Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: Today at 04:52:24 »We don't talk about Thirdspace though.
Posted by: icemann
« on: Today at 04:05:05 »bobf5
I warn that the first season is half half, but it picks up majorly from season 2 onward. The spinoff "Crusade" is also very average. Main series + the movies though - Great.
I warn that the first season is half half, but it picks up majorly from season 2 onward. The spinoff "Crusade" is also very average. Main series + the movies though - Great.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: Yesterday at 05:18:14 »Oh yeah, I should watch The Expanse.
Posted by: bobf5
« on: Yesterday at 01:06:23 »I've gotten a lot of enjoyment out of TNG and DS9 for the guest actors. Even Voyager had some good appearances, show itself aside.Hell, even Star Trek has been less sci-fi more fantasy, especially with the more modern iterations.
For a good space opera I HIGHLY recommend "Babylon 5". If you can look past the Amiga made CGI, then your in for a real treat. Rewatched it a year ago, and really enjoyed it. Even has some decent-ish movies (that are more like longer episodes). I never hear the series get mentioned at all nowadays, which is criminal.
I only watched a little Babylon 5 and my memory's a bit hazy, but I remember enjoying it. Very good suggestion
Posted by: tiphares4
« on: 01. April 2025, 21:04:31 »ALIEN without Aliens.. i think this is a decent movie aside from a few flaws:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVUkT9Mft-E
and it seems to take place in the same film-universe + shotguns in space :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVUkT9Mft-E
and it seems to take place in the same film-universe + shotguns in space :)
Posted by: Join2
« on: 01. April 2025, 05:38:13 »So...is there any truly good Sci-Fi post Y2K? I'm aware of none.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 01. April 2025, 04:25:09 »Hell, even Star Trek has been less sci-fi more fantasy, especially with the more modern iterations.
For a good space opera I HIGHLY recommend "Babylon 5". If you can look past the Amiga made CGI, then your in for a real treat. Rewatched it a year ago, and really enjoyed it. Even has some decent-ish movies (that are more like longer episodes). I never hear the series get mentioned at all nowadays, which is criminal.
For a good space opera I HIGHLY recommend "Babylon 5". If you can look past the Amiga made CGI, then your in for a real treat. Rewatched it a year ago, and really enjoyed it. Even has some decent-ish movies (that are more like longer episodes). I never hear the series get mentioned at all nowadays, which is criminal.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 30. March 2025, 11:41:28 »Literally nobody thinks Star Wars is good sci fi. But if you watch it looking for sci fi, you've missed the point entirely.
Star Wars is a decently well told underdog story with memorable and likeable characters and a near perfect build up to it's climax.
Star Wars is a decently well told underdog story with memorable and likeable characters and a near perfect build up to it's climax.
Posted by: bobf5
« on: 30. March 2025, 02:26:29 »I do at least know what that is! It's a great fantasy adventure film, and also a below average sci-fi film with great visuals, so yes it is a space opera :)It's called "space opera". If you're going to exert the effort to hate something, you should at least know what it is.
But yeah, that was a really dumb and non constructive rant, sorry. Snipping
edit: And apologies for all my comments in this thread, they were ignorant and unnecessary.
Posted by: ZylonBane
« on: 29. March 2025, 20:00:12 »It's called "space opera". If you're going to exert the effort to hate something, you should at least know what it is.Personally, I just hate Star Wars in general. I watched the original trilogy growing up (DVD version, opinion invalidated), and it instilled in me an immense hatred for 'fantasy loosely pretending to be sci-fi'.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 29. March 2025, 09:47:09 »Worth a watch.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 27. March 2025, 14:15:24 »Not seen it. Always had been meaning to.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 27. March 2025, 05:46:35 »They Live?
It does fall off in quality in the second half, though
It does fall off in quality in the second half, though
Posted by: Join2
« on: 27. March 2025, 04:05:28 »If I'm mentioning Robocop then I am also mentioning Starship Troopers, The Fifth Element, Deep Rising, Fortress, Appleseed, Demolition Man, Hardware, Universal Soldier, Cyber City File 2, Cube, Pitch Black, Virus, The Running Man...and then wanting to start ranting about other genres too (martial arts, horror without a sci-fi element, actiion comedy etc).
And then I am also left wanting to rant about the absolute superiority of the 90s (and to a lesser extent the 80s though not in video games) in all things once more.
And then I am also left wanting to rant about the absolute superiority of the 90s (and to a lesser extent the 80s though not in video games) in all things once more.
