twooffour

um, yea, ok

Alexrd said:

twooffour said:

so we never got to know Qui-Gon that well, and he was kinda boring most of the time - so what).

Really?

YARL... wait, which part?

TV's Frink said:

I rather liked the duel myself...the whole ending sequence (the Gungan misdirection, the team in the palace, the space battle) had great potential, although it is harmed by silly jar-jar, silly and accidental hero Ani, etc...

While we're on the subject of the duel....I know some of you don't care about fanedits but you might enjoy this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CtN6_okwTE

 

You, sir, are a genius :D

TV's Frink said:

Think I liked it better when 2/4 stayed out of off-topic.

Well there's always the ignore button, isn't there ;)

Warbler said:

twooffour said:

Warbler said:

huh?  I read his post because doubleofive quoted it.   I then responded and took xhonzi off ignore.  I see nothing redundant. 

Maybe they should modify the ignore function so the ignored user's posts aren't even visible in quotes... although that'd be pretty fucking hard to program I guess... otherwise the actual ignore function is pretty useless isn't it.

 

:D

but that were true, I would have never seen xhonzi's apology.  

Yes you would, if you had your cat killed by teh curiosity and actually clicked on that seductive, little "show post" button :D

All of which just kinda showcases the utter silliness of the whole "ignoring" and "unignoring" thing, especially when such actions as publically anounced.

But hey... you know... not gonna argue about that one all over again now...

haljordan28 said:

the duel of the fates  was good  but it  was just more of the prequel circus performance stuff.   too many cheroographed  spins and  leaps. especially at the end  after  qui-gon  is struck down and obi-wan rushes  maul.

It's funny, I had the exact reverse impression - the two-on-one phase was "choreographed circus", but as soon as Darth Maul got them trapped in that bottomless pit room, things got more interesting.

First you got the fight with Jinn, where you clearly feel he's exhausted and not on par with Maul, and whisper it, there's actually some real TENSION in the scene (so we never got to know Qui-Gon that well, and he was kinda boring most of the time - so what).

Then, Obi-Wan's pumped... and pissed... but when he leaps at Maul, he remembers to stay focused and retain control over his movements, because he knows that if he just goes completely bollocks, he's gonna get his head chopped off in no time.

I dunno... maybe it's really just me in the whole nerduverse, but in my opinion, that sequences manages to capture and convey that balance between heat and anger, and focus and control Obi-Wan has to master.

Maybe it's the increased tempo and aggression of the fight, as compared to what's come before, combined with the beautiful and elegant choreography,.. not sure. The conclusion where Obi-Wan jumps up, obviously ruins everything. :D

haljordan28 said:

actually  durcell  that is pretty bad ass  too.  I could take that one as well.  Darth Maul was suich a good character  I have a hard time believing lucas came up with him.

A good... cartoon. Not in any way a good "character".

For a "character", we get to know waay to little of his actual character. But what we actually get is no idea what he's doing on Tattoine (is he supposed to track the ship? or the Queen/Jedi? or just scare them), and a lot of stupid stuff that doesn't make sense - why does he send out a bunch of search droids into the city, in hope they find the passengers whose identity he doesn't know, so they lead him to the ship he's just tracked to this site of the planet, instead of surveilling the SHIP which he'd just tracked, or at the very least, sending out the droids to find the GIANT SHIP IN THE DESERT?

Even if he just wanted to scare them for some reason, so they can get to Coruscant - the droid thing doesn't make sense.

A good CHARACTER doesn't make stupid, nonsensical stuff in an idiot plot. Darth Maul is a dumb, chaotic person, and has no character - all he has is his charismatic appearence. He's a CARTOON. And a damn good one for what he is.

I was going to give him some slack and laud his tactical genius in swordfighting but no - his biggest feat was luring away Qui-Gon into a trap, and that only worked because Qui-Gon acted so self-confident and dumb. That, and Maul was obviously surprised by the force fields, so did he REALLY know where he's going? But hey, could've been acting.

hairy_hen said:

It doesn't have anything to do with it--directly.  But it sure as heck doesn't surprise me that bad taste in one area would also carry over to another.

