Yeah, but because of all the special effects, the Star Wars movies have a hell of a lot of post-production time... around two years. TPM was shot in '97 and released in '99, for example.
Well, considering that ROTS was filmed in 2003, he would have been about ten at the time. Does that better fit your estimate?
Probably about 16 or 17 by now, at least.
EDIT: Yeah, born in '93, so I was pretty close.
Son, actually
I don't know. I was glad to see it without that revision, one that was so deeply entrenched, I didn't even know it was a revision until a few years ago.
Oh, geez, really?! Even in television they can't resist the urge to fuck with what they've already done?! Can anybody in Lucasfilm not tinker with their work?!
Well, actually, it was a present from my now ex-fiancee (sigh...). I probably never would have gotten it myself, but she was just so cool and so much of a nerd that it was a no-brainer for her to get it for me. And now I just depressed myself again...
But anyway, the point of that was that there was no need to hide it away or be ashamed of it. And were my relationship not in shambles, it would be an object lesson in how awesome my significant other was.
Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. I'll getcha for makin' up fake musicals!
vote_for_palpatine said:No comment on my treatment of Han Solo? I thought my idea strengthened Han more than any other character.
Sorry. It was actually so good that it didn't really need comment. It wasn't a huge part of the storyline, which it shouldn't be since this is about Luke, but it just goes to show that just a little bit of effort would have worked wonders to have made Han an actual character in this movie rather than just a placeholder.
I don't necessarily see how DVD singles are in any way screwing anybody over. Maybe in the past, but most people are savvy enough now to realize that a boxset will be on the way. As far as I see, singles are for budget-minded consumers who might prefer to get a few specific episodes without having to commit to an entire season. Makes sense to me. As long as you're not dumb enough to buy them (assuming you want the entire set) then what's the problem?
Davnes007 said:ChainsawAsh said:...how the hell did those whales breathe once they were beamed into the Klingon ship?
I'm sure there was a bit of an air-space above the water.
Whales can survive underwater for several hours without having to come up with air. But don't forget, it was a concern. Kirk's final battle at the end of this movie was rescuing the whales from the tank as the ship was sinking because, as Gillian said, "They'll drown." So, yeah, there you go. Everything makes sense.
Wow. I think that was great. Personally, I think that plan could have just as easily worked had Vader been Luke's father, but I think it's overall much better than what we ended up getting. Although maybe instead of just talking about torturing Leia, since she's already a prisoner, it would be better motivation if Vader actually did torture her. Then Luke could take his revenge, beginning to relish in inflicting in Vader the same kind of pain Vader was inflicting to Leia. The only quirk I can see with this plan, though, is that, assuming you haven't changed up much of the first act of the movie, we now have two points in the same movie where Leia is chained up. I wonder if a fetish of yours is slipping through in this post, hmm? ^_~
Oh, and, sky, I don't necessarily agree that Luke could only have the potential to be evil because his father was evil. That's like saying if my father was a murderer, I have a better chance of being a murderer. I know that's basically what Lucas was trying to do with the sequels, making the parallel that there were certain expectations of parallel between father and son, but that's a purely dramatic arc. It might have weakened it slightly without the expectations of destiny and following the same road, but it certainly doesn't preclude the notion of Luke going to the dark side.
Okay, okay. I was kinda waiting for this answer too, but I think I get it now. Let me see if I can get an analogy together, one that I'll understand. Okay.
Nevermind. I can't think of one that fits exactly. But I do think I get what you're saying. Even if I didn't like something, maybe I could objectively assess spinoff material as being as good or not good in comparison to it.
Um, let's see. To go to C3PX's analogy, I've never seen The Matrix either. I've seen no Matrices. But let's say, for example, that you, C3PX, didn't like the first movie but considered it relatively well-made and can understand why other people would like it. It's just not your thing, and you found it meh subpar at best and only saw it because some friends forced you to. Then you happened to catch a glimpse of the sequels, and, even though you didn't even like the first movie, you can tell that those sequels were just utter dogshit in comparison and are amazed that anybody with a braincell could like it. Obviously you're not a Matrix authority and shouldn't necessarily be crashing Matrix tea parties to explain why certain movies suck. But it is your opinion.
So I guess I can see where this is coming from. Now can everybody be happy? ^_^
C3PX said:Interesting take. I thought humans were usually considered inferior to vulcans, as well as any number of other races in the ST universe (for example, when observing emotional human behavior, Spock's response was often to cocked eyebrow and say, "fascinating" in a semi-condensending tone, as if observing a much lower species. I think it has always been suggested that vulcans have evolved further than humans. There is a lot of racism shown from the sides of Klingons, Ferangi and other species, but I have always felt Star Trek has done a good job of painting racism as a negative thing, and shown the Federation to meet all alien races with open arms. Perhaps I am wrong on this. Mind citing a few examples of aliens needing to act more human in order to become better?
Gaffer, like DF stated, Romulans and Vulcans are not the exact same species, but represent a split in their evolutionary chain. They have the same common ancestors, but somewhere along the line they went their separate ways and continued down separate evolutionary chains. Romulans continuing along the same warlike, barbaric path, and the vulcans taking the high road and becoming more spiritual and intellectual, and eventually throwing emotions out the window.
To point 1: "Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... human."
"We're all human!" "A homosapiens-only club!" Quotes from the two best ST movies. The theme is... human is better.
To point 2: Even a thousand or two thousand years doesn't seem to be enough time for any kind of considerable evolution to take place. Again, this would be like saying that we're a different species from Jesus or Ceasar. Like you said, they took different paths. It was choice, not physical evolution. If there was any kind of physical predisposition, Vulcan youths wouldn't spend years attempting to harness logic over emotion. And like DarkFather said, Vulcans/Romulans seem to be inherently predisposed to being more emotional than humans. And in that regard, both Romulans and Vulcans are exactly the same except in how they choose to deal with: Romulans with war, Vulcans by psychosis-inducing and bigotry-spawning repression. ^_^
DarkFather said:
you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species.
