[Despondent]

personally one star is too many.

even in the title.

[Harmonica]

I find it difficult to get behind organized attempt to try to knock down the pollled Rating of a movie, no matter how repugnant said movie was. I mean, even if you knock it down so that it has negative stars, no one's getting their money, time, or emotional investment back.

That said, I would be fulling willing to join a national "Let's All Set George Lucas On Fire And Take His Money" Campaign. 'Cause, like, how do you get more rewarding than that?

[barend]

even in the title.

tell me... do ever get bored of being so awsome?

[KurganX]

You're right! The Matrix was groundbreaking in the movie industry also! Not only did it present a plotline that had never before been put on film, but like you said, it set the standard for fight scenes that would come later in other films.

Jurassic Park was a pioneer-movie of sorts; the plot wasn't completely original, as cloning dinosaurs had been talked about by everyone for years and years; BUT, it did show dinosaurs how they SHOULD be on the big screen, using some CGI as you mentioned before.
Yes, but that is what is so positive about it. Both gushers and haters have reviewed it now, and pretty much all is said and done. But if the haters come back with another round, to show that they are sincere, then it will be great!

The gushers don't have the incentive to keep going, like we do. That is the key to the whole thing.

I beg to differ! The plotline of The Matrix HAD been done before. See "Dark City" made a few years before about aliens who construct a fake world for humans to live in, manipulating them for their own ends, etc. and one man "breaks out" and tries to stop it, and he gains powers equivalent (and eventually surpassing) the aliens. Plus it's dark, bleak, and a lot of people wear black (but no Kung Fu, just knife fighting and telekinesis, but the final battle has a part where the end villian and the main hero are flying above the city, just like Neo and Agent Smith in the Matrix Revolutions, ha!). In fact, replace the aliens with "machines" and Dark City could be a semi-prequel. Or imagine it animated and put it into the "Animatrix" set. Seriously. The idea that the world we live in is an illusion has been around for a long time in fiction in fact, but this example in film totally destroys the idea that the Matrix was completely original. The whole "man fought machines he created and machines won" is also old hat... see Terminator. And let's not even get started on the number of movies with a "chosen one" or "savior" figure that emerges to lead the people (consult your Bible for references!). And virtual reality had been done before in movies. It's simple really, just film two different scenes with the same actors on a different location/set and throw in some different costumes or sights and say that one of them is "inside" and the other "outside" of the virtual world. The notion of a "virtual landscape/livable cyberspace" was done already in TRON and "Lawnmower Man" (and numerous ripoffs).

The Matrix was ground breaking in that it pioneered the "bullet time" techniques (although early versions of it could be seen in other movies, like Blade, but they were far less complex) and successfully merged wire work, CG and standard live action stunts and drama into a nice kung fu flick (and all good/bad kung fu flicks have some kind of philosophy melded in there) with a sci fi twist. The sequels were just more of the same.

I suppose the robots using humans as batteries was a pretty unique idea in a movie (albeit a silly one).

Another movie with some similarities to The Matrix, The Thirteenth Floor, technically came out after it, but it was released just over two weeks later, so it had to have been in production around the same time (as often happens with movies, see Armageddon/Deep Impact, and Thin Red Line/Saving Private Ryan).

Jurassic Park was based on the (mostly superior) novel, so obviously it wasn't original. In terms of movies it was pretty original (lots of movies had brought back Dinosaurs, but none through cloning DNA stuck in amberized mosquitos). What it did best was to give us the most realistic looking Dinosaurs in a flick thus far, otherwise it was very much a horror cliffhanger movie. The guy who played Dr. Grant is a veteran actor of scary/sci fi movies, after all.


Personally I think listing the problems of each movie down to one item just makes them easier to dismiss by gushers.

Example:

TPM was bad because it had Jar Jar in it.
AOTC was bad because of the embarassing fireplace scene.
ROTS was bad because Vader went "NOOooooo!" and acted like Frankenstein's monster.
ROTJ was bad because of Ewoks.

See? You can easily dismiss those complaints, label the complainer a "nerd" and such.

Other examples:

ANH SE was bad because Greedo shot first.
ESB SE was bad because the new Wampa wasn't as scary as in my imagination.
ROTJ SE was bad because Hayden's face is pasted over Sebastian Shaw's and he looks like a stalker.

You've got to layer in the complaints. In my review of the DVD's (I review "both" the 2004 set and the 2005 set, pointing out the second set was just a rehash without the bonus disc and that a new set was coming, iirc), I pointed out the TECHNICAL PROBLEMS with the discs. Namely the bad color timing throughout, the audio problems in ANH, the inconsistent lightsaber effects, and the brightness settings. I briefly mentioned the new changes, but I didn't waste the review bitching about every change ever made to the movies since 1983 (the previous reviews did that for me already).

Essentially, even if somebody LOVES every change made by Lucas, there are plenty of reasons to hate the current DVD's, because frankly, they were poorly done. Yes, they look fantastic, yes, they include great extras, but we KNOW Lucas can do better. Another month or two and the Lowry Digital team could have corrected the sloppy errors that were allowed to get past quality control (and show no sign of being fixed in the near future.. they won't even be touched in the 2006 limited edition set coming out in less than 2 months).

This post has been edited by KurganX: 26 July 2006 - 07:27 PM

[Despondent]

tell me... do ever get bored of being so awsome?

Listen to you. Guess I can go home now.

[StarWarsIsUs]

Kurgan, while I found your above post very long and drawn-out, it was interesting and informative nonetheless. I agree that the DVDs did have technical problems... but you have to realize, that is only half of the problem in itself. I don't agree with everything you said... but thanks anyway. I won't write a detailed counter-attack.

[jariten]

CLICK HERE
Alright, it may not destroy Revenge of the Sith, but it will definitely lower the rating.

Write a review for ROTS, giving it one star, and an adequate review of why you hate it. This will help lower the stars for the overall product. Right now it has FOUR stars! It doesn't deserve FOUR!

Who is willing to help?

Brilliant. That'll teach, er...THEM!!!

[StarWarsIsUs]

You people are going to make me cry if you don't stop with the criticism.

STOP IT! STOP IT!

LMAO!

[Cobnat]

How can god let idiots like this live!?

[Despondent]

It's God's place to determine who the idiots are.

I'm pitching for the slow car in front of me.

[StarWarsIsUs]

I have to admit that I am offended.

I thought we were kind of hitting it off, Cobnat?

[Gobbler]

Talk about self-humiliation...

[georgelucas4greedo]

How can god let idiots like this live!?

Judging from your avatar, you shouldnt believe in god.

[Despondent]

Not a capitalized one, anyway. Gotta love those folks who feel the need to be free to align themselves with Communists.

[Cobnat]

CLICK HERE
Alright, it may not destroy Revenge of the Sith, but it will definitely lower the rating.

Write a review for ROTS, giving it one star, and an adequate review of why you hate it. This will help lower the stars for the overall product. Right now it has FOUR stars! It doesn't deserve FOUR!

Who is willing to help?

That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard... but so far its the best... lets do it!

Judging from your avatar, you shouldnt believe in god.

Its ment to be a sweet irony.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 14 August 2006 - 06:47 PM