Right. Because I’m sure the time that Hamill is really worried about ingratiating himself to Disney or that Disney would clamp down on him would be when:
1. The movie is already out and succeeding and 2. His character is already dead
What kind of influence do we think Disney has over him at this point? That sweet, sweet cameo money for maybe playing a Force Ghost for a couple of days?
Or maybe, if we are to take him at his word when he was expressing all his earlier reservations (and I do), we can simply take him at his word when he says what he said about the movie after seeing it?
I know that might be less fun for some than cyclical conspiracy theories about Disney influence. But I think it is exactly because Hamill has not been afraid of being outspoken, and at times even more potentially damaging to Disney and the release of this movie, that I think he has the credibility to be believed now.
1. Why wouldn't Disney/Lucasfilm, like most movie studios, insist on their actors signing agreements to not disparage their film and also have a way to enforce that if they don't comply?
2. Why wouldn't Disney/Lucasfilm want to continue to use Hamill in future Star Wars related projects? You think two days of Force ghosts shoots is all they will consider him for?
Don't underestimate the power of Disney, David.
Sure, Hamill has been all over the place with his mixed feelings about this portrayal, but if I identified with his earlier concerns and responses that he repeatedly shared after shooting the movie, it doesn't alter my opinion to hear that he has slightly back-peddled. Just as it didn't alter yours to know he was not down with the portrayal before. And not because I think Disney is twisting his arm to back-pedal, he can change his mind, but because his initial response resonated with me.
Everyone is entitled to change their mind. Several times if they so desire.
I actually got to meet Mr. Hamill when he was in my town shooting a pretty forgetable movie with Kristy McNichol and Dennis Quaid about 6 months Empire came out. He was a somewhat regular guy, maybe a bit eccentric, but quite affable and really excited to be a part of Star Wars. It meant a lot to him.
He didn’t backpedal. Rather, he saw the movie, acknowledged his earlier reservations, and seeing the finished product changed his mind.
I know that take doesn’t resonate with you the way his earlier negativity does. So if you want to chalk it up to his now lying because of greed or fear of reprisal, that is your choice. What is convenient about assuming those sorts of bad motives is that there is no way to disprove such accusations, however unlikely the timing of the statements (which is to say, Hamill has been saying negative things for months now) are to that argument.
Personally, I believed him then, and believe him now. Mark Hamill has a record of speaking his mind, and he has been pretty choosy about the ancillary Star Wars things he participates in. Given the amount of things that, say Anthony Daniels has shown up for and in compared to Hamill over the years (and that is not a knock on Daniels, he seems to love it and love the fans) leads me to not think that Hamill, especially at this point in his life and career, would be so worried about Disney as you suggest.
But, if you want to believe the old him that agrees with you, and call the more recent him that disagrees with you a liar, so be it.
I would also be curious to hear any example of a studio either asking for, or enforcing, an agreement for actors on a film being required to only speak positively about it. I am familiar with Non Diclosure Agreements. But that is basically regarding the value of proprietary information, and the spirit of that is like contract law around not revealing trade secrets.
And I am familiar with committing to going on press tours being part of a star’s contract (essentially being booked for that time as well as your shooting time).
But the idea that you could be financially punished for work you have already done because of what you say to the press sounds like a legally shaky idea to me. That you can be contractually obligated to give positive interviews. Do you have any examples? Any of those contracts on The Smoking Gun?
I remember Jim Carey actively campaigned against Kickass 2. Do we think that he was in violation of his contract for doing so? I could see there being a built in penalty for not showing up for the press tour, as those are work days that have been negotiated in advance for. But I would be curious whether you can contractually punish someone just for giving a negative opinion of the finished film at the point when they are no longer working for you.
Sure, it can hurt your relationship with that studio for future work, but to your first question, no, I don’t think that is real, and I think powerful talent agencies and SAG-AFTRA would have a lot to say about that kind of expectation. It would seem too subjective. Too easy of a way for the much criticized “Hollywood Accounting” to rob you of your share if they can claim you didn’t do a good enough job of selling and praising the product by cherry picking some answers out of a 12 hour press junket day as being too negative. How could you arbitrate that? I don’t think that kind of contract language would fly.
Wow. Really? So critiquing a film or franchise is now considered “negativity”?
Keanu Reeves wasn't permitted to discuss his problems with the movie 'The Watcher' for 5 years after the film's release. And some studios even seek to prevent in-the-closet gay actors from coming out. Keeping your actors from badmouthing a project isn't unheard of, nor is it unheard of for actors to badmouth their movies.
So, again, I am not convinced Disney twisted his arm to backpedal on his initial reaction, I only suggested it was a possibility. Not a probability. But if you don't think Disney has any odd clauses in their contracts... welp.
