Mr. Wan (may I call you Ady?), all I can say is that your trailer looks amazing beyond all reasonable expectations. You're a credit to the fan community and to the very nature of fandom. Your talent and generosity enrich this hobby for all of us. Thank you.
When the trailer came out, a friend had a VHS, and we watched it... 30 times that night at a party. Loved every second of it. I expected to love it, and I did.
Saw TPM at midnight, again the next morning, drove to Las Vegas and caught it again the next day.
It wasn't for a few weeks (and two more viewings) that I started to get annoyed with Jar Jar.
The only merchandise I had was the novelisation I picked up later that summer, and a Qui-Gon cup I still dont know where it came from.
I could see James Franco as an awesome Anakin. Could deliver the same emotional beats as Hayden, but doesn't project that kind of inner weakness. Other than that, I like the cast of the PT.
My directrors of choice for the PT would be as follows
TPM: Richard Donner (skilled at action packed kids movies that don't pander)
AOTC: Bryan Singer (skilled at both noir and epic nostalgic romance)
ROTS: Christopher Nolen. (skilled at juggling a vast ammount of thematic elements)
And I never minded Jackson as Windu, I think an interesting acting choice would be Ken Watanabe or Takeshi Kitano (does he speak English?). The Jedi are like Samurai, and IIRC Lucas considered Toshiro Mifune as Obi-Wan back in the day, so it would be cool to see a Japanese actor.
(ever notice how in "Firefly" there's all these Chinese influences in the culture, but no Asian people at all?)
I was at my local geek haven, the comic shop, shooting the crap about Star Wars. One guy dropped the classic argument 'Oh yeah, it's practically a remake of a Kurosawa movie anyway!"
Of all of the "George Lucas sux!" arguments in the world, this has to be the worst. Here are why I think that:
1- Lucas readily, graciously, and frequently admits his inspiration from Kurosawa and specifically "Hidden Fortress."
2- The movie is almost NOTHING LIKE STAR WARS. There's a princess who is NOT like Leia. There's a general who is very much NOT like Obi-Wan. There's no Luke. No Han. No Death Star. No rescuing the princess. No Vader. No Force. No final battle. No Rebellion. You could make a connection between the gold hidden in firewood and the Death Star plans, but that connection is pretty weak. The plot to "Hidden Fortress" hinges on the fact the General and the Princess, who are together the entire film, are in disguise as peasents.
3- The part Lucas acknowledges his debt to the most, the two peasents 'inspiring' the droids is a pretty loose inspiration. While he borrowed the storytelling device of framing the story through the eyes of the two least powerful characters, the two pairs couldn't be more different. The peasents are nasty, difficult to deal with by the main heroes, and at one point plan to rape the princess.
4- And yeah, both films end with vaguely similar sequences of award being given, although "Fortress" ends ulitmatly with another scene of the peasents skipping away happily with their monetary reward.
It seems to me that anyone who belittles Star Wars or Lucas with this argument must be a poser of the worst sort, because they clearly HAVEN'T SEEN "Hidden Fortress" and are just parrotting what another snooty fanboy once said or are so blinded by fanhate they can't think straight.
...
Sorry, had to get that off my chest.
C3PX said:I remember the people mover and the Stormtrooper in the shadows. Wow, I remember hearing they shut down the sub, didn't know they brought it back with the Nemo theme. The days of Disneyland having rides that are not based off of movies is quickly fading away looks like.
I miss the peoplemover too... althuogh mainly I was a mark for the Tron segment... and even I have to admit that was extremely dated. Same with Captain EO. Even if Jackson hadn't turned into a pariah, the imersion technology had grown to far surpass mere 3D. The Honey I Shrunk the Kids ride is a big leap forward.
And had you riden the submarine ride before it closed? It looked like crap. It was a 40 year old animatronic ride, and technology had left it behind a long, long time ago. It needed some kind of facelift bad.
Disneyland always based many of it's attractions on its tv and movie properties, since the 50s. Swiss Family Robinson treehouse, Matterhorn (Third Man on the Mountain). Frontierland was practically built with Davey Crockett-mania.
Although I admit I'd like to see Captain EO again, I for one don't feel any particular sense of nostalgia or regret that the old rides are gone. Disneyland has always been constantly changing since it was built.
Although I agree I wouldn't mind having a DVD preservation of the original Star Tours just for fun.
If this is true, it's good news. Star Tours, despite that fact I love it, is getting a bit dated. In some of the shuttles the film you watch isn't even aging well.
