Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Starver]

(Sorry, it is awfully off-topic, but I do have to say that I'm far more enamoured of Sherlock (w/Cumberbatch), though liked what few early eps I saw of Elementary. Of course, they were modern (re)tellings, so for period(ish) retellings I'd probably have to say Clive Merrison's straight version reigns supreme (the pictures are better on radio!), with a guilty fascination for Young Sherlock (Nicholas Rowe) and the quite off-piste ones with Roy Hudd (radio again!) and Michael Caine (the Without A Clue inversion).)


As a pale and palid on-topicality to justify the above comment I've been pondering (inhibited by my not having actually sought access to Disney+ stuff, legitimately or otherwise, so no Mandalorian for me, yet) where the SW vehicle is going to go next.

Probably no more direct trilogy-of-trilogy movies (except in the Douglas Adams sense?), so they'll be infill movies (Rogue One/Solo) and spin-offs/-arounds (like aforementioned Mandalorian, various clones/rebels/ewoks in animations) as DTV/series format. But any particular elements, restamped from EU/ripped straighter from current-canon?

It ideally should be a sufficiently plot-sized hole that they might care to write for. I'd quite like to see more (obv. prequel) Chirrut tales, but fear it'd be very much just a Kung Fu (Carradine) rehash, plus now being prequel spin-off of prequelly in-fill material, so they probably shouldn't listen to me...

[Duuvian]

Oh hey doublepost

'Wokeness killed Han Solo': Adam driver hosts SNL
https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2023/12/10/snl-adam-driver-recap-monologue-baby-plane-julia-stiles-save-the-last-dance-mgw-orig.cnn

Spoiler: My opinion on the matter with offtopic Star Trek and Star Wars as example (click to show/hide)

 My dislike also extends to disregard of fictional canon. With some research, whatever you present can be done within fictional canon. I don't look forward to the well written and attractive butchery that Disney's Star Wars by J.J. 'Alternate timeline' Abrams will likely be, judging from past experience. I saw a Star Trek movie directed by him and was like, I didn't know Vulcan was exploded, that doesn't make any sense from all the episodes of TNG I've watched as a younger person. Turns out because he didn't see fit to do some research for whatever amount of money he was paid to direct, those movies are set in an alternate timeline. If he does the same kind of thing with Star War's fictional universe, which has a lot of fiction books laying out decades of events past the final movie, I just won't spend my 15$ for movie tickets on it and leave it to people who haven't invested hours of fandom driven reading into enjoying Star Wars, which is both a shame and a bad financial decision on their part, because they could have both my 15$ as well as that of the people who would see it anyways.

Also, whattup with Adam Driver? Usually it's overreacting jerkwads to be generous saying this kind of thing. TBH considering the venue I'm the overreacting jerkwad, and I didn't watch the video (and after this much effort into this post, I hope the headline was a straight-up take on the joke itself, having not actually watched the video), but there also does seem to be what could be a (failing) coordinated campaign to try to push this kind of viewpoint on the Steam discussion forums for various games, which is annoying but I imagine it's downright pesky for people who make the game when it also piggybacks off weightier concerns such as a bad release or bugs in the game and just generally tries to exacerbate outrage.

More pressingly, while I have no doubt Bob Iger will be unswayed from his unswerving devotion to wokeness and utterly reject the siren's call of corporatocratic illiberalism such jokes as not-Jacen has made might encourage the continued production of relatively bad Star Wars movies as a compromise instead of the fixing of problems actually related to the production of moving pictures.

EDIT: Was too mean to Bob Iger EDIT2: clarified I only see the oddly similar posts on Steam discussion forums since I don't use any other large platforms. Also there is a weird thing steam users do that has evolved from being able to award points to a poster. One of the defaults is a Clown emotejicon-thing used to mark goofball posts. Since this gives points, people will make weird or mean troll posts trying to farm them. Eventually it evolves into appreciation of ability to create a troll thread and further awards are bestowed, exacerbating the problem. This is ridiculous but effective in garnering the Steam points I myself barely use despite being heavily invested into somehow. I wonder if there's a cool black market for these somewhere.

[Starver]

The canon-logic behind Star Trek's alternate timeline is...

