Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

So what if I hate the Nolan Batman films? The argument is nonsensical. I don't care for Gangster Films. Simple as that.

And the current crop of Batman films are less Superhero movies and more Gangster films with Cosplayers. Begins was ok though.

Regardless, not liking The Dark Knight has no bearing on whether someone has good taste or bad taste. There's no such thing when it comes to art.

There is most certainly good taste and bad taste in art. For example, the OT is like a Da Vinci; whereas the PT is like a composite of a velvet Elvis playing poker with dogs and a sad clown, the kind of "art" you'd get at a swap meet for $5.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by MCT

he did the same thing for the Matrix movies. Was ALLLLL up in the thread trashing Reloaded and Revolutions. Trolling to the max.

Then gets all riled up and offended when people critique his perfect cinematic treasures known as the Prequels. It's hilarious.

Actually, you might want to go check those threads. Cause you're either forgetful or lying.

One, it wasn't in Matrix threads. It was in "Worst Sequels" and "Worst Films" threads.

Two, it was only a couple posts and it was discussing with other people who don't like them.

Three, it was split between a couple comments about the Matrix Sequels and about Terminator 4.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by svenge

There is most certainly good taste and bad taste in art. For example, the OT is like a Da Vinci; whereas the PT is like a composite of a velvet Elvis playing poker with dogs and a sad clown, the kind of "art" you'd get at a swap meet for $5.

Sorry but that's not how art works. Art is a purely subjective thing.

One person's Mona Lisa is another person's Ugly Woman Who Can't Smile.

Tastes in art is an entirely subjective thing. There's no such thing as "Good" or "Bad".

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sorry but that's not how art works. Art is a purely subjective thing.

One person's Mona Lisa is another person's Ugly Woman Who Can't Smile.

Tastes in art is an entirely subjective thing. There's no such thing as "Good" or "Bad".

The Museum of Bad Art disagrees. They ought have a showing of TPM sometime if they can negotiate a reasonable fee with Lucas...

[Beast]

Originally Posted by svenge

The Museum of Bad Art disagrees. They ought have a showing of TPM sometime if they can negotiate a reasonable fee with Lucas...

Sorry... but that proves nothing. It's just their subjective opinion of what is "Bad".

Remember... Van Gogh's work was maligned by pretty much everyone while he was alive.

Now his work is considered to be Masterpieces and some of the greatest art of that era.

[BouCoupDinkyDau]

Originally Posted by svenge

There is most certainly good taste and bad taste in art. For example, the OT is like a Da Vinci; whereas the PT is like a composite of a velvet Elvis playing poker with dogs and a sad clown, the kind of "art" you'd get at a swap meet for $5.

That was hilarious, but I have to agree with Beast on this one. Art is highly subjective. Once, when I watched The Road Warrior for the first time on blu, my wife looked at me and said, "What the hell is wrong with you?"

She calls it "The Assless Chaps Movie"

[Beast]

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

That was hilarious, but I have to agree with Beast on this one. Art is highly subjective. Once, when I watched The Road Warrior for the first time on blu, my wife looked at me and said, "What the hell is wrong with you?"

She calls it "The Assless Chaps Movie"

*Chuckles* Great story. I'm sure we all have those movies that loved ones question our sanity over.

Mine's probably Rocky Horror Picture Show. My Brother doesn't understand why I like that movie at all. And passed on my old DVD copy.

[Schloob]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sorry... but that proves nothing. It's just their subjective opinion of what is "Bad".

Remember... Van Gogh's work was maligned by pretty much everyone while he was alive.

Now his work is considered to be Masterpieces and some of the greatest art of that era.

Fortunately, I feel that will never happen with a film like TPM. While it might not be as bad as say something like Leanard Part 6 or other films in the IMDB bottom 250, a masterpiece it will NEVER be.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

Sorry... but that proves nothing. It's just their subjective opinion of what is "Bad".

Remember... Van Gogh's work was maligned by pretty much everyone while he was alive.

Now his work is considered to be Masterpieces and some of the greatest art of that era.

I doubt that "Jar-Jar and Friends in Space!" will ever get that consideration...

[Beast]

Originally Posted by svenge

I doubt that "Jar-Jar and Friends in Space!" will ever get that consideration...

Who cares? Lucas still wins because even people who dislike the movies can't stop talking about them.

Also, that title doesn't really work... as he's not like main character. He's a supporting character like Chewbacca.

[Schloob]

Originally Posted by Beast

So what if I hate the Nolan Batman films? The argument is nonsensical. I don't care for Gangster Films. Simple as that.

And the current crop of Batman films are less Superhero movies and more Gangster films with Cosplayers. Begins was ok though.

Regardless, not liking The Dark Knight has no bearing on whether someone has good taste or bad taste. There's no such thing when it comes to art.

But there is the argument. Just because you don't care for a certain "kind" of film does not make it good or bad. Simple fact is I don't care for MOST horror movies, but that does not mean that some of them are really good films obviously. That's based on what you are saying here at least.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

Who cares? Lucas still wins because even people who dislike the movies can't stop talking about them.

