C3PX

Please... what, V?

Are you serious? Strange you'd make the statement "Not when you compare it to any other form of entertainment or personal technology" then go on to only list personal technologies. What "other form of entertainment" died so quickly? And don't list BETA or Laserdisc, DIVX, or HD-DVD, because they are special cases.

Movie and music collections are not something people generally consider disposable, many people take great pride in their movies collections. People don't aquire such collections with the intent of replacing them a few years later. Pagers and cell phone however, are intended to be disposable. Nobody expects to keep the same pager for years and years to come.  A pager is something that served a specific function and provided a service, a service that was paid for month by month, and when better technology came out providing a more useful function, there was no reason not to change. They are items of practicality, not entertainment. It is practical to change, and cost very little. Most cell phone companies will give you a phone when you sign their contract, either way you still have to pay the monthly fees, so why not switch to a smaller, sleeker, more practical device when given the chance. Replacing a movie collection on the other hand is not a practical thing to do. If somebody wants to upgrade their movie collection for prettier viewing on their big screen HDTV, that is all well and good. But the average viewer and their average sized non HDTV have nothing to gain from the upgrade. There is no reason for anyone to see it as unreasonable for people to not want to adopt. Especially when most of them have only been on the new system for a little over five years.

TheBoost said:

I would agree with the bad writing argument if there were not interally consistent reasonable explanations for these so-called 'inconsistencies' that don't violate the reality of the films. However it seems to me that these explanations exist, have large ammounts of evidence to support them, and are not hard to come up with.

Very well, explain Leia talking about her memories of her mother? I have yet to hear the contrived excuse for that one, but I have no doubt that it exists. You can explain away anything in this manner, it has been done for years by people trying to fix bad writing or inconsistencies.

The pink Klingon blood in Star Trek VI is a good example of this. Anywhere else in Trek continuity we see that Klingons bleed red, but there is a scene in ST VI that has a bunch of Klingons being murdered in a zero gravity environment. With the lack of gravity, their  blood floats around in bubbles, the scene is extremely violent for a Star Trek film, but the blood plays an important role in the film. Since it was such a violent scene containing such an incredible amount of blood, they made the blood pink, like Pepto-Bismol, in order to keep the content rating of the film down. Had it been red, as would be canonically accurate, the film would have earned an R rating. In the film they made no effort to explain this inconsistency other than by pretending Klingon's had pink blood all along. Since then, I think a video game or two may have portrayed Klingon blood as pink, but all TV shows and movies since have clearly shown it to be red.

Since ST VI came out, fans have tried to explain this inconsistency by claiming that some chemical floating around in the room mixed with the blood made it pink, or lack of gravity somehow made it pink, or lack of oxygen. The point is, they have tried to explain it with silly explanation, sure those explanations may help smooth over the inconsistencies, but the fact is that they didn't want an R rating, so the blood was made pink.

When making ROTS, they mentioned that they had to go back and film Obi-Wan picking up Anakin's lightsaber after the fact, because they "kind of forgot" that Obi-Wan gives it to Luke later on. If they "kind of forgot" about that, then why is it so unreasonable to believe there are other things they "kind of forgot" about? It seems to me that they "kind of forgot" about Leia remembering her mother. Fortunately for them, they have fans who will come up with the craziest far out excuses to explain these plot holes away and try to claim that everything fits together perfectly and consistently.

Vaderisnothayden said:

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.

Say what you like, but you are redefining clearly defined words, and thus destroying their usefulness for communication.

The word "canon" has many meanings, but when used in the context of fiction, it has been used to mean what I explained it to mean in my previous post.

