Log In
Create Account
SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ
Login
Create Account
Search
Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...
RSS Feed
Hosting by DigitalOcean
Support ST on Ko-Fi
Links Only
50 Results
100 Results
250 Results
500 Results
1000 Results
5000 Results
2 Weeks
2 Months
6 Months
1 Year
2 Years
5 Years
All Time
Live
Down to Post
Backboards:
Live
________________
1: Nov 29, 16:44
2: Nov 29, 08:01
3: Nov 28, 16:19
4: Nov 28, 09:42
5: Nov 27, 18:07
6: Nov 27, 12:04
7: Nov 27, 08:26
8: Nov 26, 18:06
9: Nov 26, 12:05
10: Nov 26, 08:29
11: Nov 25, 18:33
12: Nov 25, 11:12
13: Nov 25, 07:08
14: Nov 24, 13:17
15: Nov 23, 18:13
16: Nov 23, 06:17
17: Nov 22, 13:24
18: Nov 22, 09:09
19: Nov 21, 22:36
20: Nov 21, 14:03
Posts: 158
In response to
"
Die Hard 1 2 3 -- nm
"
by
ty97
Star Wars 4 5 6.
Posted by
Black Rabbit (aka Spawn)
Jun 19 '10, 13:24
It really brought sequels into style.
Responses:
I really hate that the first 3 movies have to be numbered 4, 5, 6. Better had they remained 1, 2, 3. -- nm
-
TWuG
Jun 19, 13:28
6
ummm, those were the numbers right from the beginning. The first crawl started with "Episode IV" -- nm
-
zork
Jun 19, 13:43
5
No, it didn't. This was added to the re-releases. -- (link)
-
Reagen
Jun 19, 13:58
4
right, but still that was 1981 and Lucas had always envisioned it as 4. I think 29 years is enough time for TWuG to have gotten used to it.
-
zork
Jun 19, 14:11
3
My point is, even if the roll said "Episode IV" we'd be calling it #1 because Phantom Menace wouldn't exist.
-
TWuG
Jun 19, 14:48
OK, but that's not "right from the beginning"..
-
Reagen
Jun 19, 14:14
1
*submits self for a vicious wet noodling*
-
zork
Jun 19, 14:21
Post a message
top
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
