What is there to discuss? He said it all.
Discuss!
Note: If you have no idea, you totally owe it to yourself to see Clerks 2. But here's the scene inspiring this thread:
This issue really is relevant to our current times!
victoria aut mors
What is there to discuss? He said it all.
Star Wars suck, except for 5. LOTR is above average, though certainly it was very well made and shot and the acting didn't suck as much as SW. Besides, SW is not a trilogy. Even when the first three movies came out, the fact that they were named 4, 5, and 6 made it too obvious. So...
SW = Mostly sucks and is not a trilogy, though 'fun'.
LOTR = Certainly an achievement in film, but honestly quite boring as mentioned. It kind of began my hate for Orlamo Bloom as well.
EDIT: I almost forgot to mention I actually witnessed two rental store clerks having the same argument, lol. "Star wars is not a trilogy..."--"...Of cour...wait..uh..."
Me and my friend joined into the conversation, effectively making it clear that SW is not a trilogy.
You know what trilogy owns both of these? Evil Dead.
Beat that, bitches.
Last edited by Zardoch; 07-03-2009 at 09:53 AM.
The Three Ninjas trilogy > all.
Episodes 4-6 were actually very good movies. They held a lot of allusions that were told in other stories and melded them all together to create movies of epic proportions.
Episodes 1-3 were more half-baked attempts at that, and were only made to appease the generation that never got to see the original Star Wars movies in theaters.
Actually, although not considered a 'trilogy' per se, another great "Big Three" of movies that were created happened to be the Star Trek movies. (I'm referring to Star Trek II-IV) Each of them happened to have a common theme/occurance within each one, which is why I consider those three a 'Trilogy'.
But yeah, Three Ninjas > all.
†SOLDIER† - "Yep still better than you"CPC8: It's hard out here for a pimp.™
hahas, updated July 28th (oldie but goodie!):
Every single Lord of the Rings movies cure insomnia. It's a total of about twelve hours of walking sequences, with four large battles thrown in that somehow make people forget that they just watched three and a half hours of people walking. Not to mention that some of the CGI is complete crap, which is understandable, considering that they're directed by the master of crappy CGI.
The original Star Wars trilogy is much, much better. Not only is it not boring, but they're actually good movies. Some of the best science fiction films ever. The new Star Wars trilogy, although not as good as the original, is still better than Lord of the Rings. Even Episode II, even though that one completely sucks.
Yes, because all that matters in movies is action scenes, right?Originally Posted by Clint Eastwood
It wasn't a fast paced movie, and I can see people getting bored by it, but the movies also had plot development. The script was written surprisingly well, and it was a very good adaptation of classic literature. If you don't like that literature, that's your prerogative, but the adaptation itself =was= good.
They shot Jedi in the back.The original Star Wars trilogy is much, much better. Not only is it not boring, but they're actually good movies. Some of the best science fiction films ever. The new Star Wars trilogy, although not as good as the original, is still better than Lord of the Rings. Even Episode II, even though that one completely sucks.
THEY SHOT JEDI IN THE BACK. That alone made the second trilogy so far below LOTR that it's not even funny. But let's not stop there: there's Jar Jar, Hayden Christensen's acting, especially in the "I killed them. I killed them all. I slaughtered them like animals" monologue, the kid who originally played Anakin Skywalker, and the awful fanservice fight between Dooku and Yoda in Episode 2, oh, and Jar Jar Binks.
Oh, and they shot Jedi in the back.
Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust
Like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.
-Ferdinand, The Duchess of Malfi, V.V
Lord of the Rings was a good read, and the universe is really inspiring. The movies were just too typical, and maybe too Hollywood.
The first three Star Wars movies are really great.
One more thing though:
Agh nazg durbatuluk
Agh nazg gimbatul
Agh nazg thrakatuluk
Agh burzum ishi krampatul
Crao Porr Cock8: Getting it while the getting's good
Action sequences aren't too much of a big deal to me. I like a good plot development, but unfortunately, Lord of the Rings didn't have one. I didn't know what the hell any of the characters were doing until the middle of the second one, and even then it was confusing to follow. Sure, people can say it's technical and well written, but if I have to strain to try to figure out what the hell is going on in a movie that I'm watching, then I just consider that bad writing.Yes, because all that matters in movies is action scenes, right?
Sure, Jedi got shot in the back, but you have to remember, a war was going on. If there were more Jedi in the original trilogy, they'd be getting shot in the back, too. The only difference was that in the original trilogy, there were only two Jedi still left alive, and they were both old as shit and wouldn't be able to fight a fly. As far as Jar Jar Binks is concerned, he's just comic relief. I laughed at a few of his parts. And the bad acting on the part of Hayden Christensen is the reason why I don't like Episode II. I think he's good in the third one, though.
They wouldn't, though. That's the point of being a Jedi. You can see the events before they happen--you can't be (especially not an entire group of jedi) be taken by surprise by something like someone shooting you in the back. It violates every bit of Star Wars canon there is.
Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust
Like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.
-Ferdinand, The Duchess of Malfi, V.V
Nobody was being taken surprise by being shot in the back. The fact is there were far too many guns firing at the same time for every single Jedi to dodge the path of a bullet. If there were more Jedi in the original trilogy, storm troopers would be taking them out left and right.
I don't think the whole "they were walking the whole time" argument holds ground, because they weren't just walking. They were also: being chased by something; hiding from something; being amazed by the sight of something; talking about the history of something; meeting someone; getting caught in the middle of something; etc, etc. And even in the Two Towers and Return of the King, when Frodo and Sam were just walking, it was showing their struggle with low food rations and mustering the will to continue on when their strength was all but gone. And there was also Gollum/Smeagol, and his dueling personalities. Which one would prevail? And even then, the other characters were not just "walking." At least half of Return of the King was a battle sequence. And I didn't even get into what was going on with any of the other characters.
I enjoyed Star Wars, as well, but I prefer Lord of the Rings. I felt like there was more to LotR; it was more epic, more deep. And I'm more of a medieval fantasy person (though I also like a good mix of both.)
The Evil Dead trilogy was awesome. Although the first one was kinda meh. Anyhoo...
Wuv, Yer Mom
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks