Sign In

DominicCobb

User Group
Members
Join date
16-Aug-2011
Last activity
18-Sep-2019
Posts
8,797

Post History

Post
#1296077
Topic
The ending reveal in The Last Jedi was very easy to predict.
Time

Interesting I’ve never seen this quote

“[Luke] is basically tailoring this projection to have maximum effect on Kylo,” Johnson explained. "He knows that Kylo’s Achilles heel is his rage, and so that’s why he kind of makes himself look younger, the way Kylo would’ve last seen him in their confrontation at the temple,

I never looked at this specific aspect in this way but it actually makes a lot of sense, especially in light of Kylo’s first words to Lor San Tekka - “Look how old you’ve become.” Kylo’s changed so much in the meantime, but this old figure from Kylo’s past - the legacy he’s supposed to be supplanting - hasn’t changed a bit, making the threat of him that much more formidable.

I think the topic title is interesting “the ending was very easy to predict.” Sure, all the clues were right out there in front of you to predict… but did you? I knew something was up the moment we saw him (the hair) but I wasn’t able to figure out what exactly until the film revealed itself. The closest I got was when Kylo finally sliced through him (my thought - did he die already and now he’s a force ghost?), but when the real trick was revealed it was definitely a “holy shit” moment. And of course that’s what it was, a magic trick, and like the best magic tricks it occurred in plain sight.

Post
#1296062
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Well, I would say modernism and postmodernism are opposing philosophies, much like capitalism, and socialism, and so they clash by default. I would also say RJ quite deliberately set out to create a work, that clashes with past perceptions in a great many ways. My interpretation of TLJ is, that it first rejects and deconstructs the concepts of legends, and heroism, as presented in the first 7 parts of the story, and then reframes it in a postmodern context by the end. I think this clashing of opposing views, is at the heart of the fan division, where many fans view the film as refreshing, and a necessary step in the future development of the franchise, whereas others view it as a betrayal of what came before. For this reason, even if I dislike the direction chosen by RJ, I still believe TLJ is one of the most interesting Star Wars films, and blockbusters in general to date.

I don’t have the time for a lengthy response right now but I don’t think modernism and postmodernism are exclusively opposing philosophies in general (both ideas can exist within a single work) and certainly not in the context of those two films, nor do I think the two films specifically align with those two movements (I actually don’t think TLJ is a very good example of a postmodern work). Even back to my comparison, I think one could easily make a similar argument about SW and TESB. Point ultimately being, such an analysis is subjective, and the idea that the two films objectively clash with each other is silly, as is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith.

Who suggested the two films objectively clash with each other, or suggested that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith?

ATMachine definitely seemed to suggest as much.

You may disagree, but consider this. A great many critics consider RJ’s latest film Knives Out to be a postmodern work:

https://zodiacvideos.com/rian-johnson-trades-in-lightsabers-for-postmodern-whodunnit-knives-out/

It seems RJ takes great interest in postmodernism, and I personally see a pattern.

Anyone who knows his work would know his interests (obviously I haven’t seen his newest film but I have seen all his others, and the fact that Knives Out would be considered postmodern isn’t surprising to me).

You may feel TLJ is not a good example of a postmodern work, but I would say it is not for lack of trying. I would classify it as being a flawed postmodern work, as RJ struggled to fit his postmodern concepts to the largely modern myth that is Star Wars. I would argue RJ spends too much time deconstructing the mythology, and ultimately does too little to reconstruct it by the end of the film.

I don’t think it’s a good example because I think there are better ones, and I hesitate to classify a work with postmodern elements as postmodern when it features many other elements that do no fit the bill (in my opinion). More germane to the current topic, I think you can find elements of postmodernism in a number of Star Wars films, including specifically TFA. Regardless, postmodernism by nature being a response to modernism, so even by your own definition (which I disagree with) if TLJ is the former and TFA the latter, there is not necessarily a clash created if a sequel (which are by nature responses to the prior film) features a philosophy that is in dialogue with another, different philosophy.

JEDIT: Seems like most of what I’m saying here has already been covered. Carry on.

