Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by dookiex

I didn't, the 70 minute video "review" I believe claims that QG is the protagonist. Then Dooks or whomever I believe brought that up. All I did was say that IF QG was the protagonist and he died, it doesn't actually negate the movie. Dooks or whomever's argument was that if a protagonist of a movie dies, it defeats the point of the movie. This is just simply ridiculous. So no, I'm not the one insisting anything, I'm just pointing out the lapses in logic with some people's arguments on here.

Sorry, Doofs is the posters name, not Dooks

here it is for you. Please try to follow this as best you can. The original review claimed that there isn't a main protagonist in the TPM and that is a problem. ISN'T. As in "is not." He is saying TPM does not have a central protagonist. Ok? He does not say QGJ is the central protagonist.

Are you with me so far?

Original review: no central protagonist; doesn't like

The "rebuttal" claims that "oh yes! there is a central protagonist!" Then proceeds to discuss how Padme is also the protagonist. Oh, annd Obi-wan. And Anakin etc. etc. But then he goes back to, "yes! QGJ IS the central protagonist." OK?

Rebuttal: yes, central protagonist = QGJ; thinks this is great



I will give you a second now to re-read everything up to this point.



Back? Ok, good. Just to review:

Original review: no central protagonist; doesn't like

Rebuttal: yes, central protagonist = QGJ; thinks this is great


One of the many, many things the original review criticizes is that the first film is basically redundant. I agreed by claiming that the PT was, in fact.....a trilogy. Do you agree that it was indeed a trilogy? Good.

I was asking the question "If QGJ is the protagonist of only the first movie - now remember, this is what the rebuttal seemed to claim - and NOT the entire trilogy, how can the first movie help the narrative structure of the entire trilogy?" You basically have a new protagonist(s) in the second movie. Luke was in all three movies of the OT. His character drove all three films. It wasn't Ben. The OT did not focus on Ben as the protagonist then introduce Luke in the second film. This was a stronger structure. This is what the original was stating. I agree with this.

So I was disagreeing with the rebuttal. I agree with the first review that TPM was a structural mess.

CAN YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? Please God make him understand. My position is: assuming the rebuttal guy is correct, and that TPM did indeed have a protagonist, and that protagonist was QGJ, then that does not work for the TRILOGY as a whole. Because his character does not drive the story of all three films. Just the first one. Then the reset button is hit and either Anakin or Obi-wan is the protagonist of the second film. (Again, no central protagonist.) The first one is therefore redundant. And this of course is exactly what the original review was saying.

I was never saying a protagonist cannot die. I was never saying you couldn't have more than one protagonist. I was never saying any of the increasingly confusing things you stated spewing.

Bless you. You are a truly worthy opponent well versed in film theory and critical thinking. I salute you.

[aramis109]

Just thought I'd post a link to the metacritic reviews of TPM for the person on the last page that said, "the majority of critic reviews was positive."

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star...phantom-menace

15 positive, 15 mixed, and 5 negative. So... how's that math working out for you again? Additionally, it scored 52 out of 100. That's not exactly evidence backing up your statement.

Me personally, I dislike TPM. There are parts I like (predominantly the action scenes with Maul and the too-long podrace) but in no way to me is it a good film. It gets a lot of leeway from me because it's Star Wars, right or wrong. But I'm certainly not going out of my way to defend it and Jar Jar.

[dookiex]

Originally Posted by The Doof

here it is for you. Please try to follow this as best you can. The original review claimed that there isn't a main protagonist in the TPM and that is a problem. ISN'T. As in "is not." He is saying TPM does not have a central protagonist. Ok? He does not say QGJ is the central protagonist.

Are you with me so far?

Original review: no central protagonist; doesn't like

The "rebuttal" claims that "oh yes! there is a central protagonist!" Then proceeds to discuss how Padme is also the protagonist. Oh, annd Obi-wan. And Anakin etc. etc. But then he goes back to, "yes! QGJ IS the central protagonist." OK?

