[Mike Mac from NYU]

"Civil, what newspaper/magzine do you write for? I'm assuming you're some sort of column writer or journalist. "

I swear civilian is Stanley Crouch in real life or better yet Bill O'Reilly!!

[Chefelf]

I swear civilian is Stanley Crouch in real life or better yet Bill O'Reilly!!

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! That Bill O'Reilly comment was over the line! I don't want to have to start banning users but that type of flaming is unacceptable!

He can't be Bill O'Reilly because:

1.) He's said a number of things that I agree with.

2.) I respect him.

[Mike Mac from NYU]

"Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! That Bill O'Reilly comment was over the line! I don't want to have to start banning users but that type of flaming is unacceptable!"

You're right, Elf!! My sincere apologies to you civilian . No hard feelings.
{said with complete sincerity}


As a token of good will, civilian. i will agree with everything you say for a week. Starting with this.

You're right civilian. ROTJ sucks. it is simplistic candy coated nonsense. The Yoda scene-unmoving. The tearful unveiling of Anakin, inconsistent. Those Ewoks, annoying and cloying. Leia as the other Jedi-now ay. Han Solo should have been the other Jedi. Nope nothing redeeming at all about ROTJ. What a waste of celluloid. [said with complete sincerity. }

Spend your week wisely, civilian.

[Chefelf]

As a token of good will, civilian. i will agree with everything you say for a week.

Uh oh, now you're off the deep end in the other direction. Be careful what you say, my friend.

[Civilian Three]

"As a token of good will, civilian. i will agree with everything you say for a week. Starting with this. "

Due to an egreguious slander on my fellow poster cvivilian two, I have decide to agree completely with everything civilian says for for 1 solid week. In honor of this momentous event I have undertaken a new persona.

Hence from this day on till April 22, 2004. Mike Mac from NYU will now be known as civilian THREE. I shall abide by the wishes of my brother Civilian two and back his causes.


"PATRIOTIC MUSIC"

[Civilian Three]

"Hence from this day on till April 22, 2004. Mike Mac from NYU will now be known as civilian THREE. I shall abide by the wishes of my brother Civilian two and back his causes."

Well that's a little more than a week. But what the hey!

[Vwing]

Hey Civ, what can I say, yeah I did like the plot on Earth, I liked Cromwell's character and I liked the lighthearted way it was done, in contrast to the Borg plot, which I also thought was very well done. So yeah, I liked First Contact. But don't let it upset you too much, after all, I'm the moron who loves Return of the Jedi. Not to mention Matrix Revolutions. I just love bad movies now don't I?

Oh and Civ Three, I don't think at any point Civ said that Han Solo should have been the Jedi. If you're gonna agree with him, at least agree with things he's actually said

[Ferris Wiel]

Hey Civ, what can I say, yeah I did like the plot on Earth, I liked Cromwell's character and I liked the lighthearted way it was done, in contrast to the Borg plot, which I also thought was very well done. So yeah, I liked First Contact. But don't let it upset you too much, after all, I'm the moron who loves Return of the Jedi. Not to mention Matrix Revolutions. I just love bad movies now don't I?

Oh and Civ Three, I don't think at any point Civ said that Han Solo should have been the Jedi. If you're gonna agree with him, at least agree with things he's actually said

What of the gaping plot hole in ST:FC? I'm reminded of what Marty in Back to the Future (one of the only decent time travel movies ever made) said, "I've got all the time in the world," or something to that effect: he could set the machine to take him back with enough time where he could still go and save Doc.

If the Borg had a time machine then why would they travel all the way to earth to use it? I mean, stay in the Delta quadrant, go back in time to a year or so prior to the Cochrane launch, make your way across, quickly assimilating whole systems with ease and capture Earth when its technology is incapable of fighting back? I know that destroys the whole premise of the film, but come on, it was stupid anyway.

--FW

[Chefelf]

"Hence from this day on till April 22, 2004. Mike Mac from NYU will now be known as civilian THREE. I shall abide by the wishes of my brother Civilian two and back his causes."

Well that's a little more than a week. But what the hey!

Excellent.

What of the gaping plot hole in ST:FC? I'm reminded of what Marty in Back to the Future (one of the only decent time travel movies ever made) said, "I've got all the time in the world," or something to that effect: he could set the machine to take him back with enough time where he could still go and save Doc.

Good point. The only problem is that after saying "I've got all the time in the world" he then sets the time machine back by TEN minutes! TEN MINUTES! Then one little engine problem and he's late to save Doc. Idiot.

[Ferris Wiel]

"Hence from this day on till April 22, 2004. Mike Mac from NYU will now be known as civilian THREE. I shall abide by the wishes of my brother Civilian two and back his causes."

Well that's a little more than a week. But what the hey!

Excellent.

What of the gaping plot hole in ST:FC? I'm reminded of what Marty in Back to the Future (one of the only decent time travel movies ever made) said, "I've got all the time in the world," or something to that effect: he could set the machine to take him back with enough time where he could still go and save Doc.

Good point. The only problem is that after saying "I've got all the time in the world" he then sets the time machine back by TEN minutes! TEN MINUTES! Then one little engine problem and he's late to save Doc. Idiot.

