- Time
- Post link
Well, this isn’t a new film thread. . . .
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
Anakin ghost old vs young — Page 5
- Time
- Post link
And that’s the least important part of the quote.
- Time
- Post link
There´s obvious consistency/continuity problems with the Christensen ghost… Yoda and Obi Wan are shown as ghosts in their “most recent living state”, but somehow Vader/Anakin could apparently choose. Doesn´t make any sense at all to me.
- Time
- Post link
That’s because Anakin “died” when he turned to the dark side.
Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.
- Time
- Post link
Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.
Yeah, the only other option would’ve been better prequel casting, but that would have been too much work.
- Time
- Post link
Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.
Yeah, the only other option would’ve been better prequel casting, but that would have been too much work.
Ha, true. I was watching an episode of Stranger Things and all I could think about was how George couldn’t find one good kid actor and somehow this show found four.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
That’s because Anakin “died” when he turned to the dark side.
Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.
I don’t agree with this at all. For one, he doesn’t look completely different, it’s quite clear it’s the same person. Second, anyone with a brain could tell from the context who the new ghost was. And third, it was the old man who saved Luke, not the smirking child killer. And of course, there are the inconsistencies on top of it all.
The only reason George put Hayden in there was because he wanted to sell the prequels as legitimate films. People rejected them as inferior to the OT, he took offense to it, and he hijacked the original movies as a big FU, you must like my prequel films, to the rest of us.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
^ all of that.
If he died when he became Darth, wouldn’t he have been reborn when he redeemed himself?
- Time
- Post link
That’s because Anakin “died” when he turned to the dark side.
I thought this crap has been debunked so many times already.
真実
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
double post.
- Time
- Post link
I didn’t catch the category, but on Jeopardy! just now, “Who is Hayden Christensen?” was the correct response to an answer about Sebastian Shaw getting “unfortunately” replaced in a new ending of Return of the Jedi.
One of the players got it right away.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Maybe one of the Jeopardy! writers posts here. Pretty cool anyway.
- Time
- Post link
How come there’s 5 pages of people discussing this change? It is not objetively true that Hayden should never have been inserted into the film?
Caligula’expanded OST, V2 Released
The Shining’s complete OST
Ghidorah, The Tree-Headed Monster (English dub synched to Toho cut)
- Time
- Post link
Also, Shaw does look completely different without the Vader makeup. From a saga POV, I can see why George went with Hayden.
Yeah, the only other option would’ve been better prequel casting, but that would have been too much work.
Ha, true. I was watching an episode of Stranger Things and all I could think about was how George couldn’t find one good kid actor and somehow this show found four.
+∞
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
- Time
- Post link
Does everyone agree that ther eshould be a 2017 special edition that brings back sebastian shaw?
When’s something gonna happen?
- Time
- Post link
Does everyone agree that ther eshould be a 2017 special edition that brings back sebastian shaw?
Yeah, it’s called the 1983 theatrical cut.
I would put this in my sig if I weren’t so lazy.
- Time
- Post link
*zing*
- Time
- Post link
Does everyone agree that ther eshould be a 2017 special edition that brings back sebastian shaw?
Yeah, it’s called the 1983 theatrical cut.
- Time
- Post link
Does everyone agree that ther eshould be a 2017 special edition that brings back sebastian shaw?
Yeah, it’s called the 1983 theatrical cut.
Technically it is also called 1997 SE.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Technically it is also called 1997 SE.
Here we go again.
- Time
- Post link
Technically it is also called 1997 SE.
Here we go again.
Shaw is in 1997 SE - this is a fact.
真実
- Time
- Post link
Shaw is in 1997 SE - this is a fact.
You love the awful '97 SE - that is also a fact.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Could it be that two of OT.com’s resident blind men are going to throwdown?
- Time
- Post link
Shaw is in 1997 SE - this is a fact.
You love the awful '97 SE - that is also a fact.
Prove it.
真実
- Time
- Post link
There’s nothing wrong with liking something. It really doesn’t matter if he likes it or not. Despite what you say, liking something it entirely subjective.