Is Star Wars worth $90?

Different strokes for different folks - I don't think you're a weirdo.
 
Mason said:
That is how I felt about Starship Troopers.
Click to expand...

You can't even compare the movie and the book. Except for having some of the same character names, and sharing a very, very basic plot, the movie is completely different from the book.
 
Henning said:
See, I see value in the cloud copy (the movies I get from iTunes have the extra features) in that the medium isn't going to expire and I will never buy another. Even DVDs don't last forever physically.
Click to expand...

And it fits your lifestyle. I've never met you, but I bet that all the stuff you really care about in this world would fit into a large duffle, ready to be tossed into a boat or plane as the winds blow.
 
Bill Jennings said:
And it fits your lifestyle. I've never met you, but I bet that all the stuff you really care about in this world would fit into a large duffle, ready to be tossed into a boat or plane as the winds blow.
Click to expand...

Pretty much, yeah. I remember out in the oilfield, there would be deckhands that would come on their hitch with a duffle bag full of video tapes. It was a mixed deal since I knew I'd have some movies to watch (we all share our movies and books onboard), but I wasn't going to get a lick of work out of them besides their sweep and mop, and maybe keep the coffee pot going.:lol: Now I can carry more movies as well as the display system around on a laptop, and carry 4 times more in basically a pack of cigarettes.
 
Last edited:
bartmc said:
Never seen any of them. So my answer is "no"
Click to expand...

Nothing like passing judgement on something you know nothing about since you HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

My own take would be no, since only two of the movies are any good, two are borderline OK, and two are utterly unwatchable.
 
steingar said:
Nothing like passing judgement on something you know nothing about since you HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

My own take would be no, since only two of the movies are any good, two are borderline OK, and two are utterly unwatchable.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is shared by many, however I have found that different people put different ones in their positions. Out of curiosity, how do you rank them and what makes the unwatchable ones unwatchable?
 
Henning said:
Your opinion is shared by many, however I have found that different people put different ones in their positions. Out of curiosity, how do you rank them and what makes the unwatchable ones unwatchable?
Click to expand...

The original is the best of the lot by a fair margin.

Second up is the Empire Strikes Back, for its incredible elegance and wonderful plot twists.

Third up is a tie between Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi. Both were watchable but easily forgettable. Phantom menace probably wins that duel since it had Liam Neeson and a really kick-ass sword fight.

Both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were pretty well unwatchable. The scenes between Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were enough to make me sick, and the Revenge really didn't have much of anything to recommend it at all. At least Attack of the Clones had a fun beast fight in an arena.

Truth be told Abramson hasn't got much of a hill to climb after that.
 
steingar said:
The original is the best of the lot by a fair margin.

Second up is the Empire Strikes Back, for its incredible elegance and wonderful plot twists.

Third up is a tie between Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi. Both were watchable but easily forgettable. Phantom menace probably wins that duel since it had Liam Neeson and a really kick-ass sword fight.

Both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were pretty well unwatchable. The scenes between Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were enough to make me sick, and the Revenge really didn't have much of anything to recommend it at all. At least Attack of the Clones had a fun beast fight in an arena.

Truth be told Abramson hasn't got much of a hill to climb after that.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, and I pretty much concur about the ranking, although for overall points, phantom might even compete for second. The advances in visuals and melding of digital and classical cinematography are hard to challenge, but the original still has a good margin in advance over previous examples, plus the movie itself is better. I don't go so far as calling the last two unwatchable though.
 
steingar said:
The original is the best of the lot by a fair margin.

Second up is the Empire Strikes Back, for its incredible elegance and wonderful plot twists.

Third up is a tie between Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi. Both were watchable but easily forgettable. Phantom menace probably wins that duel since it had Liam Neeson and a really kick-ass sword fight.

Both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were pretty well unwatchable. The scenes between Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were enough to make me sick, and the Revenge really didn't have much of anything to recommend it at all. At least Attack of the Clones had a fun beast fight in an arena.

Truth be told Abramson hasn't got much of a hill to climb after that.
Click to expand...

How can you rate the movie with jar jar binks as anything but at the very bottom?
 
JB1842 said:
Everything that is wrong with the current Star Wars franchise :D.
Click to expand...

I kinda liked Jar Jar, reminded me of a deckhand Rocky I had back in the schooner days. Tall lanky, friendly dude, not bright at all, but would do anything I ask with a great will.:lol:
 
JB1842 said:
How can you rate the movie with jar jar binks as anything but at the very bottom?
Click to expand...

Because while Jar Jar was horrible, he was just barely watchable. Hayden Christiansen fell well below that bar, unfortunately. Also, Phantom Menace had a pretty neat race sequence in the middle. It certainly bogged down some, but was watchable nonetheless.
 
