10 hours ago, Zrob314 said:So this is gonna be a Lone Wolf and Cub thing?
No it's going to be Look Who's Talking .
7 minutes ago, Jester8908 said:Man, I'm tempted, but I just cant bring myself to trust Lucasfilm again.
The first 40 minutes of this television show was better than Episode's 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 combined.
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:The first 40 minutes of this television show was better than Episode's 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 combined
I agree with 7&8, but the prequels are good. If your saying it's better because it's not separated from the original trilogy by 20+ years than...
19 minutes ago, ArcticJedi said:but the prequels are good.
What a strange timeline we live in which the prequels are now the good ones and people want George Lucas back to make the movies.................Of course with him changing who shot first again it appears that no matter what timeline George will be George.
5 minutes ago, ArcticJedi said:I agree with 7&8, but the prequels are good. If your saying it's better because it's not separated from the original trilogy by 20+ years than...
7 and 8 are also better than the prequels, if only because they had better acting and actual costumes instead of cartoon clones. In his enthusiasm, George pushed the SFX envelope further than it was ready to go in 1999. And he should have hired a good co-director to handle the actors instead of doing it all himself.
Both the prequel and sequel trilogies were massive missed opportunities in any number of ways. Note that what I like to re-watch, is not the same thing as what I think constitutes a good movie. Technically speaking, I think the best of them all is still ANH, though I rarely re-watch it.
I might be willing to give the prequels a GPA of a D- between the three of them if you caught me on a generous day. TFA I'd give an F, and TLJ I give a C- as a film unto itself. If I grade any of them based on the opportunity costs incurred they're all F's. Episode One should have shown Luke, not Anakin, as a child as George Lucas said in his interviews, and the sequels should have been about Luke & Leia in their 60's, not about new young people. There was a real damaging effect to spreading the story around this much.
I'd give R1, ANH and ESB an A, probably ROTJ would get a B+. The Mandalorian looks to be solid A but who knows. There is much that is left to time and chance.
Ultimately The Mandalorian (or at least, what we've seen of it) is better than the 5 aforementioned films because it returns to the artistic obliqueness which made Star Wars it's own genre. The self-derivation of the sequels and the convoluted ring theory of the prequels both went too far afield in opposite directions, with no good art to base the universe on. Star Wars used to feel solid when you thumped it, but the new 5 films are all hollow. You can blame that on me being sadder and wiser than when I saw the OT, but if that were the case then R1 and The Mandalorian would have likewise fell flat for me.
4 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:What a strange timeline we live in which the prequels are now the good ones and people want George Lucas back to make the movies.................Of course with him changing who shot first again it appears that no matter what timeline George will be George.
I think it's mostly a combination of them being lent credit from the cartoon show, and, the children of 1999 being old now.
I like a lot of bad movies from my childhood, like Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves , but I know that I only like them cause I saw them as a kid. I don't get confused into thinking they're good art.
Edited by TauntaunScout11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:Episode One should have shown Luke, not Anakin, as a child as George Lucas said in his interviews, and the sequels should have been about Luke & Leia in their 60's, not about new young people. There was a real damaging effect to spreading the story around this much.
What would happen in an episode 1-3 with luke as a child? him running around shooting tusken raiders? Him bulls eyeing wamp rats? And why not focus on new people? Especially since Carrie Fisher died(may she rest in piece), I don't think that would have worked. I think that they fell flat with the new trilogy of course, they were terrible. They have no plot. Episode 1-3 has a plot you can see clearly from episode two, though of course, this could just be hindsight. But that aside, Ep.1-3 is interesting, and shows a different side of the star wars universe, it shows what happened to the old republic and what the clone wars were, something know one knew about until that point. Everyone after watching Episode 6 knows that the empire is done for and the rebellion is going to start a new government. But than Disney turns around and says "Basically we're remaking the original trilogy except it has no plot and looks better".
19 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:In his enthusiasm, George pushed the SFX envelope further than it was ready to go in 1999.
The special effects look great! While they aren't as good as things are today, that's because they have had a while to work on the technology.
