C3PX

lordjedi said:

One of the things I liked most about Kirk, and to a lesser extent Picard, is that they were willing to break the rules in order to protect their crew.  That's something Janeway didn't seem willing to do and it was obvious from the start.  She had a chance to get everyone back home in the first episode of Voyager and turned it down.  I can't remember the exact reasons, but all I could think was "Your crew comes first!"  Obviously that would've ended the series, which is why they needed better writers from the start.

Maybe in the pilot Janeway follows the rules, but as time goes on I think she breaks the rules far more than any other Captain on any of the other shows, makes Kirk look like a boy scout. I think in one episode Tuvok reminds her that she has already broken the Prime Directive 47 times in that month alone. The show ends with her illegally going back in time and altering events to get the Voyager home safely.

People are making a big deal about the sending a Terminator back to 1920 thing (as mentioned in the advertisement for tonight's episode, but the fact is we already know of a resistance fighter send sometime around then (don't remember when exactly) to get a job working on the bank vault from the pilot, so he could put the time travel device pieces in the safe deposit box. The machines could have very well been up to some sort of similar plot, setting things up for use in the future. Whatever it is, I don't think it has anything to do with the Connors.

My top ten

1. Empire Strikes Back

2. Star Wars

3. Return of the Jedi

4. The Phantom Menace

5. Cutscenes on Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight

6. Cutscenes on Rebel Assault II: The Hidden Empire

7. The episode of Animaniacs that parodies Star Wars, featuring Pinky as C-3PO and The Brain as R2-D2.

(and from this point on we drop down into the realm way below barely watchable,)

8. Star Wars Holiday Special

9. Ewok TV movies

10. Droid and Ewok cartoon episodes edited into features to sell on VHS

...

Oops, that's ten already. No room for episodes 2 and 3, a true shame really... oh well.

Vorroux, I sent you a PM. If you are not sure how to check your PMs, the link is at the very top right hand corner of the screen, right under where it will say "Welcome, vorroux (logout)" (you have to be logged in to see it).

LOL, I didn't take into consideration the whole Prime Directive thing, if Kirk, Picard, and Janeway are anything to go by, then it seems a large quantity of Starfleet Captians don't care much for the Prime Directive, and that Star Fleet doesn't seem to mind it too much.

lordjedi said:

HAHAHAHA!  Yeah, because Kirk isn't at all the "shoot first, ask questions later" type.  That's exactly who Kirk is.  That's what made him such a great starship captain.  Diplomacy was out the door almost instantly with Kirk.  There's nothing new here.

Hmm, I have seen all the episodes and all the movies, though not for quite a while, but I would have never considered Kirk a shoot first, act later kind of guy. He is usually quite cautious and thoughtful before acting, but more than willing to raise hell in order to protect those under his command.

In ST 3, his best friend had died, and he saw hope that Genesis would bring him back, so he hijacked the Enterprise, disobeying a direct order. I'd say disobeying direct orders wasn't something Kirk did a whole lot of, and definitely not just for the hell of it to feed his rebelous nature. Picard is probably more of a rebel, both First Contact and Insurrection have him disobeying orders big time.

Johnboy3434 said:

That article only proves that at least one other person shares your opinion. The same can be said of any given Scientologist. As far as whether Lucas "ruined" Star Wars or not (whatever that means), it doesn't prove a damn thing.

Way more than one other person shares those views, and Scientology is certainly an odd comparison to choose...

@Sky, You make some good points, and I think there are many of us here who agree with what you are saying. The problem is you are saying it again and again, in every single thread, in long winded posts with much the same content each time. I think a lot of these guys are starting to get annoyed at you, and would tend to disagree with what you say, even if they share your sentiments.

Now that I have said all this, wow, Sky's last post was amazingly entertaining to read.

I am a huge fan of real models, and am often pretty harsh on CG. However, I really think complaining about the CG is missing the point. Not too long ago my wife and I watched our way through the entire series of Firefly for the second time. I couldn't help but notice how dated and crappy the CG models look, I don't remember noticing that the first time I saw the show, which was only a couple of years ago, so the CG was still quite dated at that time as well. Even though I noticed the crappy CG and how bad it looked by today's standards, it never took me out of the story. Why not? Because it is just a special effect that is assisting in telling a story. As long as the story is good who cares, old stop motion effects in movies don't bother me, and old CG doesn't either. But when the story sucks or is poorly delivered and the CG is the only leg it has to stand on... well, ouch!