Meh, unless Han shot first, not worth the $$

Now, if you can find a copy with that, then you've got something!
 
steingar said:
The original is the best of the lot by a fair margin.



Second up is the Empire Strikes Back, for its incredible elegance and wonderful plot twists.



Third up is a tie between Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi. Both were watchable but easily forgettable. Phantom menace probably wins that duel since it had Liam Neeson and a really kick-ass sword fight.



Both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith were pretty well unwatchable. The scenes between Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were enough to make me sick, and the Revenge really didn't have much of anything to recommend it at all. At least Attack of the Clones had a fun beast fight in an arena.



Truth be told Abramson hasn't got much of a hill to climb after that.
Click to expand...


Not their fault, not much you can do with a terrible script, the kid in PM was awful.
 
Star Wars is a kid's show with some adult content.

Star Trek is a man's science-fiction franchise.

:yes:
 
Henning said:
I had always kind of half hoped someone would try Niven's universe, but it would require a freakin genius to pull it off and not have it suck.
Click to expand...

RingWorld requires a minimum interest in physics and macro-technology to really appreciate. But, wow what a special effects treasure trove that would be.
 
Dart said:
RingWorld requires a minimum interest in physics and macro-technology to really appreciate. But, wow what a special effects treasure trove that would be.
Click to expand...

The rithazra porn could be intresting as well.:rofl:
 
steingar said:
Third up is a tie between Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi. Both were watchable but easily forgettable. Phantom menace probably wins that duel since it had Liam Neeson and a really kick-ass sword fight.
Click to expand...

First we have to put up with your global warming non-sense, ( :) ) and now this?!?!? Phantom Menace was clearly the worst piece of stinky turd-on-film ever made. Jar-Jar Binks? QED.
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
Star Wars is a kid's show with some adult content.

Star Trek is a man's science-fiction franchise.

:yes:
Click to expand...

In their best exemplary incarnations. I heavily stress that because there is plenty of crap from both franchises.

SW is myth, fairy tale, space opera, Saturday serial.
ST is a mapping of humanity upon the cosmos. A trek to the stars.
 
teejayevans said:
Not their fault, not much you can do with a terrible script, the kid in PM was awful.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just the script. The contrast between Portman's acting and Christiansen's demonstrated that.

I didn't mind the kid in PM. The race scenes, on the other hand, seemed pointless and interminable to me.
 
PPC1052 said:
:eek:
Click to expand...

Yep, I know, Blasphemy!:lol: Yes, as far as the story and character development go it's kinda a groaner, but the sheer visual seamlessness of the integration of digital and analogue light sources gives it the strength to compete in my book. It was the first time I thought "Wow, they have finally mastered the technique." Prior to that there was always something about it that you just had to overlook as part of the limitations of making movies, but in PM, it's gone.
 
Henning said:
Yep, I know, Blasphemy!:lol: Yes, as far as the story and character development go it's kinda a groaner, but the sheer visual seamlessness of the integration of digital and analogue light sources gives it the strength to compete in my book. It was the first time I thought "Wow, they have finally mastered the technique." Prior to that there was always something about it that you just had to overlook as part of the limitations of making movies, but in PM, it's gone.
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that is one area that was their biggest fail. In Star Wars (I refuse to call it "A New Hope"), they had 1970 technology and still made better looking, more realistic looking special effects and scenery. PM was just all digital cartoonery. (cartoon-scenery. I am going to trade mark that term.) You look at the Millennium Falcon scenes in Star Wars, and it looked like a real ship. You look at the Tatooine scenes, and it looked like a real planet. Not so in any of the last three movies.
 
Back to the original question. The thing that has always bothered me is that when you bought your very first VHS tape or DVD of Star Wars you theoretically were not paying for the physical tape or disc, you were purchasing a license to own a copy of the movie for your own personal use.

So why do you have to buy it again? :dunno: I know, the enhancements, special features blah, blah, blah but really your paying for the license you already bought.

Also, I may be wrong but doesn't all of it belong to Disney now?
 
Palmpilot said:
It wasn't just the script. The contrast between Portman's acting and Christiansen's demonstrated that.
Click to expand...

The script in Star Wars wasn't much better. The actors themselves make fun of much of it. But there was enough else going for that movie that it just doesn't matter.
 
Silvaire said:
Back to the original question. The thing that has always bothered me is that when you bought your very first VHS tape or DVD of Star Wars you theoretically were not paying for the physical tape or disc, you were purchasing a license to own a copy of the movie for your own personal use.?
Click to expand...
That was their rule so you couldn't try to legally show the film for money, or copy and distribute it. See, if you actually owned it, then you could do what ever you want to with it.



Silvaire said:
So why do you have to buy it again? :dunno: I know, the enhancements, special features blah, blah, blah but really your paying for the license you already bought.
Click to expand...
Because now they want the rule the other way so that they can charge you again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top