"Stupid prancing, spinning and jumping about" - priceless. I wish we could alter time so that all the spinning, jumping and prancing occured in the OT while the fighting in the PT was all one style, just so I could hear certain fans complaining that the PT fighting was boring.
Mielr said:
In 2006, I posted four clips from the GOUT on YouTube: the original SW scroll, Han Shot First, the ROTJ finale, and the original ESB emperor.
Over the years, I got many positive "thanks for posting- I haven't seen this version in years!"-type comments as well as "Wow! I've never seen this before- thanks for posting!" -type comments.
But, recently, I've been getting an inordinate amount of "you're going to boycott George Lucas products because he changed 3 seconds of a movie? Get a life, loser!" -type comments, so many in fact, that I decided to disable the commenting function on the 2 clips that were receiving the most obnoxious comments- Han Shot First and the ROTJ finale.
In spite of this, I received the following comment on my profile page, someone who went out of their way to say the following:
"You know you just look like a stupid bitch for disabling comments on your Han Shot First video. How about you grow up you little faggot and learn how to handle words like a man. You had no legit reason to ban people from commenting on your video, you were just being an annoying bitch. Grow up kid."
Now, defenders of the OOT are the ones who are regularly portrayed as fanatics for simply wanting the original versions of the films on DVD (and now Blu-ray), but I think the above comment reveals the true nature of so many of the "fan-boys" and Lucasphiles. Can you imagine posting something like this in defense of the OOT? Me neither.
And, of course, you're not a fanboy are you?
Nick Gillard. At least do your homework - or try and have a modicum of respect.
The fights in the originals were all one style and look pretty arthritic now. Easily explained away, with Vader being half machine, Obi-wan being an old codger and Luke being a callow youth...but Anderson's approach would not have worked for Jedi who were supposedly in their prime.
kilik64 said:
I dont care what anyone else says, TPM is a steaming pile of shit. Only way to watch it is a fan edited version. My preferred one is L8wter's, its pretty damn good movie after he fixed it up.
"I don't care what anyone else says" - then you won't mind me not giving a tinker's cuss about what you say either.
I very much care for the opinions of others, especially if they're opposite to mine. It's a good way to challenge your own preconceptions and see if you either have the evidence to stick to your original opinion or if you have the humility and maturity to recognise the value of another point of view and take it on board.
Otherwise, you're just blinkered and stubborn, pushing yourself ever further into your little corner, hands over your ears, saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening". Why even come to a forum, then, if that's the attitude? Unless, of course, it's just simple hubris that inspires your every post - "Look at me, my deathless opinions are there for all to see, in black and white. Aren't I important?"
I think if you accept that, as a fan, you didn't make the films and therefore they're not yours, then that's a step towards understanding. It's got nothing to do with "moral character" - I really find that remark bewildering, to be honest - and more to do with an artist who will never be happy with what he has created. Feel sorry for Lucas, if you must, but I think that's about as far as any negativity should go.
Everytime the films come out, they will have had changes made to them. The original films were flawed to begin with; Lucas is just replacing old flaws with new ones (well, not all the changes are flawed - like a lot of fans, there are some changes which I think look fine, and some could do with being re-done, other changes are superfluous and one particular change is absolutely criminal (the removal of "Bring my shuttle" and the insert of Vader arriving at the second Death Star right in the middle of the hyperspace chase).
I'm not so attached, though, to any version of the films. Certainly not to the point where it breaks my heart or I feel depressed that a particular version won't make it to Blu-ray. Does that make me somehow a better person? No. Am I right and others wrong? No.
Just so we're clear here :)
I genuinely think that if one person wants it then it's worthy of being done.
CO said:
Easterhay said:
Does it depress me? As a fan since 1977, no it doesn't. Serious things depress me, like the question of whether I will always be able to provide for my family, or the thorny issue of shooting unarmed terrorists because there isn't enough evidence to convict them in court, but does the fact that the older versions of some favourite films won't see the light of day on Blu-Ray depress me? No, course it doesn't.
