4806 réponses à ce sujet

[TheChris92]

He revolutionized cinema with the first SW movie. You know. the one who doesn't have CGI in it.

I'm pretty sure we were talking about the pre-quels in that quote, unless I misunderstood something.

[Rawgrim]

It's somewhat believable as his wound was cauterized by the lightsaber which does a clean cut. I don't know if it is still canon, but back then Zabrak's had 3 hearts, so he was able to take more punishment than a human. Him crying and begging made sense though, he knew exactly what he was in for as he had suffered torture at Palpatine's hands before, also he was not a Sith, just a pretender. 

 

It is not canon anymore, no. But in episode 3 Palpatine kills a Zabrak jedi master with a single stab to the stomach....I guess Palpatine should have tossed him out the window after chopping him in half instead. Might have survived then.

[Rawgrim]

Why would apply that to Tolkien when books=/=film. Tolkien created the world of Middle Earth, all of it, Lucas laid the groundwork (who's saying I said otherwise?). If one examines the quality between the content where Lucas involvement is heavy, to that of where it was restricted (see earlier Indy films) than one could distinguish the difference.

 

No he didn't. He based a ton of it on mythology. Used the finnish language for the elven language + + +

[Vroom Vroom]

It is not canon anymore, no. But in episode 3 Palpatine kills a Zabrak jedi master with a single stab to the stomach....I guess Palpatine should have tossed him out the window after chopping him in half instead. Might have survived then.

I'm not saying it was well put together, because it wasn't, just trying to give some reasons for why it could work. 

[TheChris92]

No he didn't. He based a ton of it on mythology. Used the finnish language for the elven language + + +

I don't even get what you're talking about now, carry on.

[Rawgrim]

I don't even get what you're talking about now, carry on.

 

Ok I will explain it to you then. Tolkien didn't do all the groundwork. Since he based a lot of it on existing myths etc.

[Rawgrim]

I'm not saying it was well put together, because it wasn't, just trying to give some reasons for why it could work. 

 

The reason why they did it was that they believed they would score a lot of points with the fans by bringing him back. Maul was a popular character, and all that. Filoni just didn't think it through well enough.

[Mr.House]

Not so much that they didn't innovate as the much as the dialogue being shampoo-drinkingly awful, and the camera shooting is all over the place like a Paul Greengass film without the presence of a handheld camera. There's no middle ground for George Lucas, however, he's a generally awful filmmaker, as evident by his other shallow projects like Willow or Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If anything, he should be credited for the idea of Star Wars, as much as Anthony Newley & Leslie Bricusse should be credited for the concept of the song Feeling Good, while Nina Simone/Lawrence Kasdan/Keshner should be heralded for breathing life into it.

Whatever good ideas Lucas might have, they've always been overshadowed by the awfulness of his approach to narrative -- Giving the most iconic and well characterized villain in cinema a backstory that can at best be compared to that of a late saturday-night-1990's-something-teenage-drama is simply inconceivable; Among many other things.

The prequels reflects its idea of its audience intelligence through its story -- They both feel and run like that of entertainment for people with low attention-span.

 

Like I mentioned earlier -- Star Wars decline into awfulness, however, had already started with that of Return of the Jedi when Lucas railed in the reins again.

HEy, RotJ was only bad with the  Ewoks, the confrontation in the throne room was fantastic.

[Rawgrim]

HEy, RotJ was only bad with the  Ewoks, the confrontation in the throne room was fantastic.

 

This is true. The original version, at least. That pixar singer Lucas added to the new version was kind of worse than the Ewoks.

[Vroom Vroom]

The reason why they did it was that they believed they would score a lot of points with the fans by bringing him back. Maul was a popular character, and all that. Filoni just didn't think it through well enough.

Yes, no doubt about it. Although, I thought they brought Maul back because Lucas ordered it. I could be completely misremembering though, no big deal, same end result, am I right? XD  

[TheChris92]

Ok I will explain it to you then. Tolkien didn't do all the groundwork. Since he based a lot of it on existing myths etc.

Ah, so what you're saying is that the likes Maurice Dron and the old nobles of 14th century England fighting in the War of the Roses created a Song of Ice and Fire then too?

He created the lore, world, characters and everything, you knew what I meant with my post. Basing your work on existing events, folklore, etc doesn't invalidate that statement any less.
If you wanna argue semantics then you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Rawgrim]

Ah, so what you're saying is that the likes Maurice Dron and the old nobles of 14th century England fighting in the War of the Roses created a Song of Ice and Fire then too?

He created the lore, world, characters and everything, you knew what I meant with my post. Basing your work on existing events, folklore, etc doesn't invalidate that statement any less.

