Conquer Club

Nobunaga wrote:... Personally, I was a huge Firefly fan. Low-tech, great story.

... And Babylon 5 was low-budget (if high-tech) and absolutely the greatest SF ever aired on TV.

Firefly and B5 are very much underappreciated shows. And I like SG-1 and Atlantis, oh, can't forget nBSG.

I said I don't watch DS9. Firefly was great, Serenity (IMHO) didn't do the show justice, Babylon 5 and Stargate are all great.

lduke1990 wrote:I said I don't watch DS9. Firefly was great, Serenity (IMHO) didn't do the show justice, Babylon 5 and Stargate are all great.

Serenity didn't do the show justice? Figures, coming from the guy who thought Picard was a better pilot than the son of Vader (hint: not a smart thing to think if you're not a, well, wanker) .

lduke1990 wrote:I said I don't watch DS9. Firefly was great, Serenity (IMHO) didn't do the show justice, Babylon 5 and Stargate are all great.

... Serenity... I tend to agree, it didn't do justice to the series. It was all rather slapped together, I thought. If you'd never seen the series, then watched the movie... I don't think it would make much sense. Though the villain was excellent, you must admit.

... Had the series gone a year or two longer... I very much wanted to see "The Shepherd" a bit more fleshed out - what with his very mysterious past and all.

...

Trekkies, and everyone else, stop threadjacking. the name of the thread is Star Wars.

the films, in the order in which I prefer them: II, III, VI, I, V, IV.

which means, to me, that darker is better.

... OK, Nate, a relevant question then:

... Did the whole "midichlorions" (sp?) thing just completely demystify the Jedi, or am I the only one who liked "The Force" better when it was all mysterious, semi-"Monk on the Mountain"?

...

Nobunaga wrote:... Did the whole "midichlorions" (sp?) thing just completely demystify the Jedi, or am I the only one who liked "The Force" better when it was all mysterious, semi-"Monk on the Mountain"?

did the midichlorian thing demystify the Jedi? How could it? How are the midichlorian's connected to the force? You're telling me that a microbe can pick up an X-wing? I actually don't understand this particular debate at all, since even with a microbe which acts as some sort of conduit to the force, you still have a pretty mystical element. Besides, it seems like there isn't any hard evidence that midichlorians = the Force. It could simply be that they thrive in a force-sensitive environment, but are not necessary for it.

...Very good point. Never thought of it that way.

I don't recall the midicolorians being mentioned outside of EP1, so I ignore them when ever possible.

Ep 5, 4, 3, 6, 2, 1. IN THAT EXACT ORDER. From best to worst.

not
this is the order

4,6,5,3,1,2

Mr. Nate, why would u steal my nam!!!!

im hurt

MR. Nate wrote:Trekkies, and everyone else, stop threadjacking. the name of the thread is Star Wars.

the films, in the order in which I prefer them: II, III, VI, I, V, IV.

which means, to me, that darker is better.

Wait wait wait, you preferred II OVER III???!!!

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
III is way darker than II. Notice the "12" rating compared to II's PG.

Never seen six, is it good?

I think one and two were good for the story and fight sequences only, acting was sooo subpar. Only reason I like two was because of the story behind the clone army.

order of preference, V, VI, IV, III, II, I

seriously, what was with the script in the new ones,
lines like, "I hate sand, it's rough, irritating and gets everywhere"
from anakin, during "romantic" scenes, just ughh
also ive heard from a friend that actors cant ever act on greenscreen so its not really the actors fault, he made some decent arguments and i find this idea intriguing.

Jehan wrote:also ive heard from a friend that actors cant ever act on greenscreen so its not really the actors fault, he made some decent arguments and i find this idea intriguing.

Watch 300, the whole movie is greenscreened.

Minister Masket wrote:

MR. Nate wrote:Trekkies, and everyone else, stop threadjacking. the name of the thread is Star Wars.
the films, in the order in which I prefer them: II, III, VI, I, V, IV.
which means, to me, that darker is better.

Wait wait wait, you preferred II OVER III???!!!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
III is way darker than II. Notice the "12" rating compared to II's PG.

I did them in order they came out, not in the actual number, so it would really be, V, VI, III, IV, II, I I may go shoot myself, that's an atrocious mistake.

n8freeman wrote:Mr. Nate, why would u steal my nam!!!!

im hurt

HAHA n8, I joined first!

yeah yeah

u got me

... Anybody here read many of the Star Wars novels? There are some decent ones out there. I read a few, years ago, so titles escape me, but a guy named Salvatore wrote some good ones, as I recall.

...

never read the books (canonical or not) but the clone wars cartoons were pretty good.

At least, when it comes to bad acting, Lucas was consistent, Hayden Christensen was almost as bad as Mark Hamil.

Nobunaga wrote:... Anybody here read many of the Star Wars novels? There are some decent ones out there. I read a few, years ago, so titles escape me, but a guy named Salvatore wrote some good ones, as I recall.

...

Some of them. The Novelizations of the Original Trilogy are pretty good.

MR. Nate wrote:never read the books (canonical or not) but the clone wars cartoons were pretty good.

At least, when it comes to bad acting, Lucas was consistent, Hayden Christensen was almost as bad as Mark Hamil.

Mark Hamil has more talent than that worthless Canadian Vader-wanabe and Nate Portman put together. Seriously, ever watch Big Red One? Now the real Vader (voice acted by James Earl Jones, body filled by some obscure 70's body builder), now that is talent!

n8freeman wrote:not
this is the order

4,6,5,3,1,2

I was measuring from best to worst, not order of release, which you failed even that simple task.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzaW8oT72Xc&NR=1

i dont know if any of you have seen this already but its pretty funny u should watch it

unriggable wrote:

Jehan wrote:also ive heard from a friend that actors cant ever act on greenscreen so its not really the actors fault, he made some decent arguments and i find this idea intriguing.

Watch 300, the whole movie is greenscreened.

they had some rudimentary sets, and the acting want that good, still an awesome movie, didn't really need great acting though.

... Hey! What's 300 got to do with Star Wars?! Jump on their case, Nate! Damned thread-jackers!

... didn't much care for 300, as it was so historically-off. ... then a friend told me it's naught really to do with history and more to do with some graphic novel that came out a while ago. ... in that light, hmmm not bad, I guess.