Sith lord 826 Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 I am doing the first four episodes only
MachineCult Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 I am doing the first four episodes only Yeah, why? It's kinda stupid.
Commander Obi-Wan Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Maybe because he wants to see what your favourite it outta the first four episodes. Episode III ftw.
Sith lord 826 Posted March 28, 2006 Author Posted March 28, 2006 I have seen all six I am just choosing the first four
Genral O Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Maybe because he wants to see what your favourite it outta the first four episodes. Episode III ftw. Commander Obi-Wan is right.Sith lord 832 told me he wanted to see what was everyone's favorite episode out of the 4!I voted for episode lll.
MachineCult Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Well III is clearly the best out the first four, IV is the worst IMO.
Darth Andrew Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 IV is the worst IMO.Why? It's my fave, and compared to the prequels, all of the actors deserve Oscars.
MachineCult Posted March 28, 2006 Posted March 28, 2006 Why? It's my fave, and compared to the prequels, all of the actors deserve Oscars. I'm allowed an opinion, it's my least fave, I think the acting isn't that great and the whole thing is just poor compared to the other films. I think that the acting in the PT is good, especially in ROTS, I wish that people who don't like the PT would come up with better reasons.
Commander Obi-Wan Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 Why? It's my fave, and compared to the prequels, all of the actors deserve Oscars. Even the stormtrooper(s) that was owned by Obi-Wan's super awesome jedi mind trick?
Jeff Posted March 29, 2006 Posted March 29, 2006 I like Revenge of the Sith the best. Some moments during that were so powerful. And the lightsaber fights owned
Darth Andrew Posted March 31, 2006 Posted March 31, 2006 I'm allowed an opinion....Just asking. I think that the acting in the PT is good, especially in ROTS, I wish that people who don't like the PT would come up with better reasons.Seriously, you think the older Anakin was good? I though he was wooden at best. And Portman went from bland in I to ok in II to corny at III. Another reason I prefer IV over III is that the prequels just don't feel like Star Wars to me (though Episode I sort of does). I think all the CGI is too much; sure, some scenes and creatures had to be (battle droids and the space battles), but every single single clone trooper just had to be animated? It's not that I don't like III (it's second on my list of favorites), it's just that some flaws were too big to go unnoticed.
MachineCult Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Another reason I prefer IV over III Exactly, you, and I feel differently, please deal with it. Seriously, you think the older Anakin was good? I though he was wooden at best. And Portman went from bland in I to ok in II to corny at III. Neo was wooden, i'd go as far as saying that Han Solo was a little monotone. Yes I think the older Anakin was good, I have reasons for it like you have reasons for IV being your favourite where I think it is an extremely poor film even with the DVD changes.
Commander Obi-Wan Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Neo was wooden, i'd go as far as saying that Han Solo was a little monotone. Yes I think the older Anakin was good, I have reasons for it like you have reasons for IV being your favourite where I think it is an extremely poor film even with the DVD changes. Yes, he was better. Maybe because he matured. But, I enjoyed all the films, but ANH was the first movie made. And many poeple will disagree about what you said. But that's your opinion. But, at least the OT had decent acting.
MachineCult Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 The acting was on the same level in all movies. The OT had Harrison Ford who is a good actor, and I guess Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were good and of course Alec Guiness. The PT had Samuel L Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee, non of whom you could call bad actors.
Darth Andrew Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Exactly, you, and I feel differently, please deal with it.What, is there something wrong challanging one's opinion on something? But, yes, we are all unique individuals (just like everybody else ). ...I have reasons for it like you have reasons for IV being your favourite where I think it is an extremely poor film even with the DVD changes.That's why I don't own the Special Edition DVD. The PT had Samuel L Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee, non of whom you could call bad actors. That's true. But then again, some of them (Jackson, McDiarmid, Lee) didn't have as much screen time as the main actors, where I think one's acting skills would matter most. But then again, it depends on one's view of which actors and actresses have major and minor roles.
Commander Obi-Wan Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 The acting was on the same level in all movies. The OT had Harrison Ford who is a good actor, and I guess Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher were good and of course Alec Guiness. The PT had Samuel L Jackson, Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, Ian McDiarmid and Christopher Lee, non of whom you could call bad actors. Yeah. But the media and Ebert & Roeper disagree on the acting good on the PT. But, still half the time Hayden Christensen was on screen, and people thought be was pitiful. I have no problem with his acting and he's Canadian. But like DA said, the "good" actors didn't have as much screen time.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.