Unlucky Bastard

Or, you know, they were trying to reduce their risk of catching COVID and dying... 
 
I admire the man but Spielberg really lives in a bubble on some issues. There's a multitude of reasons people have abandoned cinemas and sticky popcorn on the floor isn't high on that list.

Hmph. Cancelling after S3 I probably wouldn't have minded much, but S4 was good and would have deserved a proper closure followup season.

I personally can't hear anything amiss in Intrada's sample anyway.
 
This concern for the environment does tend to take a back seat when an indexing error is made on a Williams CD.

If anecdotal evidence is the benchmark...
 
The kind of often shoddily editorially created credit assemblies are on these releases because it just doesn't matter much (there's a lot of musically superfluous stuff on it, anyway). But to replace a whole batch because there are pops in it, i mean, in times of worldwide efforts to save the environment just seems a wee bit off.

I guarantee you would have been much MORE disappointed by a 2 hour movie adaptation (or even a 3 hour movie adaptation). Surely your disappointment in the 7 hour version was nothing to do with it being too stretched out?
 
 
But I don't think being created as six-to-eight-hour movies is inherently what makes some of these six-to-eight-hour movies disappointing.
 
Was Boba Fett really envisioned much differently from season 1 of The Mandalorian? Yet the latter turned out fantastic, IMO. And you similarly picked Falcon & Winter Soldier because it was the most disappointing of all the MCU Disney+ shows... but I don't think the length was the issue with that. There was some really great stuff in it which likely wouldn't have made it into a two hour movie. It just had a really sucky antagonist...something that can be said about many Marvel 2 hour movies.
 
Yavar

I disagree. Just like with any other storytelling avenues -- sometimes they're bad, sometimes they're good, and sometimes they're great!
 
I think that your criticism is clearly directed at something like Obi-Wan Kenobi. Fair.
 
But what about Moon Knight? I for one am super glad that ended up as a six episode Disney+ series rather than a movie, as it really allowed characters and the world to be fleshed out much more. In fact by and large I think for Phase 4 of the MCU, the Disney+ "TV content" has far outclassed the theatrical releases! (Even though I really enjoyed Shang-Chi, I think it may have been even better as a six episode D+ show.)
 
Netflix has been doing a GREAT job with some of those "six/eight/ten hour movies" -- two that especially come to mind are Scott Frank's Godless, and perhaps even moreso The Queen's Gambit. I think each of these were essentially seven hour movies, and they were WONDERFUL. The Queen's Gambit had been getting developed as a theatrical film for years and years, attached to various actresses... and thank GOODNESS it ended up as this seven hour limited Netflix series. I guarantee you that a two hour movie would have been a far weaker experience.
 
Another I remember really liking was this one done a few years earlier by the BBC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Strange_%26_Mr_Norrell_(TV_series)
 
They were adapting a beloved one-off novel which many people would have said to turn into a film. But that would have been crammed, with many important things cut out. A seven episode limited series was FAR better for this material. It's not always a matter of stretching things out that would have been better as a two hour film. You've got to assess these things on a case-by-case basis.
 
Heck, even before the streaming era back in the mid-90s, the BBC Pride & Prejudice adaptation with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth was done over six hourlong episodes and STILL for my money is the best Austen adaptation that's ever been done... far, FAR better than any of the 2 hour theatrical films that have attempted to capture the book.
 
Yavar

A young Rhea Seehorn ... 

Eh. Complicated as my feelings on the franchise may be currently, there's too much there that worked for it to not be remembered for a lot of positive reasons. The music is certainly the easiest to divorce from it, but it's too ingrained into pop culture for it to drop off so easily without the author actually committing a heinous crime.

Moonraker and Die Another Day compete on being the worst Bond Movie ever.

And we're there with the anti-woke crying again. Because that of course can be the only reason.
 
 
I mentioned that earlier, and it was a point of minor annoyance for me (although Disa is wonderful). I think most people probably interpreted the whole thing in PJ's TTT as a joke (I know people who dislike the entire scene, although it was one of my favourite EE additions). Granted, Tolkien himself says that nobody knows what Dwarf women look like, either because the society is so secretive (and male dominated) that nobody ever gets to see them, or because they are (to other peoples' eyes) almost indistinguishable from the men (which necessarily implies beards). I've always liked the absurd idea that the second version is correct, but he never outright states so. On the other hand, the first version would be perfectly consistent with both the Third Age perspective from which the comment was made, and the Second Age perspective of this series (for one because Elrond is one of the few non-Dwarves to enter Khazad-dum; and more so because that's before relations between Elves and Dwarves soured again and most who might remember meeting Dwarf women would have either died or forgotten). So it's probably canonically correct (at least not clearly incorrect), and ultimately pretty well done.
 
Speaking of Dwarves, I love the abundance of Dwarf masks shown in the series. They're one of the main things associated with Dwarves in the Silmarillion, but entirely absent in LOTR.

