[HoosierDaddy]

I like all the prequels. I LOVE the originals. Hell, Revenge is nearly all lightsabering and shooting people, it's hard not to like that one. That being said:

Liking The Phantom Menace the most is real weird.

[amphibian]

Aptorian, on 08 November 2010 - 09:33 AM, said:

My favorite Star Wars stuff is actually the cartoons and animated series. Even though they are directed at the kids there is enough quality and grown up themes behind the stories that they keep me entertained when I stumble upon them. A lot of the stories are pretty dark, with characters being outright killed and the war elements are cool.

Hell, Anakin is a better character in that series than he was in all the prequels.

Do you know why? Because Genndy Tartakovsky* was in charge of it. The man is just about a member of the "can do no wrong" club.

(* The guy who created Dexter's Laboratory, Samurai Jack, helped significantly with the Powerpuff Girls and a few other smaller projects)

[D'rek]

Aptorian, on 08 November 2010 - 09:33 AM, said:

Green Pig, on 08 November 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:

and then all the animated rubbish and whatnot kinda ruined it.

My favorite Star Wars stuff is actually the cartoons and animated series. Even though they are directed at the kids there is enough quality and grown up themes behind the stories that they keep me entertained when I stumble upon them. A lot of the stories are pretty dark, with characters being outright killed and the war elements are cool.

Hell, Anakin is a better character in that series than he was in all the prequels.

Did you ever see the animated Clone Wars web-series they released before episode 3? I saw about a dozen of them re-played on TV back-to-back at some point. They were pretty neat, did a good job of bridging episode 2 to 3, too (gives the robot general guy a decent introduction, ends with Coruscant being invaded, shows Anakin going more anger-darkside too).

Thelomen Toblerone, on 08 November 2010 - 08:19 PM, said:

I would just like to say that if another Indian Jones movie gets made and Shia LeBerk is in it again, I will weep with despair.

Why, what was so bad about him that movie? You sure you aren't just letting transformers ruin your perception of him?

TheSurvivor, on 09 November 2010 - 12:29 AM, said:

At the risk of being flammed I do believe I'm the only Star Wars fan who liked every one six main movies. Like really, my favourite is the Phantom Menace. Due to this and many other examples in my life my friends see me as someone with an inhuman ability to look beyond flaws. I don't know, I just think there's too much criticism in the world.

Nothing wrong with that, at all. I really like how episode 1 subverts a lot of episode 4, ie Anakin is just found randomly unlike Luke being watched over by Obi-wan, they both fight a big space battle but Anakin "wins it by accident" while Luke blatantly uses the force (c'mon, you know Anakin was just too young to understand he was channeling the force for optimum destruction), the rescued queen actually has the decorum unlike Leia who is a princess in name only, etc. There is seriously a lot of I-see-what-you-did-theres in episode 1.

[HoosierDaddy]

There's also Jar-Jar Binks.

[TheSurvivor]

I mostly liked episode 1 for Darth Maul. I liked many aspects of the movie though and as far as Jar Jar goes I was indifferent to him. Maybe because I've met a lot of *ahem* difficult people. But anywho, I became obsessed with Darth Maul and developed a love for Obi-Wan which caused me to watch the movie lots whereas episode 3 felt rushed to me but when I say episode 1 is my favourite I mean just barely. On another note, I enjoyed season 2 of the animated series (the one before episode 3) because it really answered questions for me. Though the same can be said for the second season, I didn't like the first season because it seemed to exaggerate the war if that makes sense. Probably gonna be misread. You know what, forget I said anything on season 1.

[Abyss]

D, on 09 November 2010 - 04:44 AM, said:

...

Thelomen Toblerone, on 08 November 2010 - 08:19 PM, said:

I would just like to say that if another Indian Jones movie gets made and Shia LeBerk is in it again, I will weep with despair.

Why, what was so bad about him that movie? You sure you aren't just letting transformers ruin your perception of him?
...

Negative. The beef wasn't the problem, in Indy4 or in Transformers 2 for that matter. It was the movies that were the problem. Awful incoherent scripts, plot holes you could fly the mothership thru, weak acting all around (at which point you blame the director, not the actors), lame action/stunt sequences that looked like they were designed to promo a bad video game...

But whereas Trans2 was basically a thinly veiled excuse for big robots beating the crap out of each other, Indy4 was supposed to hold up the 'honour' of the series, and instead it was the weakest, silliest, dumbest one yet, and that was just the first seven minutes. It got worse.

[champ]

i didnt mind shia in the films...

but indy 4 was just terrible where as at least tf2 was mildly entertaining...

i dont think i've looked forward to a new film as much as indy 4 to be then so disappointed afterwards...

the whole plot can be described as find a skull, walk some distance and hold the skull up... plot hole... walk some distance and hold the skull up... plot hole... walk some distance and hold the... you can see where i am going with this ... then terrible ending...

