The standalone series is set in the same time frame as <em>The Mandalorian</em> and <em>Ahsoka</em>.
See full article...
See full article...
I commend your deft omission of the 4th Indy movie.Yeah, Temple of Doom was terrible, for a lot of reasons. When showing my childhood classics to my kid, I did the same thing as your dad—we watched all the Star Wars, Raiders, an the third Indy movie.
However, I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the newest Indiana Jones movie. The de-aged prologue was pretty bad, but once you get past that, it’s a really fun adventure with a completely bonkers ending. I’m bummed that it bombed, as I’d love to have seen more movies with Phoebe Waller-Bridge taking over for Indy.
What, is The Goonies not "good enough" for you!? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah!)Have any of you watched The Goonies lately?
It is awful.
I'm expecting "gotta go fast".Hopefully, just once, they have Jaleel White's character ask, "Did I do that?"
False.Have any of you watched The Goonies lately?
It is awful.
The 4th one wasn't that bad, it could have done with being about 30 minutes shorter but it was an good Sunday afternoon film. I don't know why they don't set an Indiana Jones set in South America, it would be dead easy to do. Puts fingers in my ears la la la laI commend your deft omission of the 4th Indy movie.
When I was a child, x was magical.I'm a jagged, fickle Star Wars fan because when I was young, the Star Wars movies seemed magical. But now that I've grown up, Star Wars somehow seems childish. It's certainly not me who changed, so it must be Star Wars.
The bar for those awards must be staggeringly low. Temple of Doom would be bad without Short Round, but that character sure doesn't help.You do realize that Ke Huy Quan won a Young Artist Award and was nominated for a Saturn Award for his performance as Short Round, right? And he was also in The Goonies? (What to speak of his Oscar-winning performance in Everything Everywhere All At Once as well as his outstanding supporting performance in Loki S02.)
George Lucas was clearly going through Some Shit as far as women were concerned at that moment, but it was weirdly discordant to have a strong, hard-drinkin', ass-kicking female protagonist in Raiders replaced for no apparent reason by a shrill, wimpy, grating character that seemingly existed to piss everyone else off.Short Round was definitely not the problem with Temple of Doom. The irritating director's wife and the racist portrayal of (famously vegetarian) people as monkey brain connoisseurs was a bigger problem.
Who among us does not enjoy a Baby Ruth bar when it is offered?False.
Goonies speaks to the truth of the human condition.
Temple of Doom was set in 1935 , Raiders was set in 1936. Karen Allen's character couldn't be in Temple of Doom without retconing Raiders.George Lucas was clearly going through Some Shit as far as women were concerned at that moment, but it was weirdly discordant to have a strong, hard-drinkin', ass-kicking female protagonist in Raiders replaced for no apparent reason by a shrill, wimpy, grating character that seemingly existed to piss everyone else off.
Temple of Doom was probably some of John Williams' best work. The Parade of the Slave Children is right up there with The Imperial March and Asteroid Field from Empire.I recently did a rewatch of the three Indy movies (and there were only ever 3) and Short Round was probably the only redeeming thing about Temple. It is not a movie that aged well (nor was it that well regarded in the first place).
It made me realise why my dad and I watched Star Wars and the first and third Indy movie a thousand times, but Temple of Doom never really entered the rotation.
I think the major problem is they are marketing Star Wars to the adults and lost the magic that the original 3 movies had. They were just campy fun. Then the prequels tried to hard to be more serious and there are parts of them that harken to the originals. The sequels were just a CGI fest with recycled stories.A New Hope with its primary target audience being tweens, a classic fable dressed in sci-fi tropes that had enough charm to be interesting to a wider audience than just the target one.
It's like watching Pixar movies which are aimed for kids but have a strong enough story beat to keep the adults in the room.
The trailer for Star Wars: Skelton Crew actually had more of an ET rather than a Goonies feel. It definitely felt like an eighties movie from the trailer and I can see why they would try and go back to the original core demographic.
The old sourpusses complaining about kids entertainment being made for kids really need to do some soul searching and get a hobby. The vibe you guys give off is Simpson's Comic Book Guy's sidekick.