You may have had a DVD player 11 or 12 years ago V, but many of us did not. I switched from VHS to DVD back in 2001 when DVD players started getting really cheap. In 1999 my cousin won a DVD player, he is the first person I knew who owned one. I thought it was cool, but I didn't feel it was worth the money, especially since I already owned a good sized library of VHS tapes. Keep in mind, they were still making VHS tapes up until 2005 or early 2006, I believe. The fact that they were making them that late, meant there was still a profitable market for them. That means there is a whole market of people who were only forced to adopt DVD three years ago. These people certianly have no intention of replacing all their DVDs with Blu-ray when they have only just begun replacing their VHS with DVD at this point. No matter how you spin it, this change came quickly, much quicker than the prvious change, and unlike the vast advantages of switching from VHS to DVD, the advantages of DVD to Blu-ray are minimal for those without HD TVs.

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.

Vaderisnothayden said:

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.

For more weird things in the Force Unleashed, I'd simply recommend searching it on youtube. You'll be able to find all the cut scenes there, they'll be labeled something like 01, 02, 03, etc. It is an interesting watch, far more entertaining to me than the new TV show. Watching those cutscene will pretty much give you the whole story in movie format, without the need for any hard work like reading or playing the game. To be honest, I actually found it more entertaining than the last two prequels, better acted too. Just some of those exaggerated things that hurt it, but in the end, it was a video game and its main appeal (as seen in its name) was the ability to use exaggerated force powers.

As far as an exact quote from Lucas, I am not sure if anything like that exists, but it is well known that he was very involved in the story process, something he has not done on any of the games before now. Just about ever article talking about the game up until its release mentioned that it was intended to be canonical.

Here is an example of such an article, http://www.wired.com/entertainment/hollywood/multimedia/2008/08/ff_starwarscanon_gallery?slide=2&slideView=2 notice at the very end it mentions how much effort they went through to ensure it fit with continuity, and that Lucas himself was involved. There are more detailed articles about this out there, but this one was nice and short, being only a couple of paragraphs.

Hayden Blackman, the main writer of the story said, "All these characters are going into the continuity, they'll all be canon, and they're all part of the Star Wars galaxy."

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.

Ellison has been playing the stooge all season, we knew something like this would happen sooner or later.

Interesting that they are finally starting to talk about the changing futures, and showing that the time line is getting seriously screwed up. Maybe it does make the story kind of contrived, but I actually like it, if things such as time travel were possible, this is the sort of thing you could expect to happen. I like that the current time line remains static, unlike Back to the Future where people disappear from photographs or headlines in newpapers magically fade away as the time line is altered, the events of Derek's past remain the same, even though the young Derek will experience them differently. This way they cannot do stupid things like bring Kyle back by somehow preventing him from dying, even tought they may be able to alter the events of someone elses time line and save Kyle in that one, but not their own. They could also use this to keep T3 canon, just having been another branch off the time line. Screwed up and confusing yes, but that is the fate of all time travel tales I am afraid.

Since the very beginning I have loved Derek's jacket. Man, I wish I new the exact brand and make, and where to buy one if they are still on the market, or what to ebay if they are discontinued. It is very clearly designed after the military m-65 jacket, but it is much more stylish with a better fit to it. More casual looking, without looking like the jacket of a homeless 'Nam vet. Is there someplace where they list what clothing on TV shows are? Seems like the company that makes them would want to brag, "Hey, that is one of our jackets! Buy yours today". I have been searching on the net but coming up empty. Found a few other brands with jackets designed off of the m65, but none of them look half as good as this one.

adywan said:

Do you really think that the few added changed that were done for the SE is what made Star Wars popular again? Are you sure you lived on this planet in 1997?

 

From what I have gathered from -1 comments, he sort of did live on a different planet from you and I, figuratively speaking. He mentioned seeing it as a kid and loving it, then forgetting about it until only recently rediscovering it. I believe his rediscover was post 1997. So he is only looking back on the "historical facts" with box office numbers (which totally do not work that way, with the increased prominence of the cinema from 1977 till present, as well as changes in marketing, when SW was released, the type of licensing and marketing they did with it was pretty much unheard of, today just about everything gets that kind of treatment, the way people way people watch movies and buy related items has changed significantly), comparing box office numbers from the various dates just does tell us much, even while adjusting for inflation, because not only has the value of the currency changed, but so have the culture and the market. 