This post has been edited by champooon: 09 November 2010 - 03:13 PM

[Thelomen Toblerone]

He's supposed to be this tough guy, yet (as with the character he plays in every other film he's ever in) he just comes across as perpetually nervous and on edge. Plus, THE MONKEY SCENE

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

This is the wrong place for this argument, but regardless of the presense of la boof Indy 4 was not terrible. In fact, it wasn't even the worst movie in the series. Get my back apt.

[Aptorian]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on 12 November 2010 - 12:45 PM, said:

This is the wrong place for this argument, but regardless of the presense of la boof Indy 4 was not terrible. In fact, it wasn't even the worst movie in the series. Get my back apt.

I'd just chosen to ignore the heathens. It's not their fault, they are just blinded by nostalgia and a desire to conform with the usual "Whaaa everything old is better than the new" crowd.

First of all, the second Indiana Jones was so bad that I had actually forgotten what the hell it was about until I saw it again a couple years ago. That movie is just plain awful. Hell, I can't even recall what it was about now either, I think my mind is blanking it out. All I remember is some monkey brains, horrendous acting and some guy tearing out peoples hearts for no real reason.

Indy 4 was amazing but it also seems to divide the waters and the decision to hate or love it happens early on it the film. Some people are offended by the CGI gophers, others hated the whole opening ending with the ridiculous nuclear refrigerator scene. Personally, I was displeased with the film and was not having any of it, but after the refrigerator scene I sort of came to a conclusion. This is just plain awesome Indiana Jones silliness. The movie has all the elements of the first movies and a bigger budget. As such they were able to go even crazier than they did in the third.

To claim the acting or plot is any worse than the other movies is just plain silly. You could have removed Indiana Jones from the first one and it would not have had any effect on the films outcome what so ever. In the third one, the clues Sean Connery leaves for the son is just as improbable as the trail in Indy 4.

Mutt was just a kid in the movie. He acts all tough but he is just a kid who needs a father figure in his life. His reactions to the things going on is more than believable. I'd be freaking the fuck out too if I was tomb raiding a place filled with ninja indians or I found out that a close family friend had lost his mind in a south american mental institution.

As for the people who are angry that there were Aliens in Indiana Jones, please. How is it that Aliens are suddenly less believable than Christian artifacts made by a holy ghost?

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 12 November 2010 - 01:02 PM

[McLovin]

I'll get your back on that one. Temple of Doom IMO was the worst. The first half was just...goofy.

[McLovin]

Aptorian, on 12 November 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

You could have removed Indiana Jones from the first one and it would not have had any effect on the films outcome what so ever.

You know, until you said that, I never realized it, but you're absoulutely fncking right. +1

[HoosierDaddy]

Indiana Jones is on a tier system with me. 1 and 3 are tier 1. 2 and 4 are tier 2.

[ansible]

H.D., on 12 November 2010 - 07:37 PM, said:

Indiana Jones is on a tier system with me. 1 and 3 are tier 1. 2 and 4 are tier 2.

I agree with this. I like all the Indiana Jones movies, actually. Even before the 4th one, Temple of Doom was always the worst of the three, and it's still got a bunch of great moments in it, e.g., Indy's face being pressed through the bars while he says "WE. ARE. GOING. TO. DIE!" and the spiked ceiling is descending. Also, Short-Round.

Coming back to Star Wars, though, I really hate how it is not okay to have an opinion about the prequels. Sure, there are some people out there who have this mysterious "nostalgic incompetence" that prevents them from accurately judging the prequels on their own merits instead of deifying the original trilogy. But lumping everyone who disagrees with you into the "everything old is better than new" category is deliberate, willful ignorance. As movies, the prequels are not very good; the scripts are generally bad, the acting is often stale, and characters like Jar Jar Binks were introduced. In terms of Star Wars, I feel that the advent of CGI really did not help Lucas at all, and instead the series suffered. There is something unique about creating a piece of art (or entertainment, media, etc.) around specific limitations, and there were no computers to simulate the many effects that had to be done with miniatures, etc. I don't mean that CGI is inherently bad in any way, but it does allow almost complete creative freedom; there is very little today that you can imagine but can't create visually on the screen. This lack of boundaries can be just as destructive as the lack of freedom, and so I think Lucas lost focus and direction because he was finally free from all those inherent restrictions of the film industry in the 70s and 80s.

