Vaderisnothayden

zombie84 said:

I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.

I have to agree, I never heard of ANYONE disliking WOK while liking the others, and certainly haven't heard of anyone liking ST V more than any other film, least of all WOK. There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series. "I'm not crazy, EVERYONE ELSE is crazy!!" But to each his own. I find this sort of view incredibly bizarre--I have to wonder, if you think ST V is the second-best in the original series and WOK among the worst, what exactly are you looking for in a ST film? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.

I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.

Shakespeare's over the top hamminess works. WOK's doesn't. Khan and Kirk don't come off like two big personalities -they come off like two big mistakes. Particularly Khan. Kirk not all the time, just when Shatner's hamming too much. Montalban's performance is like nails on a chalkboard. I would not use the word "masterpiece", let alone "sophisticated", for WOK. It's a dumb, poorly-made, childish movie. 

There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series.

There's a reason for everything, but it's not always the reason you think it is. I think WOK's popularity has a lot to do with the human capacity for herd-thinking.

what exactly are you looking for in a ST film?

A decent movie. I don't say "This is a Trek movie, so I'll make an exception for it and accept all sorts of ridiculous bullshit".

I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.

You don't know the views of almost every person who's seen the film. And in so many eras, to not be a bigot you had pretty much have the inverse of the views of most people, so having the inverse of the view of the majority doesn't making my view wrong.

Chewtobacca said:

Warbler said:

Khan is supposed to Indian?  I never got that.

Indeed he was; a Sikh in fact.  This was mentioned in Space Seed. 

It is, however, common for actors to play characters from ethnic groups, as long as they have the right general appearance for the role.  I have no objection to anyone of one particular ethnic group playing a member of another group.  

When it implies they think all darker skinned people are the same, then it is certainly offensive. And Montalban looked nothing like an Indian.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden,  what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance?    I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief?   I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good,  I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.

Why do you have to believe that? The majority is so often wrong that its views are really no guide to quality. Shit is often hugely popular. Look at Titanic. Total shit. Massively popular.

in your opinion its shit.   not mine.  granted,  I think it could have been done better.   I wish it would have stuck more to the real story rather than a fictious love story.  But it is a good movie, imho.     As for why I believe a movie has a good chance of having some sort of merit,  its because I just find it hard to believe that so many people could like a movie that has absolutely no merit.   If figure if millions and millions of people like a movie, at least somewhere in those millions of people must be a few that have good judgement and/or judgment simular to my own.   

Vaderisnothayden said:

I don't go by the critics' views either, because too often they are totally wrong, and pretentious about it, too. Sometimes critics seem to be the people who understand movies the least. I often run into reviews that show an amazing lack of insight or perception.

while I don't always agree with critics,  I do not find them to be people who lack an understanding of movies.   I necessarily go by them either,  but I do respect their opinions.   I more interested in not whether like or hate movie, but why they hate or like that movie.

Vaderisnothayden said:

The Montalban Khan performance is ridiculous hamming of an extremely self-indulgent sort. If you can't see why it's revolting I don't know how to explain it to you. I would think it would be obvious.

well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you,

yes you did.  right here:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.

 

Vaderisnothayden said:

but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.

the Khaaaaan screem is part Shatner's performance, not Montalban's.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I also don't appreciate the casting of a Hispanic guy to play an Indian role.

Khan is supposed to Indian?  I never got that.

 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Warbler said:

I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS  itself wasn't interesting or dramatic. 

TOS is mostly crap. Nimoy is great as Spock and there's some good character interaction, but the show is inept in the extreme. I don't think anybody should approach Trek with any illusions about TOS.

TOS is crap????     to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous.   It is certainly not crap.  Are the special effects crap?  maybe.   But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget.   I find many of the episodes have a powerful message.   Take City on The Edge Of Forever.   That is certainly not crap.   I don't how you can call TOS crap.   If it was, explain how  5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.  

in your opinion its shit.   not mine.  granted,  I think it could have been done better.   I wish it would have stuck more to the real story rather than a fictious love story.  But it is a good movie, imho.

Zero depth =bad movie. The love story was plastic.

As for why I believe a movie has a good chance of having some sort of merit,  its because I just find it hard to believe that so many people could like a movie that has absolutely no merit.   If figure if millions and millions of people like a movie, at least somewhere in those millions of people must be a few that have good judgement and/or judgment simular to my own.  

Millions of people thought the world was flat, thought racism was good, and sexism, etc. Millions of people liking something in no way says it's good.

while I don't always agree with critics,  I do not find them to be people who lack an understanding of movies.   I necessarily go by them either,  but I do respect their opinions.   I more interested in not whether like or hate movie, but why they hate or like that movie.

They haven't earned my respect. The lack of undertstanding that I've come across among critics has amazed me.

well if its so obvious, how come you are first person in the years since its released that I've run into that feels this way about Montalban's performance?

Because people are subconsciously motivated to copy each others' views. I'm not the only person who feels this way about Montalban's performance, but I do know that a lot of Trek fans feel the way you do.

Vaderisnothayden said:

As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you,

yes you did.  right here:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.

I said the character is AWFUL beyond belief, as in really really awful, which is not the same thing as saying the character is beyond belief, which simply means the character is not believable.

Vaderisnothayden said:

but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.

the Khaaaaan screem is part Shatner's performance, not Montalban's.

I never said it was part of Montalban's performance. I said that you can't believe in a story "when you've got that shit going on" (the Khan performance) OR the Khaaaan scream. In other words, you can't believe in a story when you've got Montalban's performance OR Shatner's hamming. And the "or" kinda means "and". But the point is I wasn't saying Shatner's hamming was part of the Khan performance, I was saying it added to the negative effect of the Khan performance.

Khan is supposed to Indian?  I never got that.

Yes. Khan Noonien Singh. Yes, he's Indian. As in from India.

TOS is crap????     to me and every other TOS fan, that is blasphemous.   It is certainly not crap.  Are the special effects crap?  maybe.   But you have to realize they were made in the 60's and they didn't have much of a budget.   I find many of the episodes have a powerful message.   Take City on The Edge Of Forever.   That is certainly not crap.   I don't how you can call TOS crap.   If it was, explain how  5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.  

 

As you are probably aware by now, I don't care whether or not an opinion is blasphemous by the view of some group or not. I choose the views that seem right to me, not the ones other people approve of. The special effects are a small part of the problem with TOS. I couldn't care less whether the episodes have a powerful message or not. I don't feel messages necessarily add to the quality of art. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't and sometimes they actually take from the quality of art. City on the Edge of Forever is sorely overrated. You don't know how I can call TOS crap, but I don't know how anybody can watch that stuff and not think "This is shitty". It's good-natured crap. It has some good ideas. It has some good character interaction and Nimoy was great in it. It was politically advanced for its time and may have had a positive cultural influence, quite apart from leading to some good spinoffs. But it's still crap. That's just the reality of it. How somebody can be a fulll fan of that show now and think it's on the overall good is something I can't fathom. I'm not saying all this to bother you. This is just what I believe. You are perfectly entitled to like TOS and think it's good if you want to, but don't expect me to.

If it was, explain how  5 series and 11 movies have come out of it.  

Well, as I have said, something being popular doesn't mean it's good. All you need to get 5 shows and 11 movies is for Trek to be popular and then you have the motivation to make more and continue the franchise. But Trek evolved. The movies eventually improved on TOS and then there was TNG, which was a far superior show, and then the 90s Trek evolved out of that, which had good stuff. But I've no illusions about the quality of the show it all evolved out of. When I watch TOS it's solely for Nimoy's excellent performances.

Bingowings said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Bingowings said:

Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.

There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.

 I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.

Under those circumstances he's almost restrained....almost.

I don't remember Milton (Roy Batty quotes him all the time) but he certainly likes to quote Herman Melville.

A much more apt use of his work than in the inferior First Contact which is just the story of Aliens dressed up in TNG clothing.

Roy Batty is another of science fiction's more annoying and overrated characters. From another overrated film. The novel was way better.

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I still dislike Khan. Wait, that was a dog?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoolander

wiki said:

In reality, the "spa" that Derek has been taken to is in fact a brainwashing facility, where he is programmed to attack and kill the Prime Minister when Frankie Goes To Hollywood's song "Relax" is played at the Derelicte show.

