Cool News
New Zealand News On PETER PAN and STAR WARS EPISODE 3!
Hey folks, Harry here with a report from New Zealand upon two projects of interest to pretty much all of us. Seems George and company are scouting a bit of New Zealand for Episode 3... and seems P.J. Hogan is scouting talent to play Wendy there as well. Pretty groovy, eh? Here ya go...
Hey there Harry,
hope this is of some interest.
Auditions are underway in New Zealand to fill the role
of Wendy in P.J. Hogan's upcoming big budget Peter Pan
flik.
Peter Pan casting Agent Dianne Bowen has called for
mature 13 year old girls across the country to come
forward over the next week. Auditions will be held in
New Zealand's 4 main centers (Auckland, Wellington,
Christchurch & Dunedin), further details can be found
in local Newspapers.
Dianne Bowen has said they are "looking for the next
Anna Paquin,, and where else would you find the next
Anna Paquin but NZ"
Also here's another interesting bit of News. Seems
parts of Star Wars Ep3 may be filmed in NZ. NZ's TV3
News ran a story on Hollywood Movies being filmed in
NZ eg The Last Samurai, Lord of the Rings, when they
mentioned that some of Georges scouts are searching NZ
for possible SWEP3 locations with Fiordland looking to
be the most popular chioce. Considering NZ is only 3
hours across the ditch from OZ, doesn't seem too
unrealistic.
Note: Fiordland was one of Steven Spielbergs top
chioces when he was looking for places to film The
Lost World, not too sure why it didn't happen.
Thats all
Seeya
Ryan Cooper
-
+ Expand All
-
Flavor of the month, New Zealand. What scenery do they want? Forests? Are we going back to Endor?
-
God i'd love that to be confirmed as the title by Lucas one day, just to read the explosive backlash by everyone. Thanks to Fight Communisim for the idea.
-
KILL TH FUCKERS,er in my enthusiasm I seem to have missed the "e" okk ,oops,off the,anyway,as I said,
KILL THE FUCKERS. -
Lucas going to New Zealand to shoot? Why, he can
-
George is actually looking in the caves for Al-Qaeda! See he ran Way over Budget on the first 2 episodes for paying people off to say they loved them COUGHharryCOUGH. See He needs the $25mil reward for Finding Osama to use on EP3!
-
Bye this time they should be able to really film it in space.
-
Episode three may have an ounce of depth yet. Once more with feeling Georgey.
-
That should read rumour not spoiler Osirus. My money is that George is scouting for possible locations for Alderaan.
-
It's inevitable. I got myself too excited for what turned out to be great action but the worst DIALOGUE EVER. WORST love story since J. Lopez and Mr. Chriss Dudd. Pray for a screenwriter to help george on this one folks.
-
Jul 15, 2002 9:53:47 AM CDT
*Yawn*...does anyone really care about Star Wars news anymore?..
by viper-gunclan
I hereby pronounce this franchise dead after the ridiculously horrid Attack of the Clones. How many of us felt ripped off and felt like walking out half way thru this sorry flick. So Harry, how much did GL bank roll you to give him a positive review. Be honest. Are any of us excited to see Hayden/Nat/Ewan sleep walking thru there roles again...maybe i'll rent it or pull out ANH/TESB to quench my SW fix.
-
They're probably just scouting for big warehouses they can put giant green screens in. Zing! sk
-
I guess, in New Zealand, such a thing might be possible. But not here in America. Here, 13 year old girls have sexual fantasies about boy bands comprised of homosexuals. The girls aren't even completely sure about what sex is in all of its details...all they know is that they want to be gang-raped by N*Sync. Perhaps not every American 13 year old girl is a complete floozy...but that probably means they have decided to become man-hating, butch lesbians or they like crack more than boys. However, when the American adolescent female turns 14, they suddenly improve. By the time they hit 16, a lot of them will be ok. Sure, a bunch of 'em still want to be man-hating butches or crack whores or playthings for homosexual pop stars, but you can't save 'em all. And just so I don't sound too misogynistic, American 13 year old boys aren't much better. Hurrah for other countries.
-
To all the moron Star Wars bashers out there... Attack of the Clones rocked. So just shut up and keep quiet. Or just go on drooling about The Two Towers. When's it going to occur to you that there will never ever be anything again like Star Wars? Lord of the Rings? It pales in comparison. Sick and tired of all you freaks, jumping on the bandwagon against Star Wars. A bunch of spoiled brats and nothing more. Lucas gives us entertainment, gives us his own version of a mythology. Peter Jackson? He translated some books, for god's sake. Enough already.
Star Wars forever. -
Ja-Ja Binks made the Ewoks look like fucking Shaft.
-
Seriously, I am sort of looking forward to this one. It's got a lot of potential. If it's ended right, it might make up for any flaws in AotC. I don't really think it can completely make up for The Phantom Menace, though. Midichlorians? Random fart and poop jokes? "Let's try a spin, that's a good trick!"? Sleep-inducing Coruscant scenes? And much, much more! I'd have to say that AotC pleasantly surprised me, but I had plenty of reservations, and it just didn't hold up as well the second time around. The whole middle section of the movie was dull because it depended on dialogue and acting which just wasn't up to snuff...and the end of the movie was sorta fun--yet it was also mindless, gratuitous eye-candy without any of the rhythm or flow that the action in the original trilogy had. I'm sorry, I thought CGI Yoda was just kind of silly, and it certainly destroyed visual continuity with Yoda in other Star Wars movies. I suppose George will go back and replace the puppet in the other movies with a CGI version. Oh joy. Still, AotC was a pretty big improvement over The Phantom Menace. To the poster who spat upon LotR in the same breath that he praised Star Wars, George Lucas knowingly borrows directly from other sources to such a great extent, he really is simply offering an amalgamated translation of different mythologies. Although Peter Jackson is using only one source, it is a source which is extremely dense and complex, and he doesn't have the same kind of selective luxury that George has. So, I don't really think you can discredit either of their efforts in light of each other -- not on the level of cinematic adaptation. I think the vision of George Lucas worked wonderfully for his first two Star Wars films and the important parts of his third one. With his prequels, though, that vision feels diluted by its compulsion to deliver visceral thrills while everything else comes up a bit lacking. Peter Jackson has been successful so far...I think it would be naive to argue that Episode I or II have anything on The Fellowship of the Ring except maybe visual effects and sound design. And of course, a personal preference for the Star Wars story and characters is certainly understandable. Using more objective criteria, Fellowship offers better dialogue, better acting, better cinematography...I would argue better directing...a score that more than matches the most recent efforts of Williams...in essence, just plain better drama. I don't want to turn this into a LotR vs. Star Wars debate, though. They both have their merits and their demerits. One could have a lot more "fun" with the Star Wars movies, if one were so inclined. I won't pretend to compare Fellowship to the original trilogy. Those were popcorn flicks of the highest standard. Fellowship is more like a fantasy version of Seven Samurai.