This is one of those scores where the theme appears on pretty much every single track (like John Scott’s King Kong Lives), so extending that to an hour is probably gonna drive ya’ll batty. 

No politics on JWFan, gents

Not an issue *for you*. So only your issues deserve to be addressed, but if it's maybe a persistent issue for Chinese people, maybe not a major one but a persistent one that continuously gets ignored, it doesn't deserve to be mentioned, because it doesn't bother you? You haven't bothered to give any other reason for why it's irrelevant, except suggesting that anything goes as long as it's fun (which I could quickly construct a dozen of exaggerated counter arguments to).
 
Also, the article doesn't condemn the game; my impression is that the author rather enjoyed it, but was also bothered by a specific aspect that may be irritating to people with his cultural background, but not to us, so without somebody pointing it out, we wouldn't even be aware of it. I don't know anything else about, so perhaps (and perhaps not) what he objects is a non-issue even for almost all other Chinese people. But even if that the case, his reaction to it is more calm and measured than your reaction to his article.

TROS is just schlocky bad, but TLJ feels like it treats its audience with contempt. Directed by some meek, toxic Gen-Xer trying to seem hip. No wonder it found a fanbase on Twitter and Tumblr.

Except freedom of speech means people are just as entitled to call someone out as they are to spout contentious opinions. After all, it only protects you from getting arrested over it. Nothing more.
 
Now let's get off this train before we risk seriously violating forum rules over a detour in conversation that wasn't necessary.

I can see why this would have made sense for the Broccolis, considering they hired Kamen and Clapton. But glad they did not since Clapton's such a bonehead (70s scandals about race, anti-vaxxing etc).
 
Kamen would have done miraculous work on his own.....And Babcock and Davis in tow.....

Grey areas and questioning of cliched stereotypes (with potential real life consequences for the minority groups they portray) may not matter to you, but they may matter to others. Nowhere does the article downright condemn the game. Here's one quote from it:
 
 
I could throw your cynical comment back at you and say: "Thanks god Canadian players opened my eyes with the important issue of how crazy woke Asians keep resisting to being stereotyped by the Western entertainment industry."
 
(And how many times have you yourself *not* cared about even the slightest misrepresentation or disregard in the grand musical context? Why not grant others the freedom to do the same on topics that are relevant to them, or may even have a notable impact on their own everyday lives - far more than the average case of "elitist classical critic denies Williams the relevance he deserves" has on ours?)
 
I for one am able to still look forward to playing Stray while appreciating why some may take issue with certain aspects of it, and learning and understanding why they do.

All these posts violate the current board rules.  
 
You all may discuss how she may or may feel about JW's music but leave politics out of it.

Thank you.

This is a forum to discuss music and movies and not the place for having a back-and-forth about cancel culture and gender identity.
 
You can continue to talk about John Williams' music and Rowling's possible thoughts on it, but not her stance on political issues.

Thank you.

If politicians ask their followers to boycott key companies and certain concepts, then I'd say they indulge in the alleged practices as much as the people they slam it for supposedly do.
 
Also, before the mods come in, I have to say: an attack helicopter joke? Really? A fireman who can't put out fires is a terrible analogy, since it unintentionally dismisses infertile and intersex folk. Are they suddenly lesser for lacking key human functions?

Oof some absolute dog shit takes in this thread, including the one immediately preceding my post. Also pretty sure they violate the site rules with regards to discussion of cancel culture/politics/etc., even if they are anti-cancel culture. 

I think Hollywood is, and should be, about both kinds. And it makes a difference *how* some things are portrayed. There's a hilarious Danish black action comedy I Kina spiser de hunde (In China They Eat Dogs) that's horribly insensitive/politically incorrect, but it never gave me the feeling that it *means* these things in the slightest, or that the things it mocks (or rather, often, the characters, which the film usually doesn't portray as its "own" philosophy) are directed against anything but the characters/situations in the film in their respective context. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have little tolerance for blunt Hollywood "popcorn" fare that more or less plays as a patriotic commercial of (in Hollywood's case) American superiority and seems more sincere in that ideology than the blackest comedy is in its mockery.
 
The masterpiece in that regard may be Verhoeven's Starship Troopers, which brilliantly manages to play both extremes simultaneously.

As opposed to do-badders to are unaware and inattentive to injustice in society, especially racism?
 
I haven't seen the film and know nothing about it. I expect you're taking your nomenclature to the extreme (not in your initial post, but with your use of "woke" and "do-gooder" as supposedly derogatory terms), which is what I'm replying to here. But if the only way of not interpreting a film as racist were to be a bad person who isn't bothered by racism, then I'd say that speaks for itself (which, generally, is why we need woke do-gooders).

I’ve enjoyed Stray very much.

Season 3 is bonkers. Loved it!