logo Sign In

Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy? — Page 9

Author
Time

TV's Frink said:

I've never heard of a tuck-in jump, but I'm pretty sure that's named after Jame Gumb.

Ah, the tuck-in jump ... 1991's greatest dance craze.

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be worse than if a character decided to call themselves a "Sith". A Palpatine clone, a Vader clone, a secret Sith apprentice, and Jar Jar as the protagonist would still be better than someone calling themselves a "Sith".

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

moviefreakedmind said:



Easterhay said:

I was five when I saw Star Wars in 1977 (although it's been called A New Hope since 1980 so I think we can get over that now)


No one referred to it as a New Hope in 1980. Every single commercial, VHS tape, laserdisc, and betamax up until I believe the early 2000's referred to the movie as Star Wars, and all the interviews referred to it as Star Wars as well. Look at that documentary tape called from STAR WARS to Jedi. A New Hope was included in the crawl but the movie was not retitled by any means because no one called it A New Hope (and the credits on the back of the VHS tape boxes said the title was STAR WARS)



What did it say in the opening crawl of the film? I notice you've missed that out completely. Quite tellingly missed it out.

I didn't miss that. I mentioned it in my comment. You're denying facts if you pretend that the movie instantly ceased to be called Star Wars in 1981. Every single re-release up until after the Phantom Menace referred to the film as Star Wars. Most of the boxes (except for the faces one) don't even have the words "A New Hope" on the box. And even the faces box referred to the title as Star Wars, but they just had a small subtitle underneath it, and not even on the front of the tape box, just on the spine.

The Person in Question

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

I know what people were calling it back in the day; I was one of them. And now it's been re-titled.

The point is not that is was once called something else; the point is that some still call it that. It's a stupid intellectual argument to continue to call it something which it isn't. You may as well say that people "used" to say the world was flat.

 That's a horrible analogy (no offense intended). The world was never flat, people only thought that it was. Star Wars was titled and referred to as Star Wars for 20 years, so why should you decide that no one is allowed to call it that anymore just because it's now advertised as "A New Hope"?

The Person in Question

Author
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Easterhay said:

I know what people were calling it back in the day; I was one of them. And now it's been re-titled.

The point is not that is was once called something else; the point is that some still call it that. It's a stupid intellectual argument to continue to call it something which it isn't. You may as well say that people "used" to say the world was flat.

 That's a horrible analogy (no offense intended). The world was never flat, people only thought that it was. Star Wars was titled and referred to as Star Wars for 20 years, so why should you decide that no one is allowed to call it that anymore just because it's now advertised as "A New Hope"?

Furthermore, if I want to say that the world is flat, I have the right to do so. Nobody's going to stop me. Also, what I call a movie isn't an "intellectual argument", it's a choice of words.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

moviefreakedmind said:

Star Wars was titled and referred to as Star Wars for 20 years, 

I'm with you in your argument, but wasn't Star Wars retitled Episode IV A New Hope in 1980, on a rescreening just before Empire was released? So 3 years of time and not 20.

EDIT: oops, sorry, I missed your previous answer to that.

Author
Time

darklordoftech said:


Furthermore, if I want to say that the world is flat, I have the right to do so. Nobody's going to stop me. Also, what I call a movie isn't an "intellectual argument", it's a choice of words.


I didn't tell you what you should call it. I simply said it's idiotic to do so when the film was only titled that for three or four years.

That's some bad hat, Harry
Author
Time
 (Edited)

Easterhay said:



I didn't tell you what you should call it. I simply said it's idiotic to do so when the film was only titled that for three or four years.

 I guess you think Lucas and Lucasfilm are idiots because they weren't promoting it as A New Hope back in 1997 when they released the Special Editions to the theaters.   Check out the Special Edition Trailer and around 1:30 they advertise them as Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.  Not once is the name A New Hope mentioned, and that is 20 years after the movie was released!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y96wKCLbfGE

Only when Lucas made the Prequels, did he start advertising them with Roman Numerals and then started calling it A New Hope.  No one is arguing that they were in the opening crawl, but even Lucas still called it Star Wars for the first 20 years!

So I guess George Lucas is as idiot as we are!  LOL!

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

darklordoftech said:


Furthermore, if I want to say that the world is flat, I have the right to do so. Nobody's going to stop me. Also, what I call a movie isn't an "intellectual argument", it's a choice of words.



I didn't tell you what you should call it. I simply said it's idiotic to do so when the film was only titled that for three or four years.

 This is the most idiotic thing I've read in a long time.

Author
Time

Anyone else blase' about what to call the movie?

Author
Time

I am quite OK with people calling the film Star Wars either by it's title or by it's later retitling/"a.k.a. title". Implying that it is wrong or idiotic to call the film Star Wars by it's name is friggin' ludicrous.

Author
Time

Let's not go there.

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DuracellEnergizer said:

Anyone else think Easterhay's Rick McCallum under that hood?

 lol

Every forum has a village idiot.  I'm glad that he has revealed himself to me so early in my OT.com life.  Now I know who to look for when I read posts that causes facepalms.

Pizza-Burrito 

Author
Time

Easterhay said:

darklordoftech said:


Furthermore, if I want to say that the world is flat, I have the right to do so. Nobody's going to stop me. Also, what I call a movie isn't an "intellectual argument", it's a choice of words.



I didn't tell you what you should call it. I simply said it's idiotic to do so when the film was only titled that for three or four years.

 Almost as idiotic as trying to retroactively make Star Wars all about Darth Vader.

Author
Time

Heero Yuy said:

 Almost as idiotic as trying to retroactively make Star Wars all about Darth Vader.

 Oh yeah, and you know that "Clone Wars" thing to which Star Wars alludes?

All about Boba Fett.

...

WTF?

The abject failure of the SEs and PT is as much about misguided fan service as it is about megalomaniacal solipsism.

Author
Time

You did not just post "megalomaniacal solipsism."

Author
Time

It's called "self-referentiality," Frink.  I would think you'd be familiar.

...

To the solipsistical megalomania, that is.

Author
Time

Two things that make me optimistic:

1. The lack of an episode number in TFA's title.

2. The presence of the Empire and the minimal lightsaber presence in Rebels.

Author
Time

This isn't the "Anyone else optimistic about the New trilogy" thread!

Author
Time

RicOlie_2 said:

This isn't the "Anyone else optimistic about the New trilogy" thread!

This isn't the "force people to stay on topic" thread!

Author
Time

darklordoftech said:

RicOlie_2 said:

This isn't the "Anyone else optimistic about the New trilogy" thread!

This isn't the "force people to stay on topic" thread!

 This isn't the "Off Topic" forum!