Rebuttal: yes, central protagonist = QGJ; thinks this is great



I will give you a second now to re-read everything up to this point.



Back? Ok, good. Just to review:

Original review: no central protagonist; doesn't like

Rebuttal: yes, central protagonist = QGJ; thinks this is great


One of the many, many things the original review criticizes is that the first film is basically redundant. I agreed by claiming that the PT was, in fact.....a trilogy. Do you agree that it was indeed a trilogy? Good.

I was asking the question "If QGJ is the protagonist of only the first movie - now remember, this is what the rebuttal seemed to claim - and NOT the entire trilogy, how can the first movie help the narrative structure of the entire trilogy?" You basically have a new protagonist(s) in the second movie. Luke was in all three movies of the OT. His character drove all three films. It wasn't Ben. The OT did not focus on Ben as the protagonist then introduce Luke in the second film. This was a stronger structure. This is what the original was stating. I agree with this.

So I was disagreeing with the rebuttal. I agree with the first review that TPM was a structural mess.

CAN YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING? Please God make him understand. My position is: assuming the rebuttal guy is correct, and that TPM did indeed have a protagonist, and that protagonist was QGJ, then that does not work for the TRILOGY as a whole. Because his character does not drive the story of all three films. Just the first one. Then the reset button is hit and either Anakin or Obi-wan is the protagonist of the second film. (Again, no central protagonist.) The first one is therefore redundant. And this of course is exactly what the original review was saying.

I was never saying a protagonist cannot die. I was never saying you couldn't have more than one protagonist. I was never saying any of the increasingly confusing things you stated spewing.

Bless you. You are a truly worthy opponent well versed in film theory and critical thinking. I salute you.

What part of BOTH of those "reviews" being nerdrage from different sides of the fence do you not comprehend? Why is it that just because I'm not disagreeing with the rebuttal it makes me automatically a great big wetting my knickers fan of the prequels and the rebuttal? What part of the point I'm making of nerdrage does not equal real film analysis do you not comprehend? Well, I'll actually answer that myself, I can see how you can not comprehend any of what I was pointing out because you yourself are actually nerdraging. Sigh. So sad.

Lastly, get this through your thick nerdraging skull: IF let's say there is a protagonist in TPM and that person was QG, it really doesn't hurt the trilogy at all. You might not like the fact that he died, but it's not killing some great cinematic rule in some fictitious film rulebook. It's opinion at best. You don't need to have a persistent protagonist through a trilogy that drives the story of the entire series. There could be one but there's no rule stating this. The heck is wrong with you, seriously. It's comical the extent of your nerdrage at this point. The fact that you fail to understand that TPM was really not much more as an expository piece to set up the main story that is to come in 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 is ridiculous. No imaginary reset button was pressed for 2 and 3. The purpose of TPM is blatantly obvious. It's just not what YOU would personally have wanted and that again is opinion at best. I'm going to use my Jedi powers now and foresee that you are going to now come back with more nerdraging. Nerdrage on young Doof, nerdrage on.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by MCT

HUH? That review is VERY academic. Have you ever taken a film theory class? He explains why the prequels fail not only as Star Wars films, but also on the most basic, fundamental levels of movie-making as well. "Nerdrage rant"? You CLEARLY didnt watch a single second of that review. Its like a Christian refusing to watch an Agnostic explain why he chooses not to follow any particular religion and automatically writing his beliefs off just because he considers him a "heathen".

Again, no offense, but consider that your hyperbole might be a bit much. If that review speaks to you and you agree with it, that's great. I've seen it. I agree with much of The Prequel criticism, but you're having an argument here that cannot be won. As a piece of pop art, and granted everybody and his brother has access to post navel-gazing videos of themselves on Youtube, I'm not at all surprised that this speaks to so many. They want justification for their disappointment in a way they can't express, so that review does it, all the while refusing to take itself seriously, so folks can spend an hour and a half criticizing something while claiming to not take themselves seriously. It's funny and much of it I agree with.

