Sign In

CO

User Group
Members
Join date
25-Jul-2005
Last activity
22-Apr-2019
Posts
1,568

Post History

Post
#735252
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

The question "will you still refer" is different to "when you refer". Hate to break that to you :)

Principal photography being finished does not a completed film make. A lot can happen in 12 months. You might want to ask me your second question when it becomes relevant.

 LOL!

I'm sure Disney invested 4 Billion Dollars into the SW Franchise to shoot a movie for 6 months, and then never release the movie!  I guess this will be the first Harrison Ford movie that doesn't make it to the theaters!

I'm not a member of TFN anymore, so I miss arguing with the PT crazies like yourself cause you guys got an answer for everything!

Post
#735247
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

As of now, there only exist six films in the saga so when I talk about Star Wars it's the six existing films to which I'm referring.

 Well, I hate to break it to you but Episode 7 just wrapped so the ST WILL be apart of the new Saga.

Again, please answer my question:  Will you still refer to the Star Wars Saga as 6 movies once the ST comes out?

Post
#735245
Topic
Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

Well, Jackson has wrought more changes on his Tolkien films in a lot less time than it took Lucas to start revising his films so there's another difference. So god only knows how many versions will exist of both LOTR and The Hobbit in, say, thirty years' time.

 It doesn't matter, each generation of Home Video has ALL of the versions that I can buy or ignore for the Lord of the Rings movies.  The last time the OOT was up to par was on Laserdisk in 1993.

So your point is irrelevant because no one cares about the changes, they just care that EVERY version is released.  Thats the difference between Lucas and EVERY director in Hollywood.

Post
#735241
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
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.

OK, let me ask you a question:  What is the Star Wars Saga to you?  When you refer to the Star Wars Saga, is it 6 movies?

Because now that the ST is being made, the SW saga is 9 movies, and the only reference to that name these days should be when talking about the PT, OT, and ST.

Post
#735240
Topic
Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

Wow, that's the worst kind of partiality I've ever seen.

Jackson wanting to go back and alter his old films to tie in with his new ones is EXACTLY the same as Lucas's revisions.

 No one would have cared what Lucas did to the OT movies if he just released the Originals Versions on DVD and BluRay.  I have T2 DVD and BluRay, and they give you 3 versions that I can pick from.  I have the Bladerunner BluRay that gives you 5 versions.  The difference between Lucas changes and Jackson possible changes, is that I have all 3 Hobbit Movies on BluRay (Theatrical and Extended Versions) whereas I am still waiting for the OOT versions on Bluray.......

Post
#735083
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

The inisistence on calling something by its old title when it was renamed over thirty years ago seems to me plain stupid. That's not backhanded; it's as direct as you can get.



 Typical PT gusher BS I used to hear at TFN, as I didn't know we can only watch the Star Wars movies in the old Communist USSR. 

Why would you care if people still call it Star Wars?  Just like I used to hear at TFN that I wasn't a real fan unless I loved all 6 Star Wars movies, or I only watched them 1-6 in that order, or that the SE are the real versions, and the OOT don't exist anymore.

That is the point we all have is that Lucas has put out all of this bullshit with the movies in the past few years, and we have to hear from his loyal followers on how to do this and that with the movies.

I have no problem that you call it 'A New Hope', but just like Lucas, your insecurities about people watching or calling the SW movies something else is pretty frightening.  ;-)

Post
#735065
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

CO said:


 No doubt, the younger generation calls it A New Hope, and the older generation calls it Star Wars.



If you want to refer to me, a forty-something, as part of the "younger generation" then I'm more than happy for you to do that!

 I'm generalizing again, but I finally figured out you have yet to grasp what that means.....

Post
#735049
Topic
Do the Star Wars movies contain evidence that Lucas makes it up as he goes?
Time

Easterhay said:

I know. And I've known there were originally twelve movies planned since I read the book by Alan Arnold.

