DarkFather

Thanks, guys.

I made a new video I thought I'd share with you guys. 

Presenting. . . 'Star Wars' Set To Music From 'Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan' !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBSDCQ_lcdk

Please let me know what you think.

xhonzi said:

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Star-Wars-Comics/topic/10983/

Here is some additional discussion on the Marvel SW Comics.

I just picked up the first 27 issues in the Dark Horse Volume 1 Omnibus.  I haven't sat down to read it yet though.

Here's hoping it rocks!

 It does, I promise.

miker71 said:

DarkFather said:

Last night I sat down and read about half of Volume 1 of Marvel's take on Star Wars. It's a collection of pre-ESB comics, containing many elements that are radically different from the SW universe we have today.  Jabba is a yellow, white-haired, humanoid alien, for instance.

Has anyone else read the Marvel Star Wars comics?

oh yes! I was a UK subscriber a few issues before the ESB adaptation, so I did miss a lot of things like the green rabbit.

i since got digital back-issues and that Marvel period is very, shall we say, "comic" :-)

 Ah yes, Jaxxon or "Jax" for short (which he's not).

Also worthy of mentioning is a warrior from the near extinct Spiner species: he could shoot quills from his body.

And an old man in possession of a lightsaber who believed that he was the last remaining Jedi Knight (he's as crazy as Han first thought Old Ben to be).

And the hottie sharp-shooter in a red two piece. White hair. Feline eyes. Forgot her name.

EDIT: Her name's Amaiza.

Last night I sat down and read about half of Volume 1 of Marvel's take on Star Wars. It's a collection of pre-ESB comics, containing many elements that are radically different from the SW universe we have today.  Jabba is a yellow, white-haired, humanoid alien, for instance.

Has anyone else read the Marvel Star Wars comics?

TF.NET a few years ago was likethat. If you go on there now and take an honest look around, there is PT bashing everywhere. What you once could get banned for, you are now allowed to state in less than tactful terms.

One person made a thread on things that bothered them about ANH. Someone came in and said something like "Nobody with a Jar-Jar Binks icon gets to state their problems with ANH." The person who said that wasn't chastized or even admonished for it. I don't agree with that person really, but my point still stands. Even go into the PT section, and you'll see that only a handful are actually "gushers". It seems many of the gushers are doing their own personal retrospectives and seeing the objective flaws about the whole PT. Not all, but enough to raise an eyebrow.

If you go out and take a survey on a crowded street, I'm pretty sure the consensus will be OT > PT. So a bunch of kids tune in to the Clone Wars cartoon. That too is probably a passing trend. Inconsequential. As those kids get older they're going to realize that the only reasons they even came close to liking it is the fact it's a cartoon and that it had lightsabers.

In the end, it's out of our hands, and Lucas's how these films endure. I guess we'll know someday. But I still stand to say that it's premature or foolish to say that the consensus is that the PT sucked, because it apparently is quite liked by lots of people (including I beleive, more of us than admit it).

Boost, I'm not being a smartass when I say that, if you personally have warmed up to the PT, that's okay. I'll still talk to you in discussions because you seem to be overall reasonable and nice.

If a lot of posters on OT.com secretly like the PT, I'm not seeing that at all, though.

Highly impossible.

I don't have any proof of that, Boost, admittedly. It's just something I firmly believe. That the PTis going to be a cinematic laughing stock. That it already is. Keep in mind that because someone buys Star Wars merchandise does not necessarily mean they like it. Look at us here on OriginalTrilogy. We've colletively bought quite a lot of prequel-based products, probably thousands of dollars, while also raising "Star Wars: The Clone Wars" television ratings. You can't make an argument that the majority of OT.com enjoy the PT.

I think it's because the OT "suckered"/attracted us so much into the franchise that not even the horrible quality of the PT could totally erase that obsession/devotion initially. But it's happening in many fans. Look how the TCW CGI film did in the box office. Good, if we're judging it alongside other, non-Star Wars films. Pretty bad when compared to other Star Wars films. That tells me something.

Star Wars is "real" to me. And "real" to most every person that's watched the films.

So shame on him for missing the entire point of his fans' devotion and demeaning the power of his own creation.

^ Actually, it acknowledges sections that are non-canon or of questionable canon. Not all comics are considered canon to either the films or mainstream EU continuity, "Infinities" being such an example.

Maybe they were stationed at Jabba's palace for a while. If it was an entire year between ESB and ROTJ, I can see them giving up and waiting for the next opportunity to capture Luke. Like someone already said, Vader had other things to do.

That's the main answer. Sidious also had Force Lightning, and other techniques at his disposal that Vader stood no chance against. It was all a matter of Vader turning Luke to the dark side, helping him grow more powerful, and then waiting for the right moment to strike against Sidious with Luke as his ultimate tool.

Cad Bane has potential so far. He's a western-esque bounty hunter with some mystery going on. The only thing I don't like about him is his voice, which threatens to grate on the nerves.

To everyone else on the thread:

For the love of God, do not stupidly leap in and make this out into something it isn't. It's a friendly discussion. I get along with Bingowings. So it's not about turning either of us into the "bad guy."

