TheBoost

shanerjedi said:

 

Maybe many imperials would see Luke with Vader and immediately kneel before him? Basically saying, "youve won. Now you can be our new emperor."

Oh what could have been with a proper ROTJ.

 Awesome! Then Emperor Luke could start a galactic jihad with a new order of Jedi. Perhaps he could even come to regret this, and feel trapped by his own preciesnt destiny.

Billions will die, and Luke will walk out into the desert of Tatooine and his son will take over, and eventually become a human sarlac-hybrid and guide the empire for thousands of years!

The sequal trilogy would rule!

Well, it is worth noting that the greatest space epic next to Star Wars is returning to Disneyland.

CAPTAIN EO is coming back!!!!

Vaderisnothayden said:

Oh what the heck... Qui Gon is wise, underhanded, compassionate but a little ruthless, independent-minded, determined, a little arrogant maybe at times, something of a chancer.

TPM Padme is passionate, strong, crafty and prone to subterfuge, determined, commanding when she chooses to be, gentle when she chooses to be, an odd mixture of maturity with girlishness, devoted to her people, and is into guys two-thirds her age.

 My favorite moment in TPM is when QuiGon and Padme are walking in the desert.

PADME: The queen would not approve

QUI: The queen trusts my judgement

(sneaky bastard knows she's the queen and is practically ribbing her)

PADME: (Little pout): Well I don't approve.

(She's stuck and doesn't like it)

Good actors playing a nuanced little moment. I totally get both characters.

ferris209 said:

Hmm, I wonder if ol' George realized that the Tuskegee Airmen story has already been told in film, and pretty well I must add with Laurence Fishburne. i just hope he doesn't pollute that great story with his idiotic ideas.

Yeah... a made for TV movie fifteen years ago is the only thing that could possibly be said about an important and dramatic  event in US history.

I just bought "Bully" for my PS2.

It was 5 bucks. I love staying 4 years behind the times.

FanFiltration said:

Harrison Ford Gives Some Indiana Jones 5 Details

January 11th, 2010

http://www.movieweb.com/news/NEqpxsrzWdoDtz

I don't want to go and make yet another thread about an Indiana Jones V, so I have just been placing all the (credible) rumors and update news here. Hope you don't mind Skyjedi2005.

"he said when reminded of a quote he gave saying that Lucas' idea was "crazy but great."

That statement by Ford, does not leave me with much optimism.

When actors at that stage of their life say they are excited about returning for another one, I keep thinking "another one" = another paycheck.

 The fact Ford probably has more money than God from the huge number of huge hit films he's been in, Ford can actually afford to be very picky with his roles (note how few films he's made in the last ten years) so his excitment for the project could just as easily (or even more so) be seen as a plus.

Vaderisnothayden said:

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

Yeah but Yoda's advice sounds like it's meant to apply generally not just for force wielders. And a lot of people will go to that film and go "Wow, Yoda is wise. I have to follow his advice," and try to apply that stuff in their lives.

And I'm not in favor of any group we're supposed to look up to being portrayed as being against love or sex or relationships or whatever. And despite them being shown to have some faults, there is a lot pushing the audience to look up to the jedi. That's pushing an anti-relationship/anti-love attitude as a good thing, as does the plot of ROTS. Love and sex and relationships are a natural part of life and it's unnatural to ban them. Pretty funny for a bunch like the jedi who are supposed to be in touch with life.

 Yoda's advice was 'learn to let go of people who are going to die.' Franky, I think that's fairly decent advice.

I happen to know a couple Buddhist monks. They abstain from lots that I enjoy, including meat, sex, marriage, and TV. They are wise men and amazing athletes (and kick my ass at basketball). Their compassion is almost overwhelming, and yet I've never walked away froma meeting with them thinking "These guys hate life and love!" In fact, I'd say they're some of the most in touch with life people I know.

And I certainly hope no one left a sci-fi movie thinking "man, the CG muppet told me to avoid attachment... I need to divorce my wife!"

I dont think Jedi are anti-love at all. I think Obi loves Anakin deeply. Luke plainly loves Han and Leia. But Obi's attachment to Anakin isn't so strong he can't slice him up when he goes all Vadery, and Luke learns that his love of his sister can't be a need so strong he's willing to go to the Dark Side for it.

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

So you'd prefer nice Protestant Jedi (Methodists?) who are allowed to marry rather than Jedi resembling the East Asian monks that they are so clearly inspired by?

