Poll at IMDB, see the result >> http://www.imdb.com/poll/uLB4Ikfqs20/results?answer=6&ref_=po_nr

 

After you voted, you may explain why you chose those ones

so we can vote for more than one?

Yes @Syria !

 

You also can do a list here if you want ...By ordering the movies, from your best one to the less good one, for exemple

okay, let me think about it

Oh man... I messed up my vote. Isn't there a way to delete it, like in other polls?

 

Anyway, the ones I loved are (in this order):

1 - Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999) -- I loved the journey through the center of Naboo and the whole Naboo adventure.

2 - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
3 - Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)
4 - Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)

 

So basically the old ones.

'77-'83

I've seen ANY of these movies. None. Zero.

 

 

2 hours ago, Syria said:

Oh man... I messed up my vote. Isn't there a way to delete it, like in other polls?

 

 

I think you can't

 

But yeah, i see your logic, can we talk about nostalgy, perhaps ?

 

Mine would be :

1. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
2. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
3. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)
4. Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)
5. Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)
6. Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)
7. Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002)

Oh well... It was supposed to be "A new hope" instead of "Attack of the clones".

 

I haven't seen the 2015 one yet btw.

It's been many years since I've seen them (which means I'd interpret them differently now):

 

 

1. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
2. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983)
3. Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)
4. Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015)
5. Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999)
6. Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002)

 

V and VI had heart and were favorite re-watches as a kid.  I also liked IV but not as much as the other two.  I remember it being less well made.  

 

VII is around a 7/10 movie for me minus the nostalgia.  

 

I and II were not good films and very boring (I saw both in the theaters).  It deterred me from watching III.   

3 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

I and II were not good films and very boring (I saw both in the theaters).  It deterred me from watching III.   

 

Though, you should give a try to the III, IMO it's the best SW film so far ...All the musics, the good scenes...I enjoy a lot to watch it, which i did again there's a few days ago, and still found it awesome

1-2-3 are ridiculous & horrible

 

let's just pretend they never ever existed, OK?

34 minutes ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:

1-2-3 are ridiculous & horrible

 

let's just pretend they never ever existed, OK?

 

Nope, still, the III is awesome !

3 hours ago, jj3 said:

 

Though, you should give a try to the III, IMO it's the best SW film so far ...All the musics, the good scenes...I enjoy a lot to watch it, which i did again there's a few days ago, and still found it awesome

 

Yeah, I remember that you liked III.  I just can't stand the guy that played anakin.  I'll keep that in mind.

 

2 hours ago, 17 Moments of Spring said:

1-2-3 are ridiculous & horrible

 

let's just pretend they never ever existed, OK?

 

1 and 2 seemed to have a lot of fantasy pretend politics and backgrounds/references that appealed to hard core star wars fans and not the mainstream.   Like Lord of the Rings, I remember finding it boring as hell (a common question was: why should we care?) as well as very awkwardly acted/written.  I remember the CGI aspects as being much touted but the actual result onscreen was rather computer-game like.  The lightsaber duels were flashy lazer-light shows without heart and striking dialogue-  nearly a key indicator that something was amiss.  The figure of Darth Vader was very important in the original trilogy.  He was the 'menacing edge' that colored expectations and context- like the joker from 'Dark Knight'.  7, 1 and 2 were missing such personas.

 

7 was commercialized by Disney and it shows- it's a simple and safe movie, easily accessible for the mass market.

 

I have also noticed this in other works that too much fantasy politics/overintellectualization can really lead to a polarizing product.  The hard core fans get into the atmosphere with ease but casuals, who don't care and don't have the background knowledge.. struggle with it.

 

The key for a successful sci fi or fantasy franchise seems to managing both simplicity and depth as well as creating a strong framework for Lore-building  (like Aliens,  Star Wars, Mad Max, etc.) ,and maintaining a certain open-endedness/sense of mystery where the viewers themselves can use their imaginations to make their own interpretations.  That's where a lot of the fun comes from.  Star Wars did this in spades.

 

Boba Fett, a minor character with a few minutes of screen time- has been a decent IP for decades with books, comics, games, action figures, clothes, sundry items, etc. just devoted to his image.

3 minutes ago, Cult Icon said:

 

7 was commercialized by Disney and it shows- it's a simple and safe movie, easily accessible for the mass market.

 

Why ? the IV, V and VI were crazy bloody and horrific ? I don't think so ...I actually think that VII is more shocking, in some extent, than the classic trilogy...

 

SPOILER ALERT

Spoiler

But what is really shocking about the VII, is the lack of new them musics and soundtracks ...The I, II and III were FULL of awesome musics IMO ...

 

I meant 'safe' in terms of the structure of the film (not in terms of say, violence).  You know, I think that James Cameron would have done a much better job directing VII.  He did Avatar which was visually stunning.

Avatar was an horrible movie (IMO)...Visually it was correct, as always with him...But god, the scenario ... I won't qualify it ...

 

But yeah, the VII is safe, we can say that i think..:D .But visually very on point i found...That's for me the main asset of the film...

As you know I'm not a fan of Abram's style of directing :-p  I though the action in Star Wars VII was average (forgettable but not bad) and without much heart.  None of the action scenes really hit me.  For instance, the aerial combat is short in duration and pales compared to the air and ground combat in Avatar.

 

Visually I think Avatar far outclassed it in scale and scope.  Both were pretty average storywise and with an average cast. 

Quote

Like Lord of the Rings, I remember finding it boring as hell (a common question was: why should we care?) as well as very awkwardly acted/written.

 

That's why.

 

With 1-2-3, its not because the fantasy politics, and I can get away with the CGI, but their script/scenario was utterly shit, with paper-cut characters and interactions between them.

 

LOTR - I gave up both the novel and the movie around the beginning of vol. 2 - too boring and fable-like for me. Maybe cause I began fantasy with the Conan short stories and the movie by John Milius.

 

And I never even watched avatar, I don't care with it.

On 30/12/2015 at 9:27 PM, jj3 said:

 

 

14 hours ago, jj3 said:

^