George Parr

If I were to think that these clowns didn't make those statements just to rile up people, I'd point them at Raiders of the Lost Ark. In it, Belloq compares himself to Indy, and how the two have both "fallen from the pure faith". But that would require someone like the Critical Drinker actually being in any way an honest person interested in arguing in good faith, which he clearly is not. He is nothing more than a con-artists who enriches himself at the cost of gullible people who want to be lied to. Zero integrity. Seriously, the whole franchise has been about Indy improving himself, and getting rid of bad character traits. You'd have to be blind to miss Temple of Doom starting with Indy finding and selling items to criminals, only to end up saving children and the Sankara stones because it was the right thing to do.

That's the thing though, we only see Indy for a handful of days with each movie.. Then there is a gap of about 20 years, followed by another gap of 10-15 years. That's plenty yof time to "not see" characters. Sure, one can point to the wedding. But notice who else wasn't there? Willie, Short Round, Sallah, etc. There can be plenty of reasons why someone wasn't seen there, all you need is a logical sound one and you are golden. In this case, Tobey Jones' character might already have been dead, while Phoebe Waller-Bridge's character might have been too young to travel abroad, busy elsewhere, or simply estranged. She is just a goddaughter after all, that is hardly a particularly close connection. All of that can be explained in the movie. If such an explanation is missing in the movie, then you can wonder whether there is a whole in the story. I don't find characters not appearing before all that much of an issue. It kind of reminds me of the "we didn't see character X in the original trilogy, therefore he couldnt survive Rogue One" argument in Star Wars. It's a logical fallacy. In a galactic civil war, one person being part of one mission, yet not being seen in another, means nothing at all. A galaxy is a huge place, not constantly running into the same characters is a given. Absence isn't proof that the character doesn't exist (anymore), it is merely proof that the character plays no role in this particular storyline. While setting something up earlier on is preferable, not doing so works just fine as well, provided you can offer a decent explanation as to why a character wasn't seen before.

Don't see much of a problem with it. Sure, in theory you could just namedrop people in movies just for future reference, in case you need someone who sounds familiar once you connect that name to an actual role, but that is more something you can do in tv-shows, not so much in movies. There are also other factors involved. For one, we don't know yet how long the two know each other. Three out of four Indy movies played prior to WW2. If they got to know each other during the war, then he obviously couldn't appear in those. Then you have to add location. If the character is British, he wouldn't have much of a reason to appear in any of the movies, seeing how Indy never is in Britain or its vicinity in any of them. Short Round is in a movie connected to Asia, Sallah in movies connected to the Middle East / North Africa, neither appears when the movie is happening elsewhere. That is perfectly normal. It would in fact be rather odd if these people always showed up no matter where the action happens. The concept can feel odd if just dropped into an ongoing timeline. But here we have a large gap between the first three and the fourth movie, we have sonmeone from a place that has yet to be visited in the movies, and we don't even know his exact fate, so he may very well have been dead by the time he could have appeared (say, for Indy's wedding). This gives more than enough time and space to add such a character. Doesn't necessarily mean that it will work, but it could very well fit if done right.

No change with the second trend. I think there is a small typo in the numbers you listed yesterday though. John Wick 4 was at 40k, not 50k.

I really hope not, that would be terrible. He makes a grand entrance in season 1, and fails immediately. The same thing happens again in season 2, he faily even harder and gets captured. Then season 3 tops all that by having him You can't have a villain who constantly fails like that. Not only does it lack any sort of tension, because he fails as soon as he meets any of the heroes, but bringing him back from THAT would make Palpatine's return in Episode IX look masterfully executed.

Yeah, that was fun. Not great, but fun. Funnily enough, this is the third time in three seasons I preferred the setup to the finale to the finale itself Overall the season isn't a match to the first two for me. At its best the episodes were a match for the very good episodes of prior seasons, though not quite on the level of the selective truly great ones. But overall there was too much average stuff to not be a drop in quality.