Of course there are going to be things missing. You're being completely unreasonable. They only have so much time to fit in scenes from the book, while establishing the characters so that we can care about them.

Almost every actor did a terrible job even Oldman who seems to be playing six different characters, none of them the Count.

Dracula was a creature of many faces and attitudes even in the book. And how can you not say none of them were accurate? Unless you want to be petty and say that old man Dracula didn't have breast hair-buns in the book. The personality was intact in that case: a visually creepy, yet polite and very accomodating host. There's malice lurking under the surface that very gradually surfaces, and we discover along with Jonathan that Dracula is a demonic freak of nature. He's able to defy gravity by easily scaling walls. He feeds a baby to his three hedonistic whore wives.

Explain to me how that's "not the Count." The ingredients are there, save for some aesthetic alterations. So many compotents are present in fact, that naming him "Dracula" was very accurate to what we're given in the book.

Lucy being a saucy strumpet before getting bitten (if she acted like that in real life she would have been Seward's patient not the object of his suit),

She barely had a personality otherwise. Are you slamming the film for adding to a character? I personally thought the phallic connotation of her grabbing Quincy's large knife was funny. The way Lucy was handled in the film, even though she did have her legs spread the whole time, helped us take Dracula's threat seriously when he attacked her both times in wolf form. Here, she's a believable female wanting to break out of the shell society is trying to impose on her.

Some of the material usually unseen from the novel is put back but lacking any purpose (like the gas plumes that the Count uses to find buried treasure to fund his activities being nothing more than window dressing).

Lacking any purpose? Being said by the guy who listed these as unforgivably missing from the film:

No Golden Krone, a blink and miss it first coach ride, the killing of the baby's mother missing, most of the Demeter voyage and arrival missing, most of the Whitby scenes missing, Lucy's mother missing, Lucy's silly innocence missing, Lucy's first encounter with with the vampire hunters missing, Mina's oral rape scene inverted so she is almost attacking him, and there was so much in the film that made no sense at all.

Lucas didn't have to do anything.  You wanted him to, I wanted him to, we all wanted him to - but that's all it is - our desires to be given what we wanted, what we hoped for.  There was no contract, no guarantee, no unwritten law - no have to.

He had to in order to meet the fans' requirements, Anchorhead.

I am taking a neutral stance. I personally couldn't care less about Lucas or his numerous fanbases. That includes the anti-Lucasites. Like you, I have the Star Wars I need. It's the underground psychological battle itself that interests me. So don't think I'm speaking from my own ass, and implying that I'm one of the fans hateful of Lucas. I'm not. I'm stating my observations.

CO said:

Anchorhead said:

I'm all for continuing the petitions, letter writing, and published articles calling for a proper release and pointing out his lies.  I just can't behind the hate threads.  Lucas is someone who really digs his heels in when pushed and strikes me as the kind of fellow that would hold off a proper release just out of spite.

For all his flaws - and where Star Wars is concerned, he has more than can be counted - I just can't get behind the hate.  Through the years, Lucas has given me much more than he's taken from me.

 

I see what you are saying.  I honestly never understood the hate for Lucas for the PT.

 

Hopefully I can help you understand. It comes down to setting a precedence. When your reputation or legacy are seemingly set in stone, so strongly, for so long, that is what people are going to expect from you. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. A man has to live up to what people expect of him.

George Lucas' reputation up until the prequels, at least as it pertained to film-making, was that of greatness. He altered the course of history with some smash hits that are upheld as the ultimate classics by the vast majority.

With the prequels, that same vast majority saw poor direction, lazy special effects, and overall: mediocre deliveries.

In those fans' minds, Lucas betrayed them. He broke their expectations of his greatness into tiny pieces THREE MAJOR TIMES IN A ROW. It's that sense of betrayal that leads to bitterness. Such incongruity cannot be expected to be met with warmth and appreciation. It's human nature.

Thanks. My cleverness reaches George Lucas proportions.

C3PX said:

I for one would have to agree, the man is extremely clever, but unfortunately, also quite clueless in many regards. George has really made things difficult for his fans. I really like the guy, so it sucks to hear people rag on him all the time, but the fact is, he deserves most of it (though not the crap from the assholes who are constantly wishing death and misfortune on him).

I am still very fond of his older stuff, and I still see young George as a pretty great film maker, and often lament the fact that that George has been absolutely nowhere to be found for well over twenty years now. Now sure what when wrong. You'd think a guy who had a very small number of hits and a vast pound full of dogs would be a bit more humble about himself and his greatness as a story teller.

Well of course he was clever at one point, but not many come out and say that directly about themselves.

I don't understand the romance between you and Vbangle. :P

I remember George Lucas once calling himself clever.

Maybe her I.P. was logged before she joined.

Nearly everything from the book is intact, save for the relationship between Dracula and Mina. That stops me from calling it "Dracula in name only." And the only actor who I thought did a poor job was Keanu.

Did anyone ever play "Where in the World is Carmen SanDiego" ?

Moth3r said:

Did you mean to start a new topic or was this meant to be a reply to the "guilty pleasures" thread?

To me, it's a film you can enjoy without shame.