Poe's Law and all, but the sarcasm was palpable and you are reiterating their real point.When I was a child, x was magical.
Now that I am an adult, x seems childish.
Seems like x must be aimed at children, then. Not that there's anything wrong with being an adult and liking stuff made for kids. Just don't hold it to the same standards that you would if it was meant for an audience with a more nuanced view of the world.
Stop using that cheap and sloppy churned out vocabulary...Smart producers find passionate creators who have a stories to tell, let them make movies or TV shows, and then sell that to make money.
Dumb producers pay hacks to churn out soulless slop until the well runs dry and then look around for something else to choke the life out of.
As a 'soft' Star Wars fan for most of my life, I could not possibly care less about the last five years of Star Wars films and TV shows, and this is no different.
You should care about Andor. Everything else? Meh, generally, but there are some highlights, e.g. S1 (and I'd argue S2) of The Mandalorian.Smart producers find passionate creators who have a stories to tell, let them make movies or TV shows, and then sell that to make money.
Dumb producers pay hacks to churn out soulless slop until the well runs dry and then look around for something else to choke the life out of.
As a 'soft' Star Wars fan for most of my life, I could not possibly care less about the last five years of Star Wars films and TV shows, and this is no different.
Great, now I'm imagining Vader as the black knight. ::heavy breathing:: tis but a flesh wound ::heavy breathing::The Jedi knights who say Ni
I think I have seen the Obi Wan/Anakin battle dubbed with that scene, but not currently in a position to search YouTube for it.Great, now I'm imagining Vader as the black knight. ::heavy breathing:: tis but a flesh wound ::heavy breathing::
Exactly my initial reaction!Star Wars
Stranger Goonies
Poe's Law, indeed. After scrolling past so much self-serious chestbeating and rending of clothes over the direction of the property, I didn't see intelligence when it was right before me.Poe's Law and all, but the sarcasm was palpable and you are reiterating their real point.
....cough cough... Rogue One ... cough cough...Star Wars is at its best when it is a focused adventure story with some distant allusions to whatever it is that is going on in the universe, but doesn't really get into those weeds much.
Andor being the exception but Andor is so amazing that it gets to be the exception.
I'd argue Rouge One proves that ... both ways.....cough cough... Rogue One ... cough cough...
44% of them are... and there's nothing racist about saying that indians are "famously vegetarian".Err most Hindus are not vegetarian. Bang on about racist assumptions and then make one yourself.
Rogue One would have been a better movie outside the SW universe.I'd argue Rouge One proves that ... both ways.
It is best when it is an adventure story. Worst when it shoehorns in some other things.
Is 44% most?44% of them are... and there's nothing racist about saying that indians are "famously vegetarian".
Is 44% most?
Apart from they aren't famously vegetarian. Go into an Indian restaurant anywhere in the world and you will find meat dishes.44% of them are... and there's nothing racist about saying that indians are "famously vegetarian".
From a BBC report:44% of them are... and there's nothing racist about saying that indians are "famously vegetarian".
(emphasis mine)If you go by three large-scale government surveys, 23%-37% of Indians are estimated to be vegetarian. By itself this is nothing remarkably revelatory.
But new research by US-based anthropologist Balmurli Natrajan and India-based economist Suraj Jacob, points to a heap of evidence that even these are inflated estimations because of "cultural and political pressures". So people under-report eating meat - particularly beef - and over-report eating vegetarian food.
Taking all this into account, say the researchers, only about 20% of Indians are actually vegetarian - much lower than common claims and stereotypes suggest.
Literally yes unless we're including random small web projects, but I feel like it's possible to tell the difference between something that is the materialization of a vision and something that is the product of focus groups and data mining. Star Wars, Marvel, and.. most large franchises have felt like the latter for a long, long time.Isn't every show out there to make money?
I watched it again as an adult and of course it didn’t work as well as when I first viewed it, when I was about the same age as the protagonists.Have any of you watched The Goonies lately?
It is awful.