Vaderisnothayden

Hmmm... I'm not confident in dismissing these accounts. I can imagine people remembering things wrong, but these people seem awful certain.  Plus, can't you just imagine Lucas altering the film after its release?

I didn't see Star Wars until 1981, so I don't know what scenes were being shown in the film in the late 70s. I take it we can be sure that some extended cut like I was speculating about was not the primary released cut of the film? (Just want to make sure, crazy as it might sound.)

It take it we can be pretty sure any extended cut that could have been out there couldn't have been common? (Because the novel/comic/radio/storybook adaptions sure would fit with an extended cut being common.)

I'd love to hear any further speculation or info on this.

samlark said:

Yeah, but Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher made it all believable.

Ford and Fisher did great with their material.

Mielr said:

There was chemistry and sexual tension between Leia and Han which made their exchanges very amusing. There was zip between Anakin and Padme which made their exchanges ridiculous.

Exactly. We get all this over the top talk between Padme and Anakin and zero chemistry. And it's claim that one of the reasons Lucas picked Hayden is because he had chemistry with Portman. Wtf?

Moth3r said:

Even has a trope named after it: George Lucas Love Story

ADM edited the love story completely out of Pearl Harbor, and the film was much better. Wonder if you could do the same for AOTC?

I think after we petition to get Lucas to give us the OOT on blu-ray, we should petition to get him to edit Hayden Christensen out of the prequels. ;) If he put in Jar Jar as Anakin instead I think I'd find it more believable.

skyjedi2005 said:

In his own words Lucas says " I am a terrible writer"  he said he "hated directing".  Yet he directed and wrote the 3 prequels all on his own because he did not want people muddying his vision Like Kershner did on Empire Strikes back as he has implied but never said directly.  He also was not 100% happy with what Marquand gave him on Return of the Jedi.  So he decided to have things his way he would have to have all control.

He also says he only got about 20% of the movie he wanted on Star Wars.  and something like 40% of what he wanted overall with the oot.   with the special editions changes he now says it is closer to 55 or 60% of what he wanted.  and he says being unhindred by technology he got 100% of the original movie he wanted star wars to be with the prequels.

He 100% wanted the prequels to be crap movies?

Sounds to me like he doesn't appreciate good movies and wants to make crap. I can't understand how anybody could be satisfied with ROTS. That movie was an abomination. AOTC wasn't much better.

I see them as not real Star Wars, so I don't count them as part of the real story.

negative1 said:

Han Solo: Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me.
Princess Leia: It's a wonder you're still alive.
[Pushing past Chewbacca]
Princess Leia: Will someone get this big walking carpet out of my way?
Han Solo: No reward is worth this.

• • Wonderful girl. Either I'm going to kill her or I'm beginning to like her."

• • "Look, Your Worshipfulness, let's get one thing straight. I take orders from just one person: me."

• • Han Solo: "Not a bad bit of rescuing, huh? You know, sometimes I amaze even myself."
  • Princess Leia: "That doesn't sound too hard."

 

 

yeah, likes that so much better..

 

 

it was all cheesy even in the originals.

 

later

-1

Way better in the originals.

Fang Zei said:

David Fincher was rumored to be directing one of the PT movies back in the day. Is this true?

"Jar Jar had bitch tits"... "The first rule of the Jedi is..."

In two old Usenet posts from June 1983 there is reference to the original showings of the first film being a longer version with scenes included that were deleted later. One poster says that when they first saw Star Wars it had the Biggs on Tatooine scene it, which was missing in subsequent viewings of theirs. The other poster says that when they saw the reissued Star Wars under the title of A New Hope it was missing scenes that were in the film when they saw it previously (many times, in Northern Ontario theatres) and they say it was a full 15 minutes longer before the A New Hope release.

Here's the posts:

http://groups.google.ca/group/net.movies.sw/browse_thread/thread/321ae7de8ef2709d?hl=en#

http://groups.google.ca/group/net.movies.sw/browse_thread/thread/507aa2bce5c63c77?hl=en#

For all I know there could be more posts like this. I haven't done a search.

15 minutes longer? I don't know if I believe that. That version would probably have had to include lots of what we came to know as deleted scenes -Luke sees the space battle from the Tatooine surface, Luke's friends scene, Luke and Biggs on Tatooine, Luke and Biggs meet in the rebel base, even maybe the Jabba scene with Han complete with the human version of Jabba, maybe extra cantina stuff.

