Easterhay

m_s0 said:

It's always been there, regardless of whether something distracted you from noticing it or not. And it's pretty easy to get distracted when somebody does Star Wars the way it hasn't been done for such a long time.

Haarspalter said:

Easterhay said:

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.

 

Tolkien tried to revise the Hobbit to fit in with LOTR. But he stopped because he was worried that the Hobbit would loose it's original intention: being a fairy tale for children. And so he scrapped his plans of a Revised Hobbit.

CO said:

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?  ;-)

CO said:

 Typical PT gusher BS I used to hear at TFN...your insecurities about people watching or calling the SW movies something else is pretty frightening.  ;-)

moviefreakedmind said:

Easterhay said:

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)

No one referred to it as a New Hope in 1980. Every single commercial, VHS tape, laserdisc, and betamax up until I believe the early 2000's referred to the movie as Star Wars, and all the interviews referred to it as Star Wars as well. Look at that documentary tape called from STAR WARS to Jedi. A New Hope was included in the crawl but the movie was not retitled by any means because no one called it A New Hope (and the credits on the back of the VHS tape boxes said the title was STAR WARS)

CO said:

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.....

slickdeals said:

What prequel movies?

<span style="font-size: 1.2em; line-height: 1.2em;">:p</span>

Also to add to what was said, I only started thinking about the first movie as "Star Wars" when i started lurking on these forums.  It does feel odd when I read people referring it as "A New Hope"

Erik Pancakes said:

Easterhay said:

The inisistence on calling something by its old title when it was renamed over thirty years ago seems to me plain stupid.

Oh, so I have to call it Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark from now on just because George decided I have to? Fuck that. I'll keep calling it Raiders of the Lost Ark, thank you, and I'll do the same for Star Wars.

SilverWook said:

Mannequin implies a stiff, lifeless performance, which wasn't Hayden's problem. He was saddled with playing a character that's hard to like, let alone root for.

Having only read The Lord Of The Rings and The Hobbit once and finding The Silmarillion easily put-downable, I've not picked up on what's in and what's not in the book when watching the films. I do enjoy The Hobbit movies more than The Lord Of The Rings, though - I really thought it would be the opposite - and really don't understand the criticism that there's too much CGI to be believable, simply because that's not been my impression at all when watching the films.

I think laying claim to a term (talking about "mannequin" skywalker here) three years after it had already been invented, regardless of whether you've heard the phrase before, would be hard to defend in a court of law! Easier to simply accept that you didn't come up with the term but perhaps you're just on the same wavelength as the person who first thought of it. It reminds me of when I used to write comedy routines back in the mid-nineties and would occasionally find that I'd written something that someone else had already thought of. Whenever this was pointed out to me or I found it out myself, I would drop the material and write something else, originality being the key.

Another reason to buy the Blu-rays is that each film comes with an additional archive commentary track. I sat down and watched The Empire Strikes Back whilst listening to the exclusive commentary last night and it was well worth it. Very nice to hear some comments from Alec Guinness, too.

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?

CO said:

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

CO said:

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.  ;)

CO said:

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'

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 :)

Er, yeah, whatever.

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

Yes, the bait was attractive enough but by the third episode Rebels was drenched in Disneyness. As you say, it wasn't so evident in the beginning but the franchise holders are flexing their muscles now. So, yes, their presence has increased notably.

If my son continues to watch it, I'll watch it with him. If not, I doubt I'll last the season.

I saw the tv show where he actively petitioned to be in the new film (it was Chris Evans's TGI Friday if you're interested). He said he'd be a stormtrooper, anything just to be in the film.

And he certainly enjoyed it enough to want to be in the new films, however improbable that might be (if he were to play the same character, of course).

I thought he was a good addition, personally. I liked the animosity between him and Anakin in the first film and the fact that he got stuck into the action in the second one. His death scene was outstanding in the third film. What's not to like?

darklordoftech said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that it demonstrates that George didn't intend for there to be mandatory Jedi celibacy and rules against loving.

Good point. This makes me very happy.

[quote=m_s0]

Bad day?

Yes, I wondered about Wiesman leaving too. How long before Filoni and the rest of the crew from The Clone Wars also leave or get shown the door?

It saddens me that it's turned out this way but, as I've said about the new films, the Disney-effect is what's going to ruin this franchise, not make it better.

unamochilla2 said:

Abrams and crew seem to be going in the opposite direction Lucas may have taken based on the PT... more focus on story, character development, practical effects, etc.

moviefreakedmind said:

Now that Disney's in charge though the workers won't be beholden to hail all Star Wars material as some kind of scripture like they did before.