Godfather 3 is underrated. Whereas the first two are overrated.
Octorox said:
Star Wars was really the catalyst that shifted sci-fi from "Thinking man's sci-fi" such as 2001: A Space Odyssey to "fantasy/action/western set among futuristic backdrops."
2001 had rather less thought (of any value) and rather more pretension that is often recognized. Overrated movie. Give me Star Wars any day -that had humanity and an active imagination.
On the other thread rcb linked to a rumor that a young Luke is going to appear on the show. Having seen a young Anakin and a young "Boba", I dread a young Luke. It'd be very unlikely to be anything but more crapping on Star Wars.
Sounds like a horrible idea. It's just the sort of crap I'd expect from this show.
skyjedi2005 said:
If Lucas releases the true unmolested versions of his movies restored on blu ray that will be the last of anything i ever by from Lucasfilm.
Here is a list of them:
THX 1138
American Graffiti
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
Raiders of the Lost Ark
The Temple of Doom
The Last Crusade
The indy trilogy already got an acceptable dvd release but as for the rest it is a joke, they no longer exist unless you own the laserdiscs long out of print from before the cgi changes.
Even though Indiana Jones trilogy did have too much dvnr and was not the theatrical colors or it was missing the stereo mix of the three films it was still a far sight better than those botched star wars releases.
He tried slipping a cgi altered shot into Graffiti and hoped no one would notice, just like he did with the HD broadcast of Raiders. People like me who have seen these historic films dozens of times will spot such a jarring addition even though the image moves by at whatever the frame rate on dvd and TV is. I know it is not 24fps until blu ray only cinemas could do that.
At this point these other films getting a DVD release would just be a bonus as far as i'm concerned if they are not restored to be viable to strike new 35mm cinema prints or restored on the highest quality home media currently blu ray, then not only does lucasfilm miss out but the original negatives are left to time and age in Lucas vaults. He thinks 1080p video versions are archival and permanent, which is incredibly laughable because 1080 does not even cover the resolving power of a 35mm release print much less what is on the camera negative.
I will not be buying the incredibly unspecial edition with the new special defects of star wars on blu ray, anymore than i will buy the special edition of e.t. on blu ray, theatrical versions from lucas and spielberg or no sale. The star wars Prequels and kingdom of the crystal numbskull can rot in Lucas vaults for all eternity as far as I'm concerned as i never want to see them again, ever. I will forever and ever hate that phantom plot movie, attack of the wooden dialogue romance, and revenge of the shit.
The 1997 special edition of star wars will always be preferably to the 2004 despite its defects. Its on film with actual film grain and true colors, and Hayden does not ruin return of the jedi and the entire saga by his creepy looking almost mug shot face staring back at the audience, at least in 1997,lol.
Boba Fetts voice is still boba fett and not that bad prequels actor. Yeah Greedo stills shoots, but that and luke's scream are the worst changes in that version,imho.
Next thing Lucas will have Ewan Mcgregor redub guiness in star wars telling luke about the midiclorians and the end of the film wil have kenobis ghost saying, "the midichlorians will be with you always!"
I wouldn't buy the SE on blu-ray either. I didn't buy the 2004 box set. I'm not interested in buying the mutilated versions of the films. Well, not unless I can get the real thing too -having the screwed up editions around can be useful for studyng how Star wars got fucked up. But if the real thing is not being made available I'm not buying the fake version. Which is why I didn't even consider buying that 2004 box set.
I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas someday replaces the Yoda and even Jabba puppets in the OOT with cgi versions. I've heard they want to replace the Phantom Menace Yoda puppet with cgi. That puppet was awful, but so was the cgi version of Yoda. There was an idea of replacing ROTJ's Ackbar with something presumably for the 2004 dvd release, I read.
I'm not as against TPM and Numbskull as you are, though they aren't very genuine film experiences. I would prefer if Lucas didn't fuck with TPM any further. I'm not all worked up about the original TPM dvd changes, but enough's enough. As for the other two prequels, in some ways I couldn't give a fuck what happens to them, but I also want what happened to Star Wars to be accurately recorded and represented. So if people have to be watching ROTS I want them to see how Lucas fucked it up in 2005, not how he fucks it up in whenever he comes back to fiddle with it.