The difference is, I really don't care that much about it. He contradicted himself, he lied, who cares? What, you thought Lucas was perfect?

 As Luke said in Star Wars as Han walks away, "I care!"  LOL!

Were just answering a topic on a message board, and that's fine if you don't care.  But if you don't care so much, why are so many posts on this thread in the last page from you?  ;-)

Post
#735042
Topic
Do the Star Wars movies contain evidence that Lucas makes it up as he goes?
Time

Easterhay said:

Nothing beats Star Wars fans (well, some of them anyway) for fixating on the age-old tradition of revisionism.

What? He didn't have the whole thing mapped out from the start? Oh, no, my world has ended.

Wake up and smell the proverbial; none of this is new or revolutionary - even Tolkien went back and revised The Hobbit to fit in with The Lord Of The Rings.

Oh, and one more thing. Someone referred to Gary Kurtz as a father. No he's not; he's a mother.

 No one is mad because Lucas changed the story as he was going, what people get mad about is that he won't admit he ever did it.

He has been all over the place for the past 40 years on whether there were 12 movies, 9 movies, 6 movies, etc.  Its when he says in 2005 to Leslie Stahl, "There was never a Sequel Trilogy, the Saga has always been 6 movies and its about the Tragedy of Darth Vader."

And then he goes on Charlie Rose last week, and talks about the Sequel Trilogy now, and how he always had an outline and notes for it.

Post
#735041
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

KilroyMcFadden said:

The kids (elem. Students) these days call it Hope.  All of my fellow geezers call it Wars.

 No doubt, the younger generation calls it A New Hope, and the older generation calls it Star Wars.  I was referring to his snarky comment, "We need to get over as its called A New Hope."  I wouldn't call him out for calling it A New Hope, just like I dont need to be called out for calling it Star Wars.

Post
#735037
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

I do have to take you up on your apparent presumption that you speak for an entire generation of fans. 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) and I didn't care much for its sequel at the time, believing it to be dull - indeed, it still sticks out like a sore thumb in the series as it has little of what made the first film so great. I have always preferred Jedi to Empire and I think you're kidding yourself if you think Empire is the only film without flaws; all the films are flawed but so what, no film is perfect.

That might not be the popular opinion here but I'm not too bothered about that :)

 Of course I was generalizing, but EVERYONE I know in real life feels this way.  I don't go by who said what on the internet, because god knows how many people have fake accounts, and you really don't know who you are talking to sometimes.  ;)

I was just talking to my friends this weekend about the new movie, and EVERYONE said, "I hope it will be another Empire, but probably not!" 

If you feel ROTJ is better then ESB, that is your opinion and you have a total right to your opinion. 

And please stop with the little backhanded comments 'I think we can get over that now' concerning SW being called A New Hope.  Nobody I know calls it 'A New Hope' as its always been called Star Wars by the majority of the fanbase that grew up with it.  ;)

Post
#735034
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

They'd all be on a site called Isn't The Empire Strikes Back a great movie?

 No, most fans like me growing up LOVED Star Wars, LOVED Empire, and liked Jedi (as it is the only one that has its flaws).  So in a sense, we accept Jedi (flaws and all) because we love Star Wars and Empire so much.  If Empire was an OK movie (along with all of the changes to the story), many fans like myself would be a Star Wars 77 fan only.

Just like I am a Jaws 1975 fan and have never cared for the Sequels.  Just like I am a Jurassic Park 1993 fan and have never cared for the Sequels.  Just like I am a Back to the Future 1985 fan and have never cared for the Sequels. 

Post
#735029
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Easterhay said:

"The reason we went with it is because it ended up being great"

No, the reason you went with it is because you were young and had yet to develop cynicism.

 I agree with that too, as I think it's is a combination of both.  But there is no arguing that Empire Strikes Back is a GREAT movie, and if it wasn't, then there wouldn't be many OOT fans here.  

