What Are You Watching?

[Turalyon]

The blurriness before Lyndon's theory I can simply attribute to the calculations being wrong because they're not using the right theory. As for the ghosted visions, maybe I'm remembering that wrong but I thought it was just a stylistic approach to show that multiple things could have happened and it's not what Katie is actually looking at.

My interpretation of the blurriness was that it was to represent that Forest's deterministic focus on the machine was too narrow and limiting in scope, whilst the many worlds theory cleared everything up because it allowed flexibility in how the visions could be viewed.

Keep in mind they use the ghost visions aesthetic again in that scene with Katie and Lyndon on the dam. Note that all the ghost visions in this instance keep showing the same thing (Lyndon falling) which I interpreted as Katie having previously seen a few iterations of how that talk with Lyndon went but kept on seeing him ultimately fall to his death.

If an infinity of things could have happened with Lyndon then this really doesn't make any sense at all. Iirc, he dies in all the visions so it could be argued that it didn't really matter but then if you think of the chaos theory, it still should so I don't buy it.

Well, one can't exactly pick which universe they can see presumably (it's supposedly one of the issues Forest has against using the many worlds theory in his machine) and people are limited in that we can't see/experience all of infinity at once (much in the same way people can only see time in the context of the present and how everything else relates to that; when, if time could actually be viewed in it's true entirety, it would actually confirm determinism). Katie just saw multiple instances of Lyndon falling in the time she took to look and interpreted that as a given - note that there's a very quick scene in that episode before the title of the show appears, where Lyndon is alive, sitting at the bottom of the dam which indicates there is a universe where he may have survived or didn't die/fall off...maybe?

I've been re-watching The Hobbit trilogy and LotR. I watched LotR 1 today and I'm going for 2-3 this week. I gotta say, and pretty much everyone thinks I'm insane for it, I think I prefer the Hobbit lol. The main reason is mostly due to the style matching the seriousness of the story. LotR 1, I find, takes itself way too seriously, to the point where it might even be called pretentious while the Hobbit knows exactly what it's selling. Another thing too is that I much prefer Bilbo over Frodo. With that said tough, I still love LotR 1 and there's a couple of scenes in 2-3 I can't wait to see again.

Keep in mind that The Fellowship of the Ring film does cut a lot of what was in the book. The first book was pretty sedate for the most part and then starts to get more serious and dire once they get near Rivendell. I think the film does a fair job of condensing it down to the essentials and giving it a sustained momentum. I think Elijah Wood was perhaps a bit too young - in both looks and manner - compared to the Frodo depicted in the book, so I agree with you there. I think Tolkien got this sentiment form other too when he wrote the books - the LotR was a sequel but it was considered much more dire and serious compared to the Hobbit, which he explained away by saying that the "tale just grew in the telling". Tolkien even managed to retcon parts of The Hobbit to try and make it fit with LotR!

I don't even remember much of the The Hobbit trilogy since so much of it was just inane, unnecessary, bloated and full of distracting computer effects. I don't recall any memorable character moments in the whole of that series (don't even remember any of the specific dwarves either), whereas I could name a few at the minimum for the LotR trilogy easily.

[sandwich_bird]

which I interpreted as Katie having previously seen a few iterations of how that talk with Lyndon went but kept on seeing him ultimately fall to his death.

Hmmm I guess that makes sense too.

I think Tolkien got this sentiment form other too when he wrote the books - the LotR was a sequel but it was considered much more dire and serious compared to the Hobbit, which he explained away by saying that the "tale just grew in the telling".

I'm fine with serious stories but I do become more critical when it is presented as a serious affair. I guess a lot of things rub me the wrong way in LotR because of this while I give more passes to other stuff in the Hobbit.

I don't even remember much of the The Hobbit trilogy since so much of it was just inane, unnecessary, bloated and full of distracting computer effects. I don't recall any memorable character moments in the whole of that series (don't even remember any of the specific dwarves either), whereas I could name a few at the minimum for the LotR trilogy easily.