Regarding the Reeves example, to judge by that report his not disparaging was a separate deal made after the fact, not standard contract language or a usual expectation. From one of the last paragraphs:
“But the studio realized there might be some unfinished business with Reeves. In exchange for the actor's agreement not to repudiate the film publicly, Universal agreed to downplay his involvement, an insider says. His name would appear below the title, and he would not show up in more than 30 percent of the trailer or other advertisements for the film. It remains unclear whether the studio may also have offered him an enhanced profit participation or otherwise sweetened the deal.”
And while the idea of a morals clause is socking, the articl you linked to is arguing a hypothetical way a morals clause could be used to control a contracted stars public identity but the article is based on on rumors of ways those clauses are being used. I’d be curious if there had ever been a legal test of something like that. And I also don’t see how it would have any bearing on a hypothetical clause to keep a Star from saying something disparaging. Are you suggesting that could be seen as actionable as immoral behavior?
I’m not saying that studios wouldn’t be motivated to try to control the message, of course they are. I just think there isn’t much historical precedence to support this statement of, I guess, one of several possibilities but not probabilities that you saw:
“Looks like Papa-Disney just stepped in to remind Mark Hamill they can cut off that green milk at any time.”
Given the timing and the context, seems unlikely to me. Sometimes the explanation is simple. Simply put, I believe him. Then and now.
It is historical precedence of a time when studios ‘owned’ stars. The decline of the old studio system in the age of more powerful stars and their affiliated agencies (and union) is the more modern historical context.
As far as lightening up,take a look at your own posts in this discussing this movie and the people making it. How did you put it, a subversive shit on the saga?
If I took your comment to be an accusation of Hamill being paid off or threatened to lie as a sincere suggestion rather than a joke, maybe it is because I was considering who it was coming from.
As far as lightening up,take a look at your own posts in this discussing this movie and the people making it. How did you put it, a subversive shit on the saga?
By the way, that was in reference to a "rave review" of the new film I read on Deadspin...
As far as lightening up,take a look at your own posts in this discussing this movie and the people making it. How did you put it, a subversive shit on the saga?
By the way, that was in reference to a "rave review" of the new film I read on Deadspin...
Yes. Clearly this whole conversation has been moderation. It has been me, as moderator, telling you that you don't joke around, and making sure everyone knows that no one is allowed to speculate on how movies work. I think it is clear I just told you what you could or couldn't do. I couldn't have been more clear that this is about what is allowed.
I am sure that is clear to everyone that is reading along. It is like all those other times a discussion of something between us doesn't go the way you like, and therefore suddenly I am not just having a disagreement with you about something with you and I see differently, rather I was having the whole long discussion about a movie or comic book in my role as moderator telling you what is or isn’t allowed or making arbitrary rules.
Aren't you tired of that strategy by now? It is pretty transparent. How many times are you going to try to pull that same, old card at the end of an argument?
As I am pretty sure I said the last time we did this: If I am doing something as moderator, you'll know. It is very rare that kind of on the board intervention is ever needed.
And I think you know this was not that, and nothing to do with moderation.
Oh wait! I finally think I may have gotten the layered nuance and symbolism that Rian Johnson was going for. Let me see that scene again...
I think the symbolism here is that Disney/Lucasfilm is the 4-titted, disgusting space walrus, Luke Skywalker is us, you and me, the happy consumers guzzling down their milk, and Rey is my childhood fondness for this franchise looking on in bewildered, sad disbelief at what is happening.
I went into it with great expectations, I was glad to see some actors I really like in this like Benecio DelTorro (sorry if I miss spelled it) but this is the first time in a long time I have watched my watch throughout a movie. It started off slow, it ended pretty slow, and the story just felt, well it felt like it was the same story we have already seen with a new character taking the reigns. I know I am probably going to catch flack for my thoughts on the movie, but I am looking forward to when the new one comes out so that I can maybe make up for this one.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Star Wars OG. I was 7 years old in 1977 when ANH blew my little mind. I excitedly went home from TESB in 1980 so I could put my Han Solo figure in a cup of water in the freezer and play carbonite. After 1983’s ROTJ, I had a Star Wars Saga-themed bar mitzvah. The prequels, a mix of awful and mediocre with chunks of inspiration, were a shock to me, yes; another example of Star Wars "subverting expectations" :confused: But there is a huge difference between ruining the past of something you love and ruining its future. The latter is far worse. And for me – that's just what TLJ did.
I had nagging problems with TLJ from the opening titles and all throughout its 2.5 hours; small problems, large problems. While certain scenes had slick direction, and some of the acting was strong, the story... the story was a mess. And as of its funereal conclusion, I now find myself having no reason to see Episode IX. All of the human characters/actors I loved are now dead. The droids and Wookiee I loved have been disrespected and shunted aside by new producers who have absolutely no desire to play them. Boy, that Rian Johnson sure did "subvert expectations!" I never expected to walk out of a Star Wars movie feeling awful.