Easterhay said:

I remain completely blase about the new trilogy. The new cartoon series has already confirmed my strongest suspicions, that Star Wars without Lucas is not Star Wars and it shows. In spades.The title of the new film was announced last week. I felt absolutely nothing when I read it. It means nothing. It's safe and dull and that's what the film will be - no surprises to upset the apple cart because the makers of this movie want so desperately to please the fans of my generation. It's the worst example of the tail wagging the dog.When I mentioned the new title to my son and wife, I could practically see the tumbleweed rolling across the living room floor.

This movie maybe a big turkey, but geez if you are going by the title to determine if it stinks or not then why even bother?  I mean look at the OOT titles:  The Empire Strikes Back?  Wow, that's original!  The Return of the Jedi?  They don't seem any different then 'A Force Awakens'

Post
#735012
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

walking_carpet said:


I am concerned about some rumors of the story because it betrays the OT in IMO.

 I thought that was a well written post as you and I agree with alot of things you said.  I am go back and forth on whether this trilogy will be good, or will it be the PT part 2.

But I have to respectfully disagree with the one statement I highlighted that you said.  As much as all of us here love the OOT, Empire and Jedi betrayed the story of Star Wars in so many ways too.  The reason we went with it was because it ended up being great (in most parts.)

If look at Star Wars 77, most of what you see there is a huge lie when looked at in the context of the 3 movies or 6 movies.  Vader/Luke/Leia are not related, as that is a HUGE change from the original.  What makes the original great, is that each character finds each new character in this HUGE galaxy throughout the movie.  Yet when you watch it as the OOT, it ends up being just one small world of one family.  What a big coincidence!

OK, its one thing to have Vader as Luke's father, but then Luke/Leia are siblings?  Didn't she kiss him in ESB?  Didn't he have a crush on her in SW'77? 

If this were 1982, and the internet existed, many of us here would be saying, "I hope these rumors aren't true that Leia and Luke are siblings, after they smooched in ESB!!!"

So I am essentially saying that none of these movies were needed after Star Wars in 1977.  The deathstar blew up, the good guys won, and yeah Darth Vader and The Emperor were still out there, but the story could have ended, it would be like The Wizard of Oz.  But we went with the changes because we liked the movies, and that is why you have to be open to changes for the ST if they do it right. 

Post
#734703
Topic
Who like The Force Awakens as a title?
Time

unamochilla2 said:

 Same here.  Many of my friends are more optimistic after hearing the title. I must say I was a little surprised (although pleasantly) that Disney decided to drop "Episode VII" from advertising.

 I'm starting to wonder if Lucas promoted the PT movies with the Episode Number because he wanted any casual fan to understand these movies are taking place before the original trilogy.   I totally get promoting Episode I as that so it is obvious it was a prequel trilogy, but after that I think people got the point.

I like when the Episode Numbers aren't promoted and only in the Opening Crawl.   Now the new generation of SW fans will grow up like the OT fans and call the movies by their names and not their episode numbers.

When we were kids, we call them Star Wars, Empire and Jedi.

Post
#734687
Topic
Who like The Force Awakens as a title?
Time

I have no problem with the title, and suprisingly all of my friends like it too.  It was the first time in 17 years nobody was bitching about something coming from the SW universe.  With the SE & PT, there was always someone out of my friends who would complain about something (Title, Trailer, Movie, SE Changes, etc).  We all just stood there and agreed it was a cool name. 

Post
#732956
Topic
Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy?
Time

Fang Zei said:

Didn't George himself basically admit he only had one movie's worth of material for the entire PT and that he saved most of it for Episode III?

 Lucas admitted in 2005 that the PT plot point outline went like this:

TPM:  20%

AOTC:  20%

ROTS:  60%

That is essentially why the last hour of ROTS is a checklist of all of things he couldn't fit in.  All of the great plot points we wanted to see where like a greatest hits of rushed scenes.

