Doctoring the Polls

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1324735]

Comments

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Almost Tennant but he's 5 months older than me.

As for Star Wars, as I posted a few days ago, it was Leicester Square Odeon, 1977, first week it was out. Utterly glorious!

Oddly, Jo and I were just discussing how odd it would be to be young enough to watch Episodes I-VI in numerical order, having not seen them before.

[davesangel.livejournal.com]

Oddly, Jo and I were just discussing how odd it would be to be young enough to watch Episodes I-VI in numerical order, having not seen them before.

It would be cool to watch them all for the first time in the correct numerical order. The only problem is that episodes 1-3 are so shit in comparison to 4-6 that I think many viewers would just switch off before they got to the good stuff...

[henriksdal.livejournal.com]

yep - I never watched star wars so tried in order and lasted all of 10 minutes of I before getting bore and switching off!

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

You mean you weren't excited and inspired by the taxation of shipping routes?

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

We considered this for our children but eventually decided that the correct order for them to watch the films in was 4, 5, 6... that's all, folks.

If you watch 1,2,3 first then most of the major dramatic events of 4, 5, 6 are destroyed.

Next question: correct order to read the Narnia books.

General theorem: It is always, always, better to read/watch the books/films in the order of writing/production, not the chronological order.

[pigeonhed.livejournal.com]

1-3 are shit in comparisaon to 4-6 which were shit already in comparison to any half decent film anyway.

[0olong.livejournal.com]

Maybe if you watch 1-3 before the age of 6 they're not so bad?