Was a longer version released as a side version, some prints that got around, or was it the main version released back then (77 and late 70s) and people have just forgotten? These extra scenes showed up in the novelization, the Marvel comic adaption and the storybook. 

The storybook had the Biggs tatooine and Yavin scenes, plus Luke seeing the space battle from Tatooine, with photos for two of those. The comic didn't have extra cantina stuff but it had versions of all the rest of the deleted scenes I mentioned. The novelization had all the stuff in some form, even getting Han with a woman from extended cantina stuff.

The appearance of these scenes in these sources might fit with them being shown in theatres widely. Most notable is the storybook. The novelization and comic came out in 77 and maybe the scenes were in there because those two adaptions were made before the final version of the film was decided on, but the storybook came out in 78. It would presumably have been put together after the film was released. Why put in photos and story from scenes that were not appearing in the film?

Re Jabba, the official account is that the human Jabba was never intended to be shown publicly. He was supposed to be replaced by some stop-motion/puppet creature. But the actor was dressed in costume as if he was supposed to be seen. Han walks around him (which caused problems for the special edtion, hence Han stepping on Jabba's tail). If they were going to put in a large creature why have Han walk around him when Han doing so would run into trouble with the alien's bulk? Han walking around him is as if Jabba was of human size and not some grerat bulky creature Han couldn't walk around so easily. It makes me wonder if they filmed it intending the human Jabba to be in the final version. Plus Han calls him a wonderful human being. That could be just Han humor, or it could be a sign that he was meant to be human.

I know that at some point Jabba was meant to be a big slug creature, because it's in the shooting script, but could they just possibly have changed their mind and intended to show Jabba as a human in the film and filmed it with that in mind? In the novelization Jabba is clearly fat and scarred, but his physical appearance beyond that is vague. In the comic he's a bipedal alien with a weird alien face. Were they not very clear on how Jabba was going to appear?

There's no "wonderful human being " remark from Solo in the shooting script by the way.

I haven't seen anybody ever say the Jabba scene was ever shown normally in theatres, but if the original shown version of the film was 15 minutes longer maybe it would have to include all the stuff that later became known as deleted scenes.

Another scene that might have been included there was Vader a Bast in the Death Star, used in the Holiday Special and appearing in the novelization. Another is extra talk between Luke and C3PO when they're going out looking for R2. Other deleted scenes that might have appeared are a cantina patron being shown going out to report Luke and co, a gun from the millennium falcon shooting at storm troopers and more of Luke haggling over the landspeeder. Any of this might have been shown in an extended cut if it was shown in theatres.

Versions of many of the deleted scenes appeared in the radio drama in 1981 too, btw.

We don't have a clue what scenes would have been included in an extended a cut, except the one with Biggs talking to Luke on Tatooine, because a poster mentioned having seen it when he first saw the film. The big question is how widely was this extended cut shown? Was it it just a few prints that got out or was it more widely shown? Was it in fact the primary version shown in 77 or the late 70s or at least a common version?

The poster who claims to have seen a 15-minute-longer cut sounds like she's saying she saw it in multiple theatres in her area, which would imply it got around a lot in her areaat least.

Does anybody have ideas or info on this topic?

C3PX said:

When the term "canon" is used in context of a work of fiction, it typically means any work related to the original and created by or accepted by the original creator as an authentic part of the over all story of the fictional universe he created. All this crap about a-canon b-canon c-canon is BS used to legitimize the fact that ol' boy George wants to pull in more dough by accepting royalties from the selling of liscened SW novels, but also doesn't want to be confined by rules or events related to those novels. Which is fine, but why not disregard them as canon altogether, instead of this "different levels of canon" stuff. Canon is suppose to be what is offically accepted, it either is or is not.

That said, when we talk about real canon, it is what Lucas and official sources make it out to be. Sure, I mentioned my personal canon, but that is just a fancy way of saying the works I wish to accept as having happened in my own personal experience of the franchise. When we start changing the meanings of words, such as "canon" to mean what is most plausable or what makes the most sense, or what was set out first, we muddle the meaning to the point where it is no longer a useful word.