Another really good episode. Loved the new planet in this one. Vibrant colours, sleek and modern look, finally plenty of people around that made it feel like a proper city. The story worked, there were some unique elements to it. Even a bit of "I, Robot" in there.

I agree, it was the best one yet. There was a bunch of minor stuff that seemed a bit off, but in itself the episode was really good, and the ending was very intriguing. Not among the really great episodes yet, but probably comparable to episodes 3 and 4 of season 2.

That whole thing was a given. It was part one of a trilogy, the bad guys were always going to come back and look more powerful than the heroes, that's what part 2 is for. Just look at the original trilogy. The Death Star gets destroyed. How does the next movie start? With the Empire hunting down the Rebels who are hiding in the middle of nowhere. TFA wa a bit sloppy in regard to just how capable each side was. It should made it clearer how powerful the First Order was. It mostly hinted that the Resistance was rather weak, but due to nothing about the official stance of the New Republic being mentioned, it remained a bit too vague. The resistance was meant as a group that was kind of shunned by the Republic due to being too "radical". The whole storyline mirrored the period from WW1 up to WW2. The general financial situation requiring a massive reduction in military capablities, as no one could afford the massive wartime armies anymore. A fallen Empire, rising from the ashes in an even more fanatical way, rearming in secret. Appeasement. Democracy undermined by elements who pretend they are democratic, or who use the means of democracy to undermine it. Attempts to whitewash those who were responsible for the past, attempts to make fanatical groups seem benign, while portraying those who warn about the threat as scare-mongers lusting for war. The elements are all there. And in itself it is a great basis for a story. Sadly, only a bare minimum of the circumstances got mentioned directly. JJ Abrams went more with the adventure and general feeling, not so much with an in-depth story behind the whole thing. Going with Empire vs. Rebels again was rather cookie-cutter. But in a way it offered the easiest way to please everyone. You could get the heros back, you could use the designs everyone knew and loved, and in a way it offered the biggest stakes as well. It appealed to the broadest possible audience, with no real risk involved. And seeing how the movie was received, it excelled at that. At the cost of not being the most creative, as well as being too vague about the whole scenario its story was based on.

This show just lacks the *oomph* for me this season so far. It's always kind of good, but there hasn't been a single episode that I felt was great. With just four episodes left, I don't think this season can match up with the last two. It would need an almost perfect streak the rest of the way for that. The dialogue has some issues that weren't quite that noticeable in the past, and it hasn't really had any magical moments like the last two seasons had. The fight-scenes have been good at times, but they haven't really offered anything unique either, so they can't really make up for other issues.

Well, yes, sometimes emotions trump everything else, that is very much true. And I don't see anything wrong in someone disliking a movie or even hating it if the person feels he needs to go there. That being said, one should not accept people throwing reality out of the window. Otherwise you end up with certain people and their alternative facts. People can feel whatever they want, but they do not have the right to lie about stuff or pretend that their feelings matter more than facts. At that point you simply have to draw the line. You shouldn't try to force your opinion onto them, but correcting incorrect statements is a given, even if you generally like the person (or maybe, especially then?). Someone's dislike for a movie is not wrong, there is no argument to be made against someone feeling he didn't like a movie. A person cannot be wrong about his own opinion. He can however make up faux reasons for it that go against what is actually happening in the movie, and that is not an opinion anymore. There is something you can have an opinion about (e.g. was a movie good or not), there are things that are open to interpretation, but there are also things that either happened or didn't happen. What one feels should have happened has no bearing whatsoever on whether the person behind a sequel followed up on what the first movie set up. Logic and reason may not convince someone who hates something that he is wrong, but that doesn't mean you should stop saying facts under such circumstances. If you let incorrect things stand, other people may confuse it for being true. Bad things happened way too often when people didn't speak up. Now, that is rather meaningless on such a largely irrelevant topic as a movie, but the principle remains the same. Not to mention that there are actual people behind these movies, whose lives are very much impacted if people lie about them or drag their name threw the mud out of petty personal feelings. Just look at Ahmed Best and Jake Lloyd. Someone who cares so much about his own feelings should maybe try and not trample over the feelings of everyone else, or it just comes off as entitlement. I have no issue with Baumer hating The Last Jedi, unless you consider feeling it would have been nicer if he had enjoyed it to be having an issue with it I very much remember him being very positive about Attack of the Clones back on the old BOM-forum, at a time when quite a few members were throwing mud at it. It would very much be preferable if people didn't need to hate something, but that's just not feasible. There are way too many people for there not to be a group to hate something. No matter what you do, someone will always dislike it. But disliking it does not give someone the right to make false claims.