Despite this, I still made myself see TLJ again, two days later. I owed it to this franchise I've invested a life’s worth of dreams in, to see if maybe a second viewing would rectify enough of it for me. Sadly, nothing changed. I wish I liked this movie. I am so deeply envious of the many Star Wars fans who do. But this movie ended it for me. It seriously feels like the love of my life just dumped me during the holidays.
There is a light of hope for me, though. I've somehow made it to 2017 without ever having seen or a read a Harry Potter story! lol Maybe I can replace Star Wars with this franchise, to last me for the next half of my life? Let me know if Harry Potter (or any other franchise) is a good place for me to go now.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Star Wars OG. I was 7 years old in 1977 when ANH blew my little mind. I excitedly went home from TESB in 1980 so I could put my Han Solo figure in a cup of water in the freezer and play carbonite. After 1983’s ROTJ, I had a Star Wars Saga-themed bar mitzvah. The prequels, a mix of awful and mediocre with chunks of inspiration, were a shock to me, yes; another example of Star Wars "subverting expectations" :confused: But there is a huge difference between ruining the past of something you love and ruining its future. The latter is far worse. And for me – that's just what TLJ did.
I had nagging problems with TLJ from the opening titles and all throughout its 2.5 hours; small problems, large problems. While certain scenes had slick direction, and some of the acting was strong, the story... the story was a mess. And as of its funereal conclusion, I now find myself having no reason to see Episode IX. All of the human characters/actors I loved are now dead. The droids and Wookiee I loved have been disrespected and shunted aside by new producers who have absolutely no desire to play them. Boy, that Rian Johnson sure did "subvert expectations!" I never expected to walk out of a Star Wars movie feeling awful.
Despite this, I still made myself see TLJ again, two days later. I owed it to this franchise I've invested a life’s worth of dreams in, to see if maybe a second viewing would rectify enough of it for me. Sadly, nothing changed. I wish I liked this movie. I am so deeply envious of the many Star Wars fans who do. But this movie ended it for me. It seriously feels like the love of my life just dumped me during the holidays.
There is a light of hope for me, though. I've somehow made it to 2017 without ever having seen or a read a Harry Potter story! lol Maybe I can replace Star Wars with this franchise, to last me for the next half of my life? Let me know if Harry Potter (or any other franchise) is a good place for me to go now.
Yes, how dare they do something NEW in a NEW Star Wars film. They should just remake A New Hope 17 times in a row.
Yes, how dare they do something NEW in a NEW Star Wars film. They should just remake A New Hope 17 times in a row.
Am so sick of people defending this film by saying "you don't like it, so that means: 1) You hate new things and risk-taking!; and/or 2) You hate diversity!; and/or 3) You don't know story structure and drama!"
For the record... I am a gay Jew who comes from an extremely liberal family in a big, multicultural city. I am more "diverse" than not, and I appreciate any skillful efforts to improve our stories and our real world with diverse people and diverse perspectives as much as humanly possible. While I can love commercial success stories like the Star Wars franchise, obviously - I have spent my life embracing stories, cultures, habits and viewpoints which are outside the norm, and do not adhere to corporate formulas. I owe my very personality and my love for life to taking risks and trying new things. Lastly, I've spent years writing and producing in Hollywood, and I've even been lucky enough to win awards for writing drama.
So, if you're going to defend "The Last Jedi" by attacking me instead of my honest criticisms of this movie which made a ton of bad choices? Just know that, aside from how pathetic that is, your attacks are as flatout wrong as they are irrelevant.
I also saw it in 77 at age 7. Saw it. Had some things I thought were weak and some things I thought were strong. Definitely some things I’d change but overall, I was satisfied.
Yes, how dare they do something NEW in a NEW Star Wars film. They should just remake A New Hope 17 times in a row.
Am so sick of people defending this film by saying "you don't like it, so that means: 1) You hate new things and risk-taking!; and/or 2) You hate diversity!; and/or 3) You don't know story structure and drama!"
For the record... I am a gay Jew who comes from an extremely liberal family in a big, multicultural city. I am more "diverse" than not, and I appreciate any skillful efforts to improve our stories and our real world with diverse people and diverse perspectives as much as humanly possible. While I can love commercial success stories like the Star Wars franchise, obviously - I have spent my life embracing stories, cultures, habits and viewpoints which are outside the norm, and do not adhere to corporate formulas. I owe my very personality and my love for life to taking risks and trying new things. Lastly, I've spent years writing and producing in Hollywood, and I've even been lucky enough to win awards for writing drama.
So, if you're going to defend "The Last Jedi" by attacking me instead of my honest criticisms of this movie which made a ton of bad choices? Just know that, aside from how pathetic that is, your attacks are as flatout wrong as they are irrelevant.