The 2004 mix being a pile of crap is a pretty commonly held opinion on this forum.  I have, in fact, analysed it in detail, and it's worse even than most people realise.  The sound quality is often very bad, and aesthetically it stomps all over the original sound design and replaces it with a misguided mess that bears only superficial resemblance to what the movie is supposed to sound like.

Okay, I kinda never noticed anything wrong with the way the DVD sounded, but maybe I didn't pay enough attention...

as far as I'm concerned, the "bad taste" certainly doesn't "carry over" in this case, as Grievous is a piece of wonderful cheesecamp.

I enjoy him much more than Romero's Joker, if that tells you anything ;)

http://silentfilmstarwars.ytmnd.com/

zombie84 said:

I thought Grievous was pretty fun for what he was, and he had a lot of character for someone with so little screentime, the problem was that there wasn't much room to develop him because he only was in 1/3 of a single film. Now, that's okay, but the damn trilogy is so crowded that every single villain is like that. On his own, Grievous is a cool character IMO, I think it's more the context that makes people dislike him. There were too many useless, undeveloped, CG characters with spinny acrobatics and funny voices and no room for a more developed, realistic, adult characterization. Dooku had so much potential but he ended up on a development arc that went right into a brick wall, even if his death scene was really cool.

Agreed.

Another really cool, well, almost "cameo" alien character in that film is Bruce Spence.

Now THAT guy was cool! A sympathetic, benevolent character that looks like a monster villain! But hey, nevermind giving him and his race a bit more screentime so we get a LITTLE bit more involved in the Separatists' evil planet conquering schtick (and, you know, since it's BRUCE SPENCE) - 1 minute of clichéd exposition dialog (how many times have we heard "there is no evil here, unless you brought it with you" before??) should be about enough.

haljordan28 said:

When I went to see episode 3 opening night people in the audience were laughing at grivious. I think half the audience just was there to see how bad of a film it would be compared to the other two turds.

I'm welling to bet that a good chunk of them laughed because they found him genuinely funny ;)

hairy_hen said:

Grievous was a stupid, worthless piece of shist in all ways.

His 'voice-acting', if you can call it that, was done by Matthew Wood.

The same Matthew Wood who is responsible for the absolute garbage that is the 2004 dvd sound mix for ANH.

Need I say more?

People have been known for being good writers and shit directors, or vice versa. What makes you think that one's abilities as a sound mixer (I haven't analyzed the sound mixing in any movies and have no idea what you're talking about with ANH) has ANY bearing on one's abilities as a voice actor?

Just in case this was somehow, somewhat a response to what I said, you very obviously missed the whole point. If not, then you didn't ;)

Alexrd said:

hairy_hen said:

I've never really understood all the cracks about the dialogue in the OT.  Not the greatest sometimes, sure, but much better than the PT.

In my opinion, the difference is only in the character's charisma. I like Star Wars, but it's certainly not because of the dialogue.

Well then don't pay attention...

Warbler said:

huh?  I read his post because doubleofive quoted it.   I then responded and took xhonzi off ignore.  I see nothing redundant. 

Maybe they should modify the ignore function so the ignored user's posts aren't even visible in quotes... although that'd be pretty fucking hard to program I guess... otherwise the actual ignore function is pretty useless isn't it.

:D

I don't remember what I had imagined back then, so I'll say this:

It could've been ANYTHING, and WAS nothing. The "before it became dark in the galaxy" is a better case, because we can all relate to a state turning from a good kingdom, or a democracy, into an evil kingdom or reich or dictatorship from real life, but the "clone wars" bit was every bit as lacklustre and random as the PT's equivalent of "the oppression of the Sith".

The "prophecy" obviously gets at least two fat, large minus points for a) being a central plot point and b) retconning itself in the process of the trilogy.

It was just a cool sounding cliff note. That's all it was, and nothing in the rest of the series gave it any substance or basis for speculation.

Doesn't mean we can't try to make up cool, interesting ideas and what-could-have-beens, but in the movie, it was just that, an unnecessary cliff note in one expository line.

Couldn't the story instead been about Luke's father fighting against the evil empire and succumbing to the evil guys at the end? Why did they need to have some sort of separate "clone wars" in the backstory? Except, of course, the stormtroopers were clones, and the clone wars were where the Empire took over the Republic using... the clone troopers.

But hey, still a useless cliff note.

