Huge Guts!?

DD_133 said:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

It's the Legendary Black Beast of aaaarrgggggg

Well, I'm still looking forward to it.

robindegen said:

and there's no CGI in 4, 5 and 6

the special effects still overshadow the bad acting.

admittedly, the acting in the original trilogy is somewhat of a higher grade than 1 through 3. this was back when they still pretended to have standards. we've got movies like "legally blonde" now. we're not even pretending anymore.

dethtoll said:

star wars = excellent special effects to hide b-grade acting.

In any effect, this post wasn't in regards to CGI, perse, just to amazing special effects, which Star Wars had right from the beginning. However, I do disagree with this a bit. Episodes 4-6 were just written much better, and have a better balance of characters. The characters in 1-3 are very uppity, high brow, aristocratic, and what have you, and interact in an equally snobby way, which really makes for a boring movie.

Also, not 100% of the acting was bad. I think Ewan MacGregor did a great job as Obi-Wan, even if he was given shit lines.

dethtoll said:

we've got movies like "legally blonde" now. we're not even pretending anymore.

dont even try to compare...

robindegen said:

dont even try to compare...

hooray for reading comprehension, genius

must i explain everything?

in the '70s, where men were men, rock was black sabbath, and sheep were careful, the original SW trilogy was, despite its overuse of then-spectacular special effects to hide generally poor acting, still a better grade of film than the current trilogy we have now.

why? because in the 70s movies still pretended to have standards.

movies like legally blonde are proof that those standards are now gone.

if i have to explain this further, you will be slapped.

And back to Doom...the "famous" movie Inseminoid (No dont read something awful, its a site for chavs in goth clothing, snobs and scum) takes place on a "Mysterious planet", which looks just like mars in most exterior scenes (admittedly theres very few), so maybe Oldvuiaiaiaia or whatever will as well..in fact it might help get around pedantic bastards who start going on about how there's less gravity on mars, so certian things should happen differently, all the film makers do is move it to a "mars like" planet which has the same gravity as earth

dethtoll said:

why? because in the 70s movies still pretended to have standards.

movies like legally blonde are proof that those standards are now gone.

You appear to have a very selective memory when it comes to 70's movies, or perhaps you simply haven't seen some of the more horrendous examples.

Smokey and the Bandit, Grease, and Saturday Night Fever. 'Nuff said.

still better than some of the movies that come out today.

i think star wars is great and will allways be. The only crappy star wars is episode 1. That one sux. The others are brilliant. Also, episode 4 is the only one from the 70's (1977 to be excact), 5 is from 1980 and 6 is from 1983.

I've never seen Legally Blonde myself, but I really can't see how anything can be worse than some of those 70's blaxpoitation and disco movies.

The true golden age of cinema was the 50's. Things started to go down hill in the mid-to-late 60's.

The '50s had a lot of pompous nonsense films. I think nowadays cinema is pretty good. That is, you get to see many good films, all the lame ones notwithstanding.

robindegen said:
The only crappy star wars is episode 1. That one sux. The others are brilliant.

The three movies were about the same. You just say that because of Jar Jar and company. And if you ask me, the last one was the worst, because it was the most "forced" one overall. (May force be with you, hah!)

I thought episode 1 was pretty fun when it first came out.

I was young and stupid.

Weren't the Ewoks just as hated back when Return was released as Jar Jar was when Phantom was released?

NiGHTMARE said:

I've never seen Legally Blonde myself, but I really can't see how anything can be worse than some of those 70's blaxpoitation and disco movies.

The true golden age of cinema was the 50's. Things started to go down hill in the mid-to-late 60's.

there were a lot of crappy movies made in the '50s too you know. (many of them starring marilyn monroe.) a good chunk of movies made in any decade are going to be shit.

to that end, i say some of the finest movies ever made were from the '70s. just two examples would be alien and apocalypse now.

NiGHTMARE said:

Weren't the Ewoks just as hated back when Return was released as Jar Jar was when Phantom was released?

i think they're really funny :) . I hate most stuff they did to the special edition. The original return of the jedi had a funny ending music, but they changed it in the special edition. Even worse: On the special edition dvd's they replaced the "ghost" anikin and the ending of episode 6 with the one from episode 2 and 3.

Jonesy89 said:

Sounds good, as long as there is enogh acting to go along with the ass kicking. This is Doom, not Rambo.

Doom had acting?!

lol doom 3 has... some... And it's based on doom 3 so

Shaikoten said:

Episodes 4-6 were just written much better, and have a better balance of characters. The characters in 1-3 are very uppity, high brow, aristocratic, and what have you, and interact in an equally snobby way, which really makes for a boring movie.

Prequel trilogy = before the dark times

Original trilogy = during the dark times

Think of the prequel trilogy as the age of the Roman Empire and the original trilogy as the medieval times.

And anyone who thinks all three of the prequel movies are of the same quality obviously didn't pay much attention.

finally, thank you :) . But i agree with characters being better in 4-6. But i know why. That part of the story was written in 1970, maybe even before that, and has bin rewritten about 5 times. I know this by reading old scripts (luke skywalker was luke starkiller first ^_^, at some point he was even a female). Episode 1-3 are written in a much shorter time, offcourse the base story was there, but it's still a much shorter time.

dethtoll said:

there were a lot of crappy movies made in the '50s too you know. (many of them starring marilyn monroe.) a good chunk of movies made in any decade are going to be shit.

I never said there were *no* bad movies in the 50's, did I? A lower percentage of movies were bad.

If you look at any "best movies ever" list, the top 20 will almost certainly be dominated movies from the 40's and 50's, such as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Ben Hur, High Noon, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Rebel Without A Cause, etc.

NiGHTMARE said:

If you look at any "best movies ever" list, the top 20 will almost certainly be dominated movies from the 40's and 50's, such as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, Ben Hur, High Noon, The Bridge on the River Kwai, Rebel Without A Cause, etc.

I picked a random top movies list, and none of those is there.

Fred: Yeah but it includes movies like Three Kings, Babe, LA Story and Total Recall. Now how many of those movies are even good?
Your point fails because you chose a list made by a person with shitty taste in movies.

Well, duh. The point is, of course, that most people have shitty taste. Nick said "any" list, not just lists by people with good taste, and the purpose was to prove him wrong.

Touché

dethtoll said:
star wars = excellent special effects to hide b-grade acting.

Hide?

i never said it was hidden WELL.

robindegen said:

On the special edition dvd's they replaced the "ghost" anikin and the ending of episode 6 with the one from episode 2 and 3.

That's retarded. Really. Anakin's ghost was cool. :(

Maybe this movie will take place a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

Fredrik said:

Well, duh. The point is, of course, that most people have shitty taste. Nick said "any" list, not just lists by people with good taste, and the purpose was to prove him wrong.

First, I used the phrase "almost certainly". Almost certainly != definitely.

Second, I also used the phrase "such as", menaing the films I listed were merely examples of 40's and 50's films which could appear on a best movies ever list. I didn't say those specific films would definitely be on such a list.

Incidentally, the list you linked to isn't a "best ever movies" list anyway, it's a "my favourite movies" list - not the same thing I'm afraid, since the former takes into account multiple opinions, whereas the latter is based entirely on the opinion of a single person :).

Though there is a 40's film on it anyway, namely It's A Wonderful Life.