http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/707/707798p1.html
Personally? I'm scared. Very scared. Not normal of me to be the pessimist but when Lucas himself says something like that, I don't wonder if we'll be seeing space aliens invading Cambodia or some crap.
Holy shit.
Well, there goes the world.
But I LIKED the desert treasure hunts and Nazi whackos…
This reminds me of that one South Park episode….I think there will be a new "Raiders of the lost Ark".
PS: I have no f--ing clue of what I'm talking about. I'm not a fan of South Park nore have I seen, even heard of "Raiders of the lost Ark".
when you saw how bad the new star wars trilogy (1, 2, 3) was compared to the old one (4, 5, 6), then you can be greatly scared about what lucas will do to indiana jones. honestly, i've been scared since the first day they talked about it.
of course they can do something awesome, but if once again lucas prefers visual effects over great adventure, then that will suck like hell.
and why do people think it will turn out ok because spielberg is in it? he didn't do any good movie in AGES.
Munich wasn't that bad. I liked it.
R.I.P. (for now) KO-Scans
@gilrules2000:
Munich wasn't that bad. I liked it.
Munich was really good. So was War of the Worlds and I loved The Terminal.
But whatever…I also liked Episode 1 and thought Episode 3 was equal to the original trilogy and unlike most people I still think Spielberg is one of the best directors there are and I don't hate Lucas....
woah, i did like episode 1 more than episode 2 because anakin was a whiny bitch and part 1 had the races. Episode three was clearly the best but, imo, episode 1+2+3<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
R.I.P. (for now) KO-Scans
@gilrules2000:
woah, i did like episode 1 more than episode 2 because anakin was a whiny bitch and part 1 had the races. Episode three was clearly the best but, imo, episode 1+2+3<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<episode 5<="" blockquote="">Well, yeah, i hated that brat, but I also hated whatshisname (Christensen or something like that) in Ep. 2…he was decent in 3...
To me 6 (all glory to Jubba!) and 5 are the best, followed by 3, then 4, then 1. 2 would've been cool, if it weren't for that damn boring love story...I can stand annoying actors (it's not like Hammil reinvented acting in Ep. 4 to 6), I had no problem whatsoever with Jar Jar, but god...that was the second most boring love story ever.</episode>
second most?
I too like 6 the best. Luke in jedy master gear kicked ass. (i loved it when you promoted the main character in shining force and got the chaos breaker because it was clearly a reference to luke in return of the jedi)
R.I.P. (for now) KO-Scans
@gilrules2000:
second most?
I too like 6 the best. Luke in jedy master gear kicked ass. (i loved it when you promoted the main character in shining force and got the chaos breaker because it was clearly a reference to luke in return of the jedi)
Nothing's worse than Bloom and Knightly in PotC. To me it ruined, what could have been a great movie.
Yeah, and let's not forget Leia in Jubbas Pallace…:wub:
That's what I call fanservice.
WHICH IS IT!? NUCLEAR OR NUCULAR?!? braintwist
I don't see how 3 was more like the original trilogy at all any more than the others. It was horribly violent and uncompromisingly emo. That alone doesn't qualify it being anywhere near the original trilogy. There was a brief scene where Luke got his hand chopped off, he screamed and drooled a bit and there it was back moments later. Better cover your children's eyes.
Violent and emo doesn't actually equal better, it just seems to make something seem more mature which depending on the material could indeed be the antithesis of maturity.
That doesn't mean I disliked the film, nor does it mean I liked either trilogy more or less than the other. In fact, I'd say all of them share equally imaginative and unique storylines regardless of characters some may dislike.
However, it deserves to be noticed that production values aside, the original and the trilogy was quite different for better or for worse. Yet through all that Lucas never stated they were 'very different'.
That's why I'm scared.
I'm still pissed Yoda turned CGI after movie 1.
But yeah, "different" in Lucas-talk can spell disaster . . . .
Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, Black Hawk Down) made a script, but Lucas veto'd it. >.> Although Spielberg ensures solid (maybe not best, but solid) directing, if the script sucks then SO WHAT.
bah, we are not expecting the movie before a long time so let'e see what's gonna change until then.
they shouldn't have decided to make a new indy to begin with… the last crusade was close to perfection, dammit. why fuck it up with another one?
Well, you all need to accept something, you may argue with it and say I'm dead wrong but I believe I'm spot on. The prequals, was how Lucas intended the originals to be like. If it wasn't for the day and time he made them in they would've been just as special effected, volient, and emo as the prequals were.
Well, you all need to accept something, you may argue with it and say I'm dead wrong but I believe I'm spot on. The prequals, was how Lucas intended the originals to be like. If it wasn't for the day and time he made them in they would've been just as special effected, volient, and emo as the prequals were.