There are examples though where it feels like CG is used just for the sake of using CG, or almost out of laziness, the clone pilots in Ep.3 come to mind, why would you use CG for a person? You'd never get away with showing a shot of a CG Anakin in the cockpit of his figther, that would be insane. Why is it so forgiveable when it comes to the clone troopers? Because they didn't want to bother getting the actor who played Jango back to film a couple more scenes? The infected in I Am Legend are another good example, we had the potential for a pretty interesting movie, but I feel that the over use of unnecessary CG knocked the quality of that movie down considerably.

If the new Trek bombs, or if it is successful but bombs in the eyes of fans, I am certain it won't be because of the CG. I wouldn't care if this has the worst CG models in the world in it, if it is good in all other regards. Using ILM for the CG is not a bad thing, they are awesome at CG. You can't say the CG models in episode 1,2 or 3 look bad, because they don't, they look great. Even Jar Jar looked pretty amazing, Jar Jar's problem was not that he was CG, if he'd been played by a guy in the costume, he would have been just as bad, and probably quite worse. Same can be said for Grevious and other all CG characters.

Ooops! You're right, the alphabet bit is from First Contact.

Don't count on it.

I really don't like baby rabbits. They clash too much with the final product. I mean, if you saw a new born baby rabbit, you would't even have any idea that it was a rabbit. They look nothing like full grown rabbits. 

That said,

I agree very much with the original poster. John Williams score is amazing, and so full of so many things. I love how Ralph's art is fo fantastic and otherworldly. Like that image of the Kryat (sp?) dragon, just looking at that image it could be a story in of itself. I really like looking at his non Stat Wars art aswell. I just love the look of his work, it feels so archaic, yet they are often depicting images and scenes containing technology and advancements beyond what any of us can dream to see in our life times. That used universe look is very present in his work as well, which adds to the feeling that there is a some deep story behind each piece he does.

There is no doubt Lucas and his various companies have had a great influence in the current film industry. You've hardly been able to go to a movie over the last decade and sit through the credits without reading at least one of the names associated with him like, "Industrial Light and Magic", "Skywalker Sound", "THX". When you think about that, it is pretty amazing. No doubt the man is an amazing business man. It makes the current state of things all the more tragic to me.

Both those bits were in the movie. Specifically, Kirk tells Picard never to let them take him out of that chair, and later Picard tells Riker that there are plenty more letters in the alphabet. I don't think Picard saying this to Riker has anything to do with his intentions of one day becoming an Admiral and leaving the Enterprise to his command, I think the point was to let the audience know that they could expect a few sequels.

None of us have had a chance to read through the printed edition yet. All you really need to know about this book is that it is well worth reading, and if you drop thirty bucks on it, it'll be thirty bucks well spent. But if you like, check out the original thread Zombie posted about it in,

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Secret-History-of-Star-Wars/topic/7679/

Reading through this thread will give you a lot more information on it than a simple review would.

Or check out his site and read about it,

www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com 

Some bits, like the FAQ, are a little outdated, but it still gives a lot of insight into the goals of the author with this book. If you read through the FAQ, you see that he is not simply a Lucas basher wanting to make the guy look bad, while he exposes a lot of Lucas' lies or misinformation Lucas has created over the years, he does so with good documentation to back up any claims he makes. This book has at its heart the goal to uncover the truth about the history the actual story of Star Wars has gone through, the twists and turns it has made to get from what it originally was back in the 1970s to what it has become today. Read it -1, even knowing you, I think you find a thing or two in there you'd find facinating. 

If you want a sample of what to expect from the book, go to the "articles" link at secrethistoryofstarwars.com and start reading. I particularly like the one titled Jabba the Hutt: "Wonderful Human Being".

Tiptup said:

I'm expecting this movie to suck in a general sense, but, at the same time, I'm curious why some people are talking as if Star Trek is going to be ruined. I'm sorry, but, for me, the series was a mixed bag from the beginning, it then became riddled with even more goofy and contradictory stuff, and it's already well past being ruined after we got Nemesis. From what I'm seeing in this new movie, it's looking to offer a better experience than the worst of what we've gotten in the past. :)

Again, it has to do with whips and horses whose hearts have stopped beating. I know there is hope that they can capitalize on an old popular brand name, and I know some people think that it was crap already, and that the new movie doesn't have to reach too high to far exceed the previous movie. That may be true, but the fact of the matter is, much like everything else, popular franchise like this tend to follow the natural progression of things, going from order to chaos. What starts out good might stay good for a while, but sooner or later it is going to die. When that time comes, I think it is appropriate to let it die with dignity. Star Trek, Star Wars, X-Files, and a million other examples show this to be true, all series that went too far and too long for their own good.

