OBI-WAN37

This thread is getting out of hand. People seem to be making violent threats. That's serious.

KilroyMcFadden said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

KilroyMcFadden said:

Some say "Prequel Hater" some say "Film Lover"  You are participating in a forum that attracts people who have some technical interest in restoring, or at a minimum, watching Star Wars movies that are not George Lucas's version of the Star Wars universe.  As the other trilogy represents the pinnacle of what at least a few of us think went wrong with the Star Wars universe, at least a few of us simply aren't going to agree with you unless you can convince us why and how we are wrong.

Merely saying, "Everything is awesome" isn't a way to convince me nor I suspect is it a way to convince many of the people who hang out here.

OBI-WAN37, my interpretation of why the thread is still open is because you are fun and mostly harmless.  For me, It's light entertainment to come here to see what kind of zaniness you've cooked up each day.  If this thread does get the TFN treatment, I certainly hope you declare some other piece of non-defensible opinion in some new thread so we can go there for an occasional smile 

Ummm.... okay that's kind of weird entertainment but... thanks.... 

 It's not weird to enjoy something ironically.  You function as a little piece of transplanted TFN prequel forum that randomly regurgitates hilarious TFN sounding things right here without having to leave OT.com! 

 And people like you function as something very boring: people who randomly regurgitate the same things over and over again (i.e: "the prequels suck", "the prequels' acting sucks" "let's flame prequel-lovers")....

Very, very, very, very boring.

Very boring.

And predictably conformist.

Leonardo said:

KilroyMcFadden said:

Some say "Prequel Hater" some say "Film Lover"  You are participating in a forum that attracts people who have some technical interest in restoring, or at a minimum, watching Star Wars movies that are not George Lucas's version of the Star Wars universe.  As the other trilogy represents the pinnacle of what at least a few of us think went wrong with the Star Wars universe, at least a few of us simply aren't going to agree with you unless you can convince us why and how we are wrong.

Merely saying, "Everything is awesome" isn't a way to convince me nor I suspect is it a way to convince many of the people who hang out here.

OBI-WAN37, my interpretation of why the thread is still open is because you are fun and mostly harmless.  For me, It's light entertainment to come here to see what kind of zaniness you've cooked up each day.  If this thread does get the TFN treatment, I certainly hope you declare some other piece of non-defensible opinion in some new thread so we can go there for an occasional smile 

 Quoted for truth.

Quoted for hilarity. 

Humby said:

@OBI-WAN37

I'll give you the Palpatine/Anakin discussion as decent dialogue.  But it's not great.  The bigger issue with it, however, is why Anakin felt it was perfectly normal for the Chancellor to be dabbling in Sith legend.  Why is a supposedly good character telling Anakin (a Jedi) that the Jedi are no different than the Sith.  Anakin finds all of this perfectly normal, and it makes him look completely daft.

 At this point I'm too tired to think of the possible flaws in your logic, so I'm just going to say the always-reliable phrase: whatever.

KilroyMcFadden said:

Some say "Prequel Hater" some say "Film Lover"  You are participating in a forum that attracts people who have some technical interest in restoring, or at a minimum, watching Star Wars movies that are not George Lucas's version of the Star Wars universe.  As the other trilogy represents the pinnacle of what at least a few of us think went wrong with the Star Wars universe, at least a few of us simply aren't going to agree with you unless you can convince us why and how we are wrong.

Merely saying, "Everything is awesome" isn't a way to convince me nor I suspect is it a way to convince many of the people who hang out here.

OBI-WAN37, my interpretation of why the thread is still open is because you are fun and mostly harmless.  For me, It's light entertainment to come here to see what kind of zaniness you've cooked up each day.  If this thread does get the TFN treatment, I certainly hope you declare some other piece of non-defensible opinion in some new thread so we can go there for an occasional smile 

Ummm.... okay that's kind of weird entertainment but... thanks.... 

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

From the Phantom Menace:

C-3PO: I can assure you they will never get me onto one of those dreadful starships.

I love this!

 ^ Lazy fan service that only makes sense if you watch the films back to front. Also it makes no sense in the context of the scene but apart from those three things it's brilliant!

