TPM: A Decade Later — Page 4

AxiaEuxine said:

Carrie sings to the theme for f***s sake.

That's the best part!

skyjedi2005 said:

We know how the Phantom Menace performs when set against the standards of the oot, but how does it stand up against other films that came out in 1999?

I would ask the same for 2002 attack of the clones

and 2005 revenge of the sith.

What sci fi blockbusters have come out since 1999 that have done it better?

I could extend this all the way back to 1983 when the saga officially ended with the release of Return of the Jedi and was a closed subject.

But i'm more interested in sci fi/fantasy films of the nineties and 2000's that did a better job with their effects and story.  List some wontcha.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_in_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_in_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_in_film

Good point. I think the prequels do okay when looked at from that perspective. I think though the biggest problem is the fact they carry the label of "Star Wars." An above average trilogy is greatly hurt by high standard of its predescessors. Same thing with Indy 4. I honestly thought it was one of the better movies of 2008. Did I think it was as good as the other three. Not close.

In other words, movies these days overall kind of suck. Does anyone else think Hollywood needs something like the next Star Wars to get it going again?

Better sci-fi/fantasy films in the same year.

2002: Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

2005:  The Chronicles of Narnia

2007: Stardust (I know a prequel didn't come out that year but I had to mention it because it's freakin amazing)

Matrix was too confusing for me and I hated the desaturated color timing for Lord of the Rings.

Knightmessenger said:

I think though the biggest problem is the fact they carry the label of "Star Wars." An above average trilogy is greatly hurt by high standard of its predescessors. Same thing with Indy 4. I honestly thought it was one of the better movies of 2008. Did I think it was as good as the other three. Not close.

In other words, movies these days overall kind of suck. Does anyone else think Hollywood needs something like the next Star Wars to get it going again?

I still think the whole, "Well of course they're no good when unfairly measured by the standards of the original!" line of thinking to be complete BS.

Sure, it sounds good, but when you really look into it and think about it it doesn't stand. This is all just speculative, that is all it can ever be, but had the Phantom Menace been its very own film, first part of a brand new series, no prior franchise fame to fall back on, I'd have a really hard time seeing it get two sequels. A really hard time! My mind could not even fathom it. As I am not in the habit of going to see children's sci-fi films, I am sure I never even would have seen it to begin with. It certainly wouldn't have had people lined up around the block to see it opening day. And we certainly wouldn't be discussing it now.

As a film on its own, I can't fairly judge it, because as I mentioned, I am not big on children's sci-fi. Perhaps you could say it was above average rather than completely awful. But I would still have a hard time imagining it pulling off a sequel on its own merits. 

Same thing for Indy 4, on its own merit it was a completely awful, terrible, film. I have often called it a parody of its own franchise it is so utterly ridiculous and over the top on all levels. That film makes shit like the first two Mummy movies look like epics (two films that a lot of people considered to be Indiana Jones knockoffs).

In both of these cases, my feelings are that the movies were only ever given the time of day because of material they were sequels/prequels to, and would have vanished into five dollar bins and obscurity by now had they had nothing to stand on but their own legs. Fortunately for them, they stood upon a very high pedestal, and were given undue attention, and are even forgiven their many short comings by some fans, simply because they felt the pedestal is unfair. In reality, the pedestal is the very reason for their existence.

Hollywood definitely needs something new. They have become stuck in this rut of sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots, and comic book/book adaptions. Name one big summer movie in recent years that wasn't part of some franchise with an already existing fanbase? Anything? Probably, but I can't think of it.

This year we have Wolverine, Star Trek, Terminator, Transformers, G. I. Joe, Harry Potter. We've seen all these things before, they have been in our lives for years. Of course movies are crappy these days. We are perfectly happy to blow our money on Hollywood doing the same thing over and over again. They don't even have to try anymore.

Matrix was too confusing for me and I hated the desaturated color timing for Lord of the Rings.

I think Lord of the Rings was one of the few really well done series in the last several years. I am a huge fan of Tolkien's books, and have always judged the LOTR films rather harshly against its source material. But on their own merit, this films hold up fantastically. If they had one flaw, it was extreme overdose. For three years straight they were hyped like mad, and now you rarely hear them mentioned, I think most people burnt out on them. 

As for the Matrix, that is its whole thing. It tries to be as confusing as possible with the intention of the audience mistaking it as being deep and profound. And boy did it work! Every time I hear someone call it "a thinking man's sci-fi trilogy" I start weeping inside.

C3PX said:

As for the Matrix, that is its whole thing. It tries to be as confusing as possible with the intention of the audience mistaking it as being deep and profound. And boy did it work! Every time I hear someone call it "a thinking man's sci-fi trilogy" I start weeping inside.

Ha! So it's the 'no soap, radio!' of sci-fi films. ;) I watched the first one, said 'meh', and haven't any of the others.