I hear the words 'fan service' tossed around alot, usually meaning something GL tossed into the films as a little 'gift' to the fans. Usually I hear people say this is a bad thing. Here are my thoughts on some of the 'fan service' in the saga.
THE GOOD:
Admiral Piett. This dude is my favorite character in ESB. According to wookiepedia he wasn't supposed to be in ROTJ but Lucas put him in it because of the surprising fan response to our nervous commander. I think it benefits the film a great deal.
The Outrider: Adding the EU ship from Shadows of the Empire into "Star Wars" special edition seems to be controversial. I don't see why. Admittedly we all seem to have mixed feelings on all the additions to the SE, but if Lucas was going to add a CGI ship to Mos Eisly, why not make it the Outrider? It's cool for the few fans who can recognize it, and it's just another ship to the vast majority who don't.
Millenium Falcon in ROTS: Seriously, it's almost invisible but it is kinda cool if you're eagle eyed.
THE BAD:
Chewie in ROTS: Not just because Yoda's awkward namedropping so the audience would recognize him, what really sucks about it is that Chewie never mentions to Luke 'I used to hang with a Jedi master named Yoda. Little green dude. If you ever see him say hi.' If Chewie was personal friends with the greatest Jedi of all time, I think that deserved a mention.
Baby Boba: When I, like all fans, thought Boba Fett was awesome, I never said to myself, "I bet he has a wacky and tragic backstory that needs to be explored." Making him the clone of a bounty hunter so awesome he's the basis for the entire galactic army makes what Boba actually is, a minor villain who forwards the plot, seem anticlimactic. It's weird to give such a minor thug an epic origin. I understand that Boba is ridiculously popular, but this just didn't seem to work.
THE UGLY:
Boba in ROTJ: Boba, a minor goon, was very popular. It makes sense that the hated baddie could get his comeuppance in the next movie. In my opinion, there's no problem with Boba getting offed in Act 1 of ROTJ, now serving as a lacky to Jabba the way he had been Vader's lackey, but I understand the distaste many have for the actual execution of the fan service, with Fett's death being played for laughs.
Did I miss any? Am I deluded, and they're all terrible? Thoughts?
generalfrevious said:I hope not.
Anyways, the whole political (republican/democrat) implications of SW was not there until Lucas started writing the script for ROTS in 2004; that's why Palpatine appears to be a shrewder version of Bush in space. Yeah, I cant even understand why the lightsabers turn from red to pink in the transition from ROTS to SW, unless you factor in technical errors.
I disagree. The Empire's rise was clearly very political from the start (I think Lucas said he was partly inspired by the Watergate era). And even when TPM came out, Palpatine was already doing the same shtick he would do in ROTS. Even back to the 1970's drafts, Lucas listed as one of the downfalls of the Republic to be the rising power of Robber Barons (The Trade Federation?). The Star Wars saga was always very political, it was just in the background in the OT, and in the PT was a bit clunky in the execution.
I disagree with the idea of Palpy or the Empire as a Bush analogue, but he was always the shrewd politician.
Vaderisnothayden said:He was a self-satisfied twerp for like 5 seconds yeah, but not a guy whose whole nature is self-satisfied twerp. Nor creepy the way I mean it, like paedophile creepy. Nor even self-satisfied the way I'm talking about. No, the character in the movies is not at all the one in the comics. The guy in the movies could never grow into the good guy he became in the comics. The guy in the movies would be stuck forever as a creepy self-satisfied twerp. Total warping of the character. It's bogus to say the character in the comics was like that.
C3PX said:I am really curious in what way the first Spider-Man film is not accurate to the comic, or in what way Toby's Peter Parker is completely different from the comics? The origin of Spider-Man and the Green Goblin are both spot on.
The Peter Parker character in the comics did not come off like he was going to start pinching little girls' bottoms. The character in the movie did. Similarly, the other characters in the movie do not come off like their on-paper versions. You seriously want to tell me that Kirsten Dunst came off like Mary Jane Watson? Dunst's lifeless performance was nothing like the character.
That the origin of the Spider Man and Green Goblin characters fitted the comic book story doesn't mean that everything else in the film fitted to the tone and mentality of the comics or made the best use of the comics' material. The idea with a comic book movie is to make something with as much depth as the comic story, or, better yet, to elevate the story by maximizing its virtues to effect of improving its depth. Why not make the best one can out of the material? But here we get lets make dumb shit out of the material.
