DominicCobb

Mrebo said:

Jeebus said:

Mrebo said:

moviefreakedmind said:

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.

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.

Roseanne’s been a fucking loon for a long time:
https://www.vox.com/2018/5/29/17406014/roseanne-racism-abc-trump-twitter

It’s funny to say that twitter is “shadow banning conservatives” when alt-right trolls still run amok there.

moviefreakedmind said:

DominicCobb said:

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.

She actually had an episode about unconscious racism where she called out white people for unwittingly judging black people.

That doesn’t make her not racist (she isn’t even a writer on the recent season).

Like I said in that list, you’d have to get rid of Elvis Costello, Lou Reed, and a ton of others if you judge people by one stupid statement.

That’s not the only racist thing she’s said.

Roseanne is straight up racist. They’d be crazy not to fire her, and once you’ve done that you have no show. Simple math.

If you’re going to ABC to see television that “challenges the establishment,” you’re going to the wrong place.

OutboundFlight said:

DominicCobb said:

OutboundFlight said:

DominicCobb said:

Being able to hum a tune or not is a bad barometer for the quality of a score.

It shows how well I remember the score itself. There isn’t any original music I remember from TLJ.

That’s a you problem.

Yes, each persons ranking stems from their own opinion.

I use that ranking to see memorable the music is. If you’ve ever seen the video essay “marvel symphonic universe” they go around asking people if they can remember music from certain movies. It is a good way to see how impactful a score can be.

I believe there are far more meaningful barometers for a score’s quality.

They should never have revived the show to begin with. Everyone already knew what a piece of shit Roseanne was. This is nothing new.

Better they had put those resources to use on something else without Barr.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - 10/10

Utterly breathtaking.

darthrush said:

Ryan-SWI said:

darthrush said:

Haarspalter said:

Half in the Bag: Solo: A Star Wars Story

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmPPxQnaGDY

Even Rich Evans kinda LOVES the movie!

I’d be surprised if any of them really liked it.

You’ll be surprised then

Well, it looks like it’s time to change my opinion!

Hahaha

OutboundFlight said:

DominicCobb said:

Being able to hum a tune or not is a bad barometer for the quality of a score.

It shows how well I remember the score itself. There isn’t any original music I remember from TLJ.

That’s a you problem.

Seems weird to compare the droids in Star Wars to coffee makers (especially this one who has an unusually high degree of sentience). Seems like the kind of thing someone who’s never seen any of these movies before would say.

Anyway, whether or not “droid rights” should be a legitimate issue in the GFFA or not isn’t really important. This is all much ado about nothing. That aspect of her character is played almost entirely for laughs.

If anything they didn’t take the matter seriously enough. Complaining about it is ridiculous at best and… well let’s just leave it at that.

Being able to hum a tune or not is a bad barometer for the quality of a score.

trimboNZ said:

DominicCobb said:

That’s an interesting definition of “vindicated.”

Heh, slightly. As in “still wrong, but not way off base”.

I’d probably call that way off base but hey, you do you.

That’s an interesting definition of “vindicated.”

Hardcore Legend said:

a_o said:

Han hasn’t been fully double-crossed by Qi’ra, left to become the jaded and cynical smuggler we meet in the first Star Wars film. He was tough (war is hell) and had some moral center (deal with Enfys) but the ‘price on my head, and my best girl left me, you guys can’t be serious about this ~the force~ stuff’ Han Solo doesn’t exist quite yet.

so, this is like the prequels, but for Han Solo and not Anakin Skywalker.

He ends the movie literally seeking out jabba the hutt.

This presumes there is not the intention of more Solo films existing. If the point of this film was to get Han from youth to the guy we meet in ANH, it failed. But I don’t think that was the plan.

There doesn’t even have to be sequels for that to not have to be the plan. Not every prequel has to end with the characters in the exact place we next see them (in fact I remember there being much handwringing that that’s what they’d do).

