Final trailer. Okay! Wow! Much better! They were playing fucking tiddlywinks before! If the whole flick is as good as this, I think it could top "Return".
Rotta the Hutt first appeared as a baby in the Clone Wars movie. So, I'm thinking bare minimum, that'll tie Ahsoka in.
I would love for the movie to have a scene where Baby Yoda slurps down a baby Hutt right after it's born. But for that to work a newborn Hutt would need to be the size of a frog. Other than that. I don't really have any interest in the movie. The last good Star Wars movie was Rogue One.
Saw it, loved it. Second best of the "A Star Wars Story" movies. 1. "Rogue One" 2. "Mando & Grogu" 3. "Solo". As a season of Mando, tied with season 2. I have spoken.
That would require restarting my subscription. I let it expire because everything coming out was crap. If other people let what's coming out, then they can support crap. I don't miss it. And the Star Wars movies I enjoy I have the Blu-rays and have them ripped to a media server.
Here's what's crazy. In 2015, when The Force Awakens came out, it was the 3rd highest grossing film of all time - behind Avatar and Titanic. Here we are 11 years later watching a truncated season 4 of the Mandalorian as Star Wars's shaky attempt to rehabilitate itself. Like seriously, what the fuck happened?
Maybe that’s why there’s like 5 years between seasons, like Ahsoka. They just want to keep you paying your monthly fee
I believe it, if you sign up for a year you get a lower price. But then your subscription renews before the new season comes out, and then you paid for three years or more to watch two seasons.
I don't care about that shit. I care if I was entertained. I wasn't expecting "Empire Strikes Back". I went in knowing it was a Mando episode with more effects money. It had enough neat and funny stuff in there to make me smile. It was better than "Solo" and I liked "Solo". Modern Star Wars hasn't made me miserable like some of you guys. But then, I ignore YT channels with scowling guys in the thumbnails. I go into these with that crap muted. Now, should I "demand better!! ". Maybe. I feel like I already got that juicy Star Wars during the novel era. I get it now from Trek. I get it now from books that'll never be corporatized. Star Wars was never "Moby Dick" or "War and Peace" or "Dune". You guys say "demand better!!" I say "lighten up ".
Just saw it. It was decent and entertaining enough, but really should have been season four. The first two seasons are better.
I enjoyed it. Slightly too long; could have been cut to under two hours. I appreciated the claymation stop-motion effects for the tiny mechanic creatures and the two large battle droids at the end. Go see it!
Let me preface by saying: I haven't seen it yet. I'm in the middle of helping my two oldest daughters move to Alabama, so my free time right now is pretty much nonexistent. Now, that said: A major critique i keep seeing is "This doesn't feel like a movie!" And, I don't understand. What is missing? Does every Star Wars film need a planet-destroying superweapon to make it feel cinematic? I don't get it. Does "The Producers" feel like a movie? Does "The Birdcage"? Does "Ghost World"? Hell, take out DeNiro and Pesci, and does "Casino" feel like a movie? Forget that whole idea, then. The main question anyone should ask is, "Was it a good story? Was I entertained?" If the answer is yes, then Bravo, it was a good movie. Let's stop adding unquantifiable qualifiers as a way to criticize a film.
The argument is that it feels more like just a two or three part episode, rather than a movie. Take Insurrection for example, it felt more like a two part TNG than a stand alone movie. Get the difference? Probably not.
But a movie, regardless of genre, should capture enough of your attention that you don't notice the passage of time very much, and you feel like you've experienced something. I'll never forget walking out of the Coneheads movie and thinking, "That didn't feel like a movie." As for "unquantifiable qualifiers," well, that's a good part of what's involved with describing art. Person A can say a movie made them "feel" a particular way, while Person B will say it made them "feel" a different way. And both might agree that they can understand why the other person feels the way that they do about the movie, while not sharing that feeling about it. Don't forget that we humans have a subconscious, and that subconscious helps us inform our views on the world. So, someone might not know exactly why they feel a certain way about a film, but that doesn't mean that they're wrong about it. It could, quite simply, be that their subconscious has twigged on that their conscious mind missed. You remember that scene early on in "Dead Poets Society" where they read from the textbook about graphing the "greatness" of a poem? And how Robin Williams points out the absurdity of that by saying, "I like Byron, but I can't dance to him, so I only give him a five."? Or, to quote Archibald MacLeish, "Poetry should not mean, but be." That's hardly a quantifiable assessment, yet an understandable one, that applies to all art forms. I cannot articulate to you precisely why I hate David Johansen/Buster Poindexter with the fury of a thousand suns, but I do, and if you try to make me watch anything with him in, I will club you like a baby harp seal. Are my feelings about that somehow lesser than my feelings that Matt Damon and Tom Hanks are both actors with a limited range, because I can't specify what it is I don't like about Johansen? Or is it simply that there are aspects of being human which are difficult to articulate and one of the reasons why we create art is to try and give some kind of expression to those aspects that cannot be directly described?
"He-Man/She-Ra: Secret of the Sword" came out in theaters, and it was literally just the She-Ra pilot that would be on TV for free a year later. "Transformers The Movie" was actually a movie with the animation plused, and more violence than you could typically see on the show. Nonetheless, two years later, they chopped it up into 4 episodes of the show for free. Would "Transformers The Movie" be a fake movie if they had played it as episodes first? Here's a trickier one though. "GI Joe The Movie" was intended to be a feature, but never made it to the theaters, and went right to TV as episodes. Where does that land? Yeah. See, we've done all this before.
If "Mandalorian and Grogu" got sent back in time, and came out as your post-ROTJ present instead of Ewock movies, would past-you have shit his pants with joy? Fuck yes, he would. And you all know it.
Eh... not a great example because this is more devious than you know. Transformers The Movie was animated as a TV show first. They animated it in 4:3. To get the theatrical version, they cropped the TV version to create a widescreen format. So if you saw it in the theater then you actual saw LESS of the movie than the kids who watched it at home for free. They were always going to put it on TV and they designed it that way from the start. So some might consider that a fake movie.
From here. So, the theatrical crop and the TV crop were both cropped off something a bit in between. (Yeah, "a bit" is doing a lot of lifting there, but fuck it )
What, in your opinion, made Insurrection feel more like a two-part TNG episode than a standalone movie? Or more to the point, if you believe the Mandalorian and Grogu also felt like a two-part episode of "The Mandalorian," what specifically caused it to feel that way? The level of special effects? The amount of action (or lack thereof)? The amount of energy spent on characterization? Something else? As Crosis was alluding to, not all movies are the same shape and size. What is the difference between Insurrection "feeling like a two-part episode of TNG" and, say, TWOK not feeling like a two-part episode of TOS (other than TOS not really having those, and the budget)?
