Vaderisnothayden

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Gaffer Tape said:

That's not saying I haven't enjoyed EU, but if you honestly think it's anything more than a marketing push, you're seriously deluding yourselves.

 "but if you honestly think it's anything more than a marketing push, you're seriously deluding yourselves."

Yep. That's all the EU is.

 I don't follow. If you enjoy it, how is it any different than any other entertainment venture out there competing for your dollar? If George Lucas slavishly followed every idea laid out in every novel, comic, and RPG supplement, would that somehow make it NOT a 'marketing push?'

Would ROTS have been one ounce better if it was more closely tied to the adventures of Jangotat, or the BattleStar Space Medics? Would the new Clone Wars be any more enjoyable is the prodcucers made sure it tied in better with the 1970's newspaper strip?

What would be the product Lucasfilm could produce that is somehow NOT a marketing push?

I don't follow. If you enjoy it, how is it any different than any other entertainment venture out there competing for your dollar?

Not the real thing. It's ersatz Star Wars. I prefer to stick with something that's a bit more real (even if it's just following something that only has the significance of the modern Lucas ventures). When something's just the subordinate merchandising supporting the main product, well... If it's not obvious to you how it doesn't count then I don't know how to explain it to you. I'm not interested in something that's not the real thing or doesn't have some sort of relevance. Life is too short for that. I can spend my time on other things rather than on NJO books or whatever. There are so many other things I can do with my time. Even just in the category of reading material -I can, for example, read fiction by Liam O'Flaherty or Kafka or literature from ancient Sumeria or Ugarit or read the Silmarillion or read about history or anthropology or psychology or politics or current events or any number of other relevant subjects or authors, fiction and nonfiction. When I read fiction, I can read original fiction rather than stuff by writers writing for a big company to support a franchise. I don't have to waste my time reading the non-original fiction churned out solely to make a buck off fans of a franchise long after such franchise passed its best before date. If you want to read it, feel free to. It's your time, your choice. I don't judge you. I won't claim to understand your choice, but it's your choice to make. Just as it's my choice to not waste my time with it.

If George Lucas slavishly followed every idea laid out in every novel, comic, and RPG supplement, would that somehow make it NOT a 'marketing push?'

That's a good question. Arguably yes, because he'd be taking it seriously and respecting it more. It wouldn't just be this money-maker. Because for him to do that he'd have to have a totally different attitude to it and it wouldn't be just this subordinate storytelling, it would be an equal partner in a big collaborative storytelling effort.

Would ROTS have been one ounce better if it was more closely tied to the adventures of Jangotat, or the BattleStar Space Medics? Would the new Clone Wars be any more enjoyable is the prodcucers made sure it tied in better with the 1970's newspaper strip?

Some people would think so. I don't need it tie in with that stuff. I just note that the degree to which the EU is not binding on the Lucas material underlines its irrelevant just-merchandising status. Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for Lucas to pay more attention to the EU than he does. In fact, I think I'd prefer if he'd quit paying it any attention at all and ignore it totally like the merchandising it is and do the decent thing and get his employees to quit calling it canon. This is not about whether the Lucas material would be better with added EU. This is about the EU's treatment by Lucas underlining its status and the very nature of what it is. It's just merchandising. It's not the real Star Wars story. Or even what passes for the real Star Wars story nowadays. Or even the subordinate merchandising story that was sold in the age when the real Star Wars story was current and alive to a degree it's never been since.

What would be the product Lucasfilm could produce that is somehow NOT a marketing push?

Some movie or tv series that was meant as mainstream Star Wars material rather than subordinate stuff just for making extra cash, something considered by Lucas and Lucasfilm as being on a level with Lucas's own efforts. But I'm not calling for something like that to be made. I'm just noting that the EU is not that.

Maybe you got my previous post wrong. The view that the EU is just merchandising and of lesser or no relevance is a view I strongly believe in, but most of the post was a personal rambling about how I treat it and how I feel, not about how anybody else here should think or act.