Funny, I can't think of a single thing that was set up in TFA that was somehow "forgotten about" in TLJ, much less "shit on". The movie did in fact adhere strictly to everything TFA said. It was TFA that split up the heroes prior to the second part. It was TFA that claimed that Luke blamed himself for what happened and left everything behind, it was TFA that showed us that Finn cared mostly about Rey and saving his own skin and not about being a hero of the resistance. That the list goes on and on. I think some people just confuse what they read into the story - or wanted to happen - with what TFA actually said.

Some interesting stuff in there. The flow once again could have been better, but the content itself had some very cool elements to give a better picture of the New Republic, and tie everything more together.

I would agree with that. Definately a step up from the first one, but not really a match for the best the show has shown in the past. There is some cool stuff in there, but the flow isn't there yet. Dare I say it, it is almost a bit JJ Abrams'esque in the way it rushed through stuff so far and even dropped earlier storypoints quickly.

It never was, nor were any of the other movies really. It's just another case of a group of people shouting the loudest, and many people confusing that with them being a majority. That's barely ever actually the case though. What TLJ has, is a sizeable part of the fandom who cannot stand the movie at all. But they aren't remotely close to being the majority of the fandom, and they are even further away from being a majority among the general audience. In general terms, you tend to have the general public, which quickly moves on to the next thing, and who tends to be the a majority of the audience. Their reception can differ, but they aren't really getting involved in any debates about the movie. They were looking for some enjoyment, they either got it or they didn't, but it's not a big deal either way. Then you have the hyped fanboys, who tend to tell everyone how awesome the movie was in the early going after the release, before eventually quieting down. They might still talk about the movie in a smaller circle, but they don't feel the need to convince everyone how much they should love the movie once the initial rush is over. And then you have the detractors, who tend to be incapable of moving on. They try to make every debate about how much the movie sucks, and will continue to harp on about it for months or years. The latter are the worst, not because they dislike the movie, but because they cannot live without trying to make others feel bad about about the movie (or themselves for daring to like it).

Uh, no, it doesn't. Sometimes people aren't around, or just don't bother answering a question they might not care about. First off, I don't see where "low stakes" comes from in the first place. Sure, it didn't have the fate of the galaxy at stake, but that was about to be expected, considering who the character is and that it is just a tv-show. As a whole, the quest of the week format mostly stayed around, though there was a bit more of an overarching storyline. It was quite a bit different than the first one, though if you didn't love the first one I doubt that would change for the second one.

It was fine, I guess, but a season opener should have a bit more oomph than that. My feeling after the end was more of a Book of Boba Fett like "okay, lets see what they will do next week", and not a "gimme that next episode right now!" the way much of the last two seasons and Andor had done.

It's not a remake of an American classic, it is an adaption of a German book. Both movies being an adaption of said book doesn't make the newer movie a remake of the older one. Or would you consider Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies to be a remake of the 1978 animated movie? Not that there would be anything embarrassing about it regardless of the circumstances. Every year is different. Even if the new All Quiet on the Western Front were no match for the old one - which is up to debate and not a fact - it winning Best Picture would say nothing about the state of the American film industry. All it would really say, is that the majority of voters thought the output of the American film industry over the last year was not as good as this particular movie. It doesn't even give you a clue what they would say about the movie when compared to the movies of 2021 or 2023.