And it is worth noting Yoda never gives a word of 'no attachment' advice to anyone who is not weilding a superhuman power that has an active and malignant Dark Side.

captainsolo said:

I just think of Luke and Mara Jade. If that works, so can anything else. I'm very tired of all the prequel "attachment/possession" nonsense.

I think of Anakin and Padme. If that can go bad so can anything else.

I'm very tired of this EU "Jedi can do any damn thing they want- marry, have kids, get a job, leave the order, rejoin the order, fight against the order, have a beer, murder a star system, go-to-the-Dark-Side-and-always-come-back-because-it's-no-big-deal" nonsense.

I have no emotional attachment to either man or show, but in general I've always found O'Brien funnier.

ABC said:

Now about LoTR, they just wanted your eyes full of FX. Please everyone take a minute and wonder why they didn't make the end of the story (the return in the country) with the concrete buildings ect... Looks too much as where you live ?

What I think: It would have been the more powerful contrast for a "fantasy" film and more, the audience would have certainly identificated how we - humans - are turning miserable with our sense of restrictions etc... It is to me the heart of the book. Such a message is 1000 times far powerful and somehow awakening than any fashionable so called "ecological" attitude.

 Are you referring to the Scouring of the Shire? That would have added 20 minutes easily (and more like 40 to do it anything resembling justice) to a movie that already went on 20 minutes past the defeat of the main antagonist.

cap said:

Another thought: do Jedi typically serve until they’re old geezers like Yoda, or do most of them at some point retire, marry, and live as ordinary citizens?  This isn’t addressed in the films, but I imagine it is in the EU.

 I imagine that being a Jedi is a calling, not a job you retire from.

I'd like to think old Jedi go off to be hermits and wisemen like Yoda, hanging up their sabers, drinking tea and communing with the Force.

ferris209 said:

Operation Blessing

Again, I ain't defending him at all, but to condemn him only for his stupid remarks and assault him with hateful remarks, all while overlooking his positives, is being just as blind and discriminatory as he is.

 

While I admit that perhaps Robertson and his organization are not a pure Galactic Empire level of evil, and I gladly overlook his good deeds to focus on his high public disgusting comments, but I disagree that there's any level of parity between him and I.

I think Robertson is a fucking asshole, perhaps overlooking a critical analysis of good deeds he may be involved in.

Robertson said  an entire country deserves to suffer because he believes their ancestors made a deal with Satan.

There are degrees of predjudice, and I don't put myself, or anyone else in this thread on the same boat as Robertson.

cap said:

Force sensitivity is an inherited trait.

So of the people with the greatest potential to become Jedi, most would be the offspring of Jedi... except that Jedi are forbidden to marry, and presumably to reproduce.

Do the Jedi want to limit the power of future generations of the Jedi order?  Why do they limit their own growth this way?

Perhaps yes, the Jedi might want to limit the power of future generations of Jedi. Perhaps their prohibition on marriage is only partly out of a desire to avoid attachment. Perhaps it's also a willful limit on the birth of a caste of superpowered demigods, when the Order's desire is to preserve the peace and serve the Republic.

C3PX said:

Wow, another really well written post, courtesy of TheBoost.

 Thank you sir. You flatter me.

Does man do war like a tribe of chimps? Yeah. Do we murder and steal like animals? Yes.

But has a warring tribe of chimps ever sent aid to the widows and orphans of the other tribe? Can one ant colony ever overcome its own nature and help out another? Once two warring packs of dogs stop gnashing at eachother, dos the victor ever seak to help rebuild the losing pack? Can one any hive accept starving refugees from another?

I like to try and think of the ways man transcends our base nature, not how we still mirror it.

(Edit: C3PX beat me to it, with a similar sentiment.. and thanks)

doubleofive said:

If I were allowed to do a comparison (can't because of Ady's "no screenshots" clause), I really don't think static images would do it justice.

I know what would.

Vibrant description, preferabbly in iambic pentameter.

Paint us a word picture of this great new clip!

zombie84 said:

Haha. Well, it could be true. After all, Lucas almost released it on video in the 1980s, so he clearly didn't feel as prejudiced against it back then as his current statements may imply.

 Perhaps at the time he needed the money? Didn't he have a nasty divorce?

That's it! I'm founding OriginalHobbit.com.

Then I'll fanedit it, and release The Hobitt: Reinvigorated.

I'll put in the original scene with Gollum, then I think I'll change the chapter titles to a snazzier font, and lastly add some slick CG to Thorin's map.

