Recruiting forum off topic thread (merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#9,552
#9,552
volssam said:
Since everybody is throwing their opinion out there....Episode IV (the original) I thought was pretty boring. Sorry.

My favorite out of all of them is probably episode III. Yes hayden is a terrible terrible actor. And the dialogue leaves a lot to be desired. But the overall arc of the story and the action are cool IMO.

Also, obviously Yes jar jar is annoying. But I still rank IV at the bottom of the six. Haven't seen the new one yet.
Click to expand...

You shut your dirty mouth
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#9,553
#9,553
StoVol said:
were 4,5, and 6 the 1st, 2nd and 3rd movies relased in the 70's? The numbers and their order are not exactly logical, and confusing to me
Click to expand...

Yeah 4, 5, and 6 were the originals that were released in the late 70s and early 80s. The prequels 1, 2, and 3 are the newer ones. The brand new one out now takes place 30 years after episode 6 IIRC
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,559
#9,559
Also I agree with Catbone (things you never thought you'd say)....

LOTR is so much better than Star Wars.

Harry Potter would get the nod from me over Star Wars too. Although the movies don't hold a candle to the books.

Speaking of nerd stuff, y'all see where Idris Elba was cast as Roland Deschain in the Dark Tower? Matthew McConaughey as the man in black.
 
#9,560
#9,560
Original Star Wars trilogy is still very impressive for its use of practical effects. No CG back then.

Makes me glad that LOTR was released in the early 2000s. Any sooner and the film would have suffered due to primitive CG, and any later and they probably swap many of the practical effects for cheaper CG shots. Perfect balance between the two in all three films.

The Hobbit trilogy is like 90% CG and actors in front of green screens, which is why all of those movies feel completely soulless in comparison to LOTR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9,562
#9,562
Aesius said:
Original Star Wars trilogy is still very impressive for its use of practical effects. No CG back then.

Makes me glad that LOTR was released in the early 2000s. Any sooner and the film would have suffered due to primitive CG, and any later and they probably swap many of the practical effects for cheaper CG shots. Perfect balance between the two in all three films.

The Hobbit trilogy is like 90% CG and actors in front of green screens, which is why all of those movies feel completely soulless in comparison to LOTR.
Click to expand...

The best thing about LOTR is that they didn't have to rely on too much CGI. They hand made all the armor, weapons, and costumes and props. The Weta workshop is amazing. The Hobbit was a joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9,564
#9,564
Catbone said:
The best thing about LOTR is that they didn't have to rely on all CGI. They hand made all the armor, weapons, and costumes and props. The Weta workshop is amazing. The Hobbit was a joke
Click to expand...

Reading the Silmarillion makes LOTR even deeper. Of course, reading LOTR helps as well, lol.

As a history nerd, understanding the backstory of why Tolkien created his universe is pretty cool. In 1066 after the Norman Conquest, William the Conquerer, like all good conquerers, had the defeated culture of the Anglo-Saxons eradicated and replaced with Norman culture. Tolkien, being an expert in linguistics and ancients cultures hated that because of the Normans the English did not have old mythologies like the Greeks, Romans, Norse, etc; so he ventured forth to create one.

If you ever read the Silmarillion you will definitely see the similarities and understand his motivations. Sorry, I'm done dorking out, lol!
 
#9,566
#9,566
Catbone said:
The best thing about LOTR is that they didn't have to rely on too much CGI. They hand made all the armor, weapons, and costumes and props. The Weta workshop is amazing. The Hobbit was a joke
Click to expand...

The best thing about LOTR is the credits. That means it's over
 
#9,567
#9,567
so the new movie would be taking place after 4, 5, and 6, but before 1, 2, and 3 is that correct? thanks everybody for clearing up my first question btw
 
#9,569
#9,569
StoVol said:
so the new movie would be taking place after 4, 5, and 6, but before 1, 2, and 3 is that correct? thanks everybody for clearing up my first question btw
Click to expand...

As far as chronology goes, it goes just like their respective numbers represent; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7...8...9
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top