There is nothing malicious whatsoever in TLJ, such a claim is just nonsense.

Don't see it. First of, the death of Carrie Fisher kind of prevented them from doing anything else with her character. Secondly, the old heroes were not the main protagonist of the ST, they were mentors who passed on the torch. You know what happened to those kind of characters in the OT and PT? They died! Obi-Wan and Yoda died in the OT, and you can kind of add Anakin to that as well. Yet, ROTJ was most definately a happy ending. It's not like their deaths were somehow surprising. People were surprised that Harrison Ford returned at all, and then assumed that it would just a one off to get his character killed. The death of his character was essential to the story and character development of the antagonist. Luke was supposed to die in Episode VIII even in the story Lucas had written, which was also what happened to all Jedi masters we had seen before. Luke basically went out in the biggest blaze of glory of any character in the saga, sacrificing himself to save others, the epitome of what it means to be a Jedi. Maybe some people thought along the lines of "I love my old heroes, I don't want them to die", and that is fine, I didn't "need" to see them die either. But it certainly would be a sorry excuse of writing if they survived just because of that. IX had many issues, the fate of the big three was not one of them.

Are you sure that's admissions and not money? Insidekino has him a lot lower than that for the whole weekend, much less opening day. Anyway, here is the first trend ( http://www.insidekino.com/News.html ) #1 Avatar 2: 360k (-29%) #2 Die drei ???: 250-350k #3 Puss in Boots 2: 140k (-3%) Pathaan: 30k in limited viewings

First trend is up: http://www.insidekino.com/News.htm #1 Avatar 2 675k (-40%) #2 M3gan 170k #3 Puss in Boots 2 150k (-41%) #4 Operation Fortune 85k (-33%) #5 The Banshees of Inisherin 60k (-1%)

It certainly hasn't helped that the movies Hollywood produces don't really line up with German tastes anymore. Germany was really into comedies, especially romantic ones. They are all but gone now. Fantasy movies? Pretty rare these days, and for the most part either sequels or to material that isn't that well known here. Animated tentpoles? All but gone, all that is left are the 5th sequel to a once well-received franchise, or a multitude of rather generic animations. Marvel has certainly grown a lot over the last few years, but that's still just going from "nobody cares" to decent, and with the the biggest one like Endgame to "preyy big hit". A far cry from what you can see elsewhere. And if that's supposed to be the biggest movies around, you are kind of screwed. And as has been mentioned on insidekino again and again, and I think Mark G. also told it countless times in speeches in front of studio-managers: the schedules are simply horrendous. With worldwide releases being common these days, the whole thing runs counter to the way German cinema works. Here winter is the best time to release movies, it's the time where audiences are prepared to spend indoors as the weather just doesn't cut it. Sadly it is also the time Hollywood has little to offer outside of the recent trend to big christmas releases. To make matters worse, the studios also don't drop big German releases either, so they largely waste the best time of the year. And to top things off, they also couldn't be bothered to use common sense and avpoid competition. You will see two decently sized animated movies aimed at kids come out one week apart, only for none of this type to arrive over the next few months. People will go out and see a movie if you have something interesting to offer, but many weeks are wasted because there's just nothing with decent hype coming out as all studios try to cram their best movies into a few condensed months.

Huh? Glass Onion has little resemblance to Knives Out. It is a rather clear departure from what he did with the first one. And if he wasn't good at writing murder mysteries, then Knives Out wouldn't have had a great reception either (not to mention that this one has a rock solid one as well).

I agree with the "fun but not as good as the first one" comments. In a way it reminds me of the last the Jumanji movies, were the 2017 one was awesome but the follow up couldn't quite keep up. The mysteries and twists weren't quite a match for the first one either. Overall, I'd say 8/10, compared to 9 or 9.5 for Knives Out.