Really? Not even the confrontation between Bilbo vs Smaug or Bilbo vs Gollum? Honestly I find it very strange that what I hear are the main complaints for the Hobbits are that it feels dragged out and that the CGI is bad or there's too much of it. Like, LotR has some pretty dragged out scenes too and a lot of unnecessary or "pointless" plots. And though it doesn't rely as much on CGI obviously, there's some moments where adding some CGI could have helped and some other scenes where the effects are just laughable. But, tastes are tastes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ After re-watching everything I'd rank them as follow from best to worse: Hobbit 1, Hobbit 2, Lotr2, Hobbit3, Lotr3, Lotr1. Probably blasphemy for most people haha

Thinking about it, I guess this might be similar to a Starcraft 1 vs Starcraft 2 moment. If you start with SC1 and then play SC2, the tone is different and you're bound to be disappointed. But if you play SC2 first then you might give a lot of things a pass. I have a friend who did just that and he really liked SC2's story. The guy also plays Kingdom Hearts for the story though (if you don't know, it's the most nonsensical garbage to ever grace the earth) so he might not be the best judge of quality

[Turalyon]

Really? Not even the confrontation between Bilbo vs Smaug or Bilbo vs Gollum?

Yeah, really. The former happens late in the second film and my interest was waning by that point even though it was the climax the film was leading up to. The latter banks a lot of nostalgia of the LotR films and the representation of Gollum we got there. I know that it's technically supposed to be a prequel and, in the timeline of the book release themselves, the Gollum encounter has more punch because LotR hadn't been written yet, but yeah, the film version just felt like it was a cameo for cameo sake even though it's legit rip from the book.

I'm fine with serious stories but I do become more critical when it is presented as a serious affair. I guess a lot of things rub me the wrong way in LotR because of this while I give more passes to other stuff in the Hobbit.

But the LotR story is largely a "serious affair" when you look at it in it's entirety. Amongst other things, it's a story about the loss of innocence, finding strength in adversity, the nature of evil and how damaging experiences can change you - all serious subject matter. In contrast, the Hobbit is a children's book where the changes are focused one character and are largely relegated to positive/light ones like Bilbo being more open to things and wiser and there being no lasting negative consequences. I think the opposite, in that the movies try to take the Hobbit story too seriously and make it more in line with the LotR films which is why it doesn't work for me. The Hobbit is a very simple story compared to LotR but the films don't reflect that.

Honestly I find it very strange that what I hear are the main complaints for the Hobbits are that it feels dragged out and that the CGI is bad or there's too much of it.

It's because it is dragged out. There are many scenes that are just padding and slow the momentum of the films to a crawl. The sudden burst of CGI/action/fighting feel like a crutch for a movie because the characters are so bland and dry. You'd think having three films would enable them to flesh out the dwarves a bit more but the only ones that spring to mind are Thorin (obviously) and that one that likes the made up she-elf character played by Evangeline Lilly. That are I don't even remember his name shows how unmemorable the characterisation is. Also, why the heck is Legolas in this film series so much? I don't remember him being in the novel!

Like, LotR has some pretty dragged out scenes too and a lot of unnecessary or "pointless" plots.

Ooh ooh, please do elaborate! Fellowship has the most things cut-out of the books (Tom Bombadil anyone?) and for the better since it keeps the pacing tighter. The Two Towers has the most "meandering" moments but that's part of the book and help setup the situation in return of the King, so that can't be helped. The Greybeard, Merry and Pippin sections in particular are laborious to go through even though it was intentional for it to be so. Return of the King has that infamous "too many endings" thing which I didn't mind since we've invested so much time with them already, having more time to resolve things is fine. Just imagine if they put the Scouring of the Shire in there as it was in the book!

Thinking about it, I guess this might be similar to a Starcraft 1 vs Starcraft 2 moment. If you start with SC1 and then play SC2, the tone is different and you're bound to be disappointed. But if you play SC2 first then you might give a lot of things a pass. I have a friend who did just that and he really liked SC2's story. The guy also plays Kingdom Hearts for the story though (if you don't know, it's the most nonsensical garbage to ever grace the earth) so he might not be the best judge of quality

I sort've had a similar experience with the Star Control games (it's a very old game series) but with a different outcome in the end. My first experience with it was StarCon3 that was, unbeknownst to me at the time, maligned by all the fanbase. I didn't mind it at the time and found it quite interesting and different. The main story it was telling was kinda unique and there were many odd aliens/characters to talk to. When I got around to playing the original StarCon2 much later (there's a freeware version called the Ur-Quan Masters), it was more dated but it had a tonne of charm and I realised why there was so much hate for StarCon3. Although they used some of the races and gameplay, it seemed superfluous to include them in StarCon3. The changes/revelations to some of the original aliens motivations and goings-on in that universe that were put in StarCon3 were fine to me at the time but when viewed under the perspective of having experienced StarCon2 first, I found that some of those mysteries in StarCon2 were stronger/great because we didn't know the answers and that it fueled investment through curiosity and speculation. Also, the main story in StarCon3 would've been better had it been a new IP rather than a continuation from StarConII. I eventually did find myself liking and preferring StarCon2 more than StarCon3, but without the intense hate for the latter as most who experienced the former first. I kinda wonder if that would've happened again if I played Starcraft2 first before Starcraft1.

