Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I will disagree with your disagreement.

1) They were already functionally immortal.

2) There is nothing of value added and in fact several things detracted from it. Pissing on history for slightly cleaner fx shots is asinine and insulting. I don't need redone fx for the original King Kong, Godzilla, or Metropolis I want to see them as they were originally shown in theaters that created the fan-bases, not a revised history version.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I read this quote from Alec Guinness

"A sweet-faced boy of twelve told me proudly that he had seen Star Wars over a hundred times? I said, 'do you think you could promise never to see Star Wars again?' He burst into tears. I just hope the lad, now in his thirties, is not living in a fantasy world of secondhand, childish banalities"

and decided to watch the original Star Wars earlier tonight.

I remember about 12-13 years back excitedly showing my daughter Star Wars. She was bored, and I had to admit it was a lot better when I was a kid.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Luke meeting Biggs on Yavin also explains why, of all the pilots shot down in that battle, Luke particularly reacts to Biggs.

It always baffles me this wasn't in the original film. It adds so much to the stakes of Yavin and really Luke's whole arc through the film I'm always shocked they cut it.

War machine. Lots of stoic buzzcuts with no names getting massive amount of soft tissue damage. Predictable and unpleasant to watch, and none of the characters are particularly likeable or memorable.

I like Mr Ritchson, but this is forgettable, and the ending is unbelievably cheesy.

Battlefield LA did it much better in my opinion.

 Flinty wrote:
War machine. Lots of stoic buzzcuts with no names getting massive amount of soft tissue damage. Predictable and unpleasant to watch, and none of the characters are particularly likeable or memorable.

I like Mr Ritchson, but this is forgettable, and the ending is unbelievably cheesy.

Battlefield LA did it much better in my opinion.

Funny. I drew the same conclusion.

In War Machine's defense, we already have Battle Los Angeles. We don't need another one. So I give it credit for trying a different approach.

If you want a film about a small group of soldiers against an unbeatable threat, go watch Dog Soldiers.

I saw it. It's okay.