Star Trek died. Why not let it rest in peace, and come up with something original. Now we're resurrecting it with a cast of "pretty boys" and "hotties" adding lots of explosions and some sex, and trying to reach out to your typical adolescent "OMG _fill in the blank_ is soooo hot! I watch that show every week just to stare at him/her!" TV audience.

Star Trek may have been a mixed bag, but it was a mixed bag I was rather fond of. I hate to see it sink to the level it very well seems to have sunk to. Kind of funny how it is all the non-ST fans, or those who claim to have liked it a bit who are saying, "Shut up and give this a chance". Kind of how many casual SW fans can say, "Jeez, so what? It is just a few added scenes and CGI added to your dumb movies, get over it already!"

I hear a lot of people are starting to get fed up with this show, but I think it is getting better and better. If you check out page one of this thread, originally I was pretty harsh on the show, and the sheer amount of time travelers was one of the reasons. In the films each side only sends one soldier back, it seems like if it were an easy process, they'd just send a whole army back to whipe out John and ensure Skynets safety.

Now that we are getting into all the alternative timeline stuff, I think it is getting pretty fun. T1 and T2 give us the theme, there is no fate but the one we make. T3 (which I hate with a passion) screws this up by ultimately saying the outcome of the future is already set, you can dink around with it and you might change the players involved and the method, the date and time, etc., but what is suppose to happen is going to happen no matter what you do (similar to Lost's paradox free philosophy on time travel, "the timeline has a way of course correcting itself"). 

While I like Lost's take on time travel, you can alter the way things happen, you can postpone them, but you can't prevent it from happening. I like TSCC's branching realities approach even more, and I think this fits much better with the first two films. In TSCC it seems by going back in time you can alter any number of things and make them happen differently. We have Jesse remembering things that happened to Derek in the future, which Derek has no recollection of because they are from two completely different time lines. Derek is from the future following the films. Three major things happen to severly alter Jesse and Riley's future from that of Derek's. First, John sends Cameron back in time to protect himself, she kills the evil terminator, and sends them into the safety of the future (obviously for nothing more than for ease of story telling). Second, Derek believes if he and his men go back in time with a list of the names of men responsible for Skynet, then they can merely assassinate them one by one, preventing Skynet from becoming a reality. Third, Skynet is also doing its fair share of meddling with the time line, but we don't have much detail on what exactly they are up to yet. 

In Derek's future, Cameron was a captured and reprogrammed terminator, something we learn John was getting into in T2 when he trusted Arnie enough to send him back to protect himself when he was a kid. In the resulting time line, John probably had much more sympathetic feelings for Terminators due to the strong bonding that went on between him and the T-800 that he sent to protect himself. As we see from Derek's reaction to all the terminators running around the base, many of the resistance fighters are uneasy with John's trust in the reprogrammed enemy soldiers, and it was already a misguided trust that cost some of the resistance fighters their lives ("sometimes they go bad"). In Jesse and Riley's time line, Cameron stays with John and influences him from the pilot of the TV series and on into the war against the machines, very likely resulting in a John who is even more sympathetic toward the Terminators than T2 John was. As in Derek's time line, this is a source of discomfort for the resistance fighters, and as mentioned by Jesse, something that is costing many resistance fighters their lives, or at least she sees it that way. I am very interested to see how they continue to make this play out, sure it could be better done than the writers are managing to do it (I think this is inherit with short deadlines, numerous writers, and overall story arcs with poorly planned details, as can be seen in other shows like Heroes and Lost), but in this day and age of crappy TV shows and movies, this one is at least very entertaining and takes place in a universe of a franchise I have been a fan of for a long time.

Throughout all the time travel going on, it is very possible that Skynet was able to alter the time line by carrying information back in time to allow them to better develop means of time travel, and as a result are able to send more soldiers back with greater ease than back in the days of T1.

On a final note, many people often point out how ridiculous T1 is, since the whole plot is a paradox. If Kyle was not sent back in time, then John would not be born, and if John was never born, he couldn't send Kyle back in time to impregnate his mom. I have always realized this was true, but it never really bothered me too much. However, while a linear time line makes this idea very silly, the idea of alternative futures and branching time lines actually allows for this idea to work perfectly. Imagine if in a much earlier time line, the resistance fighter Kyle is sent back for some other reason, perhaps to stop the war all together, during his mission he meets Sarah, and the two fall in love and hook up, during his time with her he tells all about the Skynet and the future war, then somewhere along the line he is killed. Sarah raises John, telling him stories about the resistance and the war with Skynet. John grows up with the knowledge this is going to happen, and when it does he is ready to rise to the occasion and ends up becoming a great leader in the resistance. When we eventually get to the branch in this time line where Skynet sends a T-800 back in time to kill his mom, this John realizes that it has to be Kyle who goes. Then Kyle tells Sarah his son becomes their great leader, she goes through the trauma of nearly being murdered by a terminator, and sees the man she fell in love with get murdered, she becomes the militaristic mother we know from T2, who feels she must ensure her son becomes this great leader, which as a result, as seen in TSCC, we have John doubting himself and feeling a lot of pressure of becoming something he doesn't feel he can become. If we don't assume T1 is the original unaltered time line, then everything fits together rather nicely.

