Thought Shadowrun was going to get it's due. For the non geek Shadowrun in a role-playing game like D+D but with a mix of classic fantasy and Sci-fi.
That's because she's going against popular opinion. Popular and informed are not the same thing.
Not as good as the first one, I liked the first one ...it picks up a little bit latter the beginning was slow.
My problem was less with discarding him and more with him being so out of character. I mean, Luke's whole thing in Return of the Jedi is that he saw a sliver of good in his father and risked all to bring him back to the light side. And yet with Kylo Ren, his nephew....
There are many different movie genres and each one appeals to a certain group of people. So I really don't understand her comments. I can agree to the fact that many of these movies are cheap thrills (ok storylines, a bunch of jokes - some good some bad, and a good deal of action/explosions/etc. and cool visuals). They make studios a ton of money and considering some movies are flops, it's good to have sure-things that will generate cash to offset losses. At the same time, these big budget films give studios and actors the chance to participate in other projects that will be less successful financially but the films may be very good (and potential Oscar winners). Granted, 50 years from now people won't be watching Iron Man - there will be something current that is generating the buzz. And classic films and great films with amazing acting/storylines will still be watched or even taught. But for now, we all need some simplistic entertainment.
So, what you want 50 years later is the same story recycled? My issue with the force awakens is it felt like a new hope redone - wasn't good. So recycling the same theme sounds like a waste of time. I didn't like the Force awakens because it was slow and drawn out. Most of the star wars films are. I like a 90 min film as much as a 3 hour film as long as in both cases, I'm interested and engaged. Don't put in long scenes of walking or landscape or slow dialogue that goes nowhere and just adds more time/length to a film.
I agree with much of what you're saying and enjoy highbrow movies, or as a past roommate put it, artsy fartsy, but also feel it's important to bring out the inner child every now and again when appropriate, like watching a movie with my 10 yr old nephew. I consider myself to be a well rounded individual that can be taken pretty much anywhere and have a good time, making the most of any situation. If I spend the whole time disdaining something I may miss the hidden beauty within. As William Cowper's poem "The Task" says, `Variety is the very spice of life, That gives it all it's flavor."
What's not to understand? I'm merely pointing out that interestingly one board leans one way and another board leans the other with regard to this topic. Clearly the active members of each board are quite different in their viewpoints, which is often the case. I can post the same thing here and there and usually get very different reactions, even though many of the members do frequent both boards, favouring posting on one more so over the other.
I just saw this recently and it didn't really do much for me. Hans Zimmer's score is just way too overwhelming, it's like in every damn scene. The sound mixing and design was stellar tho, it'll give your surround system a workout, and the IMAX scenes are good too, just couldn't get into it really.
Couldn't agree more. Now it's nothing more than a corporate flagship, the marketing campaign was gargantuan. Not that the franchise ever had a positive message, in their galaxy there is no hope. George Lucas wore his far right heart on his sleeve with the prequels. So much for the franchise having legs.
I am a little confused by your response. The comments I'm referring to are Jodie Foster's. To me they are a bit nonsensical as the money from the big budget films help pay for other films, directly or indirectly.
Actually, Don Draper also quoted you, used the term "her" and it appears just as ambiguous. However, if one reads everything afterwards, it's crystal clear that we both were referring to Jodie. Yes I agree I can be more clear in the future, but at the same time, I would likely have used "you" or your name somewhere in there to be clear I was referring to you. Looking back, I'll admit I'm not sure why I did quote you - should have been Don only.