Post
#1296056
Topic
The Mandalorian - Star Wars Live action TV series
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Maybe the issue is that there is nothing to concretely establish a sense of scale, since none of the figures have human features. Another issue is probably the frame rate of the video this still was taken from, since the cloaks have no motion blur and thus look motionless and staged.

More likely it is a production photo and not a still frame.

Post
#1295825
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

DrDre said:

Well, I would say modernism and postmodernism are opposing philosophies, much like capitalism, and socialism, and so they clash by default. I would also say RJ quite deliberately set out to create a work, that clashes with past perceptions in a great many ways. My interpretation of TLJ is, that it first rejects and deconstructs the concepts of legends, and heroism, as presented in the first 7 parts of the story, and then reframes it in a postmodern context by the end. I think this clashing of opposing views, is at the heart of the fan division, where many fans view the film as refreshing, and a necessary step in the future development of the franchise, whereas others view it as a betrayal of what came before. For this reason, even if I dislike the direction chosen by RJ, I still believe TLJ is one of the most interesting Star Wars films, and blockbusters in general to date.

I don’t have the time for a lengthy response right now but I don’t think modernism and postmodernism are exclusively opposing philosophies in general (both ideas can exist within a single work) and certainly not in the context of those two films, nor do I think the two films specifically align with those two movements (I actually don’t think TLJ is a very good example of a postmodern work). Even back to my comparison, I think one could easily make a similar argument about SW and TESB. Point ultimately being, such an analysis is subjective, and the idea that the two films objectively clash with each other is silly, as is the suggestion that anyone who disagrees is doing so in bad faith.

Post
#1295741
Topic
Episode VIII : The Last Jedi - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

ATMachine said:

I applaud that article writer for acknowledging the obviousness of Abrams & Johnson’s clashing ideas, rather than trying to rationalize it away (like fans sometimes do with both this and the obviousness of Vader not being Luke’s father before 1980).

Maybe some fans aren’t trying to “rationalize” and quite truthfully don’t understand how the two films are as clashing as many say.

Post
#1295587
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

OutboundFlight said:

I must ask, why do some claim “The Last Jedi is one the worst films ever”? I’m not attacking this opinion by any measure… but I don’t understand it at all. As someone more negative than positive towards TLJ, I must admit it creates a fun, cohesive narrative with masterful visuals. Are you that angry about Luke? Because you might argue the same has happened to Obi-Wan and Yoda, two legends who were reduced to a life of shit. I think some moments are flat-out “bad” (Luke trying to kill Ben, etc) but are those moments really worse than Jar Jar stepping in poop?

Truth be told, after two years of listening to complaints, on a fundamental level I still just do not understand the hate.

(this is not an invitation)

Post
#1295475
Topic
Rogue One * <em>Spoilers</em> * Thread
Time

Maybe I’m alone in this but Fraser’s cinematography (particularly the extensive use of shallow DOF, as well as the various handheld shots) felt rather un-Star Warsy to me - but that’s why I liked it. As with Solo they were stepping out of a typical SW look for a spin-off (but still retaining a unique and artistic approach, not just like any old blockbuster).

Post
#1294746
Topic
Similarities between the Original Trilogy and the Sequel Trilogy
Time

Shopping Maul said:

DominicCobb said:

Of course the “inconsequential” similarities can be a bit too much also. In both TPM and TFA, the aerial battle to take down the spherical battle station plays second fiddle to the more engaging lightsaber duel. And while the goals of the battles are the same - take out the threat (battle droids, super laser) - TFA takes the similarity a step too far by having it be essentially another Death Star. Now, I don’t think my theory here is quite exact, because ROTJ does that too, but I think it must be because there aren’t as many other similarities in ROTJ that it doesn’t bother people as much. Or maybe it did at one point but it’s been so long now no one cares. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

I think ROTJ has earned something of a free pass over time. As far as I can tell it used to get flack for a lot of the same reasons as the prequels, with repetition being one of those. Personally I’d just add that there was something rather awesome about seeing the Death Star battle and aesthetic being revisited with improved SPFX back in '83. But to then repeat it again 30 years later - especially now that incredible SPFX has become somewhat trivial as a concept - might be a step too far for many.

That sounds about right.