I'm really just a bit wierded out by your Spider-Man/pedophilia connection. What I'm hearing from you is you just didn't like the performance of Toby Maguire. But how do you deny that he DOES grow into the hero he is in the comics when he... I don't know... becomes a hero, saves the day, and sacrifices his chance at love with MJ because he understands that WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY which is the driving center of the character for the 40+ years he's been published.
Vaderisnothayden said:TheBoost said:When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.
I don't think that's an excuse for not being faithful. You can zero in on the best material or the best-known or most archetypical stuff and be faithful to that. The films made the characters into totally different people from what they were in the comics and reduced the story to a load of crap. Peter Parker in the comics never came off like a self-satisfied creepy twerp who probably stalks little girls, but that's how he was played in the films.
What's the single best known most archtypal momen in SpiderMan? When he realizes that with great power comes great responsibility. A self satisfied creepy twerp is EXACTLY who Peter Parker was. That's the entire point of his character. He's a loser, and the moment he gets some power he becomes an jerk (letting the robber go) and spends the rest of his life regretting it. A cool, charming, humble, or pleasent Peter would have missed the point.
skyjedi2005 said:There is a reason why it is called an adaptation. Books are not movies and neither are comics.
Not a Sam Raimi fan are you? There are a lot of Evil Dead fans out there, if your not a horror fan and i'm not. Hey i still liked Lord of the Rings and Peter Jackson is a b movie horror director.
When adapting a character who's been published non-stop for 40+ years, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be 'faithful' to the work.
Should you be faithful to the original 12 page origin story? Or the years he was a hipster college student with two hot girlfriends, often considered some of the best years? Why not get his origin out of the way ASAP, and then be faithful to the years he was married to supermodel Mary Jane, my personal favorite years? Or the 'Ultimate Spider-Man' retellings, or the "Lost Years" re-tellings, or one of fifty other retelings of his origin? Would a almost exact recreation of the story where he fought Man-Wolf, the lycanthropic astronaut, be better than an adapted version of the Green Goblin saga?
And I persoanlly thought Spiderman 1 and 2 both had a great deal of depth.
(It seems unfair to label accomplished directors with varied carreers 'b-movie horror directors' on the basis of their first films. On that same line, since Lucas made Star Wars early in his career, he's still a Great Director.)
skyjedi2005 said:He is noticeably weak here and holding off Luke with his other hand with the saber in it. He looks like he is trying to rise to his feet but is too weak to do so under the fury of lukes angry attack.
Luke BEATS HIM DOWN. I've never had an issue with that moment at all.
Gaffer Tape said:I never thought about why Vader couldn't use force lightning. We never see it until the end of ROTJ anyway. The Emperor can do it because he's the Emperor! And that's all there ever was to it to me!
That's what I always thought to. Stupid Dooku.
skyjedi2005 said:People look for logic in a series of childrens films that are pure fantasy and not real. I guess a lot of this is the EU fault because people think everything must be explained. Even George fell victim to having to explain everything uncessary in the prequels while not explaining other things.
I think, given the extremely limited understanding the films (all six even) give about the nature of what the force can do, I don't see any particular holes in logic when it comes to using the Force.
To find 'mistakes' required us to make up 'rules' other than what the films present. The films quantify and are specific about very little, and I think that's a strength.
I can't and won't speak for the EU except to note that all six movies have maybe 10 minutes of people talking about the force total, while the EU seems to be about 50% rambling about the nature of the Force. Some of the NJO books seem to be more like 70%.
Janskeet said:Why didn't Vader just use the force to break the balcony/suspended platform. If he can use the force to choke someone, why not use it to break a metal beam apart. Why risk losing his saber?
I don't know. Why didn't he choke Luke? Why didn't he forcelightning Luke? Or why not just Force Push the Emperor into the bottomless pit instead of grabbing him?
Was Vader (correctly) confident that his sabre-throwing skills were superior to Luke's "Catching Flying Ignited Lightsabers" skill?
Maybe the metal was too strong given that Vader appears to be significantly less powerful with certain force powers than he had been before being mutilated?
Maybe he figured that since Luke could do a 20 foot backflip onto the platform, he was nimble enough that the platform falling wouldn't be a big deal.
skyjedi2005 said:Turning Point? The guys running the site are as crazy for all things lucas as they ever were. If you mean dissenters on their forums those guys don't run the site.
Lucas indirectly creates the term Nuking the Fridge and they act like its the greatest fucking thing since sliced bread.