The dog was part of the brainwashing.

Vaderisnothayden said:

Not everybody is interested in fan edits...

Whereas making a review is perfectly valid.

Both are valid.  Of course, depends on how you define valid.  What I mean is that if you are interested in fan edits, it's valid.  And if you're interested in the review, it's valid too.  No one forces you to watch a fanedit or the review, and neither diminishes Star Wars.  If you're not interested, it doesn't have to affect you.

As long as you're not trying to brainwash me into killing any political leaders.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Bingowings said:

Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.

There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath.

 I just don't see a guys who's spent 20+ years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge and quoting Milton as the sort of performance that calls for extreme subtlty.

I don't see why it shouldn't. But I'm not insisting it should have great subtlety, just not be horribly overdone and unconvincing. And the telling thing is Montalban over-acted Khan in TOS, before Khan had spent 20 years on a hell planet obsessing over revenge.

I don't see why there has to be new Star wars items. Everything should come to an end. A story should stop being added to once it's no longer good. Some people want their franchises and stories to go on forever. I've never understood that attitude. I want quality. If something's not quality I don't want it. As for future generations of kids, they can have the original Star wars. They don't need new stuff. Or they can have whatever else (non-Star Wars) is current in their time. Stories need to end before they turn to crap.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden,  what do you so bad about TWOK and Montalban's performance?    I've never heard anyone describe it as anywhere near stomach-turning, and why is the character of Khan so beyond belief?   I agree that majority isn't always right but when so many think a movie is good,  I've got to believe there is a good chance that the movie has some sort of merit in it.

Why do you have to believe that? The majority is so often wrong that its views are really no guide to quality. Shit is often hugely popular. Look at Titanic. Total shit. Massively popular.

I don't go by the critics' views either, because too often they are totally wrong, and pretentious about it, too. Sometimes critics seem to be the people who understand movies the least. I often run into reviews that show an amazing lack of insight or perception.

The Montalban Khan performance is ridiculous hamming of an extremely self-indulgent sort. If you can't see why it's revolting I don't know how to explain it to you. I would think it would be obvious. No film needs a character like that. He was awful in the TOS episode he was in, too. It's enough to make Ricardo Montalban one of my least favorite actors. Shatner's hamming didn't help either, but it was far more tolerable. I generally find Shatner's acting in TOS movies to be lower key after this film (compared to how he is in Wrath), which is of great benefit to the movies.

As for Khan being beyond belief, I don't believe I said anything to that effect to you, but he is beyond belief, because nobody acts like that. You can't believe in a story when you've got that shit going on, or the "Khaaaaan!" scream.

I also don't appreciate the casting of a Hispanic guy to play an Indian role. It stinks of the attitude that all darker-skinned people are the same. You get the same thing in Lost with Sayid, with a guy of Indian background cast as an Iraqi. To me that's racism. However, it is a bit more forgivable in TOS and Khan, because that's in an earlier eera. It is totally unforgivable in Lost.

But having a Hispanic guy play an Indian certainly doesn't help the movie be convincing. And it really needs help in that area. Between the racism and the hamming, Khan must be one of Trek's worst characters ever.

Timstuff said:

I don't really like the idea of making a movie-length review of a movie just because you hate it so much. To me, that kind of crosses the line from "entertaining" the way The Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd are, to being downright obsessive. It seems kind of like the guy who refuses to stop complaining about his ex, not because she's every bit as bad as he says, but because he's still emotionally attached and can't let her go.

I have a better idea: instead of making a 70 minute movie complaining about everything that's wrong with The Phantom Menace, why not try and fix it? I'm sure that the Phantom Editor could have just made an angry video review of Episode I if he wanted to, but rather than just complain about the movie he actually did something, and helped launch what would become the fan edit movement.

I think it's a waste of time to invest that much time and effort into a movie that you claim you despise, only to come out at the end saying you still despise it. Likewise, why should I spend 70 minutes watching a movie whose only reason for existing is to tell me why I shouldn't like another movie, when I could spend that time watching a movie that I will enjoy? I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next guy, but I can think of plenty of better ways to spend 70 minutes than watching someone angrily dissect a movie.

