Disney does, apparently, because the first teaser for The Force Awakens premiered a year before the movie did. But even that's also a false equivalence so I shouldn't even use that example. Again, nonsense.
I guess this is one of those situations where I disagree and you try to get me to agree by using the phrase "false equivalence" over and over again like it's some genius statement.
I'm not making any genius statement. The only thing you are "disagreeing" with is reality by trying to equate two completely different situations. I suppose you can do that if you want to but it doesn't change the facts. Done here, btw.
Did someone say that they were sure the very only reason they would hold off marketing it this long, is because it must be bad or Disney isnt happy about some aspect of the film? I mean maybe so and maybe not. How are we to know? Its speculation. Haha the whole thing seems kinda silly. Im sure there could be other reasons.
In the case that a film is made that is unsatisfactory, I'm very curious how far Disney would go with reshoots or other measures.
I actually thought that Rogue One was pretty middling, personally, and that had entirely to do with Disney's interference, but that film was still well-received by a lot of fans and made a ton of money, so I don't think they much mind as long as the film is still successful. Also, I think it's incredibly odd that Disney is interfering so heavily in the anthology films, which were supposedly intended to be experimental and different, but then staying mostly hands-off on the mainline films to the point that they let Rian Johnson do things like have Luke drink milk from an alien's nipple. Makes no sense to me.
I mean, they hired the best action-comedy directors in the business and then got mad when they made an action-comedy. Just pure insanity.
I just have a feeling that when I leave the theater after seeing Solo, I'm just going to wish I had stayed home and watched The LEGO Movie or the Jump Street movies again instead.
I read so many EU (Legends) books when I was younger, and alot of them weren't exactly "good" but man I was so happy there were always more on the horizon. That's how I view the movies, Rogue One wasn't exactly my cup of tea but I'm so glad so many people loved it.
There were a lot of good things about Rogue One (the visual effects, the cinematography, production design, etc.) but it felt choppy and not at all the vibe the trailers gave off. It felt like two different movies mashed together at the last minute (which, we learned, is what it was). Also the tentacle monster.
2 diff movies? disagree on that I could better stomach ROs shorter tentacle monster scene after having to sit through TFAs dreadful rathtar scene TLJs new creatures were ace including the titty alien. loved it.
You'd think they would pull a Medillin from Entourage and take a bad movie but cut it into a 1:30 trailer that at least makes it look good
I feel like all three of the newer movies have unnecessary monster/alien characters. TFA: Rathtars RO: tentacle monster TLJ: Milk Monster
At least the milk monster was only in there for a second, not the subject/focus of whole scenes. Also I actually love the milk monster moment just for how risky and weird it is. But yeah the Rathtar scene was the worst part of TFA. That scene should have just been a showdown between Solo/Chewie/Rey/Finn and the two mercenary groups. Would've been way more interesting.
i didn't mind milk monster. idk why so many people minded milk monster. the people on that island need sustenance. makes since to invest in a milk monster or two.
i wonder if aliens would ever sit down to watch a movie of ours and be like "pffttt, a cow?!?! come on!"