Poll: How Will You Be Re-Watching The Star Wars Movies?

Clive Howlitzer

New member
Jan 27, 2011
2,783
0
0
I would need to be paid to rewatch the prequels and I've seen the originals plenty, I don't need to rewatch them. I guess I won't be doing any rewatching!

I am not excited about the new movie. I'll probably see it but my thoughts are less excitement and more along the lines of "I hope I'm not contemplating suicide halfway through this just to end it."
 

Flutterguy

New member
Jun 26, 2011
970
0
0
I'll play the new Battlefront then watch the new Star Wars when it comes to DVD.

I've seen the original three too many times from being a young boy with the VHS boxset living in the middle of Nowheresville, and while I don't detest the prequels I don't think they are worth rewatching.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
Pseudonym said:
No option for 'not'? Ah, never mind, you probably don't want me here hating on star wars. I'll leave this thread be. (well, after this comment)
I'd still like that option to be there, even as a Star Wars fan. The movies are solidly put in my mind, I have too much new stuff to watch to spend much time re-watching old movies.
AccursedTheory said:
I wont.

Unlike most, I don't think Star Wars timeless.
Well, I'd say that depends on what bits of Star Wars we're talking about. Especially the newer movies have aged very very poorly thanks to their reliance on CGI, but even the old ones have some things that really make it a product of its time. But I'd say things like the (classic, old-school) story, character archetypes and setting are pretty timeless.
 

DefunctTheory

Not So Defunct Now
Mar 30, 2010
6,438
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
AccursedTheory said:
I wont.

Unlike most, I don't think Star Wars timeless.
Well, I'd say that depends on what bits of Star Wars we're talking about. Especially the newer movies have aged very very poorly thanks to their reliance on CGI, but even the old ones have some things that really make it a product of its time. But I'd say things like the (classic, old-school) story, character archetypes and setting are pretty timeless.
Personally, I find the original trilogy had a bad script, a poorly executed story, character archetypes that were cliched at the time and quadruple so now, and the special effects that wowed me as a kid have now firmly transitioned from 'that's still impressive, even after all these years' to 'that's impressive, considering how old it is.'

I'm just not a fan, though I can see why people would be.
 

lechat

New member
Dec 5, 2012
1,377
0
0
It's a reboot so ill just take all copies of the old versions and burn them.
new is always better!!
 

bauke67

New member
Apr 8, 2011
300
0
0
I've already started rewatching them actually, and I decided to just go from one to six. It's been very long since I watched any Star Wars movies, especially the prequels, so I was rather afraid they might disappoint me. This is because..I liked the prequels when I first watched them. And after rewatching 1 and 2, I still do. Please don't kill me, but I think either 2 or three might be my favourite, depending on how much I like three when I watch that again. I'll admit that 1 is a little bad, but 2 has everything: great special effects, complicated plot, awesome clones, awesome (lightsaber)battles and very sad character developement(which is pretty much also what I like part 3 so much for.
So yeah except for part one, I really don't see what the hate is about. Also a cool reason to watch all of them in this order:http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/ (I just read the first page too, cause thing is really long, but it's enough to get the general idea: the saga portrays a republic at it's zenith, then decaying and succumbing to dictatorship, and then we see the empire at it's zenith, decaying and turning into a republic again.)
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
I want to thank everyone who have posted so far.

I had to buy the movies again after I sold them ten years ago. My money was tight then. I got the box set of the Original Trilogy a month ago. It has the original theatrical versions. SCORE! Yesterday, I got Episodes 2 & 3. So, I guess I am going to do Prequels then Originals as soon as I get the first movie.

Why would I want to see the movie that I agree is the worst in the series? When I think about it, it's more for the lost potential. Liam Neeson with a special set of skills-of a Jedi Knight! Terrence Stamp as the Supreme Counselor. Darth Maul was the best bad guy in the whole series. I take Darth Maul over Boba Fett. Seriously, he took on 2 Jedi and would've killed both of them if he hadn't gotten too cocky. I would have loved to seen Darth Maul in the rest of the Prequels.