Not everybody is interested in fan edits or believes they're a solution. I'm not on this site for the fan edits, nor do I think making a fan edit is fixing the problem. The problem is only "fixed" if the fan edit becomes the recognized officially canonical version of the film, sold on the official dvds, which is not going to happen. And I don't think a fan edit should usually become that, because I feel that usually a film should be left the way it was when it was released.

Whereas making a review is perfectly valid. And I don't why see making a review of something you dislike is any less valid than making a review of something you like. Criticism is a valid contribution. There is plenty value in putting time into explaining exactly what's wrong with something bad. Maybe you don't get value out of discussion of movies you dislike, but other people do. To diagnose the precise nature of a movie's problems gives some relief from those problems. And when those problems afflict a movie series that matters a lot to you then such relief is welcome. Analysis can be an interesting activity, whether or not the subject of the analysis is liked.

Warbler said:

I have to kind of take issue with that, because you are sort of saying that TOS  itself wasn't interesting or dramatic. 

TOS is mostly crap. Nimoy is great as Spock and there's some good character interaction, but the show is inept in the extreme. I don't think anybody should approach Trek with any illusions about TOS.

TV's Frink said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Um, that looks like the opening to the old Doctor Who show.

Let me try something. You Will Dislike Khan!

Working? 

Wait, the dog didn't convince you?  You still dislike Kahn?

 

 I still dislike Khan. Wait, that was a dog?

Bingowings said:

Ricardo's performance is broad in the same way that the Shat's is in that film.

It's easy to lampoon but it's also effective within the kind of melodrama that TWOK is.

I watched a mostly forgotten 1968 ITV adaptation of Uncle Silas the other night.

J. Sheridan Le Fanu boffins may possibly foam at the mouth at the presentation but the uber-mannered performances and stark production dressing gave the piece more than a touch of Mervyn Peake.

Uncle Silas himself was a wonderful Palpatine like creation.

The same series had an adaptation of Dracula with Denholm Elliott in the title role, which in my opinion was utter bobbins.

I'm not sure if that's because I'm more in love with the source material so I'm less willing to cut it some slack or not but for me both adaptations could be described as ham dishes but it was the quality of the ham that made me enjoy Uncle Silas (ITV 1968 stylee).

The same can be said about Shat Vs Montalban in TWOK.

Sure it's ham but it's ham with such character and taste that who cares if it's Kosher or not?

 

There was no taste to Montalban's hamming in Wrath. Shatner's hamming in Wrath was inept acting but tolerable, if still damaging. Montalban's was revolting. And the presence of such hamming from the two of them certainly brings down the film. A guy screaming "Khaaaaaan!" like that does nothing to improve the credibility of a movie. Nor does such a leeringly overblown performance as Montalban's. It doesn't convince. The movie was done ineptly in a number of other ways too. I have trouble sitting through it. Though it is more tolerable than the first movie, which is completely unwatchable.

Um, that looks like the opening to the old Doctor Who show.

Let me try something. You Will Dislike Khan!

Working? 

skyjedi2005 said:

The more he is involved these days he is with either franchise the worse things are, when it was just the opposite in the past.

Or if he absolutely has to still ruin these franchises at least put both the old trilogies of star wars and indiana jones on blu ray with no cgi changes, do that for American graffiti and THX 1138 too.

Then either way i will be happy because i don't have to watch shit like clone wars season 2, indiana jones V, nor do i own crystal numbskull on dvd or blu ray.

 

Then there will be those who sit back and watch the train wreck like vaderisnothayden and laugh their ass off.

 ::laughs ass off at train wreck::

Yeah I heard about that bloody Mel Gibson statue before. lol

Bingowings said:

I love TWOK but it feels more like a really good television episode, TMP may be highly derivative of OS episodes (but so is TWOK) however it is more true to the mission statement of Star Trek, exploration.

V'ger may be a threat but the crew have to explore and investigate the alien technology and rationale of V'ger, something that's lacking in pretty much every other Star Trek film.

The special edition of TMP I think got the balance between special effects and characterisation right.

Those long slow effects shots serve a purpose in the same way that the opening shot of ANH does.