The common understanding of canon in fiction (the understanding you're citing) is based on the mistaken view that the "creator" or owner always puts out genuine stuff or knows best what's the real thing. The idea at the core of the idea of canon is what's the real thing. That's what's at the heart of it. People have just gotten used to accepting that the word of the "creator" is the best guide to what's the real thing. But it isn't.

In its core essence the idea of canon (and thus the meaning of the word canon) is about what's the real thing. But you won't get the real thing if you go by a bad guide like the judgement of a "creator" who's lost touch with the work. Defining canon is all about defining what's the real thing. All this stuff about the offical line and canon being stuff created or accepted by the creator is about looking for the real thing. People are effectively just figuring that the offical line and stuff created by or accepted by the creator IS the real thing. But it isn't always.

And insisting on something being the real thing before recognizing it as canon is not changing the meaning of the word, it's holding to its core idea at the expense of its common interpretation. The whole idea of canon was created to define what was the real thing. That's what canon is all about. All this stuff about canon being what the "creator" says is canon is really just a descendant of that.

I'm not changing the meaning of the word, I'm just isolating its core meaning and insisting that anything called canon live up to that.

Things totally at odds with the core canon or drastically inconsistent with it cannot be canon. No matter what the "creator" says. Let's say Lucas gets up tomorrow and says the Care Bears tv show is canon in the Star Wars universe -it would not make it so. By the same token, the SE with its cartoonish stuff and the PT with its cartoonish stuff and fake Anakin cannot be canon. They are not genuine Star Wars.

The word canon is not rendered useless by recognizing its core meaning and using that core meaning as a criterea for judging what's canon. We may have to recognize that people may have different definitions of canon and different uses of the word, but that is true of many words in our dictionary and that does not render them useless. (And that is the situation with the word canon already anyway -you will not get everyone to agree on what canon is, there are multiple interpretations.) The word is made more useful when we are more faithful to its core meaning, because then we're talking about something real and not some silly idea some "creator" has.

I refuse to accept George Lucas's definition of Star Wars canon, because I believe that definition is at odds with the whole purpose of the idea of canon.

Many people share my view that canon isn't always what the creator says is canon.

AxiaEuxine said:

Personally I dont think any PT would have been successful. Too many people had built up the OT as the end-all be-all of Star Wars movies and no matter what happened most would have hated them. People wanted Luke, Leia and their taxi-driver han running around again in the Millennium Falcon and that just wasnt going to happen. Sorry. :D

A prequel trilogy that was faithful to the spirit and unspoken rules of Star Wars might well have been loved. The prequel trilogy we got not only betrayed all that, it had crap quality in general too. You can't judge how a good prequel trilogy would have been accepted based on how people have reacted to a shit prequel trilogy. The prequel trilogy was supposed to be this fascinating story of Anakin's fall from grace and instead we got Hayden Christensen. If we got what we'd been led to expect we'd have been happy. But we weren't going to get that from a Lucas who did what he did to the OT in making the SE.

I personally love the PT.

I think all too many people have that attitude. It's disturbing to see people lapping up George's excrement.

The fights werent uninvolving and flat? Say whatever you want about the PT, hate it, loathe it, revile it but the lightsaber fights were amazing...I mean come on.

The fight at the end of the Phantom Menace had its good points but was seriously overdone and pompous. The fights in AOTC and ROTS were definitely uninvolving and flat. A crucial defining trait of those two later prequels was supposedly exciting events being portrayed in a totally uninvolving way devoid of emotional depth. They managed ok with the Jango vs Kenobi fight in the rain in AOTC, but the battle with all the Jedi at the end of that movie was a classic example of the problem. Feelingless. The lightsaber battles in those two films were meaningless spectacle, unlike the emotionally powerful fights in the OT. Worthless crap. Really bad filmmaking.

CGI vs Puppets. 99% of the time CGI looks better is this day an age, yes the orginal CGI Jabba was bad but he looks great now. The Puppet in TPM needs to be replaced with CGI. (yes I know thats been done and merely awaits release.) And I like the new musical number in Jedi.

The Yoda puppet in TPM was crap, but so was the CGI Yoda in AOTC and ROTS. The OT's puppets so often look very real, while the prequel and SE's cgi so often looks totally fake. The cgi Jabba does not look great now. He looks dead. And plastic. A plastic corpse. Oh that's a great Jabba. The new musical number in Jedi? you mean the Jabba's palace thing? Revolting cartoonish crap that violates the old film.

