I love the OLD Star Wars movies

[ChshreCat]

Wookies.

Wookies were awesome. Ewoks sucked.

 

[passedpawn]

Wookies were awesome. Ewoks sucked.

Woops. That's what i meant to say. Sorry Chewy. Der.

 

[passedpawn]

passedpawn,
thread got a little long but did you see the gem scrambledegg posted at bottom of page 2 itt?

Yes I did. I've seen that before... maybe on here!

[edit] here it is. lots of neat pics there. Has everything under the sun happend at least once on these here boards?

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/f45/quite-possibly-hottest-star-wars-related-photo-evar-145365/

 

[jsweet]

I knew you meant Ewoks Even still, objectively, Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were clearly significantly worse movies than Jedi. And I mean it when I say "objectively", and I am willing to defend that position philosophically (seriously, you don't want me to get started on the philosophy of objectivity as it relates to value judgments, I have a somewhat unorthodox but also relatively highly informed position, so if you challenge me, you'll get a lot of jargon thrown at you by somebody who may or may not have any idea what he is talking about ).

I think that one could make a case that Jedi vs. Revenge of the Sith is a subjective judgment call (though I still think the majority of sufficiently interested and involved individuals would still choose Jedi as the better movie, I think there is wiggle room for debate here). But Jedi vs. Phantom, or Jedi vs. Clones... I'm sorry, but any criteria which judged the prequel movies to be superior would be artificial and highly suspect. Unless I suppose you were just rating it based on "amount of crazy-lookin' **** per frame" or something...

 

[passedpawn]

I knew you meant Ewoks But Jedi vs. Phantom, or Jedi vs. Clones... I'm sorry, but any criteria which judged the prequel movies to be superior would be artificial and highly suspect.

OK, so YOU determine the criteria? Hmmm.... subjective?

OK, I let rotten tomatoes and IMDB decide. I didn't like the result. So, I put a carrot in my left hand and called it Jedi. I put a fish stick in my right hand and called it Menace. I let my dog choose.

Now, if there is anything more objective and pragmatic than a hungry dog, I'd like to know what it is.

Turns out my dog likes carrots. Who knew?

 

[jsweet]

OK, so YOU determine the criteria? Hmmm.... subjective?

OK, I let rotten tomatoes and IMDB decide. I didn't like the result. So, I put a carrot in my left hand and called it Jedi. I put a fish stick in my right hand and called it Menace. I let my dog choose.

Now, if there is anything more objective and pragmatic than a hungry dog, I'd like to know what it is.

Turns out my dog likes carrots. Who knew?

Okay, in a nutshell: Let's say we are rating cars. There are a lot of different criteria on which we could rate cars -- fuel efficiency, speed, handling, price, safety, etc. -- and while virtually all of us would agree on which things are positive, we might legitimately differ on the relative importance (i.e. the "weighting") of those positive criteria. So if we were comparing a Prius to a Ferrari, let's say, it might be apples and oranges. And if we were comparing an Accord to a Camry, let's say, then it gets even dicier, because those are apples and apples, and very subtle differences in what I find important vs. what you find important might be enough to tip the scales.

But if we were to compare, say, a BMW to a hypothetical car that got 6 MPG, looked really ugly, handled like crap, had a top speed of 40 MPH, was horribly polluting, and cost over a hundred grand, then I think we could objectively say the Beemer was the better car.

That's an extreme example, but I think you get the point I am making. I feel much the same about morality. This is why, although if you put too fine a point on it I am technically a moral error theorist, in practice I am essentially a moral realist. I guess I consider myself a "moral quasi-realist" -- I think many aspects of morality are objectively real given a few VERY basic assumptions, and if you don't share those assumptions you are basically a psychopath (of course there are many things where subjectivity legitimately comes into play, but...)

So yeah. I think any weighting of the relevant criteria which puts Phantom Menace as a better movie than Jedi are inherently suspect.

 

[JonM]

Finally watching the Plinkett reviews (Thanks for the link, can't believe I never saw that before!)

Anyway, for years I never understood all of the political machinations that were happening in Phantom Menace beyond the fact that Palpatine wanted to be elected Chancellor and needed a crisis to do so. Beyond that, i couldn't figure it out and pretty much gave up. After watching the Plinkett reviews, I don't feel so bad because NOTHING ELSE MADE ANY F**KING SENSE!! In other words, I didn't fail to grasp everything because I'm slow, I failed to grasp all the plot details because THEY were stupid! Much better.

 

[passedpawn]

Okay, in a nutshell: Let's say we are rating cars. There are a lot of different criteria on which we could rate cars -- fuel efficiency, speed, handling, price, safety, etc. -- and while virtually all of us would agree on which things are positive, we might legitimately differ on the relative importance (i.e. the "weighting") of those positive criteria. So if we were comparing a Prius to a Ferrari, let's say, it might be apples and oranges. And if we were comparing an Accord to a Camry, let's say, then it gets even dicier, because those are apples and apples, and very subtle differences in what I find important vs. what you find important might be enough to tip the scales.

