Chipotlemonger said:

---

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

Chipotlemonger said:

---

---

---

---

You got me.

Dekker_Lentz said:

---

AliasMan02 said:

---

At least in Legends, granting Jedi abilities through blood transfusion was tried and failed.

---

At some point I think Disney needs to fix the most glaring issues of the prequels. My suggestions.

1. Explain that midiclorians don't have anything to do with force strength or granting the force. They are just attracted to force users and generally speaking the stronger in the force you are, the more you find and that it is just a crude way to measure how strong someone in the force is.

2. Explain that the rule of two was just an ideological doctrine the Sith try to follow. That it isn't some hard and fast rule. There can be more than two Sith's at any point.

---

1. Easy, just have a book written where Luke , after Endor, discovers some holocron recording (from Yoda?) like a diary saying Qui-Gon is being radicalized and though he's a great Jedi he's got some kooky theories about midichlorians. Then go back and edit all the other Jedi characters with CGI to roll their eyes every time he talks about midichlorians...

2. Captain Barbosa /gif

redline248 said:

---

The Porkchop Express said:

---

redline248 said:

---

By the way, here is the real question...and it's likely muddled b/c of the questions about what is canon and what isn't...

If Bane created the rule of two AFTER the Jedi thought the Sith were extinct...how did the Jedi Council know about it in Phantom Menace?

---

It's in a couple of bigger reference type books about a Jedi named Kibh Jeen, who fell to the dark side on some planet with a Sith temple. He killed his master and built up an army not unlike Maul in the Clone Wars era. When the Jedi finally stop him he says the Rule of the Two (one to wield the power, one to covet it) while he's dying.

---

Which books?

So, do they believe he was the last of the Sith...or what?

---

It's around 180 BBY so High Republic era.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Kibh_Jeen

There's been some speculation that Acolyte will follow some of this story

Full video:https://t.co/wSmS7vWWZr

— Matthew “Movies” Thomason  (@ResDolph) January 11, 2023

They did this with the Marvel films, I would hope they eventually do it for all IMAX-shot movies.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, it's crazy that they haven't yet, though, considering the IMAX versions of the Marvel movies have been on Disney+ for a good while now. As someone who's not at all a fan of the sequel trilogy, I would instantly rewatch huge chunks of it if were available at home in the IMAX format. Same for Dune - one of my favorite movies of the past decade, shot in IMAX, but for some insane reason isn't yet available in the IMAX format on digital/Blu-ray. It should be standard practice by now to release IMAX versions at home, especially considering they fill up the 16x9 frame of all TVs/lose the black bars.

---

I was interested to see what the IMAX format looks like on a 16:9 and I found this description.

Quote:

---

Red is 16:9 like an HD television. Blue is 1.9:1 like IMAX. Green is 2.39:1 which is what it was filmed at and what the Blu-ray DVD is displayed at. So for 1.9:1 you'd have some small black bars. On a 1920 x 1080 television, the black bars would be roughly 35 pixels on the top and bottom. For 2.39:1, the black bars would be roughly 276 pixels on the top and bottom.

---

Yeah, for all intents and purposes, IMAX on 16:9 TVs is basically shown in 16x9. It's super close, with thin, hardly noticeable black bars at the top and bottom. So the image is still cropped, but at least essentially fills the screen. The only true, 1.43:1 IMAX release I've seen on digital/Blu-ray is for the Snyder cut of Justice League. It's the full IMAX image; basically a square inside a rectangle, with black bars on each side.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, for all intents and purposes, IMAX on 16:9 TVs is basically shown in 16x9. It's super close, with thin, hardly noticeable black bars at the top and bottom. So the image is still cropped, but at least essentially fills the screen. The only true, 1.43:1 IMAX release I've seen on digital/Blu-ray is for the Snyder cut of Justice League. It's the full IMAX image; basically a square inside a rectangle, with black bars on each side.

---

Whenever Mandalorian would switch to 16:9 for the big action episodes, it never failed to annoy me knowing that the whole show wasn't shown this way. It makes no sense for TV shows to not shoot everything in that format, even for prestige television.

For the Star Wars and Marvel Disney+ shows, my assumption was that they were keeping the ultra widescreen aspect ratio in order to stay consistent with the already established movies. So everything, across all mediums/platforms, was 2:39:1. But then they threw that out the window when they introduced the IMAX versions of the Marvel movies to the platform.

Either way, yeah, 16x9 looks so much better for TV shows, and looks especially incredible when Mando switches to it for the big action sequences.

