Gaffer Tape

What do Jawas sleep inside of?

Sandcrawler

Yeah, I agree.  I mean, just take a look at the marketing for the previous DVD sets.  The press was huge for the '04 release because it was the first time Star Wars was on DVD.  Then you have the '05 release.  Did it get any press?  No, because it was the '04 set in a different package.  Then with the '06, it got plenty of attention too for several months because of the fact that it had the "theatrical versions."  Now, aside from these pictures popping up a mere few months before the release, have you heard anything else about them?  No.  The pattern that has been forming indicates that this is simply another repackage.  If it had been anything big, it would have been hyped up the wazoo.

Oh, and SilverWook, I guess you got me on that ROTJ poster.... ^_^

Well, another year another Star Wars repackaging.  It's genuinely hilarious that the only year they've skipped was the 30th anniversary.  Maybe that was done out of respect.

Tiptup said:

What disgusting cover art. And I don't like the prominence of Darth Vader in each; the original trilogy is not about Darth Vader. Bah.

 Yeah, I couldn't get over that either.  There's a large portrait of Darth Vader... and under that is a smaller full-body picture of Darth Vader!  It just didn't seem too well thought out!

I really don't think it would happen because Lucas knows the kind of backlash it would cause.  Even those content with Lucas altering the original trilogy would probably become offended with the originals being scrapped completely.  Because if he did remake them, that's probably what would happen to the originals.

What device did the Falcon use to attach itself to an Imperial Star Destroyer?

A landing claw.

It's funny.  I was just thinking to myself today about one of the aspects unique to these boxsets.  I couldn't help but think it strange that the original trilogy is still being called the Star Wars Trilogy, considering that LFL is trying so hard to make us think of it as a hexology.  Going down that road, I realized that the PT is never really referred to in marketing as such... you know, as its own trilogy, which makes it even weirder to me that the the OT is still being referred to as the Star Wars Trilogy.  But I guess the prequels aren't usually lumped together by the marketing machine too much because they've never been released in a boxset before.  But it's still weird because you would think they'd finally release one big boxset, I-VI at this point in order to cement the point that they are "supposed" to be watched in numerical order as essentially one big movie.  So why are they still acknowledging that these are indeed two separate trilogies?  And by calling the OT the Star Wars Trilogy and the PT the Prequel Trilogy, it almost sounds like they're giving more credence to the OT, which is good but doesn't sound like LFL, which leads me to wonder too if this is real or not.

If it is real... meh.  Even if there is a restored OOT on these discs, I still probably won't pick them up.  I already own the trilogy on DVD three times over:  the '04 boxset because I figured that's all we were going to get, laserdisc rips of the '95 Faces set, and the GOUT (which is essentially laserdisc rips of the '95 Faces set ^_~).  But honestly, I only have a standard definition television, and the GOUT looks decent enough for me to enjoy it as irritating a release as that was.  But I'm done buying Star Wars on DVD.  If and when I get an HDTV, I'll want my Star Wars on a format that actually takes advantage of that.  If he wants to put the OOT on Blu-Ray... well, that might get my interest.  Therefore, whatever is on this new boxset is totally useless to me.  Honestly, I believe what several other people have speculated:  that this is just a boxset repackaging of the '06 release.  Of course, that's kinda funny since their whole big marketing ploy in '06 (besides theatrical versions) was that it was the first time to own the movies individually.

Oh, but the other day, I saw a big Star Wars display in Wal-Mart, advertising owning all six episodes.  It seemed strange to me that they'd be hyping the Star Wars movies so big this year (despite The Clone Wars).  Maybe this upcoming boxset is why.  Maybe they're trying to clear out their old stock.

To HotRod:

Hey, Mielr beat me to the higher-valued Han Solo question, and you don't see me whining about it.  ^_~

Of course, had I been really bold, I would have gone for "the critter" question.  I figured it might be Yoda, but my first impulse was actually to say the space slug.  I decided to take a slightly safer route to preserve my lead.  =P

Who bravely assumed full responsibility for losing track of the Falcon, and then apologized to Lord Vader?

Captain Needa.

Oh, and you seem to be leaving the "l" out of Mielr's name

SilverWook said:

Note how a movie like Star Trek 6 gets away with oodles of Klingon blood in a PG film by making it look like pepto bismol. ;)

Yeah, but also note how Star Trek 6 seems to have inspired every planetary-sized explosion in Star Wars to be accompanied by a giant, fiery ring that causes Sulu to break his tea cup.  Poor Sulu.  Er, I mean, poor Star Wars.

