Heartofice

I don't really believe TLJ had any real effect on the Solo movie's performance. I think most of the negative discourse around the movie was happening online, well away from most people who would watch these movies. I think Solo didn't do well because it was an unwanted movie that tried to fill in blanks in a character who didn't need filling in. I also don't think you can separate out Han from Harrison Ford, they are simply too interlinked. My enjoyment of Han Solo is at least 80% because Ford's performance is so perfect. Same with Indy. This was a studio's attempt to boilerplate a character and imagine they can simply lift and shift the name and add a new actor and audiences would come just the same. That is clearly not true. They misread the room and misjudged how much power is in a character's name. Then the fact that it was getting mediocre reviews and little word of mouth and there was just so little buzz about it really didn't help. Rogue One overperformed but I suspect it was a movie that took the franchise seriously and was a 'good movie' set in the SW universe. It being good is more of a driver than any connection to ANH. I don't think many people were dying to see the story of how the Death Star plans were captured before the movie was announced, but it being good really helped it. TLJ might well have had an effect on Rise of Skywalker, as I think there was friction in the audience as to whether they give enough of a shit to carry on that story, but I don't think it hurt the other properties in the franchise especially.

Well thats a take. Not sure all those people slagging off TLJ were complaining that it wasn't creatively safe enough or not nostalgic enough. That is a very different claim to the criticism that was actually levelled at TLJ.

I’m sick and tired of those little metal canisters littering all over the place, it’s crazy how many there are.. and yet even I think this law is ridiculous and makes no sense. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65079772 You’d create more benefit by just installing a bunch of bins.

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that idea. I can only think of 2 things that are going on outside of it all being a scam to sell more books: Publishers are terrified of Twitter outrage mobs and pre-empt them by taking these actions People who work in publishing are activist by nature and feel they need to virtue signal by pushing these changes out and telling everyone about them

What’s the alternative explanation? I struggle to imagine there is this mass of readers who refuse to read Agatha Christie because of the terror of being offended by old books.

I know people who are extreme HP fans and others who play HL and generally they have zero interest in the personal views of Rowling. They don’t sit on Twitter all day talking about it or even thinking about any of it. You’d be amazed how people outside of your echo chamber even live! They just want to enjoy the stuff they enjoy.

I’m sure when they started to announce many of these properties they assumed the money train would not end and everything would get made and everyone would watch and love it all. Times change.

Plane, ok I mean it’s a diverting bit of action fluff, not terrible enough to turn it off, not good enough to remember it. A couple of decent action scenes and competent performances stop it being one of those super low budget made for streaming jobbies. What was notable is that the movie is called plane, and the last shot is almost a worshipping celebration of the plane… but less than half of the movie is about the plane! If anything the plane is the villain, it’s such a worn out looking rustpot! The movie could have alternatively been called island or jungle.

I can, because I think its perfectly possible to do and say something that others consider racist without actually being a racist. I just don't think happens in the public sphere. Why would there be outrage about Rosanne Barr's 'Planet of the Apes' comment if there wasn't an implicit accusation of her being a racist to go with it. It's not like anyone went 'oooh that sounds like something a racist would say, oh well'. I also don't think you are being honest if you are suddenly pretending you never joined in with that rhetoric.

…. wait… So you are now saying that you have never implied that Rosanne Barr is a racist.. you’ve never even suggested it?? Is this your position now is it? Well this is news to me.

I think you would need to change Messiah a lot to make it work as the bookend to the story. Maybe it’s possible but it would be quite odd

Ok sure, I concede I can see that scenario. That’s fair. However I was thinking more about the public strata, where a public personality says something ‘a racist might say’. I can’t think of many times that has occurred and they have been called out with there not being a corresponding implication that they are racist. I mean, and going back to a well trodden road, it’s not like you ever said ‘Rosanne Barr said something a racist would say, but there is no implication that she is racist’. Same thing with Fox here, you can’t just say ‘oh that’s something a groomer would say’ without implicitly implying he’s not therefore a groomer, even if it’s with a wink. The difference with a forum or between people you know is that there is the opportunity to clarify or apologise for a mistake. Varys hasn’t really done that, he dodged it.

Can you think of an occasion where someone has been called out for saying ‘something a racist would say’ without the implicit implication that they are racist?

They are not easy adaptations and I don’t see them having mainstream appeal in a way the first movie sort of had. They just require a lot of investment in the universe and material to do them justice, a casual viewer is going to wonder what they hell it’s all about and find themselves very bored. You couldn’t turn them into a boys own adventure style movie in a way you sort of can with the first book. If you attempted to make them more mainstream you’d probably remove much of meaning of the books

Haha, yes a god worm penis is not blockbuster material, that’s more private at home kinda thing!

Only if you take his statement in the absolutely worst faith way and purposefully disregard the context of what he is saying You even acknowledge that you understood the context and intent of his statement, yet somehow suggest his words mean something different.

Right, and with this statement do you think he is saying that because he’s a father it’s ok to invade spaces and touch private parts? Or that it doesn’t apply to non strangers??

What did he actually say?

No, I agree he’s a dick, whilst also thinking I can’t disagree with what he has said there ( what he actually said, not the strawman version everyone here is responding to)

Yes this is entirely because people hate Fox and think he’s a dick. Which is exactly why suddenly the Groomer label is seen as acceptable to throw around.

Yes I have seen that, but in reality it’s very bad. I recently rewatched it and it’s almost entirely unwatchable except for McAvoy. I used to give it credit because for SYFY thing it wasn’t terrible but I take it back. I cannot imagine how this works in the context of the latest movie or why a general audience would watch it. It’s simply too alienating for most people.

I think there is a massive difference between what you are accusing Fox of saying and the actual context and content of that clip ( ironic given you just claimed to be taken out of context, which you weren’t by the way) Fox is not saying that abuse only happens with strangers, or that fathers cannot abuse kids. He is simply stating that his own son has been taught some half understood lines about consent at a very young age, and taught very poorly as to what it means. He then clearly states that he teaches his son what consent actually means. If I kissed my daughter goodnight tonight and she said ‘ no daddy you need to ask for consent’ I’d all be straight down the school tomorrow and tell them why they are doing a bad job of teaching kids. You not understanding the difference between what Fox is actually saying and your imagined version of what he’s saying just tells me you don’t have children and spend too much time on the internet.

No, you said that. Varys said it’s “literally textbook groomer shit”. Surprised you missed that seeing as you literally replied to his post.

You. How short is your memory.

Funny how the left like the play the shouting ‘groomer’ game just as much as anyone else isn’t it. No standards there at all.