|
Post by brewha on Apr 11, 2008 22:23:03 GMT -5
Wow, nothing but crickets in here. Come on! We Got one! Whoo Hoo!
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Apr 11, 2008 22:33:52 GMT -5
Good catch, Dio in a hurry and getting confused like a lot of others have done? Yeah, his slip-up is clearly a scum tell. I'm beginning to wonder if there is such a thing as a "Chicago Bulls." I wouldn't know. I live in North Carolina, people! And I thought I made it clear that I'm a baseball fan! I was referring, of course, to the World Renowned Durham Bulls, of Nuke LaLoosh and Crash Davis fame.. Who got hammered by the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees. Scranton/Wilkes-Barre? Yeesh.
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Apr 12, 2008 5:24:32 GMT -5
JUBILATION! VINDICATION! A LOT OF OTHER LONG WORDS ENDING IN "ATION"!
Lord almighty, I thought I was going to go on being proved wrong the entire game, but DrainBead has been on my "likely scum" list since day two (when I posted it in my "Kat" analysis!) Molefan was right for once! I suppose it had to happen eventually, but even so, I'm chuffed!
But since I have some time online for once, let me post a few thoughts on something a little different (but not completely off-topic): the new Batman film.
First off: I'm neither a Batman fan nor a Star Wars fan. 80% of my exposure to Batman comes from the five recent films, although I've seen the original sixties film and a few episodes of the TV series, as well as the cartoon. (Which was very good as far as I can recall.) As for Star Wars, well, I wasn't born until the 80s so I missed the hype surrounding the first three films. I enjoyed watching them though - even "Return of the Jedi".
But then the prequels came out, and boy did they suck.
First off, practically everyone in the "Phantom Menace" is the ruler of some state or other. (There are a couple of Jedi, but they turn out to be the elite guard of the princess or something so they hardly count as "commoners".) Natalie Portman is always going on about the "people", but the only common one we ever get to meet is f--king Jar Jar Binks. Who is almost as annoying as backwards-talking snot-Jedi Yoda. And even Jar Jar gets made into a Senator in the second film. There isn't a single human character who doesn't speak in pomposities, not even the kid. (Well, there's the pointless orange-streaked sith lord thing, but he's mute.) There is nobody, literally nobody, that I could relate to on any level in any of the three "prequels". The special effects annoyed me (lava surfing? Really?) and the "digital filming" just added to the fakeness of the whole thing. But the thing that annoyed me most about this mountain of wasted film was the storyline.
So, you've got three hugely successful and well-loved films setting up the Star Wars "world", and you want to make prequels to them. There are so many ways this could have gone. They could have gone right back to the beginning, showing the Sith and the Jedi first separating and becoming enemies. They could have done a "creation" type story, with the birth of a civilization in space. They could have done twenty different things that would've given us an interesting storyline.
Instead they decide to give us Darth Vader as a f--king annoying bowl-headed kid / stroppy teenager. For THREE ENTIRE FILMS. Disappointing much? My point is YOU DO NOT GIVE US THE SETUP OF THREE FILMS LIKE THE ORIGINAL "STAR WARS" ONES AND THEN PALM US OFF WITH THIS UNIMAGINATIVE CRAP AFTERWARDS.
Which brings me to the latest "Batman" film.
So you basically have six films so far. There's the sixties one, which is basically a farce. There's the Tim Burton original from the late eighties, which I quite enjoyed, although Batman "purists" criticize it. And then you have three more films which get progressively worse, each one of them introducing a new "guy in a costume" as the villain(s). You have Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Two-Face, Mr Freeze, and the abominable Poison Ivy (worst screen villain of all time? Possibly.) At no point, apart from at the start of the original Tim Burton film, had I ever had a sense of Gotham as a city with all the problems that cities have - crime, poverty, etc. There's never an "underworld", except in the sense that the Penguin lives in the sewers with his gang.
But then "Batman Begins" came out, and it was (IMHO) a really good film. And the reason it was so great was because it eschewed the "guy in a costume" and gave us the "Order of Shadows" as the villain. Hell, there's not even really a central villainous figure to focus on for most of it - but that's why the film works. All of a sudden, Gotham becomes a complex, multi-layered place with the super-rich at the top, protected by their money; the ordinary people (who you actually get to meet on occasions) going about their business but fearful of crime and poverty; the underworld that's ruled by the gangster Falcone; and, brewing underneath it all, the lurking menace of the Order of Shadows.