-
Jul 15, 2002 11:36:49 AM CDT
Just in - NZ filmmakers on look out for next Shelly Winters...
by weedymcsmokey
....George looking for volcanoes seems to me to fit with the whole Anakin in the lava deal. Except at this point in the series, I can't see Obi Wan putting up much of a fight. Was it just me - or did he pull an "Ash" in AotC and get his ass kicked several times by Jedi, non-jedi et al. Sure he took out Darth Maul (still the best fight in the series - you can have your CGI muppets) - but he hasn't exactly exposed himself as the samuri to beat. Oh, and Boba Fett obviously kills Mace Windu.
-
Why do you all have to be Haters? Personally, I Loved Star Wars Episode 2, have seen it twice, and love it more each time. It doesnt hold a candle to the originals (nothing does) but on it's own it's damn fine, fun, exciting film. And before everyone blasts me for saying this, remember, it's just my opinion, everyone is entitled to either enjoy or despise a film. Unless of course you liked Episode 1..that should be punishable by death.
-
Sorry, I meant Episode 2, not 3.
-
All right, this is my contention. People talk about dialogue and directorial superiority in LOTR. I contend that Fellowship of the Rings was a very decent translation of very good source material. It is a big screen adaptation of a book, the creative minds behind the movie have the (not necessarily simple) task of doing a good interpretation.
Wasp contends that Lucas borrows from various mythologies that have been established throughout the times. So did Tolkein. The difference rests in the storytelling. Lucas is a storyteller, whether or not you like his stories or not is irrelevant. Peter Jackson is interpreting a specific source. Sure, Lucas has the luxury of borrowing from different things as he goes along. So did Tolkein. And Jackson is telling Tolkein's story.
Sometimes, I believe that people were so turned off by Phantom Menace (and rightly so) that they are clinging to anything to bring back that near-gleeful joy that we had when we were kids. When FOTR first came out, people were praising it from here to forever. Here was something that might make them feel like they once did. But it pales in comparison to the original trilogy, and I would argue that it pales in comparison to Episode II as well. FOTR was a good movie, but not amazing, not wonderful. Just good. It will not replace something like the original trilogy in our minds and hearts. Time will attest to that. It made sense that people latched on to the LOTR franchise, as it's epic, heroic, and utterly fanciful. But in the end, it's lacking in that ingredient that is more important than great dialogue or good directing or anything technical and quantifiable: it lacks wonder. I argue that it's the wonder in the story that really touches us as movie fans.
Sure I'm biased, every one of you out there is biased in some way or another. And please do not try to convince anyone that we're objective in any way; we aren't. It's our biases and opinions that makes us different from one another. I have never met a truly objective person in my life.
In conclusion, Wasp, I do indeed intend to do a Star Wars versus LOTR comparison. I do argue and firmly believe that Star Wars is far greater than LOTR. I don't even see or feel a comparison. I don't feel at all hyped to see The Two Towers.
Lord of the Rings is a poor albeit honourable contender for the crown. Star Wars lives on. -
Have the Clone War fully erupt, and put the Jedi on the run. They make a last stand on a secluded planet, waiting for help from Obi-Wan and Anakin, which never arrives. Call it EPISODE III: THE HIDDEN FORTRESS. You have a great serial name, plus an homage to where the films came from in the first place.
-
That LOTR a new franchise has gone head to head with the most powerful franchise in the world and beaten its box office everywhere? By the time episode 3 arrives LOTR will have finished its run, won its oscars and set a standard out of Lucas' league. I have no sympathy for modern Star Wars; the new films are a criminal wasted opportunity. Nor do I have sympathy for those Star Wars trolls who predicted and hoped/prayed the worst for LOTR. Face it AOTC was a non-event, it came and went without a ripple. Only the curiousity factor of Darth Vader will spark any interest in Episode 3. I care not a crap for the fate of any of the characters, the dullest collection of retarded pretty boys ever collected on the silver screen; who could guess that the least interesting character in the Star Wars universe would be Anakin Skywalker! It looks like the galaxy was a fucking dull place before the Empire came along.
-
Jul 15, 2002 1:23:19 PM CDT
Raged Out how can you say with a straight face that LOTR "lacks
by bregalad_
OMIGOD.... that is the most profoundly stupid and funny thing I've ever read in a Talk Back post. ------------------------------------ I don't care about comparing SW and LOTR, but you obviously don't know a damn thing about movies in general if you can't identify the magical wonder that transports audiences in "Fellowship of the Ring." Do you not sense the wonder in other movies like "Time Bandits" or "Dark City" or "Princess Mononoke" or "the 7th Voyage of Sinbad"?? You sound so precious trying to defend your views of Star Wars. Clearly, you have an axe to grind against Peter Jackson...... and you paint yourself into a corner making such ridiculous statements. You can't even be taken SERIOUSLY, here on a film enthusiasts site, when you say "Fellowship" lacks any sense of wonder. Listen to the gales of laughter! GUFFAW!!
-
Its certainly plausibly crap enough; with authentic dire dialogue and no trace of coherent plot. However you forgot to factor in Boba Fett ( surely involved somewhere ), Jar Jar, the death star and the copious amounts of complicated political context. Bonus marks however for actually including a space battle; something AOTC would have benefitted from.
-
Prateor, eh? Cunning, damn cunning. Don't worry by the way, Lucas is probably cribbing verbotem from bwstarwars as we speak. 'Don't call me that. My name is Darth Vader'. Man is a genius I tell you. Actually I do like the idea of bits falling off Anakin as the film proceeds; like that German guy in Preacher. Just as long as they preserve his precious brain!
-
okay.In the latest lucasfilm mag there is a picture of jango with lucas.Now we didnt see fett on tatooine,but it would appear from the desert backdrop of the photo that Temura was in Tunisia,therefore did palpatine use the bounty hunter to kill/abduct Schimi[?]knowing that this would push skywalker towards the dark side?HER DEATH WAS A SETUP!
ALSO,[am I the only one who's noticed this?]in ESB,when Luke faces the dark side on Dagobah,the confrontation with "vader"appears to take place in a man made room,WOULD THAT HAVE A BEARING ON THE PLOT FOR EPISODE III?:comments anybody?
[also luke seemed to have a recolection of the planet]
also where did the lava rumour come from? -
How can you say AOTC ROCKED. It sucked, and I haven't even seen it because I boycotted Star Wars (I'm resonsible for the lay offs at ILM Hehe). After the debacle of TPM, I just said, "fuck Star Wars". Come to my website: http://www.geocities.com/forestthegimp/ here you will find the true meaning of FORCE. God forbid, that Episode 3 is good. It won't be. Scooby Doo is a much better film.