24 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:7 and 8 are also better than the prequels, if only because they had better acting and actual costumes instead of cartoon clones.
Your saying, that looking better, and having actual people, is more important.... than the plot??? Look, I guess I can see where you're coming from, but having a newer looking original trilogy remake with new people and killing off slowly the old people is better than a new story that has new characters and a plot and doesn't kill off all the beloved OT characters??? Why? Look, I get that you're a original OT fan. But besides Jar Jar(I personally don't mind him, but I see why other people do) what is really wrong with the prequels? Bad acting? The OT had bad acting. SFX clones? How else is he supposed to make a billion clones run across an open field on Geonosis, or make sure they're all the same height? At least they have good duels in the prequels, as apposed to the sequel trilogy where a girl with no formal training kicks the but off a thrity year old who has years of formal training and force powers a plenty.
32 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:Star Wars used to feel solid when you thumped it, but the new 5 films are all hollow. You can blame that on me being sadder and wiser than when I saw the OT, but if that were the case then R1 and The Mandalorian would have likewise fell flat for me.
I agree that Rogue One is a great star wars film, but again, you only say that because it would fit in the original trilogy, same with the mandalorian. If the prequels had the same aesthetic as the OT you would say that they were amazing movies. Same with the sequels. 7&8 fell flat, but not because it doesn't look like the OT or the PT. It's 'cause it has no plot. It was not planned besides a basic outline that JJ had thought of, that Rian through out the window and JJ decided he couldn't retrieve. I think they've done well with the franchise besides the sequel trilogy so far. And perhaps in a few years they'll be a generation of fans who think that all three trilogies are good, and I'll be shaking my head at them. But I'll tell 'em a good reason for not liking it. It has no plot.
Try and convince me when you have a reason that has to do with the plot, not the design aesthetic.
-Arctic
2 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
In the span of about six posts, I'm watching this topic go from the second picture to the first. Amazing how quickly things devolve.
20 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:7 and 8 are also better than the prequels, if only because they had better acting and actual costumes instead of cartoon clones. In his enthusiasm, George pushed the SFX envelope further than it was ready to go in 1999. And he should have hired a good co-director to handle the actors instead of doing it all himself.
17 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:I think it's mostly a combination of them being lent credit from the cartoon show, and, the children of 1999 being old now.
Let me start this off with saying everyone can enjoy whatever they want and everyone has a right to their own opinion. So if you like the prequels and hate the sequels good for u buddy, keep on trucking! I got lucky and enjoy almost everything Star Wars (bad Star Wars is better then no Star Wars!). Buuut I still will pick ST over PT any day:
since someone pointed out recently that AoTC sort of reboots everything that happens in the TPM...... I can't get that one out of my head every time I see it now.........
10 minutes ago, ArcticJedi said:The special effects look great!
I am in the camp that George keeps on adding effect to the OT to make them look as bad as the PT. Pod race holds up and most of RoTS tho.
2 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:In the span of about six posts, I'm watching this topic go from the second picture to the first. Amazing how quickly things devolve.
LOL!! The funny part of all of this is that I now think that hating on anything Star Wars is now just a waste of time/energy. The hate for 7 & 8 is bad, but is it really as bad as it was bad then with Jar Jar, midichlorians, and Han shot first?? I truly cannot tell anymore, but I have seen entire movies on making fun of the PT and seen Han shot first t shirts. So I find it hard to believe that these new movies will not be just as loved and defended as Disney laughs their way to the bank in a decade or two.
If I have learned anything from all this that Star Wars fans truly hate Star Wars the most.
25 minutes ago, Derpzilla88 said:In the span of about six posts, I'm watching this topic go from the second picture to the first. Amazing how quickly things devolve.
2 hours ago, Imperial Advisor Arem Heshvaun said:
Think of this more of...
Talking about the prequels and the sequels and why they are just as good as the OT
that's what were at right now, and it's about half my fault. Sorry
-Arctic
Back on topic, what do you guys think will happen in the next episode? Will The Mandalorian Turn in his bounty? Will he ask questions? How much beskar is he going to get?