 So first people say they don't like the films because they cater to kids. Now they say they don't like "fan service"?

 What have these two things got in common?

I don't like the clumsy fan-service and I don't like the pandering to a misguided idea of what a child likes. I also don't like Anchovies and Zac Snyder but I don't see how either are connected.

 Well whatever, but regardless, I liked the reference.

Leonardo said:

Who you calling a conformist, peckerwood?

 lol

Leonardo said:

ooohhh he used language from 2007... now I'm really scared. he's good, guys.

 "Oooh he's not up-to-date with all us judgemental conformists...." I haven't seen any of those...

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

From the Phantom Menace:

C-3PO: I can assure you they will never get me onto one of those dreadful starships.

I love this!

 ^ Lazy fan service that only makes sense if you watch the films back to front. Also it makes no sense in the context of the scene but apart from those three things it's brilliant!

 So first people say they don't like the films because they cater to kids. Now they say they don't like "fan service"?

Leonardo said:

TV's Frink said:

Leonardo said:

TV's Frink said:

...but if you need more info, I'll just say that they say CPY is a bad motherf-

 Shut yo mouth!

 But I'm talkin' about CPY...

 Then we can dig it! :)

obw1thirtyseven sed:

Would someone please close this topic?

Why? It's going fine. Please tell us a couple more million times about how the prequels are awesome films because you say so.

 And I also want to hear all the people like you tell me that Episodes IV-VI are infinitely superior to those films because you and they say so.

Pwned.

Supreme Chancellor: Remember back to your early teachings. "All who gain power are afraid to lose it." Even the Jedi.

Anakin Skywalker: The Jedi use their power for good.

Supreme Chancellor: Good is a point of view, Anakin. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power.

Anakin Skywalker: The Sith rely on their passion for their strength. They think inward, only about themselves.

Supreme Chancellor: And the Jedi don't?

Anakin Skywalker: The Jedi are selfless... they only care about others.

Supreme Chancellor: [looking a little frustrated] Did you ever hear the tragedy of Darth Plagueis "the wise"?

Anakin Skywalker: No.

Supreme Chancellor: I thought not. It's not a story the Jedi would tell you. It's a Sith legend. Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith who lived many years ago. He was so powerful and so wise that he could use the Force to influence the midichlorians to create life... He had such a knowledge of the dark side that he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying.

Anakin Skywalker: He could do that? He could actually save people from death?

Supreme Chancellor: The dark side of the Force is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural.

Anakin Skywalker: What happened to him?

Supreme Chancellor: He became so powerful... the only thing he was afraid of was losing his power, which eventually, of course, he did. Unfortunately, he taught his apprentice everything he knew, and then one night, his apprentice killed him in his sleep. It's ironic that he could save others from death, but not himself.

Anakin Skywalker: Is it possible to learn this power?

Supreme Chancellor: Not from a Jedi.

I love this one even more.

From the Phantom Menace:

C-3PO: I can assure you they will never get me onto one of those dreadful starships.

I love this!

Jaitea said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Would someone please close this topic? thread?

 Fixed

J

 Thankyou. :)

Ryan McAvoy said:

TV's Frink said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Queen Amidala: You're a slave?

Anakin: I'm a person and my name is Anakin.

More awesome dialogue from the Phantom Menace.

 Now you're just trolling.

 You beat me to that sentiment* Ric.

That is one of the worst lines in TPM, and it doesn't help that Jake Lloyd delivers it so poorly.

(* "The perfume he meant to buy her" - Barry Cryer)

 Well I think that line was gold, but I guess now it just comes down to opinion. Would someone please close this topic?

TV's Frink said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

TV's Frink said:

DON'T YOU DARE TELL CPY HOW TO TALK!!!

 Why?

 Because he's a complicated puppet, and no one understands him but his woman.

 I don't understand... puppet? Is there some SERIOUS reason that I should know about as to why I should show a certain level of respect for CPY?

TV's Frink said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Queen Amidala: You're a slave?

Anakin: I'm a person and my name is Anakin.

