Well replace it with … I don’t know “mister” or “count” as you say and maybe it works. But is Obi-wan being sassy then or just senile?
Coy just in case Luke is hearing. Don’t want to spoil that twist.
Those checked boxes are a hell of lot more entertaining than the checked boxes in the prequels. 😃
Sure, but I expect my Star Wars movies to be more than just entertaining. For all their failings the prequels were at least ambitious in their scope, even if they were largely unnecessary in my view, because as with Solo they fill in blanks better left to the imagination.
Good thing we have movies like TLJ then.
flop is a word used to loosely these days
I’d say that considering the film is now only projected to make 450 mill worldwide max, yeah, that’d be a pretty apt definition of the word flop.
If that ends up the case I might be inclined to agree. But as it stands I don’t think these things should be declared immediately.
Is Justice League the new Heaven’s Gate/Howard The Duck/Ishtar now?
They could potentially clean up on home video if we get to see the original footage. Assemble it into an alternate cut ala Superman II.
I’d pay to see Snyder’s cut.
Whereas you couldn’t pay me enough to.
well, obi-wan was lying in the scene where he talks to luke, so it doesn’t really matter.
Darth (see what I did there 😛) wasn’t yet intended as Luke’s father when SW was written/filmed. The debate is about what ‘Darth’ was ORIGINALLY intended to be. So this is irrelevant.
I don’t think that’s the debate at all.
Is Justice League the new Heaven’s Gate/Howard The Duck/Ishtar now?
They could potentially clean up on home video if we get to see the original footage. Assemble it into an alternate cut ala Superman II.
Justice League’s floppitude is up for debate. I think the main reason its performance is considered so weak is because it is the lowest grossing film of the DCEU so far, when it was supposed to be the opposite.
On a similar and more on topic note, I’d love to see an approximate Lord/Miller cut of Solo, though that’ll never happen.
is it unreasonable to consider the post-Lucas era of Star Wars fan fiction?
Depends on your definition. If it was, a lot of modern media would be too. So much so as to render the label pointless.
It’s a disappointment but flop is a word used too loosely these days (and the typical narrative behind the use here is not a good one). Comparing it to Justice League isn’t really apt, because the situations and expectations are completely different.
As for breaking even, they couldn’t not have known they were taking a hit with the reshoots. More likely than not they thought it was worth it for the long term health of the brand.
And if Darth is his title, why his he repeatedly referred to as “Lord Vader”?
Why is Obi-wan referred to as “General Kenobi” if Master is his title?
Unless I’m forgetting something, no one ever refers to him as Lord Darth Vader.
It’s only silly now in retrospect when the PT tells us Obi-wan is such a dummy that he’s basically saying “…only a master of evil, Lord”
The word “lord” is a weird case where you wouldn’t really use it in that way (more likely “my lord”). I always saw Darth as a title used more like “general” or “master” or “count,” where people refer to them by just their title all the time. I’m not a linguist so I apologize if I’m not explaining this sufficiently, though it should be easy to understand.
That makes sense. If Darth is nothing more than a designation (like Moff or General), Obi-wan is saying that he’s no more than this designation, a mere cog in the Imperial machine.
This still doesn’t explain why he says ‘A young Jedi named Darth Vader’. I don’t think there’s a way of interpreting this as anything other than his actual name.
Except, no matter what, we know after ESB that that’s not his actual name.
i don’t think ren is a title, i think it’s just a new name he came up with.
The implication I got was that all of the Knights of Ren held that same title. But I don’t believe it’s been confirmed either way yet.
It’s a really unfair barometer. I don’t remember the score for Alien off the top of my head but I’d never just assume that it’s bad because I don’t remember it. I could say the same about most of the movies I’ve seen, honestly.
Memorable and motivational are not the same thing. The music in Star Wars really gets you pumped. The music in Alien is a mixture of different atmospheres, both relaxed and disturbing. They’re supposed to be complimentary. A swashbuckling adventure and a tale of unknown dread. That bit where the A L I … appears is amazing. The fanfare as the fighters go into the trench run is amazing. But it’s a different amazing. Did Solo have either of those moments? I don’t remember any.
Almost like those are two great moments from a couple of the best films ever made and barely any film since has reached the heights of.
Also, “motivational” is another weird barometer, so I’m not sure you’re point really works.