Gaffer Tape said:

Haha, C3PX is cracking me up in this thread. Maybe a couple of you think he is being overly-cynical about the whole thing, but, if you think about it, that's exactly what it is. George doesn't want to have to bother keeping track of all these separate stories or limiting his story to the rules set forth by other authors, so he dismisses it, but he still wants to legitimize it so people won't think they're wasting their money, so that's why there are all these different levels of canon. That's not saying I haven't enjoyed EU, but if you honestly think it's anything more than a marketing push, you're seriously deluding yourselves.

 "but if you honestly think it's anything more than a marketing push, you're seriously deluding yourselves."

Yep. That's all the EU is. I've my share of looking at the EU (from all eras), but the only EU I can now take seriously is classic-era stuff like the Marvel comics, because while that was just merchandising too, it's at least classic-era stuff, a relic of the time the OOT was current and the years immediately after, which is a special time for Star Wars. The later EU is just not that relevant for me. The magic time had passed. The later Lucas material (onscreen material -I'm not going to pay any attention to Shatterpoint prologues or whatever, wrong medium), while not valid Star Wars, is at least taking the place now that the films had in the old days -it's the big  onscreen major Star Wars event put out by Lucas. The EU past the early years doesn't even have that. It's hard for me to understand why people get so invested in it. Thrawn, Mara Jade and all that lot will never be real to me even as much as even Ashoka or Shira Brie, let alone the OOT characters. 

But yeah, EU is just merchandising. It's not the Real Thing. It's not even the real thing by modern standards, and modern standards suck, seeing as there's nothing out now (EU or from Lucas) that's the real thing in the stricter sense. Some people spend hours reading NJO novels about aliens called the Using Pong or whatever invading the Star Wars galaxy and fucking everything up and I wonder why they waste their time (the readers, not the Pong), particularly seeing as those novels sound like they're torture.

And now there's something called the Fate of the Jedi, in which the Jedi are persecuted by an imperial who somehow got in charge of the new version of the Republic. And before that, there was something called The Legacy of the Farce, in which Han and Leia's only remaining son (the other one was killed off because he might be confused with lil Annie, or so I'm told -he was called Anakin because Leia never forgave her father, or something like that) -anyway, their only remaining son decides to totally rip off Annie Skywalker and ROTS and go to the dark side because it'll save someone he loves. In the modern Star Wars universe, love makes you evil, don't you know. As Yoda says in ROTS, we should never get attached to people and we should be happy if our loved ones die and we should do nothing to prevent them dying. Fuck you, Yoda. Meanwhile there's the books of one Karen Traviss, in which I'm told the Jedi are slave owners and the clone soldiers are the slaves and way cooler than the jedi, because they're Mandalorians, who are, like, the coolest people around. Like Jango Fett, who the EU has killing tons of jedi with his bare hands when sorely outnumbered by them. Karen Traviss quit writing Star Wars books after the present Clone Wars show screwed up her continuity. Anyway, the EU is wandering off on its own weird direction, milking huge mountains of cash of hapless fans. And I'm left scratching my head.

The recent KOTOR and Legacy comics are pretty well done mind you, but they're still none too relevant and the un-Star Warsy-ness of the Legacy comics is kind of blatant -they're very comic booky. The main guy is a long-haired, semi-shaven descendant of Luke's with a drug habit and an attitude problem and a tendency to dip into the dark side (doesn't everybody do that in the EU?).

Tobar said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Tobar said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Tobar said:

They're referring to G-level canon which is George canon. Even if they weren't while I appreciate Splinter of the Mind's Eye for what it is, there's not a lot in it that can easily fit with the rest of the EU.

You have to remember, Lucas himself doesn't take the canonical status of the EU seriously, so it makes sense that some of his employees would dismiss it too, even if some others are busy promoting it as canon.