I don't think -1 experienced the 1997 period as we did. He saw it through the eyes of an outsider who didn't care about Star Wars, and so that is the veil through which he sees it all. Since to him Star Wars died out over that time, he sees it having died out for everyone.

In 1995 a new line of Star Wars figures hit the store shelves. Why is this? What interest should kids have in buying some silly figures? The only decent Star Wars media released around that time to make them interested in figures were a few video games (aimed at older audiences) and a small number of novels (mostly for adults and a few for kids). These figures were not based on the video game characters, not were they based on the books, these new figures were taken directly from the 1977 film. They sold like hotcakes. Why? That was nearly a twenty year old movie, yet ten year olds were rushing to the store and throwing down their hard earned cash (or their parents money) for these toys. If Star Wars was dead, and hardly any interest in it existed, why should these figures have sold? And why should the toy company have quickly expanded their line to include more and more figures, eventually spanning all three films as well as some aspects of the expanded universe, now including numerous ships and playsets, all prior to the 1997 SE, which supposedly revitalized the series. There was also a line of SW micromachines, which came out in 1995 as well, these were also greatly expanded, including a wide range of playsets, again, all before 1997. These things all sold well. Toy lightsabers with sound effects? Pre 1997, sold really well. I was there, I lived it, I saw it. I'd go to the toy store and see the SW figure section practically empty, ask an employee when they would be getting more in, then I would go back on that day to find the shelves packed full of SW things, and wind up nearly empty again a few days later. Before 1997.

Perhaps you did not experience this -1, because you had no interest in these things at that time. You look back and see that sometime around 1997 Star Wars took off again, and assume it must have been the SE.

Just saw the movie. I didn't think it was that terrible, but after seeing Casino Royale take what appeared to be strides towards a more substance over style kind of Bond film, I felt that this one with its drawn out and overly simple plot and its pointless action scene after pointless action scene, has taken us pretty much right back to where we started. It might not have been as over the top and ridiculous as Die Another Day, but it is well on its way back to that point. Good job guys. Who wants serious Bond movies anyways?

Still wished they would have stuck with the books and made a more true to Flemming remake of Live and Let Die as a followup to Casino Royale.

All in all, this one reminded me a lot of the Dalton films, sans some of the over the top antics (semitruck pops a wheelie, Wayne Newton, etc).

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.

Yeah, I felt the same way about Dench too. I actually really like Judi Dench, but I wished M was played by another actor/actress since it was a reboot. Still doesn't bother me as much as this, since Casino Royale and QS are in a different continuity from the previous Bond films, it is easy enough to shake off. The new ST on the other hand, is kind of claiming to be both, by going to the end of the current continuity and using a time travel plot to return to the very beginning of continuity and starting over.

It reminds me of them feeling the need to pass the ST film torch from Kirk to Picard by having them share the same movie. Sure, it wove the TOS crew films tighter together with the TNG crew films in an odd sort of way, but it really wasn't needed, and was one of the weaker bits of the storyline. Reminded me of those silly debates I used to have with other kids when I was younger, "Picard could out smart Kirk any day of the week!" "Oh yeah! Well Kirk could kick Picards butt before he even had a chance to start thinking"

Baronlando said:

Come on. Heir to the Empire was the number ONE bestselling book in 1991, the 1995 vhs tapes/lasers were HUGE, plus all the 90s-era toys and comics and games that did big business long before the 1997 rerelease.

In a short and concise little post, Baronlando has effectively listed a number of facts that expose -1's bs for exactly what it is, bs. He has no idea what he is talking about, yet he will go on and on and on.

Later.

negative1 said:

besides, most people don't retroactively criticize something after the point,

like we're doing now... you said it yourself, most people didn't mind the changes

then, but only now they don't seem to be needed..

