I don't know whether to be happy or mad...

[Propaganda Man]

There's nothing wrong with using special effects. As long as they're used right. But honestly, too many people like to say they're evil just because an older version of a movie was a bigger hit (SW).

Oh, but you know one of the main reasons the original trilogy was such a big hit? Special effects!

That was the first time a lot of the special effect devices were used. Yes.

However, I'm arguing how they are butchering it. God, read my posts.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

He isn't bad, but he is that good.

He is terrible at making previews if he did it for the 3rd movie.

It made me not want to see the movie.

First of all, yes he is good, he's the best there is!

And uh, hellooo!! The director doesn't make the previews. Even so, they weren't bad. The shot where Anakin walks in with the troopers behind him.. it's all dark... great shot!

The announcer said, "Obi faces Grevious, and Yoda takes on the EVIL EMPOWER" :/

 

[Jeremy]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

I do have to side with Storm on this one. Lucas is AMAZING. He's one of my idols, since I want to go into the movie business. Sure, the acting wasn't as good as the old ones (since they have to replace the original actors because they die or are too old), but still. Star Wars movies are classics.

The classic ones are. Also, the actors in the classics, weren't in the new ones mainly because their characters weren't :/

That's true too. If Lucas didn't start halfway through the whole galaxy's plot, then maybe we'd still see the same actors.

Not really. The main story is the original trilogy. And once that's out... the better story to go to is right before it.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

How do you know it'll be 'horrible'?

For example, look at the newer star wars movies made.

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are two extremely different movies.

I'm not talking about the content. Lucas is going to have a hand in the Jones and he made the Star Wars ones.

They butcher it will special effects and crappy acting.

I'm hoping that they don't use special effects... Maybe for only certain things, but for action scenes and whatnot should stay true to the original movies, which used the 'backyard' effects.

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, but those movies depended on special effects.

My point.

....wha? We're talking about Indiana Jones, which barely uses any special effects.

Not in the new one.

How do you know? <_<

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

Yeah, how do you know they'll use a crapload of special effects?

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, you're not getting my point. Indiana Jones takes place ni the late 40s, not the late 2040s or something.

So you think because it takes place in the 40's in won't have a lot of special effects?

Ever see the movie 300

I mean that there won't be crazy laser beams or something... <_<

So....


:huh:

 

[Jeremy]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

He isn't bad, but he is that good.

He is terrible at making previews if he did it for the 3rd movie.

It made me not want to see the movie.

First of all, yes he is good, he's the best there is!

And uh, hellooo!! The director doesn't make the previews. Even so, they weren't bad. The shot where Anakin walks in with the troopers behind him.. it's all dark... great shot!

The announcer said, "Obi faces Grevious, and Yoda takes on the EVIL EMPOWER" :/

Show me a video.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

He isn't bad, but he is that good.

He is terrible at making previews if he did it for the 3rd movie.

It made me not want to see the movie.

First of all, yes he is good, he's the best there is!

And uh, hellooo!! The director doesn't make the previews. Even so, they weren't bad. The shot where Anakin walks in with the troopers behind him.. it's all dark... great shot!

The announcer said, "Obi faces Grevious, and Yoda takes on the EVIL EMPOWER" :/

Show me a video.

I'm not going to look for it for you when you can do it.

 

[UltraByte]

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

How do you know it'll be 'horrible'?

For example, look at the newer star wars movies made.

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are two extremely different movies.

I'm not talking about the content. Lucas is going to have a hand in the Jones and he made the Star Wars ones.

They butcher it will special effects and crappy acting.

I'm hoping that they don't use special effects... Maybe for only certain things, but for action scenes and whatnot should stay true to the original movies, which used the 'backyard' effects.

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, but those movies depended on special effects.

My point.

....wha? We're talking about Indiana Jones, which barely uses any special effects.

Not in the new one.

How do you know? <_<

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

Yeah, how do you know they'll use a crapload of special effects?

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, you're not getting my point. Indiana Jones takes place ni the late 40s, not the late 2040s or something.