Posted by: bobf5
« on: 27. March 2025, 03:43:03 »I meant mentioning at all, but I get it. Great taste regardlessI like Robocop but I don't think it's "elite" tier.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 27. March 2025, 02:50:40 »I like Robocop but I don't think it's "elite" tier.
OK maybe slightly. Probably the best Carpenter movie though.
So am I the only person in the world who finds The Thing extremely overrated?
OK maybe slightly. Probably the best Carpenter movie though.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 27. March 2025, 02:49:42 »So am I the only person in the world who finds The Thing extremely overrated?
Posted by: bobf5
« on: 26. March 2025, 21:21:21 »+1 for the X-Files, but no mention of RoboCop?ELITE Sci-Fi tastes
(bad rant below!!!!)
Personally, I just hate Star Wars in general. I watched the original trilogy growing up (DVD version, opinion invalidated), and it instilled in me an immense hatred for 'fantasy loosely pretending to be sci-fi'. As soon as I was old enough to find movies on my own, I couldn't get away from it fast enough. That said, I am fascinated by the films lifting from Kurosawa, particularly the droids. Even if that's inherently derivative, I find it imaginative at least (kind of like Tarantino and Hong Kong films, but to a different extent). edit: For context, Star Wars was constantly around me as a kid; the LEGO games, the prequels, books, cartoons (that never looked great to me, but people my age seem to really like?), the toys... I respect Star Wars, but it was too much.
Posted by: Concealed Character
« on: 26. March 2025, 18:40:56 »and lastly on the topic of a certain word starting with a w)
It is 1 out of 2 games which i bought within the past 15 years with money. Also it was made by a dentist in his freetime with ms paint.
Posted by: Join2
« on: 26. March 2025, 04:00:25 »Star Wars, Doctor Who, Marvel/DC = lame GEEK sci-fi media.
Terminator, Alien, The X-Files, The Predator, Total Recall, Akira, The Matrix, Event Horizon, The Thing, and many more = ELITE Sci-Fi tastes.
Don't quote me, I know you are seething
With Marvel I'll only make an exception for the first Blade movie. And Star Wars/Doc Who still gets some credit from me for being an important stepping stone and inspiration for the Sci-fi to come.
Terminator, Alien, The X-Files, The Predator, Total Recall, Akira, The Matrix, Event Horizon, The Thing, and many more = ELITE Sci-Fi tastes.
Don't quote me, I know you are seething
With Marvel I'll only make an exception for the first Blade movie. And Star Wars/Doc Who still gets some credit from me for being an important stepping stone and inspiration for the Sci-fi to come.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 25. March 2025, 04:07:56 »If we're going to go down the "stolen ideas" route then I think every story ever written owes Homer's Odyssey royalties.
There's just really nothing new, everything is based off something else. Just enjoy it when it's competently done.
There's just really nothing new, everything is based off something else. Just enjoy it when it's competently done.
Posted by: fox
« on: 24. March 2025, 18:08:14 »Akira Kurosawa is of course best known for 'The Seven Samurai' (licensed and remade as 'The Magnificent Seven') and the masterpiece 'Yojimbo' (which Sergio Leone shamefully stole - and was forced to pay damages - for 'A Fistful Of Dollars').
Sergio Leone might have been a dick about it but I'm glad he did make A Fistful Of Dollars regardless. Both are essential movies (and directors). In hindsight, Kurosawa surely profited from the popularity of the remake too.
Posted by: hypatia
« on: 24. March 2025, 12:33:42 »Everything about it was so well done, not just the story and the acting, but the characterisation (so many story stereotypes, but done so very well, such as the young hero, the wise and powerful old mentor, the beautiful princess...
Agree with your entire post but don't forget Lucas lifted elements of the plot and characters from Akira Kurosawa's film 'The Hidden Fortress' (as Lucas freely acknowledges). Kenobi and Leia are very recognisable, although the biggest lift was that much of the story is told from the viewpoint of two endlessly squabbling peasants, which Lucas masterfully repurposed as the two droids.
Akira Kurosawa is of course best known for 'The Seven Samurai' (licensed and remade as 'The Magnificent Seven') and the masterpiece 'Yojimbo' (which Sergio Leone shamefully stole - and was forced to pay damages - for 'A Fistful Of Dollars').
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 23. March 2025, 14:54:11 »The original Star Wars film was amazing at the time (and still excellent even now). Everything about it was so well done, not just the story and the acting, but the characterisation (so many story stereotypes, but done so very well, such as the young hero, the wise and powerful old mentor, the beautiful princess, the rough and tough rouge with a good heart, the evil and very powerful wizard, the army of evil who don't seem to value life at all), the special effects, the designs of the space-craft, even the (fantastic) music and the scrolling text at the start of the film, and the way the screen is 'wiped' to the next scene during scene changes.