Spoiler: Spoilered for both Trekish Spoilers and Warsish off-topicality (click to show/hide)

...that the TV(+prior movie) timeline produced the NimoyEra!Spock as we saw (who would, as a Vulcan, be living well into TNG+ era big/little-screentime), who had to deal with the issue of an impending supernova threatening Romulus. This is about a century after Final Frontier, after (I think) even Lower Decks and Picard, never mind (normal episodes of[1]) TNG. If, as an audience, we never heard of any such threat to the Romulans prior to 2009's movie, it wouldn't be so strange...

Anyway, Spock tries to deal with that, with FutureTech (which need only be CuttingEdgeTech, really, it actually being the Future), but fails. One might speculate that perhaps there's already a Sliding Doors break in the timeline, in that there's a future-future where he succeeds (but, to align with the actor's unavailability to conduct any more cameos, perhaps heroically died, to save Romulus), but that's by-the-by. What we have to deal in JJ's 'reboots' is a timeline in which the future actions failed and, in the process, Nimoy!Spock and some rather ungrateful-for-the-effort Romulans moved back in time a hundred-or-so years earlier (but about twenty years apart from each other). The appearance of the Romulans nudged the events of Kirk's life somewhat, and then they also had the time and opportunity to plan their revenge action upon Spock and, by extension, Vulcan. Which seemed to work, but did nudge Kirk back more onto his previously fated timeline ("Nice job fixing it, villain"), to satisfy some elements of continuity and metafictional intertextuality that might or might not please the 'traditional' fandom. But Vulcan still gets destroyed, so it is still a new timeline. (One with Romulus clearly still threatened in the year 2380-odd, but you'd expect QuintoEra!Spock to have plenty of time (and opportunity to consult with his vistiting future self) to then avoid the technical errors of the eventual mission he might need to conduct in his distant future, or at least explain his failure better (and try to convince Romulus High Command of the need to evacuate when it wasn't basically already too late).


But it also (leaving aside canon explanations) clearly makes this "prequel-and-requel" series (which, as of Star Trek Beyond, still hasn't reached the initial 'stardate' of TOS season 1, yet clearly used plot-components from.the TOS/Original-Movies era) very flexible insofar as whether it need converge on classic plotlines, mix them up a lot or even head out on its own. Any/all of these could infuriate or pander to various members of its long-term fanbase. At the same time.

[1] I think the 'future Enterprise' of All Good Things is beyond it, and Trek hasn't shirked from time-shifting its crews/manor characters around from all of its various eras to both far future and far past, but ("three-nacelle Enterprise" aside), AGT is positively tame in its Q-powered forward projection...

What this means for "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away" is uncertain. There's no(t much?) frequently used time-travel trope, but there was the junking of the previously canon EU as various prequels sequels and tweenquels to the core movies ran roughshod over at least some of the spread of stories that had previously been treated as continuity or reporting past/future extensions to the story.


(I don't visit URLs with "media" in them whilst I'm travelling, so nothing much to say about that. Whatever it should be telling me. I can only guess, and I might be completely off the mark

[Duuvian]

I have a browser condom that breaks video pretty good so I didn't watch it either. The link itself is one of the variety of garbage clickbait that has no summary of the video, so that you have to watch the video to obtain whatever info the headline suggests. I posted it in case someone for any reason wanted to watch the video and because otherwise I would have no explicable starting point for my disjointed rambling.

[scriver]

I haven't watched it either, but SNL guests don't generally go on rants or the like, right? I don't generally watch SNL either so I wouldn't know, but I'd assume he was going of a script somebody thought would be funny, or something.

[Starver]

and because otherwise I would have no explicable starting point for my disjointed rambling.

...and mine!

(Yeah, my guesses purely on the URL were clearly coming to no useful outcome. And here's that extra end-sentence and close-paren that I owe you all from the last message.).)

[McTraveller]

Eh, Disney's problem isn't "going woke"; you could take all that stuff out of the movies and they'd still be bad.  Disney's (and others') problem is the stories just aren't that good.

[Loud Whispers]

Eh, Disney's problem isn't "going woke"; you could take all that stuff out of the movies and they'd still be bad.  Disney's (and others') problem is the stories just aren't that good.

Yea. Lots of the new stuff just kinda... Whiffs. They exist. Truly the most movie of all time. Definitely are films

[Frumple]

Which, in fairness, that's not a new stuff thing. Lots of movies all throughout movie history just kinda' wiffed. It's remarkable how much was so mediocre all record of it's been lost because it wasn't even bad enough to preserve to boggle at. Just forgotten outside of second or third party reference because no one could be arsed to care about it, positive or negative.