I realize that many people will disagree with me, and that's fine. Some people may even like the prequels more than the original trilogy, and while that is also fine, what is NOT okay is claiming that anyone who prefers the older movies doesn't have a valid opinion. In fact, if that is your approach to judging value, there is a reason that the original films are generally respected and viewed as some of the best movies ever made, and the new prequels are not even mentioned in the same sentence. Just for example, the imdb Top 250 list (which is by no means definitive) lists Star Wars IV, V, and VI in the top 100, while the first three aren't even on the list. You could go back down the same road and claim that the people who voted are struck with this "nostalgic incompetence", but you would then have to apply that to every other movie on the list, too. It's fine to dislike The Godfather, but that doesn't make it a bad film; in fact, it will remain as one of the greatest and most important films ever made whether you like it or not. All enjoyment of art is subjective, but there must be some objective sense of value to compare against or it becomes pointless to discuss the merits and qualities of any work. Even if we don't completely understand those objective standards, we can still recognize greatness when we see it (Shakespeare, The Godfather, The Beatles, etc.).

[Abyss]

McLovin, on 12 November 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 12 November 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

You could have removed Indiana Jones from the first one and it would not have had any effect on the films outcome what so ever.

You know, until you said that, I never realized it, but you're absoulutely fncking right. +1

Except that you're both wrong because Marian would have been dead once the Nazis took the amulet.

TEMPLE was without a doubt sillier than RAIDERS - the entire plot flows from the inhrently ridiculous sets of events that leads to Indy and co being in the village in the first place. But it moves so fast and it's so much improbable fun that it at least works in the big silly Hollywood way. Plus you have a Priest of Kali ripping dudes' stil beating hearts out, and an underlying 'save the enslaved kids' plotline that's at least marginally sympathetic. CRUSADE was a bunch of old men running around sort of fighting Nazis and while Connery and Ford had a decent chemistry, it was the weakest of the first three imnsho.

But SKULL... Skull started well enough with the soviet agents dragging Indy to the Warehouse from Raiders to dig whatever up... but then we had rocket cars and nuclear bomb tests and nuke proof friidges for no reason whatsoever and to no point whatsoever except 'oooo... look how BIG we is'. You don't even have the redeeming value of moving the plot along like the start of TEMPLE does. No, you have monkies and ants. I have zero problem with aliens - Indiana Jones SHOULD be dealing with aliens and legends and whatever. But the execution was severely weak.


So it's not a case of everything Old is better so much as this particular New just sucked and i felt stupider for having spent dollars to see it.

[QuickTidal]

Problems with the prequels stem from two things, and both are in The Phantom Menace (naturally):

1. Darth Maul should NEVER have died. He was as significantly badass as a sith could come. They could have still kept Qui-Gon's death as is, had him battle a rageful Obi-Wan but escape when he realized it wasn't going to be easy to beat him. This would also have left Obi-Wan with more room to grow as a Jedi to eventually become the Jedi master who defeats Anakin...instead he beats Maul and kills him basically saying to us he's top tier enough even as a padawan to defeat a powerful sith lord who his own master couldn't best. This would also have led to the main reason Maul shouldn't have died in TPM....there would have been no need for Count Dooku...who to this day is a dumb idea IMHO. It would have made the Yoda VS sith battle that he has with Dooku WAY cooler at the end Of AOTC. Maul should have grown as apprentice to Sidious to the point where Palpatine worried about his own safety (the whole apprentice kills master thing) and has Anakin go up against him, which could have been a WAY, WAY better duel come time for the opening to Revenge Of The Sith and would have had even more emotional resonance...especially with Obi-Wan present. Imagine the "Should I kill him?" question he poses to Obi-Wan in that ship throneroom with the added aspect that this is the guy who killed Qui-Gon...so you'd have Obi-Wan fighting his need to kill the man who killed his mentor with his need to be a good Jedi master and not kill. It just would have made for WAY better prequels to have had him as the main baddie. I mean look at Asajj Ventress in The Clone Wars cartoon show...she is about as cool as Darth Maul was....and they use her and stick Dooku in the background as a kind of menacing grandfather, cause they know how ridiculous an invention he was.

