[ironknee]

the phantom menace and the clone wars

i heard they were bad...but wow they were terrible!

i don't see how the next one would be good since i already hate the kid anna (sp) among other things, how could some punk kid get the hwat queen who was 9 years older?

very sad

[Kilbey]

Welcome to 2002.

W. was reelected.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Apple makes these music players named "iPods".

[Mafia]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

Apple makes these music players named "iPods".

i've heard about those are they cool?

[ManOfSteal]

Rickey just hit a double down the 3rd base line...

[Ω]

Originally Posted by ironknee

the phantom menace and the clone wars

i heard they were bad...but wow they were terrible!

i don't see how the next one would be good since i already hate the kid anna (sp) among other things, how could some punk kid get the hwat queen who was 9 years older?

very sad

you, some of us haven't seen them yet.








(and I really haven't)

[Kilbey]

I am at work.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I am at work.

And I am not.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Welcome to 2002.

W. was reelected.

don't remind me

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by nredman

don't remind me

I was just bringing the other guy up to speed.

Can anyone else think of events that have occured since '02 that ironknee will need to know about?

[ManOfSteal]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

Can anyone else think of events that have occured since '02 that ironknee will need to know about?

gorickey retired.

[Ω]

ManOfSteal was born

[ManOfSteal]

Originally Posted by _?_

ManOfSteal was born

Nah, only re-branded is all.

[ironknee]

i heard about the red sox getting lucky

[Ozmodiar]

Originally Posted by Kilbey

I was just bringing the other guy up to speed.

Can anyone else think of events that have occured since '02 that ironknee will need to know about?

We landed some gocarts on Mars.

[KeriVit]

BOT-

Honestly- I didn't see the clone wars. Didn't hear a single good thing about it... I suppose I should go ahead and see it as Revenge of the Sith looks much better than any of the other prequels. I'd actually like to see it in the theater...

I like the first prequel- whatever the hell it was- with little Anakin. Not knowing the whole storyline made it alot more interesting...

Oh and he can get the girl cuz the force is with him.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

forget about good or bad

the damn things are pop culture. go see it to see what happens. the "cool" thing to do a few months back was to watch "bad" movies wasn't it? so stop yer complaining and pray for some natalie portman slave girl new hotness.

[TailsToo]

Originally Posted by Apple Pro Underwear

... pray for some natalie portman slave girl new hotness.

[ghporter]

It's space opera. What were you expecting? "Citizen Kane?" Get a grip. It's just a big, long, complicated yarn with pretty explosions and cool sword fights. It (the whole "saga") is also making money hand over greedy fist. Bad doesn't do that. But of course your definition of "bad" needs to be refined: Star Wars movies are not art, therefore they must be entertainment, therefore if they entertain they are "good," and if they do not entertain they are "bad." Getting millions of people to shell out $8 or so each to see a movie indicates that these people are being entertained, therefore the movies must be "good." QED.

[Ω]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Getting millions of people to shell out $8 or so each to see a movie indicates that these people are being entertained, therefore the movies must be "good." QED.

I like to think of them more as Lemmings.

[G4ME]

Originally Posted by ironknee

i heard about the red sox getting lucky

and the yanks having the worst choke ever

[sideus]

I liked Episode 1 and 2. 3 will be great.

[Zimphire]

Episode 1 and 2 entertained me.

That is all I asked from a movie. I don't hold any pretentious notion that movies are some magical entity that can turn poo into gold.

[Ozmodiar]

Originally Posted by Zimphire

Episode 1 and 2 entertained me.

That is all I asked from a movie. I don't hold any pretentious notion that movies are some magical entity that can turn poo into gold.

It's just like when the new Godzilla movie came out. Everyone complained about how bad the acting was and crap like that, and my response was always "OK, did you go to see good acting or to see a giant lizard that breathes fire go nuts in New York?"

[Zimphire]

Exactly.

if you went in to go see either of those SW movies, expecting to see anything but a entertaining flick, you expected waaay too much from the movie. And that is your fault.

The First 3 SW movies weren't master pieces either.

I remember people saying the SAME THINGS about them back then.

