Your movie STINKS and mine RULES!

As far as I know, I have never seen any girl in Spiderman other than Mary Jane, ever. And I have seen spiderman cartoons and read the daily comic strip since the mid 1980s, am I missing something?

 

Yes. Peter had another love interest prior to Mary Jane.

 

Yup, the previous mentioned Gwen Stacy was a love interest, she died though.

 

I was having trouble remembering her name. I wanted to say Gwen Stefani, but I knew that wasn't right...

 

I think whether one thinks a movie is good or not is subjective. I think everyone has to keep in mind that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I only get in a tizzy when someone says that their opinions are FACT.

So, in my opinion:

LOTR is an above average movie, though I don't think it's the greatest movie ever like some other people.

AOTC is a good movie. I can't say it's better or worse than LOTR. They're just different movies. I tend to gravitate to sci-fi more than fantasy.

Spider-Man is also a good movie, but not the movie of the year.

The Matrix is an okay movie, and I'm looking forward to Reloaded.

 

"No, I don't. I work for a studio, and we get it delivered here everyday. I just don't have the time to dig for that issue."

careful dehrian lest you get people like SWfan2002 and BANNED accusing you of lying. i usually get attacked with something like "what is someone who works in hollywood doing posting on a star wars forum?"

 

what does PPOR mean

 

Post Proof Or Retract.

 

OK, so how about this?

So what we are saying here is that I find something that I did not particularily like about AotC, I cannot use another film to make a contrast/compare statement to express my opinion and if I do I am labled a "basher"?

Does coming to a AotC forum automatically mean that I can not in any way express some aspects of the film that did not please me? Isn't that what a forum is for?

Lastly, if you can't control yourself here (you know who I mean), please start your own thread in to bicker back and forth. It's really unflattering.

 

No, I just don't like your attitude. You're just nasty about everything that you don't agree with.

Look who's talking!

As for "following" you, don't flatter yourself.

No, you just happened to turn up in three threads I posted in, after invading a clearly marked anti-Mara thread and demanding that we justify our dislike of her.

Not in so many words, but it seems to me that you're saying that saying anything that elevates a non-SW movie above SW in the SW Forums is wrong.

Actually, what I'm saying is that I'm sick of it, because there are many FOTR/LOTR forums out there. I don't understand why people who think the PT sucks and FOTR is so great and Lucas sucks and Jackson is awesome are here on a SW forum. I thought this forum was for SW fans, not LOTR fans. Sue me.

Is that taking the budget into account? Repeat buisness? The fact that FOTR was a full hour longer? Money is not the deciding factor in determining how many people saw it, it determines how many times it was seen. There is a difference.

Seems to me like taking everything into account, more people will still have seen TPM than FOTR. But why would it matter anyway? There are great movies that only a handful of people see, and crappy movies that just about everyone in the free world sees. A movie being popular doesn't mean it's good.

No more than the nasty posts you direct at Peter Jackson and those who liked his movie.

What nasty posts?

 

Shelley...STOP IT!

I don't care who starts these arguments, but with all due respect, please lighten it up.
I have seen you dissect and address a few controversial posts towards you [including TWO of my own in the same hour].

People will have something bad to say about EVERYTHING -- just don't respond back.

I can see if you want to defend your argument. However, a lot of people WILL NOT see your point-of-view -- it is [almost]pointless to address, defend and persuade your perspective.

 

Thanks, Christovsky.

I had just posted along those same lines.

I don't think we need thes line-by-line counter points that keep popping up, they just take up alot of space. No one is going to change their opinion or attitude because another member "enlightened" them by responding to each and every sentence in their previous post with a "witty" remark or a contradictory statement.

Maybe I should get a Mod to change the title of this thread to:

"Line-by-line retort on how you and your last post is stupid and wrong"

 

This is totaly of topic but I just wanted to tell you Shelley that your posts here kicked ass! I love LOTR, but I think AOTC was waaaay better, and since it's a SW message board the they should discuss SW NOT Lotr. Peter Jackson already had the story when he made LOTR! But GL managed to come up with the story all by himself, and a good one at that!

 

Thank you, Sabe_hm.

