›

Indy vs. JP vs. star wars vs. Jaws

dirtywhitesniperjr.dirtywhitesniperjr.
edited January 2012 in General Chat
Witch is better Jurassic park, Indiana jones, Star wars, OR JAWS?!?

I'm going with Jurassic park. anyone else?
«1

Comments

  • sniperwar10sniperwar10
    edited January 2012
    you know you can add a poll option...
    well between jurassic park and starwars....
    Jurassic Park!!
  • RAnthonyMahanRAnthonyMahan
    edited January 2012
    Indiana Jones has the best track record.

    Indy's had three good movies, one bad one.
    Jurassic Park has had one good movie, two bad ones.
    Jaws has had one good movie, three bad ones.
    Star Wars has
    six bad ones.
  • Asian InfernoAsian Inferno
    edited January 2012
    RAnthonyMahan wrote: »
    Indiana Jones has the best track record.

    Indy's had three good movies, one bad one.
    Jurassic Park has had one good movie, two bad ones.
    Jaws has had one good movie, three bad ones.
    Star Wars has
    six bad ones.
    *Indy is all good up till the third.
    *Jurassic Park has had one good movie, one decent one, and one bad one. Lost World actually was what got me into the franchise.
    *Jaws is good. Jaws with anything behind it afterwards is just bad.
    *Star Wars has six good ones. (IMO) That's right I grew up with the Prequels, so what?
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2012
    sniperwar10 wrote: »
    you know you can add a poll option...

    Added. :)

    Also, I think this thread is more suited to General Chat so it's migrating over there.
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited January 2012
    Indy 4 is no worse than Indy 2.
  • Chyron8472Chyron8472
    edited January 2012
    Asian Inferno wrote: »
    *Star Wars has six good ones. (IMO) That's right I grew up with the Prequels, so what?
    So, you are young and naive enough to not know any better.

    The original version of the original trilogy of Star Wars is the best, then Indy 1 & 3, then both Jurassic Park 1 and Jaws 1.
  • Sausy GibbonSausy Gibbon
    edited January 2012
    This will probably have me booed of these forums but I find all these movies a little overrated.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited January 2012
    Sausy Gibbon wrote: »
    This will probably have me booed of these forums but I find all these movies a little overrated.

    hhhck.gif
  • GuruGuru214GuruGuru214
    edited January 2012
    Is it just me, or is this thread a little apples and oranges?
  • KuroShiroKuroShiro
    edited January 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Indy 4 is no worse than Indy 2.

    Well, that's a matter of opinion. It is a fact however that #4 massively screwed up the Indiana Jones formula -- it's supposed to about fictionalized versions of religion and mythology. 4 cast that aside for a lot of sci-fi weirdness, which is one reason a lot of people hate it. Also large parts of it just made no damned sense.

    That said, I still voted for Indy. :D
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2012
    GuruGuru214 wrote: »
    Is it just me, or is this thread a little apples and oranges?

    Apples #2 was lame, but oranges #4 ruined the series for me.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited January 2012
    puzzlebox wrote: »
    Apples #2 was lame, but oranges #4 ruined the series for me.
    I'm sorry, but it's called the Orange Trilogy for a reason, and that reason is THERE WAS NOT AN ORANGES 4.

    Oranges 4 is DEAD TO ME.

    I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you said something else, but NOTHING RHYMES WITH ORANGE.
  • MusicallyInspiredMusicallyInspired
    edited January 2012
    Indy is the best. Two was wonky, four was actually alright. Best was 3, second best 1.
  • KuroShiroKuroShiro
    edited January 2012
    GuruGuru214 wrote: »
    Is it just me, or is this thread a little apples and oranges?

    Not so much as you might think. They're all basically fantasy movies, mixed in with another genre -- sci-fi, horror, pulpy adventure, etc.
  • Chyron8472Chyron8472
    edited January 2012
    It occurs to me that, in part, this is a vote between Lucas and Spielberg.
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited January 2012
    KuroShiro wrote: »
    Well, that's a matter of opinion. It is a fact however that #4 massively screwed up the Indiana Jones formula -- it's supposed to about fictionalized versions of religion and mythology. 4 cast that aside for a lot of sci-fi weirdness, which is one reason a lot of people hate it. Also large parts of it just made no damned sense.

    That said, I still voted for Indy. :D

    Well Indy was older so the series moved from the doc savage era to the sci fi rag era.
  • GuybrushWilcoGuybrushWilco
    edited January 2012
    I liked the first three Indy movies. Temple of Doom was pretty out there, but still a fun adventure movie in my opinion, and Crusaders is my favorite. Indy is the best out of these for me :) But I do like the original Star Wars trilogy, and episode III as well. Jaws was great, Jaws 2 was decent, and Jaws 3 was terrible.
  • Darth MarsdenDarth Marsden
    edited January 2012
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but it's called the Orange Trilogy for a reason, and that reason is THERE WAS NOT AN ORANGES 4.

    Oranges 4 is DEAD TO ME.