"Horrible acting, Lucas selling out" "Ewoks, Yoda, too cute"

"Not believable"

Etc.

The first three are put on a pedastle that they simply don't belong on.

They were entertaining Sci-Fi flicks that made it big.

Putting any other pretensions on it is bad.

[sideus]

I was watching Episode 4 the other day after not seeing it for years and I was like, damn, this movie is horrible. But you know what, I like it anyway as pure fun and entertainment.

[ironknee]

well, i still think the 2nd one, empire strikesback was the best...it was more than a si fi flick...it really tapped into a lot of mythology...it was deep.

it's a shame where the saga is ending up

[scaught]

Originally Posted by Ozmodiar

We landed some gocarts on Mars.

i LOLd.

[RAILhead]

Just sayin'

[anthonyvthc]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Just sayin'

Who gave you permission to post pics of my future wife?

[Zimphire]

[RAILhead]

I don't know which is worse: that she's totally diggin' for gold in public or that I still think she looks totally hot whilst diggin'

[wdlove]

Now you be already for episode 3.

By the way I liked both of them.

[MacNStein]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Just sayin'

Just damn... first time I've ever wished that I was someone's thumb.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Ozmodiar

It's just like when the new Godzilla movie came out. Everyone complained about how bad the acting was and crap like that, and my response was always "OK, did you go to see good acting or to see a giant lizard that breathes fire go nuts in New York?"

So if I go to a concert, and the band starts chucking bricks at me, I guess you'll say, "Did you go to hear music or to not have bricks chucked at you?" Just because one thing is the main draw of the movie does not mean there are no other important factors or other things that can ruin the experience. QED.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's space opera. What were you expecting? "Citizen Kane?" Get a grip. It's just a big, long, complicated yarn with pretty explosions and cool sword fights. It (the whole "saga") is also making money hand over greedy fist. Bad doesn't do that. But of course your definition of "bad" needs to be refined: Star Wars movies are not art, therefore they must be entertainment, therefore if they entertain they are "good," and if they do not entertain they are "bad." Getting millions of people to shell out $8 or so each to see a movie indicates that these people are being entertained, therefore the movies must be "good." QED.

Moves that are "not art" don't get nominated for Academy Awards.

Mike

[Ozmodiar]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So if I go to a concert, and the band starts chucking bricks at me, I guess you'll say, "Did you go to hear music or to not have bricks chucked at you?" Just because one thing is the main draw of the movie does not mean there are no other important factors or other things that can ruin the experience. QED.

Right, because your example and my example are discussing the EXACT same situation. The whole point of my post was, go for the overall entertainment value. In the Godzilla example, yeah the acting was terrible and it made the movie less interesting, but holy shiat when the dinosaur FUBAR'd New York that was entertaining!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's space opera. What were you expecting? "Citizen Kane?" Get a grip. It's just a big, long, complicated yarn with pretty explosions and cool sword fights. It (the whole "saga") is also making money hand over greedy fist. Bad doesn't do that. But of course your definition of "bad" needs to be refined: Star Wars movies are not art, therefore they must be entertainment, therefore if they entertain they are "good," and if they do not entertain they are "bad." Getting millions of people to shell out $8 or so each to see a movie indicates that these people are being entertained, therefore the movies must be "good." QED.

hmm well operas are an art form.

no, i was expecting something as powerful as the empire strikes back...characters we care about, story that makes sense...

yes it's making lots of money but it would still make money being a good movie. no offence but either you guys have low standards for movies, or you're all sw fans and will never admit it's that bad

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by starman

Moves that are "not art" don't get nominated for Academy Awards.