I wouldn't have a problem with LOTR if it wasn't being used as a bludgeon against SW, on a SW board, no less.

Lucas thought up SW on his own. Yes, he had a lot of influences--probably as many as Tolkien had when he wrote LOTR. Jackson adapted an already told story to the screen.

 

Perhaps a lot of the controversy stems from how people choose to define "bashing." I guess I have a much narrower defintion than others. I do not equate criticism or discussion of perceived flaws as "bashing." I expect people to have differing opinions. I expect them to want to discuss those opinions...that is what makes a discussion interesting. As long as their is mutual respect, I see no problems.

"Bashing," in my book is mindless criticism without any attempt to support it...or posting one's opinion as a FACT.

"LOTR was the best movie ever made and you better accept it! or "AOTC sucks and anyone who likes it is brain dead!"

That *is* bashing.

But posting thoughts about scenes you thought could have been done differently, or you felt were weak in some way is not bashing...it is part and parcel of a DISCUSSION.

Why do people talk about LOTR on this forum? Because a lot of SW fans also liked LOTR, and are willing to say so. They want to find other SW fans who likes it, and discuss it. Or perhaps they want to find out why other SW fans didn't like it. In short, they want to DISCUSS the issue! This does not mean they should bring up LOTR in every thread - but some threads are specifically designed to discuss comparision issues.


Personally, I LOVED LOTR, and I can not help but compare it to SW, because there are very few movie franchises that I care as deeply about as I do the Star Wars saga...and then, along came LOTR and it was like seeing ANH back in 1977 all over again! I wanted the PT to make me feel that way, but it hasn't. So I make comparisions to try and decide why one works for me and one proves inconsistent...why do the flaws in one bother me so much more than the flaws in the other. Maybe others will have thoughts that prove enlightening...


Posting my views and reading the views of others helps me work out issues in my mind. Other people see things I haven't seen and make me think of things in new ways. Unfortuantely, some people seem so close minded, that they cannot see ANY value in the opinions of those who hold differing viewpoints. It is almost as though they find the opinions of others to be some kind of threat. I may not always agree with other posters, but I have come to see many things in new and interesting ways through discussions with other posters who are willing to express their views in a polite and rational manner.

I don't alwasy agree...sometimes I don't even understand, but I have never called any one mindless or silly for their views. (Though I may think it on occassion )

Should I be restricted to only mentioning LOTR on a Tolkien forum (which I do visit, BTW)? In that case, I suppose I should never bother to defend SW on the LOTR forums where misinformation is often posted by those who love LOTR and feel the need to bash SW in turn.

It is easy to toss generalizations about and say people "always" do one thing, or "never" do another. This applies to silly statments about "gushers" as well as "bashers." But honestly, I suspect there are very few genuine TROLLS on these boards. Most of the so called "bashers" have deep feelings for Star Wars. They don't HATE it. They have problems with certain aspects of it and they CARE or they would not be here. And the occassional criticism of Lucas or his movies is not bashing...

 

Boy, I know what you mean. (in reference to the original post)

I loved Battlefield Earth yet I constantly get heckled for it. Am I doomed to be the only person that understands the genius of John Travolta?

 

This is a fun thread! Nothng gets the juices flowing like a good LOTR vs. AOTC vs. Spider-Man vs. The Matrix vs. TPM vs. the OT discussion!

For the record, my heart is bursting with love for all of the above-mentioned films! Even the kiddy-movie "flaws" of TPM have softened for me over time, especially in the wake of AOTC, which is a deeper and more "grown-up" film. FOTR, for its part, has its own flaws, its languid pace, its baffling alterations of the source material. Spider-Man is great, the best superhero flick in years, though its climax is a bit of a let-down. Matrix rocks, but the middle part is dull as toast, and hey, its mind-blowing concept has been done before: q.v. The Lathe of Heaven.

All told, I am and always will be a sci-fi/fantasy/horror/superhero/action fan ... but that doesn't mean I have to worship every genre film that comes along! At the same time that I love these movies, I perceive their problems ("from a certain point of view..."), and come to forums like these to discuss them.

Ain't that what it's all about?

 

Imperial_Guard,

Yes.

 

Actually, I have yet to see this "classic". I might stick that last post into a new sig. Just to mess with people.