Correction, I believe I said "I" didn't mind the changes, LOTS of people talked about how pointless and stupid they were from the very beginning. And again, get it into your thick little head, this isn't just a bunch of people bitching because they can, you seem to continually say silly and close minded things like "... but only now they don't seem to be needed..." Sure, we think they were not needed, but the BIG DEAL is that BECAUSE of the SE, the OT is thrown away. Name one other movie this has been done to? Just one?

The SE isn't only a director's cut, but now we have a 30 year old movie with 4 year old effects. From a historical standpoint, the situation is a pile of crap. Star Wars was a record breaking history making film, and now we are not even allowed to see it as it was when it made history. Why is this not a problem?

I dunno man, I honestly don't think you can really be this dense. I am pretty sure you are just playing devil's advocate, or that you are just enjoying carrying on these conversations forever just for kicks. Nobody can be told the same things and have the same things explained to them over and over and over and over and over, and still not get it. Nobody is complaining about the SE because the changes were not necessary, the problem lies in the fact that the originals for all practically purposes is not on DVD (unless you count the slightly above youtube quality GOUT, which isn't even watchable let alone enjoyable to watch on most modern TVs. If we had the originals on DVD in some kind of viable quality, then I'd be right there beside you telling the complainers to get over it and just not watch the version they don't like.

@Gaffer, I still have not watched the 2004 SEs, but I have been exposed to the worst of them. I have seen stills of the new Jabba, Luke's color changing blade, Hayden's face pasted over Shaw's, and I think I saw a clip on youtube or somewhere of the new ending sequence to Jedi, and the dub of Boba's voice. But I have yet to actually see all these things in the context of the entire film, or to discover what other fun little surprises lurk between the cracks. And I intend to keep it that way. I am kind of interested in the commentary tracks though, my one and only temptation to watch them...

^ Probably wasn't Ahmed Best, if it was it was probably lifted from out takes from TPM. If it was somebody else who did the voice, they were obviously trying to imitate Best's Jar Jar voice.

Baronlando said:

I'm thinking this whole thing is treated with too much emotion, with the talk of suing and erased childhood memories...

Those guys make us all look like a bunch of idiots.

negative1 said:

if, and when someone re-makes, or re-visualizes star wars..

 

i can only image the complaints and protests that people will

have against it..

I could care less if they got remade, wouldn't bother me a bit. Remakes get made all the time, mostly pointlessly. I think you still do not realize that our problems with the SEs is the fact that they have replaced the originals. If they made remakes with new actors, then tried to pretend the old ones never existed, I'd be more than a little annoyed, but the idea of a remake itself would be a relief to me. With a remake there would be no reason to keep screwing with the originals, and that would be a nice change.

as for why people revisit things they've done,

why not, it worked in a financial way, and brought

a huge new audience back to the theater that paved

the way for the huge success of the prequels..

It wasn't that the SEs paved the way for the prequels. People had been eagerly awaiting the prequels long before the idea of the SEs were announced. The theatrical rerelease of the original trilogy in 1997 would have been a success regardless of changes. In fact, the TV commercials advertised it as if it were a well loved movie revisiting theaters to be seen on the big screen once again after being confined to tiny television sets for so many years. Why would the ads make the asumption that peopel would be interested in seeing this tired old film on the big screen once again? I knew a lot of people who went to see the films in theaters again and were surprised to see the changes, so obviously they didn't go because of the changes. The changes didn't have to happen, and I even thought they were kind of cool, until we were denied the originals for the sake of the SEs.

Also the "the changes brought in more dough" argument holds no water in regards to the fresh batch of changes made for the 2004 DVDs, why more changes then? Everybody was eagerly waiting for a DVD release pretty much since the invention of the DVD player, a lot of people didn't care what version they were, they just wanted Star Wars, and a lot of others DIDN'T buy them specifically because they had changes. Even if they had been the 1997s SE I would have been quicker to by them. In fact, I remember I set money aside to go out and buy them the day they were released even though I knew they were only the special editions and not the originals, I was still excited about them. It was when I heard the rumors that they were completely changed once again, including things like Anakin's face and Gungans that I immediately changed my mind about perchasing them. After hearing about how many errors were made in coloring and audio, I realized I made the right choice. 