I’m reminded of the justification I’ve read on another forum by people who really loved BvS:DoJ. It’s either those who didn’t like it just didn’t understand the movie, don’t like change, and/or only what kid comedies (like Marvel offers). It’s sad when someone needs to dress down someone else to justify his/her own opinion.
Here’s a few things that didn’t work for me -Benecio Del Toro was kind of a blah -Nothing really became of Phasma or for that matter.. -Supreme Leader Snoke. I knew Sheev Palpatine, you sir are no Sheev Palpatine
+/- Leia floating in space. It won’t be looked on as the strongest moment but it didn’t bug me enough
+ I loved Luke in the movie. He wasn’t ruined at all and I thought his sacrifice was very moving +Rey not being related to anyone we know. It’s a giant galaxy not Kentucky + Kylo Ren is proving is proving to be one of the most complex villains in SW + The rest of the cast worked really well together. I didn’t feel anyone gave a bad performance. Even Dominhall Gleason was delightfully hammy and cheese + John Williams enough said + Not everything hit but overall the humor worked + The opening battle was one of the best in the series. And I thought it really lead to just how desperate things were for the Resistance + Luke and Yoda’s scene together + Finally it accomplished three things. I want to watch it again. I can’t wait for Episode IX. And give Rian Johnson as much money as you want Disney
Yes, how dare they do something NEW in a NEW Star Wars film. They should just remake A New Hope 17 times in a row.
Am so sick of people defending this film by saying "you don't like it, so that means: 1) You hate new things and risk-taking!; and/or 2) You hate diversity!; and/or 3) You don't know story structure and drama!"
For the record... I am a gay Jew who comes from an extremely liberal family in a big, multicultural city. I am more "diverse" than not, and I appreciate any skillful efforts to improve our stories and our real world with diverse people and diverse perspectives as much as humanly possible. While I can love commercial success stories like the Star Wars franchise, obviously - I have spent my life embracing stories, cultures, habits and viewpoints which are outside the norm, and do not adhere to corporate formulas. I owe my very personality and my love for life to taking risks and trying new things. Lastly, I've spent years writing and producing in Hollywood, and I've even been lucky enough to win awards for writing drama.
So, if you're going to defend "The Last Jedi" by attacking me instead of my honest criticisms of this movie which made a ton of bad choices? Just know that, aside from how pathetic that is, your attacks are as flatout wrong as they are irrelevant.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to dump on you personally. It's just that I'm really sick of the "It's not the Star Wars I grew up with ...." razmatzz. That's the kind of thinking that allowed OMD to happen.
The fact is; I like that Rei isn't part of the Skywalker legacy. This means anyone can be a Jedi, not just those with Jedi DNA. I like that Snoke is dead, he wasn't an interesting character. I like that Luke failed in restarting the Jedi order because if you noticed, there is a real hubristic motif running throughout all of Star Wars.
To me the dislike falls into three different categories
1. People who have legitimate concerns about the movie and articulate so. I may not agree but I can certainly understand.
2. Those stuck on the old EU being wiped away. I loved the Thrawn trilogy, X-Wing stories and novels like Darth Plaeguis. (Never played the video games or read as much of the comics). But most of the novels were complete garbage.
3. Those that simply don't like the film because gasp, there's a woman or a black guy. They simply should not be listened to.
To me the dislike falls into three different categories
1. People who have legitimate concerns about the movie and articulate so. I may not agree but I can certainly understand.
2. Those stuck on the old EU being wiped away. I loved the Thrawn trilogy, X-Wing stories and novels like Darth Plaeguis. (Never played the video games or read as much of the comics). But most of the novels were complete garbage.
3. Those that simply don't like the film because gasp, there's a woman or a black guy. They simply should not be listened to.
I haven’t actually seen #3 (though I don’t use Twitter. I can believe you could find some out there.) But I have seen a number of pieces making the rounds where the premise Is how much these filmmakers hate Star Wars or are out to disrespect the characters.
I think the “They’re out to get your childhood! They have an agenda and they hate what you like!” narrative is a tired old clickbait cliche, but clearly it still works, it pays out, so it still gets pushed.
Personally, I have no reason to doubt those that didn’t like it. If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t. Some are saying that. It’s a bummer, because people want to like Star Wars, especially when they have had a long relationship to it. But, fair enough. The choices didn’t result in the movie you wanted, but you saw it. You have it a chance to work.
But I think that next step for some, including the clickbaiters, where it isn’t just that these filmmakers made a movie you didn’t like, but rather they had bad intent in doing so. That they were actively out to disrespect what you like, and by extension to judge or disrespect you, is, to me, another example of a culture of aggrievement.
