George Parr

Third trend is up, with hardly any changes. Only Halloween Kills drops by 2.5k, and two of the movies behind the top 6 drop by the same amount. #1: NTTD - 475 #2: Venom2 - 350k #3: Die Schule ... - 225k #4: Halloween Kills - 122.5k #5: BossBaby 2 - 75k #6: Dune - 65k

I really wouldn't say that it is divisive. If anything I'd say the exact opposite. It had a very good reception when it came out, and it has only gotten better since then. There isn't really any hatred for it either, the worst accounts are more along the lines of "meh". By now it seems to have taken over as the most popular Disney Star Wars movie among the general audiences. It's really the only movie that has trended upwards since its release. TFA went down due to its connection to the other sequels and overall lack of something new. TLJ and TROS were both divisive. Solo kind of got dragged down in all the mud-slinging and being released way too close to the most recent SW-movie. It just never got the large audience, though those who watch it tend to like it. Rogue One kind of hit the sweet-spot of coming out prior to any backlash, while also being different enough not to face criticism for lack of creativity. Andor is probably the show I look forward to the most. I never cared much for Boba Fett or characters from the animated shows, and some of the stuff that could perhaps be interesting is basically without any information at this point, like The Acolyte, making it hard to feel any hype. I'm interested in seeing Kenobi as well, especially to see all the familiar faces from the prequels again, but some of the stuff I have heard about it (without trying to hear anything about it) sound like something you really need to pull off exceptionally well for it to work.

He still wouldn't be correct though, as the vaccines didn't happen because of capitalism. Developing something in a capitalist society doesn't automatically mean that capitalism caused the development. Correlation doesn't always equal causation. Even more so when there are vaccines out there that weren't developed by private companies or under a capitalist system...

I really wouldn't call anything we have "more socialist". There is very little socialist about anything in Germany, or Europe for that matter Replacement days are common, but not exactly the standard either. Less than half of all countries have it, though I couldn't tell you how the share looks in the western world. As mentioned above, Germany has a minimum of 20 vacation days per year (well, 20 weekdays or 24 "Werktage", which includes Saturday), and the norm is above that, so holidays have a bit of a different character here and aren't as necessary as for example in the US. Whenever there is a debate about this matter, the argument in favour is that you shouldn't lose a day of rest due to a holiday falling on a weekend, while the argument against it is that holidays are generally meant to allow someone to celebrate a specific event, not to act as a replacement for vacation time. Many companies do treat Christmas eve and New Year's eve as half a holiday, so in many places you only need to use up half a day of vacation for each of them. The evening of the 24th is the most important part of christmas in Germany, so that's rather conveniant. Quite frankly, I'd care more about getting an equal amount of holidays for everyone over getting a replacement day. Right now some states have quite a few more holidays than others.

No, we don't have replacement days here. If a holiday falls on a weekend you don't get anything out of it, unless you happen to be one of those who work on the weekend. This year it is particularly pronounced, because basically all holidays linked to a date fall on the weekend. In my state, out of the six holidays that are bound to a date instead of a weekday, five fell on the weekend, only January 1st didn't. That left just the four days that are linked to a weekday instead (Good Friday, Easter Monday, Ascension Day and Pentecost), and they all happen in the first half of the year.

Theaters are still operation under pandemic-rules though. They have only limited capacity available, and, depending on the area, you either have to wear a mask even at your seat, or, at least everytime you are not in your seat. You also need to be vaccinated or have a negative test from that day. Some places also allow to drop all further rules (so no mask, no limited capacity) if you only allow vaccinated people into the theater. But that is only available in some states, and it is entirely optional for the theaters whether they allow only vaccinatied or vaccinated + tested people.

How noteworthy is the Hollywood Critics Association? Been a bit surprising to see The Mandalorian winning "Best streaming series, drama" over shows like The Crown or Handmaid's Tale in their Awards show.

Even Infinity War barely made it past 2b. No single-character Marvel movie ever even reached 1.4b. There is nothing that hints at this coming particularly close to 2b pre-pandemic. That's just getting caught in the hype. Endgame was the culmination of a long build-up, and it had the advantage of being an Avengers movie instead of being about a single character (with some support). Those are a far bigger draw worldwide than the single character ones. This movie wouldn't have matched Endgame domestically. Much less cleared the Infinity War level international performance necessary to get to 2b worldwide, or even go way beyond that to approach Avatar / Endgame. At this point you are talking about making more internationally than what the biggest single character movie had made worldwide. That's just making a ludicrous estimate for the sake of making a ludicrous estimate, not because there is any good argument for it. An even easier thing to make, considering you never have to prove it in any way.

Nice to see, though quite frankly I think by far the best performance came from Bill Burr in Chapter 15. That's the role that definately should have gotten a nomination. I'd also put the writing of that chapter way above that of chapter 16, which I don't think was all that great in that regard.