Everything about it was done so well. And Darth Vader was superb, the voice, the walk, the look, the breathing (I'm not sure why a breathing sound should add to whole thing so well, but it does), the whole I-own-this-place-and-everything-in-it attitude. If you had to write a list of the best cinematic villains ever, then Vader would have to be top five, at worst.
Star Wars (the film) was just one of those very rare times where everything came together and just worked. No flaws, no "They should have changed that*, it was just so well done and well judged.
* Well, Chewbacca should have got a medal at the end of the film, along with Luke and Han. Did they fix that in the remaster? They made some terrible changes in the remasters, it would be nice if they at least gave Chewy a medal.
Everything about it was done so well. And Darth Vader was superb, the voice, the walk, the look, the breathing (I'm not sure why a breathing sound should add to whole thing so well, but it does), the whole I-own-this-place-and-everything-in-it attitude. If you had to write a list of the best cinematic villains ever, then Vader would have to be top five, at worst.
Star Wars (the film) was just one of those very rare times where everything came together and just worked. No flaws, no "They should have changed that*, it was just so well done and well judged.
* Well, Chewbacca should have got a medal at the end of the film, along with Luke and Han. Did they fix that in the remaster? They made some terrible changes in the remasters, it would be nice if they at least gave Chewy a medal.
Posted by: hypatia
« on: 23. March 2025, 05:18:57 »Surprised that no-one has mentioned Knights Of The Old Republic...
Yes it's a computer game but it's simply the best Star Wars storytelling since the original 2.5 films (I *so* agree about the ewoks, in fact ages ago when I recorded the original trilogy onto VHS I made my own edit and purposefully cut out the ewoks).
It's difficult to get across just how important the 1978/9 original film was (I refuse to call it A New Hope). Even here in the UK it was so big that in primary school (aged 9), a teacher took our entire class to see it, by which time I'd already seen it twice already. We'd NEVER ever done anything like that before.
If only Lucas or Jar Jar Abrams had licenced the KOTOR story off Bioware (IIRC) then we may have had a good post-1985 Star Wars film, but they're all trash...
Yes it's a computer game but it's simply the best Star Wars storytelling since the original 2.5 films (I *so* agree about the ewoks, in fact ages ago when I recorded the original trilogy onto VHS I made my own edit and purposefully cut out the ewoks).
It's difficult to get across just how important the 1978/9 original film was (I refuse to call it A New Hope). Even here in the UK it was so big that in primary school (aged 9), a teacher took our entire class to see it, by which time I'd already seen it twice already. We'd NEVER ever done anything like that before.
If only Lucas or Jar Jar Abrams had licenced the KOTOR story off Bioware (IIRC) then we may have had a good post-1985 Star Wars film, but they're all trash...
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 20. March 2025, 22:27:55 »I'd be the first to agree that Bioshock: Infinite is all glitter and no depth. But my pointing out one scene from the game that has a link to something under discussion (the Star Wars films), and mentioning someone else's idea that perhaps that scene (the name of the film in the scene, at least) is meant as a (clumsy) clue to what's coming up is hardly a long-winded, heavily forced discussion about Bioshock: Infinite's storyline (when it remembers that is should have one) and the depths (or rather the shallows) of it's themes.
It's a very beautiful, very promising first person shooter that was supposed to be ground-breaking, but turned out to be several steps back, gameplay-wise, from it's two predecessors, with an interesting premise that the game disappointingly failed to live up to, a game that at worst was boring, and at best was (graphics aside), mediocre, and with a ridiculous and pretentious ending that somehow seemed to really captivate half of the players (the rest of us didn't rate it at all).
It's a very beautiful, very promising first person shooter that was supposed to be ground-breaking, but turned out to be several steps back, gameplay-wise, from it's two predecessors, with an interesting premise that the game disappointingly failed to live up to, a game that at worst was boring, and at best was (graphics aside), mediocre, and with a ridiculous and pretentious ending that somehow seemed to really captivate half of the players (the rest of us didn't rate it at all).
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 20. March 2025, 18:10:57 »Stop trying to read into the "subtext" of Bioshock Infinite. There is no subtext. The game says nothing. It's only there to be a shiny spectacle for people who don't understand storytelling, good writing, or functional game design.
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 20. March 2025, 15:09:09 »I've read online that Star Wars 3 was renamed from Revenge of the Jedi to Return 2 weeks or so before theatrical screening.