C3PX said:
McCallum is the guy who quite literally starts orgasming every time he talks about George Lucas or Star Wars. Just because this guy dreams of their being five Star Wars tv shows, thank goodness, doesn't mean it is going to happen. Nothing lasts forever, and I think Star Wars has (finally!) run its course, at least with adult/teenage audiences. I have a feeling the live action tv show will never happen, I think it is the sequel trilogy of the current generation of Star Wars fans, but ultimately will wind up being "an invention of the media" sort of thing.
If it does get made, I can't imagine it aiming for an adult audience (though I wish it would, I'd love to have a live action Star Wars tv show that I enjoy, but there is just no part of me that thinks this could be anything but awful. I certainly wouldn't mind being wrong though). And unfortunately, if it were aimed at an adult audience, I am afraid it would be doomed to failure simply due to the fact that sci-fi shows don't seem to go over to well. If it managed to be more character focused like BSG and be more adult themed, it might fly, but that seems really, really, really unlikely.
If the live action show does get made, my guess is that it will be more along the lines of a live action kids show with a high budget. Basically a cartoon with live actors.
Either way, I think Star Wars' number is up. From here on out it may endure as a children's cartoon series, but nothing more.
The live action show is supposed to be in the style of Battlestar Galactica and Firefly and has been compared to the Sopranos and Deadwood. How Lucas is going to make something like that I don't know. But it is adult-aimed. That doesn't mean it's going to be any good.
Ziz said:
HotRod said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
HotRod said:
Stop moaning!!!
Stop acting like an arse.
Criticising something that deserves to be criticised isn't "moaning".
Me acting like an arse...Mate, you're bloody moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet, or if it's even going to happen.
You're the arse...all you ever do is bloody moan...Christ help anyone that actually has to live with you. You're worst than my missus, and that's saying something.
Lighten up man!!
Ditto. Skyjedi and VINH oughta get married.
Ah, another person who likes acting like an arse. Giving me unprovoked shit on the other thread wasn't enough for you?
HotRod said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
HotRod said:
Stop moaning!!!
Stop acting like an arse.
Criticising something that deserves to be criticised isn't "moaning".
Me acting like an arse...Mate, you're bloody moaning about something that hasn't even happened yet, or if it's even going to happen.
You're the arse...all you ever do is bloody moan...Christ help anyone that actually has to live with you. You're worst than my missus, and that's saying something.
Lighten up man!!
Like I said, you're acting like an arse. Such wondrous wisdom coming from you (as in total bullshit).
You seem to think it's unreasonable to be concerned about the future. You must be one of these people who live mindlessly in the present with no concern for what's to come.
Criticism isn't "moaning". I think what I post is rather more of value than going around telling people "stop moaning" or whatever it is you do -I haven't seen anything of special value in your posts that sticks in my mind.
There was absolutely no call for you to come onto this thread and start getting rude with me. It was absolutely unnecessary. If you weren't interested in the topic of the thread, you could have posted elsewhere. If you felt the show wasn't something we needed to worry about yet, you could have said so politely. But no, all you could think of was "Stop moaning".
Stop acting the arse.
skyjedi2005 said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
Rick McCallum has said that they hope that after the live action show's second or third year they could make a spin-off show for a character (like what? a Boba Fett show with Daniel Logan? puke!) and that by the fourth or fifth year there could be at least five separate shows going at the same time.
Five fucking shows? Are they trying to take over television? Talk about a fucking industry! Well, I guess that's where I'll quit trying to follow what Lucas does with Star Wars, because I'm not watching five bloody shows of the stuff.
To me there's something awfully cynical about making a whole load of shows of this stuff. It's like thoroughly milking the thing after it's already been soundly murdered and beaten to deah with a stick.
George, I don't want your five fucking shows. I just want the OOT restored and made available in future formats.
Are you sure he did not mean five different seasons or five different story arcs going on at the same time like has been speculated on the show being an anthology series.
As for bitching and whining i gave up on star wars and lucas a while ago and sometimes just enjoy the conversations and a spirited debate, but lucas destroying star wars is past tense since he cannot really bury it any further than the prequels or the non anamorphic gout and ruined 2004 dvd release with botched sound and colors.
I hate to restate my opinion on where i parted ways with star wars and indiana jones but it is like this.
star wars 1977-1983 R.I.P.
indiana jones 1981-1989 R.I.P.