I love the Order of Shadows. I love their history (they sacked Rome and burnt London to the ground to stop the plague), I love the moral ambiguity of their cause (they're not just some guy determined to get his revenge on the place or get rich by criminal means), I love how we only get little glimpses into how they operate but how those glimpses are so descriptive. And that's not even going into their avatars like the "scarecrow". For the first time, I felt like I was watching a "Batman" film where nearly everything about the world there made sense.
And what are they going to do with the sequel? Bring back the f--king Joker. What a pile of crap.
I'm sorry, but YOU DO NOT GIVE US A SETUP AS GOOD AS THE ORDER OF SHADOWS, AND THEN PALM US OFF WITH YET ANOTHER "GUY IN A COSTUME" IN THE SEQUEL! Let alone one whose story has already been told! Love or hate Tim Burton's "Batman", he put the Joker to rest. Let him die, and give us another interesting film, because I'm getting a distinct "Phantom Menace" feel about this new one.
Following up "Batman Begins" with yet another "maniac in a costume" story - that's the definition of wasted potential IMO. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
Post by ryjae on Apr 12, 2008 7:57:12 GMT -5
I got lost in your analysis because I liked all the Star Wars movies, mind you none make my all time favorites but I don't watch movies and analyze them. I watch them for pure fantasy time wasting abilities. As for Batman think of the the different movies (the 90's movies till current) as all independent not following any path. We've seen Joker fall into the vat in one of the Batmans and now we're going to see him with makeup long before the accident. And I'm sure I missed some important parts of your post but I'll be darned if I can comprehend that well before my coffee.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Apr 12, 2008 11:12:19 GMT -5
Love or hate Tim Burton's "Batman", he put the Joker to rest. Let him die, and give us another interesting film, because I'm getting a distinct "Phantom Menace" feel about this new one. Following up "Batman Begins" with yet another "maniac in a costume" story - that's the definition of wasted potential IMO. What do you guys think? Here is the thing, Moley. The Batman franchise HAS a definite storyline. Certain events happened along the storyline. What Batman Begins did was Reboot the system- forget all the previous movies and the build up crappier and crappier films. They restarted the franchise from Day 1. BB was film #1 thusly. And they wanted to emphasize the comics a bit more- hence we have characters like Falcone, a mobster without superpowers. Because that's what Batman: Year One was. It was an excellent comic book storyline, and it was basically Batman getting used to trying to become Batman- He had to inspire fear, he had to figure out how to deal with corrupt cops, He met [[Officer]] Gordon. This was the start of the series and it did it wonderfully (albeit the childhood crush and childhood scenes weren't warranted, but still). But there IS a storyline to continue for the series. After Batman: Year One, the next big series that the comics went into (in restarting the franchise), which describe Batman's 2nd and 3rd years of being a crimefighter are: Batman: The Long Halloween, and Batman: Dark Victory. Those 3 comics sort of frame the Batman universe, and they all deal with the Main Batman villain of the time: Falcone- the mobster. Yet, the key thing about the 2nd year of batman's career (and thusly the comic B:TLH) is that Falcone is the one that starts to hire costumed villains to try to counter "The Batman". This is what starts the whole setup of Gotham as being populated with Supervillians. Originially Gotham was run by the Mobsters, B:YO deals with Batman taking them down, and then the Mobsters try to escalate matters in TLH, but eventually by bringing in these super-villains, they start to lose control of the city themselves, as the Villains are extremely powerful, more so than ordinary monsters. That's what sets up Year 3 (Dark Victory), which is when Batman meets the first Robin, and it deals with Two-Face taking on the Mobsters himself. It's a very interesting and well done Arc, and its one that has influenced Batman Begins begins quite a bit ( Year One that is). The key thing is this: the league of shadows is led by R'as. Once he's defeated, you cannot keep bringing him back. So even though you may have enjoyed that storyline, it would be hackneyed just to bring it back over and over. Sort of Analogous to someone who likes Darth Maul, and is pissed that he dies in SW:EpI. So they're hoping he'll somehow come back in Episode II, as they really liked the villian. There is a storyline, and the storyline must be told. You can't do a film on World War II, start filming all about Nazi Germany and US involvement and Britain, and then simply NOT Tell the story of Pearl Harbor. Historians would be irked. As