LiterallyIconic

I like Solo plenty, but Apollo 13 is a damn fine film. As Siskel told him, he made it look too easy. 
 
Oh, I did. I spotted them midway through my first viewing. That trilogy was built on rotted wood, and it decayed from the start.
 
It's bittersweet, but you have to stretch the definition of tragedy beyond recognition to call it such.
 
Many of them are very good, and no matter what weirdness George would've brought to the films, we damn well would have gotten a proper rebuilding of the Republic and the Jedi. The ST begins and ends in the exact same place the OT did. That's bad storytelling where I come from.

Yes. But the limiting factor turned out not to be story but rather Fisher. Hamil and Ford are both in the next film.
 
Yes, it's all JJ's fault for wasting the opportunity.
 
 
Thank you.

Young Indy is a good and interesting show that should have more fans, and yes, working with 16mm film on a regular basis, I can tell you it would look great in HD. The catch is the series was a proving ground for a lot of technologies that would be used in the prequels, and it is unlikely those were done in more than 480p. 

Young Indy is a good and interesting show that should have more fans, and yes, working with 16mm film on a regular basis, I can tell you it would look great in HD. The catch is the series was a proving ground for a lot of technologies that would be used in the prequels, and it is unlikely those were done in more than 480p. 

Okay, I understand. My interest was in getting a more expanded take from you on Trek episodes being put on the big screen; I suppose I have my answer.
 
Okay, while I initially the reason for your critique of TCW movie, my interest was (whether it was in regard to cinematic or structure reasons) in ascertaining your thoughts on other comparable Trek episodes. I've always agreed with your comparison between TCW and Encounter at Farpoint for reasons including the one you mentioned.
Fair enough.
Okay, I see. It certainly is another source for Clone Wars material and as far as the show goes, while I'd be interested in more complexity and details to the politics, battles, tactics, schemes, characters, etc. I understand why that was never going to be the case (which is why I read novels). I suppose I misunderstood your point as being a catchall for anyone wanting more and was seeking to balance it out, but I see now that it wasn't quite that way.
No, simply that OT or ST battles weren't even on my mind; I was thinking only in terms of the PT vs TCW. So my statement about TPM was only in comparison to AOTC and ROTS...which I think you'd agree with?
Agreed. I believe this is to some extent also from my misunderstanding earlier in regards to what I thought was a catchall statement from you. I would never deny that TCW covers a fair amount of ground; I was noting how, even compared to other television out there (with a different audience typically) the show is simplistic. While I'd certainly state some of the SW films beat TCW on visuals, I wouldn't really compare them in terms of plot as they both don't get too complex.
Agreed. I suppose I was taken aback by the way you phrased it earlier.
Fair enough. While I don't mind the expansion it provides, I think it lost its way when it abandoned the anthology format earlier in the show and later when it started to be less about exploring the war and its surroundings. I also don't appreciate the Filoni-isms.
Fair enough. I can't say that I agree with the premise of that argument but understand that most people here are going to fall one way or the other on the matter.

Because, while you agreed with my statement, you immediately started providing counter examples, seemingly as TV episodes worthy of theatrical release. My point was not about cinematic quality, but a response to people who count TCW as a Star Wars movie when it very much is not. Encounter at Farpoint, my example, is not structured like feature film. It is two storylines sandwiched together, very much like TCW. We seem to be at cross purposes, or I just didn't understand what you were asking. Voyager shouldn't be shown on any screen.
 
OK. Then my statement wasn't for you. The time devoted to the Clone Wars in the PT has been stated as inadequate by a few people in this thread. It was more a statement for them. I mean, they aren't going to watch it anyway because they don't like the era or the characters, and feel that, somehow, even more runtime should be devoted to battles, but if you want more Clone Wars, well, there you go.
 
This implies that the battles in the OT are more visually dense than the battles in the PT, or that TPM has the least visually dense battles in the series, to which I respond, are you insane? Or perhaps I have misunderstood you again. The only demonstrably larger battle is the opening to RotS.
 