The other movies are so bad as to be an alternate reality version of the series they claim to be, and i will never accept them as canon. I would just as soon pretend they don't exist. For those who enjoyed skull and will see indy V more power to them.
Are you sure he did not mean five different seasons or five different story arcs going on at the same time like has been speculated on the show being an anthology series.
I think it's clear he didn't just mean five different arcs. The talk seems to have been about five different SHOWS. McCallum said "One of the ideas is that we’ll have multiple series going on in about two or three years' time."
As for bitching and whining
Justified criticism is not "bitching and whining". Calling it bitching and whining and "moaning" is pushing the argument of the Lucas worshippers who consider all criticism invalid. The whole "bitching and whining/moaning" accusation is based on the false assumption that there's something wrong with such criticism. There isn't. Speaking out against a real problem is a good thing to do.
but lucas destroying star wars is past tense since he cannot really bury it any further than the prequels or the non anamorphic gout and ruined 2004 dvd release with botched sound and colors.
He can always ruin it more.
HotRod said:
Stop moaning!!!
Stop acting like an arse.
Criticising something that deserves to be criticised isn't "moaning".
Rick McCallum has said that they hope that after the live action show's second or third year they could make a spin-off show for a character (like what? a Boba Fett show with Daniel Logan? puke!) and that by the fourth or fifth year there could be at least five separate shows going at the same time.
Five fucking shows? Are they trying to take over television? Talk about a fucking industry! Well, I guess that's where I'll quit trying to follow what Lucas does with Star Wars, because I'm not watching five bloody shows of the stuff.
To me there's something awfully cynical about making a whole load of shows of this stuff. It's like thoroughly milking the thing after it's already been soundly murdered and beaten to deah with a stick.
George, I don't want your five fucking shows. I just want the OOT restored and made available in future formats.
rcb said:
skyjedi2005 said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
rcb said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
But the part was still written and directed to be a whiny teenager in AOTC, and then a moody young man prone to crying in ROTS. Do you suppose any actor could have pulled that off in a way you would call "Vader-worthy?" Is it even possible, in ur opion?
Another actor could have done it better than Hayden. And anyway, it didn't have to be written that way. The way it was written was not consistent with the Anakin we were given in the OT.
we don't learn much about him in the OT anyways. all we hear about him is from Obi-wan.
This is all i recall:
Anakin was a great pilot, the best in the star galaxy btw. a cunning warrior and amazingly strong in the force. he was seduced by the dark side of the force and from a certain point of view, he was dead.
lastly, he new he had a child, but not a twin due to the fact that his children were hidden from him after they were born.
did i miss anything? this is all i recall.
No, we learn more about him than that. Kenobi says rather more than you mention there. And we actually MEET him. And the character Shaw played could never have been the character in AOTC and ROTS, and nor could the OT's Vader for that matter. We learn plenty about Anakin in the OT, quite enough to tell he could never be the PT character.
Except that now thanks to Lucas retcons starting in Empire Strikes Back Obi Wan is an Untrustworthy person who lies or tells his version of the truth from a certain point of view. When Star Wars 77 was shot what obi wan told luke in his hut was the absolute truth. his father was betrayed and murdered by his other star pupil vader.
I get the impression that Kenobi had two apprentices at the same time who were brothers of a sort and firends that had a falling out and vader killed his friend skywalker, so kenobi chased him down to a lava pit and dueled him and killed vader, or so he thought until he found out palpy had his body reconstructed.
Was it jealousy, pride over who was a better pupil, who the master liked better. Would be like one of those samurai or kung fu tales where the student does this.
How would the sequels come off if Vader was not the father but the man who killed lukes father and master, it is strictly a tale of revenge. No leia as the sister or vader as the father.
Not only that Vader brought dishonor onto his order the jedi knights by his actions.
from wat i understand is that at first, Obi-wan killed luke's father. but anyways, vaderisnothayden, who we saw was and old man, i wouldn't c him acting like a baby either. but when ur younger u act differently.
plus, both actors, u couldn't tell if they had been vader. vader was a character of his own, so the two characters we saw were their own unique selves.
from wat i understand is that at first, Obi-wan killed luke's father. but anyways, vaderisnothayden, who we saw was and old man, i wouldn't c him acting like a baby either. but when ur younger u act differently.