Yes, I read that is because (according to George Lucas, or whoever decided to change it from 'Revenge' to 'Return') it was felt that seeking revenge (as opposed to just a change for the better) was not in keeping with Jedi philosophy.
BTW, in the game Bioshock: Infinite, you briefly see into a parallel universe, and you see the outside of a cinema, presumably in their version of France, with the name of the then-showing film as 'La Revanche Du Jedi' ('Revenge of the Jedi', of course).
And when googling for the above image just now, I read that this was likely a clue to the big twist in Bioshock: Infinite - In Return of the Jedi, Luke learns that Darth Vader is his father, and in Bioshock: Infinite Booker learns that Elizabeth is his daughter. That never occurred to me, though I have to say that to me it's not such a great or noteworthy parallel (just like to me Bioshock: Infinite isn't a great or noteworthy game - If Comstock had turned out to be Booker's father then it would have been a much greater parallel with Return of the Jedi. And yes, Booker turned out to be Comstock from a parallel universe, but that's nothing like ROTJ's twist.
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 19. March 2025, 17:10:03 »Moulin Rouge One
There is a Nintendo 64 game called '(Star Wars) Rogue Squadron', and it seemed like 95% of the forum posts I saw about the game instead misspelt it as 'Rouge Squadron' (and not deliberately and in a sarcastic way, as the game was very well liked and popular). It was a very common mistake, and not a big one, as you can always tell what the word is meant to be.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 19. March 2025, 10:33:33 »because having 100+ "old men yell at cloud" topics would be impractical.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 19. March 2025, 09:54:25 »Why not call the thread "old men yell at cloud"
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 19. March 2025, 08:15:10 »aaand split.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 19. March 2025, 02:40:32 »I swear that every response you post is just "um actually, X thing is good," with no further elaboration or counterpoints to back up your position.
Um actually, that response is good.
Posted by: Chandlermaki
« on: 18. March 2025, 23:49:41 »This is getting off topic and perhaps should be moved to another thread.
(Tho for a rapid-fire response to things:
Star Wars 1-6 and Rouge One are good (even with a few flaws in places), Pop Culture itself isn't bad, Marvel movies aren't all bad but certainly isn't all perfect, can't speak on Doctor Who
I swear that every response you post is just "um actually, X thing is good," with no further elaboration or counterpoints to back up your position.
Posted by: Xkilljoy98
« on: 18. March 2025, 22:57:35 »This is getting off topic and perhaps should be moved to another thread.
(Tho for a rapid-fire response to things:
Star Wars 1-6 and Rouge One are good (even with a few flaws in places), Pop Culture itself isn't bad, Marvel movies aren't all bad but certainly isn't all perfect, can't speak on Doctor Who, and lastly on the topic of a certain word starting with a w, I can't speak on that without getting political so how about we don't do that here huh?)
I realize that most people here are probably double my age but eh, figured I'd say something.
But yeah uh......something something System Shock
(Tho for a rapid-fire response to things:
Star Wars 1-6 and Rouge One are good (even with a few flaws in places), Pop Culture itself isn't bad, Marvel movies aren't all bad but certainly isn't all perfect, can't speak on Doctor Who, and lastly on the topic of a certain word starting with a w, I can't speak on that without getting political so how about we don't do that here huh?)
I realize that most people here are probably double my age but eh, figured I'd say something.
But yeah uh......something something System Shock
Posted by: A Secret Member
« on: 18. March 2025, 20:21:27 »you should also avoid the popular flavour-of-the-month indie puzzle game with hipster-pixel graphics. It doesn't matter if it comes from a rich studio or one person
I feel attacked, i think this is a direct stab at a very certain game, namely World of Horror.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 16. March 2025, 23:19:31 »Dont get me started on Doctor Who...
Was obsessed with it as a kid. Got even more into when ABC channel over here did re-runs of the entire series (Hartnell to the original end of old who).
New Who I quite liked at first, but all the lore changes / retcons just killed it completely for me. Enjoyed it up to the end of Matt Smith's era. After that meh. Still love old Who and forever will. Prefer Doctor Who as horror, edge of your seat stuff. New Who is more fantasy and become more woke as it went on. Super disappointing.
Was obsessed with it as a kid. Got even more into when ABC channel over here did re-runs of the entire series (Hartnell to the original end of old who).
New Who I quite liked at first, but all the lore changes / retcons just killed it completely for me. Enjoyed it up to the end of Matt Smith's era. After that meh. Still love old Who and forever will. Prefer Doctor Who as horror, edge of your seat stuff. New Who is more fantasy and become more woke as it went on. Super disappointing.