-
You are so IT. I love what you did with MY website. I think that your plans are just great. When can we meet up again, in a totally hetero man to man way.
-
You may come around tonight at 8.00pm. As long as it is totally Hetero. I'm not gay and not into gimp suits. We shall plot the Boycott of Episode 3 together, and then play my Playstation and go for a few cups of special sauce.
-
You are a fool to think that AOTC could be anything but a piece of crap. Didn't you see TPM. George Lucas isn't the creator of Star Wars. He hardly did anything on ANH and NOTHING on TESB. Gary Kurtz was the mastermind behind it all, and Lucas got rid of him. I don't need to see AOTC to know it is bad just like Ep3 will be. A POS.
-
No, TPM and AOTC are lazy filmmaking and terrible films. They could only appeal to the lowest type of lif forms. They are the scum and the reason Hollywood has a bad name. But the vast majority of people are becoming aware of this. With my Boycott I managed to steal $400m+ away from Lucas. I am a living legend to my millions of fans. You should see a good movie, like MIB 2 and The Scorpion King. I'm waiting to see Road to Perdition but my Mom and Dad were busy this weekend, but we are going this Friday (R rated, too young to go alone).
-
Osira, I know about it but its only a rumour not a spoiler. Anyone who knows anything about Star Wars knows that the main rumour around the vader suit, is the lava pit. Until George Lucas puts it up on screen, I wont believe it. Its rumours nothing more nothing less. And why would there be scouting in NZ for a location for this lava scene, it will be all CGI if it happens. My money like I said, is that they are trying to find a location regarding Alderaan. And lighten up, I wasnt having a go at you. Just pointing to the fact that it is not a spoiler.
-
It must suck to be you.
-
Please follow this link http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/starwars/versus2.htm predicting the respective fortunes of The Two Franchises. You will note a deficit on the part of Clones. Please also note that Clones' box office drops 50% average every weekend. Last week total US clones boxoffice = $2.4 mil. Clones number of screens is half last week. Clones has $20 mil to catch LOTR. How many weeks does AOTC need? I can't be bothered to work it out but it is lot. FOTR is STILL in cinemas after 8 months; will Clones be on by New Year. I think not....
-
FOTR was a solid film. Like I said, just because we want to feel great about a movie doesn't make that movie great.
Praetor: who cares about box office? That's not why I go watch a movie. It's not my criteria for quality. Titanic made more money than anything. As for Star Wars being boring... I wasn't exactly jumping for joy after walking out of FOTR.
Bregalad: sorry I made you laugh. But I don't hear that many peals of laughter. Got no axe to grind with Peter Jackson, don't even know the man. I'll say again, he did a good job translating really good source material. But that's all he did. As for your list of movies that inspire wonder... well, a little debatable. But accurate. I'll put FOTR up there with those movies for sure.
The_real_Custer: oh boy. Nothing need be said. I think your comments stand on their own. Trashing a movie without seeing it... You're a special person.
Newbomb Turk: excellent comments about the use of humour in Star Wars. Really do believe that FOTR took itself too seriously, maybe that was its problem, why it didn't blow me away.
So I'll say again, LOTR is going to be a solid movie franchise. But that's it. It'll make lots of money and some of that money will be mine. But I refuse to make it more than it is. It would be nice to get back to the real world a little bit and see the picture for what it is. Good. Maybe very good. Not great, not terribly memorable, not even original.
Time's going to bear me out on this, friends. -
If there are no objective criteria, then someone could say the movie Skeeter has more artistic value than Citizen Kane. All this "everything's relative" nonsense is self-destructive and inconsistent. If there are no absolutes, then there can be no ultimatum such as "everything's relative." Now, of course, if two movies are even somewhat close together on an objective basis, then personal bias can really throw off comparisons and so forth. Personal bias renders FotR vs. Star Wars comparisons rather insubstantial. However, I would argue that the comparison between FotR and The Phantom Menace is pretty clear cut using objective criteria. Not so much the comparison between FotR and AotC, and definitely not the comparison between FotR and the original trilogy.
-
The Two Towers: it will be better than FOTR, but also will fail miserably at the B.O., because none of those will care the movie who're bored of the first part... that's a huge amount of people...
-
The Volcano area will be nowhere near New Zealand, it will be CGI. Like I said until it is up on the screen, I wont believe its happening especially not in the way you describe. You seem to know that Obi Wan will fight Anakin by there, how is this possible with an unwritten script. There are people who think that the Lava pit itself is on Coruscent this also is just rumours. And sorry I am not a tranny, god you must be dissapointed - you thought you found your match. Oh Well, just get back to wearing your mummy's clothing around the house Osirus while thinking up SPOILERS about the next Star Wars film. Why dont you just create it for George Lucas too. And NZ is not one giant rock, have you been there? if you havent then go and see what grass looks like. In fact anyone who hasnt been there, go and take a look - its one of the nicest countries in the world and friendly people too. Then again Osirus just stick to where your at, they dont need your sort there.
-
I'm not trying to argue that people should enjoy Citizen Kane more than Skeeter or Star Wars or whatever...I'm just saying there is such a thing as a opinion about art that is in error, that is inaccurate. A person can say that they like Skeeter more than Citizen Kane. No one can argue with that. A person also has every right to say that Skeeter is a better (in the most absolute sense of the word) movie than Citizen Kane. They can say and believe that, but that doesn't necessarily make that opinion of the same value as the opinion that says Citizen Kane is better than Skeeter. This idea that some opinions are of more value than others when it comes to certain things is quite simple, logical, and thoroughly supported by classical philosophers such as Plato. Now when you are dealing with movies which are quite different from each other, such as Citizen Kane and Seven Samurai, but both represent a high standard of filmmaking...it is at such a point that subjectivity really destroys competitive comparisons. If you say that you like Star Wars more than Citizen Kane, I'm not going to argue with that. I won't even try to argue using objective standards that Citizen Kane has more merit than Star Wars because they are both good in very different ways. I will argue that Citizen Kane is superior to Armageddon, though. There are things such as syntagmatic and syntactic meaning to be taken into account, along with a million other things, that can provide the film critic with a reasonable, intelligent, and viable basis on which to compare and contrast movies -- as long as they avoid statements which are too generalized (i.e. "BEST MOVIE EVER"). This is what the film critic should do although I admit that film critic fails more often than not. Consistent and well-founded criticism of an art as subjectively-influenced as film is a great challenge. Still, it is not something that should be discredited just because the majority of a population prefers to believe that movies should be ritualistic entertainment and not art.
