Losing interest in SW?

Actually, I'm kind of confused about who the Star Wars films are aimed at anymore. I mean, I got hooked on the OT as a young kid like countless others yet some of these same people come back and expect Star Wars to grow up with them. Honestly, if I was just seeing Star Wars for the first time today, I don't think that I'd really be as interested, if at all.

 

That quiz thing:

#1 f) d and e
#2 b) I've never met a black guy who was amphibious or said "Mesa"
#3 b) if I take my Xanax and Risperdal, can I be moved out of the lock-down ward?

 

*SIGH*
it seems to me that some ppl are send here by the media , to bash our boards

just my 2 cents

 

Should I repost my last post in essay form and check the spelling to make it easier to choke down?
I thought I had very valid points. Better than the same-old box office boxings anyway.
Another thing about box office takes tat no one's taking into consideration. Back then, no VCRs. When it was in the theater, that was it. No seeing it three times and then saying 'that's enough. I'll wait for the video.' People who only liked ANH enough to see it three times today saw it fifteen times when it was actually out. Then you also have to round in repeated reopenings. And the special editions which not only played to the old generation, but also the new.
TPM doing what it did was down-right amazing. Course, it didn't hurt that it was second only to the Second Coming in terms of expectations so even if someone didn't like SW, they'd go to see it to see what all the fuss was about (and subsequently get disappointed when they saw it was just a movie). I myself only saw TPM 4 times. Not because I didn't like it, but because I figured I could now tide myself over until the video.
When watching it on video I realized I wanted to see certain parts on the big screen again. But too bad so sad, it wouldn't be rereleased at the theaters. If it is, not until after e3 when the rerelease them all.
I learned my lesson for AotC, so I saw it as many times as I could and soaked in all the good parts like the end battle, confession, chase, and siesmic charges, Yoda fight, etc. None of those will be as good on the small screen.

 

THe Elf Queen Scene was awesome. Tell me you wanted to get down on your knees and worship in her reign of "Love/Terror." Man that scene was so beyond anything that Padme could conjure. Cate Blanchett is a goddess.

Anyway, that scene was damn important: Had you seen a major player in Middle Earth tempted by the Ring up until that point? Bilbo was just a little hobbit. But, Blanchett? She's the stronghold of the Elves. Should tell you something. And, yes, there had to be a lot of Frodo Warnings. Just you wait and see what happens to him!

 

Oh man I hope you are not talking about that scene when the chick starts rambling about som nonsense in some funky tounge. That was one of the most cringe inducing scenes I've had to witness in some time. I really didn't like that movie. It was dull to me. As for Spidey I enjoyed it but I only needed to see it once. I won't bash it cause it wasn'tbad at all. It's no SW but what is? Honestly, when people ask you what your favorite movie is, do you also answer Well not including the SW movies it's.......?

 

WTF, Lord Of The Rings was brilliant, I love Star Wars but that movie just crushed TPM and AOTC and believe me, that's really hard for me to admit. When Ep.1 was about to be released I watched every TV clip related to it, read every article published that I could get my hands on, but now I'm more interested in seeing The Two Towers than EpIII. I don't hate the PT but LOTR seems more of what I was expecting the PT to be.

 

Hey man opinions are like......well you can see where this is going. Anyway I don't care if I was the only person on the planet that didn't like LOTBorings that ain't gonna change my mind that I found it to be a butt numbing tedious 3 hrs. I'm not going to buy the even longer dvd or see the other sequels unless my girlfriend who likes it and dragged me to see the first one does it again. And of course that means I'll heave to get some sort of compensation
afterwards.

 

THe Elf Queen Scene was awesome. Tell me you wanted to get down on your knees and worship in her reign of "Love/Terror."


No, I wanted to get a Ringwraith's sword and pull an "O.J." with it on the Queen

 

LMAO@rsterling78!
keep up the good work! you bring to levity to threads that have none!

 

I'm afraid to read the rest of this thread but I will say

LOL @ Import_Jedi

I wasn't expecting that out of Galadriel, after what I had read of her in the books. Still a very good movie though.

 

Well I guess I'm an oddity, I love Lord of the Rings and Star Wars just about equally

Which means, both a LOT A LOT A LOT.

I get confused by people who say one "blows the other out of the water", I mean come on, they are about as different from each other as it gets.

I'd be terrified if the new Star Wars movies were remotely like LOTR, same vice-versa.