    I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you said something else, but NOTHING RHYMES WITH ORANGE.
    That. Was. AWESOME. I totally have a new role model. I can only hope to ever be as good as you are.

    I went with Indy, purely because it's probably the only franchise where you can just watch one of the films, and you don't have to have watched any of the others to understand what's going on. It helps, but it's not essential. You can just get caught up in the ride.

    I'm a fan of the original Star Wars films, but the prequel trilogy and the changes made to the originals do drag them down. Jaws hasn't been good since the first film, and I haven't even seen Jurrasic Park 3 so I can't comment (but Lost World was stupid as all hell). So there.

    Also, for the record: Orange #2 wasn't bad, it was just very different to the other two oranges. If you don't like how dark it is, that's fine. Just don't say it's a terrible piece of fruit, because it's not. It's a wee bit more bruised then the others in the fruit basket, but it's still a decent snack.
  • Chyron8472Chyron8472
    edited January 2012
    I think people's problem with Orange #4 though is that it's not really an orange, but rather a tangerine.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited January 2012
    I love this forum. Indy wins hands down,
    even though the series had an abysmal fourth part.

    Also, LOVE:

    allenbu.jpg
  • Darth MarsdenDarth Marsden
    edited January 2012
    Vainamoinen wrote: »
    I love this forum. Indy wins hands down,
    even though the series had an abysmal fourth part.
    Law of averages.

    Indiana Jones. 4 films, 3 good. 75% hit rate.
    Star Wars. 6 films 3 good. 50% hit rate.
    Jurassic Park. 3 films, 1 good. 33% hit rate.
    Jaws. 4 films, 1 good. 25% hit rate.

    This therefore means that Indiana Jones is 3 times as good as Jaws, and twice as good as Jurassic Park, despite Spielberg being involved in them all.

    DO NOT DOUBT THE MATH.
  • LukedfrtLukedfrt
    edited January 2012
    You cant beat Indiana Jones aka Nathan Drake :D
  • Darth MarsdenDarth Marsden
    edited January 2012
    I posit that Nathan Drake is the grandson of Indiana Jones. The reason we never see his dad in the games or why he doesn't talk about him at all is because of a certain non-existent fourth orange.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited January 2012
    I've never been one for Jaws, and although there was a hefty Jurassic Park phase, it was pretty much over in 1996. ;)

    My Star Wars phase were the 90s also. I even owned and GM'd a Star Wars role-playing system back then. I also read SW and Indy novels in the early 90s, with a decisive difference. The SW stuff were German translations from the English originals, while the Indy stuff were individual adaptations by one German author. Unfortunately, that one author was heavily, heavily, heavily overrated. German bookstores ran over with his Sci-Fi and Fantasy stuff (and occasionally still do), leaving scarcely a place for other, far more talented authors. I still can't believe that I fed myself that crap.

    Don't know why Indy still won in the end. I'm not convinced it's the stupid SW sequels or the "law of averages". It might be the more developed characters and the greater variety in what could happen on-screen.
  • MusicallyInspiredMusicallyInspired
    edited January 2012
    Indiana Jones is just more awesome then all the rest.
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited January 2012
    There's nothing wrong with Doom and Skulls, great snakes, people. Doom's the best one anyway. Raiders has a massive plot issue but is the most classic mixture of the formula, and Crusade and Skulls are the kiddiest of the movies. However, Doom has the most of everything I expect out of a perfect pulp adventure film.
  • OzzieMonkeyOzzieMonkey
    edited January 2012
    Indy, by far. Of course, JP could change my mind, because I'm yet to watch them (I have the blu-ray set though). The Original Trilogy of Star Wars was great, and I still enjoyed the prequels, despite the plot issues and bitchy Anakin, so that comes second for me. Jaws was on last night in Australia, and I couldn't watch it without freaking out, although I can admit it's cheesy; I'm just a complete wuss with shark movies or anything that implies that someone could get eaten by something in the water. Having said that, I did watch Jaws 3 with some mates, and we laughed our heads off, it was so stupid, and the deaths weren't as scary to me. Back to Indy, Temple of Doom is my favourite of all 4 films, I just loved Short Round, every time something happened with him it was hilarious. The other 3 movies were great too, yes, even 4, although I can't remember much about it because I've only seen it once and that was a few years back now; then again, I can't remember much about the other 3 either, because I haven't seen them in such a long time.
  • Asian InfernoAsian Inferno
    edited January 2012
    Chyron8472 wrote: »
    So, you are young and naive enough to not know any better.

    The original version of the original trilogy of Star Wars is the best, then Indy 1 & 3, then both Jurassic Park 1 and Jaws 1.

    No I'm just not old and cranky that the Prequels were made for this generation and not the last one. Feel free to love your "Holy Trilogy" and let those of us who like the Prequels enjoy them without your complaints.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited January 2012
    Anyone who likes the prequels is an idiot, or at least shuts their brain entirely off while watching films. There is no way to watch films while actually whollistically enjoying and understanding them and to also enjoy the prequels. People who watch movies as rote entertainment frankly should have no right to talk about them in actual discussion. Just because you happen to on some level consume movies does not mean you have a right to an opinion.
  • bobber56bobber56
    edited January 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Indy 4 is no worse than Indy 2.