Kirk is in love with The Enterprise (so we see him slowly caress her curves in the shuttle approach). The entrance into the cloud is like the approach to Castle Dracula, it's a bewildering alien environment and exactly the sort of thing the ship and the crew were assembled to investigate in the first place. Finally you have the survey of the V'Ger vessel which not only establishes how huge V'ger is in comparison to The (already shown huge on a human scale) Enterprise but also how unlike The Enterprise it is. If The Enterprise is Kirk's female love interest the V'ger vessel is a sharp gothic dragon a giant vampire bat. It is also a sign of Kirk's daring that he flies so close around it. If V'ger were a Klingon it would be like him walking around it and getting into a staring contest.

TMP is a much more cinematic experience than any of the other films (including the most recent which is pretty much a remake of Nemesis with much of the plot of ANH shoe-horned in, though Chris Pine did an amazing job with Kirk).

 The Motion Picture is the most unmitigated crap.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Spock's sacrifice had depth, but otherwise Khan was a crap movie (ok, Saavik was good, but other than that). Overrated in the extreme. With the TOS movies, each movie is better than one before it, with 6 being the best. And yes I am saying 5 was the second best. It's not a great movie, but it's an improvement on the ones before. 6 is the only good TOS movie. The TNG movies have various levels of quality, but I think the last two were the best. Yes, that includes the much-maligned Nemesis. Insurrection had some emotional depth. Generations was a disappointment. First Contact was ok. I'm not bothered by Picard getting more action heroey. Seeing as the movies all happen after the tv series, maybe he changed in character after the end of the show. People do change. From what I'm hearing about RLM's comments on Trek movies, it doesn't sound like I'd agree with his trek reviews either. I still can't believe he said Qui Gon has no personality. Lack of perception.

I have to say, Vaderisnothayden.   Your opinions on the Star Trek movies is not shared by the majority.    Of that doesn't necessarily make them wrong.   Personally,  I've always thought 2 was the best and 5 was the worst.   I could never get past the scene where Spock just hands Sybok the gun and lets him take over the ship.  It was an absolutely stupid scene.  Why would Spock just hand him the gun?   I can understand not shooting him, but there were other options.  Spock could have given the gun to someone else and said "I can't shoot him, he's my brother",  Spock could have used the nerve pinch.   Spock could have hit Sybok over the head with the gun and knocked him unconscious.  He could have decked Sybok.   He could have shot Sybok in the leg.   If the gun had a stun setting, he could have just stunned Sybok.  All of those options are better and more logical than just handing Sybok the gun and lettting him take over the ship.  

Honestly,  Vaderisnothayden  I don't see want is so good about Star Trek 5 and what is so bad about Star Trek 2.    

 

I know my opinions are not shared by the majority. But then majorities have historically been in favor of things like homophobia, sexism, racism, anti-semitism and believing the world was flat. Majorities are wrong more often than not. I never said 5 was "so good". In fact, I think I indicated that 6 was the only good TOS movie. But Khan is awful. It's badly made generally and the character of Khan is awful beyond belief, including a stomach-turning performance from Ricardo Montalban. I can never fathom why some people think this movie is so good.

??

Maybe somebody ate them.

Bingowings said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

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

I know! How annoying! Don't you just hate it when people get hung up on peripheral issues and absolutely refuse to let matters go? Geez!

Misogyny is a serious issue and deserves to be addressed. Maybe you'd prefer to sweep it under the carpet, but I don't agree.

And for the record, I'd have been quite happy to let it go ages ago if other people would have let it go, but they've constantly come back telling me my view is mistaken. It should come as no surprise that I'd want to keep defending my view as long as it's being attacked. If they'd have shut up about it I would have done so too.

Ok, I've PMed Bingowings and asked if we could stop discussing the issue on the thread. Happy now?

 

Vaderisnothayden said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

Ah, civility, thou art a gem.

Find something more original to do than going around sniping at me. That's already been done. And for the record, I was more than civil enough to Bingo, considering he was basically telling me to fuck off from the thread.

I was going to avoid this thread for a while until I had something new to add about the content of the review.

But I can't allow myself to misrepresented.

I received a PM from the VINH asking me the details of RLM70's other reviews and what I thought the satire was all about and repeated what I've already posted here.