So you think because it takes place in the 40's in won't have a lot of special effects?

Ever see the movie 300

I mean that there won't be crazy laser beams or something... <_<

So....


:huh:

Which means they're going to stay true to the story's timeline, and not introduce any crazy technology.

 

[Jeremy]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

He isn't bad, but he is that good.

He is terrible at making previews if he did it for the 3rd movie.

It made me not want to see the movie.

First of all, yes he is good, he's the best there is!

And uh, hellooo!! The director doesn't make the previews. Even so, they weren't bad. The shot where Anakin walks in with the troopers behind him.. it's all dark... great shot!

The announcer said, "Obi faces Grevious, and Yoda takes on the EVIL EMPOWER" :/

Show me a video.

I'm not going to look for it for you when you can do it.

In other words... you just made up that line.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

How do you know it'll be 'horrible'?

For example, look at the newer star wars movies made.

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are two extremely different movies.

I'm not talking about the content. Lucas is going to have a hand in the Jones and he made the Star Wars ones.

They butcher it will special effects and crappy acting.

I'm hoping that they don't use special effects... Maybe for only certain things, but for action scenes and whatnot should stay true to the original movies, which used the 'backyard' effects.

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, but those movies depended on special effects.

My point.

....wha? We're talking about Indiana Jones, which barely uses any special effects.

Not in the new one.

How do you know? <_<

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

Yeah, how do you know they'll use a crapload of special effects?

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, you're not getting my point. Indiana Jones takes place ni the late 40s, not the late 2040s or something.

So you think because it takes place in the 40's in won't have a lot of special effects?

Ever see the movie 300

I mean that there won't be crazy laser beams or something... <_<

So....


:huh:

Which means they're going to stay true to the story's timeline, and not introduce any crazy technology.

Not in the movie. We won't have a car like in Back to the Future. But there will be a lot of special effects in the movie.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Also, it's funny how you claim it's the bad acting that made you not like it, but you just posted about how, for whatever reason, you think Lucas does a bad job?

Yes, can't I have more than one reason? The story was slow. It wasn't that imaginative.

I don't think so. You probably don't even know what was going on if you think that. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about if you think Lucas is a bad director!

He isn't bad, but he is that good.

He is terrible at making previews if he did it for the 3rd movie.

It made me not want to see the movie.

First of all, yes he is good, he's the best there is!

And uh, hellooo!! The director doesn't make the previews. Even so, they weren't bad. The shot where Anakin walks in with the troopers behind him.. it's all dark... great shot!

The announcer said, "Obi faces Grevious, and Yoda takes on the EVIL EMPOWER" :/

Show me a video.

I'm not going to look for it for you when you can do it.

In other words... you just made up that line.

No. I'm smarter than you think. I'm not going to work for you again. D:

 

[UltraByte]

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

How do you know it'll be 'horrible'?

For example, look at the newer star wars movies made.

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are two extremely different movies.

I'm not talking about the content. Lucas is going to have a hand in the Jones and he made the Star Wars ones.

They butcher it will special effects and crappy acting.

I'm hoping that they don't use special effects... Maybe for only certain things, but for action scenes and whatnot should stay true to the original movies, which used the 'backyard' effects.

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, but those movies depended on special effects.

My point.

....wha? We're talking about Indiana Jones, which barely uses any special effects.

Not in the new one.

How do you know? <_<

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

Yeah, how do you know they'll use a crapload of special effects?

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, you're not getting my point. Indiana Jones takes place ni the late 40s, not the late 2040s or something.

So you think because it takes place in the 40's in won't have a lot of special effects?

Ever see the movie 300

I mean that there won't be crazy laser beams or something... <_<

So....


:huh:

Which means they're going to stay true to the story's timeline, and not introduce any crazy technology.

Not in the movie. We won't have a car like in Back to the Future. But there will be a lot of special effects in the movie.

Mostly just spiritual stuff from artifacts, because you can't find mysterious glowing jars in real life.