Post
#1294730
Topic
Similarities between the Original Trilogy and the Sequel Trilogy
Time

Thinking a lot about the similarities amongst the three trilogies, and why some are okay with some and not others. My working theory at this point is that this is mainly because the PT similarities are mostly inconsequential. The similarities in both the PT and the ST are intentional, but I think perhaps more often than not the echoes in the PT aren’t as purposeful (beyond the basic “echoing”).

For instance, there’s a bar scene in each trilogy, but while Obi-wan cuts off someone’s arm in the PT and the OT, this is a rather arbitrary similarity, and in terms of plot it basically has nothing in common with the Mos Eisley Cantina scene (whereas Man’s Castle fits a similar role, despite key differences), so no wonder people aren’t bothered by it.

I think the most illustrative point of comparison is the ground battle in the middle chapter. TESB has the fight on Hoth in the opening third, and both AOTC and TLJ flip it and have it in the final third. But in AOTC, the ground battle is essentially background noise, almost entirely inconsequential to what’s going on (trying to capture Dooku). But in TLJ, the plot motivation behind the battle is very similar - the good guys are facing off to buy some time for those in the base. So the similarity is a lot more keenly felt, which is why I believe some take issue with it. But for me, this just shows the reasoning for the ST’s mirroring all the more clearly. This scene in the PT is an absolute mess, it’s nearly impossible to tell what’s going on and who’s doing what and why. When the walkers drop in and you’re reminded of Hoth, it only shines a light on how much more clearly the stakes and aims of that battle are defined. In TLJ, the comparison to TESB only furthers to reinforce the stakes of the scene at hand - it’s like Hoth, but the way things are different show how much worse matters are (the skimmers are falling apart, the plan is shoestring, and the rebels inside have no way of escaping, they’re literally sitting ducks waiting for help).

Similarly, both AOTC and TLJ mirror the Falcon on the run plot from TESB. AOTC does this in two ways: there’s the asteroid field chase, but the circumstances are completely different, and then of course there’s the subplot where two of their heroes are off in hiding (from bounty hunters amongst other things). But that “hiding” element is really just a catalyst, they’re under seemingly zero danger until they put themselves in it (essentially swapping the rhyme with Luke’s story), so the similarity is vague. Whereas in TLJ, they make the similarity a bit more obvious by having the chase through space be part of the on-the-run plot (as it is in TESB). But like the battle on Crait, invoking the TESB plot is done with purpose, to show how much worse things are for the Resistance. In TESB, it’s just the Falcon that doesn’t have hyperdrive; in TLJ, everyone has hyperdrive, but it doesn’t matter because the First Order can track them, so the entirety of the fleet is on the run.

Of course the “inconsequential” similarities can be a bit too much also. In both TPM and TFA, the aerial battle to take down the spherical battle station plays second fiddle to the more engaging lightsaber duel. And while the goals of the battles are the same - take out the threat (battle droids, super laser) - TFA takes the similarity a step too far by having it be essentially another Death Star. Now, I don’t think my theory here is quite exact, because ROTJ does that too, but I think it must be because there aren’t as many other similarities in ROTJ that it doesn’t bother people as much. Or maybe it did at one point but it’s been so long now no one cares. I don’t know, just thinking out loud.

Post
#1294695
Topic
If you could change one thing about every movie, what would it be?
Time

TPM: Anakin is older
AOTC: The assassination plot makes sense
ROTS: It’s explicit that Anakin has already been drawing on the dark side during the Clone Wars
ANH: Less clunky lightsaber duel
TESB: More interiority for Leia (in the first half specifically)
ROTJ: Luke is more clearly tempted by the dark side throughout the film
TFA: The team retrieves the larger piece of the map from Starkiller base
TLJ: More focus on Rey in the final third

Post
#1294590
Topic
Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy
Time

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

DrDre said:

Mocata said:

Those visuals are awful though. I hate the way Vader’s eyes are like crazy holograms.

I don’t see what’s so awful about those visuals. I can point to many prequel shots, that look bad, or less than convincing. I can point to a number of OT shots that look bad, but awful is reserved for a special kind of bad. This is awful:

In fairness, I think that effect actually resides in a world beyond merely “awful.” That being said, while a lot of the PT CG doesn’t hold up, easily the worst of the saga comes from the special editions (the sarlacc and 97 Jabba are particularly rough).

