Pagliacci

Why do you feel live action would better serve the character driven moments?

I've almost finished Song of Achilles.

You have the foundations of an interesting magic system. So magic resides in souls AND an adjacent realm? Or does a soul bridge the gap between the two realms?

Does that make you the left hand of darkness?

Less positive, unfortunately. My problem with the film is mainly in its structure. Simply put, the film lacks tension and Clark has no agency in his own narrative. The main question put forth by the film is "Can or should Clark be Superman?" The problem is the non-linear structure of the film answers this question in the very first scene we see with Clark, when he saves the workers at the oil rig. So any tension regarding whether Clark will save people in the flashbacks is cancelled by the fact the film has already answered the question for us. Regarding the city fight. My problem is less that the fight lead to wanton destruction so much as it is Clark (and the film) don't seem to care. MoS doesn't care about the people of Metropolis, it cares about how hard Clark can punch Zod. In the aftermath of the fight we don't see the devastation, Clark is never held accountable for his actions, Clark himself seems unaware of how many people died. The film is so muddled by flashbacks in the first half (with annoying use of shaky cam in inappropriate moments) that the plot doesn't even begin until Zod sends his message down to the humans at the half-way mark. Clark isn't doing anything until the villains show up and hand him the plot. The film is not without its good points. Those being the excellent casting (especially Zod) and Zimmer's score has its moments as well. The film is very much interested in what Jor-El and John Kent want and their perspective, I agree. If only it cared about what Clark wanted.... or actually gave him anything to care about. Also to touch on the Jesus thing briefly. It lacks any subtlety or nuance.* The problem is that MoS doesn't do anything interesting with this theme. Sorry if this is a unintelligible ramble. My intent wasn't to make anyone feel bad for liking the film, just my two cents. *

I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

Just watched it. It was enjoyable, sometimes brilliant and sometimes frustrating.

How would you rank the Star Wars films? Have you watched any episodes of The Twilight Zone in any of its incarnations? If nothing is faster than light how did the dark get there first? Have you ever heard the tragedy of the Lord Ruler? Would you recommend the WoT books? How many cosmere books do you reckon Brandon should write?

The Clone Wars is equal to if not greater than the original trilogy in my eyes. I think I might just put this here.... If I were to make two adjustments to the sequel trilogy it be this: Replace Snoke with Thrawn (ignoring Rebels) and turn Poe into a supporting character. Each trilogy of Star Wars to me seems to have three main characters: Luke, Han and Leia; Anakin, Obi-wan and Padme; but it seems to me the sequel trilogy actually has four: Rey, Finn, Kylo Ren and Poe. I'd argue that Kylo Ren is less of a villain in the sense of Vader or Palpatine in that we spend more time seeing things from his point of view. I feel the sequel trilogy was perhaps weakened by having 4 instead of 3 main characters. I'd propose either merge Finn and Poe or relegate Poe to more of a supporting role. The other drastic change would be to replace Supreme Leader Snoke with Grand Admiral Thrawn. The first reason being I feel it makes more sense that the remnants of the empire would rally behind a well known and established figure as their leader. Also it opens up some thematic opportunities that aren't provided by Snoke. Thrawn is a character who takes the cultures of his enemies and uses it against them, he weaponizes the past, which creates an interesting contrast to Kylo's infatuation with the past in TFA and later desire to be rid of the past in TLJ. I don't know if this is 'controversial' enough but shrug.

It's treason then. I prefer the story of the prequels over the originals but I feel the original trilogy was better made.

The live action star wars films the cgi shows 'The Clone Wars'*, 'Rebels'** and 'Resistance'*** (though not the 2D animated show titled 'Clone Wars'****) Any books published following Disney's acquisition of Lucasfilm is considered canon I also believe Wookieepedia has a complete list of all canon Star Wars works. Anything published before the Disney Acquisition is labelled as 'Legends' material. This includes comics, books and videogames. The quality of this material varies from excellent to awful. I'd recommend some of the Legends material as well since some of it is quite interesting. Though I haven't read it in a while Darth Plagueis By James Luceno was pretty good. The original Thrawn trilogy of books by Timothy Zahn functioned basically as the sequel trilogy of the Legends universe, it's kind of like a cool alternate history novel. Annotations:

Same thing happened to me.

I'll put the flamethrower away then. I think it all comes down to the intentions of the films. I feel TFA worked well to endear us to the new characters and set up the larger story, I just feel it relied a little too much on the classic imagery and story of the previous films. TLJ seemed to be more eager to expand the thematic canvas of Star Wars (granted, it didn't always do this well.) I like both movies for different reasons, but I'd rather another TLJ to another TFA. Still looking forward to how JJ Abrams resolves the trilogy.

Meeting up with a relative or friend of some sort?

That's an interesting way of looking at it actually.

Also Holocrons as well I guess were kinda similar. Was transfer essence what Darth Bane tried on Darth Zannah? Fair enough. Still, from a thematic point of view I feel it makes more sense for the Sith to be incapable of gaining immortality.

If there's one thing I don't want it's dark side force ghosts. My understanding has always been that the tragedy of Sith Lords is that they all seek immortality but they can never obtain it.

Yup.

One ring (of fire) to rule them all...

I feel really small all of a sudden. This is really cool.

I completely agree with you. Sorry for the confusion, by justified I meant morally right. I don't want the film to make it look like the Joker was morally right. I want it to make sense of course . To quote Batman from The Killing Joke 'maybe ordinary people don't always crack. Maybe there isn't any need to crawl under a rock with all the other slimey things when trouble hits. Maybe it was just you,'

I'm quietly optimistic about this film. When designing a film built around a character like the Joker one has to tread carefully, as the character has for most of his life been defined by his lack of a backstory. The again, as a character he has always been defined by his relationship with Batman, so without the bat what is left? This leaves the film in a place no other Batman project has explored. I hope they don't end up glorifying mental illness or make it so that it appears as if the Joker was justified in becoming a monster. (Glances at a metaphorical fridge wearily) Beyond the story itself it is fascinating to consider the implications of what might happens if this film does well at the box office. Compared to the current blockbusters being made with their monolithic budgets a film of a smaller scale may prompt Warner Bros. and other companies to invest in more middle-of-the-road budgeted films. Such a result could lead to a greater diversity of films which would be good. Until October then!* And remember... never stop smiling. *joketober? Octjoker? J-tober? Joaqtober?

He wouldn't be a good fantasy author if he couldn't write beyond his own experiences.

Welcome to the Shard! There's no shame in not having read all of Brandon's (extensive) oeuvre. Hope you find what you're looking for here.