Tiptup

User Group: Members
Join date: 4-May-2006
Last activity: 26-Apr-2012
Posts: 1,696

Post History

Post: #252373
Topic: The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252373/action/topic#252373
Time: 19-Oct-2006 7:53 PM

Originally posted by: Scruffy
The whole "creation of life" thing was stupid. Midiclorians are symbiotic, found in other lifeforms. Therefore they can never create life ex nihilo, they can only interact with existing life.

Well, the symbiotic part was stupid if you ask me. Also, the creation of life element was only interesting to the degree any generic-science-fiction concept can be. I thought it worked on that level at least. They didn't work in the other ways though.

Post: #252367
Topic: The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252367/action/topic#252367
Time: 19-Oct-2006 7:31 PM

Originally posted by: Wesyeed

Star wars re-enforced the idea of having faith in your abilities, letting go of relying on techno doo hickies, and achieviing something just because you believe you can...

Star wars was a very different galaxy far far away until 1999... Mutant jedi huh... heh sure, magneto and xavier and wolverine are jedi. Yoda didn't have enough midichlorians to defeat the emperor. Size Matters. Obi-wan had more midis, that's why he beat darth maul. "Master Yoda, you can't die." "Many midichlorians do I have, but not that many..." And my favorite, "Use the midichlorians, Luke."

Hmmm, perfect explanation and illustration for why the "midiclorians" idea was way too specific. I liked how they were linked to the creation of life and Anakin's conception, but beyond that they add so many new questions and problems to the understanding of the force that the average viewer simply scratches his or her head and doesn't like it anymore.

Post: #252363
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252363/action/topic#252363
Time: 19-Oct-2006 7:18 PM

If I remember LotR history correctly, Tolkien had a basic idea for the King of Gondor returning and the fall of Sauron, but he didn't work it into a story until the publishers, who wanted a sequel to the hobbit to make money with, liked his ideas along those lines. Then, through the writing out of the story, Tolkien invented many of its beloved subjects and events.

As for Star Wars, again if I'm not mistaken, it was originally pitched to 20th Century Fox by Lucas in a way where the toy sales would help to increase profits so the marketing existed in the franchise before the first movie was released. Plus, all movies are items meant to be marketed. Though I would guess that marketing was less important to Lucas than art in those days. Maybe.

Post: #252299
Topic: The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252299/action/topic#252299
Time: 19-Oct-2006 1:58 PM

Yeah, I saw it. Don't worry. I do want to give what you posted a fair response, but I can't do that if I'm in an uncaring mood.

Post: #252298
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252298/action/topic#252298
Time: 19-Oct-2006 1:56 PM

Other movies had started the over-marketing trend first though. Like Batman and Batman Returns for instance. I just tried to ignore it. The important part was whether the PT movies were good or not, and they weren't. If George can sucker idiots into buying crap then he deserves his money.

Post: #252296
Topic: The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252296/action/topic#252296
Time: 19-Oct-2006 1:52 PM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

Hey Tiptup, did you see my response to your post from way back?

Yes, but I'm bored at the moment with Star Wars. Give me a day or so.

Post: #252292
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252292/action/topic#252292
Time: 19-Oct-2006 1:49 PM

Originally posted by: lordjedi
I'm not sure about the title for ROTK, but I know the title of TTT is ambiguous. Even Tolkien didn't really know which two towers the title referred to. Was it Minus Tirith and Minus Morgul or was it Saruman and Sauron's towers (the proper names are escaping me at the moment)? To some it's the former, to others the latter.

He was pretty sure it referred to Orthanc and Minas Morgul in the end. They are the two towers that actually figure prominently to the characters in the book.

Anyways, about Lord of the Rings, Tolkien wrote it to be a published novel from the beginning. That doesn't mean that making money was more important to him than the world he created or the aesthetics of his stories though.

Post: #252279
Topic: The Thief Trilogy
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252279/action/topic#252279
Time: 19-Oct-2006 12:59 PM

I absolutely love the games. The two sequels have not matched the coolness of the first however. The best thing about the game was when it induced fear. Well, whenever I could forget about the save feature enough to feel as if I were in the game.

Post: #252273
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252273/action/topic#252273
Time: 19-Oct-2006 12:43 PM

If Tolkien was apposed to the name, it couldn't have been by very much. I know that he designed covers for each of the three volumes (only the first was used) and that he had no trouble with the chosen name in that context.

Post: #252238
Topic: For me...it all came out in the end...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252238/action/topic#252238
Time: 19-Oct-2006 6:40 AM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I trust you guys to be able to come to your own conclusions.

Then please, whenever someone says they have opinion A, you don't have to directly reply to them and remind us that you have an opposite opinion. You rarely say anything constructive with this style of reply and they're very repetitive. I mean, sure, I understand that you have endless confidence in your viewpoints, and that you love to feel self-righteous in your ability to post a disagreement in reply to everything you don’t like, but contests between whoever can repeat their opinion the most are boring and stupid. Try exploring the viewpoints of other people before you begin attacking it with one of your contradicting statements. Also, you can occasionally try offering reasons for your own viewpoint instead of simply stating unsupported opinions, over and over again. Simply because you can state your point of view does not make it automatically true.