Warbler said:

xhonzi said:

For the record, that was not a reference to you Warbler.  I didn't expect you to take it personally and I'm sorry you did.

in that case, I accept your apology.    Perhaps I jumped the gun in assuming that you meant it personally, for that I apologize.    I am of course taking you of ignore.   I see that you have PMed me,  I will respond to that privately.

Doesn't the fact that you just quoted and replied to xhonzi make the action of unignoring him kinda redundant in the first place? ;)

No idea. Topics like this should be discussed citing serious psychological studies (for example, beating of a certain degree have been shown to diminish a person's IQ - obviously, I'm a dumb idiot, so I can't cite any scientific article on that as of now), otherwise what's the point?

I was never spanked by my parents (I'm 21), neither is my 12 year old brother. I used to be quite "involved" in physical conflicts in school when I was a kid, as victim, perpetrator and/or mutual entertainment by engaging in "gang fights" (of no real serious degree of danger - t'wasnt NYC ghetto, yo), so not sure how that'd worked out under these or different circumstances...

but those days are long gone, and I'm in no way aggressive or abusive to anyone by now (sometimes we sort of shout at each other in the family, but mostly it's just mutual criticism over minor issues and not much more than blowing off a bit of steam - no children involved), and neither has my bro ever been.

I have somewhat of laziness / internet/entertainment addiction problem myself, but I'm successfully working on it and the only thing that "helps", if anything, is outside pressure to get stuff done.

My brother manages school, but spends a bit too much time on videogames and TV - needless to say, flaws like that are FAR removed from the borders of the "spanking territory". Discipline and working ability is gained by active thought, ego, motivation and resulting in HABIT.

But hey, maybe we just happen to share a non-aggressive personality, and are lucky to grow up in a violence-free environment?

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Grievous could have one of the best things about the prequels if they hadn't given him that lame-ass cough and made him into a chicken-shit coward.

Fixed.

 

"Sleazy villains" are often "cowardly" to some extent - the Joker from TDK fights like a pussy (heck, even Nicholson's in the old film), Raul Julia in Street Fighter, and I could probably name others (but these two have already gained "iconic" status in pop culture, so hey).

Using dirty tricks, being weak and attempting to run away all the time makes them less "badass", but all the more "sleazy" and "despicable", and all in all in no way weaker villains cinematically.

The cheesy, stupid cough is part of why I find watching him so enjoyable. Basically, if you compare him to Vader or even the Emperor, he's pretty much a cackling, mustache-twirling Disney villain, but as far as I'm concerned, a damn entertaining one.

I can see your point.  I still think he could have been a much better character, but as Alexrd said, to each his own.

At this point, one has to make the distinction: he could be better character, or a better CARTOON?

As a character, undoubtedy - he was established and characterized waaaaay too poorly.

As far as personality and mannerisms, again, could he be more threatening and serious? While Grievous, imo, still manages to come off as threatening instead of completely disappearing in the camp territory, heck sure.

As for could he be more memorable and entertaining than he was, if we STAY with the "cheesy Disney villain" concept? Sure, maybe, not saying he's the epitome of cheese villainy on film, but he's already pretty damn fun to watch (ymmv on that), and it's obvious that quite a bit of work has been put into giving his movements character.

For what it's worth, I've seen some snippets of CW, and I do find Grievous pretty boring there, as compared to the movie - he doesn't cough, and acts less silly overall :D

Alexrd said:

In my opinion, it's not about the dialogue (The OT never had good dialogue, either). It's about charisma.

Almost everything Han Solo says... heck, every SCENE where he is in, at least from the first two movies, still looks pretty damn fun on paper.

Take the exchange on board of the Falcon, for example, when Han taunts Luke about Leia - or when Solo is about to leave and Leia tries to prevent him. The dialogue feels alive and fresh, and there is unspoken thought and implication almost behind every line.

The "I was but a learner, but now I am a master" "only a master of evil, Darth", is cheesy cliché stuff - obviously, still delivered with lots of charisma ;)

Alexrd said:

To each his own, I suppose. I still think comparing a (weak) character like Grievous to a cultural icon like Darth Vader means nothing. Many people who don't know Star Wars, can recognize Darth Vader.

Not arguing with you there, but I'd be careful when using osmosis as a judge.

