DarthEbriate

Yeah, unlike quotes, I'm getting a little long-winded here. ;-] But they had to muck the books in a film adaptation. The books don't have good pacing for a film, they're filled with songs, the fights (which sell tickets to kids) in the books are a few paragraphs long, and Tom Bombadil is plot momentum suicide. Sure, having Arwen "dying" arbitrarily was pointless, but having her replace Glorfindel (a throwaway character) so you can see Aragorn's love interest and create some depth to his character was good (she's in the Appendices, so it wasn't made up). Cutting the scouring of the Shire was good from a movie standpoint, as all the principal action is over at that point. Having Frodo go back after Smeagol once the ring is bitten off is a much more dramatic encounter than Smeagol dancing off the ledge. You can't create a film directly from those books because Tolkien was a linguist first and not a storyteller. And... Faramir was a minor character, so having him capture Sam and Frodo so that you get a climax to the second movie... yeah, fine. It wasn't a great add, but it can be defended so you get some tension of Sam/Frodo and they don't just disappear midway through the film. I didn't like it, but I get it. That's why even the odder parts and some of the more contrived conflicts (Sam abandoning Frodo; he wouldn't have left Frodo!)... there are very valid reasons why those choices were made from a story perspective. For the Hobbit -- they did a few things right. The opening scenes with the dwarf visit and song, Bilbo/Smeagol (character-driven), and Bilbo/Smaug (character-driven). Those were beat perfect. The rest went way off the rails and I wasn't sure of plot, tone, or anything else.

Finn's arc in 7 was very good -- taking a stand and getting away from something he now believes is (and certainly is depicted as) evil, and then finding a friend and going back to that evil thing to find his friend. So -- from fleeing as a single entity to defending a friend against his biggest fear. That's a good arc. In 8, his arc isn't cowardice, he's going after Rey. He's going after his friend (right where he was at the end of 7), and along the way learns from Rose, learns its bigger than him and Rey, and learns also from DJ (deejay?) Benicio! Learns that it's bigger than just First Order/Resistance. He's gone from friend to a worldview. That's an arc. Now, after that, yes --- he could have sacrificed himself. But see above -- I think that was contradictory to what Rian Johnson was going for. Plus, it may be a mandate that the big three of the new movies aren't offed. Which calls into question all the problems of the modern "franchise" and how it impacts storytelling, but that's going into speculation. As to sacrifice, with the exception of Obi-Wan in Star Wars, no one really sacrifices themselves in Star Wars. It's not one of the messages. And, even Obi-Wan doesn't sacrifice. He's doing it to "become more powerful" and be able to guide Luke as a disembodied voice... hardly a true self-sacrifice death or goal of martyrdom.

The first heroic sacrifice could have been Leia -- but only if she could fly the ship and hadn't been planned to be the main old-timer of the third act (Rise of Skywalker). I still think the main beats were known, and 7 - Han, 8 - Luke, 9 - Leia (where we would learn that Leia had had training over the past 30 years... and she was the "another" Yoda spoke of in Empire). etc. Finn... yeah, it does feel odd. But I think Rian Johnson was going for subversion of the trope. Instead, the message is: You don't have to die for something you believe in; you can believe in it and be willing to fight and die for it, and still come through. And Rose's message of "love will help us win" is a good message for any Disney movie. As to Finn's arc... @miles also has a note below...

The trouble was Carrie Fisher died after principal photography was done (and I think even after flying back from some pickups/reshoots). They could have had her die in space or stay in a coma, and then digitally wipe her from the rest of the film. But they couldn't change everything without completely redoing -- which... it was done. Sure, each movie makes a billion dollars, but it takes years of pre-production and planning to put into place. Plus, each film is being individually written/installed/directed --- so it fell on the next person to manage how it would work out. Ackbar could've done the Holdo, but he died offscreen in the same blast because his voice actor (Erik Bauersfeld) had also recently passed away (thus no speaking lines in TLJ). They honored him by not re-casting.

That's a goal. (I may be on one heckuva a delay, though.) Confirmed! Let's go, Buffalo!

I think so. And yet, he still made some nice plays in the first period. There was a kick to keep the puck in the offensive zone in the first that he made look effortless.

Jack has had an awakening... have you felt it?

Their puck is a reminiscent of a blaster bolt fired into a the magnetically sealed door of a garbage smasher in the detention center.

