Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Star Wars: The Phantom Menace Review


2shy

Recommended Posts

You know, I've never minded The Phantom Menace that much...not that it's a great work of art or anything (no...it certainly isn't that...) but it's at least better than that shitstain known as Attack of the Clones...I mean, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan aren't exactly deep in TPM, but at least Liam and Ewan are good ACTORS--in AOTC, there are only two good performances in the entire film, not a good ratio, especially when two of the worst performances are from two of the main characters, in fact the de facto focus of the film (Portman and Christensan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revenge of the Sith was the second best movie of the six.

George lucas should have really just made the first three movies into two movies and cut out half of phantom menace and Attack of the Clones. He tried to stretch a little bit of story out into 5 hours of movie, and thought he could fill in the void with extra "character development", which it wasn't really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revenge of the Sith was the second best movie of the six.

George lucas should have really just made the first three movies into two movies and cut out half of phantom menace and Attack of the Clones. He tried to stretch a little bit of story out into 5 hours of movie, and thought he could fill in the void with extra "character development", which it wasn't really.

I've said this for a while: if Revenge of the Sith was R-rated, it would have been the best of the 6. Actually, that's a lie; Empire Strikes Back pwns all. But RotS would have been great as an R-rated action sci-fi flic, and it showed the massacre at the Jedi Temple.

The two things Phantom Menace had going for it that kept it from being a total bust in my mind, are 1.) outstanding vehicle concepts that really inspired me artistically 2.) Darth Maul and the amazing double-edged light saber fight. Visually stunning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what anyone says...

Star Wars in any form (yes even the kiddie'd down Phantom Menace) is 10x better than anything else Hollywood puts out to this day...

I'd rate the 6 in this order

Empire Strikes Back

Revenge of the Sith

A New Hope

Return of the Jedi

Attack of the Clones

The Phantom Menace

But FWIW, TPM is still better than any of the LotR movies to me... You have to view the Star Wars work as a complete thing, and it's impact on the world as we know it is greater than anything in entertainment history...

If it wasn't for Star Wars, Sci-Fi/CGI/Movie technology would all be set back at least a decade...

Therefore, even if it's the worst part of the Star Wars universe, it's still better than most of the stuff out there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Lucas is laughing at this guy as he cashes yet another check.

One thing about the Phantom Menace. It was made for boys age 6-12. And they liked it. 30 and 40 years olds trying to recapture their youth thru Star Wars were not going to like it.

I didn't like it, but then I didn't much care for Transformers either. Kids movies all of them.

I did like Revenge of the Sith though. That was more of an adult movie, albeit with one of the worst romance stories ever written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did like Revenge of the Sith though. That was more of an adult movie, albeit with one of the worst romance stories ever written.

they needed it for the story but It could have been so much better. The way anakin was turned to darth Vader was the worst part of the film...it was like someone snapped their finger and he was all of a sudden a bad guy...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...