Should they be available? Well, maybe as works-in-progress or from a curio's point of view, then perhaps. The fact that I haven't seen the originals since nineteen-oh-spit probably speaks volumes on my perspective on this most trivial (in my mind) of issues.
Come on, we all have our priorities right, we are talking about being depressed in the context of watching the movies. Of course the OOT isn't as serious as the unemployment rate, terrorism, the national debt, etc. We all get that.
In the context of being a SW fan, it just sucks that every BluRay release has every version (Close Encounters, Bladerunner, ET, T2, etc.) and a SW boxset can't?
And please don't call them works in progess, because you sound like some moron from TFN who gets his talking points faxed to them every morning from Lucasranch :)
Well, that's how they are. Sorry if you think it sounds like a political answer...or, um, moronic. But it's just an opinion.
It's Lucas's call, not ours. I'm happy with that but I'm not stupid enough to know where I am and therefore this opinion is a minority one. I just think Lucas sees them as ongoing works, hence the constant tinkering (which, no, I don't think is a good thing for any artist to do). So that's what they are.
doubleKO said:
Easterhay said:
Look, it's only really the fans of the original originals who are hacked off with this. Everyone else accepts the Star Wars films as they are just fine.
originaltrilogy.com - mostly fans of the original originals who are hacked off with this.
Then we agree.
Dick Cheney compared himself to Vader? What a creep.
Whilst I think some of the changes wrought on the films seem to have been experimental (ie let's see what this would look like) rather than carefully thought-through and carefully executed (ergo, I have nothing against Hayden as Anakin's ghost but it was clearly a hasty add-on and as for Jabba in A New Hope, well, when will they get that scene right?) I am largely in favour of the the revisions made.
Look, it's only really the fans of the original originals who are hacked off with this. Everyone else accepts the Star Wars films as they are just fine.
Overall I think it's a pure Saturday matinee fun-fest. It has some really exhillarating moments, stand-out special effects (which were criminally overlooked in the following year's Oscar's ceremony) and a genuine sense of innocence. The Phantom Menace upholds the tradition of good stories well told. I thought it back in '99 and still believe this to be the case now.
However, I think scenes in the Senate and Jedi Council are mind-numbingly boring to the age group at which the film was made. Too many moments like these make the film drag a bit in places.
Quite.
You see, the thing is, my five year old son gets a lot of enjoyment out of the films, again and again and again. Just like so many other boys his age.
And, I dare say, they'll be watching them with their five year olds kids a few decades down the line. I, personally, don't see this as a bad thing.
As for world leaders quoting the films, I wouldn't be too proud of Reagan's Star Wars project, for which Lucas attempted (and failed) to sue for improper use of the name. And didn't the Daily Express have May The Fourth Be With You as their headline when Margaret Thatcher won the 1979 election? Hmm, not so proud of that one either...
Does it depress me? As a fan since 1977, no it doesn't. Serious things depress me, like the question of whether I will always be able to provide for my family, or the thorny issue of shooting unarmed terrorists because there isn't enough evidence to convict them in court, but does the fact that the older versions of some favourite films won't see the light of day on Blu-Ray depress me? No, course it doesn't.
Should they be available? Well, maybe as works-in-progress or from a curio's point of view, then perhaps. The fact that I haven't seen the originals since nineteen-oh-spit probably speaks volumes on my perspective on this most trivial (in my mind) of issues.
Likes
Star Wars Racer
Rogue Leader
Dislikes
Knights Of The Old Republic - a good game but undeserving of the Star Wars title
Rogue Leader II - what where they thinking with the addition of those third-person missions?
I don't believe a CGI Yoda has been officially announced but it's a strong expectation, based on that scene in the ROTS Special Features.