TCTTS said:

---

Yeah, for all intents and purposes, IMAX on 16:9 TVs is basically shown in 16x9. It's super close, with thin, hardly noticeable black bars at the top and bottom. So the image is still cropped, but at least essentially fills the screen. The only true, 1.43:1 IMAX release I've seen on digital/Blu-ray is for the Snyder cut of Justice League. It's the full IMAX image; basically a square inside a rectangle, with black bars on each side.

---

Are you saying then that the blue image in Malachis post would also have black bars on either side that are not accounted for in his image?

I'm constantly having to re-educate myself on this topic.

No, 1.9:1 only has very thin bars on top and bottom. They're hardly noticeable, and for all intents and purposes, 1.9:1 basically fills up a 16:9 TV screen. Check out any of the IMAX versions of the Marvel movies on Disney+ and you'll see. True, 1.43:1 IMAX is basically a square. Think of it as being a "taller" image. And the only movie that I know of that retained its true, 1.43:1 IMAX ratio for home release is Snyder's cut of Justice League. That's the only release that has black bars on the sides. Even the Nolan IMAX movies on Blu-ray are cropped from 1.43:1 to 1.9:1, and thus have no black bars on the sides.

TCTTS said:

---

No, 1.9:1 only has very thin bars on top and bottom. They're hardly noticeable, and for all intents and purposes, 1.9:1 basically fills up a 16:9 TV screen. Check out any of the IMAX versions of the Marvel movies on Disney+ and you'll see. True, 1.43:1 IMAX is basically a square. Think of it as being a "taller" image. And the only movie that I know of that retained its true, 1.43:1 IMAX ratio for home release is Snyder's cut of Justice League. That's the only release that has black bars on the sides. Even the Nolan IMAX movies on Blu-ray are cropped from 1.43:1 to 1.9:1, and thus have no black bars on the sides.

---

So, why does that one film [Justice League] have black bars on the sides then and how do you know others wouldn't?

I'm not trying to play gotcha here and be a dick. This topic drives me nuts like it does you. Just don't understand why that one movie would look different. We need a f'ing standardization war here and for the right one to win!

It's purely up to the director. Think of it like this...

- Every true, 1:43:1 IMAX movie is a tall, giant, square when viewed on a true IMAX screen in a true IMAX movie theater. So far, though, only one movie has ever been shot/presented *entirely* in 1.43:1 (Zack Snyder's cut of Justice League). Traditionally - as with Christopher Nolan's movies, Dune, etc - the big action scenes "expand" vertically to 1:43:1, but then every other scene is essentially either presented in a 16x9 rectangle, or in 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen (the "thinnest"/"widest" image), with the top and bottom of the image cropped.

- Because we don't make square TVs anymore, the director then has to decide how he/she wants their 1.43:1 square IMAX scenes shown on a 16x9 rectangular screen at home. So far, every single IMAX director, save for Zack Snyder, has decided to simply crop the top and bottom of that square off, to essentially fill a 16x9 TV - or - keep the entire movie in 2.40:1 anamorphic widescreen (where, on a TV, there are thick black bars on top and bottom).

- Zack Snyder, however, decided he *didn't* want to crop the top and bottom of the 1:43:1 square IMAX image off, so he presented the movie, as a square, on our rectangular 16x9 screens at home. Basically, he didn't want to compromise the image at all, thus the square presented in a rectangle, thus the black bars on the sides of the image.

For instance, here's a formatting guide that was made for Dune. See how the 1.43:1 ratio gives us the "tallest," "squarest" image, and thus the most picture? We ONLY ever see that version in an IMAX theater. Traditionally, for digital/Blu-ray, it's then up to the director to decide if they're going to show their movie in 1.90:1 (which essentially fills your 16x9 rectangle TV) or 2.40:1. Either one crops off the top and bottom of the 1.43:1 image, the 2.40:1 just crops it more (thus the thick black bars on top and bottom of the image when shown on a TV).

Zack Snyder, however, said "Screw that, I don't want to crop anything," and kept his 1.43:1 version intact for home release, thus the black bars on the sides, inside a rectangular 16x9 TV.

It's all confusing to me. I feel that historically, directors have always preferred wider images, thus the reasons that theater screens (and therefore hdtvs) are wide. But now they're starting to make movies that are more square with imax. Am I off base here?