I got to admit the Machete Order is intriguing. The only thing is, I really want to see Revenge of the Sith and The New Hope back to back to see how it flows. The last movie made in the series followed by the first movie made.

I do have time to change my mind. I'm not planning doing all 6 movies in one sitting. One movie every week or two. Except for Episodes 3 & 4, I want to do a double feature with those.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
KissingSunlight said:
Darth Maul was the best bad guy in the whole series.
If you'll tolerate a minor hijacking, would you be so kind as to explain this? You're not the only person I've seen say this, and I'm starting to wonder if I missed something. Maul fought well, sure, and had an unusual lightsaber design, but had absolutely no character; he spoke a grand total of three times, all of which were nothing but growls. Bobba Fett seems downright loquacious by comparison. Maul is an impressive tool, but that's all he was- and while you may prefer him to Fett, can you really say he's a better bad guy than Vader? Than Palpatine?
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
Recusant said:
KissingSunlight said:
Darth Maul was the best bad guy in the whole series.
If you'll tolerate a minor hijacking, would you be so kind as to explain this? You're not the only person I've seen say this, and I'm starting to wonder if I missed something. Maul fought well, sure, and had an unusual lightsaber design, but had absolutely no character; he spoke a grand total of three times, all of which were nothing but growls. Bobba Fett seems downright loquacious by comparison. Maul is an impressive tool, but that's all he was- and while you may prefer him to Fett, can you really say he's a better bad guy than Vader? Than Palpatine?
I agree with you that he wasn't given very much of a character. Which is why I would have loved to see more of him. To give him more story to flesh out his character. The main reason is what I mentioned in the previous post. He took on 2 Jedi and killed one and almost the other. He was the most athletic of the Sith. One of my biggest complaints about the Original Trilogy was how lame the lightsaber battles were compared to the Prequels. Throw in make-up and double lightsaber, you get an intriguing character. Darth Vader was an intimidating character. Palpatine comes off as more of an evil wizard. Boba Fett exhibited some silent cool. When you look at what he did. Which was to track the Millennium Falcon and escort a frozen Han to Jabba the Hutt. It really wasn't that villainous.
 

zelda2fanboy

New member
Oct 6, 2009
2,173
0
0
I'll be watching the original trilogy as soon as it becomes available restored on blu ray in its original form. I'll probably be watching them in order of my personal preference (or what I remember it was, it's been so long). 6, 4, 5, 2, 3 and possible never rewatch 1. I'll be honest, I kind of like 1, I've just seen it many times when it was the only Star Wars available on DVD.
 

Armadox

Mandatory Madness!
Aug 31, 2010
1,120
0
0
Haven't seen them in the first place. So.. in order I guess? I can't rewatch them..
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
I'll just continue to rewatch the theatrical version on upscaled DVD. Films are not meant to be altered and re-altered 25 years after the fact over the course of a 14 year period according to the mood the original producer is in.
 

