Gaffer Tape

You're right.  I do feel that people have been overlooking that point.  It certainly would have served to have had some people on board who had enough clout to challenge George.  On the other hand, I can't say I disagree with the sentiment of letting "undiscovered talent" cut their teeth on these movies.  It's certainly an opportunity anyone would jump at, and, just because they haven't become huge names yet doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be able to turn in a good product.  Again, think of the original effects crews for Star Wars.  They were recent college graduates, people who'd done some effects work for commercials, who became the backbone for the original ILM.  So while this tactic didn't do much to service these films, I certainly can't fault them for the idea.

TV's Frink said:

Cliff Clavin said:

Who are seventy-six people who have never been in my kitchen?

Okay.  In my book, that totally wins this thread.  And I still believe Jeopardy screwed him.

To be fair to 005, though, isn't it supposed to be "apple core" rather than "applesauce"?

Ohhh, man.  Someone sold Warb out.  Shit just got real!

Meh, I wouldn't be up for any kind of grammar filter.  While I too prefer proper spelling and grammar, one of the reasons I've always loved this board is because of how light a touch the rules have.

I don't particularly dislike it, but I do admit it gives me the visual image of those codpieces from the Schumacher films...

Oh, CP3S... always spreading the love.

Wait... should I feel jealous?  Should I be tested?

Holy carp!  shawnzo put me on ignore too!  He really was serious!

xhonzi said:

 What?!?!?!?  GO WATCH IT RIGHT NOW!  What have you been doing that's so gosh darn important??? 

Watching Star Trek:  Deep Space Nine.  Hadn't you heard?  ^_^

Huh?  Didn't we already go over this in the "Last Movie Seen (was Inception or GETOUT!)" thread?

I thought we went over this when you suggested a crossover review, but, sadly, I was too lazy to get off my ass and watch it, and for that I apologize.  I'm sure you'll prove me right that I should have seen it immediately, but, in the meantime...

LAZY!!!

Yeah, 1991 was hardly the dark ages when it came to knowlege about smoking.  That's the time frame in which I grew up, and I was certainly bombarded with information on the dangers of smoking on a near-daily basis.

It's interesting you should say that, Anchorhead, as my mom smoked when she was pregnant with me, too.  She always justified it, though, because she never inhaled.

When I was little, my mom would smoke outdoors until nightfall.  Then I would banish myself to the back of the house while she smoked in the living room.  When I was 11, I got her to quit smoking, but it didn't last very long, so, in order to hide it from me, she would go outside to the patio adjacent to her bedroom.  I eventually found out (mostly because my friends would walk by outside and see her), but after that, she always smoked outside.  Even after I moved out, she only smokes outside.

Anchorhead said:

I find it particularly strange that people only in their twenties smoke.  It's no longer a maybe it's bad for you deal. 

I've seen a list just like this one at my doctor's office.  Very interesting how fast your body starts to recover. 

Interestingly, that's the reason my former roommate gave me for why she had smoked when she was younger.  According to her, since your body just recovers from it anyway, why not enjoy yourself in your twenties by smoking?  I admit I didn't get it.  And I suppose that precludes that you will stop at some point...

Bingowings said:

Here are two of them :

Well, since someone brought it up, this is something that's bothered me for quite some time.  Was... there... ever any in-universe explanation as to why the Voyager crew forced Seven to dress like a shiny piece of molestation fodder?  Because... I have to admit I just don't get it.

So it will go supernova either next year or... millions of years from now.  Way to narrow it down, science! ^_~

Haha, the Battle of Kashyyyk is entirely absent from the novel?!  That's great!  It took me three viewings of the film before I even became aware that that sequence ever took place it was so boring and pointless!

I'm not one of OT.com's smokers (never tried, never wish to try), but I just want to congratulate you and wish you luck.  Being a theatre major in college and therefore surrounded by actors and singers who use their bodies as their instruments, I was amazed by how many of them were avid smokers.  And one of them once told me that smokers never quit... they just take breaks in between inevitably picking up the habit again.  I certainly hope you prove him wrong because it's obviously not just money (and, wow, does it always amaze me what a costly habit that is) you'll be saving.  So again, very good luck to you.  I believe people can break any habit if they want it badly enough.