Don't you think a decent quality release should have been a better grab for the hesitant consumer than "oh goody, more changes!"? Can't believe some of you people still defend this crap with such zeal.

i doubt that if he just restored the films, and released them

without any changes, there would barely have been any interest..

or maybe not as much..

 

later

-1

Ah, so that is why there is not a single old movie released on DVD without severe and drastic changes being made to it. Now I get it. I think you are right, I do not think I would have bought that copy of Citizen Kane on DVD had the CG changes no been made to it, effectively changing Rosebud from the name of the sled to the name of a UFO he found crash landed in his backyard as a child. That change vastly improved the film.

Kind of ignorant for someone to come around and say one of the top selling trilogy of movies of all time would have barely had any interest in them had it not been for a bunch of meaningless changes. Complete and utter ignorance...

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?

Vaderisnothayden said:

Johnboy3434 said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Art is subjective, but only up to a point.

 

Wrong. Art is subjective all the way through. Somewhere out there, someone may think Manos: The Hands of Fate is the greatest movie ever made. While just about every other individual on the planet may disagree with him, we can never actually prove him wrong.

That is a comfortable view that allows people to pretend everybody is equally right about works of art, but it just isn't true. Not everything about art is subjective. We shouldn't cling to handy untruths just because they're handy.

I agree. In this day and age I could take a canvas, drop my pants, and piss on the thing, sign my name in the bottom corner, and pass the urine stained canvass off as a true work of art. I could make up some nonsense about how it represents the soul of the working class man who contantly gets peed on by the system. Some hippies, the same kind that consider John Lennon the ultimate philosopher of all time, would sop it up and consider it really "deep" and meaningful art, but in the end it is merely a canvass that has been pissed on. If that can be a work of art, then my two year old niece is a master artist who completes several masterpieces a day in her diaper. If it is something anybody can do with minimal effort, then it is probably a stretch to call it art, even if some dufus comes along and proclaims it the greatest work of art of all time. The creation of art requires talent.

skyjedi2005 said:

The worst films Final Frontier, Insurrection, Generations and Nemesis.  I can honestly say those are the worst.

Though Final Frontier and Insurrection feel like star trek.  Generations was a crap way to kill off the kirk character and an awful movie above all.  The same theme of death and aging had been dealt with better in wrath of khan and did not need a rehash in generations or nemesis.  Shit they even revisited it in insurrection.

I always hated Final Frontier, from the first time I saw it I though it was pretty boring and lame. It is probably my least favorite of anything ST (other than Enterprise). The first time I saw generations, I thought it was awesome. I certianly see it as a more flawed movie now, but I still enjoy it well enough. I like Malcolm McDowelll, so I always thought it was pretty cool having him as the main bad guy. 

I have also always thought Insurrection was pretty cool, it doesn't feel like a huge epic sci-fi film, instead it feels like something that would have been a two part episode of TNG, which is something I really like about it. 

I liked Nemesis' futuristic ST feel, by that I mean how the uniforms and technology were a step ahead of what we had seen in the other movies and shows, giving it a feeling a technological progression. But that was just an atmospheric thing, and does nothing to help the story, which seriously needed some help.

