their own defeat— by refusing to acknowledge that anyone without their military/technological/whatever prowess could have any worth, they become the architect of their own demise.

Given that Lucas had retained the merch rights, it's probable that there was an degree of dollar signs in mind with them, but they served a narrative purpose, as well. I'm sure these Porg things will, too, and honestly— Anyone old enough to be bickering about old school Star Wars isn't the intended target for them. They're designed to appeal to the five-and-under kids who get dragged along to the cinema with their older siblings (of which I saw many at TFA, and even Rogue One!). If it keeps them happy and quiet at the screening, and keeps the franchise lucrative enough for them to keep making movies that interest me, that's good enough in my book.

McLoughlin

I think if you go back a decade of so and just looking at America with the Batman 1966, Planet of The Apes series and Mego's had allot of merch that sold well so perhaps Lucas saw the potential of merch deals.

Tony EH

DivingDuck wrote: »

Aren't the Ewoks just a standard (if fluffier) expression of the age-old theme of "be careful who you trod on; you never know who will be your downfall"? That they were able to do so much damage to the Empire despite being written off as non-threatening is the same as all those movies where the humans inexplicably win against the aliens or the sidekick/nerd saves the day. It's a pretty common device to underscore how the arrogance of the ruling power contributes to their own defeat— by refusing to acknowledge that anyone without their military/technological/whatever prowess could have any worth, they become the architect of their own demise.

They were originally supposed to be Wookies. George dumbed it down a bit to appeal to 5 year olds and more than likely figured on better toy sales.

DivingDuck wrote: »

Given that Lucas had retained the merch rights, it's probable that there was an degree of dollar signs in mind with them, but they served a narrative purpose, as well. I'm sure these Porg things will, too, and honestly— Anyone old enough to be bickering about old school Star Wars isn't the intended target for them. They're designed to appeal to the five-and-under kids who get dragged along to the cinema with their older siblings (of which I saw many at TFA, and even Rogue One!). If it keeps them happy and quiet at the screening, and keeps the franchise lucrative enough for them to keep making movies that interest me, that's good enough in my book.

Lucas probably thought he might sell a few t-shirts and some toys. But, it's a mistake to think that he knew just how crazy toy merch was going to be for Star Wars in 1977.

Later on, yes. He figured that the toys would make more money than the films and have better longevity. Gary Kurtz said that by 1980, the toys had become more important than the movies to Lucas.

And yes, I know exactly who the target is for these porgs. It doesn't lessen anything about them.

david75

Tony..they didnt dumb it down..hard as it might be to believe they didnt have the budget to make them wookies and couldnt find enough stupidly tall people to play them even if they had.

you should read Chris Taylors How Star Wars conquered the universe or Wrinzlers making of star wars books if you want actual facts about the making of the films rather than the frankly bs your posting as fact.

DivingDuck

Tony EH wrote: »

They were originally supposed to be Wookies. George dumbed it down a bit to appeal to 5 year olds and more than likely figured on better toy sales.

[...]

And yes, I know exactly who the target is for these porgs. It doesn't lessen anything about them.

I'm not saying merch revenue streams (or budgetary concerns) weren't a factor, I'm just saying the role they played is one that is a pretty common theme in movies. Think War of the Worlds, felled-by-the-insignificant type stuff.

I guess I'm just not bothered by a few scenes of cutsey creatures here and there if it makes the experience more enjoyable for the kids. Nobody wants another Jar Jar, but a few background scenes of Rey petting one or Chewie besieged by them or one taking a crap on Kylo Ren's boot won't spoil the movie for me at all.

Tony EH

david75 wrote: »

Tony..they didnt dumb it down..hard as it might be to believe they didnt have the budget to make them wookies and couldnt find enough stupidly tall people to play them even if they had.

you should read Chris Taylors How Star Wars conquered the universe or Wrinzlers making of star wars books if you want actual facts about the making of the films rather than the frankly bs your posting as fact.

Well, actually Lucas stated the he changed them because the Wookiees were skilled in technology and he'd evolved the story to a point where he wanted to make a comment about an inferior group overcoming a superior group.

Tony EH

DivingDuck wrote: »

I'm not saying merch revenue streams (or budgetary concerns) weren't a factor, I'm just saying the role they played is one that is a pretty common theme in movies. Think War of the Worlds, felled-by-the-insignificant type stuff.

I guess I'm just not bothered by a few scenes of cutsey creatures here and there if it makes the experience more enjoyable for the kids. Nobody wants another Jar Jar, but a few background scenes of Rey petting one or Chewie besieged by them or one taking a crap on Kylo Ren's boot won't spoil the movie for me at all.

Let's hope it's just limited to that, though that pic earlier is a bit um.

By the way, there are actually people out there that would argue for Jar Jar, as incredible as that sounds.

david75

Stating that Lucas just wanted to sell toys and had this evil genius marketing plan from the get go is simply not true. He had an ongoing nervous breakdown during production and upon release he didnt even go to the premiere he went on holiday to hawaii certain that nobody would even see the film and those who did would slate it. he took control of the toy rights in negotiations with Fox simply because it was one of the few things he could get off them, they were laughing at him to borderline dumping him and his dumb movie. They had zero faith in him or the film.

fact is the toys didnt become a serious thing until the production of jedi. Even some producers who left Jedi stated that Jedi is really where the toys became a issue, they weren't at all up to that

J Mysterio

Tony EH wrote: »

I don't think anybody is losing their minds.

BB8 was central to the story and is actually a well designed robot.

I doubt any progs will be.

Jesus...I hope not.

Haha, there you go. You like BB8, so it's acceptable. But you don't like the Furby... I mean Porg.

david75

So a few weeks ago I read this supposed leak of the storyline for TLJ and thought it was nonsense and too mental.
Now this toy set appears and it kinda hints that the leak might actually be the real deal.

https://i.imgur.com/FNK8ppi.jpg

I can't find the page but the gist of it was Luke tells Rey she has to learn the dark side too and sends her away and she goes with kylo to Snoke and we're left unsure if she's doing a double agent thing or if she's joined Snoke. Sorta rhymes with what daisy said about it being shocking. she joins his praetorian guard. He only has four and there's five in a few leaked images. Also she gets tortured and brainwashed as part of her training [tweet]

https://twitter.com/thecanonfactory/status/897214291824320512[/tweet]

conorhal

Disney it appears are minting it from licencing, but the toy manufacturers and retailers however aren't too happy.
Many licensees seem to have over paid for licencing and the projected sales never met targets. The boyancy of the 2015 market doesn't seem to have been maintained.
There are reports of a LOT of merch sitting on the shelves (and in the discount bins where you rarely saw Starwars product before). Part of this is down to competition, Starwars is hardly the only merchandising game in town these days, but there was also an excess of licences for stuff that didn't sell. Lego appears to have done well but the action figures and other merch haven't moved as anticipated. There have alos been complaints about the quality and collectors are not buying the premium merch either.
There seems to be a serious 'brand decline' experienced by retailers regards the Starwars universe, but I'm not sure what that says about the Starwars brand as a whole, though apathy towards the toy lines could be a canary in the coal mines that Disney's approach isn't winning hearts and minds so much as pumping out product.