Flicking through Simon Pegg's autobiography the other day, in which he discusses Star Wars a lot, he claimed that Lucas said in an interview in 2001 that Empire was his least favourite film in the saga. Pegg provided a link (don't know how hard he had to look to find it) but I find the statement a bit dodgy. I think there's plenty of evidence weighed against it but, on the other hand, maybe George was just getting tired of hearing that the best film in the saga was the one that he didn't direct and was the least like all the other episodes. I dunno, just postulating here (and I don't even know what that means).
Anyway, is it the best Star Wars film? No, but in the context of when it was released, it's certainly the bravest.
[returning after a long absence, hopefully with my sense of humour intact this time - well, I changed my meds so who knows?]
Tobar said:
The only reason they made Luke and Leia sister was to tie up the story into this one trilogy. Originally the "other" Yoda spoke about was supposed to be the star of episodes 7-9 but after ESB Lucas decided to just end it after ROTJ.
Not entirely true. At the time of ESB, Lucas did not have a clear idea on who "the other" was; originally - as we all should know - the twins were in the story right from the start and that idea went through various rewrites before he settled on the notion of them being apart from the start. That said, if he hadn't decided on Leia being "the other" in ESB, how do we explain her use of The Force towards the end of the film where she suddenly sense Luke is still alive and they should go back to him?
One of the ideas considered was that Han Solo was the other. I know you all like your little links on this forum - unfortunately I don't have one so, in the time honoured fashion that some of you have chosen, you can argue away 'til your heart's content :)
zombie84 said:
Easterhay said:
zombie84 said:
Easterhay said:
Well the fact is I was misquoted. How's that for starters?
You were, and that was unfair to you, but don't side-step my point. "Negativity" in regards to the subject that was in discussion is pretty understandable considering the history of the person in question with regards to these sorts of claims (i.e. that Lucas is known for stretching the truth or just plain making stuff up) and also when considering the specifics of the alleged event in question (i.e. that it seems a little fishy the way it is often reported). Saying that you're tired of people speaking about Lucas in a negative light seems a bit unmotivated and unnecessary since peoples issues here are fairly understandable. It really just seems like you didn't like people picking on Lucas, regardless of the reasons.
Well, I don't think Lucas is untouchable at all. Ergo, he once said Star Wars was a nine part saga and he has recently went back on that and acted as though he never said it.
However, saying and doing things that some find disagreeable does not make that person essentially bad. There is no such thing as a bad person; all people are essentiallly good. This is my belief.
That's great, but no one said Lucas was not essentially good. CO said he's had enough of Lucas' bullshit with regards to spin-doctoring things, which he justified with a list of precedents. Furthermore, as I argued, the circumstances of the alleged psychologist incident does not seem realistic given the context reported. And that was what you objected to. Which is stupid, because he's got a pretty good case to be negative here. Its becoming further evident that, as I said before, you really just don't like seeing Lucas picked on.
It is neither unecessary or unmotivated (how do you work that one out, fella? How does carping and negativity motivate anyone other than to continue to it all the more, especially when the braying gallery is urging them on?) to complain about negativity? Some people here are so consumed by their feelings that they will deny Lucas everything, even when it is clear as day that he is not always dishonest or economical with the truth. After all, w hat has Anchorhead just done if not lied about what I said just to fuel his own argument? This is what I mean about being consumed by feelings: someone says something thay find objectionable, so from that point on they object to everything that person says. It's witless.
If someone does something that is perceived to be bad and then does something that is good, is the good deed then ignored in favour of the bad? Tell me, where's the motivation in that?
Okay, I don't know what the hell you are even talking about anymore. CO said he had enough of the Lucas bullshit, because he felt this particular example was another instance of it. He was right about the precedents he listed, and he is probably correct about this one too. Thats it. And you objected to this? Why? Some invented stuff about "some people here...will deny Lucas everything". Where the hell does that come from? The objection CO raised was valid and specific and justified by a long list of precedents and reasons why this example fits the M.O.
You do a good job of side-stepping the point and then re-directing it in your favour with an irrelevant point. Are you Arawn Fenn's brother?