Indy IV....is well garbage from start to finish. But Ford Spielberg and Lucas had to aprove of the story before it went forward, plenty of blame to go around. Its not just Lucas.

I tried watching Indy IV again and only could stomach about half the movie, its just awful, so I wont be watching that again. Id rather spend time watching movies I do love, Like Revenge of the Sith.

Indy IV wasn't great, but it was far better than anything Lucas has done in Star Wars in recent times. Thanks to the talent of Harrison Ford. Indy IV has some humanity, ROTS has none.

C3PX said:

Lucas seemed to intend this to be canon. Now, knowing him, I would not be in the least surprised if later he says it is not canon. But in the end who cares? To me, none of this is canon. I refuse to accept the whiny character portrayed in AOTC and ROTS is the man who became Darth Vader, I can come up with much more convincing backstories for him in my head than what was put to film. Books like SOTE and the thrawn trilogy I have enjoyed enough that I like to consider them as something that really happened in the SW galaxy I like to enjoy. Also in my own personal Star Wars canon, Han fired first, and he never had a redundant talk with Jabba.

 

Not just in your personal Star Wars canon, in the real canon too. The core of the idea of canon is what's the real thing, and in Star Wars the real thing is Han shooting first and Star Wars as a film that doesn't have a stupid cgi Jabba scene in it. That's the real canon. Just because Lucas says something is canon doesn't mean it is, not if it's not the real thing.

And you're right that AOTC and ROTS's Anakin can't be Vader. No way does that insubstantial personality fit with the Vader we're shown in the OT or the Anakin we meet in the end of the OOT. So quite simply that AOTC and ROTS Anakin can't be canon. Because the core of SW canon is the OOT, the real thing, and Hayden's Anakin is totally inconsistent with that. So Hayden's Anakin isn't canon. And since AOTC and ROTS revolve around Hayden's Anakin then their canonicity is totally shot too. 

Video games built for a supposed canon that includes ROTS and AOTC aren't canon either.

I think the Star Wars franchise lost the ability to create new canon when Lucas massively violated the canon with the SE in 1997.

Thanks for the info on Farce Unleashed.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

They're the main good thing about the SE (I suppose I could count the Biggs scene resoration too).

The Bigg's scene wasn't a restoration... it was chopped up to match the prequels too.

I know it was chopped but most of the scene was put in the film.

doubleofive said:

Speaking of crappy DVD covers (which the 2004 DVDs are pretty bad), have you really ever looked at the 97 SE posters?  Now I love Drew Struzan, and he did do this in a hurry, but I don't know...

 

 I love those posters. They're the main good thing about the SE (I suppose I could count the Biggs scene resoration too).

Akwat Kbrana said:

That's why, to me, the SEs will forever be apocryphal

The SE IS apocryphal, no matter what Lucas says. The idea at the heart of canon is what's the real thing, and the SE is very obviously not the real thing.

TheDoctor1987 said:

People need appreciate the special editons more and the prequel trilogy more. 

 People need to flush the SE and AOTC and ROTS down the toilet where they belong.

kenkraly2007 said:

I thought the goal of this site was to get the original versions of The Star Wars Trilogy Epiosdes 4,5, and 6 on DVD and blu-ray. But the feeling I get from a lot of people some are nagitve towards Mr. Lucas. he made these films after all. Insted of bashing Lucas and trashing the 2004 dvd sets like most people on this site constanly do we need to get back to the goal of getting the original versions of The Star Wars Trilogy Epiosdes 4,5, and 6 on DVD and blu-ray. That's all of us star wars fans want after all the originals on dvd and blu-ray. That's the message that needs to be heard and not so much nagativity.

We're perfectly entitled to air our grievances. Great art was mutilated, and crap was put forward as being a rightful part of a great fiction saga. These are real greivances that should aired. It is not "negativity". Negativity is accepting what Lucas has done to Star Wars or telling people they can't criticise what he's done. On various Star Wars sites fans are banned or silenced for daring to criticise the Special Editions and the prequels. This is a refuge where people can criticise.