Post
#732908
Topic
Is the Hobbit prequel trilogy suffering the same problems as the Star Wars prequel Trilogy?
Time

Both trilogies face the same problem:  Characters that I don't care about, and a story that didn't need to be 3 movies.

I loved LOTR Trilogy and rank it up there with the OOT, but I watched the first Hobbit movie and had no interest in the others.  LOTR's had great characters with alot of depth, whereas the dwarves in the Hobbit are a dime a dozen.  There was so much story in LOTR's that even the Extended Editions are just as entertaining, whereas the Extended Editions of The Hobbit are more bloated material.

The Hobbit was one book, and should have been 1 movie as it would have been a nice prologue to the LOTR's trilogy.  But 3 movies?  Yeah, they will make loads of $$$, but it compromised the quality.  Same with the PT, as it could have easily been 1 or 2 movies, but with 3 movies you get more filler.

Post
#732458
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

Windexed said:

I'm excited. However, and this may sound silly, I feel kind of weird about the fact that Lucas isn't involved. While I believe any creative talent he may have had disappeared a long time ago, someone else taking over everything seems kind of...inauthentic. Kind of like if your Mom remarried while your asshole dad is doing life in prison. The new guy might be nice, but he's not your Dad

 I felt the same way you did until a saw an interview with Terry Gilliam (Director movies like Twelve Monkeys) and a conversation he had with George Lucas:

Gilliam told a story about a conversation he had with George Lucas who insisted that the computer-generated Yoda was so much better than the puppet version: “I couldn’t get through to him, he couldn’t see how wrong he was!”

As much as I love what George Lucas gave us for the OT, THAT isn't the man who gave us the PT, and would have been involved in the ST.  It really scares me how much the man is obsessed with CGI, and to think that one of his greatest creations:  Yoda Puppet, is secondary to CGI puppet?

Sorry, but Lucas is Darth Vader now.  The good man that he was is more machine then man!

Post
#732441
Topic
Understanding the Prequels (and the entire SW story)
Time

JawsTDS said:

Having watched the entire Star Wars saga multiple times, I still seem to not understand what exactly is going on in the prequel trilogy (apparently no one else does either). For those who have decoded it, can you explain some things for me? I want to better understand the entire Star Wars saga for my next viewing (December 2015 ;-)) 

Let's start from TPM and go on: what the hell is Palpatine (Sidious) trying to do with Nute Gunray? Why is this war going on? Why does Dooku inform Obi-wan of Palpatine's evilness, but still work along side Palpatine? Why did everyone suddenly realize that Palpatine is bad right at the end? How does this all connect?

tl;dr - I'm confused about the entire storyline of the PT. The only part I really understand is that Palpatine is trying to lure Anakin to the dark side and that he succeeds, until Luke comes around.

Help me OT, you're my only hope.

 That's the problem with the PT, because they try to have this serious/dramatic story, when Lucas has always said they are essentially serial type movies.

What makes the OT great is its basic at its core, but they don't take themselves too seriously.  The PT takes itself way too seriously, and that just doesn't work in the type of movies Lucas makes.  If Lucas wanted to craft a serious story of a Jedi gone bad, he would have had to make it much more adult, and in a sense something that doesn't appeal to kids.  Which would mean the whole 'merchandise' end would go out the door.

I think there are some fun parts to the PT, but when it tries to get all dramatic/serious, that is when they completely fall apart.  The Love Story in AOTC is cringeworthy, and that is why it sticks out like a sore thumb in the movie.  Anakin's turn to the darkside is the low point of the PT, because it tries to be Shakespeara-esque, where that just doesn't mix in the SW world.

What kept the OT grounded is it got dramatic at times, it got funny at times, and it got mythological at times.  But it never took itself too seriously to the point where it was trying to be this Shakespearan Novel. 

What Lucas was trying to do with Anakin's fall to the darkside was what Coppola did with Michael Corleone and his ascent to hell.  The difference is The Godfather movies are a drama made for adults, whereas SW movies are made for everyone, but geared for kids.  The bottom line is the 2 don't mix.

