 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No, I'm saying that's damned obvious that as late as 1997, the first movie released was known as "Star Wars" to everyone. Nobody thought of it as either "Episode IV" or "A New Hope." If it was commonly known as such, I'd think they would have least printed those epithets on the box somewhere. |
So then why do a lot of people refer to as Episode 4 or 'The first movie' now? By 2000, the VHS of the trilogy set had the first movie listed as "StarWars: A New Hope" with a IV emblazoned on it (do a search on Amazon for "Star Wars VHS").
Why did it suddenly change out of the blue if no one said it was Episode IV? That makes no sense.
quote:
As an example of how dumb that is, take the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. That's both the name of the entire series and the first book. Nobody I know of gets confused over it. Who would be that stupid? |
HHGTTG has been used to refer to the first book, the series, the radio format, the TV show, etc, etc. Yes, that sometimes gets confusing. Most of the time people say HHGTTG the series, or some kind of nomenclature which particular work they are refering to.
No one says the Star Wars Series. They may have said the 'Trilogy' (though I hardly heard people refer to it in that way).
There is also the interesting example of Lord of the Rings movies. The first one was called "LORD OF THE RINGS: Fellowship of the Rings" (LOTR being bigger than the FOTR). The second "Lord of the Rings: THE TWO TOWERS". And the third "Lord of the Rings: THE RETURN OF THE KING". People who have only seen the movies refer to the first part, simply, as Lord of the Rings. Sometimes confusion abounds when talking about something from the Two Towers, saying it was in LOTR, and the person says, no, that was in LOTR (I've seen that comedy first hand... it was like "Who's on First" for a few seconds  ).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So then why do a lot of people refer to as Episode 4 or 'The first movie' now? |
That's just it, they [i]don't], by and large. You've utterly failed to substantiate this claim, whereas we've provided plenty of
quote:
By 2000, the VHS of the trilogy set had the first movie listed as "StarWars: A New Hope" with a IV emblazoned on it (do a search on Amazon for "Star Wars VHS").
Why did it suddenly change out of the blue if no one said it was Episode IV? That makes no sense. |
Um, LUCAS said it was Episode IV by that point, which is why it changed. He was anticipating the prequels, and by establishing Star Wars as "Episode IV," it would indeed eliminate confusion when he released TPM as "Episode I."
But such confusion wasn't an issue pre-TPM, so your argument is the one that makes utterly no sense.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/searc...earch=star+wars
Note the first films are referred to by their name, as they are commonly known by most people, and the 1977 film is just "Star Wars." Only the prequels are known by their episode numbers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/
IMDB calls it "Star Wars," and relegated the episode number and "ANH" to subtitled status.
I grew up with the first generation of Star Wars stuff, which meant having the clothing, the action figures, the toys, the card decks, etc. Even played the RPG in college. And NEVER was the original film referred to as anything BUT "Star Wars." The nomenclature of "Episode IV" and "A New Hope" did not become used by anyone until around the time the prequels started coming out, and still to this day MOST people wouldn't have a clue as to what you'd meant if you said "Episode IV" or "A New Hope." But if you say "Star Wars," most people are going to know you mean the 1977 film.
quote:
There is also the interesting example of Lord of the Rings movies. The first one was called "LORD OF THE RINGS: Fellowship of the Rings" (LOTR being bigger than the FOTR). The second "Lord of the Rings: THE TWO TOWERS". And the third "Lord of the Rings: THE RETURN OF THE KING". People who have only seen the movies refer to the first part, simply, as Lord of the Rings. Sometimes confusion abounds when talking about something from the Two Towers, saying it was in LOTR, and the person says, no, that was in LOTR (I've seen that comedy first hand... it was like "Who's on First" for a few seconds ). |
This is, however, an irrelevant example, since that has ALWAYS been the nomenclature for LOTR, since Tolkien published it. It has never changed. Lord of the Rings is not the name of ANY of the books, just that of the series. So there's no doubt that if someone says "LOTR," they are not being precise enough in their naming.
But if I say, "I love the part in Star Wars when Han shoots Greedo," nobody who has seen them will say, "Wait, you mean ANH/Ep IV, not Star Wars!"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
My commentary on this movie:
1. Lucas finally understands that his dialogue, by and large, sucks. Thus, this movie works because --surprise, surprise-- less talking, more sabering and 'splosioning.
I call that a win-win, because Eps I and II seemed to have dialogue written in crayon by a retarded infant1. (Note that Ep II really picks up once they stop yammering and start kicking ass.) And I'm being generous.
That said, Padme-Anakin dialogue hasn't truly improved2.
2. NYT had an apt description of Anakin's decent: portrayed as a series of bad moods. Haydn Christensen, as an actor, sucks. The only other movie I've ever seen him in, "Life as a House", blew chunks like dingleberries from the world's most massive man3.
Personally, my pet theory of why Anakin falls to the dark side has nothing to do with the Emperor. It's all about him being called Annie when he's a kid. I mean, like Johnny Cash says, he's just a Boy named Sue, just a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...4
3. Who the **** calls children "younglings" without sounding like a douchebag who says "frack" instead of ****?
4. One major, enormous, massive spoiler which might ruin your appreciation of the movie:
spoiler(highlight to read):
Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader!!!! zomfgwtfbbbq!!!
|
5. It almost falls victim to the same problem Return of the King does, namely, the multiple neverendings. Revenge of the Sith wins, though, because it isn't as long as Return of the King's three-hour-long neverending, only clocking in at about thirty minutes5.
===
1My apologies condolences to retarded infants, retarded people, infants...
2That's actually not fair. There is maybe at most 2.5 minutes of dialogue between the two that is not utterly cringe-worthy. I don't think they're talking to each other, though.
3This really puts me in the softy area. I'm just being so damn generous that if I were any more generous, I'd be feeding the poor people in Djibouti my own flesh and blood at a friggin' altar.
4Okay, so I know that's not the real reason, but... Ani? C'mon, here, that's just a nickname that would lead to bar fights.
5Times might be subjective. I didn't want to check my watch, because of the bright shiny pictures moving on the screen.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2005 11:41
.
ACK! 
|