Once again I’m left wondering if we’ve all seen the same movie.

rodneyfaile said:

Personal stakes are not low stakes.

Exactly.

MalàStrana said:

No, Rebels has nothing to do with that. I only blame Kennedy for not letting TCW have a real ending to settle this kind of issues. One season is missing. Rebels could have been postponed or been produced while TCW was finishing its run.

Disney, not Kennedy.

Vladius said:

I blame the Lucasfilm Story Group for being a bunch of hacks

That’s dumb.

Hardcore Legend said:

Han is naive in this film. He’s had a hard life but he thinks being a thief is great and the life will be glamorous. As this film progresses, he learns that you can lose the ones you love, you can die alone, the people you trust can betray you and other people in the galaxy are suffering too. I imagine that if there is a sequel, he will be broken and jaded somehow by Q’ra. She will either be killed by Maul or betray Han to the point where he doesn’t trust women or “sticks his neck out for no one”.

There is growth in this film. It just doesn’t hit you over the head with sweeping orchestra and slow motion realization.

Yep.

TV’s Frink said:

People change a ton in 10 to 12 years. Especially from their 20s to 30s. I don’t see the problem.

Exactly. Look at Luke in ANH vs ROTJ (and that’s only 4 years).

dahmage said:

how on earth can an A be the lowest they have ever rated a star wars?

It’s not. All three prequels got A-. Clone Wars got B-.

darthrush said:

I also want to hit on how Han Solo really has no consistent development in the movie. I did not see a big arc for him in the movie. And when he said “No, I’m a terrible person”, I was just flabbergasted. The whole exchange there was trying to paint Han Solo in this jaded anti-hero way, when really, in the context of his actions in Solo, there is absolutely no reason to see him as anything else than a good guy. Not even close to an anti-hero, or the roguish, jaded Han Solo that we meet in A New Hope. It felt like the movie was trying to shove it down our throats that yeah, Han Solo is jaded and not a good person!

And how stupid is it that Solo is basically the one who helped jumpstart the Rebellion at the end of the movie.

Sorry for my complaining, I genuinely understand how people enjoyed it, but many aspects of how they dealt with Solo as a character felt off to me. I’d love to hear how some of you guys interpreted things differently from me.

You misread what was going on. The movie wasn’t trying to paint him as a jaded outlaw, he was. In the text of the film he’s basically trying hard to be Han Solo, that’s the point. But he’s not there yet.

DrDre said:

TV’s Frink said:

DrDre said:

Saw Solo in a almost empty theatre at 20h30, which doesn’t bode well for the box office. I liked it for the most part, although in the larger scheme of things it’s pretty inconsequential, which in it’s own way is sort of a sad state for a Star Wars film to be.

I don’t think it’s intended to be consequential though? There was never a side-story aspect to a SW film before RO, and even that one has big stakes that lead right into ANH.

I know, and I guess it doesn’t have to be. However, this is the first Star Wars film that feels like “just a movie” and not an event. It appears it’s possibly going to be remembered most for bombing at the box office, deflating the value of the Star Wars property.

Disagree. It’s expanding the potential for SW to have movies that don’t have to be “events,” and therefore allow for more SW movies in general. Rogue One was technically the first spin off, but it was still billed as an event. Solo is the first true tertiary SW film, as was the intent.

Whether that’s a good direction for the franchise to take is a different question.

TV’s Frink said:

DominicCobb said:

TV’s Frink said:

I liked DJ a lot until he turned heel and then just disappeared from the story. Not sure if he’ll pop up in IX (or why he would) but I hope so.

I hope not. He served his purpose.

Let me rephrase. I like him so I’d enjoy more of him, but I agree it wouldn’t make much sense.

Fair enough.

TV’s Frink said:

I liked DJ a lot until he turned heel and then just disappeared from the story. Not sure if he’ll pop up in IX (or why he would) but I hope so.

I hope not. He served his purpose.