 

I don't hate the PT but LOTR seems more of what I was expecting the PT to be

Why anyone would want the PT to be similar to LOTR I have no idea. LOTR is nothing like the OT, but people still love those, now people demand Star Wars be like LOTR insted of sticking to whats made it successful.

 

Exactamundo.

 

I finally make a worthwhile post and nobody reads the darn thing
I'm sticking to lame jokes from now on

 

"Why anyone would want the PT to be similar to LOTR I have no idea. LOTR is nothing like the OT, but people still love those, now people demand Star Wars be like LOTR insted of sticking to whats made it successful."

actually they are VERY similar... they are both fantasies in fantastic worlds of epic proportions, both come from the world of myth and mythology, they contain all the same story elements, i can go on and on.

im actually kind of baffled at how one doesnt see the similarites.

 

Well Wascally Droid, I read your post and liked it! Made sense to me

 

I think part of the problem is that there are alot of special effects driven movies out nowadays. The novelty of SW is wearing off. You have to give credit where it is due, some of these movies are very good. Some just look cool, and have no story.

Younger people don't realize how original and special the original trilogy was. If their first exposure to SW in theatres was TPM, you can see how the reaction could be, "I don't see what the big deal is."

One other thing is that overall movie-going, combined with DVD and VHS rental/retail just saturates us in movie-related detritus. Finding gems that stand the test of time and create hardcore fans is just getting more and more difficult.

 

Yes! FOTR, while good, was a bit boring in parts and completely overused CGI (like the Elf Queen scene some guy mentioned and the bit where Bilbo turns evil). If Peter Jackson had the imagination of Lucas he'd let the actors convey the emotion, not CGI. Imagine if before Anakin killed the Tuskens his eyes turned red and he grew fangs! Prequel-bashers would never stop complaining about it

 

So FOTR overused CGI?

Let's see

FOTR. Total number of digital effect shots 512 (according to WETA)
AOTC. Total number of digital effect shots: over 2,000 according to McCallum

And all this despite the fact that FOTR was an hour longer

 

Tukafo

Yes, AOTC has more CGI shots, but look at the locations needed in FOTR, and then look at AOTC. Not so smart now, are ya.

 

I agree totally that the locations for FOTR were much easier to pick as Middle-Earth is supposed to be an ancient form of Europe so there's no fundamental difference in the landscape to what we have at present.

However even SW films use landscapes that are existing on Earth

Tatooine - a desert planet. Can be easily filmed on location without digital deserts
Dagobah - a swamp
Hoth - ice, snow etc.
Naboo - no unusual landscapes here either
Kamino - the sea. While possible to film this on location it would be too expensive to build such a set in a real ocean or a gigantic watertank (The Abyss). CGI makes sense here. However I'm not sure such a scenery was required at all in the film. Why have a planet that's entirely an ocean? Only because ILM had some nice water effects shots left from their work on "perfect Storm"?
Endor - nothing unusual here either
Geonosis - same as Tatooine, all desert (from what we see in the film)
Coruscant - can only be done in CGI or by using a model set the size of New Mexico

The bottom line is - Star Wars films use almost always sceneries or landscapes that DO exist on our planet. So the overuse of CGI doesn't make sense. Lucas uses CG landscapes purely for reasons of a) more control and b) cheaper than location work

If Lucas had filmed FOTR he would have created every landscape digitally, don't you think?

 

Tukafo, stop digging yourself into a hole

The places you mentioned were from the entire trilogy. You just proved beyond a doubt that Lucas DOESN'T over use CGI. Read what you wrote and you will see this. The places you mentioned that didn't require CGI didn't have CGI and were shot at location. Then, the places you said needed CGI were shot with CGI. So you just contradicted yourself.

 

no , I didn't

Lucas uses CGI for ALL locations in AOTC (not all the time but in many many shots)

Countless shots of Tatooine were done with CGI
Geonosis was practically entirely CGI or Matte
Extensive use of CGI on Naboo (waterfall, hills etc.)
etc.

All those locations EXIST on earth and could have been used

 

Tukafo, you have done it again.

"Lucas uses CGI for ALL locations in AOTC (not all the time but in many many shots)"

LOTR uses CGI for all locations too. But AOTC shot Tatooine at Tunisia. I know some of it was CGI, but thats to give an other worldly feel, and it worked. Star Wars is much more fantastical than LOTR, so it needs more CGI. But that doesn't mean it is over used.

Naboo was shot on location in Italy, but to achieve a greater atmosphere CGI was used to spruce up the background. They were still in Italy, but just made a few tweaks. So, fight back Tukafo, but read your posts before you post them.