PaulisDead2221 said:

Gaffer Tape said:

Who was sitting immediately behind Luke Skywalker when Luke's landspeeder entered Mos Eisley?

C-3PO

And I don't know. The only idea I have right now is to simply keep up with the scores of everybody who participates and then list them at the beginning of every round. It's your game, so I suppose it ends when you say it does... and whoever has accumulated the most points wins! Wins what? Well, of course, the honor of having won! And it is only one response per round allowed, right? And I also assume that once a question has been accurately answered, it's off the table...

EDIT: Oops, I see you already did all that in your updated first post.

Doesn't have to be just my game.  It can be our game :)

Heh, awww.  I just meant that you've positioned yourself as the moderator.  And it is your Trivial Pursuit game.  Unless of course, you mean that you intend to give certain pieces of your game to me. ^_~

Ah, who knows.  He's also "definitely" going to do those small, independent projects as well.  If Spielberg (and possibly Ford) refuse to do it, I doubt it will ever get off the ground.

Who was sitting immediately behind Luke Skywalker when Luke's landspeeder entered Mos Eisley?

C-3PO

And I don't know.  The only idea I have right now is to simply keep up with the scores of everybody who participates and then list them at the beginning of every round.  It's your game, so I suppose it ends when you say it does... and whoever has accumulated the most points wins!  Wins what?  Well, of course, the honor of having won!  And it is only one response per round allowed, right?  And I also assume that once a question has been accurately answered, it's off the table...

EDIT:  Oops, I see you already did all that in your updated first post.

Either way, the whole thing is pretty silly.  No matter which version you're watching, the whole thing is over in a fraction of a second and neither version is particularly graphic or violent.  There is no blood, gore, or strong change in appearance to the body.  It's just a red line hitting a chest.  It all happens so fast that I never even noticed the change until seven years after it happened, and only then when I read about it on a website.

Once again, compared to the burning skeletons of Owen and Beru, the numerous losses of limb in later movies, and the whole Anakin burn victim thing, it really makes me wonder why Lucas would feel that strongly about something so minor.

I didn't really attempt to carry this as far as I wanted to in my previous post, but I think it is worth discussing.  While Clone Wars has gotten nearly universally bad reviews, most of them can't seem to agree on why it's bad.  I tend to agree with a lot of the general views that have already been expressed here about movie reviews:  that you can't rely on them to match your opinion or even be more than that one person's opinion, but if a lot of them all say the same thing, then it's probably something to take with a little more value.  So does the fact that, while all the reviews are bad, but hardly any can agree on exactly why, lend credence to the opinion that it's "bad" or do the wildly different specifics serve to slightly invalidate that?  Of course, I'll need some help from those who have actually seen it, since I can't really contribute much beyond this observation.

EDIT:  Oh, and to Johnboy's typo, I just thought you were doing a new twist on an old favorite when I first read it.  ^_~

Hehe, I love that.  I was all taken in by the poignancy of the second paragraph only to bust a gut at the end.  And, of course, that reminds me of George's flip-flopping stance about his own movies, where he constantly asserts that Star Wars is for kids yet was forced to defend himself for the violent imagery in Revenge of the Sith. 

Oh, yeah, and the barbecued Lars family...

Who covered Biggs while he destroyed a deflection tower on the Death Star's surface?

Porkins

I totally agree with lordjedi.  I haven't seen the movie (nor do I plan to), but I have been reading plenty of reviews, more than I have for any Star Wars movie.  Since I'm not seeing it, I'm really interested in the takes other people have of it.  Pretty much every review was negative, but, overall, they were pretty mixed as to why it was negative.  Some people hated the animation style while others loved it.  Some thought the action was boring while others thought it was the only redeemable factor of the movie.  Some loved Ahsoka while others sympathized with Anakin's youngling genocide because she was so annoying.  However, there always seemed to be one thing they agreed on:  while it was a complete piece of shit (for whatever reason/s), it was passable for kids.

When you have movies like Wall-E or the original Star Wars trilogy that proves that there can be movies that appeal to every age demographic, why does this get excused?  A turd is a turd.

*Disclaimer--Of course, I'm assuming it's a turd, but as I've stated, I haven't actually seen it.  Your own mileage may very, but I can be fairly certain that it's not the 2nd best Star Wars movie ever made.