All media has limitations. Films are just as beholden to runtime considerations as TV, and while yes, the structure of TCW episodes is arc-based 22 minute episodes, it still covers a large amount of themes and styles. It's not as if the plots of the films are so complex to begin with that a TV show can't proffer expansion. The aforementioned Geonisis arc deals with (more or less in order): subterfuge, past relationships, jealousy, greed, determination, war, wartime attitudes, attachment, body horror, alien horror, commitment, and personal duty. That's a lot of ground for five episodes of TV.
 
For myself, though, I ultimately abandoned The Clone Wars because it is too far outside the scheme of the films, is more explanatory than additive, and my general disagreements with its Filoni-isms, but as the argument in this thread has been about what does or doesn't feel like Star Wars, I think TCW gets a lot closer than Andor.

I wish they hadn’t released TCW in theaters. It’s no more a movie than Encounter at Farpoint, and considering how good the writing, and even more so the animation, gets, it’s a double shame that so many wrote off the series after it, or otherwise consider it indicative of the overall show. Not enough war in your Star Wars? Watch the Geonosis or Umbara arcs.

I wish they hadn’t released TCW in theaters. It’s no more a movie than Encounter at Farpoint, and considering how good the writing, and even more so the animation, gets, it’s a double shame that so many wrote off the series after it, or otherwise consider it indicative of the overall show. Not enough war in your Star Wars? Watch the Geonosis or Umbara arcs.

I wish they hadn’t released TCW in theaters. It’s no more a movie than Encounter at Farpoint, and considering how good the writing, and even more so the animation, gets, it’s a double shame that so many wrote off the series after it, or otherwise consider it indicative of the overall show. Not enough war in your Star Wars? Watch the Geonosis or Umbara arcs.

I wish they hadn’t released TCW in theaters. It’s no more a movie than Encounter at Farpoint, and considering how good the writing, and even more so the animation, gets, it’s a double shame that so many wrote off the series after it, or otherwise consider it indicative of the overall show. Not enough war in your Star Wars? Watch the Geonosis or Umbara arcs.

Putting "Inspired by" or "characters by" may not change anything, but it is being more accurate and honest with the audience. So I applaud their doing that for WotR, and I hope they show the audience, and Tolkien, the same respect for the new films. It will be disappointing if they don't. 
 
 
Well, all the scenes you mentioned, while definitely making changes to what Tolkien wrote (as you'd expect in adaptation), are at least based on scenes Tolkien did, in fact write. And those do serve as "guard rails", and for the most part, Jackson made good decisions in adapting those scense to film. Where, IMO, theThe Hobbit went "off the rails" is when they created scenes and characters out of whole cloth that Tolkien never wrote, at least in narrative form, and certainly not in the novel.
 
 
Indeed, and I think this is the thrust of the argument, and why these fanfic projects have some serious built-in limitations.
 
 
Maybe. But The Hunt for Gollum is entering different, but equally problematic territory. Whereas WotR and RoP take place during a different time period, tHfG is trying to shoehorn itself into the middle of a novel Tolkien actually wrote, and films made 20+ years ago. We can sort of mentally wave away and separate WotR and certainly RoP from the LOTR film trilogy as being their own thing..."Rohirrim is just prelude, and it's animated...ROP is not even Peter Jackson!" It's going to be much harder to do that, and make allowances for, tHfG. In a way, it's much like The Hobbit films...sandwiching a lot of fanfic in between genuine adaption.
 
Put another way, I guess how receptive one might be to tHfG might depend on how much one liked the fanfic aspects of The Hobbit.

It's certainly the only film in the series that can truly stand on its own. 

As much as I enjoy all six Star Wars movies, to me the original movie is on a whole other level despite the constant wanking for Empire. It feels decidedly more old Hollywood especially with actors like Sir Alec and Peter Cushing in it.

Dude, like, I'm with you, but this is why we can't have nice things. Pick your battles better.
 
I think if the character Darth Vader showed up, made one snarky comment, or force choked one dude, it would feel out of place in the hyper-grounded world of Andor. Andor does not pass the Star Wars sniff test for me.
 