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that we have now seen how audiences can indeed force studios to "course-correct" a franchise if enough people are vocal enough to express their grievances. Most of the internet erupted in foamy-mouthed, apeshit crazy rants over "Batman v Superman" - with so many fans trashing it online, with news sources using it as a punching bag for their love/hate relationship with the comic book genre, and with normals simply looking to bash and troll movies and other fans.
And hey - it worked!
Or at least it displayed its influence. Because suddenly, the already-completed "Suicide Squad" went in for emergency reshoots. "Wonder Woman" embraced an entirely different tone. And "Justice League" was also a film at least conceived in response to the hateful criticisms of both "Batman v Superman" and "Man of Steel;" it might not have been entirely successful, but most fans do agree it was better than BvS.
So if we can see with our own eyes how studios are watching social media response, to steer future film projects? Then you can bet that those of us who genuinely hated a movie - hated a movie within a saga we dearly love - are going to express our dissatisfaction with it.
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that we have now seen how audiences can indeed force studios to "course-correct" a franchise if enough people are vocal enough to express their grievances. Most of the internet erupted in foamy-mouthed, apeshit crazy rants over "Batman v Superman" - with so many fans trashing it online, with news sources using it as a punching bag for their love/hate relationship with the comic book genre, and with normals simply looking to bash and troll movies and other fans.
And hey - it worked!
Or at least it displayed its influence. Because suddenly, the already-completed "Suicide Squad" went in for emergency reshoots. "Wonder Woman" embraced an entirely different tone. And "Justice League" was also a film at least conceived in response to the hateful criticisms of both "Batman v Superman" and "Man of Steel;" it might not have been entirely successful, but most fans do agree it was better than BvS.
So if we can see with our own eyes how studios are watching social media response, to steer future film projects? Then you can bet that those of us who genuinely hated a movie - hated a movie within a saga we dearly love - are going to express our dissatisfaction with it.
And to be clear, that is not what I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that people who hated it shouldn’t express what they feel. I can believe that people hated what was made and want to express themselves about that. And I get you that fans expressing themselves is something the studios likely pay attention to. But if you look back at my post, that wasn’t the thing I was talking about, my point was about those that go a step further, in ascribing bad intent.
I have not seen it. I only have one question that that no one has yet to bring up. It is the important thing that will decide for me if this is truly a Star Wars film.
Did they have to turn off a shield generator so they could blow up a space station?
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
The problem (if you see it as a problem) is that we have now seen how audiences can indeed force studios to "course-correct" a franchise if enough people are vocal enough to express their grievances. Most of the internet erupted in foamy-mouthed, apeshit crazy rants over "Batman v Superman" - with so many fans trashing it online, with news sources using it as a punching bag for their love/hate relationship with the comic book genre, and with normals simply looking to bash and troll movies and other fans.
And hey - it worked!
Or at least it displayed its influence. Because suddenly, the already-completed "Suicide Squad" went in for emergency reshoots. "Wonder Woman" embraced an entirely different tone. And "Justice League" was also a film at least conceived in response to the hateful criticisms of both "Batman v Superman" and "Man of Steel;" it might not have been entirely successful, but most fans do agree it was better than BvS.
So if we can see with our own eyes how studios are watching social media response, to steer future film projects? Then you can bet that those of us who genuinely hated a movie - hated a movie within a saga we dearly love - are going to express our dissatisfaction with it.
And to be clear, that is not what I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that people who hated it shouldn’t express what they feel. I can believe that people hated what was made and want to express themselves about that. And I get you that fans expressing themselves is something the studios likely pay attention to. But if you look back at my post, that wasn’t the thing I was talking about, my point was about those that go a step further, in ascribing bad intent.
What gets me is these bull shit petitions by fans. Whether it’s to strike the Last Jedi from continuity or have the Snyder cut of Justice League released, it reads very millennial.
To me the dislike falls into three different categories
1. People who have legitimate concerns about the movie and articulate so. I may not agree but I can certainly understand.
2. Those stuck on the old EU being wiped away. I loved the Thrawn trilogy, X-Wing stories and novels like Darth Plaeguis. (Never played the video games or read as much of the comics). But most of the novels were complete garbage.
3. Those that simply don't like the film because gasp, there's a woman or a black guy. They simply should not be listened to.
I haven’t actually seen #3 (though I don’t use Twitter. I can believe you could find some out there.) But I have seen a number of pieces making the rounds where the premise Is how much these filmmakers hate Star Wars or are out to disrespect the characters.
I think the “They’re out to get your childhood! They have an agenda and they hate what you like!” narrative is a tired old clickbait cliche, but clearly it still works, it pays out, so it still gets pushed.
Personally, I have no reason to doubt those that didn’t like it. If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t. Some are saying that. It’s a bummer, because people want to like Star Wars, especially when they have had a long relationship to it. But, fair enough. The choices didn’t result in the movie you wanted, but you saw it. You have it a chance to work.