But to call it 'academic?' Not exactly. I really don't mean to patronize you, but let's recognize rhetoric for what it is. This entire debate is not like Christians vs. agnostics, because agnostics admit that they don't know what they believe. This debate is more like Christians and any other religion, denomination or sect that has a doctrine, because you clearly have an agenda. And in this kind of debate, neither side is right or wrong. If we're going to check off characteristics that make art good, we can go back to Aristotle and check off criteria that The Phantom Menace meets. But that would be navel-gazing and nobody wants that.

[Beast]

Reviews mean nothing. You can find negative review of anything.

Like say.... this vintage review of Empire Strikes Back from the New York Times from 6/15/1980.

"The Empire Strikes Back" Strikes a Bland Note
By VINCENT CANBY

The Force is with us but let's try to keep our heads. These things are certifiable: "The Empire Strikes Back," George Lucas's sequel to his "Star Wars," the biggest grossing motion picture of all time, has opened. On the basis of the early receipts, "The Empire Strikes Back" could make more money than any other movie in history, except, maybe, "Star Wars." It is the second film in a projected series that may last longer than the civilization that produced it.

Confession: When I went to see "The Empire Strikes Back" I found myself glancing at my watch almost as often as I did when I was sitting through a truly terrible movie called "The Island."

The Empire Strikes Back" is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you're likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what "The Empire Strikes Back" most reminds me of. It's a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation.

Gone from "The Empire Strikes Back" are those associations that so enchanted us in "Star Wars," reminders of everything from the Passion of Jesus and the stories of Beowulf and King Arthur to those of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, the Oz books, Buck Rogers and Peanuts. Strictly speaking, "The Empire Strikes Back" isn't even a complete narrative. It has no beginning or end, being simply another chapter in a serial that appears to be continuing not onward and upward but sideways. How, then, to review it?

The fact that I am here at this minute facing a reproachful typewriter and attempting to get a fix on "The Empire Strikes Back" is, perhaps, proof of something I've been suspecting for some time now. That is, that there is more nonsense being written, spoken and rumored about movies today than about any of the other so-called popular arts except rock music. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air.

Ordinarily when one reviews a movie one attempts to tell a little something about the story. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about "The Empire Strikes Back" that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. That was actually one of the more charming conceits of "Star Wars," which began with a long, intensely complicated message about who was doing what to whom in the galactic confrontations we were about to witness and which, when we did see them, looked sort of like a game of neighborhood hide-and-seek at the Hayden Planetarium. One didn't worry about its politics. One only had to distinguish the good persons from the bad. This is pretty much the way one is supposed to feel about "The Empire Strikes Back," but one's impulse to know, to understand, cannot be arrested indefinitely without doing psychic damage or, worse, without risking boredom.

This much about "The Empire Strikes Back" I do understand: When the movie begins, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and their gang are hanging out on a cold, snowy planet where soldiers ride patrols on animals that look like ostrich-kangaroos, where there are white-furred animals that are not polar bears and where Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) almost freezes to death.

Under the command of Darth Vader, the forces of the Empire attack, employing planes, missiles and some awfully inefficient tanks that have the shape of armor-plated camels. Somehow Han Solo and Princess Leia escape. At that point Luke Skywalker flies off to find Yoda, a guru who will teach him more about the Force, Yoda being the successor to Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the "Star Wars" guru who was immolated in that movie but whose shade turns up from time to time in the new movie for what looks to have been about three weeks of work.

As Han Solo and Princess Leia wrestle with the forces of darkness and those of a new character played by Billy Dee Williams, an unreliable fellow who has future sainthood written all over him, Luke Skywalker finds his guru, Yoda, a small, delightful, Muppet-like troll created and operated by Frank Oz of the Muppet Show. Eventually these two stories come together for still another blazing display of special effects that, after approximately two hours, leave Han Solo, Leia and Luke no better off than they were at the beginning.

