Bingowings said:
You guys are avoiding the letter of point four but not sticking to the spirit of it.
Yes, to Bingo you listen.
Ryan McAvoy said:
It's all for nought if there are waiters buzzing around all the time serving food and drinks while you're trying to watch a film. I can't imagine anything more distracting.
You write what you want on a piece of paper, they come by very discreetly and get it. After a bit, they come by just as discreetly and deliver it. The bill is settled up after the film. Honestly, on more than one occasion I didn't even notice they'd taken the paper as they walked by.
At least you know that's what you are paying for, I've never once paid extra to have the experience of having to tell other people to shut up.
You write that on a piece of paper too. For the record; Maybe because it's an adult environment to start with, it just isn't an issue. I've only seen one couple asked to shut up or leave. Oddly enough, they quietly chose to leave.
No doubt it's not for everyone. Personally, it's more than worth it to me to watch a film in a civilized environment, in the seat of my choice, with food and wine brought to me. 
The same movie at the local Edwards isn't much less. But again, to each his own.
Mavericks said:
this type of utterance sums up the whole anti-ROTJ position.
Incorrect. The people who don't like the film are the people who don't like the film. There isn't an anti-Return movement. You're seeing a war that isn't there.
That's why I'm not "a fan" of Jedi....
how did I manage to became "a fan of Jedi"?
Pick one.
an average person can't even it explain in the way other than "I dislike this, I like that"
They're not required to. No one is. People go to the theater, they buy a ticket, they watch the film, they either like it or not. There doesn't have to be some sort of psychoanalytical soul-search to validate their likes or dislikes.
if you're interested in a constructive debate
I'm not. This is a discussion forum, not a debate class.
you're wrong
I believe the phrase you're looking for is "I disagree".
Alamo Drafthouse is the only place I'll see movies anymore. Strict no talking or you're booted, no children, bottomless popcorn, plus wine at your seat. Perfect. I've been four times already this year.
Mavericks said:
Anchorhead, "in a nutshell" doesn't equivalent to "accurate", "comprehensive".
It certainly does. Marquand made a handful of films, only one of which was at Pinewood. On that film, he was nothing more than a surrogate for Lucas. The film doesn't have Marquand's touch, it has Lucas'. Which is the very reason it fits with the PT instead of the OT. Lucas was in charge. It reeks of Lucas and his complete disconnect with the audience, the characters, and the story itself.
I can't image there is a single person who follows films, collects films, loves films, makes films, or works in the film industry who - when they hear Pinewood Studios - doesn't automatically think of James Bond. Aside from that, the Alien films, Superman films, Batman films (Burton and Nolan), Bourne, Harry Potter, Doctor Who, and way too many more to name.
I get it, you're a fan of Return. That's cool. Most everyone here is. However, to suggest a stage at Pinewood gets named for a guy who sat in for Lucas on the only film he ever made there is ridiculous.
FFS, there should be a Gerald Scarfe stage before there is a Marquand stage.
SilverWook said:
Maybe the Bad Robot will be made into a droid?
If it were done as a background droid, that would be a fun sort of cameo nod.
Bingowings said:
Think it through.
Other than his work on Jedi what work of major significance did Marquand do?
Burton was a theatrical and cinematic giant, with a huge body of work behind him many of which were filmed at Pinewood.
It's well known that Richard was hired because he would not make waves, would be on budget on schedule and act as yes man to Lucas' production requirements.
Thats really it in a nutshell. Nothing against Marquand, but he's hardly deserving of having a stage at Pinewood named for him.
Snake Plissken?.....I thought he was dead.
Oh come on! You were all thinking it. ;-)
To me, Groundhog Day is his finest hour. Love that film and watch it somewhat regularly.
Fang Zei said:
All the while, Lucas himself was saying ....
For thirty years Lucas has been saying all sorts of bullshit. I cannot imagine there has ever been, or will ever be, a bigger liar than Lucas. He just says whatever fits the interview at the time. He seems to have no regard what so ever for any source proving otherwise.