Given the ludacris ammount of vehemence and fanatical repetitiveness that certain types of posters (not naming names) can bring to the topic of discussing films, doesn't it make a certain ammount of sense that people who enjoyed those films might want to have their own corner of the net?
And didn't a certain sort of snarky angry film fan coin that term? It seems a flawed sort of reasoning to create a term to express your distaste of a scene in a movie, and then turn around and use that same term to justify your distaste for the forementioned film.
Mielr said:I always thought Guy Pearce would have been a great Spidey.
Maybe 40 years ago! :)
Janskeet said:In ROTJ we see Luke catch the lightsaber right after avoiding the the fall into the sarlac pit. All R2D2 did was shoot the lightsaber up in the air and Luke was able to grab it from there. Vader's saber comes like a foot within retreival.
R2 is a robot who shot it right at Luke for the purpose of catching it. Vader is a powerful Sith Lord who threw a lit lightsaber at Luke with the express purpose of Luke NOT catching it (unless being sliced counts as catching).
AxiaEuxine said:Kurtyboy said:My only complaint is that the Vader helmet is the horrible symetrical ROTS version. The ESB Vader helmet is FAR superior :)
Let me guess this straight, you'd rather have a lopsided helmet with mistakes in it becuase they couldn't make a symetrical one in the beforetime than one that was constructed with superior techniques and doesnt look like it was made in a garage??
I have no idea how either was made... but the ROTS mask just looked wrong somehow.
Akwat Kbrana said:IIRC, the reason for the slugs is that yellow lights were mounted on the sides of Palpy's hood that shone onto his eyes, thus making them "glow." Unfortunately, the lights themselves (clipped onto the hood fabric) were visible in the footage, so ILM rather crudely painted them out, thus producing the black globules often referred as "the Emperor's slugs."
Nonsense!
Here's the real reason, the one too terrible to consider.
The slugs ARE the Darkside. I bet Vader had some under his cape.
Think about it. It all makes perfect sense.
In asnwer to this posts main question:
Yes. We can add "Star Tours" to the DS battle, where it belongs.
Janskeet said:Another thing about that scene that always bugged with was this:
Vader throws his lightsaber at Luke and he easily could've used the force to catch it, why the hell didn't he? It was another moment where Lucas can't think of anything good so he simply does it because the plot says so.
Maybe when one Jedi throws a lightsaber guided by the force, it's hard to catch.
Obviously Luke could not easily have caught it. Or else he would have.
It's silly to make up a rule (ex: "Luke should have caught the lightsaber with the Force") for an almost completely undefinded fictional magic system, and then point to the single piece of evidence that the rule was based on (the one instance of lightsaber tossing in ROTJ) which could have just as easily (and perhaps more reasonably) been interpreted the exact opposite way.
5)Add more personnel to background of hangar matte to liven it up.If possible, could be cool.
8) Add some exotic mtns. to background of shuttle flying over Endor.
I think Endor looks great. Why get all PT on it?
11) Edit Wicket finding Leia scene entirely.
Why? In what way? To what purpose?
18)Get rid of 3POs sound fx during story
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. This is Threepio's highpoitn in the entire saga.
22) Eliminate Vader's dialogue as he is inspecting Luke's saber
Why?
28)Show an a-wing blowing up against shield
This was in the storybook, and I'd be stoked to see it.
32)Fix Emperor's slugs
I still dont know what this means.
34)Add alot more ewoks
Possible from Ewok movies.
35)Add CG arrows flying as they unleash them, taking out Imperial officers
If possible.
37)Add ewoks getting blasted by At-Sts
The battle could definetly benefit from more intensity in any shape.
41)Make Anakin's face more grim and disfigured
I don't know. I'd like to see the eye scar at least.
99) Add the "Star Tours" shuttle flying arouind and being wacky.
Perfect idea!
My thoughts on some of these.
C3PX said:Janskeet said:But even George Lucas said star wars "are just b-movies" and that was his excuse for a lot of the arguments with people who questioned his descisions making the movies.
Huh, that is odd Lucas would call them B-movies. What time frame was this statement made? Before or after the prequels?
When Lucas says "B-Movie" I think he means it in a dismisive 'why are you criticizing Star Wars' sense, the same way he means it when he says 'children's movie.'
General Reiken understood because he wasn't IN LOOOOOOOVE wih Han like Leia was. And Luke was disapointed in Han in "Star Wars" because he was young and naivily optimistic (although also right).
Also, Lando didn't KNOW he was giving up his best friend. Vader altered the deal. Lando was just helping Vader get 'somebody called Skywalker."