it IS an essential part of the story. Same case here- The Joker is the Ultimate Batman Super villain. He is the counter to everything Batman stands for. There's a reason Tim Burton had the Joker as the first Villain in his film- it's the natural one you go with if you're doing the story. However, the Joker is NOT a prominent figure in Year One of Batman. The Joker shows up only after the Batman begins to establish himself as a protector of Gotham, and thusly appears in "The Long Halloween"- Year 2. So if this film is continuing the storyline set by these comics, it makes a natural transition. The other major figure of Year 2 is Harvey Dent and his rise to prominence and his subsequent fall. That's also been teased at in some of the earlier trailers and previews. So I don't really see the films as "pulling an episode one" here, as they are simply doing 2 things at once: They're continuing the storyline that they've already set, and they're pleasing the fans out there who're curious to see the tale told again. As this Joker is a joker said to be more accurate and "truer to the comics" than what Jack Nicholson played in the Tim Burton version. That's what I've liked about the Batman franchise now- is its trying to "do it right" by using the comics as the starting emphasis, not the TV Shows or anything like that. Heath's Joker is based on one of my fav. Joker stories out there: The Killing Joke (which is my avatar and my sig). Jack's Joker was a bit campy still- with the Giant Gun being pulled out, and the constant laughter. He wasn't truly a menacing figure, just an insane one. Heath's version is a bit more... realistic of what a Joker should be- one of the most feared villains in the DC world, and one that simple exudes an aura of menace. I'm curious to see how Nolan has treated the Joker as a fanboy of the villain, and I'm hoping he does stick to the storyline set- as then the 3rd film should natural focus on Batman & Robin- as much as some may hate that idea- It IS the natural progression of the Characters and the storyline set. First the gangsters, then the Joker, then Two Face- but you can't have Two Face eventually without showing how Two-Face creates Robin. That's just my two cents on the films. And I highly recommend reading those 3 comic arcs, VERY good stuff in there, though I know Dio's isn't a fan of the Long Halloween as much as I am.
|
|
Darth Sensitive
Mome Rath
With great power comes great responsibility / That's the catchphrase of Old Uncle Ben
Posts: 18
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Darth Sensitive on Apr 12, 2008 12:33:44 GMT -5
And the promo stuff for the upcoming one has gone into Harvey Dent being a part of the thing as the upcoming 'golden boy' attourney. I just reread Long Halloween. Very good storyline.
|
|
Santo Rugger
Mome Rath
The Obviously Innocent Townie
The Rugger formerly known as Pygmy[on:BYAHH!][of:BYAHH?]
Posts: 3
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Santo Rugger on Apr 12, 2008 13:03:23 GMT -5
You guys are geeks.
*goes back to reading my textbook*
|
|
|
Post by Boozahol Squid, P.I. on Apr 12, 2008 15:22:52 GMT -5
And I highly recommend reading those 3 comic arcs, VERY good stuff in there, though I know Dio's isn't a fan of the Long Halloween as much as I am. [geek] It's a comic book. I don't expect much out of comic books, but I do expect certain conventions to be followed: If you write a whodunnit, there should either be the answer to whodunnit at the end, or you should be able to figure out whodunnit by looking over the story. The Last Halloween makes it specifically impossible to actually figuire out who the Halloween Killer is: the only thing you know is that the evidence presented is all contradictory. [/geek]
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Apr 12, 2008 15:35:57 GMT -5
Love or hate Tim Burton's "Batman", he put the Joker to rest. Let him die, and give us another interesting film, because I'm getting a distinct "Phantom Menace" feel about this new one. Following up "Batman Begins" with yet another "maniac in a costume" story - that's the definition of wasted potential IMO. What do you guys think? Here is the thing, Moley. The Batman franchise HAS a definite storyline. Certain events happened along the storyline. What Batman Begins did was Reboot the system- forget all the previous movies and the build up crappier and crappier films. They restarted the franchise from Day 1. BB was film #1 thusly. And they wanted to emphasize the comics a bit more- hence we have characters like Falcone, a mobster without superpowers. Because that's what Batman: Year One was. It was an excellent comic book storyline, and it was basically Batman getting used to trying to become Batman- He had to inspire fear, he had to figure out how to deal with corrupt cops, He met [[Officer]] Gordon. This was the start of the series and it did it wonderfully (albeit the childhood crush and childhood scenes weren't warranted, but