That's attributed to HIS idiocy, not the writers... at least that's my story.

Did you know that film schools show BTF in their writing classes and clinics citing it as an example of "nearly perfect" filmmaking?

--FW

[Mike Mac from NYU]

"Did you know that film schools show BTF in their writing classes and clinics citing it as an example of "nearly perfect" filmmaking?"

The Mike Mac persona must return to answer this post. Any RESPONSE by civilian TWO will be backed by Civilian THREE, with no response by Mike Mac {Infidel that he is}

Yup. If you look at it Back to the Future it does what film is supposed to do.

1. Entertain
2. Have antagonists and protagonists that are diametrically opposed and motivated
3. It does not do more than it is supposed. BTW knows what type of movie it's supposed to be and doesn't go past those parameters. {It is the exact opposite of say "Hudson Hawk" that had no idea what type of movie it was supposed to be.
4. It has no plot holes whatsover.
5. It has the amazing ability to make the most out of such little material. Think about the entire trilogy takes place in the same town, involves only five basic characters, and takes place all on the same day. it reuses sets and premises from all of it's movies and does it without being boring.
6. Perfect Casting. Who else could play these characters.
7. You could NEVER do a remake of this movie or continue it for that matter.

One of my text books "Analyitcal Film Study" class has 12 movies that are used as examples as perfect movies of their genres. It is a contemporary book

1. The French Connection
2. Casablanca
3. Empire Strikes Back
4. Das Boot
5. The Godfather Part II
6. When Harry Met Sally
7. Jaws
8. Back to the Future
9. North by Northwest
10. Raiders of the Lost Ark
11. Momento
12. Monty Python & the Holy Grail

[Despondent]

That's amazing. My sister and I used to think if only Spielberg had made Disney films during their 70's slump... (even as heartwarming as "Superdad" was) Looks like quite a legacy. do we have to guess, or will you reveal what the (12?) genres are?

[civilian_number_two]

Yup. If you look at it Back to the Future it does what film is supposed to do.

1. Entertain
2. Have antagonists and protagonists that are diametrically opposed and motivated
3. It does not do more than it is supposed. BTW knows what type of movie it's supposed to be and doesn't go past those parameters. {It is the exact opposite of say "Hudson Hawk" that had no idea what type of movie it was supposed to be.
4. It has no plot holes whatsover.
5. It has the amazing ability to make the most out of such little material. Think about the entire trilogy takes place in the same town, involves only five basic characters, and takes place all on the same day. it reuses sets and premises from all of it's movies and does it without being boring.
6. Perfect Casting. Who else could play these characters.
7. You could NEVER do a remake of this movie or continue it for that matter.

I agree. BTTF is structurally perfect. A mild weakness, or at least something that jumps out at the viewer even the first time he sees it, is how perfect it is. Exactly every scene is important to the plot, every event is either a setup or a punchline. But wow, the art direction, and hey, it's a fun premise, no matter what the critics say.

The sequels not so much. They do have plot holes (thogth not so large; the majority will not notice them), they are a bit repetitious (particularly the third film), and they lean too heavily on the "dumb protagonist" device to keep the conflict alive. Oh well. I liked them anyway.

One of my text books "Analyitcal Film Study" class has 12 movies that are used as examples as perfect movies of their genres. It is a contemporary book
1. The French Connection
2. Casablanca
3. Empire Strikes Back
4. Das Boot
5. The Godfather Part II
6. When Harry Met Sally
7. Jaws
8. Back to the Future
9. North by Northwest
10. Raiders of the Lost Ark
11. Memento
12. Monty Python & the Holy Grail

Those are all great ((5) and (6) are not my faves, but neither is terrible), even if (9) and (10) are essentially the same genre, the latter having derived itself, via the Bond series, from the structure and style of the former.

(11) is a bit of a bandwagon jump. I love it, but it's not "perfect." It cheats in its premise, and where it does not cheat, it has at least one error. I love it more for its boldness than its executon. If the "genre" it represents is the hard-boiled detective fick, there are loads of others they might have used without trying to look modern and slick. If tis "genre" is the mainstream / experimental film, then I guess it's as good an example as any.

Anyway, I'm glad to hear that they've stopped using DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN in film class.

[civilian_number_two]

"Hence from this day on till April 22, 2004. Mike Mac from NYU will now be known as civilian THREE. I shall abide by the wishes of my brother Civilian two and back his causes."

Well that's a little more than a week. But what the hey!

Your avatar should be the third civilian option from the game GOLDENEYE, since mine is the second civilian. That, my strage friend, would be keeping it real.

And yes, I never never ever suggested that Han Solo should be a Jedi knight. I wanted the last Jedid to be the hero fo the third trilogy, and I think he would have been a last resort, turned to after the self-sacrifice of Luke Skywalker killed Vader but failed to destroy the Emperor.

I would have preferred that to the *literally nothing* they did with Leia.

PS: I don't understand any of this self-parody. I don't know anything about those people you are comparing me with, so I can't be offended. And even if I did know about them, and even if the comparisons were unfavorable, I know who and what I am. Don't worry, guys. I have thicker skin than that.