|
Shanty posted:And that other droid behind it doing a double take. These guys are scared out of their minds. I never noticed that until just now. Wow. Basically super battle droids think they're better than regular battle droids, and treat them as cannon fodder. I mean, in their minds, how could they not think they're better? They're called super battle droids!
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
In their minds, lol. This loving retard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Is it just me, or is he also drilling one of his own guys in the back after bashing the wounded droid? Check where he gets shot as he walks into the bigger guys line of fire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
If droids could think, we wouldn't be here, would we?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
I can't get over how outraged rear end Catchum is that the rules of a fictional fantasy universe are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I can't get over how outraged rear end Catchum is that the rules of a fictional fantasy universe are wrong. Whoah now! Don't go assigning him personhood, he's just words on a screen that sometimes seem to indicate a consciousness could have generated them. Be careful!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
The prequels are better than The Lord Of The Rings. The robots, like R2D2 and C3PO, have distinct personalities despite being mass-produced. The same is true of the orks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:a consciousness could have generated them incorrect
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Are droids people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Are droids people? Yes, unlike Orcs, who are merely so much animate mud. Seriously hosed up for Peter Jackson to invent a whole species of non-persons who're only fit to be killed, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The prequels are better than The Lord Of The Rings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
temple posted:Better what? better movies
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:They're literally birthed from subterranean factories, under the oversight of Christopher Lee. This is a good observation. The brutish, steel-chested battle droids emerge from out of red-tinged openings in the earth leading up from hellish, subterranean spawning caverns, while the pure, white-clad clones descend from the sky messianically in a blaze of angelic light:   Yet another fantastic use of color and associational imagery by one George Walton Lucas, Esq.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:better movies Lord no.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
yeah just look at all those oscars the prequels won also their vastly lower RT critic and audience scores
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
I'm not sure I can buy Star Wars as better than Lord of the Rings - have to give it some thought - but thisPhi230 posted:yeah just look at all those oscars the prequels won
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I'm not sure I can buy Star Wars as better than Lord of the Rings - have to give it some thought - but this It's easier for me to make that claim, but that's as much because I found the Lords of the Rings movies to be largely dull as anything else. Edit: dull might not quite be the right word. It's more the films were too drat long. Schwarzwald fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:yeah just look at all those oscars the prequels won Dude. Come on. I mean, how? How can you be like this? How can you make this post and not realize the folly inherent in it? And how can you keep doing it over and over again? RBA Starblade posted:Lord no. It's true. Almost everything interesting about the LOTR movies comes from its source material, and yet it never manages to measure up to that source material. They're mostly well-executed big-budget literary adaptations (with some frustrating flaws that become increasingly more apparent as the trilogy goes on) that are groundbreaking only in the sense that they did a thoroughly decent and commendable job with the absolutely incredible story, characters, and imagery that were handed to them on a silver platter by Tolkien and Ted Nasmith. Andy Serkis's Gollum is the one thing that stands out as truly remarkable. But they gently caress up Gollum's arc in the end anyway by removing his defining moment of near total repentance and minimizing the role of Sam's lack of mercy shown towards him in his ultimate reversion to evil, which has got to be one of the worse squanderings of a cinematically historic performance in a film that I've ever seen. The Eye of Sauron imagery in the films is another thing that stands out as rising above all the rest of the material (no pun intended), except when it goes from being quick abstract flashes of brooding evil overlaid with Satanic whispering in Frodo's mind to being a literal fire-ball on top of a tower that shoots sight-line laser beams across the countryside. Otherwise, the LOTR movies just aren't anything special or ground-breaking cinematographically or storytelling-wise. Mostly, they're just riddled with mawkish cliché and a lack of intellectual curiosity about their own themes and characters, which are simplistic in a way which can only be overcome by the added cultural and ideological context provided by Tolkien's necessarily voluminous novel, a separate and much superior work. I think the LOTR films will be remembered by future generations primarily for their pop cultural impact and technological achievements, while the prequels will be remembered as being unappreciated in their time for their unparalleled breadth of imagination and sheer ambition in terms of thematic depth, literary aspiration, and experimental storytelling techniques in a mainstream family space adventure movie. You see this already now. No one has anything to say about the Lord of the Rings movies thirteen year down the line that hasn't already been said. People are still discovering new good things to say about the prequels and more than one serious, respectable film critic (that is, as opposed to a loud-mouthed YouTube personality) has hailed them as being among the most interesting and most original artistic achievements of the most recent generation. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:It's easier for me to make that claim, but that's as much because I found the Lords of the Rings movies to be largely dull as anything else. The first two are epic in a classical, ponderous and weighty, sense which makes them quite long but Return of the King is just seemingly unwilling to ever end. Even AotC which is the most stuffed of 7 main-line Star Wars films is constantly moving, its just it has seemingly too much ground to cover which makes it take too long to resolve itself. Thinking back on it, there is only one Lord of the Rings scene I genuinely really like while the Phantom Menace has two by itself so hrm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:yeah just look at all those oscars the prequels won i agree that shakespeare in love was the best movie of 1998 RBA Starblade posted:Lord no. the LOTR movies are good fun and pretty rad but in what way are they better than the prequels? score? plotting? special effects? cinematography? performances? i would posit that hayden christiansen and ian mcdiarmid put in better turns in the prequels than do, say, orlando bloom and john rhys davies in LOTR also say what you want about the prequels but at no point are they ponderous in pace like ROTK is i want to just put this out there that it couldn't possibly matter less which series is better and I don't care that much but I don't think the prequels should be dismissed in comparison in such a facile way
