Boba Rhett Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Well, the prequels are chaarcter oriented while the original trilogy is story oriented and for that reason I don't really believe that RotS could knock any of the originals from their mantles, but one can dream right?
Lynk Former Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Rhett... shame on you, you should know better than to encourage someone who posted a thread where the only thing he typed is "^^" *pokes Rhett*
BawBag™ Posted February 14, 2005 Posted February 14, 2005 Originally posted by TK-8252 No. Well, that'd be my answer too. But the reason for it is my lack of faith in the prequels. Given RotS does look good, we'll just have to wait until May.
HertogJan Posted February 15, 2005 Posted February 15, 2005 I won't dare compare the OT with the prequels! They're just too different. Once I let go of the 'hey the prequels are totally different' feeling, I really really appreciated the prequels. With the exeption of Jar Jar...
dark jedi 8 Posted February 15, 2005 Posted February 15, 2005 its comparing apples and oranges or maybe red apples to green apples but anyway the two trilogys are very different. time, story, and characters are a prime example. it's not that the prequal's aren's better it's just that their different.
El Sitherino Posted February 16, 2005 Posted February 16, 2005 The entire OT? no. Maybe ANH and ROTJ. But Empire will forever be at the top I think. Nothing can compare to that moment when you just freak out at the thought of Vader being Lukes father.
Lynk Former Posted February 16, 2005 Posted February 16, 2005 The PT ruins that though x.x I mean if you watched it in numerical order... you already know about Anakin Skywalker becoming Darth Vader way before Vader tells Luke the truth... I feel sorry for the new generation of Star Wars fans...
Revan Solo Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 I think it could be! It depends on George Lucas' talent.
Prime Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 As long as it is 2 hours of solid entertainment, I'll be happy. No point hyping it up more than it needs to be. That leads to the dark side...
guybroom Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by Prime As long as it is 2 hours of solid entertainment, I'll be happy. No point hyping it up more than it needs to be. That leads to the dark side... Screw the dark side! And I aggree with Insanesith. There is no way that one film can compare with an entire series. Think: Can one harry potter film compare with the whole Lord of the rings series? (yes it's a random example - now shush) I think that EP3 can compare with ROTJ. If you think about it, it would be interesting to compare: TPM to ANH, AOTC to ESB and then ROTS to ROTJ. But i'm going off topic so i'll be quiet now.
coupes. Posted February 17, 2005 Posted February 17, 2005 Originally posted by guybroom Think: Can one harry potter film compare with the whole Lord of the rings series? (yes it's a random example - now shush) Can one Harry Potter movie even compare to 15 minutes of the LotR trilogy ? Serioulsly, I think RotS has the potential to be a very goog movie, perhaps up there with ESB, but it has to be very well executed. It has to answer a lot of things and "patch" the gap between episodes II and IV. If it's well done, perhaps it will help convince people that the series really is a whole and not 2 trilogies.
Sivy Posted February 18, 2005 Posted February 18, 2005 my pessimistic side says it will have many memorable moments, including the best lightsaber fight. but overall it still wont be on par with the OT. my optimistic side says it will be the best one of them all. so far what i have seen and heard only backs up my optimistic side.
Ockniel Posted February 19, 2005 Posted February 19, 2005 I think that it very may well be but then again, I gotta wait until I've seen it then I give you the real answer, because all of your answers will probably be wrong
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.