Please do us a favor Re: Rose

1235Next

Replies

  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

    Lucas loosely wrote the entire OT, so at least they had an overall story to adhere to, as well as giving consult advice. Lucas was the one that forbid the death of Han Solo in ROTJ for example.

    The PT was also governed by what was told tot he audience during the OT.

    ST could literally do whatever they wanted and made a pig's ear of it.

    No argument here. The sequels are terrible.

    But people need to be intellectually honest: the prequels were horrid as well. To hold up one as vastly superior to the other is madness.

    No its not. The OT is clearly the better trilogy and set the entire franchise in motion. It had a cohesive story, and an engaging story as the characters were properly developed, as well as the new world and lore of the franchise.

    The PT were entertaining, could they have been better? Absolutely, but they did stick to a general story which was outlined in the OT. The PT had their own cohesive story that flowed into the events of the OT. It also had some memorable characters (more good than bad).

    The ST had no cohesive story, no proper character development, lore breaking moments, plot hole galore and devalued prior beloved characters. It was a terrible mess, and it was an absolute shame because it didn't need to do what it did to tell a great story, which it had a lot of promise in doing, but just fell very short.
  • leef wrote: »

    After all these kinds words, how could i not watch that movie ?! ;)

    Well I'm also here to tell you not to feel ashamed if the bat nipp1es excite you. They are outstanding!

    Wait that's not just me right?

    Everyone needs a hobby.
  • Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

    Lucas loosely wrote the entire OT, so at least they had an overall story to adhere to, as well as giving consult advice. Lucas was the one that forbid the death of Han Solo in ROTJ for example.

    The PT was also governed by what was told tot he audience during the OT.

    ST could literally do whatever they wanted and made a pig's ear of it.

    No argument here. The sequels are terrible.

    But people need to be intellectually honest: the prequels were horrid as well. To hold up one as vastly superior to the other is madness.

    No its not. The OT is clearly the better trilogy and set the entire franchise in motion. It had a cohesive story, and an engaging story as the characters were properly developed, as well as the new world and lore of the franchise.

    The PT were entertaining, could they have been better? Absolutely, but they did stick to a general story which was outlined in the OT. The PT had their own cohesive story that flowed into the events of the OT. It also had some memorable characters (more good than bad).

    The ST had no cohesive story, no proper character development, lore breaking moments, plot hole galore and devalued prior beloved characters. It was a terrible mess, and it was an absolute shame because it didn't need to do what it did to tell a great story, which it had a lot of promise in doing, but just fell very short.

    I must admit I'm perplexed. The directing in the prequels is awful. At least the sequels are directed decently. The acting is better overall in the sequels as well. None of that saves the sequel trilogy and doesn't really make it better than the prequels but they sure aren't worse. At least TFA is watchable. None of the prequels really are (though RoTS comes close).
  • Gifafi
    2869 posts Member
    TFA is probably the worst of the new ones
  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    I would like to feed disney to the wolverines, George should have never sold nor Stan/marvel to that evil machine. Sony would have been a better and much safer to characters bet, alas here we are. Suffer we must with a smile and good nature......

    The prequels were just as bad as the sequel trilogy. They're infamously terrible. Disney didn't ruin Star Wars. George Lucas did that in 1999.

    Keep in mind Lucas had virtually nothing to do with the film in the series that is universally considered the best (ESB). He got lucky with ANH (and even then it had to be saved by a stellar editor). Also, except for the terrible decision to change the Wookies to Ewoks in ROTJ, Lucas had almost nothing to do with that film, too.

    He directed four Star Wars films. Three of them are unwatchable. The other one is barely standing the test of time.

    George ruined star wars in 1999? Hahahahahah - no. He made a not very good star wars movie, then spent the others on course correction (cutting out Jar Jar and no more Lil' Ani business). The political world established as well as how the Jedi are, what Anakin is, the death of Jedi and the Sith moving in the shadows with their reveal of Darth Maul was all very well done - hands down better than anything the sequel trilogy has done.