 

George himself has stated that there are different levels of canon. As well, the person who wrote that article was Pablo Hidalgo who is a big fan of and contributes to the EU regularly himself.

George himself has clearly stated the EU is a separate universe from his Star Wars and that it doesn't happen (he's given examples such as Luke marrying or the Emperor being cloned as things which don't happen). And I've read a lot said by George about canon, but I've never heard of him saying there's different levels of canon. I think you need to provide a quote for that.As for Hidalgo, just because he contributes to the EU doesn't mean he adheres to the fiction that it's canon.

That's what I mean when I say levels. When George gave the whole Father, Son, Spirit analogy. As for the Clone Wars team throwing the EU out the door, it's NOT them that's doing that. It's George. If it were up to Dave Filoni the whole show would strictly adhere to it because he's such a huge fan of it. However, since George decided to latch onto the project and basically take creative control over it all Dave can do is bring up as much of it as he can to try and preserve it.

 

The father, son and holy ghost analogy wasn't about different levels of canon. It was about there being different Star Wars worlds or universes -his stuff (his films and tv) , the EU and the fans. The whole different levels of canon thing is something solely adhered to by some of his employees.

As for the Clone Wars team throwing the EU out the door, it's NOT them that's doing that. It's George. If it were up to Dave Filoni the whole show would strictly adhere to it because he's such a huge fan of it. However, since George decided to latch onto the project and basically take creative control over it all Dave can do is bring up as much of it as he can to try and preserve it.

But George is ON the Clone Wars team. He's the head of it and a very important part of it, so you can't say the team is all in favor of the EU. This is George's project, not just Filoni's, and that's why it's being taken more seriously than EU. 

skyjedi2005 said:

To be fair to Robin Gurland she as far as i know casted the young indiana jones chronicles and the guest stars and casting on that were nothing short of amazing in my honest opinion. Sean Patrick flannery was a brilliant choice for a young indiana jones even though the show really was not really anything like the movie trilogy.

Sean Patrick Flanery was a horrific choice for a young Indy, right up there with Hayden as Anakin.

If you have seen Hayden's screen test he is better there than he was in the movies, which says to me that George Lucas cannot direct actors and Hayden is not the best talent out there.

He can do better than he did in the prequels, but I've never seen him play a part in which he didn't make the character lame. Hayden doesn't fit for Anakin even at his best.

The same person who everyone says ruined the Godfather 3,lol.   Okay so she may be a terrible actor, but what about as a director?  I thought Lost in Translation was decent but overrated.

I think her acting in Godfather three is underrated and unfairly scapegoated for the film not being what fans of the earlier films wanted it to be.

TV's Frink said:

skyjedi2005 said:

The casting was as far as i know Anakin in episode 1: Jake Lloyd gave the best screen test

I thought on the EP 1 DVD documentary, one of the other two kids gave better line readings.  But of course it's a matter of opinion, and I don't actually think Jake was that horrible, given the lines he was working with.

Well, they showed three people screen testing total. They had to have tested more people than that, or should have. Jake was the best of those three, but that's not saying much. They could easily have found a better actor for the role.

skyjedi2005 said:

The one and only true canon was and still should be the oot, but Lucas himself did not follow the continuity or the canon when he created the special editions and prequels.  So anything the man says about canon i call bullshit since he did not even follow it himself.

He had to change the originals to fit his conception of the prequels which is retarded they should have been made to conform to what was already established.

Plus he adds EU stuff to the movies he did not create, but does not matter to me since the prequels and special editions are an alternate universe version like bizzaro world star wars, they too are EU or are infinities.  Just not the better EU.

That this newer star wars stuff does not jive with the originals tells me it is entirely false and not set in the canon star wars universe which existed up until a certain point in the 1990's when the dude decided to act as though he was making star wars for the first time in 1997 , its pure insanity.

 

 I agree. :)

rcb said:

george has worked with the authors and anything affiliated with star wars. he's always looked over a story line before its sent out to the fans.

