Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I am curios though... I thought the original Star Wars was from the 
>> 1970s, whereas the film Alien was from 1985 or so?
> 
>   The first Star Wars was made in 1977, Alien was made in 1979. Movie
> technology did not advance too much in 2 years, so they are perfectly
> comparable.

Right. So Star Wars is a bit newer than I thought, and Alien is 
significantly older than I thought...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I know nobody will care, but I'm going to write this anyway...
>

Episode Three is a fascinating study in fascism and indoctrination of the
political and religious stripe.  There is some sucki-ness going around in
I-III. Sometimes I wonder if this is due to the extreme wealth + heart attack
at a younger age working on the younger ones.

Your point about the initial product from one's heart, versus the commercialized
crap that comes out later, is a good one.   I've often said the same thing, and
use as an example the clunkiness but complete enjoyability of the first Wallace
and Gromit story ("A Grand Day Out").

I think your sociological observation ALSO applies to the question of "Can
povray be the modeler for great works, or do you need a 'state of the art'
software package?"

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:

> Episode Three is a fascinating study in fascism and indoctrination of the
> political and religious stripe.

Erm... if I knew what you're talking about, maybe I'd agree.

> Your point about the initial product from one's heart, versus the commercialized
> crap that comes out later, is a good one.   I've often said the same thing, and
> use as an example the clunkiness but complete enjoyability of the first Wallace
> and Gromit story ("A Grand Day Out").

Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original 
too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die Hard.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
> 
>> Episode Three is a fascinating study in fascism and indoctrination of the
>> political and religious stripe.
> 
> Erm... if I knew what you're talking about, maybe I'd agree.
> 
>> Your point about the initial product from one's heart, versus the 
>> commercialized
>> crap that comes out later, is a good one.   I've often said the same 
>> thing, and
>> use as an example the clunkiness but complete enjoyability of the 
>> first Wallace
>> and Gromit story ("A Grand Day Out").
> 
> Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original 
> too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die Hard.)

Die Hard?! Noooo..... the sequels are OK, but remain poor shadows of the 
first film... :-(

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Your point about the initial product from one's heart, versus the commercialized
> crap that comes out later, is a good one.   I've often said the same thing, and
> use as an example the clunkiness but complete enjoyability of the first Wallace
> and Gromit story ("A Grand Day Out").

I don't know -- I wouldn't characterize "The Wrong Trousers" or "A Close Shave"
as "commercialized crap".  Maybe "Curse of the Wererabbit", but if that's
commercialized crap, I'd take that any day over the regurgitated swill of
yet-another "Shrek" sequel...

--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original
> > too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die Hard.)
>
> Die Hard?! Noooo..... the sequels are OK, but remain poor shadows of the
> first film... :-(

indeed.  And Shrek 2 is far better than the first, but 3 is lame.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original 
> too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die Hard.)

  I disagree in all counts, and I believe I'm far from alone.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original
>>> too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die Hard.)
>> Die Hard?! Noooo..... the sequels are OK, but remain poor shadows of the
>> first film... :-(
> 
> indeed.  And Shrek 2 is far better than the first, but 3 is lame.

Agree with Shrek analysis. Disagree with Die Hard. (The first one was 
OK, but I prefered the numerous sequals better.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> And Shrek 2 is far better than the first, but 3 is lame.

Actually, thinking about it, the same goes for Pirates of the Carribean. 
Hmm...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Bill Pragnell <bil### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Well, I've seen films where the sequal is *better* than the original
>>>> too. (Off the top of my head... Shrek. Pirates of the Carribean. Die 
>>>> Hard.)
>>> Die Hard?! Noooo..... the sequels are OK, but remain poor shadows of the
>>> first film... :-(
>>
>> indeed.  And Shrek 2 is far better than the first, but 3 is lame.
> 
> Agree with Shrek analysis. Disagree with Die Hard. (The first one was 
> OK, but I prefered the numerous sequals better.)

Ah well, each to their own. My main problem with no 2 was the monumental 
  lack of knowledge or common sense exhibited by the filmmakers, made 
the whole thing seem like a bit of a cartoon. 3 was good, I liked the 
puzzle-bombing concept, but it all fell apart a bit towards the end. 
Number 4 was surprisingly good but there was too much to-ing and fro-ing.

Post a reply to this message