    There was also nothing lore breaking about the PT. Was the PT magnificent? Of course not, it certainly could have been done better, but the ST sinks star wars below that of the Holiday Special, by far.

    Now you go on to say George had virtually nothing to do with the OT after ANH? You know he wrote all of them and consulted on all of them, loads of decisions going on with those movies came from George.

    The Wookies were changed to Ewoks because finding people like Mayhew was difficult - little people were easier.

    George was the man that connected all the stories together and had an overall idea as to how he wanted them to go.

    Yes he had producers, people he had complete the screenplays (for his approval) and hired directors that he trusted such as Kershner. He was very involved in the OT but did not want to take the helm of it all as he nearly had a heart attack when making ANH.

    Come the PT, he had the money, control and power to completely run the show - and I think this is where he should have been more humble, as he was with working on the OT to have additional sources to help steer the ship - not surrounding himself with "yes men".

    He needed Gary Kurtz to be the guy to bounce ideas off of. Kurtz co-directed ANH and ESB (Hollywood rules make it very difficult for credit to be given to more than one director). In ANH it was Kurtz who worked with the younger actors coaching them and preparing them for filming. Yes, Lucas wrote the story for ESB but he handed off the story to the screenplay writers and checked out. Kurtz directed much of ESB but Hollywood has weird rules about directing credit especially when there are more than two directors and ESB has three to five depending on who you ask.

    The prequels are terrible. The dialogue is infamously bad. And they did break lore: midichlororines, timeframe between RoTS and ANH . . . it was a mess. Unwatchable movies. Just like the sequel trilogy. Except at least TFA is watchable.

    Think whatever you like as long as it makes you sleep better at night.

    Okay, Big Man. Look up the rules for more than one director receiving credit for a film. It's ridiculous. Gary Kurtz co-directed two Star Wars movies and they happen to be widely considered the two best Star Wars movies. As for Lucas writing ESB . . . who knows? Lucas claimed he wrote the novelization of ANH but he didn't.

    Lucas loosely wrote the entire OT, so at least they had an overall story to adhere to, as well as giving consult advice. Lucas was the one that forbid the death of Han Solo in ROTJ for example.

    The PT was also governed by what was told tot he audience during the OT.

    ST could literally do whatever they wanted and made a pig's ear of it.

    No argument here. The sequels are terrible.

    But people need to be intellectually honest: the prequels were horrid as well. To hold up one as vastly superior to the other is madness.

    No its not. The OT is clearly the better trilogy and set the entire franchise in motion. It had a cohesive story, and an engaging story as the characters were properly developed, as well as the new world and lore of the franchise.

    The PT were entertaining, could they have been better? Absolutely, but they did stick to a general story which was outlined in the OT. The PT had their own cohesive story that flowed into the events of the OT. It also had some memorable characters (more good than bad).

    The ST had no cohesive story, no proper character development, lore breaking moments, plot hole galore and devalued prior beloved characters. It was a terrible mess, and it was an absolute shame because it didn't need to do what it did to tell a great story, which it had a lot of promise in doing, but just fell very short.

    I must admit I'm perplexed. The directing in the prequels is awful. At least the sequels are directed decently. The acting is better overall in the sequels as well. None of that saves the sequel trilogy and doesn't really make it better than the prequels but they sure aren't worse. At least TFA is watchable. None of the prequels really are (though RoTS comes close).

    You are right, you can have the best directors in the world but if the written story they are to follow is bad - then what can you do.

    The problem is TFA written & directed by JJ, TLJ written & directed by Johnson and TROS written & directed by JJ - so the directors had full creative control to write a good story they could direct - but they still failed.

    I'd say in regard for entertainment the ST is probably better to watch than the likes of TPM - but like I say, the PT followed established lore, general story arc and character design - making them a better star wars movies than any of the ST.