More awesome dialogue from the Phantom Menace.

 Now you're just trolling.

 Could you explain to me why I can't talk back to CPY?

Humby said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Yoda: ...Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering...

Just because it sounds intelligent doesn't make it intelligent.  Can't suffering lead to fear, or hate lead to anger, or suffering lead to anger, or fear lead to suffering, etc.  Stringing together some independent clauses doesn't make the line coherent or intelligent.

It's fictional.

TV's Frink said:

DON'T YOU DARE TELL CPY HOW TO TALK!!!

 Why?

Queen Amidala: You're a slave?

Anakin: I'm a person and my name is Anakin.

More awesome dialogue from the Phantom Menace.

Bingowings said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Yoda: How feel you?

Anakin: Cold, sir.

Yoda: Afraid are you?

Anakin: No, sir.

Yoda: See through you we can.

Mace Windu: Be mindful of your feelings.

Ki-Adi-Mundi: Your thoughts dwell on your mother.

Anakin: I miss her.

Yoda: Afraid to lose her I think, hmm?

Anakin: What has that got to do with anything?

Yoda: Everything! Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.

I think that example of how the prequels have some awesome dialogue speaks for itself...

 What?

 What do you mean, "what"?

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Here's a question just for you to answer...

"Why did they build an (almost) complete set for the Tantive IV interior in ROTS, when they could have CGIed some or all of it?"

If you can give the correct answer you might understand what was so wrong at the heart of the PT (Hint: The reason wasn't because it looked better).

OBI-WAN37 said:

A good description on the (PT) movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"

 Anybody want to complete the sentence...

"The PT are mind-blowingly . . . . . . . films"

;-)

 "Fantastic". Strange that someone would post such an easy question.

 Touche!! You've have done well my young apprentice.

But any response to the Tantive IV question?

I can give you the answer if you don't know.

 I just said in the post directly above the one you just made, " I don't quite understand what the mystery-answer question you asked is even asking, but I'm curious, what do you think is the answer?"

 ^ It's this thing that happens in forums when two posts are written at the same time.

The answer to my question is they had to build the Tantive IV set for ROTS because C3PO was shiny.

The time and cost needed to CGI in the reflections on Threepio meant it was cheaper, and less bother to just knock up a cheap set (And it does look cheap and plasticy next to the 1977 original set). This answer is not my opinion but from the mouths of Lucas and McCallum on various ROTS behind-the-scenes features. This is also the reason why shots involving The Naboo Silver cruisers tended to be physical models and/or sets (Plus Padme's appartment in ROTS needed to be fully built to make Threepio cheaper to do). So again I say, if they could have done it cheaper and easier with something real they did, but if they could have done it all in CGI then it would be. This insistance of putting budget before quality-control lead to CGI R2 in ROTS being Matt instead of Gloss to save the money it would take to add the reflections.

It's a question whose answer speaks volumes about the mentality of the filmmakers on the PT. e.g. "Let's not build as much as we can because it looks better, lets build as little as we can to save time and money".

Side note:

TPM $160
AOTC $145
ROTS $134

^ PT's budget adjusted for inflation. As you can see they spent 15-20 million less on each film. They cut back on expensive sets, costumes, models etc as advances in CGI increased, allowing them to just cheat it in the computer.

So they used a practical/reasonable amount of models/sets/CGI given the expenses of it all in everything other than on the Tantive IV, and not only that, but disregarding that previous statement given the fact that it would be extremely hard and expensive to CGI in C-3PO's reflection on the walls of the ship (where has anyone ever seen CGI of that period that good?) they also used an appropriate amount on the Tantive IV?

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Ryan McAvoy said:

Here's a question just for you to answer...

"Why did they build an (almost) complete set for the Tantive IV interior in ROTS, when they could have CGIed some or all of it?"

If you can give the correct answer you might understand what was so wrong at the heart of the PT (Hint: The reason wasn't because it looked better).

OBI-WAN37 said:

A good description on the (PT) movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"

 Anybody want to complete the sentence...

