Nick1Ø66

Agreed. Neither Jaws nor Jurassic Park really needed sequels, and none of the sequels came close to the originals. You could almost say the same for Alien & Terminator, though both of those franchises had one decent sequel...sequels that, importantly, expanded upon the original premise in a fresh way. But at the end of the day, there's only so many ways you can tell the same story.
 
That said, I do believe Indy had potential for multiple stories, more than three. But that shipped sailed with the time gap, and once that happened they should have left well enough alone. The only other alternative would be to go the James Bond route, with different actors, but even that's somewhat problematic given how associated the character is with Harrison Ford's performance (e.g. the Solo movie). And again, I think that time is passed...not that Disney won't try one day to reboot the character, because I believe they will. The property is just too valuable not to. 
 
 
It's not just that he feels right for the 1930's, the whole pastiche of the thing is he's a throwback to those kind of stories...the 1930's adventurer/explorer. That's only era in which the character, as we know him, can exist. Maybe you could push it to the early 40's, but that's it.  Remove the 30's setting, and you just have a character with the same name running around doing stuff. It's something...but it's not really Indiana Jones as envisioned.  This is one crucial way a recast would work vs. keeping Ford in the role, you could retain the period through multiple actors.

Hmmmm. This is the type of UFO story I can see later-day Spielberg telling...he's often spoken about how, when he made CE3K, that version of himself would have flown away on the Mothership, but later in life, as a husband and father, he said he wouldn't.  So I always thought it would be interesting to see a film about Roy Neary returning to Earth after decades away with the CE3K aliens (i.e. ET). I mean, the guy had a wife and kids and essentially abandoned them, and it would be interesting to see how he, and they'd, react to his homecoming and how he'd adjust to life on a completely unrecognizable Earth. Dreyfuss is probably too old for the part, but you could recast for a younger Roy Neary (proving Einstein right).

By "critical" I just mean that its not a hagiography. I just really enjoy the read itself - its not as rambling as Kaminski's book can sometimes get - and its just VERY well researched. When Jones, in an end-note, gets into the weeds of exactly on what show Lucas saw the Flash Gordon serials - you know the man has done his homework:
 
 
Jone is also the first to point out that Lucas saying he got Coppola to direct the Godfather - reasoning that the company needed cash after the botched screening of THX-1138 - quite simply does not line up with the chronology. The story of Lucas' car collision at 17 is also demystified - in many other Lucasfilm-affiliated books its been "misreported, and made more dramatic" - and many other points besides.

Well, it does feel a bit like when they broke with the plan and invited Abrams back after TLJ debacle.

In this case, they should probably call it "The Uncensored Cut" or something like that. The idea of a "Director's Cut" for a Netflix movie is kind of silly.

In Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, they changed Saruman to "Aruman" for similar reasons, i.e. to avoid confusion with Sauron. And yes, it was stupid, especially since the result was that it was even more confusing because they still alternated calling him Saruman. 

Blow Out is brilliant. Some aspects of it might be nonsense, but at the same time it gives some cool insight into how films are made. And how De Palma uses cinematography to present sound is something I've never seen anywhere else.

Yeah, that's real fine fancy words you’ve got there Mr. Hooper. I don’t know what that bastard shark’s gonna do with ‘em. Might eat ‘em.

Yeah, that's real fine fancy words you’ve got there Mr. Hooper. I don’t know what that bastard shark’s gonna do with ‘em. Might eat ‘em.

Well, it does feel a bit like when they broke with the plan and invited Abrams back after TLJ debacle.

Well, it does feel a bit like when they broke with the plan and invited Abrams back after TLJ debacle.

Cobra Kai is a perfect example of how you update a beloved franchise without alienating or insulting existing fans while bringing in new ones. Absolutely phenomenal show that I'm sad to see ending, but at the same time they knew when it's time to bow out (no pun intended).

For the record, I'm not talking about how George Lucas talks about the Jedi, I'm talking about how its clear George Lucas feels about the Jedi from what he put on film.
 
And its clear to me that George Lucas - the George Lucas that's actually there behind the camera - does not think that the Jedi are flawed, hubristic, or wrong in their general view of the world. He thinks they are right: they forbid attachment, and its precisely attachment that leads to Anakin's downfall. They forbid possessiveness (nevermind how twisted it is that to seek to stop the person you love from dying is at all possessive) and its Anakin's "possessiveness" that leads to his downfall.
 
I feel like Luke finding success in going against the wishes of Obi Wan in Return of the Jedi, or even Qui-Gon defying the council in Episode I hardly diminish this. This has almost entirely to do with Episodes II-III and for that purpose they should be seen in isolation.

Yeah, I wonder how many kids are going to dress up as Jedi Master Torbin for Halloween.
 
#WhereHaveAllTheHeroesGone

Yeah, so, who are we supposed to root for in all this?
 
'Star Wars' was embraced for its optimism during the pessimistic 1970s, with its morally simple story of good triumphing over evil.
 
Sure, throw in a fall from grace and a redemption arc, and yeah, I can accept a little complacency from the Jedi, but this whole shift to moral greyness and ambiguity is really off-putting and isn't the Star Wars I grew up loving.
 
I mean, the poor, confused kids today playing with 'The Acolyte' action figures won't know who the hell is good or bad! 
 
(I'm joking of course. There are no kids playing with 'The Acolyte' figures. They're still playing with Luke and Vader.)

Yup, this show is really doubling down on the "the Jedi were bad, actually" that's been happening in Star Wars for a while now. I don't like it because it betrays everything Ben said about them in the original movie.

My favorite movie when I was a little kid. My parents lost count of how many times I saw Twister on VHS when I was, like, 5 or 6. Just loved seeing all those cool cars chasing tornadoes.

TWISTER  dir. Jan de Bont, 1996
 
I realised I hadn't seen this as many times as I'd thought. Saw it at the cinema when it came out and probably only a couple of other times on VHS since. I felt pushed to re-watch after noticing the 'sequel' is imminently upon us.
 
It's a bone fide 90s action classic! Despite not initially remembering much about it - aside from some now iconic shots (the cow, the 'house invasion') - I can at least recall why I enjoyed it in the first place. Pretty relentless with some fantastic set-pieces. It's widely praised nowadays for how well the visual effects hold up but it's not the quality of the CGI (fantastic as it is for the era) that stuns me... it's the compositing! Crikey, there are barely any locked down shots of the tornados - the camera is almost always hand-held or sweeping between focal points (a lot of the time from behind rain spattered windows). Really quite impressive for a film of the time.    
 
Anyway: Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt, Jamie Gertz, Cary Elwes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alan Ruck, Jake Busey, even Todd Field.
 
Mancina's score is damn good too. 
 
Lots to love. 

Also the first shot in the movie shows a friggin Star Destroyer with Vader onboard following her, she's not gonna lead them right to their base and she knows she's fucked so she tries passing the task off to someone trusted. You listen to and watch the actual movie and ignore the fanservice fanfiction.

The characters are dreadful in the book. I wonder if Benchley intentionally made them unlikabe to contrast them with the natural appeal of the shark?  It’s a strange read for sure, and hard to imagine that before the film it would be such a sensational best seller.  Even weirder that they optioned it for the film before it was actually published.  
 
Anyways, as a lover of old timey illustration, my favorite version of the book is the Reader’s Digest Condensed version.
 



 

That's a deep cut!
 
 
Oh yeah. Actually IMO, Jaws, like The Godfather, is one of those rare instances where the film is better than the novel.

That's a deep cut!
 
 
Oh yeah. Actually IMO, Jaws, like The Godfather, is one of those rare instances where the film is better than the novel.

Me and your wife.