-
Obi-Wan hands over a newborn child to Owen Lars. Owen's new wife Beru takes the child inside as Obi-Wan and Owen argue over the fate of the child.. Obi-Wan, not being allowed to train Luke by Owen hides away in the caves of Tatooine (having been assigned by Yoda to guard the child).. fast forward about ten years later.. Tashi station (?), Luke escapes the grip of his uncle's hand and comes across "Old Ben" Kenobi and asks him about his father.. after a short convo, Luke is led away by Owen and waves goodbye to Ben..
Last shot: Obi-Wan's aged face saying "May the force be with you, Luke.. Always.."
I think thats the perfect ending... likely not to happen though -
The only thing that could have made you sound like a bigger ass is if you said "Let's play with my 32 sidded dice!"
And you think Star Wars is lame? -
Wasp, you make interesting points, but in my opinion, they boil down to something really pseudo-intellectual. I don't understand half of what you say.
Thanks for the Plato quote, it reaffirms my point. Why do people always bring Plato up when they have a nonsense point to make? Or at the least when they want to show how much more important their opinion is than someone else's? You came off as very very pretentious in that last post, for the simple reason that you're telling people that their opinion is not as valuable as yours.
That's what really bugs me about your message. The idea that some opinions are more valuable than others... You are objectifying art in the worse sense of the word. Art is subjective in context, and there are many many people who will not like or even appreciate a certain piece of art. Does that make their opinions less valuable, even if it goes against the views of the establishment? It's a ridiculous point of view. It's incredibly flawed and generalized. If someone likes Armageddon over Citizen Kane, their opinion is every bit as valid and important as someone who has spent too many years in university classes being told that they are intellectually superior if they think in one certain way about movies.
Film critic. Is that a profession? Is that what we look to film critics for? Is an objective view of a film what a critic aims for? Sorry, no. They are giving their opinion on a movie. That is all. It doesn't make it gospel. It's still only as important as my opinon, it's just shared with many more people.
All the power to tmquinn for getting it. And Wasp, much as I understand that you probably know way more about film-making (and Plato, for that matter), than me, take a look around you. Last I heard, not even space and time are absolutes. -
Winnipeg, not New Zealand
-
No, its actually 11pm here. Some of us do work more hours than from 9pm to 5pm a lot of the time you know. And dont flatter yourself, I could never fancy someone who spouts to me Star Wars rumours that I heard eons ago. Australia if you looked in the overtalkback is for the caves and mountains. **** King Rentboi, so no one is having a go at Peter Jackson for the various LOTR DVD's which are coming out but you see the right to have a go at Lucas. I dont get it? It seems that you have a go at Lucas people, whilst Jackson has the same idea to make $$$$$. Both are good film franchises and I thank the creators for making them, they can have as much money as they want off me for not making such pure shit as Resident Evil or Scorpion King. The creators of both those films should give the public their money back. If you dont like Star Wars then why spout off in a Star Wars talkback, you must have some passion for it or you wouldnt. Lucas rape your childhood too?
-
firstly, thats a nice line from Glynyfaron-"jar jar binks makes the ewoks look like f**kin shaft".u a big fan of spaced?that line was taken from the second series and shows simon peggs complete dislike to jar jar and episode 1.episode 2, while better, in my opinion still suffered due to Lucas' insistance on directing the whole damn trilogy.why lucas?Empire was the best and you werent behind the camera-think about it!while i will still go and see episode 3, it is no doubt gonna have the same flaws as the other two, here goes- crap acting, 2much CGI, crap bad guy deaths(darth maul chopped in half, Fetts head being chopped off- why couldnt he have lived after an even better battle with mace windu than that of the obi wan battle, or died after a decent battle with a decent death?but no, his head was chopped off.please.), no puppet yoda(i understand CGI for fighting, but puppet yoda was what connected this with the original trilogy-lucas is going CGI crazy!). i think thats it.otherwise i do like star wars and did enjoy episode2. the action and battles were ace, but the acting and dialogue fell short again and this needs to be right for what will be the darkest film of the saga. its going to need good performances from all to show anakins fall and its effects on all around.new zealand worked for LOTR and was a great film on all levels, maybe this is a good sign for episode3.
-
Why do some of the people on here continually compare LOTR and Star Wars. They are completely different. You are allowed to like both.
-
I give up. Maybe...Fine, Star Wars is better; Two Towers will tank at the box office. One question: do you morons ever get tired of being wrong?
-
I get labelled as pretentious because I mention Plato? I've read Plato's Republic, and he makes a lot of great points that I am simply expounding upon. I didn't know that mentioning Plato suddenly makes someone a pseudo-intellectual wanker. I apologize if I came off in a manner that was snobby and so forth...I wasn't trying to, I was just trying to be semi-intelligent in my discourse. I am not trying to make any grand claims of importance or greatness for myself. I fully acknowledge that I myself am not objective. No one is objective. All I'm saying is that film criticism can be legitimate if it is aware of its limitations and its need to base subjectivity upon some objective criteria. I do not think that the opinion that Armageddon is as good a movie as 2001 is just as valid as the opinion which says the contrary. Now, the person from which the former opinion originated might have an opinion on something else which is more valid than the opinion of the latter on that same subject. I am simply referring to the opinions as they relate to that specific comparison, not to the opinions in general. I will not claim to be a masterful film critic. I have engaged in film criticism and have directed a student film during the course of my education, but I will freely admit that I have a LONG way to go. I have a lot more to learn about and so forth. All the same, I can offer a reasonably valid argument as to why my student film sucks hardcore compared to thousands if not millions of other films...other student films for that matter. Of course, I'm biased. I directed the bloody thing. All the same, I know that my flick doesn't deserve to lick the boots of many a movie. I know because I can see my lack of control over the elements within my frame. I can see the miscues in my soundtrack. I can see the inconsistencies in the performances of my actors. On and on and on. Someone tells me that my movie is the best movie they've ever seen...well, I guess I'd have to ask them to define "best" as well as tell me some of the other movies that they have seen. Afterwards, I would most likely get to tell them that they were wrong about my movie. Art is not exactly science, I know. Subjectivity plays a huge part in how art is received, interpreted, enjoyed. Still, if there are no standards of goodness, then there can be no such thing as good or bad films. No such thing as good or bad art. If artists believed this, do you really think that they would strive to make good art, if good art was a myth? Am I to believe that a corporation created Nike Ad movie starring Lil' Bow Wow has as much worth as Dead Ringers or Eraserhead...and that essentially the worth of all movies and art is nothing because worth is totally dependent upon individual perception? Total objectivity is something that can never be reached in any kind of art criticism...the critic should not even try to reach objectivity, but the critic should at least make the attempt to utilize knowledge of technique and form and content in order to bring as much validation to their opinion as possible. I don't understand why anyone would come to this site at all if they didn't think that criticism has at least some value. There would be no point to reading about films if the only standard was your perception because the only way that you could judge if a film was "good to you" would be to actually watch it yourself. There would be no point to selectivity. Heck, there wouldn't be much point to being a film buff. If subjectivity is all that there is when it comes to art, then when it comes to art, all we have is our own little dream worlds. I like to believe in the pure form/meaning/essence of the art that exists outside of the reach of our limited, subjective islands of human experience, but maybe I'm just a wishful thinker, hoping that there is a point to all of this. Does that me a pretentious prick? Or maybe it just makes me a plain fool? Whatever the case, I think it is something worth believing in. I'm sorry that I rambled on here. I like debates, and I thought some interesting points were brought up that I wanted to respond to. It's something worth talking and thinking about.