I'm not as bothered by the film's lack of resolution as I am about my suspicion that I really don't care. After one has one's fill of the special effects and after one identifies the source of the facetious banter that passes for wit between Han Solo and Leia (it's straight out of B-picture comedies of the 30's), there isn't a great deal for the eye or the mind to focus on. Ford, as cheerfully nondescript as one could wish a comic strip hero to be, and Miss Fisher, as sexlessly pretty as the base of a porcelain lamp, become (is it rude to say?) tiresome. One finally looks around them, even through them, at the decor. If Miss Fisher does much more of this sort of thing, she's going to wind up with the Vera Hruba Ralston Lifetime Achievement Award.

The other performers are no better or worse, being similarly limited by the not-super material. Hamill may one day become a real movie star, an identifiable personality, but right now it's difficult to remember what he looks like. Even the appeal of those immensely popular robots, C-3PO and R2-D2, starts to run out.

In this context it's no wonder that Oz's contribution, the rubbery little Yoda with the pointy ears and his old-man's frieze of wispy hair, is the hit of the movie. But even he can be taken only in small doses, possibly because the lines of wisdom he must speak sound as if they should be sung to a tune by Jimmy Van Heusen.

I'm also puzzled by the praise that some of my colleagues have heaped on the work of Irvin Kershner, whom Lucas, who directed "Star Wars" and who is the executive producer of this one, hired to direct "The Empire Strikes Back." Perhaps my colleagues have information denied to those of us who have to judge the movie by what is on the screen. Did Kershner oversee the screenplay, too? Did he do the special effects? After working tirelessly with Miss Fisher to get those special nuances of utter blandness, did he edit the film? Who, exactly, did what in this movie? I cannot tell, and even a certain knowledge of Kershner's past work ("Eyes of Laura Mars," "The Return of a Man Called Horse," "Loving") gives me no hints about the extent of his contributions to this movie. "The Empire Strikes Back" is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.

I assume that Lucas supervised the entire production and made the major decisions or, at least, approved of them. It looks like a movie that was directed at a distance. At this point the adventures of Luke, Leia and Han Solo appear to be a self-sustaining organism, beyond criticism except on a corporate level.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by dookiex

Lastly, get this through your thick nerdraging skull: IF let's say there is a protagonist in TPM and that person was QG, it really doesn't hurt the trilogy at all. You might not like the fact that he died, but it's not killing some great cinematic rule in some fictitious film rulebook. It's opinion at best. You don't need to have a persistent protagonist through a trilogy that drives the story of the entire series. There could be one but there's no rule stating this. The heck is wrong with you, seriously. It's comical the extent of your nerdrage at this point.

But considering that we did have a persistent protagonist in the OT, that being Luke, and Lucas seems to be all about making the two trilogies "rhyme" with each other, wouldn't it have made sense for him to have a persistent protagonist in the PT as well? Can't you see, based on this, why some people would have a problem with how this was handled and be of the opinion that it is inferior as a result? Or do you just like to keep finding excuses to use the term "nerdrage" over and over again ad nausium?

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by dookiex

What part of BOTH of those "reviews" being nerdrage from different sides of the fence do you not comprehend? Why is it that just because I'm not disagreeing with the rebuttal it makes me automatically a great big wetting my knickers fan of the prequels and the rebuttal? What part of the point I'm making of nerdrage does not equal real film analysis do you not comprehend? Well, I'll actually answer that myself, I can see how you can not comprehend any of what I was pointing out because you yourself are actually nerdraging. Sigh. So sad.

Because this is not what we were debating. We were speaking of protagonists. Don't suddenly try to shift the focus of the conversation.

This whole nerdrage thing of yours is so bizarre. The original review - imo - seemed very well thought out and more bored and depressed than angry.

It's more "nerdapathy" than nerdrage. I'm very happy that you are now debating yourself so I can finally get out of this ridiculous conversation.

Godspeed to you sir!