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
I don't really like the LotR movies myself but Lost in Translation totally deserved the Oscar over Return of the King. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Yes, unlike Orcs, who are merely so much animate mud. Orcs are twisted elves. They have a soul and it is elven. When they die, their soul waits in the same room as all the other elves. Just because they are evil, doesn't rob them of having a soul. When a droid ceases to function, it's tossed in the garbage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:When a droid ceases to function, it's tossed in the garbage. Princess Leia leaps into the garbage herself. Does she have a soul?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Orcs are twisted elves. They have a soul and it is elven. When they die, their soul waits in the same room as all the other elves. Just because they are evil, doesn't rob them of having a soul. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rtu1Va-dnM
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Yeah, if I had to choose between rewatching all 3 Star Wars prequels or all 3 LOTR movies it'd be the prequels in a heartbeat. They're much more interesting, especially the production design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
LotR does have a really intricate soundtrack. It's really great on that level: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7BkmF8CJpQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Lotr and the Hobbits are good movies, but def less so than the star wars. If we were to switch to books however, then it's the opposite case, by a much wider margin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 03:56
|
|
|
Jackson's Hobbit is the only one of these four trilogies I'd call bad, and even then it's an enjoyable bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:LotR does have a really intricate soundtrack. It's really great on that level: Yes, that's another thing. The music for the LOTR films is fantastic for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Which series has the better rip offs?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Does Eragon counts as a LOTR or Star Wars ripoff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Does Eragon counts as a LOTR or Star Wars ripoff? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Waffles Inc. posted:i agree that shakespeare in love was the best movie of 1998 I want to just say "everything" but I don't know how to make it sound earnest and not like a shitpost. I love those movies. quote:Yeah, if I had to choose between rewatching all 3 Star Wars prequels or all 3 LOTR movies it'd be the prequels in a heartbeat. They're much more interesting, especially the production design. Please do not put the LOTR films on in front of me right now, I can't not watch them and I have a lot to do. RBA Starblade fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Jackson's Hobbit is the only one of these four trilogies I'd call bad, and even then it's an enjoyable bad. Yeah, they have too many  moments to be truly bad, but they really stretch out the plot worse than lotr. I'm not entirely sure how to feel about them, for every awesome thing (transform your child into crossbow!) there is something terribly lame (the dwarf-elf not-romance)Definitely need to revisit them sometime when I have like 12 hours to kill
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:25
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Jackson's Hobbit is the only one of these four trilogies I'd call bad, and even then it's an enjoyable bad. Agreed. I definitely still like and enjoy all the LOTR movies, they're just not near the top of my list in any category and I'd rather just read the books. And I can't speak for most of The Hobbit trilogy. I saw the first one and didn't really like it so I didn't bother with the rest. I think I may be violating the infamous contrarian CineD hivemind on that one? Oh well, hopefully I'll be fine. As long as I don't bring up the fact that I don't really believe in Death of the Author and think this banner is kind of obnoxious. Detective No. 27 posted:Which series has the better rip offs? Star Wars has The Force Awakens. The Lord of the Rings has Willow. Willow features Val Kilmer playing a cross-dressing Aragorn. Point goes to...  The Lord of the Rings. The Lord of the rings has the better rip-offs. (Everyone should watch Willow by the way. It's just delightful.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it's a ripoff of anything, but a lot of people where I lived went crazy for Cave of The Golden Roses back in the 1990s. It's by the same guy who directed the Demon movies, Lamberto Bava.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
The LOTR movies are better than the prequels. However, the Hobbit movies are much worse than the prequels.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:imagery that were handed to them on a silver platter by ... Ted Nasmith. Thank you for this, I've never seen these before. The movie's got a great balrog, though. Maybe it was just to hide the early 2000s CGI, but there's all this smoke and fire and the fire's lighting up the smoke, so the balrog is just this big, loosely defined shadowy figure in the midst of it. At least from what I remember, it's been awhile since I watched the movie, but I remember not getting a clear look at the balrog. Nasmith's balrog has a lot of similar imagery going on, but the balrog is depicted very clearly. edit: Nevermind, those elements are all taken from various paintings by John Howe. Oh well. ThePlague-Daemon fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Oct 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:The LOTR movies are better than the prequels. However, the Hobbit movies are much worse than the prequels. The Hobbit films and the PT both take audience expectations into consideration. The difference is that the PT delivered a story that audiences definitely weren't expecting, while the Hobbit films made a story that audiences wanted and longed for. Like really, the appeal of the LOTR films were special effects and large scale battles. The Hobbit films definitely provided that in spades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
Pretty sure the appeal of LOTR wasn't just the large scale battles I mean, maybe some mouth breathing prequelites liked them for similar shallow reasons... The Hobbit was poo poo. But I'm talking about LOTR. Timeless films. Nobody remembers the prequels except in a way to either bash them, which is the true way, or to try and defend them or otherwise say "theyre not bad!!!!" protip, if one of the only talking points you have is not how GOOD something is but rather how NOT BAD something is (IE defending something that cannot be defended) then maybe that thing is just...bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 05:24
|
|