He's also said he doesn't keep track of the EU and doesn't read the books.

Tobar said:

 

C3PX said:

Tobar said:

George himself has stated that there are different levels of canon...

 

Which is a nicely done and diplomatic way of saying, "If I didn't write it, it didn't happen! Err.. but it did happen, because I want all this money from licensing... but it didn't actually happen, because I didn't write it. But- Buy that book!- it did happen, just not really. Okay... maybe it happened... a little. But not as much as the stuff I wrote happened, because that is the only stuff that really happened."

Maybe we should just say all EU is stuff Artoo dreamed about (do droids dream?), which would explain why some is quite pleasant, while other bits are downright weird, and other bits are absolutely nightmarish. So, Artoo really dreamed about it, giving it a solid place in the SW universe, but it didn't really happen. That is my new definitive explanation for EU!

 

But on that note, what I do like about what they're doing with the Clone Wars and I mean specifically what Dave Filoni is doing. Is that he's a HUGE Star Wars fan, like a living encylopedia. So whenever they have story meetings and George comes up with something Dave will bring up what has already been done or covered in the EU and takes it to George. In this way, George can see it and then decide whether to include it or not. In this way at least we can still have some of the EU acknowledged.

They've conspicuously disregarded the EU multiple times in this show, which doesn't say much for their concern for it.

Tobar said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Tobar said:

They're referring to G-level canon which is George canon. Even if they weren't while I appreciate Splinter of the Mind's Eye for what it is, there's not a lot in it that can easily fit with the rest of the EU.

You have to remember, Lucas himself doesn't take the canonical status of the EU seriously, so it makes sense that some of his employees would dismiss it too, even if some others are busy promoting it as canon.

 

George himself has stated that there are different levels of canon. As well, the person who wrote that article was Pablo Hidalgo who is a big fan of and contributes to the EU regularly himself.

George himself has clearly stated the EU is a separate universe from his Star Wars and that it doesn't happen (he's given examples such as Luke marrying or the Emperor being cloned as things which don't happen). And I've read a lot said by George about canon, but I've never heard of him saying there's different levels of canon. I think you need to provide a quote for that.As for Hidalgo, just because he contributes to the EU doesn't mean he adheres to the fiction that it's canon.

Gaffer Tape said:

captainsolo said:

The truth is it hurts to watch star wars now. I go for classic EU novels when I want a good SW fix. The GOUTs are painful to see-especially those damn garbage mattes!

I can't blame the GOUT for that.  I find the garbage mattes to be just as visible on the '04 sets as well.  In fact, that's when I first noticed them.

And I personally couldn't give a fuck about garbage mattes or garbage cans or whatever. They don't bother me. They're not a problem.

ChainsawAsh said:

The garbage mattes should not be fixed - they were there in 1977, so "fixing" them is just another alteration.  A film is a snapshot of the time in which it was made, and effects flaws are a part of that.  I really wish the Raiders of the Lost Ark DVD had kept the cobra reflection, too.

I seem to be in the minority as far as this idea goes, though.

I agree fully. Changing these things years later is dishonest and ruins the film's function as a record of film in its time.

TheBoost said:

skyjedi2005 said:

I still wonder though even if Lucas relented and had someone like Robert Harris restore the oot, would all the hatred leveled at Lucas continue. 

 I don't think you can blame an artist for, 30 years after making a masterpiece, making more work that doesn't necessarily measure up to that masterpeice. If I'm dissapointed in the PT and Indy 4, that's not a personal flaw with Lucas, they're just not as good films.

The only thing I have issue with the man about is his desire to rewrite/erase/destroy film history, as well as the movies that I love and that made him rich and famouse. If tommorrow he said "Restored OUT comes out in November! Sorry about that!" I'd have no beef with him at all.

Anyone who is personally angry at Lucas just because his later film output was dissapointing is a bit odd in my opinion.

