>ITT movies that are great but make no goddamn sense if you didn't read the book
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>ITT movies that are great but make no goddamn sense if you didn't read the book
>ITT movies that are great but make no goddamn sense if you didn't read the book
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>great
Yes, although PT > 2001
>make no sense if you didn't read the book
No.
Was this post AI generated?
No, it wasn't. Why do you think that?
2001 and the Prequels are both stories where a lot of deatil is left out of the movie.
In the case of 2001, there is intentionally very little dialogue but even basic shit is never explained because Kubrick wanted you to to stand back dazzled by the spectacle of it all, rather than thinking of the logicistics.
In the case of the prequels, they can actually be pretty dialogue dense at times, but even still, the internal mechanics of the Star Wars government are complicated enough, that it fails to do the story justice.
I hate AI, and I want to know why you think my post is AI generated and not autism generated.
I thought it was AI generated because it's completely incoherent. You couldn't understand fricking Star Wars without a novelization? Are you joking?
>You couldn't understand fricking Star Wars without a novelization?
This homie is gonna pretend he already knew that being a Queen was an elected position that comes with term limits and that's why Padme is a senator in AOTC.
Get tha frick outta my face, faker.
I think they tell you in the movies but you're right, most people fail to even "read" the dialogues, which is one of the reasons the Prequels are such huge pleb filters.
Oh, so you're just autistic to the point that you can't watch anything without it being spelled out for you in BIG FLASHING BOLD LETTERS. How is the political system of Naboo an impediment to the understanding of the movies? What plot point requires you to know that? You're just someone who should have been medicated more heavily as a child.
>How is the political system of Naboo an impediment to the understanding a movie that's trying channel ancient Roman politics and modern politics and geo-politics, all at the same time.
wasted trips.
I think you might just have schizophrenia, anon. If some hackneyed political theater backdrop Lucas put into his space opera distracted you from the extremely basic plot of the prequels, maybe movies aren't for you.
Kek. I'm siding with OP here. You're stupid and movies aren't for you in fact.
I was able to understand the plot of Phantom Menace as a six year old without "having read the book", so I think I'm doing better than he is. Thanks for chiming in, though.
No, you didn't. Chances are you don't understand it still.
Ah I see, you're one of the people who likes to ascribe deeper meanings to popcorn media. You and OP were made for each other, I'll leave you to it.
>Ah I see, you're one of the people who likes to ascribe deeper meanings to popcorn media
Yeah. Not that Star Wars is just that but yeah nonetheless.
>If some hackneyed political theater backdrop Lucas put into his space opera distracted you from the extremely basic plot of the prequels,
It distracted most people.
>tabled this motion is. Or is it.
It probably distracted the adults who took their children to watch it, sure. But the OP of this thread would have you believe the movie is incomprehensible without having read "the book", something I can only assume he's conjured up in his fevered imagination.
I am happy that you are able to gain joy from that, genuinely.
>I am happy that you are able to gain joy from that, genuinely.
You cynicism-poisoned midwits are truly the worst.
Don't you think it's pretty cynical to assume my sentiment there wasn't genuine? We're not so different, you and I.
No, your prior posts made pretty clear where you stand.
>Don't you think it's pretty cynical to assume my sentiment there wasn't genuine?
This statement implies you are genuine.
>We're not so different, you and I.
In what way? Being cynical? This implies you are not genuine.
Is that anon cynical because he isn't oblivious to blatant sarcasm?
>This statement implies you are genuine.
No, the word "genuinely" at the end of the post implied that, anon. Reading comprehension is key. Not taking someone at their word seems pretty cynical to me. Where has your trust for your fellow man gone?
You decried the Prequels earlier as mere popcorn flicks and beyond that implied popcorn flicks are naturally meaningless. Both statements stand in contradiction to your presenting as mature.
>You decried the Prequels earlier as mere popcorn flicks
I wouldn't say "decried" really, that's just what they are. I like them a fair bit, but they're not particularly deep.
> beyond that implied popcorn flicks are naturally meaningless
Did I? All I've said was that they're not very deep, and certainly not deep enough to require outside material to parse. It seems this all stems from some desire of yours to defend the prequels as having artistic and/or intellectual merit, so more power to you there I guess.
>but they're not particularly deep
How do you define deep?
Does it matter? We're not going to come to an accord here, anon. You believe Star Wars: Episode I-III are deeper than the popcorn flicks they present as, and I don't. I'm not particularly interested in your viewpoint as to why you think that, and I imagine you feel the same way about mine. We're just talking in circles here.
I'd genuinely like to hear. I see people say "deep" all the time but they can never define what it means. I think they're frauds is what it is.
NTA but don't pretend to be dumb.
Deepness is generally about exploring the reality of the human experience, so this includes stuff like realistic relationships, political commentary, philosophy and so on. Shallowness is about works that are self indulgent and please the most crude and basic human desires, so it's like a Michael Bay movie filled with explosions and boobs.
>exploring the reality of the human experience, so this includes stuff like realistic relationships, political commentary, philosophy
So the Prequels are deep then?
The first two you can make no argument for, the second two, no good ones.
You're just being stubborn and contrarian at this point.
Pick up a book, tard.
Why are there 2 Padmes on the Attack of the Clones poster? It now looks like there's a giant Padme with a little Padme standing on her shoulder behind Yoda. It irks me
you're talking about the prequel novelizations?
Yup. Fun fact, Alan Dean Foster who wrote the book for kino Episode 4, also wrote the book for trash Episode 7
>prequels
>great
Now that's a dusty meme. Crusty almost.
>using an old meme to push the lie that the prequels were not kino
EPIC FAIL
Movies came out first. But they somehow "left out" important filler that was written later for non-canon novelization merchandise.
Lol.
2001 was also based on the movie. You're not bright.
>2001 was also based on the movie. You're not bright.
2001 was based on a short story called The Sentinel (which is essnetially just the moon scene in 2001.)
When Kubrick was ready to make the movie, he had Arthur C Clarke write the rest of this book while the movie was being made, so it's not really true that the book was based on the movie.
No it's irredeemable dogshit, it was so fricking trash that i had to stop watching. I couldn't stomach it
There's a book for the prequels???
reminder that the prequels are just as shit as the sequels. r/prequelmeme homosexuals need to go back
This is the weirdest post this month I have seen. WTF are you even on about???
The prequels are popcorn shit meant to appeal as a grand opera: noone could give less of a frick about midichlorians, the politics of the senate and galaxy at large, etc. etc. etc.
If anything there's too much shitty exposition and not enough character drama and action in the prequels until you get to episode 3 which was at least decent compared to 1 and 2. In other words the point you are trying to make is not only invalid but absolutely nonsensical and backwards!
As for 2001 I appreciate its tone and visuals and just general groundbreaking style that was ahead of its time. However the whole thing is a bloated piece of shit that would have worked much better as a 20 minute short film. Almost every scene not only drags on needlessly but is paced in slow motion and adds frick all to the movie. Again not a movie that would have really benefitted from knowing more about the story, it's still filmed by a pretentious c**t who's high on his own bullshit fumes: and I am saying that as a Kubrick fan!
Aside from ending, everything in 2001 is pretty straight forward
original trilogy was shit
prequel trilogy was shit
sequel trilogy was shit
some of the books were ok
simple as