I have spoken.
-Arctic
My guess is he turns in the bounty but goes back after he either has a change of heart or finds out new info.
I think the next episode is about getting the bounty back to the imperials. I think in the third is when he gets there but has a change of heart.
2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:7 and 8 are also better than the prequels, if only because they had better acting and actual costumes instead of cartoon clones. In his enthusiasm, George pushed the SFX envelope further than it was ready to go in 1999. And he should have hired a good co-director to handle the actors instead of doing it all himself.
Both the prequel and sequel trilogies were massive missed opportunities in any number of ways. Note that what I like to re-watch, is not the same thing as what I think constitutes a good movie. Technically speaking, I think the best of them all is still ANH, though I rarely re-watch it.
I might be willing to give the prequels a GPA of a D- between the three of them if you caught me on a generous day. TFA I'd give an F, and TLJ I give a C- as a film unto itself. If I grade any of them based on the opportunity costs incurred they're all F's. Episode One should have shown Luke, not Anakin, as a child as George Lucas said in his interviews, and the sequels should have been about Luke & Leia in their 60's, not about new young people. There was a real damaging effect to spreading the story around this much.
I'd give R1, ANH and ESB an A, probably ROTJ would get a B+. The Mandalorian looks to be solid A but who knows. There is much that is left to time and chance.
Ultimately The Mandalorian (or at least, what we've seen of it) is better than the 5 aforementioned films because it returns to the artistic obliqueness which made Star Wars it's own genre. The self-derivation of the sequels and the convoluted ring theory of the prequels both went too far afield in opposite directions, with no good art to base the universe on. Star Wars used to feel solid when you thumped it, but the new 5 films are all hollow. You can blame that on me being sadder and wiser than when I saw the OT, but if that were the case then R1 and The Mandalorian would have likewise fell flat for me.
I think it's a bit of a stretch to decide that costume design is more important than plot, story, character development, character consistency, adhering to the laws of whatever fictional universe your movie is set in, embracing new ideas as opposed to rehashing the exact same scenes over and over again but this time the bag of peanuts is on THE FLOOR YOU SEE, THE FLOOR, BEFORE IT WAS ON THE TABLE BUT NOW ITS ON THE FLOOR, YOU'RE JUST MAD THE BAG OF PEANUTS ISN'T IN THE SAME PLACE IT WAS WHEN YOU WERE A CHILD, YOU RACIST MANBABY MAHDEEEEEEEEKKKKK!
Sorry, got a little carried away there, but seriously, if we start using this metric to determine what is and is not a good movie, then we pretty much have to flip the script on every big budget film that's ever been made.
I, for one, would rather see a good movie than a pretty movie, and TLJ was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life by every metric ever used to judge a piece of film, save audio visual design. It would have made a very passable, maybe even ok, music video.
The prequels were just mediocre.
"TLJ was th e worst movie I've ever seen in my life by every metric ever used to judge a piece of film, save audio visual design. It would have made a very passable, maybe even ok, music video."
If that is genuinely your opinion, you have not seen many films. Worse than Battlefield Earth? Worse than The Room? Worse then the hundreds of **** B movie action films? Worse then the Fantastic 4 movie they did? Worse then Mars needs Moms? Cmon, we get it, your trying to make a point. But that's sounds so far fetched it strains any credibility.
10 minutes ago, Jester8908 said:TLJ was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life by every metric ever used to judge a piece of film, save audio visual design. It would have made a very passable, maybe even ok, music video.
That would tend to indicate you haven't seen very many movies. It was better than Jurassic Park 3 , in my book.
2 hours ago, ArcticJedi said:Try and convince me when you have a reason that has to do with the plot, not the design aesthetic.
But they all 5 are very bad from the perspective of stories. The tie breaker is the aesthetics. And visuals matter in film very much. Otherwise it could be a paperback novel. There are great films with very bland storylines, which acting and other considerations elevated to greatness.