Except the prequels weren't simply disappointing and didn't simply not measure up to his previous work. Rather, they go out of their way to crap all over Star Wars. In the prequels, Star Wars is rubbed in the shit. If they were merely disappointing they wouldn't make people angry, but they went way farther than that. Look at the utter destruction of the character of Anakin/Vader for an example of how the prequels work to destroy Star Wars. People have every reason to be angry when that's done to a classic. The prequels are like an act of aggression against Star Wars and an act of aggression against Star wars is an act of aggression against those who love Star Wars. As such, people have every reason to be angry with Lucas over the prequels.

Sluggo said:

I've said it before, but it really comes down to which emotion Lucas feels the strongest. His hatred for the earlier 'flawed' films or his desire to make money. 

Once he gets to the point where a high quality remastered set of the trilogy on its original form is the last hope to make money, after he has saturated the market with release after release after release of his 'souped-up' special editions no longer makes money and the public is once again sick of all things star wars (remember 1985, anyone?) then I think he will have to relent and tap the last remaining fanbase who are holding out for bluray or what ever is acceptable at the time.

I don't think that'll happen. By turning the Star Wars franchise into a hit tv show, Lucas has found the way to make it popular indefinitely and make money on it constantly. They'll just keep churning out shows and raking in the cash.

Tobar said:

They're referring to G-level canon which is George canon. Even if they weren't while I appreciate Splinter of the Mind's Eye for what it is, there's not a lot in it that can easily fit with the rest of the EU.

They say "canon", not "G-canon", which implies very clearly that Splinter is not counted as "canon" at all. I see no proof there that they're just referring to just G-canon. It sounds very much like dividing between canon and non-canon, rather than dividing between G-canon and lesser canon. The EU-is-canon viewpoint clearly stresses that lower levels of canon are still canon too, which is at odds with the quoted statement that simply implies EU isn't canon at all. If they were going by the Eu-is-canon approach they wouldn't word it so as to clearly imply the EU isn't canon. What you've got there is somebody writing who doesn't consider non-Lucas material to be canon. By very nature the wording implies that non-Lucas material is not canon. They do NOT go and specify G-canon, which they would do if they were somebody going by the G, C, etc system of canon.

You have to remember, Lucas himself doesn't take the canonical status of the EU seriously, so it makes sense that some of his employees would dismiss it too, even if some others are busy promoting it as canon.

As for Splinter itself, it's been counted as canon by Leland Chee, who runs Lucasfilm canon (the "canon" that calls EU canon). So it's as much "canon" as the rest of the EU, whether it fits or not.

alek2702 said:

Lucas had (and to some extend still has) great visual sense.

But he was never too good with actors. Even Ford said that he's 'impatient with the process of acting' and most times his only advice was 'faster and more intense'. You can really see that.

He had a great cast for the original and even there some scenes are a bit 'stiff'. Not to mention the PT...

Also ANH lacks of some kind of emotional depth (e.g. your home planet has been blown away? so what, you can still come up with dozen funny one-liners 5 minutes later) and sometimes feels a little rushed.

He can make great visuals and action but i agree that he isn't a very good director.

The acting in the OT was fine. I don't see why people bash the OT acting. The quality of the acting is one of the primary reasons the films are so good. As for emotional depth in ANH, just because the film wasn't entirely realistic about character behavior doesn't mean it lacked emotional depth. ANH emphatically had emotional depth. That's another reason why it's a good film and became so liked. 

Interesting how they're totally dismissing Splinter as not being canonical. So much for the whole EU-is-canon thing.

AxiaEuxine said:

Kaibur Crystal was introduced way0 back in Splinter of the Mind's Eye and it was nt a repository of force-sensitive babies.

 

 Yeah, and it goes back to the early scripts for ANH.

