>> From an entertainment perspective, they are rather 
>> dissapointing - especially when compared to the originals.
> 
>   Even though I'm of the right age, I still managed to mostly miss all the
> Star Wars phenomenon. Thus I didn't have too many expectations about the
> newer movies, and IMO they were quite enjoyable.
> 
>   To tell you the truth, I don't really like the original trilogy
> (currently known as episodes 4-6), especially not the first movie.
> It has some interesting ideas, but it's not profound enough to raise
> enough interest in my opinion. Technically it sucks. It sucks even
> compared to other, better movies of the era (Alien being a prime example).
> 
>   It's not that I dislike all movies of the late 70's, early 80's because
> they aren't technically comparable to current movies. There are, in fact,
> many movies of that era which I think are true masterpieces, and others
> which are simply good. Alien I already mentioned. Other examples include
> The Thing, An American Werewolf in London, The Exorcist, and perhaps the
> best of them all, The Shining.
> 
>   The Star Wars movies, especially the first one... I just don't like it.

Well, in that case I think we can conclude that you simply look for a 
different thing in a movie than I do. ;-) (Most of the films you 
mention, I wouldn't enjoy at all...)

I am curios though... I thought the original Star Wars was from the 
1970s, whereas the film Alien was from 1985 or so?

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

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> I know nobody will care, but I'm going to write this anyway...
> 
> 	You write something this long and *don't* post it to your blog? What is
> wrong with you?<G>
> 
> 	Usually, if I write something that long, I'd like to keep a permanent
> copy somewhere...

Oh yeah, I'l likely to upload a copy there as well... ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:51:23 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> From an entertainment perspective, they are rather dissapointing -
>> especially when compared to the originals.
> 
>   Even though I'm of the right age, I still managed to mostly miss all
>   the
> Star Wars phenomenon. Thus I didn't have too many expectations about the
> newer movies, and IMO they were quite enjoyable.
> 
>   To tell you the truth, I don't really like the original trilogy
> (currently known as episodes 4-6), especially not the first movie. It
> has some interesting ideas, but it's not profound enough to raise enough
> interest in my opinion. Technically it sucks. It sucks even compared to
> other, better movies of the era (Alien being a prime example).
> 
>   It's not that I dislike all movies of the late 70's, early 80's
>   because
> they aren't technically comparable to current movies. There are, in
> fact, many movies of that era which I think are true masterpieces, and
> others which are simply good. Alien I already mentioned. Other examples
> include The Thing, An American Werewolf in London, The Exorcist, and
> perhaps the best of them all, The Shining.
> 
>   The Star Wars movies, especially the first one... I just don't like
>   it.

Star Wars (the 'first' movie made in the series) had some really 
groundbreaking effects for the time period; IIRC, they were one of the 
first to use chroma-key effects and large matte paintings to flesh out a 
background.

Alien came after Star Wars (2 years later, in 1979; "A New Hope" was 
released in '77); no argument from me that the creature effects in Alien 
were much better; Stan Winston Studios have many very gifted artists 
there, something Lucas didn't have for his creature effects.

The thing that Lucas did right in the original Star Wars trilogy (the one 
from the 70's and 80's) is built an ensemble cast that worked well 
together.  He really didn't seem to do that in the newer episodes, and 
that left the acting very stilted and essentially those movies had no 
real soul the way the first three did.

I have to admit, though, I liked episode 3, if only because it *had* to 
have a dark ending.  I absolutely hated the ending of Return of the 
Jedi.  Sith had a much better ending, even though it was entirely 
predictable because episode 4 had been made decades prior to its release.

So I'd agree with Andy's initial assessment about eps 1-3 - they sucked.  
But I'd also disagree with his assessment about the "special editions" - 
those also sucked, because Lucas took something that was iconic and 
messed with it.  Even though the changes were *technically* better, you 
don't mess with something that is generally considered iconic.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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