Entertainment things everyone else is wrong about, and you are right about.

[Psab keel]

As much as I admire Lucas for a lot of things, his insistence on constant alterations of his creation is really annoying. He instilled that in Dave Filoni and any interviews I've seen with the guy and he does the same thing that George does where he is always changing his answers to questions of lore with some convoluted explanation that often contradicts itself or what they said in previous interviews. They sound insightful on the surface but with a bit of thought they're really nonsensical.

In some ways I think George is arrogant and I suppose if you create something that literally changes the world, that's bound to happen. I think Dave has a tendency to use his relationship to George to justify certain ideas instead of the ideas being what's best for the story. There's a certain arrogance to that because it assumes that Lucas's notions were always the right ones and if George entrusted Dave to carry on that spirit you get the sense that people are afraid to question it. So I'm not saying Filoni is arrogant in the way we necessarily think, but I think he rests on his credentials within Lucasfilm in a way that projects a sense of arrogance, even if it's subconscious.

I've never cared for Filoni's work. He just never appealed to me and I honestly don't understand his popularity. I also feel Filoni has an incessant need to recreate Clone Wars with every project he makes by rectonning any story he's involved in to feature his Clone Wars cast of characters, even if it means rectonning significant portions of the lore to do it.

 

[Usagi Pilgrim]

As much as I admire Lucas for a lot of things, his insistence on constant alterations of his creation is really annoying. He instilled that in Dave Filoni and any interviews I've seen with the guy and he does the same thing that George does where he is always changing his answers to questions of lore with some convoluted explanation that often contradicts itself or what they said in previous interviews. They sound insightful on the surface but with a bit of thought they're really nonsensical.

In some ways I think George is arrogant and I suppose if you create something that literally changes the world, that's bound to happen. I think Dave has a tendency to use his relationship to George to justify certain ideas instead of the ideas being what's best for the story. There's a certain arrogance to that because it assumes that Lucas's notions were always the right ones and if George entrusted Dave to carry on that spirit you get the sense that people are afraid to question it. So I'm not saying Filoni is arrogant in the way we necessarily think, but I think he rests on his credentials within Lucasfilm in a way that projects a sense of arrogance, even if it's subconscious.

I've never cared for Filoni's work. He just never appealed to me and I honestly don't understand his popularity. I also feel Filoni has an incessant need to recreate Clone Wars with every project he makes by rectonning any story he's involved in to feature his Clone Wars cast of characters, even if it means rectonning significant portions of the lore to do it.

Totally get & respect that. I've just always liked his work

 

[Psab keel]

Hey man, to each their own and I'm glad you're enjoying his material. My lack of understanding is sincerely just that, I simply don't understand. I don't begrudge anyone for loving things I don't. I know I'm the anomaly in this case lol.

 

[dascoyne]

The best Stephen King adaptation isn't The Shining, Misery, Stand By Me or even Shawshank Redemption.
They are all great films but Dead Zone (1983) has the tone and pace of a Stephen King story and it is also the finest performance of Christopher Walken's career.

I also believe that, when all the smoke clears, in the end, James Gunn will make a cohesive and compelling universe out of DC despite initial outrage at casting etc. Only corporate interference has the capacity to muck it up.

 

[Joek3rr]

As much as I admire Lucas for a lot of things, his insistence on constant alterations of his creation is really annoying. He instilled that in Dave Filoni and any interviews I've seen with the guy and he does the same thing that George does where he is always changing his answers to questions of lore with some convoluted explanation that often contradicts itself or what they said in previous interviews. They sound insightful on the surface but with a bit of thought they're really nonsensical.

In some ways I think George is arrogant and I suppose if you create something that literally changes the world, that's bound to happen. I think Dave has a tendency to use his relationship to George to justify certain ideas instead of the ideas being what's best for the story. There's a certain arrogance to that because it assumes that Lucas's notions were always the right ones and if George entrusted Dave to carry on that spirit you get the sense that people are afraid to question it. So I'm not saying Filoni is arrogant in the way we necessarily think, but I think he rests on his credentials within Lucasfilm in a way that projects a sense of arrogance, even if it's subconscious.

I've never cared for Filoni's work. He just never appealed to me and I honestly don't understand his popularity. I also feel Filoni has an incessant need to recreate Clone Wars with every project he makes by rectonning any story he's involved in to feature his Clone Wars cast of characters, even if it means rectonning significant portions of the lore to do it.

It's also interesting to note how Dave's ideas on Anakin's fate and the Jedi do not align with what George has said on the subject. Like when Dave captivated everyone about his explanation about the Duel of the Fates, and how when Qui-Gon died that sealed Anakin's fate. But George says Anakin was responsible for his own fate.