Yes, I do see it as a sign of hope. Maybe it means the GOUT sold well enough to make it worthwhile enough to sell the OOT again. I wish somebody could provide info on how well the GOUT sold.

You know the GOUT is still selling in stock on Amazon as if it's still print. Maybe that's just Amazon or maybe there's something going on there. After all, it was supposed to stop selling after December 31 2006.

AxiaEuxine said:

I have stated that I am subject to hyperbole. I am simply tired of people bashing various aspects of Star Wars AND Lucas who is a genius in my book since 1997. I was over exageratting the quality of film in the late 70's to make a point which unfortuantly has become the focus of this debate.

I see zero evidence of genius from 97 onwards. The original films might be evidence of genius, if I didn't feel the greatness of those films was the result of the coming together of multiple talents in the right place at the right time. And I think Lucas has earned the bashing by doing what he did to the old films and by putting out horrendous trash like AOTC and ROTS and trying to pass it off as Star Wars. 

AxiaEuxine said:

They are Lucas' movies. Love em or leave em. Ive been force to listen to people complain about HIS property since 1997 and I'm sick to death of it. If you want the originals so bad watch them on an old VHS without stereo. (First day of release only had mono mixes) The quality of the playback on those old VCRs and the contiuing degrading quality of your VHS tapes should be pretty close to the quality you experienced in a theater in 77.

They arent' your movies, they are Lucas'. Don't like it? Stop complaining about and move on to something you do like. I love the SE and Im sick to death of all the jaded haters.

You dont have to watch, you don't have to buy it. I've never understood the Special Edition hatred, they added far more to the movies then they took away.

They're not just HIS movies. Legally yes, but morally they belong to all of us. As classics they belong to the human race. He had no right to mutilate classics. I can't stand the stupid Lucas-yes-man "they're his movies" argument.

You may be sick of "haters" but I'm sick of fans lapping up every harm Lucas does to Star Wars like some dog that likes to be kicked. And I'm tired of Lucas-worshippers saying we shouldn't air our grievances.

Lucas and co most certainly did not add more to the movies than they took away. They added stuff that didn't belong and should never have been put in. Would you think it was good if somebody spliced Mickey Mouse into Schindler's List and made that the only available version of the film?

We have a right to see these classics of ours on up to date formats. We have a right to have them available in future decades on whatever format is current then. And we have a right to "complain". When somebody destroys something worthwhile people not only have a right to "complain", they have a duty to.

"Hold me like you did by the lake on Naboo... when we made audiences all over the world puke their guts out."

Has to be the lamest screen relationship EVER.

negative1 said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Yes. And it looks weird to see Yoda, Palpatine, and Count Dooku fly through the air.

not to some people.

it was perfectly ok for me,

and i had no trouble believing it, or watching it....

if they had been like the slow/plodding fights of the old series THEN

it would have been dull and boring..

 

later

-1

 

There was nothing boring about the old fights. They were involving and had feeling, unlike most of the prequel fights, which didn't make you feel and were uninvolving and flat. Flashiness doesn't necessarily make for a good fight scene. The prequels were full of fights that bored the hell out of me. The OT's fights do not bore me.

Those guys flying around in the prequels looked bloody stupid. That moment when Palpatine launches himself into the air spinning around I didn't know whether to laugh or puke. It didn't help that it was all horribly overacted. Yoda's flying moments were terrible. He was like a big green fly, just my idea of a Jedi master. Maximum lameness.

negative1 said:

Chewy72 said:

negative1 said:

 

but the SE versions put Star Wars back on the Map amongst consumers for

good, and the interest has never waned once since that point in time..

 

later

-1

 

 

Trust me, Lucas could have put out the OOT in 1997 and just said, "The Star Wars Trilogy" is on the big screen one more time, and I guarantee it would have done the same business.

Now lets see how the movies did in theaters in 1997:

Star Wars: 136 million

ESB: 57 million

ROTJ: 45 million

Supposedly ESB is the most beloved by all the diehard SW fans, as that is constantly talked about as the best of the 3 movies. Why did Star Wars take in more then ESB/ROTJ combined? Because that is the most appealing of the 3 to a general audience, and that is the movie that started it all. It had nothing to do with spruced up effects, or new added scenes, it simply was the #1 movie until ET, being put on the big screen again, and everyone wanted to see it.