FanFiltration said:

Did you know that in the 1960's J. R. R. Tolkien started rewriting the entire novel of "The Hobbit" in the same style of The Lord of the Rings? What survives of this attempt is reprinted in the "The History of The Hobbit" box set. So Tolkien played with the idea of not just re-doing one scene, but in fact revising the story telling style of the entire work.

 I did not know this... and now must find this book!

So... JRR Tolkien. Pretty good writer from all reports.

He made a classic work "The Hobbit," and then went and wrote some sequals, perhaps you've heard of them, "The Lord of the Rings."

But, when he made LOTR, "The Hobbit" no longer fit his vision. He went back and made, for lack of a better word, a "Special Edition" of it, where he changed a major scene involving his hero, a ring, and a little dude named Gollum.

Because of these changes, the original work that made him famous and allowed him to write LOTR was forever altered, and The Original Uncut Hobbit (The OUH) is available only to a small market of rabid collectors.

And yet I've never heard anyone complain about Tokien's actions (and I'm not complainig here). But what is the fundamental difference between what the Professor did, and what that one dude with the beard and the flannels did to his work?

Warbler said:

Eyeshotfirst, I'd urge extreme caution when you generalize and say most people of a group are something.  It can get you into trouble. 

 I think it's safe to say that a great many Christains in the public eye, are not perhaps the most ideal examples of the faith, as seen by many.

We have hatemongers like Robertson and total criminals like Peter Popoff on the air, and despite their loathsome nature they must have a flock large enough to justify the ammount of TV time they get. Obviously these men are seen as fine examples of their faith by their own numerous contribitors.

There are outspoken groups of selfidentified Christians very vocal and politically active campaigning against equal rights for all Americans, screaming "Christ hates Fags", and advocating murder against abortion doctors. This is the Christianity I see when I drive down the street.

I'm not talking statistics, but the kindly small town pastor who teaches kids not to lie and councels dying old women doesnt hold the same prominence on the cultural zeitgiest as the scum like Robertson and Falwell.

We see a lot less Christians who actually seem interested in what their Gospell's say Christ did/said on the TV, in the streets with signs, or writing best selling books than we see the same from Christains of the more "Pat Robertson" type.

TV's Frink said:

TheBoost said:

Because in the view of Robertson and his ilk, there are no truly devout Christains

I was going to fix your spelling, but it seems you know what you're talking about.  For instance:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/christains.asp

Also:

http://www.mindsay.com/tags/christains

And this one, which should appeal to the non-sporters like Ferris and CP3S:

http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Wish-Christains-Would-Pray-For-Peace-Not-Football/67541

So...I stand corrected.

 For my part that was just a typo, not an attempt at one of those 'not so clever change-someone's-name insults' so predominant on the net.

Warbler said:

I wonder,  if any among the killed or wounded are truly devote Christians?    I'd like to hear from them.    I mean if god is punishing the people of Hatti because they turned to Satan, what do the truly devote Christians of Hatti think of god punishing them along the those in Hatti who are not Christian?  Surely god is smart enough to think of a way to just punish the non Christians who turned to Satan without punishing the true Christians who did not turn to Satan.?

whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged" and  "he who has not sinned, let him cast the first stone"?

 Because in the view of Robertson and his ilk, there are no truly devout Christains anywhere but in the US watching the "700 Club." He is a man who once said Episcopelians were the Antichrist.

It's the "Us vs. Them" mentallity that hatemongers like Robertson thrives on. Haiti is a convienient "other" to point to and say 'look at this poor, black country that is suffering because they aren't the correct brand of Evangelical Christianity. Please call and donate."

It's telling that Robertson in the same rant said that The Dominican Republic is great and prosperous, ("they have resorts"). While the DR might be a step up from Haiti, unemployment and failing infrastructure is rampant... and if their current 'prosperity' is due to how much they love God, where was he during the rascist and extremely oppresive Trujillo regime in the last century? Although it's likely Robertson would have approved of Trujillo.

If God is truly punishing people for being bad, he does a piss poor job of it. I recall a sign I once saw that read "AIDS is God's way of showing he hates hemopheliac children."

The show was popcorn meaningless fun that never aspired to be any more.

If the movie can do that, it will be fun.

If it can do that and not feel like a parody, it will be really good.

If it can do that and also manage to be even a bit more compelling plot/character wise, it might be great.

BUT...

If it tries to be really compelling plot/character wise, it will totally miss the point.