There's rather more to it than that. Yes you change as you age, but some people have an innate substance to their personality that's going to show to at least some extent at any age and some people are just not capable of substance and aren't going to get it no matter how old they get. ROTJ's Shaw Anakin is an example of the former and the AOTC/ROTS Anakin is an example of the latter. It's simply not possible for somebody like the AOTC/ROTS Anakin to turn into the ROTJ Anakin. It's far more than a difference in maturity.
plus, both actors, u couldn't tell if they had been vader. vader was a character of his own, so the two characters we saw were their own unique selves.
Not true. Vader was just Anakin gone dark with a new name stuck on. Vader was not a character of his own, he was a stage of Anakin's development, so his personality has to relate to Anakin's. Vader (in the OT) had substance and force of personality. The AOTC/ROTS Anakin didn't have it in him to develop that, so he couldn't have become OT Vader. And don't forget, Anakin had already turned to the dark side and become Vader before he fought Kenobi on Mustafar. So that Anakin we saw on Mustafar was Vader. And that character could never become the villain we saw in the OT. By contrast, ROTJ Anakin had something to him and was thus much more plausible as somebody who'd been Vader.
Rhikter said:
Yes it is laid out for you obviously. Here's Tarkin already implied to be at the center of things and hanging out with Vader 20 years before ANH, as if nothing developed in all that time.
If it is implied, it's a very light implication. One might say "circumstantial evidence" at best. I just don't see how you can get all this big stuff from such a small amount of screen time.
We all know he didn't just happen to take a stroll. He was put there for a reason, to make the ROTS-end situation match up with ANH. So yes, matching it up like that does imply he "hung around" for the next 20 years.
Do you think you'd feel that way if you didn't know anything about Star Wars beyond there being 6 films, and you'd only watched them in chronological order? I think this is an instance in which having defined, behind the scenes knowledge of the Star Wars saga and GL's thought process, is actually a hindrance. I think you're reading too much into it.
Watching the films in Lucas's 1-6 order is mistaken. Nobody should do it. I wouldn't need to know anything about Star Wars beyond the films to come to the conclusion I did. It's obvious. I'm not reading too much into it. I'm just recognizing Lucas's obvious intentions. The later part of the film is very obviously all about tying ROTS in with ANH and the "Tarkin" appearance is very obviously just more of the same. It's clearly setting up the ANH situation. Do you honestly think Lucas didn't put him in there for a reason? It was alll about tying up ROTS with ANH. That's obvious.
Vaderisnothayden:
Yes it is laid out for you obviously. Here's Tarkin already implied to be at the center of things and hanging out with Vader 20 years before ANH, as if nothing developed in all that time.
Rhikter:
If it is implied, it's a very light implication. One might say "circumstantial evidence" at best. I just don't see how you can get all this big stuff from such a small amount of screen time.
No it's not a light implication. It's very clearly conspicuously implied. And implications in film don't work by courtroom evidence rules. You shouldn't need something proven for you onscreen courtroom style to recognize it's in the film. This is an important point for reading film -a lot of things in film are suggested rather the spelled out. That's how film works. As for how I can get that stuff from what we see onscreen, it's right there in the image of Tarkin lumped with the bosses of the empire 20 years before ANH in a scene that's clearly meant to set up the ANH situation. He's not put with them for no reason. This isn't a real live world you're watching, in which things happen for any old reason. This is something created by a filmmaker who puts things on the screen to convey certain things. Tarkin being put with Vader and Palpatine in a key scene representative of the rise of the empire, 20 years before ANH, implies he's important in the empire twenty years before ANH and implies he's associating with the Emperor and Vader twenty years before ANH.
Not to say I think it looks like Peter Cushing. I just doesn't look to me like this person on screen couldn't, in 20 years, look like Peter Cushing's Tarkin.
He could only look like Cushing in 20 years if he could morph into another person. This is a very different person with a very individual look. It's not Tarkin.
