Knife wrote: ↑2019-12-25 05:42pm
It did have objective problems, on top of other subjective issues. It's pacing was horrible. It's plot was thin and full of holes. In Johnston's great quest to do something new and edgy, he lost track of what he was doing and in the end, had a story where the characters managed to contribute nothing to the story line. Every single thing the characters did, failed. Everything they did, changed nothing. Everytime someone was about to change something, they were stopped, or failed, or it didn't work. The characters could have been in a better position by literally doing anything else... They figuratively walked around in a circle for 2 hours and got nowhere. There were objectively things wrong in that movie.
There's nothing at all about that criticism that is 'objective'. Like honestly, nothing.
This criticism is based on your entirely subjective belief that a film should have the characters 'contribute to the storyline' in a certain way, rather than say, focus on the development of their characters, what they were challenged with, and what they learned in the course of those challenges. That's a subjective thing that's important to you, not everyone.
It is not at all an 'objective' fact that a movie is some sort of plot machine, where everything the protagonists do has to tie itself up into a neat little bow and 'pay off' like the end of some complicated Rube Goldberg machine.
Heck,
Luke in TESB failed. He would've been in a better position by staying on Dagobah. This is not an 'objective' flaw of the film.
It's fine to have this opinion of the movie, I get it though I don't at all share it. But its just that. It's not some sort of law.
You can actually have both, and that it is both in one movie is a bit sad really. I get what Johnston tired to do, but he failed at it so bad it made it unwatchable for me and apparently many others. That's on him, not me. I get to have my flavors and opinions on things I like especially when they are wanting me to pay money to see it and marketing to me, as a fan, to see it to make a shit ton of money. It's not like TLJ was some art house movie man, they were banking on SW nerds to toss their $20 on opening night to makes some cash, followed up by 'normal' movie goers, and then SW nerds again for DVD/Blu Ray sales, merch etc...
So, just as a restaurant that I've enjoyed for years, if they serve me a over cooked steak with no seasoning, I'm sending it back. Don't sit at your table muttering how you like Well Done Steak and low sodium, scared that my brazen use of sending food back that you'd eat will endanger the restaurant to the point it will close and you won't get to eat there anymore.
If we're talking about popularity, TROS is going to make less money than TLJ despite showing in a more favorable box office environment than TLJ did. It's also the first Star Wars movie ever to get only a B+ CinemaScore. Every other Star Wars movie
ever has gotten some kind of A. It's also gotten far worse reviews than TLJ did. By pretty much any measurable, reliable metric, it's a less popular movie.