Second trend is up. Some drops at the top, some raises right behind. #1 Peter Rabbit 2 125k #2 Godzilla vs Kong 105k #3 Catweazle 105k #4 The Conjuring3 100k #5 AQPII 75k #6 Nomadland 57.5k #7 Nobody 25k #8 100% Wolf 22.5k #9 Monster Hunter 13k #10 Der Spion 10k #10 Ich bin dein Mensch 10k

That's true for me as well. I was so glad that this part seemed to be done and over with at the end of the first movie, only for it to return and take center stage in part two...

No, you think they wanted to do that, that is all. There is zero proof that they had any interest in that. Shia was chosen because a) he was a upcoming young star at that point and b) because it was Spielberg who "found" him. In no way does that mean that they ever had any plans to continue with him. This wasn't the Disney era, they didn't do movie after movie because just they could.

I don't think the movie was meant as passing the torch at all. If anything, they made it abundantly clear that they wouldn't do that by having Indy snatch his hat out of Mutt's hands at the wedding.

That's just a theoretical exercise though. They went through multiple writers with multiple stories already. There isn't really any reason to assume that they are hellbend on one specific story, to the point that they would tell Mangold that he would need to focus on it. Who exactly would tell them to focus on a story anyway? Lucas? He isn't involved with the movie. Spielberg? He may still be involved in some capacity, but he was hardly interested in the space stuff the last time around, so why would he force the issue now? That leaves Harrison Ford, and he wasn't really into anything involving aliens either. There are always people who worry about something, just like there are people who automatically assume that every rumour they hear must be true, regardless of how valid the source or how uncertain some elements may be.

That's a really odd way to judge things... James Mangold is both writer and director of this movie. If the story would include elements that you don't like, why on earth would you blame that on Disney or Lucasfilm and not the person who is actually creating the story? Does anyone really believe that Mangold would write and direct a story that isn't to his liking? Sounds rather like selective picking to me, e.g. "I like a director, he did something I didn't like, therefore someone else must have been the problem". That's little different from the nonsense about Kennedy, and how she is somehow personally responsible for anything "bad" in Star Wars, yet does not get one ounce of praise for the "good" things she had the exact same role in.

Ford was just fine when Indy 4 came out. And whether he is too old now depends entirely on what happens in the movie. It makes no sense to judge a role when you don't know what the role contains in this particular instance. Playing the same character doesn't somehow require doing the exact same things you did when you were younger.

I don't see how one appearance at an award show - something Harrison Ford never was that fond of - somehow is supposed to tell us anything about how he would look in a movie. I once saw Billy Dee Williams, that was back in 2004 or so. He looked completely out of it, tired and barely remembering things. 15 years later he was still alive and kicking, and very much capable of acting in tv-shows and movies. One apperance doesn't mean anything.

Really? I would have said the exact opposite. He kind of lost a bit of interest in Han Solo, though he was just fine getting back into that role later on. He wouldn't have been involved in two new movies if he hadn't been interested in it. When it comes to Indiana Jones though, he was always very passionate about that role. He was the one who constantly tried to get Spielberg and Lucas to get the 4th one going. If anything I'd say it has always been his favourite role.

I don't think that comparison really works. Star Wars returned to its old hero characters, while Indy 4 never left the hero behind in the first place. I don't think the interest will come remotely close to that of Indy 4. I'd also say that some past movies get a bit of an reputation that they didn't have back in the days. ESB and ROTJ didn't have particularly good reviews when they came out, that only changed later on. Same with Temple of Doom, which had a very mixed reaction when it came out. Now it generally sits below the 1st and 3rd one, but is still considered a classic, while the 4th one gets torn down even though its immediate reaction wasn't all that different from the one ToD got. In some cases movies get lumped together even though they didn't necessarily get a similar reaction. Temple of Doom kind of gets a boost from the love for the original three movies, even though it is quite a bit behind the other two when you look at most means of measuring popularity. On the other hand, Revenge of the Sith often gets lumped in with the other two prequels by those who don't like those movies, even though it is vastly more popular than the other two and never was even remotely close to having a mixed reaction. Who exactly are the people who expect that, and why would you somehow blame Solo - which isn't bad at all - on someone who only played a side-character in it? Solo had a bad box office run, but it never was unpopular among those who actually watched it. Mostly because it is actually a pretty entertaining movie.

I don't know about that. They did have Alden Ehrenreich as Han, but that was him playing a Han before we met Han. That's different from recasting Luke, as you would go from young Luke played by Mark Hamill, to older Luke played by Stan, to old Luke being played by Hamill. That might be a bit weird. If they were really interested in going that route, they could have already done that with Luke's cameo in the last episode of The Mandalorian. I don't think it is impossible, but I wouldn't exactly bet on it happening anytime soon either.