Hahaha, I guess you’re right. It is in it’s own class. It’s so bad, it’s almost good, or at least entertaining in it’s own horrendous way. That’s one of the things I miss in these CGI ridden days. There was always a sense of wonder in the old days for how they managed to pull off certain effects. Even if it didn’t look quite convincing, there usually was something to admire about it. I never got that same sense with of wonder with CGI. The only exceptions I can think of are dinos in Jurassic Park, and Gollum in LOTR.

Well yeah I guess the issue is, even if a shot is hard to pull off in CG, most don’t really know it because we all assume you can just do everything in a computer. So the shots or effects that really impress are the ones that are narratively compelling or emotionally resonant. Gollum is a great effect because he’s a fully fledged character (similarly, Serkis and others work on the recent Planet of the Apes films help make those effects amazing). Jar Jar was essentially the same effect, three years earlier, but no one cites it because the character didn’t connect in the same way.

DrDre said:

DominicCobb said:

Mocata said:

The broad ideas of what Palpatine was doing are fine but the execution doesn’t really work when we’re supposed to believe that an entire army of clones was hidden, then used by the Jedi, then they killed the Jedi, all without anyone getting anything more than a “sense” something is wrong. Instead of some kind of actual hunt being shown. The Clone War should have been EPI, the purge should have been EpII and then the dark times EpIII. The whole trilogy should really have been re-structured to resemble a historical epic. The set pieces are there (chariot races and gladiator arenas) but the “Fall of the Roman Empire” style plot is complete shambles. And the wheel of time is again an interesting idea with a series about fated bloodlines and destiny etc but the way it mirrors the OT is far too sloppy. I don’t hate the PT… it’s just so boring and bad that it’s not watchable.

I think you’re absolutely right that the structure was way off. In this way I think Lucas would’ve been better served by trying to more closely align the trilogy with the OT. As is, the PT feels pretty disjointed due to the ten year gap. The first film is supposed to be the set up film but we end up with AOTC doing most of the actual set up (and the important set up from TPM, the characters, not really following through because of the ten year disconnect).

As for plot inconsistencies… I mean why are Luke and Leia in the films? Why is Vader’s resurrection? In fact why are characters like Yoda and Palpatine here? It should have been made to preserve all the twists and character reveals for new audiences but the toy line came first I guess. The OT had some much world building by referencing events and characters off screen, but here it’s all reduced down so that everything happens on Coruscant and Tatooine.

I disagree that the twists necessarily needed to be preserved (I mean basically the whole point of the trilogy was to give backstory to the twists), but I do agree that it seems to be a little too married to making sure that every single little piece is in order to tie into the OT. There’s definitely a distinct de-mystification going on in a lot of ways (obviously there’s stuff like midichlorians, but also things like Palpatine’s transformation).

I personally liked the idea of ol’ Palps being corrupted by the dark side more. I think that initially was what Lucas was going for in AOTC.

Yeah, I would have loved it if we could’ve just assumed he became super wrinkly over a couple decades due to extreme dark side usage.

In ROTS Palpatine looks younger than in the previous installment. Additionally Palpatine allways looks off to me in ROTS, once he goes all out bad, and essentially became a cartoon villain. I thought he was brilliant up until the scene in which he revealed himself to Anakin.

Totally agree. I always want to say that McDiarmid gives the best performance of the PT, but then I remember the hammy moments once Sidious is ‘revealed.’ Not to mention that terrible make-up. Shame.

Post
#1294588
Topic
Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy
Time

Mocata said:

The broad ideas of what Palpatine was doing are fine but the execution doesn’t really work when we’re supposed to believe that an entire army of clones was hidden, then used by the Jedi, then they killed the Jedi, all without anyone getting anything more than a “sense” something is wrong. Instead of some kind of actual hunt being shown. The Clone War should have been EPI, the purge should have been EpII and then the dark times EpIII. The whole trilogy should really have been re-structured to resemble a historical epic. The set pieces are there (chariot races and gladiator arenas) but the “Fall of the Roman Empire” style plot is complete shambles. And the wheel of time is again an interesting idea with a series about fated bloodlines and destiny etc but the way it mirrors the OT is far too sloppy. I don’t hate the PT… it’s just so boring and bad that it’s not watchable.