 

No. Because the War of the Roses is a historical event. Myths aren't...

 

And the Song of Ice and Fire isn't based that much on The War of the Roses. Just book 2-3 are based on that war.

 

 

George Lucas created lore, world(s), characters, and everything else too. EU doesn't count, mind you. It isn't canon.

[Mr.House]

Also remember when I added that silly shoot first crap because "Han didn't feel like a hero." and thus ruining the character?

 

That's Lucas.

[Mr.House]

No. Because the War of the Roses is a historical event. Myths aren't...

 

And the Song of Ice and Fire isn't based that much on The War of the Roses. Just book 2-3 are based on that war.

 

 

George Lucas created lore, world(s), characters, and everything else too. EU doesn't count, mind you. It isn't canon.

His original ideas until they where changed sucked.

[TheChris92]

HEy, RotJ was only bad with the  Ewoks, the confrontation in the throne room was fantastic.

The problem is that the Ewoks actually reflects the films inconsistent, quirky, cutesy tone with that of its predecessor. It lacks the maturity, and feeling of depth and drama which Empire had. In the scene with Leia and Han, right after Luke says, "Hey, you're my sister, even though we played tongue twister in the last movie", and the dramatic tension lasts almost 3 whole seconds before Han Solo, a well known scoundrel, gives up and apologizes right away. No waiting until they're in the battle and she gets shot to make up, thus creating some much needed drama. No consistency with character.

It also becomes evident, later on, when Luke confronts the spirit of Obi-Wan Kenobi about some recent truths in regards to his father -- What does he say? "What I told you was true... from a certain point of view"? Come on, that sucks. Why isn't Luke emotional? Why isn't he yelling at Obi Wan about NOT telling him who his father was? How does the moral ambiguity work for THIS, but not the Emperor or all the people who are drafted into the Imperial forces who die in the fight against the rebellion? The worst thing about this one is that Lawrence Kasden's alternative draft of this scene that George Lucas re-wrote. In Kasden's draft, Luke IS belligerent, asks angrily, "Why didn't you tell me Vader was my father?" and Obi Wan responds with, "We wanted to finish your training and prepare you for the burden but you left in such a hurry." Luke responds with "But I had to save my friends! They were in danger" and Obi Wan wisely retorts, "and in the end, didn't they end up saving YOU?" and that shuts Luke up and they have a civil conversation. DRAMA of the best kind. Never to be seen in this freakin' movie.

[Rawgrim]

No, he's really not. That's also not why he sacrificed Shireen either, and you know it.

 

And well done on getting my posts removed. I'm sure King Stanna... err, I mean Stannis thanks you for doing your duty.

 

He sacrificed his daughter because his army was cold and starving. Ramsay's 20 good men had no problem starting a fire, though. And Stannis men had no problems building a huge fire to fry Shireen on, so heat wasn't the issue. It was the food.

[Rawgrim]

His original ideas until they where changed sucked.

 

Yup. But he was the one who changed it.

[Iakus]

HEy, RotJ was only bad with the  Ewoks, the confrontation in the throne room was fantastic.

 

Here's how the throne room scene shoulda gone  :

 

[TheChris92]

Huh, I actually didn't know that. You learn something new every day.
 
That just makes me even more pleased that Larry Kasdan agreed to work on the new trilogy.

Kasdan hasn't done anything 'remarkable' in years though -- You can't win 'em all after all, see David Hayter's screenplay track-record. But I remain hopeful that his return to Star Wars marks it a winner with the new film.

[Rawgrim]

Kasdan hasn't done anything 'remarkable' in years though -- You can't win 'em all after all, see David Hayter's screenplay track-record. But I remain hopeful that his return to Star Wars marks it a winner with the new film.

 

Very very much agreed.

[Captain Obvious]

No, he sacrificed Shireen because he believed that her king's blood would ensure victory in the increasingly uncertain battle with the Boltons. He was initially against this action, but between the bad weather, the Stormcrows deserting, Ramsay sabotaging many of his resources (of which there is absolutely nothing unrealistic about), and Melisandre's spiel, he gave in and sacrificed her.

 

The show lays this out pretty clearly, but it seems to have passed over a lot of peoples' heads since it clashes so much with their vision of who Stannis is.

 

This is best saved for the GoT thread though, so I'll drop it. I just wanted to give you a hard time while you were here.