I think it's a load of revisonist nonsense. In the OT, bad guys were bad guys and, yeah, Vader changed sides, but he was a special exception. There was none of this "the imperials have a valid point of view and they really just want order" and all that shit. All this Boba-Fett-is-a-great-guy-with-a-code-of-honor guff. The old EU (OOT era and the years following) had some bad guys who were a bit less bad, like an Alderaanian-born stormtrooper who helped Leia and a Nagai who befriends Leia and in the end the imperials and Nagai ally with the Alliance against the Toffs, but the empire isn't shown as this honorable bunch who just want to bring order to the galaxy while the rebels cause the deaths of civilians like you get in more recent EU. Boba Fett was bounty hunter scum, not the hero of his own stories. And they sure would never have put an imperial running the new Republic. Dark siders weren't ok people and when Luke got close with a dark side woman she was a double agent sent to get to him, not his future wife. Mara Jade was a good character, but I always did find it a bit odd how everybody was so fine and dandy about her having been the Emperor's agent. I think once Star Wars got into the 90s, the EU ran off a bit on its own way, and got more distant from the original spirit of Star Wars. I mean, when you have the rebels doing suicide attacks on civilians (actually happened in a Dark Horse comic) then you know something's wrong.

skyjedi2005 said:

Then that scary villain who oozes gravitas becomes an emo douche in the form of hayden christensen. 

Either i have to keep both versions of vader separate in my mind or the character is ultimately ruined, a film icon ruined by one of the people responsible for his creation. 

Yeah. That's why it's worthwhile to point out how the OOT and PT don't work as one canon. Helps us in keeping them separate in our minds. And it's possible to do so because those two trilogies just really don't work as being in the same imagined reality together.

The clone wars and prequels treated the villains in such a laughable manner that they can't be taken seriously its like the villains in a warner bros toon.  Whether it is ian hamming it up as palpatine in episode III, grevious in episode III or the cartoon clone wars, ventress from clone wars, and dooku in the clone wars cartoon.   They are always treated in a childish manner and completely dumb.  You always have the villains escaping like cowards especially in the cartoon.

In the OOT the villains were never a joke. Then in the SE we have cartoon Jabba and in the PT we have cartoonish Trade Federation guys, cartoonish droid troopers, hammed-up Sidious (ROTJ Palpatine was overacted, but in an artful careful way that worked, while ROTS Sids was just grotesque hamming) and cartoon-character Grievous. And of course the show has plenty cartoonish characters, though at least they're less out of place in a cartoon show. But then we have to remember that Lucas used to joke that TPM was the "animated movie". Ventress in the cartoon doesn't bother me. She did at first, but taken as a cartoon character in a cartoon she's pretty well done.

Personally I couldn't give a fuck about garbage mattes or slugs or snails or whatever. They don't bother me. And I don't think they should edited out of the film. They're part of the film. Leave them in.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

Ziz said:

Of if they wanted to be really obvious that he was selfish, mean and egotistical, they could have called him "Vaderisnothayden Bane".

Bullshit. It's called insults, not sarcasm.

I'm a tad late, but just wanted to say (especially since VINH and I have had little clashes in the past) that I think Ziz's comment seemed a bit on the unecessarily nasty side, and VINH isn't unreasonable in his annoyance at it.

 Thank you. :)

Well, I tried taking the high ground, but with C3PX saying how much he "enjoyed" Ziz's posts I just had to look at those posts. Time for some truth-talking.

Ziz said:

C3PX said:

Ziz said:

Of if they wanted to be really obvious that he was selfish, mean and egotistical, they could have called him "Vaderisnothayden Bane".

 

Seriously, what do comments like this really add to the discussion? You may not like VINH, or find him annoying, but it is still pretty lousy to just toss out insults like that.

 

It's called sarcasm.  He doesn't contribute anything positive, all he does is complain, I'm just giving him a taste of his own medicine.  And what makes it funnier is that he's so full of himself that he doesn't see it that way, and probably still won't even after reading this very post of me saying so.