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 16. March 2025, 15:30:08 »You've fallen for nostalgia, unfortunately.
I really, really haven't, as I will explain. I, for example, am a massive Doctor Who fan. I have most of the TV stories on DVD (both the classic series, and the 2005 onwards TV series), most of the Target novels (which are the TV stories in book form), most (maybe all, I'm not sure) of the original novels (as in the stories are original, not based on any TV stories), many of the audio original stories, and even a few of the non-fiction books (explaining things like the history of the franchise, the making of individual stories, actor interviews, etc). And I can, and do, re-watch or re-read these whenever I want to. And that is (a) absolutely brilliant, and be totally non-related to nostalgia. I can see anytime I like just how good or bad a Doctor Who story of any age or format, so I can judge it by it's own quality, and not by any vague remembrance fuelled by nostalgia.
And my own view of the modern *monumental* decline of Doctor Who (a view shared by *all* of my friends, and the official viewing figures) is based purely on fact. The TV series has gone done by an incredible drop of quality, much worse than any other franchise has suffered. To me, and *many* other Doctor Who fans, the Peter Capaldi era was the last, anything after that is not Doctor Who. I sat through the who miserable following series, and it was *awful*. And from what I have seen on Youtube reviews, it just gets worse (amazingly) from there. I haven't bought a DVD, book, or anything else Doctor Who related that is post-Capaldi, and I really don't think that I ever will.
Fortunately, I have twenty six series of classic Doctor Who, along with ten series of the modern series, very many novels (my favourite part of the whole Doctor Who franchise is the Virgin New Adventure post-1989 novel series), and audio stories, and yes, the quality of all of these do vary very much, but overall the franchise was very good, with enough good to massively outweigh the bad. I don't like either the two Peter Cushing films, nor the 1996 Paul MgGann film (though I did like McGann's Doctor, and I find Cushing to be really great as an actor), I'm not a fan of the first Doctor's (William Hartnell) era, and I've yet to find a Doctor Who game that is worth playing. I might also one day try to track down some of the Doctor Who comic books, I'm not sure why I've never looked for them.
So no, I've not fallen for nostalgia.
The Star Wars holiday special came out between A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, so there was already ABYSMAL Star wars content before the OT was even created. Long before Disney got their hands on it, you had the lackluster prequels, as well as a bunch of extended universe stuff that was very hit or miss with it's quality. In fact, George Lucas has basically been milking Star Wars since it's inception.
I was only referring to the official cinema films, I've never watched the TV series (real life actors or cartoons) or read the novels (apart from one, Splinter in he Mind's Eye, and I can't remember a thing about it), or the comics, etc. There might have been a million terrible non-cinema spin-offs, but I've never seen them. And the original trilogy is still really good. I have heard people say that the best parts of the Star Wars franchise are from fan-written, non-commercial creations, the best of which are better than even the original film trilogy, but I have no experience there, so can't comment on it.
Marvel was never good either. Iron Man is okay, and was a pretty solid start for Marvel, but all the people complaining about Marvel "being bad now", have obviously forgotten the absolute stinkers put out by Marvel in the early days. Remember Iron Man 3 and Thor 2? Even the "Good" marvel movies have, in my opinion, not been that great. I remember going to see the original Avengers movie, after hearing it was GREAT and coming fresh from watching Firefly to see "Joss Whedon's next masterpiece", and I left the theater disappointed because it was only decent, not amazing. You can argue Marvel has declined in recent years in terms of their big tentpole films, but Marvel has been extremely inconsistent in quality since it's inception.
Some Marvel films were *very* good. Yes, the quality varied greatly, but the average quality was really high, easily good enough to justify fans' praise and love for Marvel.
A lot of people (especially millenials) have this strange view that "everything is getting worse" and that good pop culture has been "eroded over time". Depending on their politics, this is usually due to either wokeness, pandering, or some combination. The reality is that pop culture has almost always been bad, people have generally always liked lowest-common denominator slop, and NOBODY who has ever liked Marvel has ever had a worthwhile opinion on media, because it's always been garbage. Marvel was designed from day 1 to appeal to everyone to maximise ticket sales. Have their been a few good Marvel films? Of course. But being a fan of "the franchise" is extremely stupid when the franchise has basically always been bad.
And I have to say that your "NOBODY who has ever liked Marvel has ever had a worthwhile opinion on media," is both offensive and stupidly pretentious. Your "But being a fan of "the franchise" is extremely stupid when the franchise has basically always been bad" is also nonsense, because many franchises aren't bad, and in fact for a franchise to survive long term usually requires it to be good enough to attract attention (and usually the customer's money).