Movies that are 'not art' are the only ones that get nominated for Academy Awards. I mean, look at Titanic - that won, what, eleven Academy Awards? And was nominated for fourteen? Something like that. And for all the entertainment value and good acting of Titanic (yes, Titanic has good acting - not all of it is good, but quite a bit of it is), I've seen HBO movies with more artistic value than Titanic!



ironknee: I don't think it has anything to do with having high or low standards when it comes to movies. I've thoroughly enjoyed watching ridiculous movies, absolute artistic black wholes (American Pie, Titanic, even something as craptastic as Gayniggers from Outer Space), enjoyed them from their entertainment values. They don't have much artistic value, the acting is mediocre at best (in the case of Gayniggers from Outer Space, I'd even go as far as to say it's mindbogglingly lousy), and the only reason for watching them is that you want to be thoroughly entertained for a few hours, be it rolling-on-the-floor-laughing entertainment or dabbing-your-eyes-with-a-handkerchief entertainment. For the entertainment itself, good acting, thoroughly thought-through and airtight plots, and believable and identifiable characters are not a necessity.

The new Star Wars are the same, IMO: movies of mediocre quality, but with a very high entertainment value. The acting is not particularly good (though I've seen worse), the plot is not impressive (but it is easy to follow), and the characters are not the most believable ever conceived (though, again, I've seen worse), but I still enjoyed watching the movies. The story captures you, and that's the main thing in an entertainment movie.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by ironknee

no, i was expecting something as powerful as the empire strikes back...characters we care about, story that makes sense...

If you're going to compare the new ones to The Empire Strikes Back, at least realise that The Empire Strikes Back (and the other of the old ones) are as bad as the new. The character development might be better, but the acting is just as bad, and the story lines are just as ridiculous and full of holes. They're only better because of nostalgia. We know these movies from when we were small (or younger, depending on our age), and they were highly impressive technical works when they were made, so they became a cult.

[RAILhead]

Quit losing focus on the only good thing about these "new" Star Wars flicks:

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Oisín

ironknee: I don't think it has anything to do with having high or low standards when it comes to movies. I've thoroughly enjoyed watching ridiculous movies, absolute artistic black wholes (American Pie, Titanic, even something as craptastic as Gayniggers from Outer Space), enjoyed them from their entertainment values. They don't have much artistic value, the acting is mediocre at best (in the case of Gayniggers from Outer Space, I'd even go as far as to say it's mindbogglingly lousy), and the only reason for watching them is that you want to be thoroughly entertained for a few hours, be it rolling-on-the-floor-laughing entertainment or dabbing-your-eyes-with-a-handkerchief entertainment. For the entertainment itself, good acting, thoroughly thought-through and airtight plots, and believable and identifiable characters are not a necessity.

The new Star Wars are the same, IMO: movies of mediocre quality, but with a very high entertainment value. The acting is not particularly good (though I've seen worse), the plot is not impressive (but it is easy to follow), and the characters are not the most believable ever conceived (though, again, I've seen worse), but I still enjoyed watching the movies. The story captures you, and that's the main thing in an entertainment movie.

ok i can dig it. it has it's place. i was expecting more. i wonder if the New sw movies were the first to come out, how much of a cult it would be.

Originally Posted by Oisín

If you're going to compare the new ones to The Empire Strikes Back, at least realise that The Empire Strikes Back (and the other of the old ones) are as bad as the new. The character development might be better, but the acting is just as bad, and the story lines are just as ridiculous and full of holes. They're only better because of nostalgia. We know these movies from when we were small (or younger, depending on our age), and they were highly impressive technical works when they were made, so they became a cult.

I was not a sw fan when the original ones came out (however my younger bro was WAY into it)

back then i thought it was just a cowboys and indians set in space...then i watched empire and thought it had a lot of symbolisms ( my fav is at the end when luke falls down that drain and gets stuck on an antena...he said something like why didn't you tell me ob1? (that darth was his father) reminds me of jesus on the cross and ask father why have you forsaken me?

that is smart. and i like smart more than flashy sword fights...i was converted after watching it

i agree now it's "just" entertainment...but wouldn't it be great if with all the new effects, it also was a great movie like citizen kane?

[Miniryu]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I don't know which is worse: that she's totally diggin' for gold in public or that I still think she looks totally hot whilst diggin'

I've seen the rest of this series- she's actually digging for her thong back there [She gets it eventually]. Its funny: if anyone has seen the pics of her sun bathing topless at a beach she is actually far less attractive than she is with all of her clothes on. Figure that paradox out.