A bunch of furryballs known of "Tribbles" have made it from one silly (but fun as hell) comedy episode to being one of the most (or more) prominent Star Trek images.

Of course, "Klingons" are still better known... but.. you know...

Anchorhead said:

I just looked up Grievous on You Tube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XqKvKUTElA

I can't put into words how fucking stupid I think that is.  No emotion, no depth.  Just cartoon CGI, over-saturated colors, Transformeresque  robots, and constant movement everywhere.  Oh, and the requisite spinning light sabers.

Empty calories.

Not sure about the colors, I think the Star Wars clips on Youtube most have over-saturated colors - you can regulate that shit, and it looks better on my DVD at home. Still quite "colorful", though...

CGI is pretty convincing and photorealistic in itself, as far as I can judge.

I agree that the fight itself is lame-ass and sucks, but the dialog parts in that particular scene, to me, is pretty much on par with the Ben-Darth scenes from ANH.

Both exchanges are cheesy, wooden "cliché storm" material, and while this one is so in a more "comical" way (feels like it was from some sort of parody/comedy film) and the other one's more "epic" and "mythical" and basically takes itself as seriously as this kind of dialog allows, I still do enjoy it.

Grievous' like "you are looooost", and then this stupid-ass clichéd "western eye shot"... and then Obi-Wan's like "ohh... I don't think so!! aahhhhhh"...

Delicious. I do find the majority of the dialogue in the prequels dull and boring, whenever not downright painful, but this bit is damn cool :D

TV's Frink said:

twooffour said:

Grievous could have one of the best things about the prequels if they hadn't given him that lame-ass cough and made him into a chicken-shit coward.

Fixed.

"Sleazy villains" are often "cowardly" to some extent - the Joker from TDK fights like a pussy (heck, even Nicholson's in the old film), Raul Julia in Street Fighter, and I could probably name others (but these two have already gained "iconic" status in pop culture, so hey).

Using dirty tricks, being weak and attempting to run away all the time makes them less "badass", but all the more "sleazy" and "despicable", and all in all in no way weaker villains cinematically.

The cheesy, stupid cough is part of why I find watching him so enjoyable. Basically, if you compare him to Vader or even the Emperor, he's pretty much a cackling, mustache-twirling Disney villain, but as far as I'm concerned, a damn entertaining one.

doubleofive said:

 

twooffour said:

Grievous was one of the best things about the prequels.

Because he was mercifully short lived? ;-)

 

Delicious ham and cheese to cheer at, that's why. Kinda like the Green Goblin from Spiderman (the one in the mask, at least - Grievous got nothing on Dafoe's incredible face expressions :D).

Grievous was one of the best things about the prequels.

The fact that no one remembers something from a movie doesn't mean SHIT. 

More people have heard of Justin Bieber than Andrea Bocelli. Does that matter?

I think I've heard about this site a couple times before, but the way I really came to these forums and ended up joining them, was by googling for articles and discussions about RedLetterMedia's reviews, and thereby finding the corresponding thread here.

I read through it, a couple posts there instilled into me an ardent desire to post a.. couple rebukes to those posts, and before I knew what was happening, I had an account here and was writing on an angry rebuttal to a 9 months old post!

From there on, I just kinda posted wherever I found interesting... and that's basically it.

Having seen a bit of TFN, I can't say I got the impression of a one-sided fanboy fest, as there are quite a few "bashers" and "critics" and generally people capable of posting coherent thoughts, but yea, I agree, the comment standard here is pretty high.

Cool place!

gpforhire said:

 

Watching an episode of Spaced a few years back and seeing Simon Pegg's character burn his Star Wars collection as he was so disgusted with the prequel movies  I knew that at least it wasn't just me who though the new movies were a big pile of pants. (Would never dream of burning my toy collection though!) 

I'm not quite sure how serious you're being here, but I hope you do realize that the Star Wars stuff in Spaced was basically a big, giant SPOOF of over-the-top prequel hate and general geek obsession?

Not saying Pegg is, in reality, a fan of those movies, cause he ain't - but his character in Spaced yells at children for coming into his store and buying Jar Jar Binks toys!

Not sure why you shouldn't want to burn your toys, though - not an expert on that by any means, but from what little I've gained about the Star Wars action figures and plastic toys, the majority of them kinda sucks ;)