I guess it's a variation on the "First Installment Wins" feeling that people get. If you experienced the latest entry first without knowing all the stuff before (LotR before the Hobbit, Sc2 before Sc1, StarCon3 before StarCon2), it can seem kinda great.

[sandwich_bird]

But the LotR story is largely a "serious affair" when you look at it in it's entirety. Amongst other things, it's a story about the loss of innocence, finding strength in adversity, the nature of evil and how damaging experiences can change you - all serious subject matter. In contrast, the Hobbit is a children's book where the changes are focused one character and are largely relegated to positive/light ones like Bilbo being more open to things and wiser and there being no lasting negative consequences. I think the opposite, in that the movies try to take the Hobbit story too seriously and make it more in line with the LotR films which is why it doesn't work for me. The Hobbit is a very simple story compared to LotR but the films don't reflect that.

The only book I ever read was The fellowship of the Ring and that was 20 years ago and it wasn't even in English haha. I take the movies as they are rather than an adaptation so I can't comment on the faithfulness of it.

What I can say though is that, even if LotR is at it's core a serious affair, the scripts develop like a cartoon. The events are always too convenient and don't evolve in a believable way. For example, Aragorn throws a torch in one of the Nazgul's face, they decide to retreat? wtf, why? 1 you can't die, 2, you still outnumber them. In Moria they get surrounded by Orcs but they don't attack them or anything. Why are they just forming a circle around them instead of charging? And of course, the gang is conveniently saved by the Balrog showing up. In the Two Towers, Gimli and Aragorn go through this super obvious side door that everyone else ignores, they jump on the bridge, have their fun and manage to go be unscratched by what should have been, for all intent and purposes, a suicide mission. In the Return of the King, they don't have enough men to help Minas Tiril but it's okay because they're camping outside an invincible undead army camp that Aragorn can control. Or, Frodo gets captured and Sam would have to go through an entire fortress of orc but meh, it's okay, they all kill themselves!

None of this is serious writing. The Hobbit also has these sort of things of course but since the core story and the presentation are lighter, I don't have a problem with it. From the get go, you see the characters do impossible over the top stuff so if they take on an army of orc by themselves, yeah I don't mind. What they show they can do match what the story wants to tell.

Ooh ooh, please do elaborate! Fellowship has the most things cut-out of the books (Tom Bombadil anyone?) and for the better since it keeps the pacing tighter. The Two Towers has the most "meandering" moments but that's part of the book and help setup the situation in return of the King, so that can't be helped. The Greybeard, Merry and Pippin sections in particular are laborious to go through even though it was intentional for it to be so. Return of the King has that infamous "too many endings" thing which I didn't mind since we've invested so much time with them already, having more time to resolve things is fine. Just imagine if they put the Scouring of the Shire in there as it was in the book!

It's not so much about the number of events rather than it is about the length of said events. LotR feels damn slow because there's so many slowed down shots or otherwise scenes where nothing happens. This is especially true in the Fellowship of the Ring. The Hobbit on the other hand well is filmed at 48fps of course so that by itself helps it look faster but they also have very few slowed down shots.

The result of this is that you have these long stretches with 0 action. You mentioned it before but LotR first half has almost nothing happening for so long. Things start getting interesting when they get to Moria. At that point The story beats get faster but they manage to screw it up by being over-dramatic. Like for a 5 minutes fight with the Orcs, you get a 5 minutes of Frodo "not getting killed". For 5 minutes of them running from the Balrog, you get 15 minutes of everyone crying about Gandalf, which, btw, I have problem taking seriously cause they all had more than enough time to walk back there and take his hand (and of course I knew he wasn't dead but you know..). And man, that ending... Oof. It never ends! Should have just cut it right after Aragorn is made king, kisses his girl, praise the Hobbits, the end! The rest could be an epilogue in the credit roll or something.

Anyways, contrast that with the Hobbit where it's more like 10 minutes of action with the goblins, 5 minutes of Bilbo is not gone then 10 minutes of the Orc riders attacking. And during that 5 minutes of discussion, you don't have a 3 minute long slowed down face shot. Things move quickly. People say what they have to say and get on with the plot.