As far as the movies go- I think the main reason people don't seem to like the new ones as much as the old ones is because the characters have no charisma or chemistry. Even the good actors (Jackson, Portman) fall flat. There is no humor (like Harrison Ford gave us) and no quirky character foils. It is not interesting to watch this new group interact, where as it was fun to watch the old crew bumble around, get lost, and eventually kick butt somehow at the ened.

The reason people pay lots of money to see these new flicks is plain and simple: loyalty to the old films. I watch them because they are the part of the original story, and I loved the originals so much I am willing to suffer the lame parts of the new movies.

[ghporter]

I think a lot of movies that are not art get nominated and win Academy Awards, as much as movies that ARE art get shafted. In 1968 "Planet of the Apes" won the award for makeup, when the primate makeup in "2001: A Space Odyssey" was much, much better-and 2001 WAS art. It's crazy, and that's because The Academy is not made up of "pure artists." It's made up of people who make, act in, write and produce movies. Pure artists are generally only recognized after they're dead, so most people don't really want to be pure artists anyway. But ART doesn't sell. What does sell is: car crashes, explosions, boobs (use any definition you want for that word-think "Dumb and Dumber"), "suspense" that's as predictable as the sun rising in the East, "jump out and getcha" so-called horror, and mellodrama.

You want art? I thought "The Last Samurai" was brilliant, insightful and significant, but it was panned, even though it did feature lots of blood. Go figure. Good fiction makes you think. Good art makes you wonder. How many of the winning films in the last ten years actually made YOU wonder?

The Star Wars universe, and the saga specifically, are "space opera," which is mellodrama set against a fantasy/science fiction backdrop. The term comes from "horse opera" which describes the vast majority of Westerns-mellodrama set in the American West. (Note "soap opera" comes from extremely mellodrama set against soap commercials!) I can't say that I really like all the decisions that Lucas made in his stories, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see how he finally finishes them up.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Ozmodiar

Right, because your example and my example are discussing the EXACT same situation. The whole point of my post was, go for the overall entertainment value. In the Godzilla example, yeah the acting was terrible and it made the movie less interesting, but holy shiat when the dinosaur FUBAR'd New York that was entertaining!

No, they weren't the exact same situation. That's what an analogy is. Just as I go to a concert to hear live music but there are other factors that greatly influence my enjoyment of it, horrible acting/plotting/scoring/etc. can ruin an action movie even if that isn't my main reason for going to see it — they affect its "overall entertainment value," as you say.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

Just sayin'

still, i think her hand smells like a rose

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Miniryu

As far as the movies go- I think the main reason people don't seem to like the new ones as much as the old ones is because the characters have no charisma or chemistry. Even the good actors (Jackson, Portman) fall flat. There is no humor (like Harrison Ford gave us) and no quirky character foils. It is not interesting to watch this new group interact, where as it was fun to watch the old crew bumble around, get lost, and eventually kick butt somehow at the end.

That's a good point. In fact, you've just made me realise something: a great part of what makes the new movies different from the old ones is the inter-personal realtionships. In the old ones, there was always a lot of bantering, and the characters (particularly Han, of course, but also Luke and Leia) were often sarcastic and, well, meanies, to one another.

In the new ones, while there is humour and the characters do play up to each other, they do it in a completely different, much more 'serious' way. There's less playing in the new ones.

This is very obvious, of course, but I just realised it now anyway...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by ghporter

It's space opera. What were you expecting? "Citizen Kane?" Get a grip.

Exactly. The Matrix trilogy is a good example of some of this. The first one was very successful because it worked on many levels. Some people only got what was presented on screen. Some people were able to see the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the film, and enjoyed it that much more.

The second and third films came out, and lost some of the appeal to the "general audience," because the ending wasn't what they expected. They were a bit too heavy on the philosophical stuff (even if it was presented in a somewhat entertaining way... it's not every day you get to see two people doing kung fu on top of a moving semi truck). Those with more philosophical minds still enjoyed both sequels.