RikuoAmero

New member
Jan 27, 2010
283
0
0
KissingSunlight said:
Recusant said:
KissingSunlight said:
Darth Maul was the best bad guy in the whole series.
If you'll tolerate a minor hijacking, would you be so kind as to explain this? You're not the only person I've seen say this, and I'm starting to wonder if I missed something. Maul fought well, sure, and had an unusual lightsaber design, but had absolutely no character; he spoke a grand total of three times, all of which were nothing but growls. Bobba Fett seems downright loquacious by comparison. Maul is an impressive tool, but that's all he was- and while you may prefer him to Fett, can you really say he's a better bad guy than Vader? Than Palpatine?
I agree with you that he wasn't given very much of a character. Which is why I would have loved to see more of him. To give him more story to flesh out his character. The main reason is what I mentioned in the previous post. He took on 2 Jedi and killed one and almost the other. He was the most athletic of the Sith. One of my biggest complaints about the Original Trilogy was how lame the lightsaber battles were compared to the Prequels. Throw in make-up and double lightsaber, you get an intriguing character. Darth Vader was an intimidating character. Palpatine comes off as more of an evil wizard. Boba Fett exhibited some silent cool. When you look at what he did. Which was to track the Millennium Falcon and escort a frozen Han to Jabba the Hutt. It really wasn't that villainous.
Let the thread hijacking commence ;) So...your metric as to "best Star Wars villain" is he killed a Jedi? Uhh...Vader did too. He killed loads of Jedi, when he stormed the temple. Okay, it's off-screen, but it's certainly more than Maul. So did Palpatine. You say Maul took on two. Well, Palpatine took on FOUR and killed them all, and all four were considered the best blade-masters of their time, unlike when Maul took on an old man and his untested student. Heck, he even took on YODA of all people (granted in my opinion, the two of them shouldn't have had a lightsaber fight, it should have strictly been one of Force powers and knowledge).
I wouldn't call Maul an intriguing character. I know literally nothing about him from Phantom Menace. He says something about "having revenge" and that's it. Revenge for what? Did he suffer a legitimate harm, or is it just BS Palpatine fills his head with so he'll do his dastardly schemes?
I for one actually liked seeing Palpatine. Especially since in Return of the Jedi, he doesn't have a lightsaber. To me, that signalled that here's a guy with Force knowledge and power so great, that he's transcended physical lightsaber combat. He's so powerful in the Force that he doesn't need a crude weapon like a lightsaber. This was the same sort of vibe I got off of Yoda in Empire Strikes back, what with that "war not make one great" line. Yoda was above lightsaber combat too but for different reasons.
 

pilouuuu

New member
Aug 18, 2009
701
0
0
All but The Phantom Menace. I can bare the rest of the prequels, but that movie is crap!
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
In order release... just to see it "evolve" over the set period of time...

Still haven't figured out if I'll do it alone or with friends, though...
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
RikuoAmero said:
Let the thread hijacking commence ;) So...your metric as to "best Star Wars villain" is he killed a Jedi? Uhh...Vader did too. He killed loads of Jedi, when he stormed the temple. Okay, it's off-screen, but it's certainly more than Maul. So did Palpatine. You say Maul took on two. Well, Palpatine took on FOUR and killed them all, and all four were considered the best blade-masters of their time, unlike when Maul took on an old man and his untested student. Heck, he even took on YODA of all people (granted in my opinion, the two of them shouldn't have had a lightsaber fight, it should have strictly been one of Force powers and knowledge).
I wouldn't call Maul an intriguing character. I know literally nothing about him from Phantom Menace. He says something about "having revenge" and that's it. Revenge for what? Did he suffer a legitimate harm, or is it just BS Palpatine fills his head with so he'll do his dastardly schemes?
I for one actually liked seeing Palpatine. Especially since in Return of the Jedi, he doesn't have a lightsaber. To me, that signalled that here's a guy with Force knowledge and power so great, that he's transcended physical lightsaber combat. He's so powerful in the Force that he doesn't need a crude weapon like a lightsaber. This was the same sort of vibe I got off of Yoda in Empire Strikes back, what with that "war not make one great" line. Yoda was above lightsaber combat too but for different reasons.
I would totally be interested in participating in who is the greatest Star Wars or Science Fiction villain thread. So, I don't mind the hijacking on this topic.

Darth Maul appeals to me the same way that Boba Fett appealed to Star Wars fans. He just looked badass and didn't say much. Kind of like the James Dean of villains. Palpatine is easily the most evil character in Star Wars. He just annoyed me in each movie. So, it wasn't as entertaining to watch him do bad stuff as it was to see Darth Maul on the screen.

I did see The Phantom Menace a few days ago. The tone of the movie was kind of schizophrenic. The opening scroll was about taxation and senate debates. It made you think that the movie was more for adult fans. Then we get blatant pandering to little kids with Jar Jar Binks and young Anakin. The movie was mostly watchable because of Liam Neeson and Ray Park as Darth Maul.