still). But there IS a storyline to continue for the series. After Batman: Year One, the next big series that the comics went into (in restarting the franchise), which describe Batman's 2nd and 3rd years of being a crimefighter are: Batman: The Long Halloween, and Batman: Dark Victory. Those 3 comics sort of frame the Batman universe, and they all deal with the Main Batman villain of the time: Falcone- the mobster. Yet, the key thing about the 2nd year of batman's career (and thusly the comic B:TLH) is that Falcone is the one that starts to hire costumed villains to try to counter "The Batman". This is what starts the whole setup of Gotham as being populated with Supervillians. Originially Gotham was run by the Mobsters, B:YO deals with Batman taking them down, and then the Mobsters try to escalate matters in TLH, but eventually by bringing in these super-villains, they start to lose control of the city themselves, as the Villains are extremely powerful, more so than ordinary monsters. That's what sets up Year 3 (Dark Victory), which is when Batman meets the first Robin, and it deals with Two-Face taking on the Mobsters himself. It's a very interesting and well done Arc, and its one that has influenced Batman Begins begins quite a bit ( Year One that is). The key thing is this: the league of shadows is led by R'as. Once he's defeated, you cannot keep bringing him back. So even though you may have enjoyed that storyline, it would be hackneyed just to bring it back over and over. Sort of Analogous to someone who likes Darth Maul, and is pissed that he dies in SW:EpI. So they're hoping he'll somehow come back in Episode II, as they really liked the villian. There is a storyline, and the storyline must be told. You can't do a film on World War II, start filming all about Nazi Germany and US involvement and Britain, and then simply NOT Tell the story of Pearl Harbor. Historians would be irked. As it IS an essential part of the story. Same case here- The Joker is the Ultimate Batman Super villain. He is the counter to everything Batman stands for. There's a reason Tim Burton had the Joker as the first Villain in his film- it's the natural one you go with if you're doing the story. However, the Joker is NOT a prominent figure in Year One of Batman. The Joker shows up only after the Batman begins to establish himself as a protector of Gotham, and thusly appears in "The Long Halloween"- Year 2. So if this film is continuing the storyline set by these comics, it makes a natural transition. The other major figure of Year 2 is Harvey Dent and his rise to prominence and his subsequent fall. That's also been teased at in some of the earlier trailers and previews. So I don't really see the films as "pulling an episode one" here, as they are simply doing 2 things at once: They're continuing the storyline that they've already set, and they're pleasing the fans out there who're curious to see the tale told again. As this Joker is a joker said to be more accurate and "truer to the comics" than what Jack Nicholson played in the Tim Burton version. That's what I've liked about the Batman franchise now- is its trying to "do it right" by using the comics as the starting emphasis, not the TV Shows or anything like that. Heath's Joker is based on one of my fav. Joker stories out there: The Killing Joke (which is my avatar and my sig). Jack's Joker was a bit campy still- with the Giant Gun being pulled out, and the constant laughter. He wasn't truly a menacing figure, just an insane one. Heath's version is a bit more... realistic of what a Joker should be- one of the most feared villains in the DC world, and one that simple exudes an aura of menace. I'm curious to see how Nolan has treated the Joker as a fanboy of the villain, and I'm hoping he does stick to the storyline set- as then the 3rd film should natural focus on Batman & Robin- as much as some may hate that idea- It IS the natural progression of the Characters and the storyline set. First the gangsters, then the Joker, then Two Face- but you can't have Two Face eventually without showing how Two-Face creates Robin. That's just my two cents on the films. And I highly recommend reading those 3 comic arcs, VERY good stuff in there, though I know Dio's isn't a fan of the Long Halloween as much as I am. Well unfortunately I don't think I'm ever going to read the comics. And I don't doubt what you say about the story arc. My point is - they've set up this fantastic vision of Gotham as this multi-layered place with a magnificent underworld. Now I'm not saying they should bring RAG or the Order of Shadows back - that would just be pointless - but it irritates me that they're immediately going back to the "maniac in a costume", even if it IS the Joker. Purely in terms of the films, it seems a massive step backwards to me. Nolan has shown that he can do so much better than the Joker or Two Face or the Penguin or whoever. So why isn't he doing it this time around?