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by Beast

Reviews mean nothing. You can find negative review of anything.

Like say.... this vintage review of Empire Strikes Back from the New York Times from 6/15/1980.

Congratulations! You have won the debates!

Godspeed to you sir!

[Uxi]

Originally Posted by Beast

You do realize that you signed up 5 days ago, and have a over 125 posts in this one thread in that amount of time.

He's gotta be someone else who was already posting in the thread. Probably agreeing with himself, too.

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by Uxi

He's gotta be someone else who was already posting in the thread. Probably agreeing with himself, too.

Nah, I just have really bad insomnia right now. I was originally glancing through the forum to get some info on the SW set, and became fascinated with some of the "characters" on here.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

But considering that we did have a persistent protagonist in the OT, that being Luke, and Lucas seems to be all about making the two trilogies "rhyme" with each other, wouldn't it have made sense for him to have a persistent protagonist in the PT as well? Can't you see, based on this, why some people would have a problem with how this was handled and be of the opinion that it is inferior as a result? Or do you just like to keep finding excuses to use the term "nerdrage" over and over again ad nausium?

Actually, from a certain point of view it makes sense. As Princess Leia can be viewed as the chief protagonist of A New Hope also. Since the entire story basically revolves around her. And the other characters are only doing what they're doing because of her character.

[Uxi]

Hmm where is the scene of Obi-wan explaining he fried his lightsaber to Qui-Gon? I thought it was on the Ep 1 DVD deleted scenes but don't see it there... didn't make the BD set, either.

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by Peace_Train

[Show spoiler]Just got and watched the films on blu. All of them looked and sounded phenomenal. Those annoying blue boxes around the ties and second Death Star in Return of the Jedi were my only gripe. However, since Jedi is my favorite of the six, I can overlook it. The last time I watched the films was on on my old 24 inch tube tv , so viewing them on a new 50 inch Plasma was a bit if a shocker. As for the extras, the included ones are spectacular. I did really miss the prequel deleted scenes and Empire of Dreams documentary however. The spoofs were hit and miss, and most should have been replaced with actual content.

Overall, I'd give the films a 10/10 and the extras 8/10.

I'm new to this forum (don't shoot!) & since I just got the Saga and I love Star Wars, I thought I'd skim through this long thread for a half hour. I was a bit shocked to discover that about half the posts are prequel bashing or personal insults. All that hate and negativity is unnecessary and unhealthy. Spreading hate does nothing but get people angry.

Agreed. This is exactly how I felt after browsing this thread. I don't mind if people don't like the films, but to dwell on that hatred for so long...

My family and I happen to love all 6 Star Wars films. To say that the prequels are universally disliked or that they are "laughable" is wrong. And yes, people really do like The Phantom Menace (not just kids mind you). Some critics really liked it; Roger Ebert gave it a 3.5/4 stars and called it fun, imaginative space opera at its best. Other critics, however, hated it. Some were neutral. The truth is the prequels recieved mixed critical reviews (just like the originals ).

To say that the fans don't like the prequels is also wrong. If surfing the web you see someone groaning about the prequels on a certain article or forum, they are most likely the exact same group of people that whined about it last week..and the week before...and the week before that...My point is that if someones truly despises something, they often get very vocal and repitative in their attacks, spewing hate and vitrol everywhere. Many people like the prequels, there's even a whole fansite called the Prequel Appreciation Society. Both the prequels and the originals are part of the one Star Wars Saga. Like it or not. If somebody wants to criticize a film in the Saga, that is perfectly fine, just don't get upset if someone chooses to defend it. If the debate gets too vicious, just agree to disagree. Simple as that.

I liked the idea someone had a few pages back about listing favorite Star Wars songs. Mine would be a four-way tie between Duel of the Fates, Augie's Great Municipal Band, The Imperial March, and Yoda's theme.

How about discussing your favorite scene from the films, or interesting behind-the-scenes info? Or how you got hooked on Star Wars? or which Star Wars planet you would like to live on? (I'd have to go with Naboo or Coruscant ) The possibilities are endless!