It's because it is dragged out. There are many scenes that are just padding and slow the momentum of the films to a crawl. The sudden burst of CGI/action/fighting feel like a crutch for a movie because the characters are so bland and dry. You'd think having three films would enable them to flesh out the dwarves a bit more but the only ones that spring to mind are Thorin (obviously) and that one that likes the made up she-elf character played by Evangeline Lilly. That are I don't even remember his name shows how unmemorable the characterisation is. Also, why the heck is Legolas in this film series so much? I don't remember him being in the novel!

I think the point is that you're not supposed to remember them on a deep level individually apart from Thorin and his son. The character IS the group. It honestly would be pretty boring if they did expand on them individually for many reasons. Otherwise, their characterization is done visually. You have the old one with the hearing aid for example. I don't need to know his name or need to learn how he lost his ear. But you have these fun moments where he put a table cloth in his hearing aid when the elves are playing music or how he tunes it when Bilbo is saying something important. These guys are basically the equivalent of Legolas and Gimli in LotR. In fact, if you consider the group as the character, there's a lot more development than Legolas and Gimli. What do these 2 ever do except be comedic relief and do whatever Aragorn does? Speaking of which, Legolas actually has character development in the Hobbit. And honestly, it might not have been part of the book (which again, I didn't read) but it's actually a very good inclusion in my opinion. It helps explain who he is, why he's not with the other elves and why he follows Aragorn (though I gotta admit that last one is kinda "meh"). Also, he takes the over the top action to an entirely new level lol.

Honestly, I think people didn't give the characters a chance because it's less serious than LotR and it doesn't follow the book or whatever else. People probably had this preconceived idea of what it should be and when the movie didn't match their vision, they blindly hated it. Like, if I get down to it, I don't find the characters in the Hobbit worse than in LotR. I don't see why Tauriel (Evengeline) is a worse character than Arwen or how Bard(the human hero) is worse than Aragorn. Smaug vs Saruman. The nameless orc generals/Nazguls vs the pale orc. You even have more time to learn about them because there's less of them and they all have an exposed backstory and development. That's actually a big problem with LotR. There's too many characters and not enough time to care about them.

I sort've had a similar experience with the Star Control games (it's a very old game series) but with a different outcome in the end. My first experience with it was StarCon3 that was, unbeknownst to me at the time, maligned by all the fanbase. I didn't mind it at the time and found it quite interesting and different. The main story it was telling was kinda unique and there were many odd aliens/characters to talk to. When I got around to playing the original StarCon2 much later (there's a freeware version called the Ur-Quan Masters), it was more dated but it had a tonne of charm and I realised why there was so much hate for StarCon3. Although they used some of the races and gameplay, it seemed superfluous to include them in StarCon3. The changes/revelations to some of the original aliens motivations and goings-on in that universe that were put in StarCon3 were fine to me at the time but when viewed under the perspective of having experienced StarCon2 first, I found that some of those mysteries in StarCon2 were stronger/great because we didn't know the answers and that it fueled investment through curiosity and speculation. Also, the main story in StarCon3 would've been better had it been a new IP rather than a continuation from StarConII. I eventually did find myself liking and preferring StarCon2 more than StarCon3, but without the intense hate for the latter as most who experienced the former first. I kinda wonder if that would've happened again if I played Starcraft2 first before Starcraft1.

Is Starcon origins worth playing you think? For someone who never played any of the previous ones? Saw it on Steam, looked fun. The other ones are a bit too old for me lol.

[Turalyon]

What I can say though is that, even if LotR is at it's core a serious affair, the scripts develop like a cartoon. The events are always too convenient and don't evolve in a believable way. For example, Aragorn throws a torch in one of the Nazgul's face, they decide to retreat? wtf, why? 1 you can't die, 2, you still outnumber them. In Moria they get surrounded by Orcs but they don't attack them or anything. Why are they just forming a circle around them instead of charging? And of course, the gang is conveniently saved by the Balrog showing up. In the Two Towers, Gimli and Aragorn go through this super obvious side door that everyone else ignores, they jump on the bridge, have their fun and manage to go be unscratched by what should have been, for all intent and purposes, a suicide mission. In the Return of the King, they don't have enough men to help Minas Tiril but it's okay because they're camping outside an invincible undead army camp that Aragorn can control. Or, Frodo gets captured and Sam would have to go through an entire fortress of orc but meh, it's okay, they all kill themselves!

Ah, movie logic! The novels don't really specify or explain the battles/fighting in any great detail, so most of the "action" you see in the film is stuff they made up. It's kind of on par with the "action" you see in The Hobbit.