For instance: Someone posts the opinion that the original trilogy had less obvious statements from its characters when compared to the prequel trilogy. Instead of simply saying “they both have the same amount,” put an “I believe” or “I think” before that statement. Then, instead of leaving your rebuttal at that basic statement, try asking what the first person meant by what he said. You can also try exploring the other person’s point of view on your own; play devil’s advocate with yourself and try to see their point of view. You might find it fun. Based on the amount of posting you engage in, you should have the time to utilize these discussion techniques (I'm not sure why you don't). I would hope you prefer discussions with people before teasing them in passive ways.

Post: #252228
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/252228/action/topic#252228
Time: 19-Oct-2006 5:56 AM

Originally posted by: Anchorhead

"The so-called concern troll works to disrupt a forum by claiming to support its common cause but posting messages that promote the interests of the opposing cause.”

He certainly falls into this category as well;

“Wasting others' time: One of the greatest themes in trolling is the idea that a troll can spend one minute of time posting a troll, causing multiple other people to waste several minutes of their time, catalytically affecting others. Most trolls enjoy the idea that they can waste others' time at comparatively little effort on their behalf.”

He's put up plenty of one and two word answers just to keep someone angry - just to keep the thread going.

I believe you're being mostly unfair to Go-Mer. Everything that I have seen him post seems authentic in the sense that he truly loves the prequels as much, if not more than the OUT, and that he truly has a high amount of respect for Lucas. Sure, we believe he's clearly misguided in this opinion, but let's not pretend that it's completely unreasonable. People can believe what he believes and still desire a good OUT release; the prequels and the SEs have redeemable elements (even if we personally find that the bad outweighs the good).

Your last point there, about his one-or-two-phrase replies that work to preserve people's anger, is definitely true though. First, Go-Mer seems to sickly enjoy situations whenever he manages to irritate someone (as if he believes he's above it all). Then, for some reason, he enjoys using the similarly provoking one-liners when he sees someone post an opinion he doesn't like. I would guess that this stems from an inability to express disagreement in measured, healthy ways. I don't believe Go-Mer is purposely looking to waste people's time like a troll would.

Post: #251935
Topic: Here's my stance
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251935/action/topic#251935
Time: 18-Oct-2006 8:38 AM

Originally posted by: Fang Zei

The fact that Jackson put together longer cuts of the movies immediately after finishing the theatrical cuts is yet another reason why those movies are considered so unique. He considers the theatrical cuts, with a few exceptions, to be his version of choice for the movies. I prefer them simply because they're what I saw on the big screen and I regard the extended 4-disc sets as bonus material, nothing more.

The extended editions are for people like me who want book content and less of Jackson's vision (except for the RotK extended edition which gave us book-lovers practically nothing).

Post: #251934
Topic: For me...it all came out in the end...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251934/action/topic#251934
Time: 18-Oct-2006 8:28 AM

I agree. The original Star Wars was very sophisticated and subtle considering the limits in which the movie was made. I like the emperor in Jedi because of his non-cheesy elements. I thought he portrayed evil and overconfidence well. I just thought it was over the top at points. The ESB emperor just seemed more on the slimy and disgusting side to me and I thought that was a heck of a lot more interesting. It was like I could actually see him commanding an empire with a kind of unholy charisma for his evil pursuits.

Post: #251932
Topic: How do you watch the Star Wars Saga?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251932/action/topic#251932
Time: 18-Oct-2006 8:08 AM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
What does he also happen to use SW quotes in his every day speech?

Heh, I do that often, as do many of us here.

Post: #251845
Topic: redeeming lucas
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251845/action/topic#251845
Time: 17-Oct-2006 6:10 PM

Well, I'll certainly try being open to your point of view and we'll see if it stands up.

Post: #251844
Topic: The Merits of the Prequel Trilogy and the "Saga"
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251844/action/topic#251844
Time: 17-Oct-2006 6:06 PM

Actually, that's a "Guy Caballero" post, but I do agree with almost everything he said. Jake Loyd was a decent Anakin (perhaps even better than Hayden in my estimation). Otherwise, I thought the age difference between him and padme was an interesting idea. If there was a problem, it was the fact that it didn't seem authentically portrayed in terms of a boy's crush. All in all, there's no huge criticism here for me. Phantom Menace is the only prequel that I believe has good qualities that outweigh the bad.

Post: #251840
Topic: For me...it all came out in the end...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251840/action/topic#251840
Time: 17-Oct-2006 5:49 PM

Well, the emperor from ESB had a smooth voice and seemed self-assured in an extremely calm way. He had no need for boisterous taunting or cackling like some cranky old pervert. It was very cool. Then Jedi changed that dramatically. We got the cliche asshole who was took fiendish delite in spreading evil. I'm not saying that Jedi's emperor was bad, but Empire's was better.