I'm looking foward to finding out more about this myself, so I'm going to keep watching this thread.  I know probably about as much as has been said right now, and I'd like to find out more.  I expect someone like Darth Chaltab will be able to explain it more clearly than anyone else.

In the meantime, though, I have to ask:  What exactly are you worried about?  If you actually have specific dates as to when certain ages begin and end, why worry you'll miss the transition?  Just keep an eye on the dates of the comics you happen to be reading and then you'll most likely know when to start your clean slate or at least be aware that things might be different.

CO said: 

 The problem is and I think the PT really spelled it out:  SW has lost its magic, and it will never regain the magic from the OOT. 

It happens with every movie series, somewhere along the line, the movies get stale, and if the quality decreases,  either the movie series turns average or just flat out sucks.  I don't care if this series had Luke, Leia and Han, it would still suck.

I understand Lucas can still make money off of SW, but for the sake of the series, just put a fork into it, as now it feels like the final seasons of some of those great sitcoms.  I remember watching the final seasons of Roseanne, All in the Family, Cheers, etc, and even though you still tuned in cause of the characters, the show lost its magic somewhere along the line, and when you watch them in reruns, you can usually see where the show jumped the shark.

This Clone War movie will be the first thing that has a SW name on it that I don't put money down for EVER!  Heck, I tuned into the frickin Holiday Special when I was 6 years old in November 1978, so I have been there through thick and thin with Lucas.

I love SW, I love the OOT, but I can't get up for anything new in the SW world anymore, it just wont be as good no matter what Lucas does.  I mean you have a character called 'Stinky the Hutt?'  how good could it be? 

 No, I totally agree with you on all points.  I agree that Star Wars should be over.  I agree that it's gotten stale, and it's better to cut the losses than to bury it in its own crap.  And I agree that, if my hypothetical scenario did ever happen, I'd be driving to the theatre shaking in my boots that what I was about to see would be a total disgrace to the original trilogy.  But my point is, I would be going to the theatre if it was based around the OT storyline and characters, and at least partly because of the fact that I would be so surprised due to the oversaturation of the PT in recent years. 

To elaborate... when I first saw the trailer for CW (not knowing prior to that that it even existed), my reaction was, "Whaaaa?!" followed by, "Oh..."  Had it been about Luke, etc., I still would have had that "Whaaaa?!" shock, but it would have followed by, "Oh!"

An OT-based movie would have elicited enough curiosity that I would go just for the sake of that.  But this doesn't even pique my curiosity.

I was just re-reading zombie's Secret History of Star Wars, specifically the appendix about the sequel trilogy, and it made me wonder.  If Lucas had gone this exact same route only made it a CG feature based around the original trilogy, would any of us be more interested to see it?  I honestly think I probably would go out there opening night and check it out if that was the case, especially if he managed to get Mark Hamill to voice Luke (doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility at all).  Under normal circumstances, I would still roll my eyes that he was milking the cash cow, but lately it seems that all Star Wars is is about the Clone Wars era, so much so that it would be refreshing to see anything on the big screen with Luke and co, just to prove they still exist, and that we didn't just imagine those three other movies that happened a long time ago.

Any thoughts?

Whew, great stuff, Jay.  Glad to know those invisible buttons weren't just me losing my mind.  For a while I've just been having to click randomly on the screen and hope my message eventually posted!

Hmm, not that I plan to see this, but reading the discussion made me remember that it's not 20th Century Fox releasing this picture!  In that case, how is the movie going to open?  Presumably it will still open with the Star Wars/Luke's Theme fanfare, but won't it sound so strange without the 20th Century Fox theme immediately preceding it?

Small potatoes, I know, but it's still something I felt I needed to put out there.

You have a plush tribble?!  Like you, I've been reading through this thread for several days, and now I also come to something that fascinates me!

I laughed out loud when I read your comment because I always thought the same thing when watching Batman and Batman Returns.  By the by, it always seemed to me like most of the outdoor scenes were filmed on a soundstage rather than on location or a backlot.

But as far as your comment about BB and Dark Knight, I really didn't notice anything.  I mean, both of them had Batmobile chases through a tunnel/underpass, so, yeah, same environment.  ^_~

So, yeah, HotRod, could you clarify a bit?  Maybe it was something I did notice subconsciously.  If not, I'll check it out when I see the movie again.