None of this is serious writing.

I wasn't actually thinking of the fighting and the physical stuff that happens when I said it had "serious writing", but more in terms of characterisation, plotting and the themes.

It's not so much about the number of events rather than it is about the length of said events. LotR feels damn slow because there's so many slowed down shots or otherwise scenes where nothing happens. This is especially true in the Fellowship of the Ring. The Hobbit on the other hand well is filmed at 48fps of course so that by itself helps it look faster but they also have very few slowed down shots.

The framerate of The Hobbit was one of the things that put some people off because tt made things look more fake and Tv-like, I hear.

The result of this is that you have these long stretches with 0 action. You mentioned it before but LotR first half has almost nothing happening for so long.

I think LotR is memorable not so much for it's action set pieces but for the time it spends on in-depth characterisation and world-building. It may seem like nothing's happening to you perhaps if you're not into that sort of stuff.

Anyways, contrast that with the Hobbit where it's more like 10 minutes of action with the goblins, 5 minutes of Bilbo is not gone then 10 minutes of the Orc riders attacking. And during that 5 minutes of discussion, you don't have a 3 minute long slowed down face shot. Things move quickly. People say what they have to say and get on with the plot.

Yeah, but it gives off a distinct whiff of action for the sake of action with none of it holding any meaning or consequence. It just feels like meaningless stuff is happening. Kinda like how the last few seasons of Game of Thrones came off.

Honestly, I think people didn't give the characters a chance because it's less serious than LotR and it doesn't follow the book or whatever else.

I think sorta the opposite: that the film takes itself too seriously for the source material that it was. It's a story that could've easily been simplified and told in one movie. You don't need Legolas or the extended Gandalf scenes to tie it into the LotR films since they're a crutch (and unnecessary bloat) that shows they didn't have faith in the simple story The Hobbit really was.

Is Starcon origins worth playing you think? For someone who never played any of the previous ones? Saw it on Steam, looked fun. The other ones are a bit too old for me lol.

Can't see why not but I've never played it. I hear it apes the stylistic feel and humour of the old ones - sort of like a love letter to the original. It's supposed to be a prequel but the original creators didn't have a hand in it (there was a dispute over IP rights recently). I think it's kinda of a throwback to the original game - which wasn't always fun in terms of gameplay - so take that as you will. I'm not usually one for sequels/prequels or derivatives if I can get it in it's unadulterated form.

I remember StarControl largely for the universe it created (the Ur-quan are one of the most memorable antagonists ever - which is saying a lot when presented with the limited tech they had back at the day) and the arcade-like "super melee" battles between two ships.

[The_Blade]

I too watched LotR and The Hobbit a few months back. Honestly, I'm with Sandwich on how LotR (movies) is hailed as peak fantasy but, ironically, it's really not. Likewise, Star Wars is not peak Sci-fi. At a literary sense it's more like an epic/play, as a movie. While Peter Jackson probably did a great mainstream adaptation of the LotR series, most of its characters and story lines were separated from their personalities. However, The Hobbit is probably a worse offender as to what breaks character, driving narrative home and giving weight to the plot. Moreover, it managed to offend its fanbase on so many levels. The whole relationship between the elf lady and the dwarf while cutting Legolas into it fucks with Legolas' friendship with Gimli arc. The overuse of cgi and bad tools at the top of that list (IIRC this made Christopher Lee cry/angry because he filmed all of his scenes on a green room with no other actor present). Even Smaug felt watered down, because every antagonist that was met beforehand failed to impose a meaningful presence or overshadowed Smaug (white orc).

Even if The Hobbit had been a fantastic trilogy, I would argue that LotR would still be hailed as the peak of the genre, mostly due to nostalgia. IMO this happened with Star Wars. Despite The Phantom Menace and Anakin's plot in The Clone Wars, the prequels were overall much deeper and far more entertaining than the original trilogy. However, it's clear that Revenge of the Sith stands above the ground of Empire Strikes back on so many levels .

[Turalyon]

^ What is considered "peak" though? I think it's got more to do how it was incomparable to anything else in recent experience at the time. Also, the stench of sequelitis is also probably the reason why later entries are often seen as less favourable.

Give it time. The Hobbit trilogy will be seen in a positive light by the time the next iteration of the LotR IP comes out, much like how the prequel SW is looked on kinda favourably now - moreso in light of the current sequel SW trilogy.

