On adelphia channel 213 and 217 there is an awesome Star Wars marathon.
They are showing all the movies in order: a new hope-the empire strikes back-return of the jedi-phantom menace-attack of clones-revenge of the sith
It has been going all day and it is going on at least till tuesday (i used the arrows on the remote and it went till like 3am on tuesday and it was still star wars)
I have all of the DVDs but if i am bored i will just turn on the tv and star wars will be on which is nice
Full Version: Star Wars
Only a loser would order them like that. It should be Phantom, Clone, Sith, Hope, Empire, Jedi. And that's even if you're mainstream enough to accept the prequels over the fan fiction works on the same time-frame, from the early '90s, which I don't.
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Saturday, November 11th, 2006, 11:25 PM) 
Only a loser would order them like that. It should be Phantom, Clone, Sith, Hope, Empire, Jedi. And that's even if you're mainstream enough to accept the prequels over the fan fiction works on the same time-frame, from the early '90s, which I don't.
i think it was ordered that way-it was hard to tell because i didn't know where it started but i just saw that it ended with jedi so it goes:
phantom, clone, revenge, hope, empire, jedi
Either HBO or Showtime has already been doing this. Starting with Phantom Menace and finishing with ROJ.
Seeing them starting with Phantom really changes the way one views the entire series. I think there is validity in ordering them both ways.
QUOTE (Nikki_N @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 10:40 AM)
Seeing them starting with Phantom really changes the way one views the entire series. I think there is validity in ordering them both ways.
yes, i like hearing the debate between my friends on how to watch them.
the people who didn't see the original before seeing the new ones, think you have to watch the new ones first. the people who loved the originals think you have to watch the originals first.
i don't know how to watch them. i think you should start with phantom but then when you watch a new hope the graphics just depress you
QUOTE (showstopper24 @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 12:17 PM)
yes, i like hearing the debate between my friends on how to watch them.
the people who didn't see the original before seeing the new ones, think you have to watch the new ones first. the people who loved the originals think you have to watch the originals first.
i don't know how to watch them. i think you should start with phantom but then when you watch a new hope the graphics just depress you
the people who didn't see the original before seeing the new ones, think you have to watch the new ones first. the people who loved the originals think you have to watch the originals first.
i don't know how to watch them. i think you should start with phantom but then when you watch a new hope the graphics just depress you
I don't even accecpt the new ones as being part of the story, and even I know that this is stupid. If you're going to watch them for some reason - let's just say, hypothetically, that you watch the new trilogy because... I don't know, like I said, hypothetically, you have a crippling, bent-over-at-the-waste-type boner for Natalie Portman – you at that point have to fit them into their attempted chronological order. Or not, I never even watched the movies. I was super cool in middle school, and was prolly a quarterback or something.
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 12:38 PM)
I don't even accecpt the new ones as being part of the story, and even I know that this is stupid. If you're going to watch them for some reason - let's just say, hypothetically, that you watch the new trilogy because... I don't know, like I said, hypothetically, you have a crippling, bent-over-at-the-waste-type boner for Natalie Portman – you at that point have to fit them into their attempted chronological order. Or not, I never even watched the movies. I was super cool in middle school, and was prolly a quarterback or something.
so are you saying that you shouldn't even watch the new ones?
QUOTE (showstopper24 @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 4:39 PM)
so are you saying that you shouldn't even watch the new ones?
Your not really missing anything if you do skip them. The only way they are superior to the origionals is in the newer special effects. Everything else from the actors to the script is worse in the new ones.
If they were going to make more movies, making the Thrawn Trilogy would have been immensily better than the prequils.
QUOTE (showstopper24 @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 2:39 PM)
so are you saying that you shouldn't even watch the new ones?
Yeah, you know how the new ones aren't actually good? That is a key reason to skip them.
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 3:23 PM)
Your not really missing anything if you do skip them. The only way they are superior to the origionals is in the newer special effects. Everything else from the actors to the script is worse in the new ones.
If they were going to make more movies, making the Thrawn Trilogy would have been immensily better than the prequils.
If they were going to make more movies, making the Thrawn Trilogy would have been immensily better than the prequils.
im a star wars fan but not that big of one so what is the trawn trilogy?
and you can say what you want about the actors but hayden christensen was amazing during his transformation to vader
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 3:23 PM)
Your not really missing anything if you do skip them. The only way they are superior to the origionals is in the newer special effects. Everything else from the actors to the script is worse in the new ones.
...Pretty much.
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 3:23 PM)
If they were going to make more movies, making the Thrawn Trilogy would have been immensily better than the prequils.
I don't know. Much of the scripts were written before the first trilogy was made, I recall (I'm pretty far removed for the world of SW [I was 11 when I realized I was a loser]). It was a good idea, just poorly done. Even still, I would've loved to have seen Thrawn.
QUOTE (showstopper24 @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 3:53 PM)
im a star wars fan but not that big of one so what is the trawn trilogy?
The master work of Timothy Zahn, it picked up where Jedi left off. There is A LOT of fiction "EU" stuff out there for Star Wars. If you can find any of the unpublished Fan-Fiction stuff, it's pretty smug to go by that instead of the second triogy. I think the best one was by a guy whose name I believe was William Chen.
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 5:23 PM)
The master work of Timothy Zahn, it picked up where Jedi left off. There is A LOT of fiction "EU" stuff out there for Star Wars. If you can find any of the unpublished Fan-Fiction stuff, it's pretty smug to go by that instead of the second triogy. I think the best one was by a guy whose name I believe was William Chen.
haha-alright thanks
QUOTE (showstopper24 @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 5:53 PM)
im a star wars fan but not that big of one so what is the trawn trilogy?
and you can say what you want about the actors but hayden christensen was amazing during his transformation to vader
and you can say what you want about the actors but hayden christensen was amazing during his transformation to vader
No, Christensen can't act for crap... he was horrible. He can't express emotions, deliver lines, or come of as even semi realistic. Part of it was the poor writing he was working with, but other actors in the prequeals were much better. The only one I would call consistantly good was the guy playing Obi-One (can't remember his name atm).
The Thrawn Trilogy description as taken from Wikipedia...
QUOTE
The Thrawn trilogy, also known as The Three Book Cycle and The Heir To The Empire trilogy, is a trilogy of novels written by Timothy Zahn that are set in the fictional Star Wars Expanded Universe galaxy about five years after Return of the Jedi. The trilogy proved to be extremely popular among Star Wars fans and the general public when it was released, and secured the author a position as a respected figure in Star Wars literature.
The series introduced many notable characters, such as Mara Jade, Talon Karrde, and Grand Admiral Thrawn, one of the more notable Expanded Universe villains, to Star Wars. Also, the galactic capital world of Coruscant was first popularly named in the trilogy. The series is credited with reinvigorating the popularity of the Star Wars Expanded Universe to a level not seen since the early years of Star Wars. The series is generally regarded by many as the beginning of the new generation of Star Wars novels, as many more novels were written after its success, including the Jedi Academy Trilogy and others. Because the books were written a full decade before the prequel trilogy, some of the information on the Clone Wars and Darth Vader's biography have since been contradicted, with various retcons being supplied in other works.
All three books were later adapted as comic books by Dark Horse Comics. The series was divided into six separate issues per book.
The series introduced many notable characters, such as Mara Jade, Talon Karrde, and Grand Admiral Thrawn, one of the more notable Expanded Universe villains, to Star Wars. Also, the galactic capital world of Coruscant was first popularly named in the trilogy. The series is credited with reinvigorating the popularity of the Star Wars Expanded Universe to a level not seen since the early years of Star Wars. The series is generally regarded by many as the beginning of the new generation of Star Wars novels, as many more novels were written after its success, including the Jedi Academy Trilogy and others. Because the books were written a full decade before the prequel trilogy, some of the information on the Clone Wars and Darth Vader's biography have since been contradicted, with various retcons being supplied in other works.
All three books were later adapted as comic books by Dark Horse Comics. The series was divided into six separate issues per book.
Grand Admiral Thrawn is one of the best villians ever in the Star Wars universe.
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 8:34 PM)
Grand Admiral Thrawn is one of the best villians ever in the Star Wars universe.
Certainly not an overstatement. It's hard to match him against Vader, as he's never been properly realized on screen, but it at lest gives me a bit of smug pleasure to say I prefer him.
grand admiral thrawn and that trilogy are so good. i'm gonna read them all over again.
also, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire is a good book. takes place between empire and return of jedi
also, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire is a good book. takes place between empire and return of jedi
QUOTE (runthemover @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 10:51 PM)
grand admiral thrawn and that trilogy are so good. i'm gonna read them all over again.
also, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire is a good book. takes place between empire and return of jedi
also, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire is a good book. takes place between empire and return of jedi
There was fan Fan-Fiction verison of that written in Chinese. It's not as good, but I'll pertend it's better.
Which one had that cool part where Luke learned to make a lightsaber?
Listen, I would call myself a middle-of-the-road Star Wars fan, not a nut, but I know a lot, and everyone has to come off of this holier than thou crap. The new trilogy isn't that different from the original. Try to deny your nostalgic emotions and put what they did in the 70's and 80's into today because hey, that's what happened.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
QUOTE (myenemy @ Monday, November 13th, 2006, 8:39 AM)
Listen, I would call myself a middle-of-the-road Star Wars fan, not a nut, but I know a lot, and everyone has to come off of this holier than thou crap. The new trilogy isn't that different from the original. Try to deny your nostalgic emotions and put what they did in the 70's and 80's into today because hey, that's what happened.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
You're right: now I love them. Thanks. That's all it took.
QUOTE (myenemy @ Monday, November 13th, 2006, 10:39 AM)
Listen, I would call myself a middle-of-the-road Star Wars fan, not a nut, but I know a lot, and everyone has to come off of this holier than thou crap. The new trilogy isn't that different from the original. Try to deny your nostalgic emotions and put what they did in the 70's and 80's into today because hey, that's what happened.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
Wow....
Ok Mark Hammil wasn't a great actor by any means, but he was light years ahead of Christenson. Carrie Fisher was also better than Natalie Portman, I think Natalie is the better actor overall but her preformance in Star Wars was horrible. And Chewbacca > Jar Jar... don't even start.
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Sunday, November 12th, 2006, 8:34 PM)
The only one I would call consistantly good was the guy playing Obi-One (can't remember his name atm).
Thrawn is one of the best villians ever in the Star Wars universe.
Thrawn is one of the best villians ever in the Star Wars universe.
euan magregor?
i still think hayden was great when he was turning into vader
QUOTE (Jadaki @ Monday, November 13th, 2006, 1:09 PM)
Wow....
And Chewbacca > Jar Jar... don't even start.
And Chewbacca > Jar Jar... don't even start.
really, i thought jar jar was a lot better.
Just kidding-jar jar was such an embarrsement to the starwars franchise. i think a main reason for adding him was for kids (the new generation who would see the new ones before the old ones) would have a funny character.
it failed however...
QUOTE (Dirtydutch @ Monday, November 13th, 2006, 12:10 PM)
You're right: now I love them. Thanks. That's all it took.
Me too.
QUOTE (myenemy @ Monday, November 13th, 2006, 8:39 AM)
Listen, I would call myself a middle-of-the-road Star Wars fan, not a nut, but I know a lot, and everyone has to come off of this holier than thou crap. The new trilogy isn't that different from the original. Try to deny your nostalgic emotions and put what they did in the 70's and 80's into today because hey, that's what happened.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
Forget SW for a second and try to make a super sci-fi story/film/trilogy with the best graphics and some big time actors with a PG or PG-13 (only RotS got this) rating, and think of the likelihood of a disaster. Considering... I think they did a pretty good job. Both trilogies are wrought with hokie scripts and some bad acting (do I have to mention Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill or the incessant howling of Chewbacca?). But the story is great and the world that GL created is fascintating.
So I say, give nostalgia a rest and take the movies at face value. They're not great, but they're pretty creative, for a wide audience and fun to think about. Just like the original trilogy.
thats a good explanation.
i have to say that i saw the new star wars before i saw the original ones. becuase of this i like the new ones better. its hard to watch RotS and then go watch the lightsaber battle in a new hope.
i realize if i saw the original before i saw the new ones i would probably like them better but they are both good.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.