Post
#732324
Topic
What's the best order to use when watching the Star Wars saga?
Time

I was thinking about this thread when the ST is finished.  I actually think 4,5,6,1,2,3,7,8,9.

Now many would argue if you are going to start with 4,5,6 then you should go right into 7,8,9 then 1,2,3.  But my reasoning for this is after watching 4,5,6, episode 7 takes place 30 years after.  So by going back and watching 1,2,3, and then when you watch Episode 7, it will feel like a much longer time gap since you have seen Episode 6, which will jive better with seeing the characters much older now.

I hope that makes sense?

Post
#732320
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

imperialscum said:

I am not excited or anything. Still when the films come out I will definitely go see them.

I might warn people who are excited about them going "old school" with SFX etc. That doesn't guarantee that the films will have OT feel at all. It takes much much more than that.

 It's an interesting point, and I do agree that going 'old school' with effects won't mean its going to blend seamlessly with the OT.

But its a start.  The one thing about the PT & OT, is they LITERALLY look like 2 different movie franchises, as they look nothing alike.  The PT is populated with CGI worlds, and the OT is populated with real locations.  From what I have seen, Abrams is going back to filming on real locations.  So from that point of view, they will atleast LOOK alike. 

The key thing is the characters and story.  If the public doesn't care for the new generation ST characters, the same way we didn't care for the PT characters, then the trilogy will be no different.  Luke, Leia and Han are the hook that gets us back into the galaxy and in a sense, make us feel at home again.  But when we walk out of Episode 7, we need to care about Daisy Ridley's character (most likely a Solo Daughter), John Boyega's character, Dominic Gleeson's characters, etc.  Because they are supposedly the Luke, Leia and Han of Episode's 8 & 9. 

Post
#732305
Topic
Anyone else blase' about the New trilogy?
Time

We are all diehard SW fans, so our first instinct is either be really hyped (because we are dying for another great SW trilogy) or totally indifferent (because we are afraid of getting burned like the PT again).

I have tried to temper my expectations, yet still enjoy the hype.  I think the first thing we all need to do is not expect the ST to be as great as the OT.  The OT was lightning in a bottle, the characters, the story, the mythology, its a timeless classic.  But just cause it isn't the OT, doesn't mean it still can't be great movies in their own right to satisfy us as fans.

The PT had the problem of having mostly new characters, whereas the ST will benefit with Han, Luke and Leia, Chewy, Millenium Falcon in Episode 7 transitioning us to the new characters. 

The PT had the problem of we essentially knew how it ended and who was going to die, where the ST has the suspense the OT movies had because we really don't know where these movies are headed.

The PT had the problem of Lucas going overboard with CGI, whereas it looks like Disney and JJ Abrams are going old school.  Even the director of Episodes 8 & 9 (his name escapes me) talked about in interviews about old school effects, the OOT, puppet Yoda, etc.

Finally the PT had the problem of HUGE expectations that all of us had in 1999.  We are now alittle more wise in our age, and won't make that mistake again.  In a sense, I think many of us here are so apathetic that it could work in the ST's advantage, as they could walk out of Episode 7 pleasantly suprised because they were expecting the worst.


Only time will tell...............

Post
#729356
Topic
Discussion: What was (Or still is) your single favourite Star Wars toy?
Time

eiyosus said:

This was always my favorite, but looking back on it for the first time in more than two decades and it's pretty lame.

i liked that it came with a green dionaga, though.  I felt cool knowing what that thing looked like.

 This was my favorite toy growing up simply because it had different levels, and you do multiple things with it with the action figures.  And the machine gun at the top level was cool too.

My second favorite toy was the Millenium Falcon, as it showed every detail on the ship.

I remember my mom throwing all of my SW action figures away in either the summer of 84 or 85 when nobody thought they would be worth anything!  :-(