It's going to be twelve films...I never said it was going to be twelve films.
It's going to be nine films...I never said it was going to be nine films.
It's the adventures of Luke Skywalker...It's always been the arc of Vader.
Vader isn't Luke's father...Vader has always been Luke's father.
Etc, etc, etc...ad nauseam.
He might as well just sit down with an interviewer and burp the alphabet. His statements are that meaningless.
Hal 9000 said:
I'm the kind of nerd who loved the mini-episode of Doctor Who "Night of the Doctor" because of what I perceived as charitable acknowledgement of the audio dramas that the neglected 8th Doctor has been featured in.
Charley, C'rizz, Lucie, Tamsin, Molly, friends, companions I've known...I salute you. And Cass, I apologize. Physician, heal thyself.
Sorry, nerded out for a sec. ;-) I agree, by the way. A nod to the followers of EU is nice. I don't expect it or judge based on it, but it is a nice gesture. That said; Star Wars is so dirty it will be hard to reconcile every corner of the 200+ novels. Made even dirtier by the creator\previous owner. Considering how little he understood about the very universe and characters he created, it's no wonder the EU is all over the map for continuity.
They're better off just going with a new story that doesn't try to shoehorn itself into either of the two trilogies. name-check a few people or events and take us on a new adventure.
Honestly, as McFadden mentioned, it can't possibly be any worse than the cartoon software advertisement the last three films were when Lucas was in charge.
Not sure why I wasn't able to get back into Scoundrels. I was liking it as a sort of lighter story where the well being of the entire galaxy isn't riding on the outcome. No doubt I'll go back to it eventually, but not for a while.
Instead, I've just downloaded Heir To The Empire (lent my paperback to a nerd friend). Feel like getting back into the area of Star Wars far removed from the films. Been having a craving to escape the weight of VII.
If it's not Zahn or early EU (Daley or Foster), I'm equally out of the loop.
Nice work, but WAY too Prequelicious. Considering I have no knowledge what so ever of 24 of those references. I'll have to pass.
bkev said:
Jeez! $30 dollars for an mp3 CD? That's basically a data disc! I don't even know if that would play in my car.
The original 7-CD set is available from them for only $15.
http://www.highbridgeaudio.com/starwars.html
This sentence on their site describing it sums up my thoughts perfectly;
a realm of imagination that is beyond the reach of cinema.
I ripped them into MP3s and keep them on my iPad and phone for when I'm traveling. Copies of the CDs are in my car.
danny_boy said:
...because you have watched them far too many times on whatever home video format you have had the priviledge of owning.
You will NEVER EVER be able to enjoy these films as much those original cinema screenings ...
......you will never be satisfied due to viewing oversaturation spanning 3 decades.
So you channel your anger at Lucas' s unwillingness to release the OUT or the changes he has made
You don't get to speak for other fans. I strongly suspect that the fan base is angry over the revised history, the altered films, the lies, and the suppression. I doubt number of times seen factors into it.
Considering the number of members of this board who own, watch, and somewhat support the SEs and prequels, I think their anger is placed correctly.
Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:
In the OT, Tatooine is basically a desert planet without much going on. Luke wants to "get off this rock". Most of the inhabitants seem to be Jawas or sand people. There is one city, Mos Eisley, which basically seems to be a transfer point for pilots. Tatooine is hardly what one would consider a destination.
But in the PT, Tatooine is a hoppin' place. It's actually a bit like ancient Rome. The pod races are like gladiator contests with tens of thousands of screaming spectators.
That idiotic rewriting of Tatooine twenty years after it had already been established was one of the major reasons I wanted to leave the theater. That "rock" should have never been visited again. Yet, as so often was the case when Lucas faced writer's block, he went the easy route and shrunk the universe. One of many shameful middle fingers to the 1977 film.