 

No. He sacrificed Shireen because D&D, being the poor writers that they are, decided to kill Shireen off because it would produce shock-value (no matter poorly done it turned out). They have no problem having Stannis take his daughter and wife on a campaign trail for what is essentially no reason and having him give up shortly after a snowstorm as opposed to Book Stannis's resoluteness during the situation (and his "duty to his daughter" as he would put it, to say nothing of his dialogue with Justin Mallory regarding his daughter). They're willing to butcher the show because they feel that their fan fiction is better material. So they white-wash Tyrion, the same person that burns down the dockside of King's Landing (thus ruining the livelihoods of multiple people) to avert enemy troops climbing the buildings into the city before the Battle of Blackwater and the same person that kills Shae in cold blood rather than by accident. Rather then let the audience decide for themselves whether the decisions that the characters make are making the right decisions or going about it the right way or whether the personal flaws of the characters are excusable, they're white-washed, simplified, or both.

 

They have a bad actor like Emilia Clarke playing Daenerys while, again, butchering as much of the complexity of her story arc and her character as much as possible while having Show Tyrion and her Show-self meet up in the most anti-climactic way by having them already hit it off almost from the get-go, never mind apparently having no problem having Show Daenerys accepting that her father was a horrible person… off-screen. They have no problem putting stupid filler in the show, like when Asha (or rather, Yara) harps about how she's going to take her best men at the end of Season 3 and save her baby brother only to have her, in her only scene of Season 4, get chased away (along with her best men) by a shirtless Ramsay Bolton and his dogs. Speaking of Ramsay Bolton and anti-climaxes, we have Ramsay Bolton in a scene where he talks about needing only "20 good men" (coupled with a dramatic tone and a camera-zoom). Later, Stannis's camp spontaneously combusts in a scene lasting a minute (apparently by Ramsay's stealth ninjas). After that, we have Ramsay beating Stannis off-screen in a battle that their respective plot-arcs have been building up towards in the season finale (after Stannis's wife dies, Melisandre deserts, and at least half of his fighting force deserts - again, all off-screen).

 

Brienne is barely in the recent season, where she just happens to bump into Sansa and Littlefinger in a continent the size of South America before starring in some boring horse-chase scene. We don't have the emotional confrontation she has with Shagwell where she realizes that for all her resolve, she is still very much a "maiden" at heart, that she doesn't have the same hardiness that her old master-at-arms, Ser Goodwin, would of wanted of her. We have her meet Stannis after the battle in a scene that lasts for a short time (perhaps killing him or perhaps not) and then that's about it. Jaime's character remains stagnant throughout much of the fifth season. We don't have him dealing with his revulsion towards Tyrion (probably the most butchered and mishandled character in the show), his guilt over his father's death, his newfound sense of responsibility after losing his good hand, or maybe even a scene with him pressing a blade towards Varys's neck. Instead, we have a crippled man going to save Myrcella (instead of using his House's vassals or hiring mercenaries to do the job) while he has to deal with a bunch of poorly-acted Sand Snakes who were introduced in an incredibly rushed scene and fight in a bunch of poorly choreographed fights, culminating in a part with his daughter in which, as the unskilled show runners would have it, she reveals that she's perfectly OK with Jaime being her own father (by incest). A Song of Ice and Fire, a series that's prized for its realism and moral greyness, unfortunately has a live-action fanfic called Game of Thrones that has no problem letting a scene like the one in which Jaime's daughter by incest is fine with being said daughter… by incest. No familial drama. No disbelief or sense of denial or anger at living a lie or bout of shame and sadness.

 

They have no problem with all that shoe-horned romance nonsense (like the Grey Worm/Missandei garbage), filler like the Ros scenes, putting in characters that we don't care about like Olyvar or Olly, the bad acting (like the kid that plays Olly himself),  etc. They could have had Brienne learning about the Defiance of Duskendale, Barristan Selmy's role in it, and the fact that Barristan was the reason why Dontos Hollard even lived to be as old as he was. You know, help flesh out Ser Barristan. Instead, he dies so that a boring character like Grey Worm can live. Jon Snow won't be getting the Night's Watch to break their vows and march against Ramsay or switch Gilly's baby with Mance Rayder's son (thus potentially putting the baby in Melisandre's crosshairs) like he did in the books because they aren't willing to have Jon Snow be seen in a morally questionable light, even in a show that's supposed to be adapted from a series that's prized for its moral greyness, and to make matters worse, he's played by a bad actor. He's not uncomfortable around a person like Olly, who killed his girlfriend. His longing for a sense of individualism, his hot-headedness, his aloofness. All of these are gone. There is no reason to care about a bunch of poor caricatures of such a well thought-out and engaging cast of characters from a book series that's far more superior in terms of quality to the show that's based off of it. D&D's Game of Thrones is, quite simply, incredibly overrated and a bad show overall. 

[Captain Obvious]

HEy, RotJ was only bad with the  Ewoks, the confrontation in the throne room was fantastic.

 

 

Agreed. Absolutely love it.