There's a lot of fans (including myself at one time) who think we're still getting George's "vision" through Dave. But we aren't. From the Jedi to the Mandalorians, make no mistake, what we are seeing, is Dave's vision of Star Wars, not George's.

 

[Psab keel]

I saw that video a few times as I had to wrap my head around what he was saying regarding Qui-Gon and Anakin. It was total idiocy. It robs Anakin of any agency, not to mention even if Qui-Gon did train Anakin, what's to say little orphan Annie would have remained in the light? Dave and George make a lot of stuff like that up and it makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, we all know George's "vision" changes on a whim, so his estimation of Star Wars lore isn't exactly reliable either.

 

[mattycsi]

The best Stephen King adaptation isn't The Shining, Misery, Stand By Me or even Shawshank Redemption.
They are all great films but Dead Zone (1983) has the tone and pace of a Stephen King story and it is also the finest performance of Christopher Walken's career.

I also believe that, when all the smoke clears, in the end, James Gunn will make a cohesive and compelling universe out of DC despite initial outrage at casting etc. Only corporate interference has the capacity to muck it up.

Now I gotta watch Deadzone!

I actually thought The Dark Half was a pretty decent adaptation.

But I would really like to see either Rage or The Long Walk from the Bachman books adapted to movies.

 

[dascoyne]

Now I gotta watch Deadzone!

I actually thought The Dark Half was a pretty decent adaptation.

But I would really like to see either Rage or The Long Walk from the Bachman books adapted to movies.

Make sure it is the 1983 movie, NOT the insipid TV series.

 

[CT1138]

LOTR is the only example I can think of where the movies are better than the books. I can't stay awake reading those, and I've read some pretty dense, boring historical stuff.

As blasphemous as it is to Tolkien fans, I completely agree. Condensing the LotR trilogy for the movies was a fantastic move on Jackson's part. The books draw out as bad as a Dickens book, and the psuedo-medieval dialogue is clunky and a chore to read. The Jackson LotR movies are one of the best film adoptions specifically because they manage to successfully trim a very fat hog down to the meat, while still retaining the grandiose operatic tone of the source material.

 

[Psab keel]

I too care for the films more as they are better streamlined. In fact I think the Hobbit is a far better book as it doesn't meander as much as the Lord of the Rings. Granted I know the length of the trilogy is part of the world building, but there are instances where Tolkien's musings on Hobbit real estate and Tom Bombadil (and other unessential plot threads) carry on too long and slow down the imminent threat of danger. The film did well to excise these things to ensure Sauron's return and the quest to destroy the ring were at the center of the story without distracting the audience with filler.

I do intend to read the trilogy again one of these days. It's been 20 years.

 

[mattycsi]

As blasphemous as it is to Tolkien fans, I completely agree. Condensing the LotR trilogy for the movies was a fantastic move on Jackson's part. The books draw out as bad as a Dickens book, and the psuedo-medieval dialogue is clunky and a chore to read. The Jackson LotR movies are one of the best film adoptions specifically because they manage to successfully trim a very fat hog down to the meat, while still retaining the grandiose operatic tone of the source material.

Now I know you aint taking a sly pop at my boy Charles!!!

 

[pengbuzz]

I too care for the films more as they are better streamlined. In fact I think the Hobbit is a far better book as it doesn't meander as much as the Lord of the Rings. Granted I know the length of the trilogy is part of the world building, but there are instances where Tolkien's musings on Hobbit real estate and Tom Bombadil (and other unessential plot threads) carry on too long and slow down the imminent threat of danger. The film did well to excise these things to ensure Sauron's return and the quest to destroy the ring were at the center of the story without distracting the audience with filler.

I do intend to read the trilogy again one of these days. It's been 20 years.

I'll wait for the movie to come out. :rofl:

 

[Psab keel]

I think this video sums up the level of maturity and care put into movie franchises lately.

 

[drusselmeyer]

House is Wilson's imaginary friend.

 

[drusselmeyer]

Blade Runner is Holden's recurring nightmare - all versions of the film are equally valid being one continuous experience.

 

[Lost in Trek]

I don’t care for the LOTR films. I saw the first at a theater and was bored. Many years later, I decided to watch the second because people kept talking about how great they were. It was an excruciating experience. I could never muster up the desire to watch the third.

 

[edge10]

House is Wilson's imaginary friend.

 

[drusselmeyer]

-Still right about that.

 

[greenmachines]

Blade Runner is Holden's recurring nightmare - all versions of the film are equally valid being one continuous experience.

And in the flavor of jacob's ladder, he will awake deep in the past, in a cave, walk outside and take a spear to the chest, never having seen even one mechanized device

 

[Psab keel]

I never got into Blade Runner. It's not a bad film by any stretch, but it never grabbed me either. When it comes to Ridley Scott, Legend was a far more interesting and entertaining movie. Tim Curry's performance is one of his absolute stand outs.