Negative. They are relative by a common ancestor. I do not believe Vulcan physiology is identical to that of Romulans.
What's the difference? Are you and I related by a common ancestor? If so, does that make us separate species? If I recall correctly, it had only been a few hundred years since the Romulans and Vulcans broke off (but feel free to correct me)... far too short a time for any significant evolutionary factors to change them into individual species.
Since this is come up, I have to ask this question, as it's something that's always bugged me. Why does it always seem to be implied that the reason that Spock (and, apparently Saavik) is able to express emotion because of his mixed heritage? Obviously his mixed heritage is the reason for his feelings of isolation and inferiority, but it should have nothing to do with his or any Vulcan's ability or inability to be emotional. Lack of emotion is NOT an inherent biological trait in Vulcans. They train themselves to be logical and to supress emotions. From what I can see, any Vulcan is capable of being emotional, they simply choose not to. And before anyone says that maybe Vulcans are more easily possessed of this than humans, you also have to note that Vulcans and Romulans are the same species. The Romulans are what the Vulcans would be (and were) had they not chosen to become logical: extremely emotional and warlike. So what difference does it make even if Saavik is half-Romulan? Nothing! That's not even biologically different from being a full-blooded Vulcan. The differences between Vulcans and Romulans (and Vulcans and humans, for that matter) is not nature, it's nurture.
Stay tuned for Gaffer Tape's next Trekkie rant: can Vulcans lie?
Eh, why not. I'll give it a shot
Undiscovered Country
Wrath of Khan (nearly tied, but I wanted to break tradition by flipping the order)
Search for Spock
Voyage Home (again, nearly tied with these two, but I again flipped the order)
Final Frontier
TMP (BORING, but at least had the novelty of seeing the characters' lives after Starfleet... before coming back to Starfleet)
Bingowings said:The energy barrier is much like the one the Enterprise passed through when being thrown out of the galaxy in Is There in Truth No Beauty?.
Which was also like the galactic barrier in Where No Man Has Gone Before.
rcb said:they must've been before my time. i've heard of them, but i didn't realize they were musicals or even movies.
Just out of curiosity... what did you think they were?
Hmm. Not exactly sure why maiming and death are more "manly" than... um, not maiming and not dying, but then again, I can't stand sports either, so what am I even doing in this conversation?
Suffice it to say, while I still find the mindset a bit baffling, I still laughed at the post. Now, I'm going to go out and win it for Alberto! Man, Alberto's a manly man, isn't he?
Well, Chainsaw, I could totally see how people would think this would erase the original timeline. Other Trek time travel stories seemed to go on the history-changing theory rather than the alternate-timeline theory, like in the episode "Tomorrow is Yesterday" when they were afraid that sending Christopher back to earth with future technology would alter history, or "The City on the Edge of Forever" when the non-death of Edith Keeler caused the Nazis to take over. So, yeah, based on that, it does seem logical that the new Trek timeline overwrote the previous one.
Axia, I just have one question about your complaints. While I wasn't too fond of the score either, I was confused by this statement: You need to start a Star trek film with the theme they have been starting Trek films with forever.
Which Trek theme are you talking about? Nearly every movie had its own theme: the Courage TV theme, the Goldsmith theme, the Horner theme, and so on. The one musical thing I was impressed with in this movie was how the end credits liberally utilized the original TV theme, which was only used as an afterthought in every other Trek movie.
Or Tarkin, who also pronounces it Leah.
EDIT: Or C-3PO, who also pronounces it like that... Or, well, any time her name is spoken in the first movie.
I don't dislike V. It's goofy, yes, but I enjoy it. I saw both TMP and V at the same time, and I have to say I enjoyed V better. It wasn't great, but at least it was more interesting than the snooze fest that was Star Trek: The Motionless Picture.
Well, I don't watch any of these shows. I've seen Lost once, and that was over a year ago. I honestly have a hard time wondering why either side is fighting over this. VINH (much easier to abbreviate than write full out... except that my explanation is even longer) thinks that the shows he think have gone to pot should be cancelled. Chainsaw and 3PX seem to think that if fans of the show are happy, then the show should be allowed to remain. I don't see what's wrong with either of these opinions, especially since they're just opinions and will have absolutely no bearing on whether or not any show is cancelled or renewed.
Here's my opinion: I wish shows like American Idol would be cancelled, despite the fact that millions of people apparently love it. I can't stand it and think it's representative of the mentality that gets shit renewed and good shows cancelled. I guess then that I'm falling on VINH's side since I want a show cancelled despite the fact that fans enjoy it. But then again, I don't exactly lose any sleep over its existence, and my opinion that I want it gone isn't going to make it so. I just don't like the show.
Then again, there are so many shows that were cancelled before they needed to be, and I wish I could have seen how they would have resolved themselves. Firefly is one of them. One of my favorite shows, so I don't appreciate the bashing toward it. ^_~
As for Bryan Fuller... I haven't seen many of his shows. I haven't seen Heroes, and I haven't seen Pushing Daisies. In fact, I've only seen one of his shows that I'm aware of, and it features Lee Pace pre-Pushing Daisies. I was just introduced to it two weeks ago, and I already got the DVD box set of it: Wonderfalls. Love it. It's amazing. I can't believe FOX cancelled it after only four episodes aired. Overall, I suppose I'd rather see shows given a chance to get better rather than be cancelled at a whim. That's how travesties happen like Firefly and Wonderfalls being cancelled. Yeah, FOX is stupid.