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Apr 12, 2008 15:42:52 GMT -5
First off, practically everyone in the "Phantom Menace" is the ruler of some state or other. (There are a couple of Jedi, but they turn out to be the elite guard of the princess or something so they hardly count as "commoners".) Natalie Portman is always going on about the "people", but the only common one we ever get to meet is f--king Jar Jar Binks. Who is almost as annoying as backwards-talking snot-Jedi Yoda. And even Jar Jar gets made into a Senator in the second film. There isn't a single human character who doesn't speak in pomposities, not even the kid. (Well, there's the pointless orange-streaked sith lord thing, but he's mute.) There is nobody, literally nobody, that I could relate to on any level in any of the three "prequels". The special effects annoyed me (lava surfing? Really?) and the "digital filming" just added to the fakeness of the whole thing. But the thing that annoyed me most about this mountain of wasted film was the storyline. So, you've got three hugely successful and well-loved films setting up the Star Wars "world", and you want to make prequels to them. There are so many ways this could have gone. They could have gone right back to the beginning, showing the Sith and the Jedi first separating and becoming enemies. They could have done a "creation" type story, with the birth of a civilization in space. They could have done twenty different things that would've given us an interesting storyline. Instead they decide to give us Darth Vader as a f--king annoying bowl-headed kid / stroppy teenager. For THREE ENTIRE FILMS. Disappointing much? My point is YOU DO NOT GIVE US THE SETUP OF THREE FILMS LIKE THE ORIGINAL "STAR WARS" ONES AND THEN PALM US OFF WITH THIS UNIMAGINATIVE CRAP AFTERWARDS. Since RoOsh took care of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight I'll take on the Star Wars prequels. By the way I love Nolan and Goyer's vision of Batman. There are indeed many powerful forces at work in The Phantom Menace (a well named movie when compared to its sequels) there are plenty of commoners that appear. Watto, Anakin and his mother, the fat cook who gives Obi-Wan key intelligence, even Obi-Wan is a student and not a "full" Jedi until the end of the movie. The original Star Wars also had few commoners; Luke, his aunt and uncle, Han Solo & Chewbacca, etc. It's a big story about big important people, it's not supposed to be about the common man. Yeah, he sucks ass. Although by the end of Episode 2 I was less annoyed with his presence as it seemed to serve a purpose, finally. They had someone in the senate gullible enough and so willing to please that he would submit the proposal to give Palpatine emergency powers. In The Phantom Menace though he is clearly intended to be comic relief, and he fails miserably. But he's been covered endlessly everywhere. "You can write this shit, George, but you can't say it." ~Harrison Ford Well, first there's my earlier point about the epic scale of the story, but in all honesty that probably isn't the issue. George Lucas is tapped into the cultural zeitgeist... of the early 20th century ( Don't believe me?). Check out his IMDb, he's a real big fan of archaeology and Flash Gordon. Maybe these particular cultural archetypes simply don't appeal to you? Epic adventures are basically tales of people who serve as examples on how (and how not do) behave in society (and in Lucas' case that means pre-war Western society), and inspire us through their deeds. That's their point, anyway, not to help you relate to them. There are different genres of film for that, and I can't really defend the film by denying that it is what it is. In fact some of my biggest problems with the prequels is where they deviate from that "1930s" tone and vibe, like Anakin's Revenge of the Sith quoting of George Bush's "with me or against me" line. They just end up shaking me out of my suspension of disbelief, which you really, really need for George Lucas films. No, they could have gone only one route if they are going to make true prequels to the original trilogy - that being the story of Darth Vader - which is the point of the whole series. Name another established character that is prominent in all three movies (I can name uh, three, none more prominent than Anakin/Vader), the the only other possibility is Luke, but his story begins with A New Hope so he can't really have a prequel. Doing a film about say, the Old Republic or the origins of the Sith would be a spin-off not a prequel. I'd be all for those, but that wasn't what Lucas was setting out to do. Bingo. They are just horribly written and cast characters. The plot and themes are fine, he barely messed with them at all. They work at explaining how the Empire is built out of the Republic and sets up the original trilogy nicely. The problem is that the entire trilogy is so horrendously cast with actors who have no chemistry forced to deliver lines written by George Lucas. There are a few who hold their own simply due to their superior talent (Ian McDiarmid, Natalie Portman, etc.) but they are rarely paired together and as such nearly every scene with dialogue is torture. Want to see this illustrated in dramatic fashion? Put Revenge of the Sith into your DVD player, go to the scene where Amidala and Anakin are "looking at each other" from different buildings on Coruscant. They have no lines. It is the best acted scene in the entire prequel trilogy. However, my "#1 worst scene of all-time" occurs in Attack of the Clones with the same actors. After leaving a gondola type boat, Amidala (wearing this stunning backless number looking absolutely incredible, but anyway) and Skywalker go up to this balcony and look out on the lake. They then deliver the most painful dialogue ever written for any media, which in context of the scene is even more absurd. To top it off, it failed to add much of anything to either character that couldn't have been done by adding a couple of lines to different scenes. The only reason I didn't audibly voice my disgust with it in the theater was the fact that the location/setting/CGI/Natalie Portman looked so pretty. So I guess if I have any point, it's that you're right to dislike to prequels, but I disagree with you as to what is actually wrong with them. Should Anakin have been a kid in Episode I? Yes. Should he have been played by a terrible actor and given lines like, "Let's try a barrel roll, that's a neat trick!"? No. The pros and cons of the prequels can be taken from one man: George Lucas. The best Star Wars movies are directed by other people. Yeah, that means I find Return of the Jedi better than A New Hope, but it also means I have to forgive the poor writing (not directing) decision of having Ewoks destroy a legion of elite soldiers. Such is my love/hate relationship with Lucas' work on Star Wars. /geeks out for exalts? //If you know what's good for you, don't get me started on the new Battlestar Galactica.