I think you’re absolutely right that the structure was way off. In this way I think Lucas would’ve been better served by trying to more closely align the trilogy with the OT. As is, the PT feels pretty disjointed due to the ten year gap. The first film is supposed to be the set up film but we end up with AOTC doing most of the actual set up (and the important set up from TPM, the characters, not really following through because of the ten year disconnect).

As for plot inconsistencies… I mean why are Luke and Leia in the films? Why is Vader’s resurrection? In fact why are characters like Yoda and Palpatine here? It should have been made to preserve all the twists and character reveals for new audiences but the toy line came first I guess. The OT had some much world building by referencing events and characters off screen, but here it’s all reduced down so that everything happens on Coruscant and Tatooine.

I disagree that the twists necessarily needed to be preserved (I mean basically the whole point of the trilogy was to give backstory to the twists), but I do agree that it seems to be a little too married to making sure that every single little piece is in order to tie into the OT. There’s definitely a distinct de-mystification going on in a lot of ways (obviously there’s stuff like midichlorians, but also things like Palpatine’s transformation).

Post
#1294581
Topic
Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy
Time

DrDre said:

Mocata said:

Those visuals are awful though. I hate the way Vader’s eyes are like crazy holograms.

I don’t see what’s so awful about those visuals. I can point to many prequel shots, that look bad, or less than convincing. I can point to a number of OT shots that look bad, but awful is reserved for a special kind of bad. This is awful:

In fairness, I think that effect actually resides in a world beyond merely “awful.” That being said, while a lot of the PT CG doesn’t hold up, easily the worst of the saga comes from the special editions (the sarlacc and 97 Jabba are particularly rough).

Post
#1294458
Topic
Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * <strong><em>SPOILER THREAD</em></strong> *
Time

I’m sure they’re putting a lot of money behind it to make sure they aren’t. I’m glad they’ve given her a new outfit too. I don’t want to get my hopes up about her inclusion in the film, because realistically there’s only so much you can accomplish, but so far JJ and KK have been very enthusiastic about how well it works. It’s easily the aspect of the film I’m most nervous about, and perhaps unfairly. Leia clearly was supposed to get her due in this film, and at this point there’s no way for them to do it how it should have been done. But I am hopeful that there’s some way to make this film about her in a similar way the prior two were about Han and Luke, even without a lot of footage (characters of course can have a large presence even with little screen time). JJ has said she’s “the heart of the film,” so maybe, just maybe…

Post
#1294457
Topic
Similarities between the Original Trilogy and the Sequel Trilogy
Time

Mocata said:

You can see how that might be confusing when you skip ahead 20-30 years. I do agree that they could have provided more context in the films, but the existence of the similarities doesn’t break it for me. I think that really is the weakness, because I think with the right context your audience would say, “Yeah, that makes sense.”

Well amongst all the similarities they wanted is to have that idea of being flung into the action, which in some ways works. I really like the opening with Kylo meeting Max von Sydow. But while the OT dripped little pieces of info so it never feels too alien, TFA needed something like that Death Star conference scene to quickly sum up current affairs. Or even just a quick sound bite here and there to say the Republic is soft and doesn’t want to openly support Leia’s para-military actions.

I completely agree. I think I might have even said as much in my first post ever on the film, but they really could have accomplished a lot with a single Death Star conference room kind of scene (further similarity be damned). I’ve had this picture for years now of that giant room with the Snoke hologram filled up with FO officers (the chairs are already there!), having a SPECTRE style meeting straight out of Sean Connery Bond film, each giving updates about the nefarious things they’ve been doing throughout the galaxy. Alas, I don’t know if the filmmakers didn’t consider an expository scene like this, if it got cut (there was of course a bit more background info in the Leia subplot), or if they just wanted to avoid exposition like that entirely because of the PT.

Post
#1294453
Topic
Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy
Time

RogueLeader said:

Interesting perspectives!

As a third perspective, I’ve gone from loving the prequels as a kid for the spectacle, to disliking them for their flaws as a teenager, to coming back appreciate their strengths and accepting their weaknesses, acknowledging that they can have both good and bad, but I can still enjoy them as a part of this larger story.