Whoa, I bet this Italian version has the scene with Luke missing on his first try with the grappling hook. This very well may be what we "big foot hunters" of SW fandom have been spending all these years looking for!  ,')

Yeah, I know. When I was a kid I could have sworn there was a period between Halloween and Christmas that was dominated by turkies, Indians and Pilgrims. Now it goes straight from Ghost and Frakenstien to Santa and Christmas Trees.

As for it being a made up holiday, is there such thing as a naturally occuring one?

Happy Thanksgiving everybody. To all nonUSers other than YIYF, happy regular Thursday, don't work too hard ;)

HotRod said:

Your welcome. Glad I'm not the only one who saw it. I thought for a second I was getting it confused with my comics or radio plays, or a dream I had after watching ESB...or something like that!!

 

Actually, that is a really rare broadcast, and it was broadcast only once, it aried at 9pm on UK channel HD 134 (yeah, it is kind of an obscure channel) back in 1978. Of course, I have no idea what the exact day and month were, but magically, I do know the hour and station.

Wooohoooo! SHOSW on amazon! Congradulations zombie, this is a great moment in SW's history. While the free e-book was fantastic, now with it being availible as a hardcopy on from places like amazon and barnes & noble, it is sure to pull in a lot more attention and reach a much wider audience. This is the beginning of many more people being educated in the truth surrounding the history of these films.

Certainly don't see it being over any lines. Maybe some of the extemist worshipers in the cult of "Hope and Change" might freak out about it and call it blasphemy, but screw them. As Erik said, it is a clever idea.

I wasn't trying to say Harrison Ford is a bad actor, plenty of movies to prove the contrary. But Hollywood seems to have this trap of making actor's cliches of themselves. Kind of a "I have this script here and Harrison Ford would be the perfect man for the lead role." Why is that exactly? Oh right, because he has played that same character before a time or two, makes sense. Same trap that was fallen into with someof the James Bond films, let's get Roger Moore, because he played the Saint, let's get Brosnan, because he was fricken Remmington Steel! We know he can do the part. Sure some actors are good at playing certian roles, possibly because they are always choosen for those kinds of roles, but it really does turn that actor into a walking cliche. To me, this defines Tom Hanks. Look at me, I am stranded on an island! Look at me, I am stranded in an airport, look at me, I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am playing opposite Meg Ryan, look at me I am... you get the point. It gives you the feeling, 'didn't I pay to see this movie a couple of years ago?' 

That is why Harrison Ford took roles like What Lies Beneath, and Windowmaker, Sabrina, to break out of the shell that had been formed around him. Look at Airforce One, 'hey, Jack Ryan is the president now" look at Firewall, 'hey, Jack Ryan ditched his old family and job and got new ones', look at Hollywood Homocide, 'uh...? ', look at Crystal Skull, 'man that guy looks bored...'

I probably drug this to a point where it is kind of unfair, but I do feel that our deep infatuation with the damn stars goes a long way in making some pretty awful turkeys, and burnt ones at that.

see you auntie said:

The topic of discussion was who hates Tom Hanks? I think it's impossible. Denzel is a no brainer, although he's getting into a familiar pattern lately.

Not just trying to disagree with you, but I really don't like Tom Hanks. So it is not impossible. I think when an actor becomes too big you end up "watching Tom Hank films" instead of watching a movie. Harrison Ford went this way long ago. In Star Wars it felt like you were watching Han Solo, in Indiana Jones it felt like you were watching Indiana Jones. Somewhere along the line I began feeling like I was watching Harrison Ford. My feeling is that the actor should convince us the character is real. The whole point of acting is to be a player in a story, the focus is suppose to be on the story, good actors will tell a really good story in such away that the story itself will be what we take home with us, not "Wow, Tom Hanks just blew me away in that movie, he is such an amazing actor, I forget the name of the character he played, but OMG he is such an amazing actor."