Aside from those issues, Midichlorians, Darth as a title, finding out Darth Vader was from Tatooine where he built C-3PO, Jar-Jar in general, cheeky child Anakin in general, angsty teen Anakin, the callousness with which Padme leaves Anakin's mother to rot in slavery, effectively re-setting the story in Episode II, not having a main character (is it Anakin? Or Obi-Wan? Or Palpatine? Or who? Star Wars doesn't work well as an ensemble cast, a reality that is also hurting the sequels). These all add up to more flaws than the flaws of the sequels.
1 hour ago, Tonytt1642 said:I think the next episode is about getting the bounty back to the imperials. I think in the third is when he gets there but has a change of heart.
This seems likely. But who knows! Now that I am streaming Disney+ I will give Clone Wars cartoon a chance and get back to the prequel fans.
3 minutes ago, Tonytt1642 said:"TLJ was th e worst movie I've ever seen in my life by every metric ever used to judge a piece of film, save audio visual design. It would have made a very passable, maybe even ok, music video."
If that is genuinely your opinion, you have not seen many films. Worse than Battlefield Earth? Worse than The Room? Worse then the hundreds of **** B movie action films? Worse then the Fantastic 4 movie they did? Worse then Mars needs Moms? Cmon, we get it, your trying to make a point. But that's sounds so far fetched it strains any credibility.
You shut your mouth about Battlefield Earth that movie was a comedy and everyone misunderstood that greatness they were giving us. Now go back to finding some gold or you won't get you share of rats for dinner.
2 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:That would tend to indicate you haven't seen very many movies. It was better than Jurassic Park 3 , in my book.
How dare you people!!!! Philistines all of you!!
If the TLJ is the worse film you seen in your life I am not sure if I should feel bad for the person or envy them.
5 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:I will give Clone Wars cartoon a chance and get back to the prequel fans.
It is pretty good as long as you are not a fan of anything of the old EU Clone Wars books/comics. It starts off bad, but it turns into some of the best Star Wars stuff you can find. Hando, Ahsoka, and Rex are some of my favorite Star Wars characters now. Even made Jar Jar better by the end. Not Padme tho..........................She will always be bad.
I get so tired of people thinking that all star wars fans are being called racist or misogynistic. If you are not a racist or sexist, then you have no reason to be upset by those comments. The only people being called racists manbabies are very very vocal internet minority of actual racist manbabies (and womanbabies to be honest). Aside from that you have people who did or did not like the movies on their own merits.
Edited by devin.pike.198915 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:Aside from those issues, Midichlorians, Darth as a title, finding out Darth Vader was from Tatooine where he built C-3PO, Jar-Jar in general, cheeky child Anakin in general, angsty teen Anakin, the callousness with which Padme leaves Anakin's mother to rot in slavery, effectively re-setting the story in Episode II, not having a main character (is it Anakin? Or Obi-Wan? Or Palpatine? Or who? Star Wars doesn't work well as an ensemble cast, a reality that is also hurting the sequels). These all add up to more flaws than the flaws of the sequels
Honestly midichlorians dont bother me as much as the breaking down of the force into nice little harry potter spells easily adapted to video games and bereft of the mystery and mystcism of the force as presented in 77. That is an area that the sequels seem to be trying to repair.
24 minutes ago, Jester8908 said:I, for one, would rather see a good movie than a pretty movie,
That's rarely a thing. The best stories I've found in films are also absolutely drop-dead-gorgeous photography. To Live (1994) and A Very Long Engagement (2004) are pretty much my goto films for both story and visuals. But we're getting into comparing very different genres.
There are really good story-movies like Casablanca (1942), The Road Warrior (1982) and The Lion in Winter (1968) that don't concern themselves with prettiness too much. The Road Warrior was intentionally ugly looking, which helps it stand out in the crowd. But spectacle is still part of the equation for evaluating theater since the ancient Greeks. The problem with the prequels visuals is not that it isn't pretty, it's that its too clean to be believed, it constantly snaps me out of the moment, I can't get lost in the films. L ike I do an ugly picture such as The Road Warrior or a well written older black and white drama.
All of the above is treading pretty far from a PG action movie for children and parents to watch together, which is what Star Wars is. I can't think of a good action movie that spans generations, that is done without good visuals. You can pull that off in other genres but rarely in action/adventure movies.