It did feel choreographed, but I still thought it was great fun to watch, and one of TPM's redeeming factors. After that duel, I truly expected great things involving lightsabers to come from the next too films, and six years later I was sorely disappointed (yeah, Obi and Anakin's fight was pretty lame, we knew exactly what was going to happen, and its score felt to much like a rehash of Duel of the Fates, the acting was wooden, and it had to be experienced in the wake of the realization that even though you had crazy low expectations for this film after seeing AOTC, the movie still managed to suck a lot harder that you though it would). TPM's duel was the consolation of the film not having met expectation, even though it disappointed, that duel made you want to leave the theater's exit only to go back around to the box office and buy a ticket to the next showing. It was awesome, only one of the three fighters fate was written in stone, and all three fighters were by far the best characters the PT would ever have to offer. That said, I cetainly don't things TPM stylized three way duel does anything to harm any of the OT fights. Empire Strikes Back's duel is still very powerful, and much more meaningful. The hero goes to face his fate in the classic confrontation of an evil nemesis, and he freaken get's his rear end handed to him on a plate! Who saw that one coming in a world full of happy endings? In the last film things looked bleak, but the hero saved the day just in the nick of time. In part two he gets his hand sliced off, and is told that the man who he thought killed his father is his father, then he attempts suicide. 

ROTJ's battle is also a very powerful battle, and one of the few things that without dispute was done perfectly in ROTJ. It is perhaps one of the finest final show downs ever committed to film.

TPM battle is just good fun, a little touching when the apprentice watches his master die, and realizes he is on his own now. But none of that compares to what we see in ESB or ROTJ. And the Yoda saberfight in AOTC was amazingly lame, reminded me of Kermit the frog dueling in Muppet's Treasure Island, not sure why. I felt embarressed to be watching the movie when Yoda started jumping around like a loon. And I nearly started laughing when Obi-Wan and Anakin where hovering over the lava riding on the backs of droids. Oh, but Palpatine's big fight with the three stooges, two of them going down in the first two seconds, gets the award for the worst saber duel of all time, and the acting in that scene managed to make it even more unbearable that it already was.

Just went there and it was at 69.27%, so I voted, and it when to 69.17%, so I voted again and it went down to 69.3%.

rcb said:

since when was jar jar stuck in?

Since 2004.

PSYCHO_DAYV said:

YOU KNOW WHAT?  I'M GOING TO GO IN WITH AN OPEN MIND AND HOPEFULLY ENJOY THIS MOVIE.  I WON'T BASE MY OPINION ON A TEASER TRAILER.

Wow, I seem to remember having heard almost these exact same words from people regarding Revenge of the Sith, and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It feels like I go to see or rent a lot of movies these days, not only with an open mind, but downright excited, only to be kicked in the balls by something more than awful.

My standards are not that high, Hollywoods standards are just getting that low.

You're right. My guess is they will just use one of the many bootleg VHS copies that are floating around out there. The quality on that thing is plenty good, ought to look just find on a big screen...

Blackjack said:
this picture more or less sums up my perfect star wars viewing experiance:

@Blackjack

Hmm, I know this was originally posted quite a while ago, but I am just now seeing it for the first time. From the background I can see that you have emptied the 2004 SEs and the bonus disc out of their box, and set them on the shelf with the prequels where they belong, not a bad idea, the box itself is still nice enough looking and worthy of housing the real deal. You've printed off your own covers for whatever discs of the OOT those are, again, a very reasonable thing to do. The part I do not understand, is that if I am understanding the photo right, a copy of Fantasia takes up the fourth spot in the box??? Can't figure this one out for the life of me. Did you just put it in there to fill in the empty space? When you say, "this picture more or less sums up my perfect star wars viewing experiance" is Fantasia part of your perfect Star Wars viewing experience? If so I would be very interested in hearing more details on this one just out of curiousity.

Yesterday I clicked it more than ten times and the numbers never changed. 

Hmm, I wish it was because of many fans voting. I am afriad they will realize that a bunch of people who wont even be able to see what is being screened have been screwing the numbers by voting like mad. If they catch on, they will likely kick it out, as the point of this is to screen what the most people would like to come and watch.

If this thing does win, I foresee Lucas sending thugs in wookie costumes to rearange the place, and make the tape disappear. Once it is returned to his possession, he can pull out the old hammer ;)