And, like me with Doctor Who, fans of a given franchise nowadays mostly have the ability to re-view, or re-play, or re-listen to any or all of the episodes of their favourite franchises, so they don't have to depend on rose tinted memories of the older eras of the franchises. They can judge the franchise in it's entirety by viewing every aspect of the franchise that they choose, including all of it if you wish to do so. And can legitimately judge if the quality of it has gone significantly downhill.
And my own view of the modern *monumental* decline of Doctor Who (a view shared by *all* of my friends, and the official viewing figures) is based purely on fact. The TV series has gone done by an incredible drop of quality, much worse than any other franchise has suffered. To me, and *many* other Doctor Who fans, the Peter Capaldi era was the last, anything after that is not Doctor Who. I sat through the who miserable following series, and it was *awful*. And from what I have seen on Youtube reviews, it just gets worse (amazingly) from there. I haven't bought a DVD, book, or anything else Doctor Who related that is post-Capaldi, and I really don't think that I ever will,
The red pill is accepting media's decline, but the true black pill is understanding that popular media has always sucked, it always will suck, and that's the way we like it because we keep supporting stuff that sucks.
There's your pretentious drivel again. Doctor Who, Fawlty Towers, Bottom, Blake's 7, Fire Fly, the original Star Trek, Sapphire and Steel, the original Star Wars trilogy, the Twilight Zone, Danger Mouse (the original series, not the 2015 remake), Bladerunner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Monty Python's Life of Brian, etc, all 'suck' do they? To the pretentious, maybe, but not to those who judge by quality.
The only way to find something enjoyable is to eschew the mainstream and look elsewhere.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than in video games. Avoid the AAA slop, that much is obvious, but you should also avoid the popular flavour-of-the-month indie puzzle game with hipster-pixel graphics. It doesn't matter if it comes from a rich studio or one person, slop sells and will always be the lowest quality content on the market. Don't fall for it.
No, avoiding the AAA games is not 'obvious'. Yes, some are terrible, and most are not great, but some can be great. And no doubt most indie games have a similar quality spread to the AAA range.
Posted by: icemann
« on: 16. March 2025, 03:50:09 »I really like the prequels, except for the 2nd one. Phantom Menace has the racing, excellent light sabre battles, music and Darth Maul. Revenge of the Sith is the best of the lot (of the prequels).
As for the new trilogy. First is ok, the other 2 are TERRIBLE. Hate them with a passion. They completely ruined the jedi + Luke Skywalker. Rei and Kylo are the only good aspects there.
Spinoff films: Rogue One - Love it. Excellent film. Solo: Boring. Watch once only kinda film.
Tv shows: The Mandalorian is excellent (except for season 3), Endor also great. The rest range from ok to bad.
As for the new trilogy. First is ok, the other 2 are TERRIBLE. Hate them with a passion. They completely ruined the jedi + Luke Skywalker. Rei and Kylo are the only good aspects there.
Spinoff films: Rogue One - Love it. Excellent film. Solo: Boring. Watch once only kinda film.
Tv shows: The Mandalorian is excellent (except for season 3), Endor also great. The rest range from ok to bad.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 15. March 2025, 10:18:50 »I was a dumb kid and loved the Star Wars prequels, but I have grown up since then.
That said, I will always prefer a man getting out of touch and producing crap over a faceless megacorporation running an eternal firehose of garbage to try and make a buck.
As much as I dislike the prequels, I appreciate Lucas for not filling the cinemas with crap constantly.
Which is more than I can say for Disney/Marvel.
That said, I will always prefer a man getting out of touch and producing crap over a faceless megacorporation running an eternal firehose of garbage to try and make a buck.
As much as I dislike the prequels, I appreciate Lucas for not filling the cinemas with crap constantly.
Which is more than I can say for Disney/Marvel.
Posted by: Livo
« on: 15. March 2025, 07:09:14 »I saw The Phantom Menace in 1999 at the cinemas as an early teen: I loved X-Wing, Dark Forces and the original trilogy on VHS. I was excited to see a new Star Wars movie on the big screen: it was a huge event, even if you divorced yourself from the marketing hype, it was a big deal. For the first time since 1983, a new (not the 1997 re-releases) Star Wars was available to watch at the movies! Wow!
Oh boy, that was my first genuine experience of a cinematic disappointment in something I enjoyed previously. Seriously, my reaction to it immediately was "That was, uh, a big disappointment, I feel very meh now...", and I felt that way well after that screening. Still do as an older millenial. I definitely soured on the franchise as a whole after that. Some of the late 90s/early 2000s games were genuinely great, but I learnt a valuable lesson in marketing hype & "corporations love making mediocre or garbage products, as long as people buy it: who cares about quality or artistic integrity?" attitude that day.
