Vaderisnothayden

Timstuff said:

Yeah, but I find your zealous insistance on being correct (despite your views being opinion based rather than factual) more than a tad bit annoying, especially since it's off topic.

Well feel free to be annoyed. I find your views and attitudes annoying too. I happen to believe my views are correct. Most people generally feel that way about views they feel strongly about. I'm not going to pretend I don't feel the way I do about my views. And my views on the non-canonicity of the prequels are based on solid facts, the facts of the nature of the prequels. I also believe that people are entitled to defend their views when they're challenged, whether or not somebody deems them off-topic.

What I find interesting is that you're continuing to debate with me when you know that's the way to get me to keep talking. So maybe you don't really want me to shut up, despite your talk about off-topic and hijacking. Obviously you want me to keep talking.

Well, I don't find this conversation scintillating, so I'm going to stop debating with you about this, because it's boring the shit out of me.

Oh, funny puns, you must be so clever. Sorry, we are ALLOWED to have views, dogmas, ideologies, whatever.

Yeah, Zahn is favoring his own Mary Sue characters. Very eu-ish.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible. The film also invites you to get a kick out of a gay guy being thrown out a window.

but I don't think it invites to get a kick out of it because he was gay.  You get a kick out it because it shows what kind of badass Longshanks is.   I think we would have gotten just as much a kick out of that scene if the guy had been straight.  In fact, when I first watched this movie, way back when it was in the theater,  I didn't get that Longshanks' son was gay and that the guy Longshanks threw out the window was his boyfriend.   I thought he was just Edward jr's friend, and I still got a kick out of the scene.   

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for his comments about Jews, I think they say something about him and I don't want to be watching a guy like that onscreen.

well,  I guess some people can separate his comments from his movies and some us can't.    Its that way with me and Michael Vick.   Some Eagle fans can separate what he did and performance on the field and cheer for him.   I can't.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

It doesn't have any great emotional depth, which is what you need for a film to be great. And Brando's performance doesn't give us enough. Brando's much better in Don Juan De Marco than he is in his most acclaimed performances. Al Pacino is good in it but his performance only goes so far. Godfather 3 had rather more emotional depth than Godfather.

Godfather doesn't have great emotional depth?  Well maybe not,  but it has good emotional depth and it has great performances, great characters  great story,  great soundtrack, great scenes, great lines, .     I think you have to go beyond just how much emotional depth a movie has to measure how great a movie is.     Brando's may not give you enough, but it certainly does give me enough.   I'm not sure what else you could have asked him to do in the role. 

As for Godfather 3,  I'll agree its better than most people think it is.  But is still is not anywhere near as good as the first one.   The emotional depth is the problem.   It doesn't fit with the rest of the series.  I can kind of understand Michael Corleone being weaker in this movie,  but it required Andrew Garcia to step it up a notch and give the great kind of performance that Brando, Pacino, and De De Niro  all gave in the first two movies. It also required  Vincent Corleone's character to be the kind of leader that Michael and Vito Corleone were.  Neither happened.    Also, Sofia Coppola was a terrible pick for Mary Corleone.  No EMOTIONAL DEPTH there.   Pacino over acts, and Coppola does bad job of directing this one.    I think you could kind of say he overdirected it.  

 

but I don't think it invites to get a kick out of it because he was gay.  You get a kick out it because it shows what kind of badass Longshanks is.  

I disagree. I think we're supposed to despise him because he's gay and get a kick out of his death because he's gay.

Godfather doesn't have great emotional depth?  Well maybe not,  but it has good emotional depth and it has great performances, great characters  great story,  great soundtrack, great scenes, great lines, .  

I don't think it has great performances. It has good performances. And without great performances it cannot have great characters. I don't care about the soundtrack either way. It has some good scenes. I think its lines are overrated. Good emotional depth? I don't know. It didn't much affect me. They never give you much reason to care for these characters. 

I think you have to go beyond just how much emotional depth a movie has to measure how great a movie is.  

I disagree. Emotional depth is the key to art.

   Brando's may not give you enough, but it certainly does give me enough.   I'm not sure what else you could have asked him to do in the role.

A better actor could have made the character more of a full human being and more relatable. He could have given it more emotional depth.