Either way, in terms of the SE, there wasn't that big of a difference between the two emperors to justify erasing one. I have saved myself from watching the 2004 SEs so I have no idea what the dialogue changes are. In the end, its just another perfect reason why the original theatrical releases should be available alongside the SEs at the very least.

Post: #251834
Topic: redeeming lucas
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251834/action/topic#251834
Time: 17-Oct-2006 5:40 PM

Hardly. I made a number of new challenges that you failed to answer. Primarily I wanted to know in what way a Star Wars fan could overlook the gigantic flaw that I have with the prequels (Anakin's lame transformation into a whiny psycho). Or, are you admitting that my problem was finally valid and cannot be defended from any perspective?

Post: #251830
Topic: redeeming lucas
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251830/action/topic#251830
Time: 17-Oct-2006 5:34 PM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I did try and bite my tongue, but then I get accused of ignoring certain points.

Like ignoring an entire thread that I made? Where did that go again?

Post: #251828
Topic: For me...it all came out in the end...
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251828/action/topic#251828
Time: 17-Oct-2006 5:26 PM

Originally posted by: auraloffalwaffle

Ian McDiarmid is at his hammiest, lacking any of the creepiness or hint of the horrible threat that distinguished his performance in ROTJ.

To be honest, the Emperor from Return of the Jedi wasn't that great if you ask me. The only thing that was amazing about him was the creepy makeup job and the perception of frailty. Other than that, the character was cliche. The Emperor from Empire Strikes Back seemed more compelling.

Post: #251787
Topic: How do you watch the Star Wars Saga?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251787/action/topic#251787
Time: 17-Oct-2006 3:39 PM

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
This is a thread about the saga, sorry some of you are annoyed by what I say.

No, this thread is about how we watch the movies and why. Not to debate their individual merits. And we're hardly annoyed by what you say, we're annoyed by the repetitive arguments.

Post: #251775
Topic: How do you watch the Star Wars Saga?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251775/action/topic#251775
Time: 17-Oct-2006 3:13 PM

Go-Mer, Darth_Evil just found it annoyign that you had to pick apart his post just because it criticized the prequel trilogy as a sidepoint. If anything, that was an off-topic move for you to make in this thread, but in general it's also just plain annoying. Give the PT discussion a rest sometimes, please.

Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic

I just feel so bad for people who really do seem to focus on what they don't like as opposed to what they do like.

For me, the unintentional humor of the prequel trilogy is what mostly draws me back, time after time.

Post: #251656
Topic: How do you watch the Star Wars Saga?
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251656/action/topic#251656
Time: 16-Oct-2006 9:23 PM

I'll watch original trilogy or prequel trilogy films if I feel like it on a whim. (The original Star Wars usually wins here, then maybe Episode I, since either can be watched out of context, but I do often have a grand time watching the prequel films by mocking them throughout.) Otherwise, when watching the Star Wars films in a structured fashion, I will only watch the original trilogy (4-6 the unaltered versions). The structured way of watching the movies usually only comes once a year for me.

Post: #251649
Topic: The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251649/action/topic#251649
Time: 16-Oct-2006 8:26 PM

Originally posted by: Mike O

Book-accurate movies of LOTR would have been a) far more successful; b) amazingly superior. Criticizing a film adaptation because it is different from the books can often make a lot of sense in many situations.

That's a bit general. You could be right, I just think that the issue is more complex than that.

No, really?!

Post: #251551
Topic: The Lord of the Rings (Films vs. the Books)
Link: https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/251551/action/topic#251551
Time: 16-Oct-2006 9:30 AM

Originally posted by: Mike O

He wanted to do it because he likes mindless action and because he had the elf actors on hand and wanted to give them more screen time.

I don't ever remember be so exhilarated by an action sequence. And I really, really doubt that that was the reason. I really, really, really, really doubt it. Not saying that I agree with the change. I just don't think that was why.

Did I say it was a non-exilherating action sequence? I proposed the possibility that Jackson likes mindless action in the context of putting Elves at Helms Deep. I believe that he didn't even consider the change beyond thinking about how cool it would be to display Elves in combat once more. Well, that and while he was filming the sequence he thought it would be neat to give his elf cast more screen time, considering the work he went through to assemble them. You can doubt my assumptions here if you want, but, until I learn more, I believe my two guesses here are fair and accurate.

Originally posted by: Mike O

Concepts that didn’t even exist in the slightest way until Jackson stuck them in. I can’t forgive that.

Like?

Well, we've already been talking about Elves at Helms Deep. That drastically wars with the spirit behind what Tolkien wrote his mythology to be. We were also just talking about Gollum sprinkling crackers. Remember? That didn't exist anywhere in the books. We also mentioned Denethor falling off of a cliff while on fire.

Originally posted by: Mike O
Jackson has a simple mind

Umm, I don't think that that is entirely true.

I never said he had an "entirely" simple mind. Seriously, how could I enjoy his films if I thougth he was simple in every sense?