The prequels were more coherent as they were made by a single film-maker for sure, I like some parts of them, and the concepts/ideas are interesting in theory, but the scripts for them were rubbish, the filming and cinematography are mostly mediocre, and apart from Ewan McGregor, most of the acting is rough. Hell, I noticed some of these problems as a very stupid, dumb teen back in 1999, which is saying something. Also, Lucas made a ton of money from the merchandise rights for the original trilogy, he outright refused to allow the Spaceballs parody to be made UNLESS Mel Brooks gave up the right to make any toys, merchandise etc from the film.
Lucas has been a "I want every opportunity to make as much money as possible now please!" type of guy for a very long time.
Anyway, sorry to backseat mod, but maybe splitting off this discussion into a new topic might be a good idea.
Oh boy, that was my first genuine experience of a cinematic disappointment in something I enjoyed previously. Seriously, my reaction to it immediately was "That was, uh, a big disappointment, I feel very meh now...", and I felt that way well after that screening. Still do as an older millenial. I definitely soured on the franchise as a whole after that. Some of the late 90s/early 2000s games were genuinely great, but I learnt a valuable lesson in marketing hype & "corporations love making mediocre or garbage products, as long as people buy it: who cares about quality or artistic integrity?" attitude that day.
The prequels were more coherent as they were made by a single film-maker for sure, I like some parts of them, and the concepts/ideas are interesting in theory, but the scripts for them were rubbish, the filming and cinematography are mostly mediocre, and apart from Ewan McGregor, most of the acting is rough. Hell, I noticed some of these problems as a very stupid, dumb teen back in 1999, which is saying something. Also, Lucas made a ton of money from the merchandise rights for the original trilogy, he outright refused to allow the Spaceballs parody to be made UNLESS Mel Brooks gave up the right to make any toys, merchandise etc from the film.
Lucas has been a "I want every opportunity to make as much money as possible now please!" type of guy for a very long time.
Anyway, sorry to backseat mod, but maybe splitting off this discussion into a new topic might be a good idea.
Posted by: sarge945
« on: 15. March 2025, 05:39:21 »*smiles in completely ignoring all Star Wars movies after the first 6*
Wait, you bothered with the Prequels?
Doctor Who, Star Wars, The Marvel Universe, Indiana Jones, etc, how have such monumentally huge and popular franchises managed to fall so low in recent years. And WHY WHY WHY do subsequent episodes and new films, which are not aimed at the genuine fans but instead are aimed at pleasing mostly people who have no interest in watching these franchises ever, why are these so-sub par additions continually given the green light by the studio heads? You'd think at least the studio heads, who are only in it for the money, would say "Hang on, this franchise was massively popular, and made us a fortune, then we changed the formulae try to attract other demographics and earn politically correct points, and lost most of our regular viewers, and gained almost no new fans because the people we wanted to attract don't much like science fiction anyway, so AND HERE's an idea - let's go back to making the sort of films that were really popular and made us a fortune?".
You've fallen for nostalgia, unfortunately.
The Star Wars holiday special came out between A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, so there was already ABYSMAL Star wars content before the OT was even created. Long before Disney got their hands on it, you had the lackluster prequels, as well as a bunch of extended universe stuff that was very hit or miss with it's quality. In fact, George Lucas has basically been milking Star Wars since it's inception.
Marvel was never good either. Iron Man is okay, and was a pretty solid start for Marvel, but all the people complaining about Marvel "being bad now", have obviously forgotten the absolute stinkers put out by Marvel in the early days. Remember Iron Man 3 and Thor 2? Even the "Good" marvel movies have, in my opinion, not been that great. I remember going to see the original Avengers movie, after hearing it was GREAT and coming fresh from watching Firefly to see "Joss Whedon's next masterpiece", and I left the theater disappointed because it was only decent, not amazing. You can argue Marvel has declined in recent years in terms of their big tentpole films, but Marvel has been extremely inconsistent in quality since it's inception.
A lot of people (especially millenials) have this strange view that "everything is getting worse" and that good pop culture has been "eroded over time". Depending on their politics, this is usually due to either wokeness, pandering, or some combination. The reality is that pop culture has almost always been bad, people have generally always liked lowest-common denominator slop, and NOBODY who has ever liked Marvel has ever had a worthwhile opinion on media, because it's always been garbage. Marvel was designed from day 1 to appeal to everyone to maximise ticket sales. Have their been a few good Marvel films? Of course. But being a fan of "the franchise" is extremely stupid when the franchise has basically always been bad.