But I think that next step for some, including the clickbaiters, where it isn’t just that these filmmakers made a movie you didn’t like, but rather they had bad intent in doing so. That they were actively out to disrespect what you like, and by extension to judge or disrespect you, is, to me, another example of a culture of aggrievement.
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
I haven’t seen #3 either. If someone actually feels that way, then I’m glad he/she is pissed of. The closest I’ve read to that notion was an article on the diversity of the new trilogy’s cast. It was actually the first article I read about the movie. The 2 key points in the article were 1.) the new movies are superior to the original trilogy because of its diverse cast, & 2.) the movie mirrors society with non-white males rebelling to fight against the privileged white male.
Altough I like the diverse cast, that’s enough to make the new trilogy superior. I’d argue that progress doesn’t negate the story & tone. The second point actually made me chuckle. Until I read it, that didn’t even cross my mind. I only saw it as “the rebels against the Empire.” To some extent, I think articles like that stall the engine of progression.
Comments
Right. Because I’m sure the time that Hamill is really worried about ingratiating himself to Disney or that Disney would clamp down on him would be when:
1. The movie is already out and succeeding and
2. His character is already dead
What kind of influence do we think Disney has over him at this point? That sweet, sweet cameo money for maybe playing a Force Ghost for a couple of days?
Or maybe, if we are to take him at his word when he was expressing all his earlier reservations (and I do), we can simply take him at his word when he says what he said about the movie after seeing it?
I know that might be less fun for some than cyclical conspiracy theories about Disney influence. But I think it is exactly because Hamill has not been afraid of being outspoken, and at times even more potentially damaging to Disney and the release of this movie, that I think he has the credibility to be believed now.
1. Why wouldn't Disney/Lucasfilm, like most movie studios, insist on their actors signing agreements to not disparage their film and also have a way to enforce that if they don't comply?
2. Why wouldn't Disney/Lucasfilm want to continue to use Hamill in future Star Wars related projects? You think two days of Force ghosts shoots is all they will consider him for?
Don't underestimate the power of Disney, David.
Sure, Hamill has been all over the place with his mixed feelings about this portrayal, but if I identified with his earlier concerns and responses that he repeatedly shared after shooting the movie, it doesn't alter my opinion to hear that he has slightly back-peddled. Just as it didn't alter yours to know he was not down with the portrayal before. And not because I think Disney is twisting his arm to back-pedal, he can change his mind, but because his initial response resonated with me.
Everyone is entitled to change their mind. Several times if they so desire.
I actually got to meet Mr. Hamill when he was in my town shooting a pretty forgetable movie with Kristy McNichol and Dennis Quaid about 6 months Empire came out. He was a somewhat regular guy, maybe a bit eccentric, but quite affable and really excited to be a part of Star Wars. It meant a lot to him.
I'm sure that hasn't changed.
Interesting comparing the films outside of the original trilogy.
I know that take doesn’t resonate with you the way his earlier negativity does. So if you want to chalk it up to his now lying because of greed or fear of reprisal, that is your choice. What is convenient about assuming those sorts of bad motives is that there is no way to disprove such accusations, however unlikely the timing of the statements (which is to say, Hamill has been saying negative things for months now) are to that argument.
Personally, I believed him then, and believe him now. Mark Hamill has a record of speaking his mind, and he has been pretty choosy about the ancillary Star Wars things he participates in. Given the amount of things that, say Anthony Daniels has shown up for and in compared to Hamill over the years (and that is not a knock on Daniels, he seems to love it and love the fans) leads me to not think that Hamill, especially at this point in his life and career, would be so worried about Disney as you suggest.
But, if you want to believe the old him that agrees with you, and call the more recent him that disagrees with you a liar, so be it.
And I am familiar with committing to going on press tours being part of a star’s contract (essentially being booked for that time as well as your shooting time).
But the idea that you could be financially punished for work you have already done because of what you say to the press sounds like a legally shaky idea to me. That you can be contractually obligated to give positive interviews. Do you have any examples? Any of those contracts on The Smoking Gun?
I remember Jim Carey actively campaigned against Kickass 2. Do we think that he was in violation of his contract for doing so? I could see there being a built in penalty for not showing up for the press tour, as those are work days that have been negotiated in advance for. But I would be curious whether you can contractually punish someone just for giving a negative opinion of the finished film at the point when they are no longer working for you.
Sure, it can hurt your relationship with that studio for future work, but to your first question, no, I don’t think that is real, and I think powerful talent agencies and SAG-AFTRA would have a lot to say about that kind of expectation. It would seem too subjective. Too easy of a way for the much criticized “Hollywood Accounting” to rob you of your share if they can claim you didn’t do a good enough job of selling and praising the product by cherry picking some answers out of a 12 hour press junket day as being too negative. How could you arbitrate that? I don’t think that kind of contract language would fly.