    Being a entertaining and well directed movie that people enjoy, far from makes it a good star wars movie, that should respect the world, lore, prior movies and characters etc.So the ST o not fit in the category of a good star wars movie, even though objectively they were good entertaining movies.

    Does that make sense? Sometimes its difficult to get the point across in text rather than a straight up conversation, lol
  • TVF
    19611 posts Member
    I wonder how Rose feels about this conversation.
    TVF's guild is recruiting. Say hi in our Discord! https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    TVF wrote: »
    I wonder how Rose feels about this conversation.

    Why don't you send her a message on social media and see if she responds, oh wait...you cant, lol.
  • Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I wonder how Rose feels about this conversation.

    Why don't you send her a message on social media and see if she responds, oh wait...you cant, lol.

    I thought star wars took place a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away? They have twitter there? And Rose is still alive?
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out Wa Da Tah on Discord: https://discord.gg/SFYjRkk
  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I wonder how Rose feels about this conversation.

    Why don't you send her a message on social media and see if she responds, oh wait...you cant, lol.

    I thought star wars took place a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away? They have twitter there? And Rose is still alive?

    I was referencing the social media issue with Tran, the actress that played Rose - just a joke.
  • Boo wrote: »
    Boo wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    I wonder how Rose feels about this conversation.

    Why don't you send her a message on social media and see if she responds, oh wait...you cant, lol.

    I thought star wars took place a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away? They have twitter there? And Rose is still alive?

    I was referencing the social media issue with Tran, the actress that played Rose - just a joke.

    Jokes about online bullying and harassment are very classy and hilarious /s
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out Wa Da Tah on Discord: https://discord.gg/SFYjRkk
  • Gifafi
    2869 posts Member
    How anyone could defend the prequels, with their racist voices and awful lighting, is beyond me. Yes, I still like them. Not mad, just disappointed.
  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    Anything that is offensive is hilarious these days, it's funny to see soft people react. Dave Chappelle knows this and capitalizes his comedy on it, comedic genius that fella.

    Funny, this is exactly why it is fun to poke holes in the arguments of the Sequel haters because they get all offended that someone dare come after their sacred Prequels and Originals.

    Same can be said for ST lovers, how dare anyone come after their precious Mary Sue "Rey" and emo Kylo, lol
  • Boo wrote: »
    7thru9suck wrote: »
    Anything that is offensive is hilarious these days, it's funny to see soft people react. Dave Chappelle knows this and capitalizes his comedy on it, comedic genius that fella.

    Funny, this is exactly why it is fun to poke holes in the arguments of the Sequel haters because they get all offended that someone dare come after their sacred Prequels and Originals.

    Same can be said for ST lovers, how dare anyone come after their precious Mary Sue "Rey" and emo Kylo, lol

    I know, right? Glad we can finally be done with the Mary Sue Saga after 9 movies and move on to other interesting characters and periods of history in the vast Star Wars universe.
    Looking for a new guild? Come check out Wa Da Tah on Discord: https://discord.gg/SFYjRkk
  • Yep! Just don't let Johnson or Abrams ever hold the reigns again.... and run Kennedy off already! Need some new decision makers
  • 7cawg9lymj1e.png

    I just have 7* rose tico today.
    Greatest achievement in SWGOH
  • Boo
    3926 posts Member
    No, it is necessary to support your guild for some of your members to have a 7* Rose in order to successfully fill platoon deployment.

    I wouldn't say greatest, but the hardest SWGOH achievement would be to get Rose not only to 7*, but relic 7, lol - Rose along with CUP :smiley:
  • Rose, unlike CUP, is a solid unit.
    Still not a he.
  • Darth_Sleepy
    21 posts Member
    edited February 1
    YaeVizsla wrote: »
    Rose, unlike CUP, is a solid unit.

    I don't think Rose would be flattered by being referred to as a "solid unit". Try that line on a woman sometime.
Sign In or Register to comment.