Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Donate
Help
Smilies
BB Codes
Trophies
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Forums
Off Topic
Capsule Corp
Which Sequel AGED BETTER: Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) OR The Dark Knight (2008)?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="PanSimpson" data-source="post: 22896" data-attributes="member: 549"><p><strong>Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002):</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>[ATTACH=full]2867[/ATTACH]</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>The Dark Knight (2008):</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>[ATTACH=full]2866[/ATTACH]</strong></p><p></p><p>Serious question, I think this is a PERFECT comparison. Which movie do you think AGED BETTER and WHY? </p><p></p><p>Personally, I'm going with Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) because not only was it A HUGE PART of my CHILDHOOD and reminds me of the EXCELLENT YEAR that was 2002, but it's mainly the sole reason I still defend the Prequels and still even consider myself a Star Wars fan. To me, Attack Of The Clones WAS AHEAD OF IT'S TIME and EXTREMELY UNDERRATED and GETS FAR TOO MUCH HATE by Star Wars fans.</p><p></p><p>As far The Dark Knight goes, outside Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, it's got NOTHING GOING FOR IT and it's a TOTAL PRODUCT of the Late-2000's Era of Movies and IT GREATLY BENEFITED from coming out at a time when standards for cinema had hit AN ALL TIME LOW.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, if that came off as EXTREMELY PRETENTIOUS, but I'm NOT a big of Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies or a big Christopher Nolan fan in general whereas I'm a HUGE Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) FAN.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="PanSimpson, post: 22896, member: 549"] [B]Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002): [ATTACH type="full"]2867[/ATTACH] The Dark Knight (2008): [ATTACH type="full"]2866[/ATTACH][/B] Serious question, I think this is a PERFECT comparison. Which movie do you think AGED BETTER and WHY? Personally, I'm going with Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) because not only was it A HUGE PART of my CHILDHOOD and reminds me of the EXCELLENT YEAR that was 2002, but it's mainly the sole reason I still defend the Prequels and still even consider myself a Star Wars fan. To me, Attack Of The Clones WAS AHEAD OF IT'S TIME and EXTREMELY UNDERRATED and GETS FAR TOO MUCH HATE by Star Wars fans. As far The Dark Knight goes, outside Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker, it's got NOTHING GOING FOR IT and it's a TOTAL PRODUCT of the Late-2000's Era of Movies and IT GREATLY BENEFITED from coming out at a time when standards for cinema had hit AN ALL TIME LOW. Sorry, if that came off as EXTREMELY PRETENTIOUS, but I'm NOT a big of Christopher Nolan's "Batman" movies or a big Christopher Nolan fan in general whereas I'm a HUGE Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) FAN. [/QUOTE]
Loading…
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Off Topic
Capsule Corp
Which Sequel AGED BETTER: Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of The Clones (2002) OR The Dark Knight (2008)?
Top
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…