I just remembered another one: Serenity is another sci fi movie that came out in 2005. And Joss Whedon even had the main character shoot someone who was unarmed partly in response to the Greedo scene. I'm a huge fan of Buffy but I thought that movie was only ok.

Would the prequels have done well if they weren't Star Wars? Well, they didn't have a substantial drop off (week by week in ticket sales) so word of mouth must not have been too bad. I hate that I'm sounding like Rick McCallum (he did say something to that effect) but I honestly believe that if Matrix and Pirates could get sequels, non star wars Phantom Menace would have done well on its own. It would have been unique enough that plenty of people would have come even if out of curiosity.

sunday256 said:

Harry Potter is utter crap. I'll never watch that crap again. I saw the first movie and won't watch any of it. I'd rather be locked in a room and subjected to listening to Ahmed Best do Jar Jar imitations for 24 hours than watch another Harry Potter movie.

You are one brave soul.

CO said:

C3PX said:

As for the Matrix, that is its whole thing. It tries to be as confusing as possible with the intention of the audience mistaking it as being deep and profound. And boy did it work! Every time I hear someone call it "a thinking man's sci-fi trilogy" I start weeping inside.

 

 

 I respectfully disagree.  The Original Matrix is an innovative thinking man sci-fi movie, but I will admit the sequels were trying to be too much of a thinking mans movie, and they become overbloated.

Even though I highly disliked the first film, I can completely see people liking it. The story is interesting enough, and it has tons of mind numbing over the top action scenes that many people totally get off on.

I just can't for the life of me figure out what earns it the title of "thinking man's sci-fi". All of its philosophical ponderings that are supposedly incredibly deep and profound come off to me as typical LSD tripping Whooooa BS. I think that is why I have come to dislike this film so much, perhaps far more than it deserves. Simply because so many people find it inspiringly profound, when it seems to me only slightly less shallow than most other shoot'em ups.

I just can't see it for anything more than sci-fi action with postmodern philosophy (I believe the literal definition of postmodern philosophy is "bullshit", for those of you who are unfamilar with it) thrown in for flavor. Perhaps if I were able to see what others find so profound and thought provoking about it, I could hold it in much higher regards than I do. But postmodern philosophy does nothing but evoke laughter in me (one of the many reasons I love Douglas Adams so dearly, the man knew the stuff was funny).

C3PX said:

it has tons of mind numbing over the top action scenes that many people totally get off on.

That's the stuff that turns me off. Well, at a certain point. The big battle in Transformers ended just as I was started to get antsy, like 'ok, that's enough!'

What is "TPM"? I am not sure I have ever even heard of this film. ;)

^Nice one, CO. :)

P.S. What was your last username? I'm drawing a blank! :(

CO had a former life?

Aha. I'm obviously thinking of someone else. :p

You know what i find laughable they actually had an offcial tenth anniversary issue of star wars insider on the phantom menace.  A magazine which i stopped buying or have not had a subscription to going on 4 or 5 years.

I think i followed the mag all the way up to the 2004 dvd release.  And i had bought a few issues since then on and off and had a hyperspace account which i let expire in 2006. 

No Restored original theatricals for the 30th anniversary anyway, and just more prequels spinoff nonsense and the selling of bad merchandise and action figures.  I swear the only people i know who still buy this garbage either collect action figures, dress up like dorks and go to conventions or have small children who watch the cartoon clone wars.

But how many actual non saga films and film fans does the prequels have.  I can honestly say i am not one of them and i am ashamed to own the dvd's.

See i would have paid to go to any of the last 3 star wars celeberations except Lucas would not allow them to show the original theatrical movies at the screenings they held.  So i skipped it out of a mindset of protest that did actually very little.  He still has people buying his table scraps. And eating up the fact he has ruined the only good films he ever made by adding cgi to them.

Me peronally i was going to actually but the first season of the clone wars show on dvd until Lucas held off the season set for these 4 episode ripoff anthology travesties that are bare bones, incorrect aspect ratio and out of order random episodes.  Now i think once the set comes out i won't buy it since he thought it was wise to anger people with the typical LFL release strategedy.

Its like the bad recut droids as a movie.  No comeplete season of episodes just recut garbage.  He also tampered with young indiana jones so i refused to buy those overpriced dvd sets too.

I am going to get rid of the destroyed versions of thx 1138, american graffiti and star wars.  And have to watch laserdiscs to get the non molested versions.  Gotta love the likes of Lucas and Disney.  Its like Dr Leonard H. "Bones" McCoy in star trek said " I know engineers they love to change things",lol.

What was changed/"destroyed" as far as American Graffiti is concerned?

The opening shot was changed. The ugly building behind the diner was erased and the sky was changed to be a sunset. I think it's an improvement.

I see it as just plain silly. Meddling just to be meddling. What was wrong with the opening shot the way it was originally? What was wrong with the ugly building behind the diner?

The whole tinker a little here, tinker a little there thing really gets on my nerves. It is a bit obsessive compulsive, don't you think? It is like, "Hey, your hands are clean already! Stop washing them."