As for Godfather 3,  I'll agree its better than most people think it is.  But is still is not anywhere near as good as the first one.   The emotional depth is the problem.   It doesn't fit with the rest of the series.  I can kind of understand Michael Corleone being weaker in this movie,  but it required Andrew Garcia to step it up a notch and give the great kind of performance that Brando, Pacino, and De De Niro  all gave in the first two movies. It also required  Vincent Corleone's character to be the kind of leader that Michael and Vito Corleone were.  Neither happened.    Also, Sofia Coppola was a terrible pick for Mary Corleone.  No EMOTIONAL DEPTH there.   Pacino over acts, and Coppola does bad job of directing this one.    I think you could kind of say he overdirected it.  

I disagree thoroughly about Sofia Coppola. I think she did a good performance and added to the film. Yes there is emotional depth there. Yes the film doesn't fit with the rest of the series, because it's the only one with much emotional depth. It's a good thing that it does not fit with the series. I don't think Garcia did much of a performance. Nic Cage wanted the part. It should have been given to him. Cage is far more talented than Garcia. But the film works despite the shortcomings of Garcia's performance. Godfather 3 is an interesting film and it's the only Godfather film I would say that about.

The Sopranos was so much better than the Godfather trilogy.

well,  I guess some people can separate his comments from his movies and some us can't.    Its that way with me and Michael Vick.   Some Eagle fans can separate what he did and performance on the field and cheer for him.   I can't.

It's not simply a question of whether you can or not. Rather I think you shouldn't separate his comments from his movies, when his comments are so extreme.

Timstuff said:

It's one thing to say "I ignore them because I only care about the original 3 movies," but it's another thing entirely to dogmatically assert that the prequels are not real Star Wars movies and that the characters in them are not part of the Star Wars canon, even though according to the series creator they are.

The series creator has totally fucked the franchise and demonstrated that he no longer understands it (see the SE changes for evidence). It doesn't count for shit what he says. Rejecting the prequels from the Star Wars canon is the only reasonable thing to do, based on their nature. Canon is about what's the real thing. The original original trilogy (OOT) is what made the legend. It's clearly the real thing. It's the core of Star Wars canon. And Lucas broke with the OOT when he made the special edition (se) to replace it. And then he continued his break with the canon when he put cartoon characters into his prequel trilogy and turned the character of Anakin into someone clearly very different from what he'd originally been envisioned as. Those are only some of the ways in which the prequels don't fit with the OOT. They have a wildly different mentality and a different sort of imagined reality. They clearly do not fit with the OOT which is the canon. And Lucas made them to fit with the se, the very creation of which was a rejection of the real canon. Like skyjedi has said, Lucas rebooted the canon in 1997. The SE/prequel canon is a different canon from the OOT canon. And if you accept originals as the canon (which is only reasonable) then you have to reject the se and prequels from the canon.

As Gaffer Tape once said on these boards, a lot of people here feel the OOT is the only true Star Wars canon. If you insist on putting down that view as being just "fanboyism", then you may expect some opposition.

Really, by your view we're not allowed to think counter to the official view or we're just being fanboyish. So much for freedom of thought. Personally I favor independent thinking and I recognize that the official people are not infallible and can get things wrong.

Now if you're finished venting your fan rage I'd prefer you either get back on topic or quit hijacking my thread.

Every time you want to put something down you link it to fannishness, don't you? Ironic considering how fannish your own attitudes are.

My posts follow from what you posted. They're a perfectly reasonable reaction. If you don't want me to post my views don't debate with me. As long as you debate with me I will continue to debate with you.

Also, I disagree with the whole viewpoint about threads getting off topic and being hijacked. One of the good things about this place is that posting is often relaxed enough that threads can freely wander "off-topic". If they do it's not "hijacking". It's free open discussion. Threads should be allowed to go wherever they naturally go.

Um, Bonanza: Under Attack. I forget what your method was. Tv movie from 1995, sequel to the Bonanza tv show. Watched it because Leonard Nimoy was in it. Nimoy was good. The film was not impressive, but I didn't expect it to be. Dennis Farina was in it and was also good.