"The PT are mind-blowingly . . . . . . . films"

;-)

 "Fantastic". Strange that someone would post such an easy question.

 Touche!! You've have done well my young apprentice.

But any response to the Tantive IV question?

I can give you the answer if you don't know.

 I just said in the post directly above the one you just made, " I don't quite understand what the mystery-answer question you asked is even asking, but I'm curious, what do you think is the answer?"

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Okay, so I've posted edits embedded in your quotes under each image for each criticism you make. Most of my argument centers around the fact that given the huge amount of locations they used in the prequel trilogy (unlike the original trilogy), even with the budget of a star wars movie I'm guessing it would have cost way too much to model absolutely everything, and also, you said concerning blue-screening in the time of the original trilogy, "there was literally no other way this could be achieved at the time" the same goes for lots of stuff you criticize in the prequel trilogy: aliens with long necks and completely different anatomy from humans that make it literally impossible for actors to portray even with the best makeup. You seem to be throwing absolutely everything that even barely qualifies as an argument at me, however I will admit that you do make a couple of good points. Regardless, the prequel trilogy, with or without too much CGI, are fantastic films.

 Your arguments underneath those photos I reposted above are frankly laughable so I can't really summon up the energy needed to respond to them all. But the gist of your answers seemed to be...

"Yes I'll admit there was a sh*t load of CGI in the PT when practical photography and models could have been used but Lucas and McCallum were too cheap and lazy to bother, which is fine"

Here's a question just for you to answer...

"Why did they build an (almost) complete set for the Tantive IV interior in ROTS, when they could have CGIed some or all of it?"

If you can give the correct answer you might understand what was so wrong at the heart of the PT (Hint: The reason wasn't because it looked better).

OBI-WAN37 said:

A good description on the (PT) movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"

 Anybody want to complete the sentence...

"The PT are mind-blowingly . . . . . . . films"

;-)

 I don't quite understand what the mystery-answer question you asked is even asking, but I'm curious, what do you think is the answer?

Yoda: How feel you?

Anakin: Cold, sir.

Yoda: Afraid are you?

Anakin: No, sir.

Yoda: See through you we can.

Mace Windu: Be mindful of your feelings.

Ki-Adi-Mundi: Your thoughts dwell on your mother.

Anakin: I miss her.

Yoda: Afraid to lose her I think, hmm?

Anakin: What has that got to do with anything?

Yoda: Everything! Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you.

I think that example of how the prequels have some awesome dialogue speaks for itself...

Ryan McAvoy said:

OBI-WAN37 said:

Okay, so I've posted edits embedded in your quotes under each image for each criticism you make. Most of my argument centers around the fact that given the huge amount of locations they used in the prequel trilogy (unlike the original trilogy), even with the budget of a star wars movie I'm guessing it would have cost way too much to model absolutely everything, and also, you said concerning blue-screening in the time of the original trilogy, "there was literally no other way this could be achieved at the time" the same goes for lots of stuff you criticize in the prequel trilogy: aliens with long necks and completely different anatomy from humans that make it literally impossible for actors to portray even with the best makeup. You seem to be throwing absolutely everything that even barely qualifies as an argument at me, however I will admit that you do make a couple of good points. Regardless, the prequel trilogy, with or without too much CGI, are fantastic films.

 Your arguments underneath those photos I reposted above are frankly laughable so I can't really summon up the energy needed to respond to them all. But the gist of your answers seemed to be...

"Yes I'll admit there was a sh*t load of CGI in the PT when practical photography and models could have been used but Lucas and McCallum were too cheap and lazy to bother, which is fine"

Here's a question just for you to answer...

"Why did they build an (almost) complete set for the Tantive IV interior in ROTS, when they could have CGIed some or all of it?"

If you can give the correct answer you might understand what was so wrong at the heart of the PT (Hint: The reason wasn't because it looked better).

OBI-WAN37 said:

A good description on the (PT) movies overall would be "mind-blowingly fantastic films!"

 Anybody want to complete the sentence...

"The PT are mind-blowingly . . . . . . . films"

;-)

 "Fantastic". Strange that someone would post such an easy question.