-
"Hey folks I just wanted to tell you that I think Star Wars is shit and George blows goats and Peter Jackson is the f&*king BEST and everything that happened in Fellowship is really REAL like, and oh yeah it deserved all the oscars ever and, and, and, BLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"!! Jeez, you know I thought Fellowship was a pleasant film, not great, boring in places, nicely acted but nothing that's bettered say a BBC top-notch drama like Pride and Prejudice or Middlemarch - in all I thought it was a film that meant good intentions but had difficulty spanning them over 3 hours (and I hear they're releasing a 45-hour version for the insufferable bastards out there - hey guys, ever heard of paint drying?!!). I actually enjoyed Attack, I've seen it thrice and I've enjoyed it more every time, and yes I can overlook its deficiencies because the good points far outshine, and in all it was a good laugh. Everyone I've read who's bashed it so far has either seemed to go into the cinema with the express intention of not actually enjoying the film at all (Robogeek anyone?), or hasn't actually seen it. Bashers, go and take some time, take up an active hobby, go and jump off a cliff maybe, heck, why not chuck yourself under a bus (hey!! wait!! I'm being sarcastic!!). Seems that its so cool to 'down' everything at this time, and I see Spiderman, and Minority Report have had the same kind of bashing too (seen'em both again and enjoyed them both).
OK, I have a question for you bashers out there (and think about this one really really hard), and to emphasize the point to everybody, I'm gonna SHOUT (to those who hate shouting - sorry!!):
ARE YOU REALLY THAT FUCKING STUPID TO PAY FOR A MOVIE THAT YOU HAVE NO INTENTION OF PAYING ANY SODDING ATTENTION TO, LET-ALONE ACTUALLY ENJOYING?
Otherwise, bring on EpIII, Austin Powers, James Bond (why can't they cameo in each other's films?), Star Trek X, and the like - BRING THEM ON!! -
"I get labelled as pretentious because I mention Plato?" No, you get labled pretentious because you try to use his name as the sole support for your argument. Instead of actually backing up your attempt at making a point with reasoning, you just say that it has already been backed up by Plato. Tmquinn (who seems to have created his user ID by banging his head on the keyboard) was actually making a clear point which he backed up with his own logic and reasoning. You can't claim that anything is better than anything else until you establish a purpose. You don't show a clear understanding of this, and so you would actually be incapable of actually defending Citizen Kain if pressed to do so. I dare you, what's so good about the movie, huh? I can answer every point you would make with three words "that doesn't matter". Until you establish a purpose for film, nothing about it CAN matter. Tmquinn considers the purpose of film to entertain, and so his argument have the grounding that they need. Y
-
Man I live in the damn country and yet I havent heard squat about this. I had to come on an international movie news site to get this info :)
A little NZ inside information for you Americans and such...
Virtually no one in NZ likes Xena. Stop thinking of us as the Xena
There, I've said my piece :) -
What i meant to say was stop thinking of NZ as the Xena Capital.
Damn the lack of editing posts. -
"finding the next Anna Paquin" finding the next potentially good young actress to play a string of cheap whore characters? I'm sure thats the "wendy" image they want to portray. Im so cynical, ignore me. :)
-
I hardly think that mentioning Plato's name was the sole basis of my argument. I was simply referencing him as one would reference a resource for a research paper. If you want to know the argument all you have to do is look it up. The reason I merely mention Plato's name is because in order to fully explain his argument on this matter, I would have to type a dozen pages or so of logical step-by-step reasoning. Excuse me if I don't particularly feel like wasting that much time on a Talkback where people seem to like to casually dismiss arguments. What makes Citizen Kane great? The narrative construction enhances each scene that follows and precedes a narrative event. The use of cinematography perfectly evokes the atmosphere intended for the shot. Example: The white, almost soft-focus effect of the snow in the childhood sledding sequence. The mise-en-scene effectively uses the composition to dramatic effect while also allowing for detail and portrayal of character performance. I could go on forever, I suppose, but it seems that most people will dismiss me with "None of that matters. If I like Austin Powers better than Citizen Kane, who is to say that Austin Powers isn't better than Citizen Kane? So to hell with you." Okay, fine. I can live with that, as long as the same people don't make qualitative statements such as "Lord of the Rings pales in comparison" and "Star Wars rules" or "LotR rules" and "Star Wars pales in comparison." Because if you truly believe in your relativism, and you are going to be intellectually honest, then you cannot make such statements without disclaimers all over the place. And those kind of disclaimers can be part of an awkward, politically correct self-consciousness that I choose not to endorse. Say what you will.
-
I smell a little bullshit here. Something tells me these two are just fooling around with all this anti-Star Wars nonsense to try and achieve their 15 minutes. If they did steal $400+ MILLION dollars from Uncle George, why in the name of God do they still have their site hosted at Geocities? Its all a BS Campaign to get on CNN. Like that one chick who tried to sell her virginity on eBay. Keep 'em coming, boys... its good for a laugh. "But, you are not a Jedi yet."
-
I think that there is surely a place for both, but am I wrong to say that the art of film should perhaps have a little more influence than the entertainment aspect? Once again, I'll reference Plato for this argument. Much too long for me to go into here...so all I can say is, "Plato's Republic...read it." Yes, I suck. But a lot of the time, Plato knows what he's talking about. I personally find that the more artfully constructed a film, the more I am entertained by it. For the art of film is truly the evoking of thought or emotional response through the use of image and sound. There are certain ways to do this that are more effective than others. If I want to create a sense of oppression, I can sometimes use downward above eye level angles. This use of angle is a visul cue which can trigger interpretation in the mind of the beholder. A filmmaker might want to portray the sadness of his protagonist over a certain death, but the portrayal is hindered by intercutting with a scene of slapstick comedy that undermines the pathos preceding it. These are just a couple examples.
