is the new samurai jack the rogue one of animation ? I SAW

>>92687575
DA SAMURAI RETURNED BUT NOT AS A WISER VERSION OF HIMSELF OH WELL

>>92687715
I APPLAUDED IT FOR BEING DIFFERENT

>>92687715
>>92687954
Acting stupid and acting stupid ironically are pretty much the same thing.
Get your own fucking jokes.

>>92688040
SJ ASPIE SJ ASPIE SJ ASPIE

>>92687575
Me personally, I thought Samurai Jack season 5, sponsored by DweebBarrel, was very cool, even though I was out beating up egghead nerds when the first season's pilot aired.

CGI DEMONGO SHOWED UP EVEN THO HE'S DEEEEAAAAD!

But did it break new ground?

>>92687575
WAIFU BAIT I'M GONNA CUMMMM

No because Samurai Jack is a continuation of a series involving the same characters. Rogue One was trying to be different but couldn't and only survived through references. Not saying season 5 was perfect but the two aren't similar

File: mike.gif (1MB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x404px

>>92688390
That's a really eloquent point you made and I think the vistas are what really sets it apart.

>>92687575
IT BROKE NEW GROUND!

>>92688040
IT BROKE NEW GROUND

>>92688703
t. Jew-Jew.

>>92688718
The vistas and the pacing did not at all feel rushed and padded out, depending on the episode. It was a perfectly balanced story that was meticulously planned out ahead of time where every detsil was put in place with a specific purpouse that the story could not do without.

Alan Moore, eat your beard off.

Magic Sword.
IN REVERB
Magic Sword.

I don't get any of these memes and I suspect /tv/'s foul hand.

>>92687575
Can anyone give me a quick rundown on RLM's gripes with Rogue One? I don't want to give them YouTube shekels

Obviously not, seeing the first three episodes didn't have any callbacks as far as I remember... did they have the battle against Aku? Anyway they didn't have any MAJOR callbacks for the first three episodes, and those were the best.

Scaramouche is hands-down the most popular character in season 5 and he's brand new and doesn't "rhyme" with any of the previous characters.

In the sense that retards bitch about it, then sure.

>>92689322
>mobileposter thinking his "click" matters

Is there anything sadder?

>>92689322
The story was disjointed and the characters had no dimension, and the fanservice felt forced rather than elegant.

They later said they don't hate it so much, they just find the entire franchise corporate and soulless now.

>>92689322
They don't care about the characters because ultimately it's a bunch of "faceless" soldiers fighting all the time with little or no personality other than the very broad strokes.
The movie relies on "remember this" too much and not enough on actually having engaging characters and a story.

>>92689376
>if I call him a phoneposter then nobody will know I'm a phoneposter!

Could you be any more obvious?

File: QOD.When-should-I-stop-spoon-feeding-my-babyTHUMB-800x500.png (377KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 800x500px

>>92689282
The choo choo train is coming, open wide!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc2kFk5M9x4

>>92689444
So he was right, it's a bunch of crossposting faggots.

File: 1453054591386.jpg (16KB, 412x445px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 412x445px

>>92689395
>they just find the entire franchise corporate and soulless now
Sure they do.
Watch them give The Last Jedi a positive review.

>>92689529
They still give decent movies decent reviews, they just make sure to point out decisions that feel focus-group driven rather than creative.

>>92689444
that's not spoonfeeding. that's crossposting and shilling though.

File: 1460560029172.gif (3MB, 222x379px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 222x379px

>>92689547
Yeah, but I felt that the fanservice was much more forced in Force awakens than Rogue One.
I still liked both movies, though.

>>92689481
isn't it weird how star wars fans exist on both /tv/ and /co/
I wonder why that is

>>92689430
If you were on a desktop then you have adblock on your browser. Since you're crying about "Youtube shekels" it means you're a little kid with a mobile phone.

>>92689608
I don't remember RLM making a Samurai Jack review.

>>92687575

But both Rogue One and Samurai Jack were filled with much more than images of toys and characters, even if you didn't like them. This is just an exaggerated strawman where you pretend the thing was literally devoid of any all all content, and though it's a good way to poke fun, it's willfully ignorant and really only meant as a vague insult for people who were entertained enough not to throw a public internet fit about it.

>>92688390

>it was the jocks!

Sure it was, moviebob, sure it was.