 

i doubt you could 'guarantee' that re-releasing the movies, they would have the same or more

than the SE versions.... LETS look at HISTORICAL FACT, and not speculate:

======================================

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=starwars.htm

 

here are the amounts   (gross)   theaters amount opening dates

for the original releases...

=================================================

11     Star Wars (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $15,476,285     1,070     $3,766,803     1,070     8/13/82

12     The Empire Strikes Back (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $13,276,241     1,006     $3,949,478     992     11/19/82

13     Return of the Jedi (Re-issue)
(Re-release)     Fox     $11,252,123     894     $3,209,056     849     3/29/85

 

Star Wars was still HUGE at that point in time, and you're telling me that

they would have made more than the SE versions more than a decade later???????????

 

re-releasing the originals would have been a drop in the bucket, thats why

Lucas was smart in releasing the SE versions to CREATE interest in seeing them again..

 

once again, nobody seems to acknowlege what a Great idea it was,

or that it was a great test and showcase for the leap in technology that

was to come with the prequels..

 

look, i know people are all ticked off that they can't get the originals restored in normal

above average quality (duh!)..... but isn't the point of this board to move way beyond

just complaining about it constantly, and actually do something like what adywan has

done?

 

give the myriads of options (fixing it yourself, fanedits, restorations, g-force GOUT script etc)....

it would be a lot more constructive to act on it, instead of endless complaining, and hoping

that somehow miraculously lucas/lucasfilm/fox will get it into their thick skulls that it needs

to be 'fixed' and re-issued yet again....

 

yes, lucas made a bad artistic idea to some,

yes lucas ticked off a lot of hardcore fans, i know...

but monetarily, and fanbase-wise, he did the right thing

in creating the SE/the prequels/and the clone wars...

no amount of griping/moaning/complaining will ever change that or history

(barring time travel back, and convincing him NOT to do it)..

 

later

-1

 

You get that there's no proof that the success of the 97 releases was because of the SE changes? You've got no proof it wasn't just interest in seeing a famous classic long after it had last been shown. People didn't go to see it to see Lucas's stupid changes, they went to see the classic films.

As for showcasing a leap in technology, I hope you're not talking about the absolutely unconvincing crap cgi.

As for the point of this board, there is more than one "point" to this board. One point is to provide a place where people can criticise what Lucas has done. Which strikes me as a more productive activity than telling us repeatedly that we shouldn't be "complaining".

Lucas should never have made the SE, the prequels or The Clone Wars. If he can't put out something good he shouldn't put out anything at all.  

The SE was no great idea, it was a monumental mistake and will be remembered as such a long time from now. Furthermore it was a damn insult to the old films and to those who love them. Some of the more recent changes are insults to actors like Sebastian Shaw and Jason Wingreen.

C3PX said:

TheBoost said:

There's no reason to beleive he could 'crush' the Death Star, or for that matter do anything like Mace Windu does in the first Clone Wars cartoon or nameless guy does in the Force Unleashed game. 'Size matters not' is more about understanding the nature of the Force than it is about measurable telekinetic powers.

If by "nameless guy in the force unleashed" you mean the main character, he actually has a whole first and last name as well as a code name. But yeah, that game takes force powers to a ridiculous point. In one part of the game he crupples up an AT-ST into a ball like a piece of paper. Somebody mentioned that the Force Unleashed was not cannon, just a fun stylized game, but I believe Lucas himself said that the game is canonical, as he had a great deal of creative input into it.

If somebody could find a specific reference/article whatever showing Lucas saying it's canon I'd be very interested. Or even just specific details on him saying it's canon.

With Star Wars, Lucasfilm recognizes different levels of canon and an expanded universe thing like Force Unleashed would usually be in C canon, which is below the films/novelizations/radio dramas/screenplays and the new tv series stuff. Lucas seems to have his own views on canon. As of 2001 he seemed to include only the movies. As of May 2008 he seemed to be including recent tv projects too. So I don't know where he'd be fitting Force Unleashed. But if they're crumpling ATSTs it sounds more like Farce Unleashed.

 Also, I'd be interested to hear of any other weird of far out things in Force Unleashed.

C3PX said:

Gaffer Tape said:

C3PX said:

rcb said:

since when was jar jar stuck in?

 

Since 2004.