I did not (basically or otherwise) tell him to do as quoted above I merely asked if he had nothing new to add about the content of the review or the delivery it might make sense to not post here until he did (something I intended to do myself).

I'm going to do something I've never done before on this site and it pains me to do it but I'm going to add VINH to my otherwise empty ignore list.

If I think of anything to do with the content of the reviews I will post them here but I will not comment on anything else.

 

You weren't misrepresented at all. You just admitted you were telling me to get off the thread, which was what I said you were doing.

I did not (basically or otherwise) tell him to do as quoted above I merely asked if he had nothing new to add about the content of the review or the delivery it might make sense to not post here until he did (something I intended to do myself).

Amounts to the same thing. You were saying I had nothing to add and thus shouldn't post here. You were thus telling me to get off the thread, or, as I put it, you were "basically telling me to fuck from the thread". It may have not included such language, but the "basically" in my statement indicated I didn't mean you actually literally used such language. The meaning of what you said was as I represented it. You didn't merely ask if I had nothing new to add. You implied that I actually had nothing to add and your implication was that I should therefore get off the thread, and there was nothing in it about you doing the same, nor was there any indication that I had any right to come back to the thread at any later point. I didn't misrepresent you at all.

And I think you had no business telling me to get off the thread, which was why I was annoyed (but you notice I didn't put you on ignore for it).

And let's make this clear, all this happened ON THIS THREAD, out in the open, not in our PMs, so it's not like I said "Bingowings PMed me and told me to fuck off." I never claimed you telling me to get off the thread was anything to do with our PMs. So I don't see why you had to bring our PMing into it. I PMed you (earlier, before you told me here to get off the thread) to ask you if we could both stop debating the misogyny issue here, for the sake of the thread, and I asked you to clarify your views because I was interested in your opinion. You gave me your opinion and I gave you mine. That's all that happened and I never claimed anything else.

You know, I get accused of being touchy, but it amazes me how touchy some other people are here. People put people on ignore lists for nothing. If you can't take what I said without having to put me on your ignore list then it doesn't say much for you.

Timstuff said:

skyjedi2005 said:

The best answer is to decanonize the special editions and the prequels, and go back and use the original films as inspiration for new EU material.

The modern stuff comes from the bad prequel mentality.

Hell i even prefer Jaxxon the Bunny over Jar Jar Binks.

 

Jar Jar was bad enough but Hayden Vader/Anakin and dumb Padme were enough to make me want to throw rocks at the theater screen.

Any star wars projects Lucas has had a direct say in or connection to have sucked since post return of the jedi.  I mean it might sound wrong but the dude needs to be fired from his own creation since he is the problem.

To me the Zahn Trilogy was a great era for the EU.  I made me want to see more star wars films.  Instead my childhood memories were trodden upon with garbage looney tune style characters, bad cgi and even worse 1 dimensional characters and nonsense plots, and a almost deliberate break from continuity of the oot. If there was anything i could undue in star wars it would be the special editions and the prequels.  Made star wars into a fucking joke and for what to make money?

If not for the Legacy comics and Kotor series and sometimes a good eu novel here or there i would have parted ways with star wars forever because Lucas is still destroying star wars.  With the Clone Wars cgi toon, the upcoming live actions series and that awful force unleashed and its sequel.  Everything now is a branching off of the bad prequels even the EU. 

Star Wars is forever ruined and tarnished.  Its deserved legacy is compromised, if that is not bad enough the real original films are buried never to see the light of day again, ever.

Other fans probably have developed an imaginary time machine in their minds where they can go back before 1997 and unruin star wars.

Me i will never forget.  Lucas destroyed his own legacy.  Now his legacy is cgi.  lets see if that lasts 30  years or more,lol.

 

This thread should be called erase the Prequel Trilogy from Existence, that would solve the EU problem halfway already.

Have you even watched the Clone Wars cartoon, or are you basing your information of it on second hand information? I have not seen the pilot movie (I am still scared of it because it does not look like it has much redeeming value), but the show itself actually surprised me with how good it is, especially once I got to the third disc of season 1. Even though I can certainly imagine that in the movie theater the animation would have looked like poo, it actually looks darned good for an animated TV show. The last CG cartoon I saw that actually made me go "wow" was Starship Troopers, and Clone Wars was the first one since then that managed to do it. And the stories, while some of them are juvenile, a lot of them actually deal with subject matter a lot deeper than even the original trilogy delved into, which for a "kids' cartoon" is very refreshing.

