The giant-crab-mantis-thingy-from-AOTC looks better than the JP dinos.
I’m sure there must at least 7 people in the world that think that too.
ILM had a further 9 years and an extra $52million to work on that creature and that’s the best they could come up with?
adjective: obtuse
Nope.
There’s your evidence.
I’m not seeing it. That was just you quoting what I said, not what you said I said.
And as for your whole “subjective” garbage as far as the Matrix, I was commenting on your implication that your shots were proof and my suggestions were merely opinions.
Please provide evidence of me saying this.
Are you perhaps reading my posts in an alternate dimension? e.g. I haven’t even posted any “shots”???
bad=subjective
good=objective
?
That’s not what those words mean.
As for backtracking, you cited TFL as a movie with superior CG, yet you then agree that in a comparison of a central CG location of each film, the PT wins.
Please provide evidence of me saying this.
Coruscant looks better than The Fifth Element’s NYC.
It bl**dy well should do 😉
‘The Fifth Element’ was made 2 years earlier than TPM (and naturally 8 years earlier than ROTS) and cost $25million less.
You seem to be backtracking.
How so?
Now post all the really dated stuff like the squidbots, the wall contracting when neo breathes, the civilian transforming into the agent, etc…
Yeah let’s not. Posting subjective screenshots is a waste of time and just clogs up the forum.
Coruscant looks better than The Fifth Element’s NYC.
It bl**dy well should do 😉
‘The Fifth Element’ was made 2 years earlier than TPM (and naturally 8 years earlier than ROTS) and cost $25million less.
*guffaw*
Then show me a film with better CGI at that time…
Lord of the Rings trilogy. Minority Report. Gladiator. The Matrix. Pirates of the Caribbean. Armageddon. King Kong. The Fifth Element. Titanic. Independence Day.
Not that I like CGI and not that those films don’t have some flawed shots but there’s quite a few that have better work than the Prequels in the late 90s/early 2000s. The first Matrix especially, hasn’t dated at all (It helped that a lot was practical).
^ Good work on disproving my "it’s all about me thread” joke 😉
Bloody duplicate post! Argggh!
It might be simpler to retitle this thread from “Ranking the Star Wars Films” to “The Lord Haseo’s it’s all about me thread”? Probably a bad idea I know, so let’s try actually discussing the thread topic for a change.
I very much enjoyed the 80s Ewok movies as a kid (Even with blurry home taped VHS copies) but probably they haven’t held up all that well. Anybody rewatched them recently? Are they better or worse than the prequels? Worth checking out again?
- The Holiday Special
- The Force Awakens
Really? ‘The Holiday Special’ is so bad it’s like a physical and mental act of shear endurance and will-power to sit through the thing. It’s not even so bad it’s good in an ironic way. At least TFA had some explosions, some bright coloured lights and not even one long, boring and dry instructional video about the proper operation of a entirely fictional electronic device.
F*ck it. Duplicate post.
The debate across the last couple of pages about the Ranking of the Star Wars Films has been fascinating.
Can we at least try not to re-re-re-re-re-requote everything everybody says?
LOL. Genuinely forgot to include TFA. Let’s try that again…
TFA sits between the two trilogies but is extremely close below SW and lightyears above ROTS.
swagmasta69 said:
I’m saying that Ryan is probably not trolling.Well I’m saying he probably is. You going to cry about it or something?
Love the attitude and to echo swagmasta69 above… having a different opinion isn’t trolling. Knowing that my ranking of AOTC was different to the norm, I explained my thoughts on that in the original post above and my longstanding love of ROTJ has it’s own thread 😉
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/ROTJ-is-the-best-Star-Wars-film-discuss/id/15430
Many will disagree about ranking AOTC over TPM. But AOTC actually contained some stuff that were the reasons I wanted to see the prequels, like a big ass Jedi/Clone battle. Where as even though TPM is a much better made movie overall (Still sh*t though) it has Jar Jar (and to a lesser extent little Annie) in it for most of the running time. He’s the most irritating character in the history of mainstream movies and it’s difficult to “enjoy” anything else about that movie as a result. If a highly skilled faneditor/FX-artist ever digitally erased Jar Jar from every single pixel of TPM, then sure I’d probablly rank it as the “least worst” prequel. But so far (To my knowledge) they haven’t yet, so it’ll stay bottom for me.
At least AOTC has Kenobi in it for more than 5 minutes and he does things that significantly effect the plot. At least the villain has more than 4 lines (With Christopher Lee’s voice) and does things that significantly effect the plot. The final LS duel actually has some emotion behind it, despite also being almost totally cr*p. At least they got rid of the botched puppet Yoda. Sadly with a CGI Yoda but you can tell the FX-artists really tried. etc.
it was little more than a way to show he wasn’t going to be content as a farmer.
Much as we all like some mild Lucas bashing from time to time 😉 SW77 does say that Luke’s father was murdered by another Jedi (Regardless of any other information imparted in ESB and ROTJ). So I think it’s pretty logical to assume Owen/Lucas was refering to this when he grimly said/wrote “That’s what I’m affraid of” rather than just refrencing Luke’s dislike of farming.
I mentioned somewhere or other after I first saw TFA, that I loved the way Snoke looked like an Evil version of the Lincoln Memorial…
…but I just compared those nice shots from the OP with some Lincoln face-casts and there is a possible influence there IMO…
What that says about his origins, I’m not sure. He’s probably plagueis (Hopefully not) but maybe he’ll be introduced as a younger character in something like Rebels? Darth Ezra! 😉
I’m no fan of overused CGI… but Snoke looked absolutely fine to me, great even. Maz was also top notch, driven by a fantastic performance by Lupita. The Simon Pegg junk dealer on the other hand was really quite weak IMO. Given that Pegg seemed to be on set in full facial makeup, I’ll be interested in finding out WTF happened with that one.
Americans must think all English girls talk/act like that?
^ What do you even mean by that ^ sentence?
I thought she was quite ‘wooden’ very much like prequel characters but each to their own, must be difficult acting to thin air though.
Agreed. They really should have filmed TFA at a lower altitude.
While reading about TFA’s nomination, I found this. It seems like TFA is in a way “more equal than other” movies 😄
Storm in a teacup. To think you’d resign over it. I don’t know.
There are at least 4 movies up for several nominations that only opened internationally this week and another 4 that still haven’t been released internationally yet. But of course those were given brief pre-screenings earlier, simply to make them eligible for the awards. With the secrecy/buzz over TFA, it was never gonna be screened early. Also films like ‘The Hateful Eight’ were released in the US a week after TFA but again were given an earlier pre-screening. So any idea that the membership didn’t have a chance to see TFA is rubbish, they had an extra week!
So IMO it’s got far more right to be considered than those other movies.
A film with a 90-93% score on RT from hundreds of thousands of people could be validly described as “Popular at best”, or “Crowd-pleasing at best” without fear of succumbing to hyperbole.
I don’t think you should take RT too seriously
It still has an 8.5 on imdb which seems more sensible to a guy like me who only rated a film an 8.3
A film with an 8.5 score on imdb from hundreds of thousands of people could be validly described as “Popular at best”, or “Crowd-pleasing at best” without fear of succumbing to hyperbole.
^ Is that better? Or is it the exact same point I was making 😉
some mediocre (at best) movie.
I think there should be some sort of license people on the internet need to study for before they are authorised to use the phrase “At best”.
e.g. A film with a 90-93% score on RT from hundreds of thousands of people could be validly described as “Popular at best”, or “Crowd-pleasing at best” without fear of succumbing to hyperbole.
Perhaps “Some mediocre (IMO) movie.” would have worked better?