C'mon let's try and stay positive for a change...Let's bringe balance to the thread.

I don't think there have been many persona insults just because a person likes or dislikes the PT. The thing that you need to realize, is that some people get blinded by some weird force (no pun intended) that makes them 'love' the PT, specially TPM; and yes, even when reviews of films are subjective, we cannot deny that even at 67% Fresh at RT, TPM IS a movie that tried to be a ST update for the new generation and it failed. I mean, you can have a special effects ridden film, and still make it good or enjoyable (yes, Avatar).

Again, if people get mad is because people decide to ignore things that are apparent, and most of us can.

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

[Show spoiler]Lots of crap makes money. Just look at Twilight or Transformers. That can't be a gauge of anything other than bodies in a room. I saw all three films in the theater and disliked them all.

And I never trust 1/10 or 10/10 reviews when I read them. They are often fanboy love/hate or studios working for themselves and against their rivals.

+1 Exactly, just because one thing makes money doesn't make it good.

Originally Posted by The Doof

[Show spoiler]I hated TPM. I still saw it four times. No, I can't explain it either. Some kind of masochistic disbelief. And again, if you actually read what I said, I'm not talking about anyone who liked the PT. I was referring to the people who didn't, and to why they didn't. The twelve adults who liked it thing - that was a bit of an exaggeration. I'm sure almost fifty people truly loved it.

Originally Posted by octagon

[Show spoiler]This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the so-called haters.

I didn't want The Phantom Menace to suck. I wanted it to be great. In retrospect I would have settled for good.

And the fact that it was not good didn't keep me from hoping that Clones or Sith would be better. Which on balance they were.

Buying tickets for II and III is hardly an endorsement of I.

Originally Posted by Monkey_Boy

[Show spoiler]Interesting. You were in a theater where EVERYBODY thought the same as you?! Wow. Just wow. My experience was quite different with cheers for the action and laughter at Jar Jar's antics. Maybe you just heard what you wanted to hear, I dunno. I can't get over the fact that folks keep saying how "everybody in the theater hated it" and then it still went on to make a profit.

Having been one who has experienced racism first hand, I can honestly say that I took zero offense at Jar Jar. I truly believe people are projecting their own thoughts and feelings into the character so that they have a more reasoned argument for hating him. As for Anakin and Padme's relationship, I think it was supposed to be a flip side of Han and Leia's. Han's relationship with Leia made sense in how it evolved. Han wasn't a virgin when he met Leia. He had grown up around women. Anakin hadn't. He was a confused kid with issues of co-dependency. Padme was exactly the same. They both took responsibility for each other. Anakin focused on the fact that he couldn't save his mother and took it upon himself that he would stop this from happening to him again. Padme saw Anakin as "that little boy from Tattooine." She felt responsible for him slaughtering the Sand People, which is why she comforted him. At the very end of ROTS she's still taking responsibility by telling Obi-Wan that there was still good in him, but she couldn't live with herself because of what he had done. CLASSIC CO-DEPENDECY ISSUES! Their love didn't evolve the way Han & leia's did because it was built on a foundation of co-dependency, so it was destined to fail. I think alotta people's problem is that they thought they were gonna witness an amazing love story, but it wouldn't and couldn't have gone that way. Like I typed before, Anakin ain't gonna have no mack daddy skills without chicks to play off of!

Originally Posted by BouCoupDinkyDau

[Show spoiler]I can't remember if anyone reacted to that in my theater or not. The silence in the room was thick. I do remember feeling let down (yet again) when I saw that, but by that time it was no longer heartbreak (that ended with Clones), but more Jesus, and this part sucks too kinda thoughts. Sith was the very lowest I have ever felt about a movie even though its the best of the three prequels. I have never before or since felt any kind of depression over a film. I usually just take them or leave them, but as Sith progressed, I felt as though I was watching the end of a beloved pet's life, and for two and a half hours I had to endure the final moments of its slow death that had begun in '99. I had in essence given up on the entire affair and just waited for the final disappointments to come. They sure did.