Wait.  That just made me think of something.  He based his novel off of the script?  Which script?  Didn't Lucas alter significant portions of the story during production?  Wasn't the shift made from "dark side seduction" to "driven mad by lost love" done in pick-ups?  So how close is the novelization to the movie?

Heh, that's fun.  It's not surprise that, as an employee, he can't exactly speak any kind of real ill towards his employer's properties.  But, yeah, that "highest-grossing" comment cracked me up.

Good point, although Batgirl is so superfluous and tacked on in the latter that it's hardly fair to say it's "about" Batgirl.  She prances about for half the movie until the end when suddenly, "Oh, you want to be a crimefighter?  'Kay.  Get to it!"  Truly an origin story of champions.

I'm assuming he means "highest-paid."  But I have a feeling you already knew that.

The most embarrassing part is that I actually never saw this coming...

Diego said:

It's not new, Lucas has always been concerned about cost, this is from 78-79:

GL: ... In movies give somebody $150 million and fifty years to make a film, and the odds are good that they'll make a professional movie. The real challenge is to do it for a minimum amount of money in a reasonable amount of time. When I look at films I can tell one that cost $30 million, but if you can make a film that looks as good but only cost $15 million, then you've accomplished something.

Well, I still think that's a bit of an unfair criticism (assuming it is a criticism).  Moviemaking is and always has been a business, and the financial bottom line is often the final word.  This isn't just Lucas's point of view.  The fact of the matter is that he's right, and for good reason:  people who finance movies for a living are indeed going to find a director who can make gold for $15 million much more valuable than one who can do the same thing with $30 million.  And to be honest, that's also a clear mark of a good filmmaker.  I mean, we often criticize the PT for its effects-laden extravagance while comparing it to the original Star Wars, which was made on a shoestring budget yet managed to overcome those limitations and, some might argue, prospered because of those limitations.

That was a joke, Warb.  I certainly didn't intend to get a sigh out of you on that one...  To be honest, though, it's been about, ohhhh, two years since I've had anyone in my life to share Star Trek with.  I have one other Trekkie friend, but she's in the middle of watching TNG and doesn't want any future events spoiled for her (and especially given Worf's eventual role in this particular series), so I can only share my new DS9 experience with her in a very marginal capacity.  So, yeah, it was nice to have a good, nerdy debate about future, interstellar politics for a little while.

Well, as much as I feel Lucas deserves criticisms for the prequels, I have a hard time placing blame on this one.  Remember that the Star Wars films, for all intents and purposes, are independent films.  Lucas isn't a bit studio mogul, and he certainly doesn't have the unlimited supplies of cash people seem to think he has, at least not in terms of making movies.  Ever since The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas had been funding the films out of his own pocket.  Empire was a huge gamble and almost ruined him.  Kershner and Kurtz went WAY overcost and behind schedule.  Eventually he ran out of money and had to run to 20th Century Fox in order to afford to get the damn thing finished.  Obviously the results speak for themselves, and Empire did do well enough, but to this day it's referred to as "the hard one."  While I do agree that the prequels are pretty damned bad movies, I think it has less to do with budget concerns and more to do with piss poor concepts, screenplays, and directing.  The ominpresent greenscreen, while indeed a major problem, is secondary to the above.

Warbler said:

well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Dawh... That just went down way too easy.  ;_;

A man comes to a Star Wars message board and can't engage in lengthy Star Trek debates?  Where's the logic in that?! =P

Geez, I guess I'm the only person on this forum with enough discerning taste to hate the new Star Trek movie. ^_~

Seriously, though, I agree with what Boost and the others have said.  I don't necessarily think redos are an amazing idea, but I'll certainly give them a chance and judge them on their own merits.  Some of them come out quite good.

Oh, and interestingly enough, that silent Wizard of Oz movies came on TCM about a week or so ago, and I watched most of it.  It was indeed weird but kinda fun too.