I think I’ll always be able to enjoy them, that part of me has never changed. For the last few years though it’s been hard to watch them and not think of all the could-have-been-betters (as someone who’s trying to make fan edits of them, this is even more heightened). For me this has been especially in light of the ST, which in my opinion puts the PT to shame in nearly every respect (in fact I almost gave up on my PT edits after TFA). But I will say this, I’m sure eventually I’ll come around to thinking “who cares, they are what they are,” and probably sooner rather than later. Especially since, for the last few months, I’ve been reading all the PT “Making Of” books, and watching most of the BTS features, and that’s making it hard not to appreciate a lot of the work that went into the films (even as it shines a light on why some of the problems might have occurred). Honestly probably the easiest way for me to enjoy/appreciate them is just to take them as their own things, divorced from the weight of the rest of the saga (which I guess is ironic considering the thread where in).

Post
#1294447
Topic
Similarities between the Original Trilogy and the Sequel Trilogy
Time

Maybe it comes down to what you’re looking for from the series. In my mind, the world was a backdrop, and the plot was a vehicle. My favorites were the OT, where it was a pretty straightforward conflict. We never saw the Imperial senate, we were never even sure who was leading the Rebellion. What I always loved the most was the characters and their stories, and so, as a kid, when I used to wonder what happened after ROTJ, it was always in regards to what were my favorite characters up to? With the ST, the set dressing is similar but ultimately the kid in me is satisfied because the part that always mattered more to me was new. My take at least.

Post
#1294405
Topic
Similarities Between the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy
Time

DrDre said:

This article represents a fairly balanced view on how I percieve the PT, and its relation to the OT, in the wake of the ST:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/screenrant.com/star-wars-prequels-disney-fan-backlash/amp/

I wish the final section (the one germane to this topic) was a bit more fleshed out. As is they just say a few basic statements about the PT - that there was “forward-planning” and that it was nice that they “highlighted a different ruling era” that was “detached and alien” - that I personally cannot agree with. The only forward-planning that existed was simply basic beats that everyone knew would be hit by virtue of them being prequels. As for the drastically different aesthetics of the different era, I personally believe this was a chief failing of the films, and one way in which more similarity would have been better, to feel more cohesive.

I think I’ve said it before, but Star Wars as it existed on screen in the OT was not at all what Lucas had in mind for the world. With the PT he was finally able to put his vision on screen. He added the “rhymes” and tied everything up with a bow at the end of ROTS to provide connective tissue, but ultimately it’s clear he didn’t care much for how the OT ended up.

It’s funny, because I never needed to “forgive” the prequels, as the article’s headline states. When the films came out I loved them. In retrospect, so many years later however, it’s clearer and clearer how Lucas dropped the ball in terms of continuing the saga in a fitting way. Ultimately it’s hard for me to reconcile the two trilogies, but the “poetry” of it all certainly helps, I think, to make the story cohesive.

Post
#1294396
Topic
The Rise of Skywalker box office results: predictions and expectations
Time

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Valheru_84 said:

DominicCobb said:

Your posts continue to astound, as always.

You’re the one continuing to debate the person instead of the point.

Don’t mind me.

If anyone else wants to continue down the line of “it’s not a trailer”, you’re pretty much arguing semantics at this point as with new footage ending with the title and release month it services exactly as a teaser trailer either way even if not officially released as one.

Yeah, that’s not the point. It’s a marketing reel. Who gives a shit. The forensic analysis is asinine.

Before I attempt to stave off filling this thread with any more completely off topic replies, I will simply point out that it was yourself who came out of the woodwork just to specifically have a go at me.

oojason has already touched on this so I won’t.

So are you saying Disney would not use OT nostalgia AT ALL to try and bolster interest in the franchise they now own? That would be extremely naive and points more to you just needing to be opposed to anything I say despite what is an obvious given in terms of prudent business practice.

That’s not what I said at all.

My point is that the level of nostalgia is far beyond what is logically and obviously expected, such that it points to other reasons to bait people’s interest in these movies through heavy use of nostalgia and the cinematic inbreeding Dre so concisely articulated has and continues to happen.

If that’s what you want to believe, I don’t think I can convince you otherwise.