Keanu Reeves wasn't permitted to discuss his problems with the movie 'The Watcher' for 5 years after the film's release. And some studios even seek to prevent in-the-closet gay actors from coming out. Keeping your actors from badmouthing a project isn't unheard of, nor is it unheard of for actors to badmouth their movies.
So, again, I am not convinced Disney twisted his arm to backpedal on his initial reaction, I only suggested it was a possibility. Not a probability. But if you don't think Disney has any odd clauses in their contracts... welp.
“But the studio realized there might be some unfinished business with Reeves. In exchange for the actor's agreement not to repudiate the film publicly, Universal agreed to downplay his involvement, an insider says. His name would appear below the title, and he would not show up in more than 30 percent of the trailer or other advertisements for the film. It remains unclear whether the studio may also have offered him an enhanced profit participation or otherwise sweetened the deal.”
And while the idea of a morals clause is socking, the articl you linked to is arguing a hypothetical way a morals clause could be used to control a contracted stars public identity but the article is based on on rumors of ways those clauses are being used. I’d be curious if there had ever been a legal test of something like that. And I also don’t see how it would have any bearing on a hypothetical clause to keep a Star from saying something disparaging. Are you suggesting that could be seen as actionable as immoral behavior?
I’m not saying that studios wouldn’t be motivated to try to control the message, of course they are. I just think there isn’t much historical precedence to support this statement of, I guess, one of several possibilities but not probabilities that you saw:
“Looks like Papa-Disney just stepped in to remind Mark Hamill they can cut off that green milk at any time.”
Given the timing and the context, seems unlikely to me. Sometimes the explanation is simple. Simply put, I believe him. Then and now.
As far as lightening up,take a look at your own posts in this discussing this movie and the people making it. How did you put it, a subversive shit on the saga?
If I took your comment to be an accusation of Hamill being paid off or threatened to lie as a sincere suggestion rather than a joke, maybe it is because I was considering who it was coming from.
Speaking of "negativity"...
Now you're claiming I don't joke around?
If you didn't catch the green milk reference, then I can't help you.
By the way, that was in reference to a "rave review" of the new film I read on Deadspin...
I am sure that is clear to everyone that is reading along. It is like all those other times a discussion of something between us doesn't go the way you like, and therefore suddenly I am not just having a disagreement with you about something with you and I see differently, rather I was having the whole long discussion about a movie or comic book in my role as moderator telling you what is or isn’t allowed or making arbitrary rules.
Aren't you tired of that strategy by now? It is pretty transparent. How many times are you going to try to pull that same, old card at the end of an argument?
As I am pretty sure I said the last time we did this: If I am doing something as moderator, you'll know. It is very rare that kind of on the board intervention is ever needed.
And I think you know this was not that, and nothing to do with moderation.
Oh wait! I finally think I may have gotten the layered nuance and symbolism that Rian Johnson was going for. Let me see that scene again...
I think the symbolism here is that Disney/Lucasfilm is the 4-titted, disgusting space walrus, Luke Skywalker is us, you and me, the happy consumers guzzling down their milk, and Rey is my childhood fondness for this franchise looking on in bewildered, sad disbelief at what is happening.
Brilliant!
I hated this movie.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Star Wars OG. I was 7 years old in 1977 when ANH blew my little mind. I excitedly went home from TESB in 1980 so I could put my Han Solo figure in a cup of water in the freezer and play carbonite. After 1983’s ROTJ, I had a Star Wars Saga-themed bar mitzvah. The prequels, a mix of awful and mediocre with chunks of inspiration, were a shock to me, yes; another example of Star Wars "subverting expectations" :confused: But there is a huge difference between ruining the past of something you love and ruining its future. The latter is far worse. And for me – that's just what TLJ did.
I had nagging problems with TLJ from the opening titles and all throughout its 2.5 hours; small problems, large problems. While certain scenes had slick direction, and some of the acting was strong, the story... the story was a mess. And as of its funereal conclusion, I now find myself having no reason to see Episode IX. All of the human characters/actors I loved are now dead. The droids and Wookiee I loved have been disrespected and shunted aside by new producers who have absolutely no desire to play them. Boy, that Rian Johnson sure did "subvert expectations!" I never expected to walk out of a Star Wars movie feeling awful.
Despite this, I still made myself see TLJ again, two days later. I owed it to this franchise I've invested a life’s worth of dreams in, to see if maybe a second viewing would rectify enough of it for me. Sadly, nothing changed. I wish I liked this movie. I am so deeply envious of the many Star Wars fans who do. But this movie ended it for me. It seriously feels like the love of my life just dumped me during the holidays.