Vaderisnothayden:
Nor do I think Ewan was all that good as Kenobi. I think people put his performance on a pedestal because it was way better than Hayden's. I don't think he makes a great connection with the viewer, unlike Guinness. And he came off totally false (like Hayden and Natalie) in AOTC, while in ROTS he usually wasn't much to cheer about either. He was a bit more alive in TPM, but nothing special. A lot of the time his performance was pretty bland. If his performance had been all that good, the prequels would have been better than they were. As it is, he had his moments, but his work was often mediocre and sometimes pretty bad.
Rhikter
I don't deny that there are some pretty bad performances in the PT, but why all the actor bashing, especially on performers who have proven themselves exceptional in work outside of Star Wars (i.e. not Hayden)? If anything what we should be saying is "Gosh, it's such a shame that GL didn't give Ewan the resources he needed to make his performance really shine."
You seem to be operating under the assumption that it's somehow wrong and nasty to criticise an actor's performances. It's not. It's part of the acting business that performances get criticised. It's fair game. Art of any sort is up for criticism. That is a very important principle. And just because an actor isn't Hayden doesn't mean their performance shouldn't be criticised. Hayden wasn't the only actor who did awful annoying painful work in the prequels. As it is, all I did was some pretty mild balanced acting criticism, so there's no call to be getting all offended and complain about "actor bashing". Just because an actor did good work outside the prequels doesn't mean we should pretend ther prequel performance was ok and not criticise it. And I disagree with your example of what you think we should be saying on the topic. I don't think we need to bend over backwards like that to avoid being critical in tone about performances that very much deserve criticism. And Ewan's performance was worse than just not shining. We have every right and reason to directly criticise any performance in the prequels that is bad and helps to make the prequels as bad as they are. Without any pussy-footing around about it. Ewan's performance involved some distinctly bad stuff and gave us yet another unrelatable uninvolving prequel character. Criticism is due. I'm certainly not going to pussy-foot around on the topic and if you were familiar with my posting on this board you would know that. Ewan and Natalie screwed up badly in the prequels and that added to how bad those films were. That is a fact and I intend to say so.
SilverWook said:
Tarkin wearing the same uniform for twenty years might explain the stench though! ;)
lol
Not having Vader in "prototype" armor modeled after McQuarrie's early concept art was a missed opportunity. Not to mention the suit looks too modern compared to the 1977 costume.
The prototype armor would have been a good idea. But Lucas clearly wanted everything to match up perfectly with the OT. So Anakin's ghost has to be Hayden. And Leia's memories of her mother, no wait what about Leia's memories of her mother? ;) I think there's been some claim that the Leia's memories thing willl be tied up in the live action show, but we all know it'll just be some messy fix patched on to fix up where George messed up. Though I'm sure we'll be told it's story Lucas had all along.
C3PX said:
Rhikter said:
C3PX said:
...I chalked it up to typical bad CG, when in reality it is was bad makeup job.I personally don't have any problem with Tarkin's appearance in RotS. I felt like they successfully managed to portray him as younger, and even more built.
Yeah, that portrait shot of Wayne Pygram in his Tarkin make-up is pretty messy, but in RotS, since he's only in a wide shot, all I see is a Tarkin that's 20 years younger with broad shoulders and a chiseled jaw.
I am wondering if we saw the same film?
This is what I remember,
Which I think looks absolutely awful. I couldn't find a larger resolution image than this one, but in higher resolution he looks even more awful than this. He just looks fake, even more so when the shot is in motion.
Well, to me "Tarkin" there looks like the actor Wayne Pygram in his Scorpius role, which is Pygram in a skull mask basically.
http://www.farscapefantasy.com/creative/gallery/372.jpg
But yeah, I agree with you that Tarkin's character would have made a nice addition to the series, he was a fantastic villian, one of my favorite SW characters actually, way more interesting than wasted and empty villians like poor Dooku and Grevious. I would have liked to see Tarkin's character play a much bigger role in the PT, but as I said before, I am not so sure they could have filled Cushing's shoes (though once I may have said the same about Alec Guiness' shoes, yet I feel Ewan was beyond perfect for that role which makes it all the more ashame he was given nothing but crap to work with).
I think it would be better not having yet another situation where another actor is supposed to be the same character, a situation best avoided when possible. It was necessary with Kenobi and Anakin. It was not necessary with Tarkin.