I never understood where anyone got the idea from that Finn was supposed to be a Jedi or take on Kylo Ren alongside Rey. Nothing in TFA even indicated anything like that. Everything connected to the force happened exclusively to Rey. She was the clear cut protagonist, Kylo Ren the antagonist. Finn was a co-star, and that's what he was throughout the trilogy. He wasn't cast aside, he didn't drop from Rey's level to a lesser one, mostly because he never was on her level in terms of being the main star. He was what Han and Leia where in the OT, important characters, but not the main hero who challenges the antagonist. That was Luke's role in the OT, and Rey's role in the ST. There is exactly one connection of him to the Jedi, and that was one of the trailers having a shot of him holding a lightsaber. But showing something in a trailer has never meant anything, and it certainly doesn't mean that TFA tried to portray him as a possible Jedi, it never even hinted at it. And what exactly is "Following Finn's story after Episode IX would be the first time since The Force Awakens that creators would move the timeline forward rather than back." even supposed to mean? All the ST-movies moved the timeline forward, so how exactly would such a show be the first time doing that since TFA? It gets even weirder than that. The author talks about an ideal starting point between VIII and IX, and then suddenly moves to post IX. Now which one is it? And how is a character underutilized, when there hasn't been a ton of new stuff since he was last seen? Since then, there has been only one season of The Mandalorian, that's basically it. Basically all movie-characters have not been utilized since IX came out. This isn't a case like Lando, where new movies and projects happened and he was the ony major characters who wasn't involved. The whole article is just all over the place. I don't think having Finn in a tv-show would do much at this point. First of, John Boyega would need to be interested in that, and it didn't really sound that way. Things can obviously change in the future, but it doesn't seem like something that would come into play in the near future. Then there is the topic of possible movies in the future. They might not want to define what happens to a character when doing that could limit the story they might want to tell in movies in the future. Which isn't to say that they couldn't create a show that enhances characters the way The Clone Wars enhanced prequel characters. But I doubt that something like this would be a) live-action, and b) a continuation of the story instead of something that fills gaps.

That sort of thing has happened in many countries, an not just with Facebook. E.g. there was a longstanding issue between Google and the media in the EU. Google made use of any sort of media for their Google news area, without paying any money for it. Various entitities weren't too pleased with Google benefitting from something they didn't have any rights to, while not giving anything to those who actually worked for it. Both sides do have a point in such a discussion. On the one hand, it is rather unfair that a company like Google can just use the work of other people to earn money, without giving any of it to those who actually write the news. But at the same time, the press does benefit from the exposure they gain at such an important hub as Google, so it's not like they don't get anything out of it. Hence the desire to get compensation and keep Google linking to those stories. That being said, Google can kind of control who gets this exposure, which allows them to influence who gets the most exposure ouf of it. After quite a few years, they've finally settled the issue, I think.

Yeah, right. She made questionable comment after questionable comment. There is exactly one person who is to blame for all this, and it's her and her alone. Trying to twist this into people trying to silence others is absurd from start to finish. Maybe you can excuse her first comments, but everything that followed was a gongshow. She lied about the pandemic, she lied and spread conspiracy theories about the election again and again. And then she agreed with a completely lunatic comparison to the Holocaust. Every company has the right to decide who it wants to work with, and if a specific worker continuously acts in a way that just isn't acceptable, it can part ways with said person. That happens countless times every day. But somehow here it is supposed to be "cancel culture". What a bunch of bs. It's just weird to act as if a person should be immune from repercussions concerning his own acts. That's the anti-thesis of free-speech. It basically gives immunity to those who act without regard for others, while punishing those who don't accept such a behaviour. And don't even start with that "this is what the Nazis thought" stuff, as you completely distort what actually happened. In fact, the Nazis, prior to the rise to power made use of this exact tactic, making outrageous claims, poisening the minds of people, hiding behind "free speech", and trying to paint themselves as the victims when anyone dared to speak up against their vile garbage. As per your logic, anyone who tried to push back against them would be guilty of cancelling them. Do you recognize how stupid that sounds? It's simply rich to portray defending democry as the evil deed, while painting those who try to destroy it as the victims who "merely voiced their opinions". You don't get to sabotage democracy, only to pretend that you did nothing wrong when someone dares to push back on it. There definately are cases where people go after other people because they cannot stand the opinion of the other person, and yes that is true for both extremes, but this particular case has nothing whatsoever to do with that. She had more than enough chances not to make a fool out of herself, and she opted against it. Disney has every right to break any connections to people who act in such a way. That isn't cancelling someone, that's having consequences for your actions. Gina Carano is free to voice her opinion about any matter she wishes, and everyone else is equally free to voice their opinion about her opinion, including not wanting to be associated with her anymore. Saying that such a thing is not okay would be nothing more than stealing the right to free speech from those YOU don't agree with.

How exactly would delivering the first Indiana Jones game in over a decade constitute "oversaturating" the franchise? This is something that should have happened a very long time ago. It was negligent on their side not to deliver any Indiana Jones games, and that was true even before Lucas sold his companies to Disney.