>>92689652

Wow, it's almost like people can parody certain pieces of media to make them relevant to other ones!

>>92689761
>Someone hasn't watched the Nerd Crew
It's a variation on a piece of dialogue they did, pointdexter.

>>92687575
/tv/ go home, you're drunk

>>92689395

It was really just a war movie about the operations preceding the first Star Wars movie. They're right the characters fell flat but why complain that a Star Wars movie was about a about parts of a war?

>>92688434
Don't you get the implication here? If he shows up again after time passes, won't Aku just reappeat one day?

File: 1493402722176.jpg (90KB, 814x696px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 814x696px

>IT BROKE NEW GROUND

File: 1491714992920.jpg (297KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 1280x720px

I SAW ASHI AND I FAPPED

File: 1494293035752.png (45KB, 438x157px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 438x157px

>>92687575
>criticize Rogue One for fan pandering
>they don't the same thing for TFA

File: the-guns-of-navarone-1.jpg (889KB, 961x1509px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 961x1509px

>>92690080
There's absolutely no reason a war movie can't have interesting characters with interesting, or at least logical, arcs.

This shit is 50 years old and manages to have more character development.

>>92690311
This. Force Awakens is objectively ten times worse than Rogue One.

File: 1493647555256.png (931KB, 636x960px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 636x960px

>>92690311
I liked both movies, but the fanservice in TFA was woven into the story in a logical way. In Rogue One things just popped up for once scene then went away, for no other reason than to remind the viewer that characters we know exist in the same universe.

>>92691420
At least TFA followed a logical sequence of events, and characters did things that seemed consistent with the way they're introduced. I still don't know why Diego Luna didn't shoot Galen, and I still don't know why Felicity Jones gave some dumb speech out of nowhere.

>>92690311
>>they don't the same thing for TFA
Eventually Mike walked back some of his praise for TFA, saying that he got caught up in the hype. If you watch the Plinkett review it's a lot more critical than what they said on Half in the Bag (though of course he has to maintain a certain level of criticism as Plinkett)

>>92691953
I felt this weird sense of betrayal with TFA. It's such a well made movie in terms of production, I couldn't help but like it. I even watched it twice. Then as time passed and I thought about the movie I hated it more and more, I can't believe I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

>>92691524
At least Rogue One was it's own movie and not a rehash of A New Hope.

Also, say what you want about Felicity's character, but at least she wasn't an insufferable Mary Sue.

>>92687575
No, it's quite the opposite.
It truly is a part of the old show instead of a lifeless imitator, the characters are good and memorable (like them or hate them), and most of all, it's an ending rather than a prequel, signifying that the franchise is done rather than being turned into a zombie cash cow. Also it had a strong and memorable first act with less impressive climax rather than the other way around.

>>92691524
>felicity jones and Diego Luna
Your post made me realize I don't remember a single character's name from rogue 1

>>92691397

Of course not, other movies are definitely way better and achieve so much more, but I don't think enjoying a Star Wars movie for Star Wars themed action and battle scenes makes you a retarded shill frothing at the mouth for more AT-STs.

>>92693936
And it makes you directly responsible for the endless string of shitty sequels and reboots.

>>92687575
AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST! AT-ST!

Apart from Scotsman which did feel forced, it was an good expansion of the original and all callbacks made sense.

>>92693983

>buying a ticket means you personally made the movie
This is exactly the type of autism that has critics looking like the self-important salty smartasses they are. The movie only costs $8 to watch, and for some reason these spazzes will sooner shit on individuals for spending less than the cost of a decent meal than they will the industry that created it.

As if the critics don't buy tickets themselves!

>>92694452
>As if the critics don't buy tickets themselves!
Depends, usually they either get free early screenings or have a ticket payed for them already by their bosses and have to go watch it, since they are payed to watch these movies.

But yeah, James Rolfe probably had the right idea: "If it looks like there is no chance in hell you'd like it, just plain don't watch it".

>>92689395
I was on the fence about watching any RLM until this post, because that's almost word for word my opinion on Rogue One.

>>92689416
So like every WWII movie from the 60s?

>>92694976
RLM usually know what they're talking about, though sometimes they come off as up there own ass. Especially Rich whenever he's doing any vidya review.

File: Fug 3.jpg (11KB, 321x322px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 321x322px

>>92690266

Be honest.

Would you?