-
If Star Wars "sucks" now, why worry about it? Why bitch and moan endlessly about it. If it sucks so much, don't go see it and don't wait for news about Episode III to come out so you can race to the Talkback section so that you can be first to cry and complain about your childhood being raped because Jar Jar gave Padme a pearl necklace, or Nute Gunrays eye patch didn't seem believable, or Hayden isn't worthy to drink the ball sweat from the cod piece of David Prowse's Darth Vader suit. I dig SW as much as the next guy, but it's only a movie. Turn the page. I hope that the first 1/3 of EP 3 is nothing but the ewoks on Endor, the next 1/3 nothing but Jar Jar shocking himself on something and running around humorously, and the last 1/3 nothing but Anakin going on one last 45 minute pod race before going off to study the dark side, or whatever the hell Sith lords do. That would be enough to make the heads of you jealous player haters melt away and explode Raiders of the Lost Ark style so that you could finally find some peace in the afterlife, and leave the memories of the torment and abuse leveled on your childhood by a certain bearded, plaid shirt enthusiast, comfortably behind you, locked up in a little room that you would never visit. And you could live peacefully with Boba Fett and Princess Leia in her gold bikini, as you pilot the Millenium Falcon through the cosmos.
-
You still haven't provided grounding for your argument. "The narrative construction enhances each scene that follows and precedes a narrative event. The use of cinematography perfectly evokes the atmosphere intended for the shot. Example: The white, almost soft-focus effect of the snow in the childhood sledding sequence. The mise-en-scene effectively uses the composition to dramatic effect while also allowing for detail and portrayal of character performance." So what? What purpose is it meant to serve? Does this make it taste better? Does that mean that I can play computer games on it? Is that supposed to mean that it absorbs more water the leading brand of paper towels? If I choose to use the negative to play jump rope with, that stuff doesn't matter. Unless you can decide on what movies are supposed to accomplish, it's impossible to say what matters or not.
-
Jul 15, 2002 11:15:09 PM CDT
Way to go laguna, thanks for screwing up the TB screen.
by the killer-goat
Anyways: Smackmonkey, Obi's knowledge could still be part of that summary. Just because Obi knows/suspects doesn;t mean it's a sure thing for the audience. If you're going to base it on the trilogy we've already seen, then fine, but if you're talking about a series that's going to START with Ep 1, then keeping Vader's ID a mystery is still viable, as the truth was never revealed until Vader announced it in ESB. And, of course, if you remember, there was tons of speculation that Vader lied to turn Luke. So even THEN we didn't get solid full-on cemented confirmation until Ben's ghost told Luke in ROTJ.
Newbomb: how many people do you actually know who play D&D??? I don't personally know any that went to see LOTR, so since they're a potentially dying breed, maybe you should be complaining to the majority of OTHER people who aren't gamers and paid LOTR it's millions. Really, you might be better to start on the majority instead of the minority, and get more results. That's like saying the only viewers who gave AOTC and TPM it's millions are all toy collectors or Trekkies or something. Oops. -
Now you're forgetting about what art is. Art is meant to be enjoyed. In films, art IS entertainment. Yes, fart jokes in movies constitute art. Maybe not what you consider 'high' art, but they are art. Until you realize this, you cannot fully understand the purpose of movies. And, no, nobody's going to go read Plato just to understand your post.
-
I decided a long time ago that I thought film was art, and entertainment is used as an asset of that art. Some people think that movies should just be movies, mindless ritualistic entertainment that they can vegetate to. Ok, I think it should be the other way around. Why? What stunning argument can I provide for this strange and offensive conclusion? I can't offer anything original because I'm like most modern Americans. I'm dumb and impatient. I wouldn't mind being better, though. So that's why I said read Plato's Republic. He explains it better than I ever could. I'm not trying to change anyone's minds right here in this TalkBack because I know it's not going to happen. I'm just trying to offer some suggestions as food for thought. I guess if I thought film served no purpose except to entertain, I'd watch more movies directed by Michael Bay. I'd also read more pulp romance novels. But I'm not entertained by that at all...because I only feel entertained when I digest art that is carefully, intelligently, and artfully crafted. You asked for more grounding of my support for Citizen Kane. What do you want? More examples? It would be best if I went and watched the movie and then I could give you details of how the film demonstrates good filmmaking. But I know you don't need me to do that. I know that you can watch the film, and if you do so with a critical mind, you can see for yourself. I haven't yet begun to get pretentious...I don't want to go digging up my mass media text books because that stuff will do no good here. If you read it for yourself, it might give you a little to chew on, though. I know some of my thought processes were rearranged by reading sound arguments.
-
Jul 16, 2002 4:22:12 AM CDT
Praetor, ALL the StarWars films have a space battle.
by darth siskel iii
In AOTC, the space battle was the Slave I chasing down ObiWan's Starfighter.
-
anyways... now I want to ask all the Lucas devotees ( a new cult where turds appear brilliant to the faithful), just where does it say that Anakin/Darth fell into "molten lava"?? I was always under th eimpression that Anakin feel into a firepit. Now a firepit doesn't necessarily have to be a stupid Vocano (yes! Star Wars Episode III: Anakin vs the Volcano). Sounds like th ekind of stupid title Lucas would come up with. Lucas: " I wanted the title to convey the whimsy of those saturday matinee screwball comedies I grew up with). Well anyways I'm digressing..
Now where exactly does it say Anakin falls into moletn lava or a stupid vocano? Ouch. seems to me falling into a firepit is infinetely more survivable than falling into a vocano full of molten lava.
I dunno... Why do I even care anymore. I thought after seeing a 2 ft. tall elf fighting a 95 yr old man sonic The hedgehog style that i'd be about done with Lucas. It must be indicative of the fondness we have for th eoriginal that we masochistically go see what we already know will be more badly flowing, written, acted, and directed cr@p. -
I've actually known this ever since the "A New Hope Special Edition" came out. since it failed to include the Toshi Station/Biggs (gay) farewell footage from the "Behind The magic" CDROM, I figure THAT has got to be the ending. Shit happens with hayden and Ewan, Obi Wan in Tatoine with Luke, Padme Amidala with leia looking quite miserable, Military procession in Corsuant with the Emperor and Vader AND THEN..... flash forward 15 odd years or so to Luke @ Toshi station yelling like a little whiny-you-know-what to Biggs to come see the Space Battle overhead. Cut to a Rebel ship being pursued by an Imperial Star Destroyer. THE END.
YOU GET YOUR DOWNBEAT ENDING which quite frankly cannot be avoided and yet not only do you tie both trilogies together but it actually ends upbeat if you think about it since you KNOW what follows. -
Wasp, you know, maybe there's a reason your student film sucked. It could be because you're trying to create something that fits the 'established criteria' for good filmmaking. The established criteria is something you learned, something you were taught. But that doesn't make it the truth, the only truth, the truth against which all movies should be judged. It is simply one point of view. And that's why you come off as pretentious. You tell the rest of us that there are firm rules for judging movies, just because you think you know what they are. Listen, if you want to improve your art, screw that stuff. Art is breaking rules, not following them. The people who talk about the way the snow looks in Citizen Kane are the ones who don't create great stuff, they're the ones who are doomed to sit around and critique other peoples' works, never creating anything themselves.