Back in the day, widescreen was all the rage because it was a selling point to get people out of the house, away from their square TVs, and into a theater. And then, yes, directors started preferring the wider image because of how sprawling and cinematic it looked, comparatively. They thought of it as "expanding" outward - left and right - from a square TV image, offering "more" image. But then, over the decades, as widescreen became ubiquitous, and theaters got bigger, with stadium seating, etc, certain directors like Christopher Nolan sought to up the ante, and "expand" the image yet again - this time up and down - to give us even more picture real estate. They saw the nature docs and what not being shown at IMAX museums and thought, "Why can't we do that for feature films?"

So, basically, in the same way they once "expanded" the image left and right from the square TV screen - and considering that, in a theater, the screen couldn't be made any wider - they decided to "expand" the image once more, this time into the unused space above and below the screen. The only "problem" was, in the meantime, TVs evolved to be made in the rectangular 16x9 aspect ratio, because A) it's a more natural image/aspect ratio, but also because B) it better-accommodated widescreen movies. And now, the directors who are trying to give us maximum picture in the theater via IMAX are left having to make a choice when bring their IMAX movies home.

Personally, I think this all gets solved one day when we finally do away with TV frames altogether, and a projected image - even in daylight - is as bright as the brightest 4K TV. Then we can watch even 1.43:1 IMAX movies in our homes, as big as our walls will allow.

That's pretty good

Makes sense. Will ask again in a year when I forget.

It does seem like a bad choice on that Dune image to make the point. I would have expected an image where the IMAX image showed the bottom of a ship or something actually unseen rather than just more nondescript sky and rock.

YouBet said:

---

Makes sense. Will ask again in a year when I forget.

It does seem like a bad choice on that Dune image to make the point. I would have expected an image where the IMAX image showed the bottom of a ship or something actually unseen rather than just more nondescript sky and rock.

---

Haha, didn't think about that until you said it.

I laughed WAY too hard at that…..and now I want that shirt!

My kids were cracking up as I was describing it to my wife (she doesn't understand SW). Son said he definitely wanted one.

New Ahsoka detail (rumor) that ties into this picture



says that Ahsoka rides a Loth Wolf, which was Kannan's spirit animal in the Force in Rebels during her series.

Also announced recently, really cool comic book style going to do a 4-part Vader series. First issue comes out April 26.



STAR WARS: DARTH VADER - BLACK, WHITE & RED #1
JASON AARON, PEACH MOMOKO & TORUNN GRNBEKK
Art by LEONARD KIRK, PEACH MOMOKO & MORE
COVER BY Alex Maleev
VARIANT COVER BY Jim Cheung
THE DARK LORD OF THE SITH LIKE YOU'VE NEVER SEEN HIM BEFORE!
Following the successful Black, White & Red series produced by Marvel Comics, DARTH VADER now takes the spotlight for tales of terror by some of the industry's most talented creators!

The four-issue comic anthology an extension of the popular Black, White & Blood series that has followed the histories of other fan-favorite characters like Wolverine, Deadpool, and Moon Knight will include stories written and illustrated by a team of renowned authors and artists, including a four-part story penned by Jason Aaron. Aaron previously wrote the first installment in the relaunch of the Star Wars flagship comic series in 2015 and the Sith-centered Vader Down the following year.

One Vader quote from the spinoff ranks among the writer's all-time favorite lines: "All I am surrounded by is fear. And dead men."

"That moment from Vader Down is still one of my favorite things I've written during my time at Marvel," Aaron tells StarWars.com. "I loved getting to let Darth Vader cut loose with all his power in such an epic way. I couldn't pass up the chance to revel in the dark side again and put Vader in an even more perilous situation... and then see how he carves his way out."

In Star Wars: Darth Vader Black, White & Red issue #1, Vader returns to his vile ways with a trio of tales penned by Aaron, Peach Momoko, and Torunn Grnbekk, with art by Momoko in her debut as an interior artist for a Star Wars comic, Leonard Kirk, and more. "It is always a treat to draw anything for Star Wars," Kirk tells StarWars.com. "It is a double treat to draw anything for Star Wars featuring Darth Vader. And it is a triple treat to draw anything for Star Wars featuring Darth Vader at his Sithiest, nastiest, most vile and violent."

The series will also mark Grnbekk's debut in the galaxy far, far away. "Darth Vader has always been my favorite part of Star Wars make of that what you will!" she tells StarWars.com. "To say that I am excited to make my Star Wars debut writing the most iconic pop culture villain in history would be the understatement of the year. It's been a joy to create a story that not only gives you a glimpse of the gritty reality of the Star Wars universe but also showcases Vader at his most cunning and violent."

A must watch... The Empire Strikes Back (bad lip syncing) pic.twitter.com/VuAbnYNlHK

— 80s Kidz (@80s_Kidz) January 15, 2023