This thread more and more seems to be backing up a long running theory I have: if Lucas puts his name on something, a certain portion of fans are going to automatically decide that it's irredeemably bad and denounce it as destroying their beloved franchise. Am I honestly the only one who's noticed that it's only the fanboys who ever complain about there being such a large perceived quality gap between the original trilogy and the prequels? What about that girl on TheForce.net's podcast who was a "Star Wars virgin" who after viewing the saga in chronological order actually for the most part liked the prequels better (except for-- oddly-enough-- Return of the Jedi)?

I am not saying that the prequels are without fault-- lord knows I've made up plenty of lists of all the stuff I would cut from them, and I would rather watch the Phantom Edits over the theatrical cuts any day of the week. However, I think that 90% of the fan-rage over the sequels is blown out of proportion and mostly comes from fanboys being unable to remove the nostalgia goggles when viewing the originals, and thefore percieve them as being vastly superior to the prequels to the point where the prequels are unwatchable.

The solace I can rest in is that when the next generation of Star Wars fanboys grows up, and George Lucas's son or whoever decides to make episodes 7 8 and 9 or whatever large-scale multi-media project comes next, a bunch of the kids who grew up with the prequels are going to rant and roar about how inferior the "new" Star Wars is to the six moves they grew up watching. At that point, I'll be able to roll my head back and laugh while saying "I've seen all this happen before."

There you go again, using calling stuff fanboyism as a way of putting things down. No, it's not only the fan boys who see such a big gap in quality between the OT and PT. It's the generally accepted view outside of Lucas worshippers that the prequels are far lower in quality than the original trilogy. The prequels ARE that bad. I have studied them in depth and dissected their faults and I have carefully studied the originals in the cold hard light of the modern day and compared them. The originals do work far better than the prequels. That's not just some "fanboy" delusion.

Personally I've seen the Clone Wars cartoon and found it works far better than the prequels. It's still not proper Star wars (it doesn't have a chance to be, considering the way it's founded on the bogus prequels), but it works a lot better than the prequels. Many people who see a great gap in quality between the prequels and originals also find the animated show more tolerable. We don't automatically hate anything Lucas does. We can actually think intelligently and we're not all deluded or blinded by nostalgia.

You don't see the great gap in quality between the prequels and originals, so you conclude that it's not there and that those who see it must be deluding themselves. I think you owe it to yourself to question that conclusion.

The original films are exceptional. That's why so many people love them. If their exceptionality was only a nostalgia-caused delusion they wouldn't have become the legend they did. The prequels are exceptional only in how faulted they are (most notably AOTC and ROTS, TPM being a bit better). As for the kids of the present day when they're grown up, 20 or 30 years from now there won't be that many people caring about the prequels the way people still care about the originals, because the prequels don't have the conviction of imagination or the emotional depth of the originals.

Lucas didn't simply make new films that were of far lower quality than the originals. If it were just that, people wouldn't be so bothered. Rather, he revised his vision, changing the nature of Anakin and the emotional style of Star Wars, while also rejecting the original Star Wars by replacing the originals with the special edition. He made a dramatic break with the original Star Wars. We are not being deluded in recognizing that break.

I agree that Star Wars needs Lucas to quit having control over it or contributing to it, but I don't see that as likely. He's really fucked it up.

skyjedi2005 said:

I thought he opinion was all the prequel character are like cardboard cutouts and don't stand out as people, and are one dimensional which i agree with by the way.  I disagree with his views of avatar and star trek.  But he was spot on for a lot of episode 1's crimes against real star wars.

I did not really like Liam as Qui Gon.  Which is interesting because he was good in Schindlers List, and Rob Roy.  He had the same problem as all the prequel jedi to me.  Like you said once the jedi in the prequels were prententiousness striking poses, and i agree with that.

Mace, Yoda, Obi Wan, Qui Gon.  Qui Gon may be the least of these but still not oot concept of the jedi.  In fact he was a new character who never was outlined in the oot of prequels outlined which we never saw,lol.