 

[Jeremy]

Better special effects will be a good things in IJ4. All it means is that it will look more realistic.

 

[UltraByte]

Better special effects will be a good things in IJ4. All it means is that it will look more realistic.

Well.... It depends what they would use it for. If they used it for bullets, then I'll be really mad. IJ guns always seemed to have a realistic feel to them.

Like I said above, artifacts would obviously use special effects.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

How do you know it'll be 'horrible'?

For example, look at the newer star wars movies made.

Star Wars and Indiana Jones are two extremely different movies.

I'm not talking about the content. Lucas is going to have a hand in the Jones and he made the Star Wars ones.

They butcher it will special effects and crappy acting.

I'm hoping that they don't use special effects... Maybe for only certain things, but for action scenes and whatnot should stay true to the original movies, which used the 'backyard' effects.

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, but those movies depended on special effects.

My point.

....wha? We're talking about Indiana Jones, which barely uses any special effects.

Not in the new one.

How do you know? <_<

Why would they try to ruin a classic?

Yeah, how do you know they'll use a crapload of special effects?

Spielberg and Lucas latest movies were either remakes or orginials but they all had special effects.

Yeah, you're not getting my point. Indiana Jones takes place ni the late 40s, not the late 2040s or something.

So you think because it takes place in the 40's in won't have a lot of special effects?

Ever see the movie 300

I mean that there won't be crazy laser beams or something... <_<

So....


:huh:

Which means they're going to stay true to the story's timeline, and not introduce any crazy technology.

Not in the movie. We won't have a car like in Back to the Future. But there will be a lot of special effects in the movie.

Mostly just spiritual stuff from artifacts, because you can't find mysterious glowing jars in real life.

OMG, I don't get how you can't understand that special effects won't be lazers, glowing jars, or something not meant to be there.

 

[UltraByte]

So, if the special effects aren't going to be artifacts or 'laser guns that don't exist in WWII times', what will they be?

 

[Propaganda Man]

So, if the special effects aren't going to be artifacts or 'laser guns that don't exist in WWII times', what will they be?

Explosions, blood, landscape, to just name a few.

 

[UltraByte]

So, if the special effects aren't going to be artifacts or 'laser guns that don't exist in WWII times', what will they be?

Explosions, blood, landscape, to just name a few.

Actually....... LOL

WOW. I am SO STUPID. All of those things will be special effects. Well, in the original movies, blood, and explosions were special effects..... NOT DONE WITH COMPUTERS.

Some will be computer effects though in the new movie... I doubt blood will be done with a computer, or landscape.

 

[Jeremy]

Better special effects will be a good things in IJ4. All it means is that it will look more realistic.

Well.... It depends what they would use it for. If they used it for bullets, then I'll be really mad. IJ guns always seemed to have a realistic feel to them.

Like I said above, artifacts would obviously use special effects.

Well the way I see it...

Let's say a giant snake is suppose to chase him. Obviously it's going to be better to have some effects than have a giant rubber thing attached to a stick.

 

[Propaganda Man]

So, if the special effects aren't going to be artifacts or 'laser guns that don't exist in WWII times', what will they be?

Explosions, blood, landscape, to just name a few.

Actually....... LOL

WOW. I am SO STUPID. All of those things will be special effects. Some will be computer effects though... I doubt blood will be done with a computer, or landscape.

Landscape will probably. Lucas loves the Green Screen.

Also, I was thinking of 300 when I wrote that.

 

[Propaganda Man]

Better special effects will be a good things in IJ4. All it means is that it will look more realistic.

Well.... It depends what they would use it for. If they used it for bullets, then I'll be really mad. IJ guns always seemed to have a realistic feel to them.

Like I said above, artifacts would obviously use special effects.

Well the way I see it...

Let's say a giant snake is suppose to chase him. Obviously it's going to be better to have some effects than have a giant rubber thing attached to a stick.

Not a very good example Storm. Of course some things require special effects. But not the level of the newer Star Wars movies.