George Parr
-
Posts
1,878 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by 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
-
3
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Val357 said:
I for one LOVE Rogue One. Adore it. It seems to be very divisive but it's my favourite Disney Star Wars movie. Needless to say I also love the Cassian Andor character and glad that Lucasfilm is deciding to play a little more in the sandbox with him and his world. Looking forward to it!
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.
-
54 minutes ago, keysersoze123 said:
While I wont support chicago's abrasive posts, but we have tools to fight COVID. He meant vaccines.
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...
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, titanic2187 said:
But losing a holiday to calendar effect, I can't believe in a more socialist country like in Germany, this is overlooked. Normally a replacement holiday for PH falls on Sunday is a practice for many countries out there. Some private enterprise even give a half-day off on friday for PH falls on Saturday.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, titanic2187 said:
1.1m is a bit lower than I expected, I recall Spectre has higher opening and 1.1m was almost the 2nd weekend of Spectre.
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, clockwork said:
Out of all the characters in this series Credence is the one I care the least about
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...
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, filmlover said:
They were definitely banking on Shia taking over the franchise in some form (sequel, spin-off, who knows) since he was clearly being set up by the industry to be the early-20-something actor who was going to conquer Hollywood at the time (which obviously didn't pan out due to a series of self-inflicted wounds but that's another story). Obviously we have very little information about the plot for this but the fact the cast for this one looks to be devoid of fresh-faced 20-somethings indicates they were aware of avoiding heading down that road again.
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.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, filmlover said:
Given that the last one was supposed to be a "passing of the torch" conclusion where one door closed and another one opened (and it didn't work out), I doubt they'll be going that route again. Hopefully having a new director who has already proven he can handle action scenes taking over will result in this one being much less divisive.
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.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Macleod said:Spoiler
Um, yes. Nazis have always been human beings, that's kind of the point. It is rather ridiculous to portray them as anything but human beings, as such a thing would imply that those acts weren't done by humans but by some sort of monsters, thus not being something a "regular" human could do. That is obviously the exact opposite of what you want to portray.
That being said, this is a pulp action series, with over the top villains. I really don't see any reason why Disney would somehow stay away from Nazis as villains if that is what the story would ask for. If they are fine with space Nazis, the destruction of whole planets, and killing the entire main cast of the movie, there really isn't any reason to assume that Nazis in an adventure-movie would be any kind of issue.
-
15 hours ago, Macleod said:
To offer a fair counterpoint: Filmmakers compromise all the time for big studio product. If Lucasfilm/Spielberg/Disney comes to Mangold and offers him the keys to the Indiana Jones kingdom (no pun intended), do you think he or almost anyone else wouldn't be agreeable to at least a bit of compromise/debate on story/approach? I'm sure Mangold's as work-with-able as any other top tier filmmaker worth their salt...if they weren't, they don't get to the level they do on studio productions. Mangold is a splendid storyteller who I think has only gotten better with each film lately, and I'm sure he'll be willing to fight for what he believes is the right vision for this...but he wouldn't have gotten the job unless they knew he would be able to "work with them" too.
Indeed, I think everyone is putting the cart ahead of the horse in terms of worrying about said possible plot point. It would be nice if there weren't a "nuke the fridge" moment here...but we'll see.
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.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Mango said:
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.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Just now, Chicago said:
Ford was too old when Indy 4 was out, he's definitely too old now
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.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, dudalb said:
After seeing him at the Oscars, Ford is too old, period.
Time to admit reality, folks: if the franchise is to continue, they should reboot with a younger Indy. Otherwise just let it die a peaceful death.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:
I’m not sure about that. Ford has made it pretty clear that he really doesn’t care for his franchise roles. He never seemed very passionate about roles like Han Solo and Indiana Jones.
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.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, VenomXXR said:
If Crystal Skull was the Phantom Menace of the Indy franchise (poorly received follow up to 3 great initial films from decades prior) then this has to be the Force Awakens.
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.
4 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:Lots of people expect this to be a better film or something just because Waller-Bridge is in it but the other Lucasfilm she starred in was like the worst thing to come from them since Disney bought the company.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Valonqar said:
I think they will recast Luke with a younger actor (Sebastian Stan?) so that they could use his character more especially in post-ROTJ/pre-TFA stretch that they are exploring on various shows (Mando, Rangers of the New Republic, Ahsoka).
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
20 hours ago, AndyK said:
Aus Gov't: You cannot provide free links to Australian news websites.
Facebook: Ok, we'll stop linking to those sites then.
Aus Gov't: No, wait, we want you to link to them, but you have to pay for the privilege.
Facebook: Nah, we'll pass.
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.
-
59 minutes ago, Chicago said:
Her fans attacked her and called her racist for not openly supporting BLM. She was hated for openly supporting Trump and since then fans have been on a cancel quest. She's said some dumb things around the pandemic (like a certain other marvel minority actresses on the disney payroll) but i can't help but agree with her when it comes to virtue signallers on the attack constantly. It's definitely political.
Social media has just become a cesspit of 'my opinion is the correct one and if you disagree then you are wrong and deserve cancelling' which ironically is very similar to how Nazi's thought.
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.
-
18
-
1
-
The Book of Boba Fett | December 29, 2021 | Temuera Morrison and Ming-Na Wen star
in Streaming, TV Series, & VOD Movies
Posted · Edited by George Parr
That's basically my opinion as well, there wasn't anything that really wowed me. The lines that hint at the storyline don't do much for me. Not that the show was among those I cared most about in the first place.
All that obviously won't stop me from seeing it as soon as every episode is available