As a concrete example of this, let's use my Greek father. He's not a native English speaker, but he knows it well enough to get around and can understand most movies on a basic level. He liked the first and second Matrix films (he really loves Kung Fu, and there was plenty of it in those films). He didn't get the third film at all. This past March, my father and I were in Greece together. We rented the three Matrix films and watched them. This time, there were Greek subtitles. Guess what? He loved all three (especially because he loves philosophy) and was able to understand the philosophical subtext once he could understand all of the dialogue).

But, as some people said, if you want a film that makes you think, watch 2001. If you want a bit of mindless entertainment, then watch Joe Dirt.

Most of the people who complain about Star Wars episodes 1 and 2 first saw 4, 5, and 6 when they were children. They went to the first two new ones wanting to relive the same sort of feelings they had as children watching the first 3 movies. The difference is that they are now adults and have the critical thinking to analyze the movies on multiple levels, and that ruins the experience for them. When you get down to it, the first three movies don't hold up to that kind of scrutiny either. But most people are willing to overlook that because they remember how they felt when they saw them for the first time. If people could overlook that for the newer films they wouldn't have been quite as disappointed.

Now just think about this... a whole new generation of children is seeing these films for the first time. Twenty years from now, they will look back on these films just as fondly as we do on the first three, and overlook any flaws they may have just as we do with the first three.

I now return us to the "let's drool over Natalie Portman" thread.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Person Man

Exactly. The Matrix trilogy is a good example of some of this. The first one was very successful because it worked on many levels. Some people only got what was presented on screen. Some people were able to see the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the film, and enjoyed it that much more.

The second and third films came out, and lost some of the appeal to the "general audience," because the ending wasn't what they expected. They were a bit too heavy on the philosophical stuff (even if it was presented in a somewhat entertaining way... it's not every day you get to see two people doing kung fu on top of a moving semi truck). Those with more philosophical minds still enjoyed both sequels.

great example...the first one blew people away because it was so deep...to me the 2nd and 3rd ones did not live up to the deepness and were ok but a little disapointing.

But, as some people said, if you want a film that makes you think, watch 2001. If you want a bit of mindless entertainment, then watch Joe Dirt.

2001 is and has been my fav movie of all time...makes u think on so many levels...

Most of the people who complain about Star Wars episodes 1 and 2 first saw 4, 5, and 6 when they were children. They went to the first two new ones wanting to relive the same sort of feelings they had as children watching the first 3 movies. The difference is that they are now adults and have the critical thinking to analyze the movies on multiple levels, and that ruins the experience for them. When you get down to it, the first three movies don't hold up to that kind of scrutiny either. But most people are willing to overlook that because they remember how they felt when they saw them for the first time. If people could overlook that for the newer films they wouldn't have been quite as disappointed.

Now just think about this... a whole new generation of children is seeing these films for the first time. Twenty years from now, they will look back on these films just as fondly as we do on the first three, and overlook any flaws they may have just as we do with the first three.

I now return us to the "let's drool over Natalie Portman" thread.

i didn't see them when they came out, only after i graduated college. i wonder if this generation will think of these films with fondness (given there's more media exposed to them)

anyways mmmm natalie,,,,

[sminch]

Those with more philosophical minds still enjoyed both sequels.

egad, man, the matrix sequels were terrible and it had *nothing* to do with any need to have a philosophical mind - they were badly plotted, badly acted piles of todgers. with a crap rave scene. you could enjoy the philosophical side as much as you want but how could you ignore the fact that the films were dire? if anything, the overworks "oh wow we've come up with such a trippy situation!" scenes drained the few ounces of life left in the films because they were so damn clunky - the film stops for ten minutes so that we can hear how clever the writers are.

if anyone has seen the pics of her sun bathing topless at a beach she is actually far less attractive than she is with all of her clothes on. Figure that paradox out.

this is an interesting observation, and one that i can wholeheartedly agree with. in fact, there are very few situations (imho) in which a girl looks better naked than she does with a modicum of clothing, be it covering her entire body, possibly torn (think episode 2 - yoink!), or wet (hello spidey). clothes make a hot woman look damn hot, and can certainly make a nice girl look very nice. only a slightly slutty-type sexy woman looks better naked than clothed, i reckon...

sminch