I still think you'll have trouble turning your head in that royal guard helmet.

xhonzi said:

Timstuff said:

Mace had one hand, and that's all he needs because he's a bad ass. ;)

I thought he lost both hands in that scene?  I won't argue with you because I pretend that the movie (and therefore the character) doesn't exist so I'm sure I haven't played the closest of attention.

See, Tim, rejection of the prequels. Xhonzi knows the prequels don't make the grade as Star Wars movies, so he rejects them. That's the discerning way to go. No, it's not fanboyism. It's common sense. The fanboyish route is worshipful acceptance of Lucas's droppings.

Timstuff said:

You claim that the Star Wars prequels do not exist. I'd say that's fanboyism.

No I said they're not Star Wars. I said Jango doesn't exist, meaning he doesn't exist in the real Star Wars universe, that of the original original trilogy, because the prequels don't convince as being in the same universe as the original trilogy. It's not fanboyism when it's the truth.

And btw, you'll find that a lot of people here agree with me about the prequels.

Acceptance of the prequels is a common fanboy mistake. Very much fanboyism. So many fanboys worship Lucas and everything he puts out and fail to use judgement with regard to them when they should be taking a more discerning discriminating view and rejecting the sub-par bullshit dreck.

Timstuff said:

Well then try to remember that not all of us live in your particular version of reality.

I might say the same to you, with your fantasies about Mace Windu surviving and your ideas that Boba Fett had to survive.

You're much more living in a fanboy fantasy reality than I am. I'm just not buying the shit we're being sold, or the faddish fanboy popular preferences either. Mace Windu, Boba Fett and Jango are all characters worshipped by fanboys and the eu and built up into little gods. I'm a bit more realistic about them.

Timstuff said:

 See that knob that says "fanboyism?" Try turning it down.

It's fanboyism to not join in the fanboyish worship of Boba Fett and Mace Windu? Funny, that doesn't compute.

I'm quite calm. Just because I have strong views doesn't mean I'm not calm.

The eu past about 1986 isn't worth paying much attention to anyway. Some of that later stuff is good, but it gets farther and farther away from the spirit of Star Wars. The Zahn books were a revisionist take and Dark Empire was bull and the rest of it followed on from there.

Timstuff said:

Note my avatar-- do you really think getting his hand cut off, being zapped, and falling out a window would be enough to take Mace out for good? If Anakin can free fall through a freeway and land on a car, so can Mace. ;)

Also, Boba Fett is so tough, that the only way to defeat him in ROTJ was by a freak accident involving a blind man. Everyone knows that he blasted his way out of there a few hours later, though. ;)

Mace Windu was an idiot who would have probably gone to the dark side as a padawan if the Star Wars movies were consistent (proper jedis don't do "badass"). Yeah he died in ROTS. That was Lucas punishing him for wanting to kill a seemingly helpless Palpatine, a big no-no by the jedi code. He's dead, otherwise he would have showed up and helped out in the OOT era (remember Yoda telling Luke he's the last of the jedi?). Good riddance. Purple lightsaber my ass. The whole character was Lucas warping Star Wars to pander to a big star, which should never have happened. Boba Fett is an overrated flunky who got bumped off in ROTJ and stayed that way, eu resurrections being irrelevant. Temuera Morrison is not Boba Fett and his voice being put into ESB was an abomination. Jango Fett is a nonexistent character from a set of films that weren't Star Wars. The only good thing Mace Windu did was off him. Not showing Jango's head drop out of the helmet when kid non-Boba picks it up was chickening out.

If Lucas makes a post-ROTJ show don't depend on him paying much attention to what the eu has established. Don't expect Mara Jade. Lucas has already said Luke doesn't get married. Lucas has said the Star Wars story is ended with Vader's death, so he's unlikely to do a post-ROTJ story, but if he does it'll be his vision, not the eu. Personally I hope he doesn't do any such story, but if he does I hope he ignores the bloody eu.

I think Lucas is quite happy and busy doing stuff set between TPM and ROTJ and that'll keep him busy for a long time. They have a live action tv show (set between the OT and PT) planned for after The Clone Wars show and it was even mentioned that they migtht expand that to five live action shows, all set in the period between the OT and the PT. He's also putting time into making non-franchise films like Red Tails and there's also continuing the Indiana Jones series. Doesn't leave much room for doing a post-ROTJ story, which he has categorically said he wouldn't do.