Bullshit. It's called insults, not sarcasm. Low-down unprovoked insults that demonstrate that you do not understand the proper boundaries and lines which one shouldn't cross when posting on the net. Bursting into a peaceful conversation just to insult somebody who was not insulting you is plain childish and stupid. Nor was  insulting me like that a taste of my own medicine. What I do that you so dislike is I criticise things. Shows, films, performances. I don't go around spontaneously insulting posters who aren't doing anything against me. A "taste of my own medicine" would be to criticise something I like. Which people have done on this board. And I responded with reasoned argument, not calling people egotistical, selfish and mean. As for your view that I'm so full of myself, what does this come from? The fact that I refused to do things the Ziz way when ordered to? You're the one that's full of themselves, going around telling people how to post or deciding you're the one to decide what's constructive posting and that everybody should just post to your specifications. You treated me like shit in the past just because I refused to follow the Ziz doctrine of posting. Stop being so full of yourself and so sure of the rightness of your view of what posting should be and stop trying to force it down other people's throats. You won't catch me going around the board hounding people just because I don't think their posting is constructive. 

Also, you need to learn some basic principles. Don't worry, they're not difficult. Firstly, criticism is not complaining. What I do not is not merely complaining. Quite apart from the fact that I do more than criticise things. I defend ROTJ at every opportunity, for example. I start discussions on the different versions of the films, for example. I do more than criticise. But you are so quick to rush to judgement that you don't bother getting your facts straight. Next, you seem to be stuck to the stupid, dumb, narrow-minded, UNCONSTRUCTIVE view that criticism is a negative and is not contributing anything. That view is incredibly damaging for open constructive discussion, because criticism is an important part of such discussion. I have posted numerous posts of carefully thought-out in-depth criticism of a sort that is far more constructive and positive than anything I've ever seen you post on this board. The view that criticism is a negative and is unconstructive and not contributing anything positive is a fixation of air-brained internet morons of the sort who see a bit of criticism and go "Oh, no! Negative! Bad! It's not sunshine and roses! It's terrible! We can't have that! It must be all polite gushing! I'm scared! Protect me from the big bad criticism! It menaces me!" Such people need to grow up. Instead of copying their thinking, try thinking for yourself and being open-minded. I think your problem with me is that I think for myself and that bothers you, because you don't.

Ziz said:

C3PX said:

Skyjedi makes a fantastic point about the ignore button, if you feel VINH doens't bring anything to the discussion, save yourself some annoyance and ignore him.

 

Why should I put him on ignore?  It's fun watching him go out of his way to contribute only negativity.  I keep wondering when he's going to implode in on himself.

And for all the bitching about the PT and Indy 4 that Sky does, at least he makes the occasional suggestion of how things could be different.  VINH can't seem to get that far.

Why should you put me on ignore when what you really want to do is go around picking fights with me, you mean. You couldn't do that if you put me on ignore, so you won't put me on ignore. You get a kick out of your hostile feeling towards me and towards my posting and you wouldn't be able to indulge in that properly if you couldn't read my posts. So no, you'll never put me on ignore.

"It's fun watching him go out of his way to contribute only negativity" -there you are again, copying your attitudes from the dumbest, most air-headed denizens of the internet. Get it into your thick skull, criticism isn't a negative. The world would be lost without people criticising things that need criticising. Criticism is an important part of discussion. I think you would favor one of those totalitarian states in which nobody is allowed to speak out critically against the establishment.

And btw, I'm not going out of my way at all. It's funny you should think I'm going out of my way. I post what I post because it's what I want to post. I'm not going to go out of my way at all over something like this. What I post comes naturally.

And don't worry, I won't implode. I really don't see why you would expect me to. It's not like criticism involves all this negative feeling and tension that you seem to think it does. 

 "And for all the bitching about the PT and Indy 4 that Sky does, at least he makes the occasional suggestion of how things could be different.  VINH can't seem to get that far."