See the same thing in gaming, really. Folks kvetching about new stuff being mediocre has forgotten the face of their father('s demo disk full of hundreds of games no one remembers anymore), heh.

Books, too, plays, all of it.  Sturgeon's revelation didn't spawn ex nihilo in the 50s and then see its shadow and go back into hibernation for an indefinite amount of weeks.

[Loud Whispers]

Which, in fairness, that's not a new stuff thing. Lots of movies all throughout movie history just kinda' wiffed. It's remarkable how much was so mediocre all record of it's been lost because it wasn't even bad enough to preserve to boggle at. Just forgotten outside of second or third party reference because no one could be arsed to care about it, positive or negative.

The big difference is media consolidation

Before there were many people trying new shit in mass media. But all the companies are consolidating into fewer and fewer companies with tighter controls on mass media publishing and so if Disney alone decides to whiff all their shows, they have a way disproportionate impact on how droll and mediocre mass media as a whole is. Even funnier when you consider that Disney when it was a smol(ler) company was synonymous with high quality

[Kagus]

So, having tracked down and watched the original SNL clip, it's very obviously just a script that was supposed to be funny. Moreover, there are indications that this was supposed to be parodying conservative detractors of the films (a pointed reference to the size of his hands, commenting about wanting a big chunky Tesla truck to compliment his micropenis), it's just very clunkily done if that is indeed the case.

Media's going wild running the isolated clip, because they know it'll get action bubbling. That's pretty much it. Driver's own views aren't readily discernible from the skit, at least not for me.

[McTraveller]

Yeah consolidation hurts - entertainment/art to make money, is different from making money to support making entertainment/art.

Also I think the new leadership at Disney has indeed lost Walt's vision - his goal was to put some "magic" in people's lives, and wow look you can make some money doing that. But I think his goal was to give people that magic, not just make as much money as possible.

Disney's not alone these days... so many companies have lost their original vision, and instead are just trying to make money.  It shows.

[MorleyDev]

An event for the business I work at once had a speaker, who asked the crowd: "Why are we in this business?"

Got a bunch of answers about giving value to clients and whatnot, and said "No, we are in this business to make money, and decided this is the best way we can do so. If it was more profitable to move cow dung, you'd be handed your shovel tomorrow."

That's basically the attitude of most businessmen.

[Loud Whispers]

An event for the business I work at once had a speaker, who asked the crowd: "Why are we in this business?"

Got a bunch of answers about giving value to clients and whatnot, and said "No, we are in this business to make money, and decided this is the best way we can do so. If it was more profitable to move cow dung, you'd be handed your shovel tomorrow."

That's basically the attitude of most businessmen.

Funnily enough you also see this in criminals-turned-businessmen. Stuff like south american drug cartels turning to avocados or italian mafia turning to mozarella because it makes more money than drugs

Yeah consolidation hurts - entertainment/art to make money, is different from making money to support making entertainment/art.

Also I think the new leadership at Disney has indeed lost Walt's vision - his goal was to put some "magic" in people's lives, and wow look you can make some money doing that. But I think his goal was to give people that magic, not just make as much money as possible.

Disney's not alone these days... so many companies have lost their original vision, and instead are just trying to make money.  It shows.

Yeah. You can definitely see how it's hurt mass media the fewer and fewer publishers are, since a single CEO can just merk an entire broad industry. You'll still get indie movies and indie games, but the "mass" part of mass media suffers. It is noticeable how in movies, games, TV shows, original releases used to be the norm but are now the exception in a sea of remakes and sequels

[scriver]

An event for the business I work at once had a speaker, who asked the crowd: "Why are we in this business?"

Got a bunch of answers about giving value to clients and whatnot, and said "No, we are in this business to make money, and decided this is the best way we can do so. If it was more profitable to move cow dung, you'd be handed your shovel tomorrow."

That's basically the attitude of most businessmen.

Funnily enough you also see this in criminals-turned-businessmen. Stuff like south american drug cartels turning to avocados or italian mafia turning to mozarella because it makes more money than drugs

Somewhere out there there's a stubborn artisan drug dealer refusing to give in to the market economy and go legit