Nor do I think Ewan was all that good as Kenobi. I think people put his performance on a pedestal because it was way better than Hayden's. I don't think he makes a great connection with the viewer, unlike Guinness. And he came off totally false (like Hayden and Natalie) in AOTC, while in ROTS he usually wasn't much to cheer about either. He was a bit more alive in TPM, but nothing special. A lot of the time his performance was pretty bland. If his performance had been all that good, the prequels would have been better than they were. As it is, he had his moments, but his work was often mediocre and sometimes pretty bad.
Rhikter said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
It most definitely does detract. It increases the ridiculous end of ROTS = start of ANH factor, making the universe yet smaller.
I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
So nothing changes in 20 years. Tarkin goes with the Death Star...
I think that's an interpretation you have to choose to make. It's not like it's laid out in front of you waving a Mr. Obvious cap. You can't say that, just because Tarkin took a brief stroll across a Star Destroyer's bridge whilst overseeing the Death Star's construction one afternoon, that he hung around for an extra 20 years after that.
...which should never have been in the prequels.
Yeah, I'm forced to agree.
Nor is Tarkin's appearance merely an easter egg like those things you mentioned..
You're right, I could have described it better. Easter Egg is not the right term. It is similar to an Easter Egg in that, yes, it is fan service. However, it's harmless fan services as opposed to obtrusive fan service (EX: Boba Fett in AotC, Chewbacca in RotS, or the Death Star in the PT).
Vaderisnothayden said:
It most definitely does detract. It increases the ridiculous end of ROTS = start of ANH factor, making the universe yet smaller.
Rhikter said:
I don't think I understand what you mean by this.
It's like making Chewie and Yoda best buds. It makes the universe smaller. Lucas made the status of the universe at the end of ROTS match ANH too much, allowing little room for change over 20 years. 3PO and R2 are with the same captain on the same ship and the Death Star is already well on its way and Tarkin is already hanging out with Vader. It's like 5 minutes pass between ROTS and ANH.
Vaderisnothayden:
So nothing changes in 20 years. Tarkin goes with the Death Star...
Rhikter:
I think that's an interpretation you have to choose to make. It's not like it's laid out in front of you waving a Mr. Obvious cap. You can't say that, just because Tarkin took a brief stroll across a Star Destroyer's bridge whilst overseeing the Death Star's construction one afternoon, that he hung around for an extra 20 years after that.
Yes it is laid out for you obviously. Here's Tarkin already implied to be at the center of things and hanging out with Vader 20 years before ANH, as if nothing developed in all that time. We all know he didn't just happen to take a stroll. He was put there for a reason, to make the ROTS-end situation match up with ANH. So yes, matching it up like that does imply he "hung around" for the next 20 years. And he's tied in with the Death Star being built already at the end of ROTS, which shouldn't have happened. The ROTJ Death Star took about a year to build, so it's a bit far fetched that the original would take 20 years. It makes it look like imperial technology didn't develop much in twenty years. In ANH, the Death Star was clearly intended to be cutting edge and something most people had never heard of, not something the imperials had been working on for twenty years. If the Death Star was developed so much back then, then wtf changed in 20 years?
You're right, I could have described it better. Easter Egg is not the right term. It is similar to an Easter Egg in that, yes, it is fan service. However, it's harmless fan services as opposed to obtrusive fan service (EX: Boba Fett in AotC, Chewbacca in RotS, or the Death Star in the PT).
I'm not sure it's a fan service. It may be just a Lucas service. Put in just so Lucas can feel he has one continuous tied-together story, like Hayden being put in ROTJ. Same goes for Chewbacca and the Death Star.
And if it was a fan service, it certainly wouldn't be a harmless one. It's precisely the same as putting the Death Star in the PT and tied to that.
Jeez, I wish this whole thread hadn't become about Tarkin. I started it to find out info about stuff that had nothing to do with Tarkin.
Erikstormtrooper said:
I think Tarkin should have been in the PT more. Regardless of the quality of the makeup, it would have bridged the trilogies better. Does anyone complain about Obi-Wan's character because he didn't look enough like Alec Guiness?
Tarkin could have saved Anakin from the lava. Or been a close adviser to Palpatine. Tarkin's a cold calculating bastard, and they could have had a lot of fun getting him in the PT.