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Apr 12, 2008 15:44:59 GMT -5
Purely in terms of the films, it seems a massive step backwards to me. Nolan has shown that he can do so much better than the Joker or Two Face or the Penguin or whoever. So why isn't he doing it this time around? Because then Batman is Jack Bauer with a cape.
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Apr 12, 2008 16:47:18 GMT -5
As long as we're talking about Star Wars, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek Episodes 1 - 3 re-envisioning for one of the old SDMB threads that you guys are free to mock at your leisure. (Why, yes, my geek is showing, why do you ask? )
|
|
|
Post by sinjin on Apr 12, 2008 17:20:26 GMT -5
woohoo, geek fight!!!
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Apr 13, 2008 0:16:07 GMT -5
Just a reminder you guys have less than 17 hours to get me your night actions. They're all due by 6pm Today!
|
|
|
Post by Holy Moley! on Apr 13, 2008 5:09:32 GMT -5
Haha, looks like I actually started something resembling conversation for once. Chuffed again! TDPatriots, although I disagree about the basic story, obviously I agree with a lot of what you've said. Frankly I don't think the actors mattered, given the problems with the script and the special effects (in a series of films that were, basically, one long sequence of digital effects themselves). I think they were doomed long before the actors got involved. But thanks for the very in-depth answer - was an interesting read!
|
|
|
Post by tdpatriots12 on Apr 13, 2008 11:50:07 GMT -5
Heh, Death by Irony I was gonna reply to your tongue-in-cheek Eps1-3 thingy the way I did with molefan but after reading through it I decided on a different approach. Would your opinion (I'll open this question up to everyone who has seen the prequels) of the series change if The Force was an active player in the plot? What I mean is, in shows like the new BSG, God (often through his intermediaries) plays an active role in determining the outcome of events. Ie, he's quite real in the series, at least that's my interpretation. It helps explain, in my opinion, the smallness of the universe and the staggering coincidences that are common on the show. Anyway, I ponder this because as my friend said the other day when he discovered Jabba the Hutt was in Clone Wars, "The Star Wars universe is now officially 300 yards across." And that does bug the heck out of me. Of course, in Star Wars it's never made explicitly clear that The Force itself is making conscious decisions. In BSG I believe it does often, and in such a way that it not only makes sense, but is integral to the plot. So asking such a question about Star Wars is more about "Should George Lucas have done that?" than "Is it present in the films?" Because I'm pretty sure the Force isn't such a player in the films.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Apr 13, 2008 12:28:43 GMT -5
4.5 hours people! I need those Night Actions in!
|
|
Death By Irony
FGM
The Former Mandate of Heaven/Current Gastard Night Mod
I'm my own mind-altering substance!
