FormerBondFan
00 Agent
Posts: 5,455
Favourite James Bond Films: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Mission: Impossible and any upcoming action films starring Pierce Brosnan (no, it's not James Bond which is good because he'll need it to expand his reputation as an actor, especially in the action realm)
Favourite Films: Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Harry Potter, Middle-Earth, The Matrix, Mission: Impossible
|
Post by FormerBondFan on Jun 14, 2008 10:25:27 GMT -5
The Phantom Menace VS Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Which one's better?
|
|
Alec 006
Commander
"Finish the job, James! Blow them all to hell !!"
Posts: 422
|
Post by Alec 006 on Jun 14, 2008 19:31:37 GMT -5
Hello,
I am a HUGE "Star Wars" fan. I remember how eager and excited I was back in 1999 for the release of a new chapter in the saga 16 years after "Return Of The Jedi".
I liked "The Phanton Menace"...but for me it didn't hold up as well to the other "Star Wars" movies. "Revenge Of The Sith" was a much better prequel.
"Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull" was also eagerly anticipated...coming 19 years after the last one.
It holds up much better to Indy's previous adventues, so for me it's the better movie.
Take Care!
|
|
|
|
Post by harrypalmer on Jun 15, 2008 5:13:48 GMT -5
I preferred Indiana Jones IV as it had more relation to the other films with Harrison Ford returning. The newer Star Wars prequels lacked the charm of the original three films, which are three of the best films ever made.
Then again, I've only ever watched the Phantom Menance so maybe I ought to watch the other two to make a proper opinion!
|
|
|
|
Post by poirot on Jun 15, 2008 12:17:10 GMT -5
Indy was able to remain a lot more faithful to the original films, so I also prefer it. The fact that two of the original actors/characters could return was a big advantage over Star Wars.
But unlike Star Wars, Indy wasn't really able to push the limits of modern filmmaking technology. Spielberg had to limit himself to an old-fashioned approach- even more than he had done with the original films. So he couldn't fully go all out with f/x, or he'd risk alienating fans of the originals. But at the same time, he couldn't use the exact same f/x he had in the 80's. They would've just looked too primitive for today's audiences.
It was an interesting Catch-22, but I think he found a nice balance. Even though the film relied on cgi, the overall look and tone still fits the previous movies pretty well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jake on Jun 16, 2008 16:44:13 GMT -5
This is like Tyson v Spinks. No contest! I've managed to get through about one and a half of the Star Wars prequels and I've no real desire to return to them in the near future.
|
|
