CHEWBAKAspelledwrong

Or, I don’t know, on blu ray

RooBee said:

I know that we are abusing this thread here with the “What will they show on the Celebration in London” (and I should have post it in another thread maybe, but my first thought was that this could relate to Mike’s ongoing meetings with Disney/Lucasfilm), but I sent the Celebration team a message on Facebook, regarding what version we’re going to see (Blu-ray, 2004 DVD, SE or the “Original Edition”. They’ve read my message over a day ago but didn’t reply.
You can call me a dreamer, but I’m collecting all possible hints. Even the trivial ones, hehe… Maybe they are not allowed to talk about the version, since it’s going to be an on location surprise…

Ditto. I asked them if it was going to be the “current 2D release version or something new/special for the occasion.” I just got the following reply: “We will be posting this info soon - stay tuned. Thank you.”

I mean, if they were screening the '04 master, why wouldn’t they just say so. Why make it a special announcement separate from the "hey, we’re showing Star Wars"?

Fingers crossed.

Perhaps since this thread is about Legacy, we should move all this other shit to off topic so I stop having to click here and read it.

SilverWook said:

No more off topic derailment, or this thread gets locked until mverta returns.

Frank your Majesty said:

The old hologram is authentical and a product of the limitations of the time it was made, while for the new hologram they had all the elements at their disposal to do it right, but still messed it up. For me, that’s much worse.

QFT

Tyrphanax said:

In my personal canon, Palpatine’s first name isn’t the “Empirically Bad™” Sheev.

It’s a bad name even as Star Wars names go.

It’sy he ever referred to as Sheev in the movies? Or is that from the EU?

Let’s be honest here. The SEs, regardless of whether or not we see an unaltered release, aren’t going anywhere. That version will still have IV ANH, so why not make the “other” version as different as possible to increase its novelty?

TV’s Frink said:

crissrudd4554 said:

Doesn’t empirically still imply objectivism???

The answer to that question can be found in the off-topic forum.

Or the Oxford dictionary of English

How does IMDb work anyway? Do people there have insider knowledge?

A lot of millennial fans wouldn’t know what the hell that meant

well it is a gas giant

The 77 poster is worth mention though. Most marketing these days tends to use those ugly 97 posters.

Never watched Rebels. Just youtubed Vader in Rebels. Kind of pathetic that they did a better job invoking 1977 Vader than ROTS. Red lenses, widow’s peak, proper robes, etc.

I agree it would’ve been better to take a completely different direction in Sith, but given that they tried to make him look the same, it shouldn’t’ve been hard.

EDIT: I also dig the yellow-green lightsaber flashes al a SW.

flametitan said:

I’m seeing comparisons to Tatooine purely because of the binary sun.

Do not forget it’s the size of Jupiter, rather than a Desert planet. I’m still waiting for the Earth sized discoveries before I make analogies to Tatooine.

Lol it’s not a scientific analogy. It’s just a “hey cool, this planet has two Suns like Tattooine.”

Fixed. Sorry anchorhead.

Anchorhead said:

Maybe it works in motion or on film

It doesn’t. Trust me.

HansiG said:

Well, obviously. The helmet in ROTS looks like shit.

FTFY

I think he meant aberration. But even that wouldn’t have worked very well. Someone needs to take an 8th grade vocabulary class.

Edit: apparently it’s me who needs to take a vocab class. I was unaware of the second definition. (from Oxford: an object or undertaking regarded by the speaker as unpleasant or badly made or carried out)

DominicCobb said:

Calling a film “poorly edited” just because it is long is pretty fucking ridiculous. Huge misunderstanding of what constitutes editing (not to mention pacing).

Not what I said. I said a lot of long movies today are, whereas in the past we’ve had a lot of beautiful long movies.

Anymore, films that long are poorly edited or just bad. They drag on. The epics of the past, however—Lawrence of Arabia, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, etc—are a very different story.

Frank your Majesty said:

Warbler said:

yes, I was criticizing that pic as well. 911 jokes aren’t just lame they are offensive. 3000 innocent people died in that attack. It is not funny.

But we must fight to protect his freedom of speech to tell these jokes, right?

A privately owned website has every right to limit offensive speech within its confines.

Lol

ESB
SW
ROTJ / TFA

ROTJ and TFA tied for now. May change with more viewings and nostalgia erasure. We’ll see.

In Flemming’s version, it is actually Soviet intelligence that is trying to set up and kill Bond. Klebb, Tatiana, and Grant are all Soviet agents. For political reasons, Broccoli decided to change the main foe in the early Bond movies from the Soviets to the fictional SPECTRE. I think this might contribute to some people’s notion that the From Russia With Love is “cheesy” or whatever. I do think it would have been a better movie if they had taken the risk and had them be Soviet agents. But then again, SPECTRE is part of what makes the 60s Bond movies Bond and not just some other spy movie. Dr. No and Thunderball wouldn’t be the same without SPECTRE. It adds some intrigue and mystery to it all.