I thought Macgregor did an excellent Job with what he was given to work with in revenge of the sith, but it really is not a mark against him he could not pull off Alec Guiness, what actor could?

 I thought he opinion was all the prequel character are like cardboard cutouts and don't stand out as people, and are one dimensional which i agree with by the way. 

That's the characters in the later two prequels. In TPM some characters work.

I did not really like Liam as Qui Gon.  Which is interesting because he was good in Schindlers List, and Rob Roy.  He had the same problem as all the prequel jedi to me.  Like you said once the jedi in the prequels were prententiousness striking poses, and i agree with that.

And there's a hint of that with even Qui Gon, but he's way better than the rest of them. Neeson does a great job with the role and gives the character real personality. 

Mace, Yoda, Obi Wan, Qui Gon.  Qui Gon may be the least of these but still not oot concept of the jedi.  In fact he was a new character who never was outlined in the oot of prequels outlined which we never saw,lol.

Qui Gon was a prequel-style jedi, but better than the others and superbly acted by Neeson. He was the best thing in TPM.

I thought Macgregor did an excellent Job with what he was given to work with in revenge of the sith, but it really is not a mark against him he could not pull off Alec Guiness, what actor could?

Ewan was ok in TPM, but in AOTC he was artificial and in ROTC he was bland. His character in AOTC and ROTS certainly qualifies for the cardboard cutout description.

The Marvel stuff can't be just categorized all one way. The material varied immensely over the years. Some was more intelligent and some was dumber, but I certainly don't see that newspaper strip was any better in that area. The Marvel stuff was certainly more in tune with the spirit of Star Wars than the 90s eu and Dark Horse stuff. That Marvel didn't fit in with story that Lucas would reveal later doesn't bother me, because I don't have much respect for the story Lucas revealed later. I think it's only reasonable that they include the Marvel stuff in their canon, considering they've included so much modern shit and the Marvels are truer to the Spirit of Star Wars.

C3PX said:

 

You have to admit, Wrath of Khan has a lot more substance to it than any of the TNG films.

I don't agree. Spock's sacrifice had depth, but otherwise Khan was a crap movie (ok, Saavik was good, but other than that). Overrated in the extreme. With the TOS movies, each movie is better than one before it, with 6 being the best. And yes I am saying 5 was the second best. It's not a great movie, but it's an improvement on the ones before. 6 is the only good TOS movie. The TNG movies have various levels of quality, but I think the last two were the best. Yes, that includes the much-maligned Nemesis. Insurrection had some emotional depth. Generations was a disappointment. First Contact was ok. I'm not bothered by Picard getting more action heroey. Seeing as the movies all happen after the tv series, maybe he changed in character after the end of the show. People do change. From what I'm hearing about RLM's comments on Trek movies, it doesn't sound like I'd agree with his trek reviews either. I still can't believe he said Qui Gon has no personality. Lack of perception.

Leia would be played by Keira Knightly, or Natalie Portman, or worse case scenario Megan Fox,lol.

Megan Fox as Leia? The stuff of nightmares!

Akwat Kbrana said:

Ah, civility, thou art a gem.

Find something more original to do than going around sniping at me. That's already been done. And for the record, I was more than civil enough to Bingo, considering he was basically telling me to fuck off from the thread.

Various Marvel comics got the spirit of the movies right rather better than the overrated newspaper strips.

Personally I don't care about George being unhappy with stuff, seeing as he seems to have been unhappy with the OOT too.

The planned Marvel Dark Empire came after Marvel's main run was over. A Marvel Dark Empire would have been a different animal from the main Marvel comics we know, not necessarily sharing their virtues (which were very tied to their time period). And we can't be sure what it would have been like exactly, because we only saw the Dark Horse version.

As for the Vong, Marvel's idea was just another alien invasion story, not the first Marvel had. It wasn't an endless series of novels and general bullshit like the NJO series ended up being.

I don't come and go at your beck and call, Bingowings.

And if we were to go by that standard (that I should leave because you think I've said everything I have to say), shouldn't you be leaving the thread too by now? Shouldn't a lot of the posters here, having already expressed their views on the review? Wouldn't be much of a thread going on if people followed that.