Keep firing, Jack!

Every one of these Sharks shots looks like was fired against a magnetically sealed door.

If Allen-Bradley hasn't built an easy-to-use app yet, it's their own fault.

Reading through the thread... it all comes down to consistency. Stability. JBott's biggest accolades that I can see are establishing the AGM/minor system and living according to a planned cap. There's no fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants or build-another-well message anymore. It's smooth and by the numbers. Krueger exemplifies that with the static lines/pairings and exuding confidence/calmness. And... that just allows the players to relax and play and do what they do. (And yes, the ROR trade doesn't make complete sense.... until Berglund retired, then at least the cap space it there sooner. [Unless ROR was for locker room stability])

For the record, 2 things: 1) You could say I like Star Wars. 2) I like TFA and TLJ (and I'll probably like the Rise). Sure, they('ll) have issues; every SW film has flaws. These all are outcomes of too many cooks in the kitchen. Now, we saw (the Prequels) what happens when it's just one person with full control -- and not really having a story to tell. A series of events with some action cues is not a story. But in between too many cooks and just one person is collaboration. And the originals benefited from collaboration. The flaw of the sequel trilogy is that it was given to 3 different writer/directors. JJ wrote a reboot nostalgia fest (which was great except we didn't get anything daring). Rian Johnson cleared the decks (which I applaud) for the third person. Now, here's the rub. Instead of a third person (Trevorrow), it's now back to JJ, who is going back to the nostalgia well. But that is the problem -- there wasn't a clear story here and progressions for all characters across all films. That's why it feels off (no matter how evocative or beautiful it might be). Ah! But what about the OT? Yes, those were also extremely disjointed. Lucas got a good film out via the editing process, and great special effects, performances, and music, around a simplistic story arc. Then, an excellent film was created by The Kersh and Brackett/Kasdan. Then, Lucas wanted control back and made a... passable finale. But it's totally disjointed. Leia wasn't Luke's sister until working through the script for ROTJ (the "another Skywalker" Yoda mentions was going to be someone else). The Death Star originally was only in the 3rd act and not the original movie's script, thus when ROTJ rolled around George just brought in another Death Star. What's different? We're grown-ups now and we're reading more into things and using our analysis skills that adults need to use. Are they kids' movies? No, not specifically. But kids don't need the answers or the consistency (or story quality) to be all in. Regardless, it's all pretty fun.

I don't think LOTR was screwed up... I really think they just about nailed it as well as could be (particularly if you watch the Extended Editions) with the exception of maybe adding too much Elves (personified by Arwen and Legolas playing on "god" mode) and turning Gimli into just comic relief in the 2nd two films. But yes, The Hobbit. They butchered The Hobbit by trying to make it into LOTR and the content just doesn't support that. And it was total global economics 101 fun, too. Check out Lindsay Ellis' 2- or 3-part YouTube hobbit autopsy effort. As to Leia... she was barely conscious and Force-pulled herself back to the door handle. Perhaps she needed to move an arm or show more agency, but otherwise -- that's what it would look like, right? She did a Force pull but couldn't really move, so it was just an extended arm. That didn't bother me. But I was surprised because they could have rewritten from that point and ... had that been her end. Terrible and unfulfilling because it was the TIE pilots, but also a clean way to remove her. It's most odd because all signs indicated that this final film was going to feature Carrie Fisher as a send-off, the way 7 focused on Han and 8 focused on Luke.

That's not math. 11-5 is 6. That's math. Fancy stats and applied math are true, from a certain point of view. They're all based in fact (hopefully), but what you do with facts and which ones you use for your analysis, and what message you want to share all shape your truth. (And the answer is: the situation and who is viewing/making a decision on the fool and the fool's follower determines who is more foolish. It's based on your point of view.)

Will it have recognizable quotes easily applied to hockey situations? Yes? Good. Goooooood.

ph?

Ric Olie wrote this thread title.

Good road trip! And now close this team out at home as well.

The hopping glove! (And I was having Foligno-Komisarek flashbacks for a second there)

Blergh... trying too hard to pass on that odd-man rush.

Jack, Sam, let’s close this up. We’re going in we’re going in full throttle.

We’re all even strength tonight. The sharks have gotten skate redirects on the pp.

Top shelf, where the Ewoks swing on vines.

Woohoo!