But despite all those creative shortcomings—and let's be honest, there are plenty—I still think Star Wars is going to endure. In ten years, people will still be sitting around debating what went wrong, why things weren't done this way or that, while Marvel movies will eventually meet the same fate as Avatar.
Exactly. And here’s my reasoning: Absolutely nothing today compares to the sheer impact of when that first Star Wars movie hit theaters. It was something entirely unprecedented—completely out of left field. And then, after that first installment, you actually had to wait four whole years to see what happened next! No rewatching, no dissecting every single frame in real-time. Then Empire Strikes Back comes along and hits just as hard! And after ESB? Another three-year wait! That kind of massive buildup of tension—that collective anticipation—is something the film industry can never replicate again. That's why Star Wars—specifically the original trilogy—will always be legendary, almost mythic. The peak of Star Wars will always get the pulse racing; it's basically a conditioned reflex for entire generations.
Meanwhile, the Avengers and the rest of the Marvel films will eventually—and honestly, pretty soon—just become another franchise among many others.
Ethan Martin said:... And that same Mr. Plinkett—the guy who basically built his entire career on YouTube by trashing The Phantom Menace—that exact same DAMN MR. PLINKETT didn't see "anything too bad" in The Force Awakens or The Last Jedi 😁.
He actually said it with this totally defeated tone in a RedLetterMedia video... 🤦
🍿
Then, after this third movie drops, the same MR. PLINKETT and the RedLetterMedia crew come out with their big "insight"—claiming the whole Star Wars sequel trilogy is just a total Recycling horror with zero continuity. But hey, that’s just "character" for Mr. Plinkett, right? As much "character" as the trash I found in my backyard today.
The guys over at RedLetterMedia stated in their latest review of Rise of Skywalker that just because the new trilogy isn't great, it doesn't magically mean the Prequels suddenly became good. They aren't—the Prequels are still garbage, just like they were back then. When you really think about it, it's true—if something is bad TODAY, that doesn't mean something from the past automatically becomes better because of it.
The Avengers series is honestly way more satisfying for an audience than the recent Star Wars trilogy. Why is that? It’s because they actually put in the work—years of planning out the narrative and meticulously crafting the characters and how they all clash and connect. People actually had the chance to "bond" with these characters and the overarching story, making them genuinely invested in what happens next in the series. Meanwhile, the new Star Wars trilogy felt like it was filmed haphazardly—no cohesive master plan, no central theme, just... vibes. In the new Star Wars trilogy, every movie feels like its own isolated thing; there's almost no connective tissue holding the themes together.
The Avengers are better than the Prequel trilogy, too. Why? Because the characters feel alive and engaging, and the whole thing is paced with such dynamic energy.
BUT... the real question is: what kind of legacy will these films actually leave behind? Which one sticks in the cultural memory longer? Star Wars or the Avengers? If I had to bet, I'd say Star Wars.
For really young kids, you could probably frame it as something akin to *Jumanji*—you know, that whole immersive, slightly chaotic vibe. Older generations are probably just going to look at this with pure contempt—honestly, it’s nothing more than some overly complicated corporate product designed to milk the ideas of people who were actually creative back in the day.
It definitely has that old-school vibe. Reminds me of those 80s classics—you know, stuff like Deepstar 6, Leviathan, or Abyss. It’s clearly following a pretty formulaic setup, but honestly, that's usually fine—it generally delivers exactly what the trailer promises. We've all seen this kind of thing before, sure, but there's nothing wrong with revisiting the genre every now and then. Whether it actually turns out to be any good really comes down to two things: how they design the monster, and whether they actually bother to get the technical details right—like the diving mechanics, basic science, tech, and all that good stuff.
Paul Rogers94 said:The real question is whether the others were any more successful. By the way, they used to call his near-identical counterpart U.G. Krishnamurti an "anti-guru." U.G. was born into a Brahmin family, and from early childhood, he was constantly badgered by these self-proclaimed sages who would gather at his parents' house. He knew Jiddu, attended a couple of his lectures, and apparently, the mutual intolerance there went both ways... He even sought out Raman, whom he dismissed as someone who just lies around reading comic books. UG seemed like a pretty interesting character, though.🙏
I read somewhere that Raman used to read comics and was a huge fan of Westerns. When people asked him why he liked comics so much, he just said, "Because a lot happens in them."
They could throw hundreds of millions at this nonsense and it still won't work—all they really need to do to make it worth it is get Batman and Superman right.
Just more Anglo-American corporate kitsch—the kind of garbage that, honestly, should probably be banned along with 90% of Hollywood productions—because it just melts the brains of young kids who haven't even developed those cognitive filters yet... you know, that mental defense system needed to block content specifically designed to lower your IQ.
Honestly, what a slog... the only saving grace was really the dynamic between Ivan Drago and his son—their whole storyline was so gripping and genuinely moving that the movie probably should have just been titled "Ivan Drago."
But honestly, Tolkien's world feels pretty paganistic to me... it's just teeming with goblins and wizards and all this hidden magic and stuff. And once you get into The Silmarillion—where he basically lays out the entire creation myth—you don't see much of a link to Christianity. In fact, I think Tolkien breathed such intense passion and life into his universe that, for me, it actually feels more convincing than the universe described in The Bible. A religion built on the foundations of Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion would probably feel more believable than Christianity.
Regarding Catholicism, people usually point to the Narnia books as being Catholic. I don't know, though—I haven't really sat down to read them myself.
As for the movies, Tolkien lived through such a fascinating era, so I'm really hoping they don't try to bridge the gap between a fairy tale world and the trenches of WWI by making it all look like a bedtime story... although, judging by the trailer, that might be exactly what they're doing.
Even without the fantasy elements, this thing would have worked perfectly fine as a gritty war thriller in the vein of "in the eagle's nest." The zombies are just an awesome little extra. I really dig how the movie takes its time to build up—the filmmakers don't go out of their way to wink at the audience or signal that they're making some obvious trash; they play it completely straight. (It was the same vibe with "Mandy," which I loved.) The main guy alongside the Black man is—well, he's Kurt Russell's son, and he actually does a pretty solid job channeling his old man. The whole thing is lean and mean—definitely worth a watch.
It honestly baffles me that they haven't greenlit a Red Sonja project yet—it feels like the subject matter would fit right in with the current climate in Hollywood. The villain should basically be a stand-in for someone like Harvey Weinstein; it’d be pretty poetic if they cast all those actors who've faced accusations of sexual harassment and assault... you know—Kevin Spacey, Ben Affleck... and hey, maybe even Arnold Schwarzenegger could jump in too.
I once dropped by a community out in rural Montana. Their guru, this guy known as unknown, was there. The followers looked at him with this level of reverence that’s honestly hard to put into words. They told me straight up: "You have to experience unknown." After the lecture, unknown held a Q&A session. He sat on this chair that looked suspiciously like a throne, while whoever wanted to ask a question had to sit on a tiny little cushion right at his feet. I decided to step up and ask him something, but when I caught his eye, there was nothing there—just completely blank, vacant eyes. I didn't feel any sense of divinity or anything. To be honest, he just seemed like an ordinary guy riding a massive ego trip, fueled by followers who project deep meaning onto him—(and I suspect he's projecting something else entirely back at them).
I follow the whole self-help scene pretty closely, and frankly, I've seen this movie before. There are countless cases where the instructor is just a totally regular person—someone who isn't even teaching what they claim to be divine messages—but the followers start building this mystical aura around them... and then some of them quickly figure out how to, exploit the situation, (kind of like what happened with unknown).