 

So, what are we saying? If I found something in AotC that I felt could have been done "better" I should take it to another forum? Am I not allowed in a Star Wars forum to mention another film that has done well in order to make a compare/contrast statement? I don't really understand here. Open discussion is just that, open.

Maybe, someone should start a new thread:

"AotC is undeniably perfect in every way and if you don't think so, you are a piece of trash and I will become very defensive and angry with you personally resulting in my suggestion that you leave this board immediately because you do not see the truth that Aotc is perfect."

Any other suggestion will be taken into consideration.

 

Coming back to the original question....

Why is it that fans of AotC seem to be very defensive against any critique of AotC?

Uhhhh, that's what fans are for... They are supposed to stick up for their favourite movie...especially something like AOTC....

 

Annie,

It's one thing to "defend" the movie by posting your opinion. It's completely another to tell someone to leave the message board if they have any issues with the way the movie was presented. Don't you think?

 

I love Fight Club as well

 

What about "Dude, where's my car?"?

 

Speaking of FOTR I just watched it on DVD a couple of nights ago and I do NOT see the difference in acting quality between the PT or FOTR.

COMMON FELLOW GUSHERS GET SOME BACK BONE...THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ACTING IN EITHER THE PT OR THE OT. I am really tired of this making excuses stuff. The PT are GREAT additions to the saga and film critics are the MOST USELESS BUNCH OF CYNICAL AND JEALOUS LOSERS ON THE PLANET. People rag on Lawyers and yet they serve a more useful function then these jealous wanna-bees. What function do film critics serve anyway, BEATS THE HECK OUT OF ME.

Attitude of a film critic
"Humph, I study film, that makes my opinion SO much more important than yours...You are unfit to even speak to me let alone debate on what a good movie is, please go away"

More film critic wisdom
"Why don't you go back to watching porn and let the REAL film watchers discuss the merits of SW"

WHATEVER...

Back to acting and SW vs. FOTR. Both movies seem to use an "old English" pattern, the difference is that in SWT there is no English accent. The choice of speech pattern makes sense if you consider that Jedi are like "Religeous Monks", Paladine types (warriors with a religious code). The are suppose to deciplined and chased do gooders. Therefore the dialog logically comes out as stiff and wooden.

Now to the acting, I really don't see what's wrong with the PT acting if you look at believability in how the actor is portraying the characters. Is Hayden believable in portraying a overconfident teenager, is he believable in portraying Anakins feelings for Padme??? Is McGregor believable in portraying essentially a Paladine type figure, or do you or do you not feel the tension between Obi-wan and Jango??? Is McGregor portrail of concern for his reckless apprentice believable???

As for Padme, in TPM when she was playing Queen Amidala she was SUPPOSE TO PRESENT ROYAL QUEEN LIKE IMAGE (pompous and stiff). Her personality was able to relax and therefore present a more personable image when she was simply Padme. Was Portman believable when her character was suppose to be concerned about ?putting faith in a boy they hardly knew? or was she believable when her character told young Anakin that she cared for him??? As for the love story, was Portman believable when she portrayed a politician who put duty over self??? Also as a politician Padme IS AN EXPERT AT HIDDING HER FEELINGS. Notice when Padme finally told Anakin how she felt about him, she was able to lighten up.

How about Jackson or Neeson there outward personalities are similar because of the disciplined / chased / do gooder ?idealistic crusade? mentality, therefore they were wooden and stiff. Both have different motivations though, do you know what the motivations are??? And did the actors portray their written / scripted motivations BELIEVABLY.

Here?s some evidence about what I am saying in the OT, look at Leia BEFORE she got rescued, same type of pesonality and speech patterns as Senator Amidala. Look at Guiness and Vader the speech patterns is similar to old English just like the other Jedi.

All I am saying is I did not see poor acting in the PT, and yes I do know poor acting when I see it. Here?s my example of poor acting ?Sofia Coppola in Godfather 3?. She could not seem to deliver lines naturally and was not believable as the daughter of a Mob boss. The actors in the PT seem to be able lines as they are intended and seem believable as the characters they are SUPPOSE TO PORTRAY.