Ok here it is. I haven't seen this poll yet, but since all the movies are now out on DVD and the trilogy is complete we must know where well all stand. Give me the classic/special edition original trilogy, nothing else can beat it.

This poll, and this thread suck.

The answer is obvious.

You'd be surpised.

I agree with Rob.

I demand that everyone who votes for PT is :banned:

I really wouldn't. The only ones who'll vote New Trilogy are those born, say, 1998 and after. Even from a completely non-nerdy standpoint, as movies, the OT is far superior in almost every field. From a technical standpoint, the OT tops quite a few movies [Close Encounters is one of the only others I can think that reach SW's level of technology for it's time]. The only achievements the NT has is one the most CGI scenes in a movie to date. This saddens me greatly, as CGI is meant to be an ENHANCEMENT to real props and scenery, not the FRAMEWORK of your movie. The NT falls flat in every other field of critique. [However, in comparison to OTHER movies, the NT isn't half bad. But we're comparing, not ranking.] The ONLY thing I'd consider either of them failing at is the HORRIBLE acting, but even that has almost become part of the SW universe.

obv the otc

Wow 12 to 0....

Nope, sorry. Not surprised. You failed. :p

I'm surprised. Apparently we hate the prequels so much that no one's even willing to vote for them just to piss the rest of us off.

I like the prequels alot actually

Commence flaming >.>

i voted the prequels just to piss the rest of you off

You think you can piss us off?

Being obsessed with Knightrider voids your opinion.

OT.

Wow, this is one of the dumbest polls I have seen in a while. It involves a question that doesn't need to be debated.

OT.

Close this thread.

Natalie Portman > Carrie Fisher

Other than that, yeah. :p

A_Big_Fat_CoW, Sats

NEED TO DIEEEEE! :banned: :banned: :banned:

I find all star wars cheesy but i found the old trilogy even more so cheesy so... *shrug*

(I'll remind myself later why you should never post this on a Star wars forum)

OT, but I'm biased

Bah. Young Fisher > Portman.

Fisher + metal bikini = drool

I don't care which one I like better. I like it all together.

4 people have no taste.

4 people havent even seen the original trilogy.

quit being so close minded and talking **** to people with different opinions than you, its quite annoying

ok who are the five fools who voted NT??

lets face it, they are not that great even as movies. the CG is over done, the fight scenes are ALL crap (the only small becon of light was Ray Park), George Lucas can't direct, and they are just painful to watch.



OT all the way.

I say OT because they have that element of classic cheesiness that is essential in Sci Fi stuff.

I dont know why i bother posting on massassi sometimes

That was the most valuable post ever, TSM. Try reading my first one in this thread.

I voted PT because I think the overall story arch is better. Sue me.

well to jedikirby:

I dont understand why people complain about CG so much, would you rather have bad looking puppets and less attractive scenery? I dont get the argument, CG did enhance the PT. plus



why do you say that? is there a set of rules to how to us CG animation? again would you rather have puppets and less attractive scenery? whats the argument?

If you compare acting of PT and OT then you'll realize that its not superior in the OT, its just as corny, etc.


yes the OT was way ahead of its time, but even the PT has visual effects that far surpas anything out there today as well.


and I was not born after 1998, thats just a ridiculous claim

Fisher is no longer young. :p

Portman eventually will turn old and moldy too ....

The primary difference? Portman was born in the same decade I was...Fisher was nearly three decades before. Enough for me. :p

You obviously know nothing about modern movies, do you?

Today's puppets are FAR superior to the technology used in CGI, and about the same budget, sometimes LESS expensive. Anything that a puppet lacks can now, in this day and age, be menipulated with CGI. I say MENIPULATED, not filled in. What I mean, is that having a puppet for this scene and a full scale CGI character for the scene where it needs to move fast is a BAD idea. But changing surface lighting, adding color, glow, liquids, or other organic flare can be done with CGI.

Furthermore, backdrops are NOT difficult things to build as mineatures. They also look 10000000000 times BETTER than a CGI background. Again, anything that you can't do easily with mineatures can be MENIPULATED with CGI.

CGI makes you realize you're watching a movie, and a fake one. Real props with CGI enhancements make you ask "Did they shoot this in a real place? How possible is what they're showing?" etc.

JediKirby

I enjoyed the characters and story in the new films more than the old ones. I enjoyed all the films. *shrug*

I disagree partially with that. The Empire Strikes Back Yoda looked the best, but the CGI one in Episode II and III was extremely better than the puppet used in Episode I.

That's because CGI looks good over CGI. Take any of the scenes where the CGI yoda is standing in front of non-CGI background [Which is almost never] and he looks VERY out of place. The puppet, however, looked too fake on top of the perfect gleams and glare of the CGI council room. Compare him to the people and their contrast with the CGI room and you'll see what I mean. Today's Anamatronics are BEAUTIFUL, and can look lifelike if done correctly.

A better example is Grevious. When he stands in front of or near real things/actors, the "wow he looks real!" turns into a "wow nice model!"

JediKirby

I like how you say this as if it were fact instead of opinion



so you think coruscant would have looked better as a mineature?


wait, its a matter of opinion! thats right

It's not at all a matter of opinion. It's a matter of truth. You can make a puppet with flesh-looking skin. A CGI model cannot, and will not look like real flesh with our current technology. That isn't an opinion at all. You're just being arrogant, now.

Oh, and yes, Coruscant would have looked far more realistic as a mineature. You, having not worked on anything movie related, have no clue what the scope of a mineature is. The art of mineatures has been perfected over the years, and along with CGI, can make for some ultra-realistic scenes.

It isn't an opinion because you're trying to compare real life and a rendered image. There isn't a comparison at this stage in CGI/processing power.

JediKirby