Okay, now, is this really fact?  I thought that was just a fan colloquialism that the screaming gungan at the end of ROTJ was Jar-Jar Binks.  Officially, though, isn't he just a random gungan?

No, I do not believe it has ever been officially stated that it was actually Jar Jar. It was a Gungan who sounds exactly like Jar Jar yelling out "Weeesaaa freeeee" in a very Jar Jar esque manner. So, at the end of the day, does it really make a difference if it was actually Jar Jar, or just another Gungan EXACTLY like him and equally annoying?

 

Do we know if it was Ahmed best doing the voice?

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

This sort of unlimited power turns up in a ridiculous sequence in the original Clone Wars animated series, in which Mace Windu wipes out a droid army single handedly.

 

It wasn't ridiculous. It was STYLIZED. That's why it's a cartoon and not an actual Star Wars movie. It's the same with the force unleashed game. It's not supposed to be canon, it's just supposed to look cool.

Style doesn't excuse stuff like that, unless you want to say the style is bloody idiotic. I don't care if it's stylized or a cartoon or non-canon or supposed to look cool, it's still damn ridiculous. And to be honest I'm quite sick of Star Wars things being designed to look cool. Supposed coolness has been shoved on us with a heavy hand since The Phantom Menace. I prefer the days when Star Wars didn't shout "Look, this is cool!" at you all the time. In particular, I'm utterly sick of the supposed coolness of the Jedi. Thank goodness for order 66.

Yes but the series has a very distinct visual flair that is apart from the movies. They have to be looked at as a separate entity, not taken at face value, this is Genndy's interpretation of the Clone Wars and is not necessarily of the same stuff as the movies.

 

And judged by itself a Jedi wiping out a droid army is still dumb and seriously overdone.

Chewy72 said:

Johnboy3434 said:

In your humble opinion, of course. Other people think the added elements aren't intrusive at all. Are you saying they're wrong because they don't agree with you? Isn't that just a tad egocentric?

I thinkwe need to get straight that Lucas is changed the movies years after they were made, whereas most director cuts are scenes left on the cutting floor that filmed in the context of the movie that year it came out.

For instance, T2's extended version and Lord of the Rings extended versions are all scenes that were shot, but because of time constraints from the studio, they had to be taken out of the film.  So when the scenes are restored years later for a 'directors cut' they fit right into the movie cause they were there in the first place.

Most of Lucas's additions are made in 1997 or 2004, which is 20+ years after the films were released, and the context of those scenes are different then the story Lucas was telling from 77-83.  The addition of Hayden in ROTJ is totally different context from Shaw, The Emperor talking to Vader in ESB has a different context then the original scene, Greedo shooting first is a different context then Han shooting first in 1977.

That is what annoys me about Lucas's changes, is that most, not all of the scenes are created in 1997/2004 in the context of the story he is telling now with 6 movies in mind rather then 3 movies at the time, and they look ridiculous in a 20+ year old movie.

 

 

Yeah, why do the old classics have to be altered to fit the inferior recent films? Hayden in Jedi, Boba's voice changed with Temuera Morrison, the Gungan in Jedi. Plus the distinctly 90s+ style of multiple alterations (Mos Eisley, Jabba musical number, CGI Jabba). And all this stuff that wasn't made for the movies back then being shoved into them.

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

This sort of unlimited power turns up in a ridiculous sequence in the original Clone Wars animated series, in which Mace Windu wipes out a droid army single handedly.

 

It wasn't ridiculous. It was STYLIZED. That's why it's a cartoon and not an actual Star Wars movie. It's the same with the force unleashed game. It's not supposed to be canon, it's just supposed to look cool.

Style doesn't excuse stuff like that, unless you want to say the style is bloody idiotic. I don't care if it's stylized or a cartoon or non-canon or supposed to look cool, it's still damn ridiculous. And to be honest I'm quite sick of Star Wars things being designed to look cool. Supposed coolness has been shoved on us with a heavy hand since The Phantom Menace. I prefer the days when Star Wars didn't shout "Look, this is cool!" at you all the time. In particular, I'm utterly sick of the supposed coolness of the Jedi. Thank goodness for order 66.

This sort of unlimited power turns up in a ridiculous sequence in the original Clone Wars animated series, in which Mace Windu wipes out a droid army single handedly.