What you've said to date should be offensive to everyone who posts here. I don't like every opinion I see expressed in talkback, but everyone has the right to their opinion. Your opinion is not magically better just because you attend some crusty university and have been told by the supposed kings of knowledge what's right and what's wrong.
And yes Wasp, there is no such thing as a good or a bad movie. They don't exist. There's only what each of us thinks is a good or bad movie. The sooner you learn that, the better. For good measure, I don't think you're a 'pretentious prick'. But I seriously think you're misguided when you try to tell people that your opinion is better than theirs cause you have a degree and they don't.
Oh boy, and more Plato... That's nice that you keep bringing him up, but you're making the same mistake all over again. You are assuming that what Plato says is right. And thus anyone who contradicts him is wrong. Well, there are other points of view in philosophy and outside of philosophy, too.
Get out of school, Wasp, you'll likely learn a lot more. -
Keep Lucas away from Fiordland. Last time he was there, he gave us WILLOW. Milford Sound (how much more obvious could he and Ron Howard get?) never looked so awful.
-
AOTC sucked. It sucked worse than TPM. Both sucked worse than ROTJ. And ROTJ blows chunks. Face it fanboys: There hasn't been a good Star Wars movie in over 20 years. It is junk for kids. And to say any of them, even ANH or ESB for that matter, is better than FOTR is utter nonsense, the sort of retarded stupidity Scientologists spew in the face of all contrary evidence. And I don't think I'm the only one who thinks this, go to rottentomatoes.com and do your own search. Star Wars use-by date was the end of the Carter administration. Face it children: You know I'm right.
-
Jul 16, 2002 2:07:42 PM CDT
Jones, the only thing you got right is that it sucked to YOU.
by romanweb
And if you were intelligent enough to know that all the Star Wars movies, after ANH, were scrutinized-critisized the exact same way these new movies are. Yes, that even includes your beloved Empire Strikes Back. If you don't believe that FACT then you suffer from a thing called tunnel vision. And maybe you need a good slap in the head to realize that by stating AOTC sucked you need to end that statement with"TO ME"
You don't speak for the majority of fans, movie going public, and yes, the critics who thought this was a good movie. It just goes to show that this franchise is critic proof. The numbers don't lie. Unintelligent, non thinking morons these TB's regurgitate. -
I do not think that my opinion is more valuable then everyone else's. I just find complete relativism when it comes to art to be inherently self-centered and lazy. If you believe that there is no such thing as good or bad movies, if you believe that I would be better off not even trying to gain greater understanding of film, that there is no such thing as greater understanding of film because understanding is merely a fiction dependent upon personal whimsy...alright, I guess there's no way I can argue with that kind of logic because it is completely antithetical to logic, favoring personal pathos over logos. The instant you agree with me that my student film sucked is the instant that you have just undermined your position. Based on what I think you are telling me, you can never say a movie sucked. You can only say how it made you feel. How can you pretend to discriminate when you go to the movie theater? Why not watch Scooby Doo instead of Star Wars? There's no such thing as good or bad movies. It all depends on what you feel about the movie, and that is something you can never know until you watch the entire movie...ah, screw it, I'm done.
-
Don't get disspritited Wasp. Keep the argument going if you feel your argument is strong. Relativism isn't self-centred and lazy, absolutism is. Relativism requires that we acknowledge an array of viewpoints, that we recognize that one standard for something which is inherently subjective is impossible. Absolutism merely requires you to accept one particular standard and to judge everything by it. That's far easier. And that's far more self-centred, because in the selection of your absolute value system, you are already making a huge and completely subjective choice (all the while saying that you are not).
I'll say again, some movies are good in my mind, some are bad. There is nothing more true to me than that. You say that some of the movies I consider good are really bad, because I haven't considered the gospel on judging movies as art. I apologize for being ignorant. But my opinion stands, sorry.
Your rant about logic is funny, because it's like going back to Plato. Why should anyone assume that peoples' tastes in movies should be logical? You're applying the standard of logic and saying it makes sense, but that doesn't mean everyone does this or wants to. I came out of The Relic (anyone remember that movie?) thinking it was great. How many other people would think it was great? How many critics would say so? My opinion wasn't prefaced on logic, that never came into it. Movies, like all art, touch different people in different ways. That's the essence of my argument.
By the way, I didn't agree with you that your student film sucked, I just repeated what you said about your own film. How could I know anything about your film, having not seen it? And sure, I can say a movie sucked, but that sure as hell doesn't meant that someone else couldn't say it was excellent. This is the difference: I might argue with the person about the quality of the movie, but I would never be so arrogant as to say that their opinion is inherently less valuable than mine. I would recognize their opinion as being different, big deal, there's nothing wrong with that. Your argument is badly badly flawed because you subjectively choose your value system in the first place. If you can get that through your head, you'll agonize less over why people like movies that you don't. And you'll probably make better movies, too.
position. Based on what I think you are telling me, you can never say a movie sucked. You can only say how it made you feel. How can you pretend to discriminate when you go to the movie theater? Why not watch Scooby Doo instead of Star Wars? There's no such thing as good or bad movies. It all depends on what you feel about the movie, and that is something you can never know until you watch the entire movie...ah, screw it, I'm done.
-
Romanweb, I stated that AOTC sucked. You castigate me, wanting me to affix to it the qualifier "TO ME". Okay, I'll go you one further: AOTC sucked to me, as well as everybody else I knew who attended the movie with me, including strangers who were overheard complaining loudly upon leaving the same theater expressing distainful remarks such as, "my god, that was fuckin' embarrassing" and "I thought it was supposed to be better than Episode 1, not crappier" and "Lucas has completely lost the plot" and "that was the worst dialogue and acting and romance scenes ever conceived on film, celluloid or digital," etc., etc., strongly supported and emphasized by other strangers agreeing with them, not to mention legions of critics and old-time Star Wars fans who refuse to be cowed or snowed by the crap George Lucas puts on the screen. But, ya see, that's quite a mouthful, so simplicity and an avoidance of redundancy leads me to state unequivocally, AOTC sucked, without prefaces or affixes. You know it's true, because AOTC, like TPM and ROTJ before it, did indeed suck. It sucked shit. Perhaps when you say AOTC didn't suck, you should really be saying "it didn't suck TO ME AND A COUPLE OTHER IGNORANT MORONS." Is that good enough so we understand one another??