But if we were to compare, say, a BMW to a hypothetical car that got 6 MPG, looked really ugly, handled like crap, had a top speed of 40 MPH, was horribly polluting, and cost over a hundred grand, then I think we could objectively say the Beemer was the better car.

That's an extreme example, but I think you get the point I am making. I feel much the same about morality. This is why, although if you put too fine a point on it I am technically a moral error theorist, in practice I am essentially a moral realist. I guess I consider myself a "moral quasi-realist" -- I think many aspects of morality are objectively real given a few VERY basic assumptions, and if you don't share those assumptions you are basically a psychopath (of course there are many things where subjectivity legitimately comes into play, but...)

So yeah. I think any weighting of the relevant criteria which puts Phantom Menace as a better movie than Jedi are inherently suspect.

Morals are products of place and time. They change with the wind. Don't know why you brought that up.

Realists are those who subjugate all other opinions but their own. I'm not an existentialist, but I am aware that there are a lot of ways to look at something... the same thing. Basically, everything is somewhat subjective.

I like Menace better. Am I wrong?

 

[scrambledegg81]

How on earth did you find this gem?

I have my sources. :rockin:

 

[MeatyPortion]

Lucas had nothing to do with Jaws IV, IIRC. It was just a studio cash-in made by a different team entirely.

Unlike the Star Wars prequels, which were a studio cash-in made by the same people...

I never said he did; I'm using Jaws as an example of what can be done without relying completely on special effects. And, to me, Jaws IV is the equivalent creative bankruptcy of Revenge of the Sith. The difference is, of course, that Spielberg didn't make Jaws IV but Lucas was content to rape his own franchise to the point of ridiculousness.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Turns out my dog likes carrots. Who knew?

The force is strong in this one.

 

[lustreking]

Lucas was content to rape his own franchise to the point of ridiculousness.

Here's the explanation why:

 

[barrooze]

I like Menace better. Am I wrong?

Yes, you are.

So yeah. I think any weighting of the relevant criteria which puts Phantom Menace as a better movie than Jedi are inherently suspect.

I've got to play the devil's advocate here... (I can't believe I'm writing this...) Explain to us how Jedi is better than Phantom or Attack of the Clones? And please, don't leave anything out. :cross:


On a completely other note, those of you who really do enjoy the first trilogy and have time to read should really check out The Thrawn Trilogy books written by Timothy Zahn. Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command are absolutely stunning books. They're true to character and environment, and the storylines absolutely make you feel like you're watching one of the original movies. They were followed up by Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future. Two equally great books that basically continue the Thrawn Trilogy. I highly, HIGHLY recommend giving them a read. If you've made it this far in this thread, you probably like Star Wars enough to give it a shot. You won't be sorry.

 

[barrooze]

Here's the explanation why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BMgegut3UM

It all makes sense now… great link!

 

[Homercidal]

Yes, you are.


I've got to play the devil's advocate here... (I can't believe I'm writing this...) Explain to us how Jedi is better than Phantom or Attack of the Clones? And please, don't leave anything out. :cross:


On a completely other note, those of you who really do enjoy the first trilogy and have time to read should really check out The Thrawn Trilogy books written by Timothy Zahn. Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command are absolutely stunning books. They're true to character and environment, and the storylines absolutely make you feel like you're watching one of the original movies. They were followed up by Specter of the Past and Vision of the Future. Two equally great books that basically continue the Thrawn Trilogy. I highly, HIGHLY recommend giving them a read. If you've made it this far in this thread, you probably like Star Wars enough to give it a shot. You won't be sorry.

Zahn books: Entertaining. Not outstanding. I was not a fan of his dialogue style. I didn't think it fit the original movies' characters most of the time. I did enjoy some of the fill in information though.

 

[ChshreCat]

Phantom menace wasn't bad. Not as good as even Jedi, but wasn't a bad flick. Attack of the Clowns was about 10% good and 90% Anakin Skywalker whining about everything.

Revenge of the Sith was the best of the three new ones, easily.

On a side note... I didn't see Phantom Menace at the theater. Instead, I waited to rent it on DVD. Not realizing that Samuel L Jackson was in it, we watched the remake of Shaft first, then Phantom Menace right after. Every time Mace Windu was on I kept expecting to hear him say "The force is strong with this one... baaaaby!" Or refer to someone as a "Sith mother****er" at least once.

 

[JonM]

Phantom menace wasn't bad. Not as good as even Jedi, but wasn't a bad flick. Attack of the Clowns was about 10% good and 90% Anakin Skywalker whining about everything.

Revenge of the Sith was the best of the three new ones, easily.

On a side note... I didn't see Phantom Menace at the theater. Instead, I waited to rent it on DVD. Not realizing that Samuel L Jackson was in it, we watched the remake of Shaft first, then Phantom Menace right after. Every time Mace Windu was on I kept expecting to hear him say "The force is strong with this one... baaaaby!" Or refer to someone as a "Sith mother****er" at least once.

Womp rat may taste like pumpkin pie but I wouldn't know 'cuz I won't eat the filthy mutha***kers.