Roll credits.

I saw TPM on the theatre, not knowing what it was, just knowing that Darth Vader was the bad guy in black (yes, as a 14 y/o kid in 1999, I didn't really recalled watching a SW film). I'm not gonna say I'm the smartest person, but I don't recall the movie making any sense, or actually understanding it.

Fast forward three years. It's summer and I have nothing to do (don't ask why I had nothing to do, don't get personal), then I see the SW movies (special editions). I put one on the VCR (and watch it on a 20" old CRT monitor), the behind the scenes featurette plays (and I'm thrilled about the restoration and new additions), and the movie starts...and WOW. I was blown away by ANH. Then I put on the next movie, ESB, and it was even better...I went to get the third, and it wasn't in the boxset! So then I got my ten year old brother to watch them and he got as excited as I did. Thankfully a few days later he went to a flea market and got an old copy of ROTJ (without any changes), and we were able to complete watching the OT. I rewatched the OT several times during the summer.

Funny thing is, TPM NEVER came to mind while watching the OT, not even once. Why? Because there wasn't really anything that tied them together. Second funny thing is, the first DVD that we purchased (my brother and I) was TPM. We went to the theatre to watch AOTC and we liked it; we went to the theatre to watch ROTS and we loved it (yes, it is really good). Oh, and yes, everybody was excited to watch it.

So no, I did not "grow up" with the OT, nor with any real fascination for SW (other than my older cousins having a Y-Wing and some other SW toys), but TPM did NOTHING for me to fall "in love" with SW, the OT did because of the greatness of all three movies (yes, even teddy bear ridden ROTJ).

EDIT: By the way, like the quote above, maybe you felt depressed watching AOTC and then ROTS because like you said, the saga was ending?

[dookiex]

Originally Posted by The Doof

Because this is not what we were debating. We were speaking of protagonists. Don't suddenly try to shift the focus of the conversation.

This whole nerdrage thing of yours is so bizarre. The original review - imo - seemed very well thought out and more bored and depressed than angry.

It's more "nerdapathy" than nerdrage. I'm very happy that you are now debating yourself so I can finally get out of this ridiculous conversation.

Godspeed to you sir!

Wow, why don't you go back and actually read my posts? You're the one that has been shifting and hyper jumping through various different points at whim. Then again, you've lost all credibility when you claimed that the 70 minute nerdrage "review" is a proper and academic analysis and study and filmmaking and drama.

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by dookiex

Wow, why don't you go back and actually read my posts? You're the one that has been shifting and hyper jumping through various different points at whim. Then again, you've lost all credibility when you claimed that the 70 minute nerdrage "review" is a proper and academic analysis and study and filmmaking and drama.

Once again, you have won!

I stand before you humbled and in awe. Godspeed to you sir!

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by dookiex

We may not have agreed on Aliens but at the minimum, it's now safe to say that we do logically agree on something. Heh. People fail to understand that there's actually no rules for telling a story. You're story might end up being horrendous if you stray really far off the beaten path but it's still a story being told. Trying to say that there are actual rules that needs to be strictly followed in film making is like saying there are rules to be followed for war, murders, and all kinds of crazy things humanity likes to do to itself.

Yes Dookie - we agree here I guess. Films, paintings, music, dances, etc, etc have NO rules. It destroys the very nature of why those things exist if we try attaching "rules" to them.

Originally Posted by The Doof

I have never liked normal people. SAy hello to all of them in the Transformers 5 line-up for me.

I sure will say Hello them all. Sex + Explosions + Spoon-fed plot = AWESOME movie!