Also, that title doesn't really work... as he's not like main character. He's a supporting character like Chewbacca.

So if I bring up the PT, the (film) Bad guys win?

Also, Happy Days wasn't supposed to be about Fonzie, either. However whenever someone brings up that show, the first thing that comes to people's minds is one Arthur Fonzarelli.

If someone brings up The Phantom Menace, the first thing that comes to people's minds is Jar-Jar (with the "Dark Lord of the Sith" saying YIPPIE! coming in second, and "Galactic C-SPAN" coming in a distant third.)

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Schloob

But there is the argument. Just because you don't care for a certain "kind" of film does not make it good or bad. Simple fact is I don't care for MOST horror movies, but that does not mean that some of them are really good films obviously. That's based on what you are saying here at least.

Your argument makes no sense. I simply don't like the genre. And no film in it has ever changed that.

Are you laboring under the belief I never saw the film or something? Because I do own TDK.

Though it's more for the extras. The Tech of Batman and Psychology of Batman documentaries are excellent.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by svenge

Happy Days wasn't supposed to be about Fonzie, either. However, whenever someone brings up that show, the first thing that comes to people's minds is one Arthur Fonzarelli.

In someone brings up The Phantom Menace, and the first thing that comes to people's minds is Jar-Jar (with the "Dark Lord of the Sith" saying YIPPIE! coming in second, and "Galactic C-SPAN" coming in a distant third.)

So now you're somehow psychic and know what everyone thinks about a certain movie?

Also I would say that more people think of Darth Maul given his bizarre fanbase. Still will never understand what people see about that character.

[mrpink134]

Originally Posted by Beast

1. I never wanted it removed from existance. So the comparison fails.

2. Check again. I only posted 32 times in the Dark Knight thread. And even praised the extras on the set. And answered questions.

Some of you people have hundreds of posts focused on nothing but complaining about the Prequels. And are still posting here about them.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/search.php?searchid=7212908

32 time in a thread for a movie that you didn't like?

You are missing my point, the man wished he could go back in time to stop GL from makeing the PT's and the changes that was made. You jumped on him insulting him, instead of saying something like Thats you opinion but I like the changes and the PT's

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

...Also I would say that more people think of Darth Maul given his bizarre fanbase. Still will never understand what people see about that character.

As underdeveloped as he was, Darth Maul was one of the few things in TPM that didn't suck outright. I'm neutral about him, which is high praise from me regarding anything post-1983...

[Beast]

Originally Posted by svenge

As underdeveloped as he was, Darth Maul was one of the few things in TPM that didn't suck outright. I'm neutral about him, which is high praise from me regarding anything post-1983...

In your opinion. I was glad he was killed off as fast as he was. He was like Boba Fett. Style over Substance.

To me, he didn't feel like he fit in with Sith Lords like Vader or Sidious. Dooku felt much more in keeping with them.

Darth Maul felt like nothing more than a pit bull of a character. Like Darth Sidious' rabid dog. Not like a Sith Lord.

[svenge]

Originally Posted by Beast

In your opinion. I was glad he was killed off as fast as he was. He was like Boba Fett. Style over Substance.

To me, he didn't feel like he fit in with Sith Lords like Vader or Sidious. Dooku felt much more in keeping with them.

Darth Maul felt like nothing more than a pit bull of a character. Like Darth Sidious' rabid dog. Not like a Sith Lord.

The problem is that Christopher Lee had better lines to perform in his work as Dracula with Hammer Films than with the PT as Count Dooku, and that's saying something!

[MCT]

if it doesn't matter whether a movie is good or bad and taste is subjective and blah blah blah...why are you vehemently defending these movies at every possible opportunity? I remember you once even tried to rationalize the Greedo shooting first thing with the explanation that he was "drunk" or some shit and that his eyes are too big since he's an overgrown fly, causing him to look in the wrong direction when he shot. I remember staring at my computer reading that jazz like I had just seen a horrific car crash, because not only was that implausible and illogical, but also you were DEAD SERIOUS about it lol

[Beast]

Originally Posted by MCT

if it doesn't matter whether a movie is good or bad and taste is subjective and blah blah blah...why are you vehemently defending these movies at every possible opportunity? I remember you once even tried to rationalize the Greedo shooting first thing with the explanation that he was "drunk" or some shit and that his eyes are too big since he's an overgrown fly, causing him to look in the wrong direction when he shot. I remember staring at my computer reading that jazz like I had just seen a horrific car crash, because not only was that implausible and illogical, but also you were DEAD SERIOUS about it lol

Why are you guys returning to the thread constantly trashing them? That might be a better question.

I may hate a number of films, but I don't have this obsessed desire to sit in the threads day in and day out and complain.

Sure I posted a few times in threads like Dark Knight, and even some of those were about the fantastic extras on the disc.

Do you guys just have nothing better to talk about? No movies you actually like that you'd rather talk about? Is it some sick obsession?

Does it hurt somehow that some people actually like these films, and you feel it's some service your performing to try to change their minds?

Why not devote the same passion towards movies you actually love? Share your joy and opinions with the fellow fans of those films.