But in this day and age of star worship, the actors are who many people want to see. It is all about finding stories for the actors to play in, not about finding the actors to bring a really good story to life.

TheoOdo said:

Well, let's get creative here. How would you have done the relationship? Supposing you were completely redoing the prequels with no thought at all for the ones that were actually made, how would you make the relationship between Anakin and Luke's mother (doesn't even need to be called Padmé) work?

I've thought about it a little, but it's actually pretty tough. With Han, you can see why a woman'd fall for him but with Hayden you'd be more likely to call in a restraining order. I mean, Jesus, crying at the fire saying "love me dammit"? Just plain creepy and creepier that George seems to think that is romance.

Its not that tought, there is no reason Anakin has to be, or should have been a whiney, creepy, little jackass. Make him a real hero, and so many problems are solved. Padme falling in love with him would work. Audienced would no longer be yelling, "fall in the lava, fall in the lava you stupid little punk! Just fall in the lava already!" during the final battle between he and Obi-Wan. One thing that would have gone a long ways in making the prequels work, would have been for Anakin to have been a hero we could have really cared about, someone we could sympathize with.

We could do this with Luke. He was a normal person, completely average and run of the mill, living the boring life of a farm boy in a pathetic little berg, were he goofed around with his friends and dreamed of going to the Academy and becoming a real pilot, flying around in space and seeing the galaxy. Who can't relate to that? Wanting to get away and see the world? Experience adventure and excitement, but feeling trapped in a mundane world. Through a turning of events, Luke suddenly discovers he is not what he seems, he is the son of a great war hero, he leaves home and by the end of the movie he has become a hero himself. As the story continues, he continues to do heroic things and matures all the while.

The Phantom Menace followed this same sort of path, boy wants to see the world, discovers he has Jedi abilities, leaves home and becomes a bit of a hero himself by single handedly destorying the Trade Federations ships, it was a little bit of a tiny bopper, but the main idea was there.In Attack of the Clones we see our young hero has grown into an annoying teenager, the kind that that makes you want to wring their neck. Over the course of the movie, at no fault of his own, a beautiful girl falls in love with him, he says stupid things and freaks out and cries and so on, and she feels sorry for him because she broke his little teenage heart and so on. Eventually he kills a whole village of people, and she comforts him and tells him it is alright, everyone gets pissed and commits mass murder sometime, and she seems to fall in love with him even more. When facing the firing squad they declair their love for one another and choose to be together in the even they live. ROTS, whiney jerk grow into whiney annoying man, does whiney annoying things, freaks out and gets scared, kills Jedi, kills, kids, kills wife, tries to kill best friend, gets appendages cut off and sinks into pit of lava.

Who can sympathize with any of that? Maybe Charles Manson or Jeffery Domher. This guy is killing women and children, hacking them up with a laser sword, and then our seven year olds dress up as him for Halloween. Pah. 

If Anakin had been a character we could sympathize with, his fall to the dark side would have been so much more tragic, and believable. Instead Lucas followed the idea, "Well, everyone already knows he is Darth Vader". Lame excuse, a really good prequel will do its best to prentend it was made first, so people new to the series can watch them in order as if they were made that way. If we could fall in love with Anakin as we fell in love with Luke and Han and countless other movie heroes we've liked, then we would have no problem believeing Padme could fall in love with him. It was too forced. A liberal do gooder like Padme would have never fallen in love with a strange psycho killer like Anakin. Bad dialog and acting or not, it just didn't work.As for the love story specifically, why follow the cliche of the Romeo and Juliet young forbidden love theme? Why not the simple classic, boy meets girl, they get to know each other, and over a short period of time fall in love. The whole "I have always loved you, you torture me, you are in my very soul, I've loved you since I was nine years old and I must have you, I MUST HAVE YOU I MUST I MUST I MUST!!!! DAMN F-ING SAND!!!! YOU"RE SO SOFT! GIVE ME THE SOFTNESS!!! It wasn't believable, and if it had been believable, it would have been even more creepy than it already was. Seriously, did anybody watch those movies without thinking, Whoa, that Anakin guy probably needs to be on some sort of medication.

I had totally forgotten about the last compromised reboot Hollywood shat out for us a few years back. Superman Returns. Instead of really starting over, they continued from Superman 2, but not completely from Superman 2, allowing them the freedom to change things as they pleased, but still counting on the audience for people to understand 100% what was going on. Why not just do a full out reboot? With Superman this kind of stupid have your cake and eat it too philosophy = fail. 

Whose fighting? Are we reading the same thread? Or are you referencing something else? Because I have not seen any fighting going on in this thread.