Here's an idea: let the person to whom I was speaking answer for themselves. I'm not answerable to you for anything other than what I direct to you. You'll know when I'm speaking to you - it will be clear from the post. I believe I've already said more to you than I'm obliged to on this issue.
TheBoost said:
Easterhay said:
As it goes, I don't think Lucas comes anywhere Tolkien, though, when it comes to overegging the cake where backstory is concerned. Not that I want to introduce Lord Of The Rings and its increasingly dull spin-offs to the conversation.
There are LOTR spin-offs? You mean the Silmarillion?
I mean The Silmarillion, The Book Of Lost Tales and Unfinished Tales. Children Of Hurin - which indeed was by Christopher Tolkien, taken from notes by JRR - was so badly written it made his grandfather look like Stephen King.
zombie84 said:
Easterhay said:
Well the fact is I was misquoted. How's that for starters?
You were, and that was unfair to you, but don't side-step my point. "Negativity" in regards to the subject that was in discussion is pretty understandable considering the history of the person in question with regards to these sorts of claims (i.e. that Lucas is known for stretching the truth or just plain making stuff up) and also when considering the specifics of the alleged event in question (i.e. that it seems a little fishy the way it is often reported). Saying that you're tired of people speaking about Lucas in a negative light seems a bit unmotivated and unnecessary since peoples issues here are fairly understandable. It really just seems like you didn't like people picking on Lucas, regardless of the reasons.
Well, I don't think Lucas is untouchable at all. Ergo, he once said Star Wars was a nine part saga and he has recently went back on that and acted as though he never said it.
However, saying and doing things that some find disagreeable does not make that person essentially bad. There is no such thing as a bad person; all people are essentiallly good. This is my belief.
It is neither unecessary or unmotivated (how do you work that one out, fella? How does carping and negativity motivate anyone other than to continue to it all the more, especially when the braying gallery is urging them on?) to complain about negativity? Some people here are so consumed by their feelings that they will deny Lucas everything, even when it is clear as day that he is not always dishonest or economical with the truth. After all, w hat has Anchorhead just done if not lied about what I said just to fuel his own argument? This is what I mean about being consumed by feelings: someone says something thay find objectionable, so from that point on they object to everything that person says. It's witless.
If someone does something that is perceived to be bad and then does something that is good, is the good deed then ignored in favour of the bad? Tell me, where's the motivation in that?
Anchorhead said:
ChainsawAsh said:
Dude, you're on the wrong forum.
I suspect that's exactly why he's here. Attacks & insinuates - then claims innocence & misunderstanding. Textbook passive\aggressive trolling. He'll be back on TFN and the Lucas boards after a while. We get a couple of these guys every few months.
Well, you're wrong. You misquoted me. Thanks for manning up and apologising, very big of you. I can see I'm going to have fun with you.
Well the fact is I was misquoted. How's that for starters?
TV's Frink said:
Wait...what if Obi-Wan is actually Luke's father?
*shock*
Well, Dave Prowse turned up to the premiere of ESB thinking he was!
TV's Frink said:
"In league with" meaning "doing."
Bawm-chicka-bawm-bawm.
Yeah, that was another revision Lucas made to the film wasn't it? There was a whole is-my-best-friend-shagging-my-wife subtext originally.
But attachment being wrong IS in the movies. Three of them at least. It's not exclusive to the PT, though; Buddhists latched onto this a long time ago. Yoda is a Zen master by any other name; that's not my misinterpretation. Kersh says it in the book by Alan Arnold.
When I first saw a screenshot of the '97 Jabba I thought "Bless, some little kid has made a Jabba The Hutt out of plasticine and sent in a photo". Honestly, I did not expect to see something so awful with ILM's name on it. Simply atrocious and embarrassing.
They redid it for the DVD. It looks better. But the blocking is still painful to watch, with Han's arm occupying the same space as Jabba in certain frames. And I agree: Han stepping on Jabba's tail. No, no and, er, no.
I am not anti-CGI by any means. But what does it say when the rubber puppet in ROTJ still looks more convincing than the CGI versions in ANH and TPM?