It’s only silly now in retrospect when the PT tells us Obi-wan is such a dummy that he’s basically saying “…only a master of evil, Lord”
The word “lord” is a weird case where you wouldn’t really use it in that way (more likely “my lord”). I always saw Darth as a title used more like “general” or “master” or “count,” where people refer to them by just their title all the time. I’m not a linguist so I apologize if I’m not explaining this sufficiently, though it should be easy to understand.
Probably worth mentioning that people refer to Kylo Ren as “Ren,” even though that is seemingly a title too.
I’m almost at the point where I will have no use for the community at all. I hope that guy gets paid by the word.
I’m not even sure that guy is part of the community. He seems to be writing about film in general, but I share his view, that Star Wars has become a franchise, that doesn’t go forward, because it’s obsessed with looking in the rearview mirror.
Funny, I thought TLJ moved to new territory and broke the pattern. And Solo should be fun, not epicly serious.
You’re not wrong.
I’m almost at the point where I will have no use for the community at all. I hope that guy gets paid by the word.
I’m not even sure that guy is part of the community. He seems to be writing about film in general, but I share his view, that Star Wars has become a franchise, that doesn’t go forward, because it’s obsessed with looking in the rearview mirror.
One could easily make the argument that it has been that way since at least 1997.
This is very hard, but here’s my new ranking:
So within the Star Wars “lore” does Solo happen just as usual except with young Harrison Ford’s face) or does Han gets plastic surgery somewhere between Solo and Ep IV
Bigger question is what happened to everyone’s faces during the clone wars.
Darth as a title sounds cooler than “Darth” being Vader’s first name.
“Darth, we must talk.” Just sounds kind of silly. Rhymes with Garth.Yeah, almost as silly as, “Only a master of evil, Darth.”
You’re right, that quote sounds a lot more silly if Darth is his name instead of a title.
In the opening scene when we see the Gyro Pilot steal Max’s crap, I thought he was going to find him and confront him, with them then recognizing each other. But instead it takes most of the movie for him to show up again, and Max never says he’s mad at him for taking his ride, and there’s never any indication that they recognize each other.
Bruce Spence’s character from Beyond Thunderdome isn’t meant to be his character from Road Warrior.
Starlog #95 said:
While traveling in the desert in his camel-drawn vehicle, Max is overtaken by a small methane-powered plane flown by the freewheeling bandit Jedediah and his son. Although the two characters bear no relation to each other, Jedediah is played by Bruce Spence, who was the much-loved Gyro Pilot in Road Warrior. Jedediah succeeds in taking off with all of Max’s worldly goods, leaving the hero to perish in the desert.
That’s dumb. Why not take a perfect opportunity and make it the same guy? That actually makes it worse.
It’s like if the Bond movies had Donald Pleasance play a totally different bald guy with a cat in a volcano lair. 😛
How about this?
The sad thing is the Roseanne side show is overshadowing that today.
Yep.
As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.
Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.
Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.
I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.
. . . and making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body).
People make light of suicide every day, and that includes the ignorant people behind a lot of the anti-suicide campaigns, which are usually really insulting and obviously come from people privileged enough to not want to kill themselves. Footage of a dead body is the farthest thing in the world from “making light of suicide.” Logan Paul is a piece of shit by the way, I don’t deny that, but he’s a piece of shit for monetizing an issue he obviously doesn’t care about, not for showing a dead body. 13 Reasons Why is another thing that people claimed made light of suicide when it obviously didn’t.
How was what he did not making light of suicide? The whole video was about “lulz people kill themselves in this forest.”
I didn’t see the video because I don’t watch Logan Paul - because I don’t suck 😉 - but like I implied and should’ve made clear, the whole cavalier attitude and motivation behind the video was what made light of suicide, not the footage of the body itself, which is what people latched onto.
I think my wording made it clear that this is what I was saying too
making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body)
with the dead body just being a parenthetical.
I can’t comment on 13 Reasons Why because I didn’t watch it but I read from people who actually had suicidal tendencies who weren’t fans so maybe I’d say they’re better authorities than you (not to say their opinion is objectively correct, just that yours definitely isn’t even though you present it as “obvious”).