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by MrJoeKalel

I don't think there have been many persona insults just because a person likes or dislikes the PT. The thing that you need to realize, is that some people get blinded by some weird force (no pun intended) that makes them 'love' the PT, specially TPM; and yes, even when reviews of films are subjective, we cannot deny that even at 67% Fresh at RT, TPM IS a movie that tried to be a ST update for the new generation and it failed. I mean, you can have a special effects ridden film, and still make it good or enjoyable (yes, Avatar).

Again, if people get mad is because people decide to ignore things that are apparent, and most of us can.



+1 Exactly, just because one thing makes money doesn't make it good.









I saw TPM on the theatre, not knowing what it was, just knowing that Darth Vader was the bad guy in black (yes, as a 14 y/o kid in 1999, I didn't really recalled watching a SW film). I'm not gonna say I'm the smartest person, but I don't recall the movie making any sense, or actually understanding it.

Fast forward three years. It's summer and I have nothing to do (don't ask why I had nothing to do, don't get personal), then I see the SW movies (special editions). I put one on the VCR (and watch it on a 20" old CRT monitor), the behind the scenes featurette plays (and I'm thrilled about the restoration and new additions), and the movie starts...and WOW. I was blown away by ANH. Then I put on the next movie, ESB, and it was even better...I went to get the third, and it wasn't in the boxset! So then I got my ten year old brother to watch them and he got as excited as I did. Thankfully a few days later he went to a flea market and got an old copy of ROTJ (without any changes), and we were able to complete watching the OT. I rewatched the OT several times during the summer.

Funny thing is, TPM NEVER came to mind while watching the OT, not even once. Why? Because there wasn't really anything that tied them together. Second funny thing is, the first DVD that we purchased (my brother and I) was TPM. We went to the theatre to watch AOTC and we liked it; we went to the theatre to watch ROTS and we loved it (yes, it is really good). Oh, and yes, everybody was excited to watch it.

So no, I did not "grow up" with the OT, nor with any real fascination for SW (other than my older cousins having a Y-Wing and some other SW toys), but TPM did NOTHING for me to fall "in love" with SW, the OT did because of the greatness of all three movies (yes, even teddy bear ridden ROTJ).

Good post man. I think your experience really nails it when it comes to those of us who were let down.

NOT ALL OF US!!! SOME OF US LIKE THE PT!!! THIS IS GOOD!! I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT!! I'M GLAD SOME PEOPLE LIKE THEM!!! NO NERDRAGE!!!!

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Uxi

Hmm where is the scene of Obi-wan explaining he fried his lightsaber to Qui-Gon? I thought it was on the Ep 1 DVD deleted scenes but don't see it there... didn't make the BD set, either.

I think the scene is mentioned in the commentary or something, but I don't recall it actually being on the old DVD. Honestly it's been a while since I watched those extras. It's really only 4 lines of dialogue. You can read about the scene and Lucas' comments about it over here.

http://www.starwarz.com/tbone/index...._articleid=186

It's a good thing it wasn't included in the final film. It might have cost us the amazing battle between Obi-Wan/Jango on the Kamino landing platform.

[The Doof]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yes Dookie - we agree here I guess. Films, paintings, music, dances, etc, etc have NO rules. It destroys the very nature of why those things exist if we try attaching "rules" to them.

it's not about exacting rules that are used as a blueprint for all films. You guys keep missing the point, but whatever. Would you agree that when you want to paint a picture, it is good to use paint? And it can only be improved when that paint is used with talent and good technique, whatever that technique happens to be?

[dookiex]

Originally Posted by The Doof

Once again, you have won!

I stand before you humbled and in awe. Godspeed to you sir!

You don't have to patronize me. I'm quite sure that you're still nerdraging there. It's pretty transparent. On top of that, I'm not trying to win at anything here, all I did was point out some silly flaws in some people's "logic." You apparently have some sort of tunnel vision and assume everything is Pro-OT or Pro-PT or Anti-OT or Anti-PT or whatever. How old are you any way? You come off as a kid that only recently picked up on Star Wars (past 10 years or so maybe?) and also went on too many Star War forums and blogs thus picked up some fanboy habits along the way.