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

He's still on about killing his ex-wife? Jeez. Sounds like quite the obsession. lol Doesn't he know when a joke's worn out?

Those reviews came before, he did every TNG film before he did TPM and he is appears he will be doing critiques of every PT film in the same idiom.

Are you telling me that in all his reviews he cracks jokes about killing women?

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

He's still on about killing his ex-wife? Jeez. Sounds like quite the obsession. lol Doesn't he know when a joke's worn out?

Boost I've already posted about what he is satirising by adopting this style (it's not as important a target as the terrors of Nazi fascism but it's still a worthy target as this thread illustrates).

So what do you think he's satirizing?

And I've already expressed my view that satire is often cover for bigotry. It's not just my view alone.

He's still on about killing his ex-wife? Jeez. Sounds like quite the obsession. lol Doesn't he know when a joke's worn out?

Star Trek Generations was disappointing. What does he think of it?

Bingowings said:

Hasn't it been done to death by now?

BTW I wasn't saying the humour was of the same quality as Charlie Chaplin but just as Charles was not being a Nazi in The Great Dictator this guy isn't being a misogynist in this review.

Doesn't work. This situation isn't like Great Dictator at all. It's a case of a particular taste in humor being misogynistic. It's misogynistic to put that stuff forward for a laugh no matter how many levels of irony or role-playing are invoked as an excuse. The is not an issue of simply taking things ar face value or not. The issue is that certain things are misogynistic if they are a component of a piece of humor, whether or not the joke is intended to be taken at face value. And humor is often cover for putting forward offensive stuff that is meant to be taken as not prejudiced but which actually has prejudice behind it. To me this looks like a case of that.

I wonder if Darth Solo's jobbies have anything to do with Xhonzi's exploding asses.

vote_for_palpatine said:

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible.

Is it your opinion that gays should only be portrayed in a positive light? That gays should not ever be shown as evil, lazy, weird, or stupid? Because that's just not reality. Gays are like the rest are world - some are great people, some are terrible, and some just go along unnoticed. Positive stereotypes are no better than the negative ones.

That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.

Ghost said:

I still dont see why you guys are going on about the "humor" in this review.  We are here to discuss the Star Wars movies and ways to make them better.  Not here to discuss a fan edit of a hardly known, fan-made review of TPM.  Lets take his good points out of his review, and move them into dicussion on this thread.  Who cares about the other stuff.

If anything, we should all be glad he made this review, its a little step toward a potenial watchable edit of TPM.  ;)

No we're not here to discuss ways of making the Star wars movies better. Trying to "make them better" is wrong. They should be left as they were when first released or as close to that as possible. Fucking with the movies is what Lucas has done that has bothered so many people. This is a thread for discussing this review. The humor is a relevant topic. 

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Godfather is overrated. As is Brando's performance in it.

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

 

As for Mel Gibson.   I object to the things he said about Jewish people,  but I try to judge his films on their own.    As for gays in Braveheart,  I didn't see anything wrong.   The film takes place in the 1300s gays were much less acceptable, and prejudice against them and other minorities would be common. 

The film gave a very negative portrayal of gays and used a character being gay as a way of showing him as contemptible. The film also invites you to get a kick out of a gay guy being thrown out a window.

As for his comments about Jews, I think they say something about him and I don't want to be watching a guy like that onscreen.

I have to disagree with you there.   Imho,  Godfather one of the best movies ever made.    It places 2nd in my list.   Casablanca is 1st in my list.     Brando is perfect in the role of Vito Corleone.    Al Pacino also gives a great performance.   All the actors in that movie do.   You are of course entitled to your opinion.   I'm curious,  why do you believe it to be overrated? 

It doesn't have any great emotional depth, which is what you need for a film to be great. And Brando's performance doesn't give us enough. Brando's much better in Don Juan De Marco than he is in his most acclaimed performances. Al Pacino is good in it but his performance only goes so far. Godfather 3 had rather more emotional depth than Godfather.

Asplodes? Does that mean your ass explodes? Scattering shit all around? Useful for fertilizing a garden.

TV's Frink said:

This is going to make my head explode lol.

 That would be... messy.

Are you somebody's sock? Maybe you're my sock.