2. The love story. This should have been written by someone who actually knows about romantic love. Lucas does not. The man has admitted he only ever loved one woman....80's singer Linda Ronstadt (I'm not shitting you) and that was brief and apparently relatively unrequited and one sided. It's why he adopted his kids. It's why he wouldn't know good dialogue about love if it jumped up and bit him in the ass. If you remove all the love story from the prequels...don't they instantly jump in quality? Yes they do. I'm mostly annoyed by Padme dying in childbirth of a broken heart. I don't think anyone in society ever...has died of a broken heart. Are you shitting me George? You really think that's something that can happen? Imagine this....the love story is written way better from the get-go (by someone else)...have the kid develop his crush on the young Padme and have her rebuff him....and have them slowly fall in love but without all the "I would die without you" bollocks...you have 3 movies to build that relationship....3 movies!...not just jump from "Your not course like the sand of my planet" (<----blecch...worst line ever) right to "I can't live without you Padme, I die when you aren't around" (<---gag). Even romantic comedies do relationship builds better. Anyways, the better way to go (and more fitting with Anakin's descent) would have been for him to rage at her on Mustafar to the point where he snaps, let's the dark side take over and runs her through with his own lightsaber. We don't really need that scene where Vader asks after her and the Emperor says he killed her in a rage to be fake...why does it need to be? He's basically been trained, and coerced and PUSHED into the dark side by Palpatine....having him snap (like he did on that family of sand people in AOTC) is natural....thus making his redemption in the original trilogy more compelling and emotional. Imagine a man who has been pushed so far that he killed his own wife in a rage...and then having to live a half-life in a mostly robotic body....that guy..would be EVIL! It makes Vader a more multi-layered character...he didn't just kill his fellow Jedi and even younglings....but his own wife! It would have solved the "How do we kill her off" thing. All you have to do is re-organize when the kids are born so that she is free to be around for him to kill afterwards.

My thoughts. the prequels are OKAY....Phantom Menace has good moments....Attack of the Clones is a lot better, and Revenge of the Sith is the most watchable of the 3 actually.

[McLovin]

QuickTidal ftw. +1

[Bauchelain the Evil]

Abyss, on 12 November 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

McLovin, on 12 November 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 12 November 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

You could have removed Indiana Jones from the first one and it would not have had any effect on the films outcome what so ever.

You know, until you said that, I never realized it, but you're absoulutely fncking right. +1

Except that you're both wrong because Marian would have been dead once the Nazis took the amulet.

TEMPLE was without a doubt sillier than RAIDERS - the entire plot flows from the inhrently ridiculous sets of events that leads to Indy and co being in the village in the first place. But it moves so fast and it's so much improbable fun that it at least works in the big silly Hollywood way. Plus you have a Priest of Kali ripping dudes' stil beating hearts out, and an underlying 'save the enslaved kids' plotline that's at least marginally sympathetic. CRUSADE was a bunch of old men running around sort of fighting Nazis and while Connery and Ford had a decent chemistry, it was the weakest of the first three imnsho.

AbyssI think you are just wrong there. I'm surprised that there is actually someone who thinks that TEMPLE (pooh!) is better than CRUSADE( which for me is actually better than the first one, but anyway)

However one must admit that SKULL was a ridiculous piece of a film and there was no need to do it.

[QuickTidal]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 13 November 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

Abyss, on 12 November 2010 - 09:05 PM, said:

McLovin, on 12 November 2010 - 01:02 PM, said:

Aptorian, on 12 November 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

You could have removed Indiana Jones from the first one and it would not have had any effect on the films outcome what so ever.

You know, until you said that, I never realized it, but you're absoulutely fncking right. +1

Except that you're both wrong because Marian would have been dead once the Nazis took the amulet.

TEMPLE was without a doubt sillier than RAIDERS - the entire plot flows from the inhrently ridiculous sets of events that leads to Indy and co being in the village in the first place. But it moves so fast and it's so much improbable fun that it at least works in the big silly Hollywood way. Plus you have a Priest of Kali ripping dudes' stil beating hearts out, and an underlying 'save the enslaved kids' plotline that's at least marginally sympathetic. CRUSADE was a bunch of old men running around sort of fighting Nazis and while Connery and Ford had a decent chemistry, it was the weakest of the first three imnsho.

AbyssI think you are just wrong there. I'm surprised that there is actually someone who thinks that TEMPLE (pooh!) is better than CRUSADE( which for me is actually better than the first one, but anyway)

However one must admit that SKULL was a ridiculous piece of a film and there was no need to do it.

*Raises hand* Umm....I have always liked TEMPLE more than CRUSADE....TEMPLE may have silly moments, and the whole thing lacks a concentration that RAIDERS had...but that's because Spielberg was concentrating on his 1st marriage breaking down and the fact that he was head over heels for his star Kate Capshaw....(who he eventually married)...but it still has many more interesting moments and non-hackneyed bits than CRUSADE, which to me is the Return Of The Jedi of the series. It seemed to be cashing in on what came previous, as opposed to telling an interesting story. Sean Connery and the guy who played Marcus save that one from the doldrums TBH....

At least TEMPLE tried to be original, I mean had you ever heard of the Chankara stones, or know anything about Hindu mythology before that flick? Me neither. It's cohesive, consistent and the dark middle volume. I loved it!

I challenge anyone to come up with a better scene in CRUSADE than THIS one in TEMPLE...

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 14 November 2010 - 01:04 AM

[Illuyankas]

Yeah, the scene in Crusade where Kate Capshaw never appeared.