However different Empire is in tone, Luke still fights snow monsters, the villains are comically evil, and the Empire delivers a front-only assault with elephantine tanks, for the simple reason that it looks cool. Andor is not a Flash Gordon comic book future.
 
There is more PT in that novelization prologue than is given credit here. Of the eight paragraphs, six are dealt with by the prequels, Andor deals with the final two, but also, so do the OT films. I know which I find more essential.

The whole discussion about the movies being made to make money is whataboutism. But on the other hand, if that is supposedly the common ground.of these projects then this just underlines @Nick1Ø66's statements about Andor missing the stardust that made Star Wars including its sequels one of the most beloved and groundbreaking franchises.

Thought you all misspelled Yoko Kanno and got excited for a minute lol.
 
The answer I've come to is no, and to go with it, I wish more of them had the good sense to know when to end. Books series, films, video games, whatever. Know when you've said all you have to say and move on. George was as guilty of this as anyone, but he at least tried to use his successful franchises to fund other, newer, things, not just more Star Wars.

If this is going to work out, I am more than happy and really looking forward to this.
 
What I am not looking forward to are the obligatory complains here on the forum how much the score is not as good as the old ones and on all the supposedly copy paste and the assumptions how much of it has actually been written by Bill Ross.

I want to believe, but I've seen The Hobbit movies. I've seen War of the Rohirrim. I've seen the current state of digital de-aging. I've seen the current state of Ian McKellen. I've seen what this creative team can do when they're up there, without all the assistance. The hubris of this project is almost staggering.
 
I suppose this is what it's all been leading to for Serkis, and I wish him the best, but I think the odds are against them that this doesn't come out a deeply compromised, non-congruous mess; not unlike Rogue One, but worse, because all the attempts to maintain visual consistency only make the differences clearer. Like some weird version of the uncanny valley. 

Me neither, but The Hobbit is different because while watching LotR I know it's there, and it bugs me. I keep trying to find some way to keep them that isn't keeping them as they are, because ugh, they are a joyless trudge. 
 
I've long felt The Hobbit book was a better prelude to the LotR films than it is to the books themselves, so great was Ian Holm's Bilbo, and even for me, could probably be read in less time than it takes to watch the trilogy. I should just stick to that, I suppose.

I have two fundamental issues with The Hobbit trilogy. First, and this is inherent to the source material, is the problem of episodic exposition. The book is a connected set of adventures adding up to a tale, sort of like a D&D campaign, where each little adventure has its own setup, complication, action, and resolution. This works in a book for children, meant to be read a chapter at a time, but helps create the plodding pace of the films (and made all the more cumbersome by the material added to the story), as the movies always seem to get moving just in time to stop and introduce the next phase of the adventure.
 
This is exacerbated by my second main issue: the action scenes, and and then vs therefore storytelling. The Hobbit movies are riddled with and then action scenes, some of which, like the stone giants, are and thens onto the narrative itself, which create little tension, lack cause and effect dynamism, and add to the turgescent, aimless feel of the films. I suppose if there were fewer of them, or they were shorter, it would help, but the flaw is inherent to the layout of the sequences. 
 
My question is, is there any fan-edit that addresses these problems? Most seem to try and make it closer to the books, but I don't think a more literal translation would help these issues.

Lol
 

 
 

I think if he can't give the composition, at least, the full account of his time and energy, due to health, or anything else, then he shouldn't do it at all. This isn't the case of continuing a sound-world he already established. This is a new bespoke movie that deserves a new bespoke score. I'd hate to see him being shambled around, "featured" on a soundtrack like some two-bit rappist. 

Lol
 

 
 

I buy store-brand chips from Meijer because they come in a big gold bag that says "Chips" on the front. If they made a Christmas movie that was as good at being a Christmas movie as Halloween is at being a Halloween movie, and called it "Christmas," I would get rid of all other Christmas movies. I like it when things do what they say they do, set out fair and square with no contradictions.
 
Halloween is the "Chips" of Halloween movies, is what I'm saying.
 
I also like Dracula.