Posts: 109
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Death By Irony on Apr 13, 2008 14:42:07 GMT -5
Would your opinion (I'll open this question up to everyone who has seen the prequels) of the series change if The Force was an active player in the plot? Yeah, I think it would. One of the things that sort of bugged me about the films was that there wasn't much theological debate, not even among the Jedi. I suppose the vagueness was intentional, so that everybody could read their own religious/philosophical views into it, but I kind of wish at least somebody went into detail as to what the belief systems of the Star Wars universe was like. (I do seem to remember Qui-Gonn being considered something of a maverick because he believed in "The Living Force", but again, I don't think they went into what that meant.) How much of the future is Destiny, as the Emperor likes to harp about? (He certainly put a lot of effort into manipulating events so that they turned out in his favor.) Was Anakin a puppet of the Force or a tragic hero who just made the wrong choices? Etc.
|
|
Darth Sensitive
Mome Rath
With great power comes great responsibility / That's the catchphrase of Old Uncle Ben
Posts: 18
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Darth Sensitive on Apr 13, 2008 19:59:53 GMT -5
I am in love with the new BSG, haven't seen this weekend's episode due to a date, but that show is the best show out there when on form and not bad when it's a crappy week.
I definitely have the last supper photo as my background right now.
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Apr 13, 2008 21:26:52 GMT -5
When do you guys want Night to end?
11pm fine, since we started it earlier?
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Apr 13, 2008 21:29:44 GMT -5
11 would be nice. As an aside, I picked up Year One today, so I can understand the geek speak. (My comic collection is pretty Marvel focused.)
|
|
RoOsh
FGM
Former BatMod
[on:Wanna see a magic trick?][of:See You, Space Cowboy....]
Posts: 284
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by RoOsh on Apr 13, 2008 21:33:05 GMT -5
I too am a HUGE Marvel fan more than DC.
I just happen to like Batman.
However, the TWO BEST DC Comic storylines I've enjoyed: Identity Crisis and the 52 Storyline (which won't make sense though unless you read the INFINITE Crisis and the Identity Crisis storylines ahead of time)
But those two storylines made me really go "wow." I love Marvel and I always will pick Marvel over DC, but those two story lines can stand up there as simply being GREAT tales, no matter what company.
|
|
Darth Sensitive
Mome Rath
With great power comes great responsibility / That's the catchphrase of Old Uncle Ben
Posts: 18
[ Exalt | Smite ]
Karma:
|
Post by Darth Sensitive on Apr 13, 2008 21:43:40 GMT -5
I liked Identity Crisis, and read 2/3 of 52. I'm limited to whats available at libraries, so that's kinda a stopper.
I dig the Ultimate Marvel universe, the regular one, not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Apr 13, 2008 21:46:31 GMT -5
I too am a HUGE Marvel fan more than DC. I just happen to like Batman. However, the TWO BEST DC Comic storylines I've enjoyed: Identity Crisis and the 52 Storyline (which won't make sense though unless you read the INFINITE Crisis and the Identity Crisis storylines ahead of time) But those two storylines made me really go "wow." I love Marvel and I always will pick Marvel over DC, but those two story lines can stand up there as simply being GREAT tales, no matter what company. I tend to like my characters to be fun, so Batman isn't high on my list. I don't much about Infinite Crisis beyond the basics, it seems like MArvel just has done a lousy job telling big stories lately. Civil War was a potentially great idea, with horrible execution.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Apr 13, 2008 21:47:45 GMT -5
Grr. I pressed preview and it posted. Ignore that.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkmod on Apr 13, 2008 21:58:08 GMT -5
I too am a HUGE Marvel fan more than DC. I just happen to like Batman. However, the TWO BEST DC Comic storylines I've enjoyed: Identity Crisis and the 52 Storyline (which won't make sense though unless you read the INFINITE Crisis and the Identity Crisis storylines ahead of time) But those two storylines made me really go "wow." I love Marvel and I always will pick Marvel over DC, but those two story lines can stand up there as simply being GREAT tales, no matter what company. I tend to like my characters to be fun, so Batman isn't high on my favorites list. I prefer a character like Deadpool, who is a maniac, but enjoys his work. Joe Casey's run on Deadpool, specifically issues 1-25, is one of the best things I've read. I also enjoy having one epic universe to follow. I like being able to watch characters change and grow. So I don't tend to read alternate versions of characters, unless they are one-off stories. Basically, classic marvel is big enough for me that I don't need Ultimates or other comic companies. I don't much about Infinite Crisis et al. beyond the basics. They seem to be a bit much for someone with my knowledge of D.C. to follow. That said, I'd love for Marvel to do something similar. Marvel has done a lousy job telling big stories lately (lately being relative). Civil War was a potentially great idea, with horrible execution. They just seemed to scared to do anything to permanently change the status quo. It makes for pointless and inconsistent stories.
|
|