OBI-WAN37 said:
Seriously, can any moderator tell me why the topic got locked not soon after everybody started trolling me, but when I (a prequel-lover, what a coincidence), started trolling them? Really?
Consider this a warning.
Took longer than I expected, but we finally got there.
DuracellEnergizer said:
This is why I don't adhere to the principle of canon -- if I had to accept every aspect of any given fictional universe as "real", I'd never be able to like or enjoy any of them at all.
Agreed. Strongly. That's why I have Personal Canon. I follow what works and what interests me. I ignore the rest. It's just noise.
Your statement is also why I believe the TFNers have such a hard time with all of this. Star Wars of the 1970s was never intended to be anything other than the first story. That's been proven multiple times and is well documented. It was presented as an open & shut story. No Original Vision, no Saga telling the rise & fall of one of the secondary members of the military.
The two sets of films simply do not work as one story. No amount of imagination or revisionist lying can change that. Even the pretzel logic of Lucas *genuflect* and his multiple attempts at revision haven't been able to make sense of the mess. All he's done is create a deeply divided fan base. A fan base that seems more often than not to be at war with the story itself.
To borrow from John Daggett in The Dark Knight Rises; "It didn't work, my friend".
Not sure how many scenes are longer, or why, but in the published script (I show it on the previous page) there are some scenes that are more than what is on my CD version.
That's why the script is so fun for me to read. It's the most comprehensive telling of the original story. One scene that comes to mind right away is the chapter where Leia is back visiting her father on Alderaan. There is a lot more of her spending time alone and contemplating the dangers of her situation.
imperialscum said:
The main difference between OT and PT is that the former is an adventure while the later is a soap opera.
You owe soap operas an apology.
;-)
That's generally why I make a point of mentioning I'm stating an opinion. Particularly if my opinion isn't widely agreed with. Short of linking to a technical discussion, interview, article, etc, we're all stating our opinions.
An aside; If I'm on a board and people start claiming their opinions are fact or that wide acceptance proves their opinion is the correct one, I can't call them on it fast enough.
The OP gets a pass - for now - because he's new here. He didn't exactly come in peace, but we'll see how things go.
.
Ryan McAvoy said:
Every pixel of those things was smeared over with a vaseline like layer of digitally colour corrected to f*ck awfulness that made everything look fake. Which is probably why some overestimate the amount of CGI in the PT... but there is still a ludicrous amount of it with no good reason.
I can only speak to the one prequel I've seen, but those are my thoughts on the CGI as well. I had to go to screencaps to refresh my memory. I wonder if there are any more than just a handful of scenes that haven't been overly and unnecessarily processed in some way or another.
I remember at the time thinking the film looked like a video game, but looking at screencaps now, clearly I'd forgotten just how much it looked like a cartoon. The outdoor scenes are particularly jolting. The scenes where I know there is a physical set or model look just as bad as full CGI.
I saw only one of the prequels, 15 years ago, so these are clearly not part of my world. That said; What little I remember about the pointless story, the terrible writing, the terrible acting, and the equally terrible presentation still leaves me scratching my head at how the last three films have such a devoted following.
To read the thoughts of fans, all I can think is the films must have caught them when they were young and impressionable. The prequel story isn't deep, it's not thought provoking, nor is it even remotely interesting (the one I saw). Yet the members on other boards speak of these things as if they're Casablanca or Citizen Kane. I cannot make sense of that.
Bingowings said:
No I don't really like much of the Simm performance but that isn't because of the actor himself, who is a proven talent, but more the way he is written....
There are some amazing scenes with Simm (the Gasmask scene for example) but they would probably worked better if the character was a bit more cold and less like a sixties Batman television villain.
I can see that. Like you said, he can be a bit riddle me this.. at times. However, I like a few moments a lot and think they were expertly done. To me, his finest hour is the landfill scene from End Of Time. Great stuff from Simm and Tennant in that scene. They morph into a grittier world than we usually get to see.