[The_Blade]

^ What is considered "peak" though? I think it's got more to do how it was incomparable to anything else in recent experience at the time. Also, the stench of sequelitis is also probably the reason why later entries are often seen as less favourable.

Give it time. The Hobbit trilogy will be seen in a positive light by the time the next iteration of the LotR IP comes out, much like how the prequel SW is looked on kinda favourably now - moreso in light of the current sequel SW trilogy.

I'm not arguing that the movies were stale or mediocre as a whole. Regardless of the debt of the plot, it's quite entertaining (the hobbit too) and the visuals hold up very well to modern standards. It's everything a good, mainstream movie should aspire to. However, fantasy was a realm that was very lightly touched by cinema. LotR in its cinematic interpretations of Tolkien's peak fantasy books cuts many corners and elements that give the written work so much dept in the genre that was grandfathered by Tolkien himself. All things considered, it a great fantasy series, just not the best at describing the genre in my opinion.

I'd say another honorable mention to the peak of fantasy is Harry Potter. It suffers from some of the issues LotR had, like cutting characters down (ex. Draco Malfoy). Due to the series length it has more room to interpret everything that made the Harry Potter universe rich. On the other hand, the Harry Potter lore is much less dense than LotR so I would still consider it under LotR overall.

I would give the fantasy crown to Hayao Miyasaki for "Spirited Away", "Princess Mononoke" and "Howl's Moving Castle", among other lesser known titles of his. Guillermo del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth", while being more of a historical fiction piece, enthralls you into the fantasy realm of a child's mind with silksmooth storytelling. "Life of Pi" would also make that list while being slightly divorced from the modern concept of a fantasy world.

Well, Amazon is currently making a more in between plot between the Hobbit and LotR for a web series. Considering the recent controversies around Amazon wanting to scrap The Silmarillion for x or y reason, I don't see why your prediction couldn't become true.

I just finished Westworld season 3 and honestly I am heavily underwhelmed by these new plot points and lack of new interesting characters. I feel like the season did create a favorable ground for the later 3 seasons that have been already greenlighted by HBO, but I do not have any high expectations coming forwards. I totally recommend Season 1 as a stand alone story, if anyone is looking to start a series.

[sandwich_bird]

Guess we won't agree on The Hobbit guys lol. I'd like to point out that I do still like LotR despite bashing the trilogy. In fact, this whole thing made me want to go play LotR online! Which I ended up quitting after I got bored with the typical MMO quest system... and then I started playing ME: Shadow of War which is pretty fun.

Despite The Phantom Menace and Anakin's plot in The Clone Wars, the prequels were overall much deeper and far more entertaining than the original trilogy. However, it's clear that Revenge of the Sith stands above the ground of Empire Strikes back on so many levels .

Well, to continue my unorthodox positions, I actually think the Phantom Menace is the best Skywalker saga™ movie XD. Anakin annoys the hell out of me in ep 2 and 3 though so it's hard for me to like them.

The best Star Wars movie is easily and by a large margin Rogue One. That says a lot from me considering I usually find dull SW stuff that don't involve much jedis. Jedi/Siths are the best thing in Star Wars and I'm baffled by the fact that Disney keeps releasing crap that don't have that stuff. Solo movie, Lando movie, etc, man I couldn't care less. Give me some old republic jedi/sith stuff already wtf

I would give the fantasy crown to Hayao Miyasaki for "Spirited Away", "Princess Mononoke" and "Howl's Moving Castle", among other lesser known titles of his.

I don't want to crown anything but yeah... these 3 movies are amazing.

Since we're on topic, I'm kinda curious tura and blade, what are your top 5 all time movies?

[The_Blade]

Rogue One, Revenge of the Sith and Empire Strikes Back are all contenders for the #1 StarWars film, for me it's Rogue One. I do believe that many StarWars fans will not admit that Rogue One is the best of both worlds and a fantastic link between the purist and prequel fandoms. Some backwater purist community even went as far as to call Rogue One the worst SW film ever.

As for my favorite movies (i'll cheat a bit):

Long Time Favorite List:
#1- Jurassic Park
- Gladiator
- Cinema Paradiso
- 3 Idiots
- Inglorious Basterds

Short Term Favorite:
- La La Land
- Parasite
- Rogue One
- Avengers Infinity War/Endgame
- Interstellar

From time to time, I'll think about moving some from my short term list to the long term. However this rarely happens. I am too attached to these films. For instance, I danced with my mother to a remastered version of "Welcome to Jurassic Park" for my wedding. Second half of the video is the main theme.