I’ve tried to kill myself many times and recently realized that I’ve had suicidal ideation for over 50% of my life so I’d say I’m a better authority than most. Showing someone writhing in pain as they bleed to death “obviously” (and I think that’s a fair use of the word) doesn’t glorify suicide or make light of it. Maybe it doesn’t deter it. That’s a fair conversation to have and I don’t think 13 Reasons Why does deter it at all, but to say that it makes light of suicide is not fair.
Well I’ll rescind my “authority” comment. But the spirit of my point stands, just because you think it’s obviously doing one thing doesn’t mean it isn’t for someone else. Again I haven’t watched the show, but what I’ve read doesn’t really speak to “making light,” moreso it’s glorifying and not detering.
As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.
Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.
Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.
I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.
. . . and making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body).
People make light of suicide every day, and that includes the ignorant people behind a lot of the anti-suicide campaigns, which are usually really insulting and obviously come from people privileged enough to not want to kill themselves. Footage of a dead body is the farthest thing in the world from “making light of suicide.” Logan Paul is a piece of shit by the way, I don’t deny that, but he’s a piece of shit for monetizing an issue he obviously doesn’t care about, not for showing a dead body. 13 Reasons Why is another thing that people claimed made light of suicide when it obviously didn’t.
How was what he did not making light of suicide? The whole video was about “lulz people kill themselves in this forest.”
I can’t comment on 13 Reasons Why because I didn’t watch it but I read from people who actually had suicidal tendencies who weren’t fans so maybe I’d say they’re better authorities than you (not to say their opinion is objectively correct, just that yours definitely isn’t even though you present it as “obvious”).
There’s an argument to be made too that Youtube is a private company and can decide who makes money on their site or not as they please.
That’s an argument that only works against conservative voices in the debate. I don’t believe that giant platforms like Youtube should dictate who can and can’t speak on them. They’re too integral to society these days. As for advertisers, that’s a different story, but in terms of who can and can’t speak, I think it should basically operate how the 1st amendment does.
Is Youtube banning accounts? Honest question. In my mind demonetizing and banning aren’t the same thing. Demonetizing is essentially what you’re talking about: advertisers.
As for mrebo, no one is cutting off the right, they’re bigger than ever on Youtube and just want to play the victim like they always do.
Yes, people on the right are being cut off. It’s not “playing victim” when powerful media corporations shut out people based on their political views.
Except that’s not what’s happening, at least in Youtube’s case. Youtube is demonetizing a great many people, not all of them are conservative or even political commentators at all. Left-wing commentators, gun channels, “reaction” channels, gaming channels, it’s happening across the board.
I have a problem with youtube’s demonetizing in general. I am more familiar with people on the right being targeted (and I’d include gun channels in that), but I am also aware of youtube discriminating against reaction & gaming channels for swearing (or extreme antics). But I’m not just talking youtube.
Extreme antics is an interesting way to describe racial slurs, anti-semitic language, and making light of suicide (including footage of a dead body). Amongst other things.
Let’s not act like those are just common behaviors that every channel partakes in. Unless you’re saying that because a couple people did shitty things, then everyone should be punished; if that’s the case, hard disagree.
You’re massively missing my point. I’m saying in some (read: not all) of these cases, demonetization is more than justified.
Roseanne is straight up racist.
I don’t know. She said something racist. I don’t know if that makes her racist.
Of course it does.
I disagree. Plenty of people say stupid things they don’t mean. I’m sure you’ve said something racist before. I have. We’re not racist. Even if she is, her work isn’t and is the opposite of racist, so why does it matter? I care so much more about actions than words, especially when dealing with crazy people. I use the same line of reasoning when people claim to be liberals but do nothing but make excuses for the right and platform almost exclusively right-wing people, like Dave Rubin typically does. In that case, actions speak louder to me than words do.
When someone consistently makes racist statements, seems kinda weird to not call them racist.
As to why to fire her for her hate speech? As an extreme example, do you think ABC would want a show on air lead by David Duke?
It definitely means that her big contributions to society aren’t racist.
Roseanne’s been a fucking loon for a long time:
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/29/17406014/roseanne-racism-abc-trump-twitterNo one claims that she isn’t. She’s totally crazy and has been for at least a decade. ABC knew that full well, I’m sure.
As I said, they should never have revived the show.
Seems like many people voted with their dollars this weekend. I’ve read some opinions saying that they won’t be watching any Star Wars in the cinema if Kennedy remains in the cockpit. Would things really get better if… let’s say, Filoni replaced her?
No.