-
You say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Thus, I can have the opinion that there are absolutes. But that opinion is contrary to relativism, so I can't have that opinion? Relativism screwed. You say that's laying my opinion down upon everyone else? Well, relativism is the same, in that it says I should have the opinion that every opinion is equal to another opinion, even if those opinions are contrary to each other and cannot logically be equal. This is not about me devaluing people's opinions. Quite the opposite. I value people's opinions, that's why I believe in certain standards. If there are no certain standards, then people's opinions rest solely upon their personal subjectivity. Thus, their opinions have absolutely no value to me because they are not based on my subjectivity. My opinion is of no value to them for the same reason. My opinion is of no real value to myself. It's like money that no one will accept from me. I can't compound interest upon it (expand the horizons of my opinion/understanding in order to choose films to watch, etc) because it does not operate according to anything except how I feel. Thus, it becomes a narcotic that no one else wants. It might make me feel good, but it is not truly benefitting me or anyone else. I can make a 3 hour home video of leaves lying on the ground and claim that it is a higher example of filmmaking than 2001: A Space Odyssey. However, that is nonsense. You say rules are broken...yes, filmmaker's break rules, but they do so with purpose. If a filmmaker allows the boom mike to appear in his frame for no other reason than to break a rule, he has made a bad choice. However, that choice can be a good one if it was made according to a purpose...the purpose of the filmmaker's artistic intent. Thus, good filmmakers often break rules, but at the same time they are creating an internalized rule structure that operates according to their conceptualization. We call people literate if they can read books. They have developed the ability to understand the meaning of words and see the connections between them. People can be film literate as well. They understand the meaning and purpose beind the techniques, and they see how they connect. A person can choose to watch films for completely ritualistic purposes, but then why should I value that person's opinion when it comes to films that function beyond ritualistic entertainment. Don't I have the right to value someone's opinion more if they demonstrate familiarity and knowledge of, say, the cultural and surveillance aspects of film -- if that's the nature of the film in question. If the film is simply entertainment, then perhaps I should place greater value of the opinion of the person who is engrossed by convention and accessibility. Either way, that's not relativism, not by a long shot. That's recognition of differents sets of standards. Absolutism is not self-centered or lazy at all, because most will acknowledge that none of us have the answers. We are all inextricably entwined with our bias and subjectivity. Thus, it is a struggle to train and educate one's self as much as possible, in order to understand that which is beyond any of us. You say that I have subjectively chosen absolutism. I am not denying the existence of subjectivity. I even acknowledge the necessity of subjectivity -- life would be dull without it. However, you can not say "Everything's relative" and pretend that you just haven't delivered an absolute ultimatum, an ultimatum that effectively devalues everyone's opinion to nothing. Subjectivity and relativism are the results of multiple, varying perspectives -- not the results of the absence of absolutism.
-
Thank You. You are part of my gang if you want to be. Where do you live? You can come round and play my Playstation and watch Star Trek and plan the Episode 3 boycott. What do you think?
-
If I once again come off as pretentious. I don't think this is pretentious at all...it seems to be common sense to me. I mean, you don't ask a veterinarian to tell you what's wrong with your car, and you don't ask a mechanic to fix your dying dog. The arts are far more influenced by subjectivity, but claiming that there are no standards does nothing but free the audience and the artisan from any sort of responsibility towards improvement. An artist will have no motivation if he thinks the quality of his film is dependent upon the favor of the indiscriminate.
-
Anyone who expresses their belief that a movie is great by saying it "rocks," really shouldn't be taken seriously.
-
I really don't know why I even bother coming on to these kinds of TB's when it regurgitates the kind of idiotic,playground remarks of "It sucked shit!" Whoa! Gotta take you seriously dude. Real critic on our hands here! Then again, I really can't take you seriously because I get my kicks out of acknowledging morons with shallow minds...oh, like yourself. Did everyone you attended this movie with,that hated it, represent the entire movie going public as a whole? Please at least acknowledge that you dip. Apparently, it did to YOU. I like how your universal thinking revolves around a full movie house. Or half full, for that matter. Did you even consider to acknowledge that AOTC is no more of a flop or hit than the old movies. That any criticism garnished against these two new movies were no different than the ones back in 80 and 83? It's nothing new so why waste your brath. That was my point from the get go and had nothing to do on whether I liked AOTC's or not. Can't figure it out for yourself so I gotta point it out to you s-l-o-w-l-y. And I'm guessing that you found it reaaaally cool, you probably even found a play friend, when you hitched onto that "Return of the Jedi sucked " bandwagon. I'm still baffled by this one. Oh well,to each his own I suppose. The idiot who started that watched Clerk's one time too many. I'm not one to even try to change your mind of how you felt about a certain movie. I know better than that. But it's just anal-leakage your spewing when you can't handle the fact that people did find this film enjoyable and many on par with the old movies. It all depends on who you ask. Can't except that chief? Well, that's alright Hitler. I don't have to live with you.
I did by the way go to rotten tomatoes,just like you requested for some insight, and found that 144 critics(including ones not counted on their meter) gave this film a fresh rating as opposed to 68(including ones not counted on their meter). You do the math Shit-lock!
Oh, not done yet...
FACT
Exit polls from this film,this includes diluded fans, the normal movie going public, and the critics rated this movie enjoyable and a vast improvement over TPM. A majority.
So you see, there are more of us IGNORANT MORONS that liked it than a handfull of you militant,movie,mamas-boys who can't,won't, or don't know how to let go of their hate for Lucas. Sad. Jones....don't even get me started twerp!
It sucked to you -
Dave Prowse is in a new Comic Book & Movie coming out Sept 4th. Check it out at:
www.BeyondComics.TV
Sweeeeeeet!!!!!!!!!! -
New FX Super Hero Movie there
www.BeyondComics.TV -
I dunno what's more pathetic, these childish pissing matches between the Lucas zombies and the rest of civilization or the realization that all the passion comes from them trying to hold together the crumbling "Empire" that means EVERYTHING to these basement dwellers.
Now I see NO ONE has bothered to answer my musings. Fine. I still HIGHLY DOUBT Anakin and Obi-Juan are going to be poncing about on top of some stupid volcano. Um...well on second though, I can imagine a video game sequence where one has to jump on rocks before they submerge into the "molten lava" so maybe this isn't too far fetched given Lucas' perchant to write stories that can be easily translate to his mass merchandisning "Empire". When does the video game of Ep. II come out where you have to navigate thru the droid factory?? -
Jul 17, 2002 7:24:33 AM CDT
WHY ANAKIN MUST NOT BE REVEALED TO BE DARTH VADER + WHY VADER MU
by jaimie kanwar
I agree that the identity of Darth Vader should remain a mystery until ESB. If the Star Wars films are going to stand the test of time as a chronological STORY (which presumably it is supposed to be) then Anakin Skywalker must not be identified as Darth Vader in EP 3. Of course, established fans know how it
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts