Was the first three movies all that?

Myrddin · 29-01-2014 9:50am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Meh, should world war 3 break out here on earth samurais won't feature too heavily. Pit my lazy untrained ass, with a cheap shotgun, against the worlds most highly trained samurai and his finely crafted sword and all you end up with is a dead samurai and a nice sword as a memento.

If those Samurai swords could absorb shotgun pellets & redirect them back at you, I'm not so sure

sbsquarepants · 29-01-2014 11:14am

Ha ha, well there is that to consider too I suppose!:)

Gbear · 30-01-2014 4:38am

There's a certain 70's/80's ness to Star Wars that hasn't aged too well but the core of the first 2 films (4 and 5, I mean) are solid.

The rest are varying levels of ****e. 6 is only half ****e to be fair but it suffers from the same sort of ****ology that the prequels do ; fluffy bunnies destroying giant bipedal death robots with trees and that kind of thing, because George Lucas thinks most people are 4 and find that sort of thing funny.

It was telling that I really liked the prequel trilogy when it came out because I was still a child.

But 4 and 5 have never lost their charm.

5 is simply one of the best films ever made.

Cork boy 55 · 30-01-2014 7:51pm

In fairness Episode 6 did feature imperial scout troopers.

Nody · 30-01-2014 8:05pm

Gbear wrote: »

fluffy bunnies destroying giant bipedal death robots with trees and that kind of thing, because George Lucas thinks most people are 4 and find that sort of thing funny.

Well looking at history the local natives with spears have often taken out soldiers with guns with out problem; and they tried the tree vs. Walker on Mythbuster (using an armored car) and it smashed it with out problem.

endacl · 31-01-2014 12:21am

DazMarz wrote: »

Ah, c'mon now!! She's not even from a 'proper' StarWars movie!!

:P

Gbear · 04-02-2014 5:46pm

Nody wrote: »

Well looking at history the local natives with spears have often taken out soldiers with guns with out problem; and they tried the tree vs. Walker on Mythbuster (using an armored car) and it smashed it with out problem.

Local natives with spears have found it tougher and tougher as technology has progressed.

You could stick Alexander the Great's armies or Caesar's Roman Legions against European forces from the 1400's and they would have destroyed them, probably quite easily.

But even 20-50 years between forces nowadays - Stealth Bombers vs old russian T-34s, and there's no comparison.

It's one thing to crush an armoured car with a tree. It's quite another to crush whatever the armoured car's replacement is from 5000 years in the future.

Cork boy 55 · 04-02-2014 6:11pm

The ewoks where fighting at home and the AT-ST is mot designed to fight in forests
and is vulnerable. The Ewoks' purpose was to distract the Imperial troops and the Ewoks did not really win

Nody · 05-02-2014 9:56am

Gbear wrote: »

Local natives with spears have found it tougher and tougher as technology has progressed.

Yet 9/11 happened in the country with arguably the most advanced weapons and techonology in the world and IEDs have claimed how many lives in Iraq and Afghanistan vs. the top armies of the world?

You could stick Alexander the Great's armies or Caesar's Roman Legions against European forces from the 1400's and they would have destroyed them, probably quite easily.

Because you're pitching an army against an army; change the concept to guerilla forces vs. European forces or heck, look at the Anglo Zulu war 400 years later with spears vs. guns. People get confident when they think their technical superiority is enough to win and that confidence is a liability.

But even 20-50 years between forces nowadays - Stealth Bombers vs old russian T-34s, and there's no comparison.

How well did it work to bomb Serbia into submission? Russia in Afghanistan? US in Afghanistan? Air superiority is great for busting tanks in the open ala Iraq but if you're hunting people hiding in forests it sort don't work to well now does it?

It's one thing to crush an armoured car with a tree. It's quite another to crush whatever the armoured car's replacement is from 5000 years in the future.

And it's a walker; which means it's going to be significantly limited in weight to hold it all up. The walker by design will also be working well against expected weapons (i.e. energy weapons) but that does not mean it will have a great kinetic defence (no tank is omni protected well against everything because it costs to much).

shruikan2553 · 15-03-2014 12:58am

sbsquarepants wrote: »

By fighting with sticks I was referring to the light sabres, it's an idiotic weapon - think of the technology that would be required to "freeze" a laser beam, then think of what it added to the weapon - absolutely nothing, it achieved the exact opposite in fact, instead of shooting your opponent with it from a mile away you've put gazillions of space dollars into limiting it so much that he can kick you in the nuts when you try to use it on him! Why?:eek:
And I get what you both say about life on earth, there are fairly primitive living tribes people and so on with smart phones and satellite communications and so on, but should push come to shove they don't clamber out of stealth bombers to throw stones at each other or bang each other on the head with hammers. It makes zero sense to make weapons less effective or more dangerous for the user - it just doesn't happen intentionally, anywhere, ever - except maybe in some galaxy far far removed from common sense.

They were peacekeepers trained in the force. A ranged weapon isnt much good when you try to end things by talking first. Useing the force isnt great at far range either. Lightsaber allowed close range defense when **** went down. Plus it could defend them from ranged weapons without carrying a lot of armour which I think would have made using the force more taxing.

silverbolt · 30-03-2014 5:11pm

elfy4eva wrote: »

I agree that's definitely a bit of a loose string there, They could make up some flimsy lore to explain it like "ohhhh vader was too far down the dark path at that stage"

But honestly it's purely because the story in the new films doesn't do a very good job at tying in with the old ones and that has allowed for plot holes.

such as leia remembering her mother despite her dying two minutes after she was born - though a i belevie that was retconned to state its a force memory.

Special effect wise especially the space battles the original trounces the CGI wankfest that is the new movies - and they are still great movies. But yes they have thier flaws, however i have survived very well ignoring them

Dude111 · 06-04-2014 12:02pm

I found STAR WARS 2 YESTERDAY!! (VHS)

It is an original!!! (NOTHING DIGITAL,NO CHANGES) -- Oh my,it was just as good OR BETTER than the first one!!!!!! (I dont remember seeing part 2 but I do remember part 3)

I definetly want to aquire an original part 3!!!!!!!

I consider myself A TRUE STAR WARS FAN.... I only agnoledge the original 3 UNDIGITALLY ALTERED originals!! (Which are truly amazing)

PART 2 IS INSANE!!!!!!!!!!! (I think I did see it but had forgotton its been so long)

DazMarz · 08-04-2014 1:23pm

Just watched the Original Trilogy there again...

I'm definitely biased (Star Wars has been a huge part of my pop culture experience since I was 5 years old), but god-DAMN. They are so good.

Of course, The Empire Strikes Back trumps the lot. If only for introducing The Imperial March. But also for so much more. The darkest film of the entire series, the best film of the entire series.

I always find it ironic, despite being the darkest film of the series, it has the lowest body count! Only 20 people become one with the force throughout the film (allegedly; this is according to IMDB). Little fact for the day!

Was the first three movies all that?

Comments