This to me gets into the biggest failure of imagination for the ongoing creation of SW films: why not switch genres? Star Wars could work in theory as wholly different genre, a mystery movie for example. I have some hope that The Mandalorian is going to really dedicate itself to the sub-genre of action known as the Western and break some good ground.
22 minutes ago, devin.pike.1989 said:Honestly midichlorians dont bother me as much as the breaking down of the force into nice little harry potter spells easily adapted to video games and bereft of the mystery and mystcism of the force as presented in 77. That is an area that the sequels seem to be trying to repair.
Yeah, throw that on the pile too. I don't waste much brain power tallying it all up. On a gut level, I've had more fun watching sequels in theaters, than watching prequels.
It all pales compared to The Mandalorian though.
1 hour ago, Tonytt1642 said:"TLJ was th e worst movie I've ever seen in my life by every metric ever used to judge a piece of film, save audio visual design. It would have made a very passable, maybe even ok, music video."
If that is genuinely your opinion, you have not seen many films. Worse than Battlefield Earth? Worse than The Room? Worse then the hundreds of **** B movie action films? Worse then the Fantastic 4 movie they did? Worse then Mars needs Moms? Cmon, we get it, your trying to make a point. But that's sounds so far fetched it strains any credibility.
Well yeah, it was the worst movie I'VE seen. I haven't seen any of those movies. Suicide Squad was pretty bad too, if that helps.
1 hour ago, devin.pike.1989 said:I get so tired of people thinking that all star wars fans are being called racist or misogynistic. If you are not a racist or sexist, then you have no reason to be upset by those comments. The only people being called racists manbabies are very very vocal internet minority of actual racist manbabies (and womanbabies to be honest). Aside from that you have people who did or did not like the movies on their own merits.
Ok, the problem with that statement is that all dissenters are constantly being called these things. No news publication is saying, "TLJ has about a 24% rating on Rotten Tomatoes because a large segment of the fanbase did not enjoy the movie, and some fans don't like women or black people." That's not what's being said at all. Racism, sexism, etc. is continually used as THE reason for the "mixed" reception.
Edited by Jester890849 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:That's rarely a thing. The best stories I've found in films are also absolutely drop-dead-gorgeous photography. To Live (1994) and A Very Long Engagement (2004) are pretty much my goto films for both story and visuals. But we're getting into comparing very different genres.
There are really good story-movies like Casablanca (1942), The Road Warrior (1982) and The Lion in Winter (1968) that don't concern themselves with prettiness too much. The Road Warrior was intentionally ugly looking, which helps it stand out in the crowd. But spectacle is still part of the equation for evaluating theater since the ancient Greeks. The problem with the prequels visuals is not that it isn't pretty, it's that its too clean to be believed, it constantly snaps me out of the moment, I can't get lost in the films. L ike I do an ugly picture such as The Road Warrior or a well written older black and white drama.
All of the above is treading pretty far from a PG action movie for children and parents to watch together, which is what Star Wars is. I can't think of a good action movie that spans generations, that is done without good visuals. You can pull that off in other genres but rarely in action/adventure movies.
This to me gets into the biggest failure of imagination for the ongoing creation of SW films: why not switch genres? Star Wars could work in theory as wholly different genre, a mystery movie for example. I have some hope that The Mandalorian is going to really dedicate itself to the sub-genre of action known as the Western and break some good ground.
I completely agree with you, I just don't think prettiness trumps those other aspects. That's all that I meant. Your original statement highlighted costume design and acting as the reasons that 8 was better than 1,2,3. I disagree, and i do so because "pretty" movies that are not good are constantly lambasted( I'm looking at you, everything Michael Bay has ever done). But not in this case, in this case the movie is given a pass. I don't mean to attack you because you feel differently than I do, I am just trying to point out that the system you just described for evaluating Star Wars movies is not the system that anyone has ever used for evaluating movies in general, and I'm not sure you would use that same set of metrics with that specific weight when evaluating anything else.