That's giving Tarkin too much significance in the Star wars universe. He's not meant to be that central a guy. Having him all over the PT would definitely have been like making Chewbacca and Yoda best buds. As it is, his appearance was already in that direction
The show isn't terrible, unlike the prequels, but that's got a lot to do with the fact that when judging it we didn't hold it to the same standard. Taken as something that's supposed to be real Star wars it's still pretty shallow and superficial, and turning mainstream star wars into an animated show is the next step in progression from fillling the prequels with cartoon characters and cgi. It certainly isn't anything like the OT.
It most definitely does detract. It increases the ridiculous end of ROTS = start of ANH factor, making the universe yet smaller. So nothing changes in 20 years. Tarkin goes with the Death Star, which should never have been in the prequels.
Nor is Tarkin's appearance merely an easter egg like those things you mentioned, because it's an awful lot more conspicuous and part of the central story.
bkev said:
Ditto to what C3PX said.
Also, Mr. Gaff, might I suggest an avatar of Son Goku or something?
In many places on the net, a poster is generally the opposite gender from whatever gender their avatar is. I notice nobody giving Davnes this trouble.
SilverWook said:
Tarkin was all CG for his brief cameo in "9". ;)
What's 9?
Putting Tarkin in ROTS was dumb. It was more of this thing of makng the end of ROTS match up perfectly with ANH, as if nothing changed in 20 years. Another version of the small universe problem.
rcb said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
But the part was still written and directed to be a whiny teenager in AOTC, and then a moody young man prone to crying in ROTS. Do you suppose any actor could have pulled that off in a way you would call "Vader-worthy?" Is it even possible, in ur opion?
Another actor could have done it better than Hayden. And anyway, it didn't have to be written that way. The way it was written was not consistent with the Anakin we were given in the OT.
we don't learn much about him in the OT anyways. all we hear about him is from Obi-wan.
This is all i recall:
Anakin was a great pilot, the best in the star galaxy btw. a cunning warrior and amazingly strong in the force. he was seduced by the dark side of the force and from a certain point of view, he was dead.
lastly, he new he had a child, but not a twin due to the fact that his children were hidden from him after they were born.
did i miss anything? this is all i recall.
No, we learn more about him than that. Kenobi says rather more than you mention there. And we actually MEET him. And the character Shaw played could never have been the character in AOTC and ROTS, and nor could the OT's Vader for that matter. We learn plenty about Anakin in the OT, quite enough to tell he could never be the PT character.
TheBoost said:
Vaderisnothayden said:
What's your proof that I'd be saying the same thing about any other actor who took the Anakin role? You have no proof of that. Whatsoever. The situation with Hayden is not merely the situation of an actor other than Shaw taking the role. It's a situation in which an especially inappropriate actor was given the role. There are many actors I would have been happier with. So no I wouldn't necessarily have been complaining. You'd do well not to make careless statements about me that are not based on any proof.
But the part was still written and directed to be a whiny teenager in AOTC, and then a moody young man prone to crying in ROTS. Do you suppose any actor could have pulled that off in a way you would call "Vader-worthy?" Is it even possible, in ur opion?
Another actor could have done it better than Hayden. And anyway, it didn't have to be written that way. The way it was written was not consistent with the Anakin we were given in the OT.
There are various things said about Vader these days that are probably a product of recent times but claim to explain various things about him. The aim of this thread is to ask about those things. Those things are:
Firstly, that he can't use force lightning because of his bionics. Now in the old days I didn't wonder why Vader couldn't use force lightning, because I thought it was just somebody like the emperor who could use it. I don't know whether that was Lucas's intention back in the time the old films were made. Other characters started using force lightning in the EU starting probably with Cbaoth in Heir to the Empire in 1991. Quite a few characters used it in the EU before Dooku used it in AOTC and became the first film character to use it other than Palpatine. I don't know what the use of it in the EU might say (if anything) about when Lucas first decided it was more widely usable or whether he always considered it usable by all sith and always considered Vader special in not being able to use it. Does anybody know anything about that?
Next, there's Vader's bionics being bad quality and his suit being heavy, with the result that he was slowed down in fighting. Was this just invented to help explain why the OT fights were less flashy? Does anybody know if there was any sign of this piece of story before modern times?
Finally, there's Vader being crippled in force power by his bionic state, leading to him falling far short of his potential. Any sign of this piece of story appearing before modern times?