Actually…the original trilogy was loaded with special effects. But that was 30 years ago. Maybe 30 years from now, the prequels will also be known as classics and loved by fans because they only use what then will be known as "old school effects" or something like that.
Also, the OT was quite violent (I consider Empire strikes back to be more violent than Revenge of the Sith), at least for that kind of movie.
And I don't even know what people mean, when they say it's emo.
Actually…the original trilogy was loaded with special effects. But that was 30 years ago. Maybe 30 years from now, the prequels will also be known as classics and loved by fans because they only use what then will be known as "old school effects" or something like that.
Also, the OT was quite violent (I consider Empire strikes back to be more violent than Revenge of the Sith), at least for that kind of movie.
And I don't even know what people mean, when they say it's emo.
None of the OT movies had people getting mass murdered or getting their skin fried off. The Order 66 montage was even more depressing than seeing Han Solo get frozen!
hears sounds of angry mob
I will say that I prefer the OT over the new any day. But Episode III was pretty good, despite Hayden Christensen, not because of him.
And why didn't they use James Earl Jones for Darth Vader???!??
God I hope Lucas doesn't turn Indiana Jones into another CGI-fest.
@IT'S:
None of the OT movies had people getting mass murdered or getting their skin fried off. The Order 66 montage was even more depressing than seeing Han Solo get frozen!
hears sounds of angry mob
I will say that I prefer the OT over the new any day. But Episode III was pretty good, despite Hayden Christensen, not because of him.
And why didn't they use James Earl Jones for Darth Vader???!??
God I hope Lucas doesn't turn Indiana Jones into another CGI-fest.
No, but the OT featured animals being cut so you could see their organs, arms and hands being cut off (with blood, at least in Ep. 4), it featured Han being tortured, it featured Jubba being killed, dead Ewoks, the Rancor etc.
Also…James Earl Jones WAS Darth Vader in Episode 3, wasn't he? Oo
No, but the OT featured animals being cut so you could see their organs,
You can see the same thing on cartoons for children. So long as it doesn't resemble a human, violence is okay.
arms and hands being cut off (with blood, at least in Ep. 4)
I'm sorry but that has nothing on 3.
, it featured Han being tortured,
It cut away and you heard screams. Again, not anything wrong with that.
it featured Jubba being killed, dead Ewoks, the Rancor etc.
All aliens.
Ursula got speared to death and that wasn't exactly fear-inducing cinema.
I'll grant that Lucas would have made the film the same way the prequels were effects-wise if they had the money/technology. But 3 is totally unlike the tone of the rest of the series and shouldn't be considered "close" to the others because it simply has violence and a very depressing atmosphere. The most depressing thing about the OT was seeing Luke shreak like a little girl.
They're all great films and all share strikingly simillar themes. 3 was made the way it was in order to put more oomph into the story but by having a guy get fucked-up doesn't mean it's like the OT. If anything 1 & 2 are extremely close to the general themes of the OT. I know a lot of people have their qualms with characters and acting abilities but come on. It's not like Mark was exactly a convincing thesp in 4. Not to mention Threepio and JJB are essentially the same character who talk somewhat differently yet JJB gets all the bad press.
You could also say that Temple of Doom is FAR different than either Raiders or Crusade because it is pretty wacky. But Crusade being done in the spirit of Raiders and done SO well, it's somewhat scary to consider what he's inferring.
Ursula got speared to death and that wasn't exactly fear-inducing cinema.
I'll grant that Lucas would have made the film the same way the prequels were effects-wise if they had the money/technology. But 3 is totally unlike the tone of the rest of the series and shouldn't be considered "close" to the others because it simply has violence and a very depressing atmosphere. The most depressing thing about the OT was seeing Luke shreak like a little girl.
They're all great films and all share strikingly simillar themes. 3 was made the way it was in order to put more oomph into the story but by having a guy get fucked-up doesn't mean it's like the OT. If anything 1 & 2 are extremely close to the general themes of the OT. I know a lot of people have their qualms with characters and acting abilities but come on. It's not like Mark was exactly a convincing thesp in 4. Not to mention Threepio and JJB are essentially the same character who talk somewhat differently yet JJB gets all the bad press.
You could also say that Temple of Doom is FAR different than either Raiders or Crusade because it is pretty wacky. But Crusade being done in the spirit of Raiders and done SO well, it's somewhat scary to consider what he's inferring.
Please don't mention Ursula…that scene, along with every clown-moment in IT, is still one of the few things in movie history that REALLY scared me.
And yes, okay, they are different can't argue against that...but I still think at least 3 is equal to the old ones, in terms of quality.
Just as you said, thinks like the acting never were what made Star Wars great (although, 3PO is much cooler than Jar Jar, because of the voice).
