ILoveRegenHealth t1_jef3kpw wrote

I don't think it ever was. Maybe you're thinking of another project?

This was always (as far as I know) going to be a live action one with Jude Law and overseen by director/showrunner Jon Watts (Tom Holland Spider-Man trilogy). I believe he was the one who went up to Disney with this pitch.


ILoveRegenHealth t1_jef2165 wrote

> but are kinda afraid of making one because everything is so messy on the movie front.

I don't care if you all downvote - a large part of that hesitation is the toxic ass fanbase. Disliking the Sequels is one thing - dislike it and move on. But we didn't get that. We got the most vicious response to a trilogy in history possibly. Even worse than the Prequels, and those were even more boring and terribly written.

But calling for heads on pikes, throwing out racist words towards John Boyega/Kelly Marie Tran (who seems to have had her confidence undermined and now only does voiceover work instead now - great job, nerd fans, for killing a dream), demanding in petitions that the Sequels be de-canonized. Directors being called to never direct again (thankfully Rian Johnson didn't listen and went on to do his own successful projects). Screaming that TFA is too safe, but TLJ was too bold. It's like listening to the most annoying customer in a restaurant when you sat down for Applebees. This isn't fine dining, genius.

Not all SW fans were like this, but enough of them were to make Disney go "Why the fuck should we ever make a movie if our directors and actors go through 1000% more hell than other directors/actors who have failed worse?" Margot Robbie still gets her ass kissed after 5 towering failures in a row. There's a reason Christopher McQuarrie (Top Gun Maverick and Mission Impossible) said he will never do Star Wars. He has interest, but he said "Have you seen how the fans treat writers, directors, actors if you are anything less than perfect? No thanks."


ILoveRegenHealth t1_j9hwqh4 wrote

The movie talk did occur years ago when the ratings were still super high around the world.

Seems like crazy talk now since the show is ending and the ratings are low (and complaints of boredom high), but around the time Rick was suddenly kidnapped, the ratings and "omg!" buzz for TWD was still comparatively high.


ILoveRegenHealth t1_j5v990v wrote

I thought of that - the thing is, Frasier's award-winning writers were from Cheers.

That's the problem with this new Frasier reboot. It's an island. Nobody from Cheers/Frasier/Wings/Modern Family (same group of writers on all shows) are on this new reboot.

I'm not saying it's impossible for a surprise hit, but it's really unlikely given the TV track record of these reboots that have almost no attachment to the previous successful group. We will have to rely on a new set of writers and that could go any way.


ILoveRegenHealth t1_iya0csf wrote

> Nobody pays me to consult on this stuff and they probably have access to a lot more data than I...but I just think Oscars needs to get back more into celebrating the craft its there to celebrate. In years past they showed clips highlighting the amazing performances as they were presenting the nominees, they showed how the scripts looked, they showed sketches for the costuming and set decorating. I love all this crafting and highlighting of what makes movies good.

Problem is, they did that and ratings sank. So they tried to tighten it up, ratings sank. I actually do not blame them for experimenting because before the song performances used to get a FULL performance (elaborate song and dance for each one) and that tacked on an extra 20-25 minutes. Now they do a quicker medley of the nominated songs and people are fine with that (if they want to hear more, find the song on Youtube/Spotify). You don't find these things out until you try it.

So I don't mind some experimentation as some of it did stick and was preferred. I at first didn't like that they limited speeches and it used to be as long as you want to talk, but now I see why they did it (I think they get about 1.5-2 minutes). If you let everyone talk as long as you want, the show is easily running overtime to 3.5 hours, which people complained about. I would say, however, the Best Picture winner(s) should get way more time. That is the top prize of the night and they need more than 2 minutes. At least increase it there.


ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixxz155 wrote

I take it you didn't see the documentary on it where Spielberg said he didn't want to do it (he said Last Crusade was the final one and he intentionally had them ride off into a literal sunset). In the doc, he said Lucas and Harrison Ford kept badgering and calling him to do it. Spielberg finally relented. Can't go hard on a director when he wasn't feeling the script (blame Lucas for approving that script) but felt an obligation to two old friends and colleagues to go in one more time.

Also, Spielberg in the last 10 years has had Munich, War Horse, Lincoln, Bridge of Spies, The Post (two excellent movies nobody saw), and West Side Story all get nominated for Best Picture. 6 movies in 10 years - Tim Burton doesn't even have one BP nominated film. They are not the same.


ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixxqsnk wrote

>I think he falls into the same trap Spielberg falls into on occasion where he receives so much praise he gets lost up his own asshole thinking every thought he has is gold.

Where has Spielberg done that?

Also, bitch, you watch Walking Dead. That show is ass now and you're talking quality? You like seeing people walk in circles around a forest every week?


ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixfgaap wrote

> Why are you so fervently defending billionaires my dude? They definitely don't need it.

Dude, are you dense. I am Liberal and FOR taxing billionaires hard. Been saying it forever. Elon Musk makes me sick (he's obviously messing with Twitter to get Republicans into office so he can pay less taxes) and so do many corporate vultures.

What I take issue with is that guy's simplistically childist post: "Corporations need to die" and he gets upvoted. No thought was put behind his post and his post doesn't even make sense (it would not work). Feel free to move to a poor and dangerous third world country with authoritarian control and you'll have your wish. Otherwise, living in the US or most 1st world countries and enjoying the safeties and luxuries compared to other hellholes, then saying "Corporations need to all die" sounds like a goofball who has absolutely know idea how capitalism/economies work, and is just typing shit to sound cool.

We can make laws to help better regulate corporations and hold them accountable and to better prevent their predatory practices, and to give their workers better wages and rights. Nowhere did I say to let up on that (if anything we need to do way more of all of that), and some massive companies do need to be broken up. But to say capitalism can exist without any corporations is a stupid post. What are you even arguing?


ILoveRegenHealth t1_ixeesyr wrote

>"WE SHOULD IMPROVE SOCIETY SOMEWHAT" = destroy/abolish all Corporations (which is what he said)

Curious you don't know the meaning of words. Curious.

I'm all for better legislation to stop loopholes and rampant corporate abuse. But he didn't say that. He said all corporations should die, typing that on his laptop and sitting in a chair manufactured by corporations, using electricity and eating his Cup O Noodle that were all given to him by corporations.

I don't mind someone listing problems, but when they are so comically impossible and offer zero solutions, who the fuck is upvoting that guy? Fornite teens?