There is a light of hope for me, though. I've somehow made it to 2017 without ever having seen or a read a Harry Potter story! lol Maybe I can replace Star Wars with this franchise, to last me for the next half of my life? Let me know if Harry Potter (or any other franchise) is a good place for me to go now.
For the record... I am a gay Jew who comes from an extremely liberal family in a big, multicultural city. I am more "diverse" than not, and I appreciate any skillful efforts to improve our stories and our real world with diverse people and diverse perspectives as much as humanly possible. While I can love commercial success stories like the Star Wars franchise, obviously - I have spent my life embracing stories, cultures, habits and viewpoints which are outside the norm, and do not adhere to corporate formulas. I owe my very personality and my love for life to taking risks and trying new things. Lastly, I've spent years writing and producing in Hollywood, and I've even been lucky enough to win awards for writing drama.
So, if you're going to defend "The Last Jedi" by attacking me instead of my honest criticisms of this movie which made a ton of bad choices? Just know that, aside from how pathetic that is, your attacks are as flatout wrong as they are irrelevant.
Here’s a few things that didn’t work for me
-Benecio Del Toro was kind of a blah
-Nothing really became of Phasma or for that matter..
-Supreme Leader Snoke. I knew Sheev Palpatine, you sir are no Sheev Palpatine
+/-
Leia floating in space. It won’t be looked on as the strongest moment but it didn’t bug me enough
+ I loved Luke in the movie. He wasn’t ruined at all and I thought his sacrifice was very moving
+Rey not being related to anyone we know. It’s a giant galaxy not Kentucky
+ Kylo Ren is proving is proving to be one of the most complex villains in SW
+ The rest of the cast worked really well together. I didn’t feel anyone gave a bad performance. Even Dominhall Gleason was delightfully hammy and cheese
+ John Williams enough said
+ Not everything hit but overall the humor worked
+ The opening battle was one of the best in the series. And I thought it really lead to just how desperate things were for the Resistance
+ Luke and Yoda’s scene together
+ Finally it accomplished three things. I want to watch it again. I can’t wait for Episode IX. And give Rian Johnson as much money as you want Disney
The fact is; I like that Rei isn't part of the Skywalker legacy. This means anyone can be a Jedi, not just those with Jedi DNA. I like that Snoke is dead, he wasn't an interesting character. I like that Luke failed in restarting the Jedi order because if you noticed, there is a real hubristic motif running throughout all of Star Wars.
1. People who have legitimate concerns about the movie and articulate so. I may not agree but I can certainly understand.
2. Those stuck on the old EU being wiped away. I loved the Thrawn trilogy, X-Wing stories and novels like Darth Plaeguis. (Never played the video games or read as much of the comics). But most of the novels were complete garbage.
3. Those that simply don't like the film because gasp, there's a woman or a black guy. They simply should not be listened to.
I think the “They’re out to get your childhood! They have an agenda and they hate what you like!” narrative is a tired old clickbait cliche, but clearly it still works, it pays out, so it still gets pushed.
Personally, I have no reason to doubt those that didn’t like it. If it didn’t work for you, it didn’t. Some are saying that. It’s a bummer, because people want to like Star Wars, especially when they have had a long relationship to it. But, fair enough. The choices didn’t result in the movie you wanted, but you saw it. You have it a chance to work.
But I think that next step for some, including the clickbaiters, where it isn’t just that these filmmakers made a movie you didn’t like, but rather they had bad intent in doing so. That they were actively out to disrespect what you like, and by extension to judge or disrespect you, is, to me, another example of a culture of aggrievement.
That some can’t just be disappointed that something is not for you, rather they feel they have to fight back against what they perceive as yet another thing you feel is out to get them.
But, it seems that is the kind of thing that gets traffic going, so we can expect to see that POV getting pushed, whether it comes from a sincere place, or is just another thing to glom onto to get people sharing and arguing with each other in the comments.
And hey - it worked!
Or at least it displayed its influence. Because suddenly, the already-completed "Suicide Squad" went in for emergency reshoots. "Wonder Woman" embraced an entirely different tone. And "Justice League" was also a film at least conceived in response to the hateful criticisms of both "Batman v Superman" and "Man of Steel;" it might not have been entirely successful, but most fans do agree it was better than BvS.
So if we can see with our own eyes how studios are watching social media response, to steer future film projects? Then you can bet that those of us who genuinely hated a movie - hated a movie within a saga we dearly love - are going to express our dissatisfaction with it.
Did they have to turn off a shield generator so they could blow up a space station?
(Just kidding).
Altough I like the diverse cast, that’s enough to make the new trilogy superior. I’d argue that progress doesn’t negate the story & tone. The second point actually made me chuckle. Until I read it, that didn’t even cross my mind. I only saw it as “the rebels against the Empire.” To some extent, I think articles like that stall the engine of progression.