Again with these dumb mindless notions on what's positive and negative and constructive. Suggesting ways in which things could have been done differently is in no way more valuable or more constructive or more positive than giving accurate thought-out criticisms of how things went wrong. I don't engage in a lot of speculating on how things could have been done differently, because a lot of that stuff strikes me as pointless speculation. I'd much rather understand what actually happened and what actually was done and why it went wrong. But when I find it necessary or to the point to suggest some way in which things could have been done differently then I do so. But of course, you haven't noticed.

skyjedi2005 said:

I'm surprised everyone has forgotten about the ignore feature so easily.

You don't like someone's opinions or views put them on your ignore list.

Currently no one is being ignored by me because i like more than a one sided conversation, but trolls deserve to be ignored.

Don't worry, I haven't read any of Ziz's posts since the last one I replied to above. He's on my ignore list. The guy was hostile and aggressive to me since before I ever said anything to him and he just did it again and again. I even apologized to him once and he kept it up. So basically, he's given me no reason to think well of him or respect him or anything he says. I ended up with the impression that he's just a troublemaker. So there was no further point in reading his crap.

I wouldnt put somebody on my ignore list just for expressing opinions I don't like, but I will put somebody on my ignore list for stooping really low and being personally offensive and gratuitously aggressive one time too many and generally proving to be nothing but a troublemaker.

Me i have learned that other people may have different opinions than mine in life, i might not always like said opinions, views or ideas but i have to tolerate them because it is the American thing to do, freedom of speech and all.

That's a reasonable approach, but some people seem to think it's morally wrong for you (general "you", as in you me or whoever)  to come out with a view they disagree with and feel they are morally justified in lashing out at you if you come out with such a view. There seems to be a lack of tolerance there for expression of a wide range of opinions or for differing posting approaches.

C3PX said:

Ziz said:

Of if they wanted to be really obvious that he was selfish, mean and egotistical, they could have called him "Vaderisnothayden Bane".

 

Seriously, what do comments like this really add to the discussion? You may not like VINH, or find him annoying, but it is still pretty lousy to just toss out insults like that.

Good question. I really don't see how disliking somebody on a board or disliking their opinions justifies unprovoked insults and aggression.

I don't know. I just want to get along on this board. I don't need all this hassle. So I wish people who act like that would kindly stay away from me. Or maybe put notices in their sigs saying "Troublemaker here, put on ignore list". It would save me the trouble of trying to talk to them and finding it's pointless.

.

Ziz said:

Of if they wanted to be really obvious that he was selfish, mean and egotistical, they could have called him "Vaderisnothayden Bane".

Some people stoop so low it amazes me. You're one of those. You're not worth paying attention to, but I did feel the need to point out to you quite how low you were going. In case you're looking to start a fight here (which I guess you are), you won't get any further replies from me on this thread. Go on, be insulting all you like.

Gaffer Tape said:

rcb said:

from wat i understand is that at first, Obi-wan killed luke's father.

Nope, that was never part of the story (that we are aware of), although it would have been a pretty cool reveal.  The notion that Obi-Wan killed Luke's father was from the fake page of the script in ESB in order to preserve the true secret from even those who worked on the movie. 

Which rubs in just how much it was a SECRET and supposed to be a surprise. That surprise is an important part of ESB. And the point there is that the film sure as hell wasn't designed to be seen after a whole trilogy that tells you Luke's father turns into Vader. Just as it's supposed to be a surprise that the little green guy was Yoda, because the film wasn't designed to be seen after a whole trilogy in which everybody knows Yoda is a little green guy who talks backwards. The OT, contrary to propaganda, was not designed to be seen after watching the prequel trilogy, as one big six-part movie. Obviously, Lucas had some sort of prequel trilogy thought up back then to some extent, but he didn't design the OT to be seen right after it. He designed the OT as if it was intended to be seen without viewing any other Star Wars material before it. (And of course you can bet that whatever PT he had planned back then was damn different from what he ended up with.)