    Nothing was wrong with Temple of Doom. But they should have done Indy 4 back in the Nineties, and if they did it probably wouldn't have sucked.

    Also I hear Spielberg is doing Jurassic Park 4. STOP THE MADNESS!
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited January 2012
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Anyone who likes the prequels is an idiot, or at least shuts their brain entirely off while watching films. There is no way to watch films while actually whollistically enjoying and understanding them and to also enjoy the prequels. People who watch movies as rote entertainment frankly should have no right to talk about them in actual discussion. Just because you happen to on some level consume movies does not mean you have a right to an opinion.

    Stop being an asshole you giant dick.
  • puzzleboxpuzzlebox Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2012
    FRT6T.jpg

    All righty guys, don't make me use this. I can't read the instructions.
  • IcedhopeIcedhope
    edited January 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Stop being an asshole you giant dick.


    Daishi, I will not tolerate this type of name calling.
  • DAISHIDAISHI
    edited January 2012
    Understood. Please let Ratherr Dashing know he needs to stop calling people idiots.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited January 2012
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Understood. Please let Ratherr Dashing know he needs to stop calling people idiots.
    What I mean is that the concept that people are entitled to have their opinions respected is ridiculous, as an unfounded opinion by an uninformed person will generally have less value than one expressed by a person that deeply understands the thing they are talking about, and a well-expressed opinion will be more respected than one that is poorly represented. That's ridiculous enough, but but it's *especially* ridiculous to assume that you have a right to an opinion without ever having to be exposed to the inverse simply because yours falls under the label of "positive"(I like X) and the other falls under the realm of "negative"(I dislike X).

    That's what is implied by saying that you have the right to enjoy something without someone's complaints, as was done above.

    The thing is that people can and have gone very in-depth with their thoughts on the prequel trilogy as a work of cinematic art. To close the book on "Well, it was made for this generation" doesn't explain...anything. What specific attributes can be linked to "this generation"? Specifically, what are the parameters of excellent filmmaking by the standards of "this generation", why, and why is it more valuable than those of the previous generation? What does someone do if they are making something for the current generation? Is there some sort of thematic and cultural gap and, if so, what defines it? Saying something is made for a more recent generation either opens up a lot of questions that are in dire need of being answered, OR is a lazy way to cover up having no real, solid reason for holding views other than simply watching films in a very unengaged, passive, and ultimately more shallow way. If your reasons for liking something break down to "It's fast and shiny", there are cats equally intellectually stimulated by their entertainment.
  • GuybrushWilcoGuybrushWilco
    edited January 2012
    Btw, why isn't the Back to the Future trilogy featured in this poll?
  • Secret FawfulSecret Fawful
    edited January 2012
    Why is Jaws? Jaws is on its own sequel wise, and while it did have an impact, it's nothing compared to Indy, SW, or JP. Jurassic Park, regardless of what you may think, actually had watchable sequels compared to the ass that is Jaws 4. Matter of fact, why does Spielberg get three separate movies to go up against Lucas? Why not Pirates? Why not Errol Flynn's Robin Hood, Die Hard, Terminator, Predator, Alien, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Hellraiser, Friday the 13th, or other massive franchises? What constitutes this lineup?
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited January 2012
    "Everyone who thinks X is stupid" is the speaker’s direct expression of an emphatic inability. What follows to justify this "opinion" is cynicism poorly masked as objectivity and possibly the occasional straw man argument tossed in to strengthen the doctrine conspiracy theory-like.

    But empathy aside, I still find those thoughts to be far too restricting and uncreative for an open, inquisitive mind. Makes the world too easy. Here, on the left, the morons, and on the right, that’s me, with taste, knowledge, intellect and a deep understanding for real art. I bow to thee, great master, why dost thou even discuss with us lowly peasants.

    I have watched the SW prequels once, and I really wasn’t impressed, particularly not with III. But still I could think of quite a few reasons why some SW fans like them, and those reasons are not derogatory.

    I'm sure lots of intelligent others can do the same if they just tried.


    For those not inflamed by the constant opinion vilification, it comes across as plain boring and unimaginative. I wish we could do with less here.
  • Darth MarsdenDarth Marsden
    edited January 2012
    Not wanting to add fire to the flames, but I find it hard to understand how people can genuinely like the Star Wars Prequel trilogy. There are things about them that are OK, like the CGI or the Music, but overall they're pretty bad films. It's pretty hard to defend acting this awful.
  • AlcoremortisAlcoremortis
    edited January 2012
    I still think that R2D2 is consistently the best actor in Star Wars. I mean, for a character that doesn't speak words he does a far better job of conveying feelings and an attitude than most of the characters who communicate in more traditional methods.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.