The red pill is accepting media's decline, but the true black pill is understanding that popular media has always sucked, it always will suck, and that's the way we like it because we keep supporting stuff that sucks.
The only way to find something enjoyable is to eschew the mainstream and look elsewhere.
Nowhere is this more prevalent than in video games. Avoid the AAA slop, that much is obvious, but you should also avoid the popular flavour-of-the-month indie puzzle game with hipster-pixel graphics. It doesn't matter if it comes from a rich studio or one person, slop sells and will always be the lowest quality content on the market. Don't fall for it.
Posted by: Mystery User
« on: 14. March 2025, 17:17:57 »
Some mega-fans say that there were only two and a half good Star Wars film
I was extremely close to actually write 2.5 films.... but didn't wanted to come across as peculiarly picky or even strange.
I've read online that Star Wars 3 was renamed from Revenge of the Jedi to Return 2 weeks or so before theatrical screening.
I was planned to show multiple death stars, the imperial capital planet had abbadon & much more and at one point star wars 3 shouldn't have even featured darth vader @ all but should have focused on boba fett being the main villain & vader's reappearance was planned in the 4th or 5th movie & hadn't george & marcia lucas parted ways there would have been either 9 or 11 star wars movies in more or less continous intervalls, etc. Etc. bla bla yadda yadda this is everything that i know... in my head canon ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ star wars 3 is like in those aforementioned concepts etc. etc. etc. and in my headcanon the emperor looks like the one with superimposed monkeyeyes from empire strikes back and star wars dna is even prevalent in system shock games etc. etc.
Posted by: JosiahJack
« on: 14. March 2025, 04:15:22 »Ah another Critical Drinker thinker. Very insightful that one.
Star Wars, my take:
4-6 are Old Testament
1-3 are New Testament
Rogue 1 and Solo are Apocrypha
7-9 are heretical writings of much later groups.
Star Wars, my take:
4-6 are Old Testament
1-3 are New Testament
Rogue 1 and Solo are Apocrypha
7-9 are heretical writings of much later groups.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 13. March 2025, 21:59:17 »because [Critical Drinker]MODERN AUDIENCES![/Critical Drinker]
split into new rant topic?
split into new rant topic?
Posted by: JDoran
« on: 13. March 2025, 21:28:32 »There are only 3 Star Wars movies.
I'm not a big Star Wars fan, so I don't know the post original trilogy films too well (but I was around at the time of the original trilogy, and they were massively popular and very good, to anyone who wasn't around in the late 1970s, it must be hard to understand how big Star Wars (Episode four) was). I have seen all of the prequels, sequels, etc, and none of them (to me) even approach the original trilogy. Though I did like Rogue One.
Some mega-fans say that there were only two and a half good Star Wars film, as they don't want to recognise the second half of Return of the Jedi as being canon, because of the immense stupidity of the Empire's best Stormtrooper forces getting beaten by a bunch of three foot teddy bears armed with stone age weapons. And I do sympathise.
But to any Star Wars fans disappointed by Disney's attempts to ruin the franchise, just be glad that you're not Doctor Who fans. Compared to the way Doctor Who has been transformed into a virtue signalling pantomime with scripts so bad that they *cannot* be seriously intended to be genuine, enthralling science-fiction, and bearing no resemblance at all to either the science-fiction and cultural giant that it was for so many decades, nor to anything that could rightly claim to be entertaining, then Star Wars, no matter how far it has fallen, has at least not fallen anywhere near as far as Doctor Who.
Doctor Who, Star Wars, The Marvel Universe, Indiana Jones, etc, how have such monumentally huge and popular franchises managed to fall so low in recent years. And WHY WHY WHY do subsequent episodes and new films, which are not aimed at the genuine fans but instead are aimed at pleasing mostly people who have no interest in watching these franchises ever, why are these so-sub par additions continually given the green light by the studio heads? You'd think at least the studio heads, who are only in it for the money, would say "Hang on, this franchise was massively popular, and made us a fortune, then we changed the formulae try to attract other demographics and earn politically correct points, and lost most of our regular viewers, and gained almost no new fans because the people we wanted to attract don't much like science fiction anyway, so AND HERE's an idea - let's go back to making the sort of films that were really popular and made us a fortune?".
Posted by: Unknown Person
« on: 13. March 2025, 17:53:06 »There are only 3 Star Wars movies.
Posted by: voodoo47
« on: 13. March 2025, 11:00:50 »*smiles in completely ignoring all Star Wars movies after the first 6*
Loading...