Vaderisnothayden

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Lost deserves to be cancelled. It's been declining ever since the start of season 2. In season 4 it had Lost all the magic it once had... I quit watching the show and I'm so glad I did.

Fortunately, most people, including the powers that be disagree with you. Sounds like you fixed your problem by not watching it any longer. Good choice. I really feel sorry for those idiots who continue to watch something they hate, and continuously bitch and moan about it.

Lost, in my opinion, is one of the few intelligently writen shows on TV today. In fact, it is literally the only currently running show I watch. And for a time travel junkie like me, the last few seasons have been a treat. And as a literature/philosophy junkie, all five season have been a treat.

With the vast sea of pure and heavily concentrated crap that contaminates the television airways, it is hard not to laugh at a comment like, "Lost deserves to be canceled."

A lot of people agree with me. They would laugh at your glowing evaluation of Lost. So it seems there's laughter all around. I think there's plenty watchable tv around. I think Lost is a show that lost (not going to bother avoiding the pun) the stuff that made it good. By mid season 4 I was so fed UP of all those main characters the writers seemed so taken by. I think if the show was working I would still have found some of them interesting. It seemed to me like they were just churning out the stuff, going through the motions based on their previous material. And as somebody who had once vigorously defended the show against its detractors I felt cheated, conned even.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

C3PX said:

 

And I am the guy who think murder should be legalized (within reason).

 

Can you explain what you mean by that?

 

 

Hmm, this might be something I probably should have gotten into. Not sure how much I should say here... I am not for legalized murder, so much as legalized killing. And I guess I really don't think it should be legalized, but I like the idea in theory. I don't mean just knocking off anyone you want, but more something along the lines of some guy's young daughter getting kidnapped, raped, and murdered, he finds the guy who did it, and kills him. What happens here? The poor guy who lost his daughter goes to prison for murder. Sure, he murdered the guy, but he never would have had the guy not brutalized and killed his daughter. I would be all for this guy getting off scott free. Primitive, uncivilized, maybe so. My feelings are that as we have evolved as a civilization, justice is something that has become obsolete and all but forgotten. And that saddens me, as I am a pretty big fan of justice.

Of course this matter is pretty complex, and to fully explain the system I'd advocate, I'd have to write you a 900 page book. There are a lot of ins and outs of it that have to be carefully considered, even in merely suggesting the idea. I am sure this idea is pretty unpopular, and is likely to even kick up some dirt in this thread. So many people are completely against the death penalty even in the ridiculously watered down form of it we currently have in parts of the U.S.

Ok, thanks for explaining. :)

C3PX said:

DarkFather said:

 I think your sex life is down the hole, so you wish to put restrictions on other's sex lives in order to feel like you have company, so to speak.

Don't talk through your ass. It is bad manners. (No offense of anything, it just needed to be said). 

Oh god, DarkFather's at it again.

C3PX said:

 

And I am the guy who think murder should be legalized (within reason).

 

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Lost deserves to be cancelled. It's been declining ever since the start of season 2. In season 4 it had Lost all the magic it once had. It was just this tired thing with the characters boringly retreading the exact same sort of fucking behavior they'd shown so much before and the show was still pushing things as interesting and mysterious except they weren't. I quit watching the show and I'm so glad I did. I've told people to tell me about any characters they kill off, because by the time I was finished with it I wanted most of the main characters dead. And the show kept yanking around the audience in this stupid manipulative way. And god help us, the bloody dumb Love Triangle. Puke! I got so sick of it all. And they killed off some of the few characters who actually should have been kept around. Load of shit.  

I wasn't bothered by season 2 of Heroes, but I haven't seen season 3 yet.

Thanks. Does anybody know if Crusade is ever dated onscreen?

I'm sorry you just can't recast the characters and have them be at all the same characters. Getting an actor other than the primary actor acting a character to play the character is ok as long as it's a secondary part of something (like River Phoenix as young Indy in Indy 3's prologue), and maybe it can be tolerated otherwise if it's necessary for a story that just HAS to be told, but it should be avoided otherwise. A huge amount of what a character is is defined not by the writing or the directing but by the actor's own nature, which influences how they make the character come across onscreen. If you take a character and switch the actor it's no longer the same character. Spock played by Quinto is NOT Spock. Kirk by Pine, Urban as McCoy, Pegg as Scotty, etc -that's NOT the same characters. And frankly, Quinto's Spock is an insult to the character. I had enough watching Quinto do mediocre work on Heroes, I didn't need him doing mediocre work impersonating Spock too. They shouldn't have gone back and fucked with the old Trek. They should have continued on with the stories they had already developed. I'm sure there was something they could have done with that stuff that would have worked. Better no Trek than this drivel.

Does anybody know if Temple of Doom being a prequel to Raiders (that it takes place before Raiders) is ever in any way indicated on the screen in any of the Indy films?

Gaffer Tape said:

I'll agree with you that in terms of faith, tenets, and objectives, Judaism and Christianity are very different religions.  But in terms of history, they are very much the same, as Christianity is simply an offshoot of Judaism, hence the term Judeo-Christian being so popular.  The Ark is certainly more religious than the Grail, which is straight-up not Biblical, but they're certainly cut from the same cloth.  Add in Nazis, the same characters from Raiders who were passed over in Temple of Doom, and it certainly can feel like a similar movie and probably the overall reason why a lot of people feel that it's a knockoff of Raiders.  That's all I'm saying.  Again, I feel that Crusade has its own identity, and I certainly agree that the McGuffins are different enough to keep it fresh.  I'm just stating why I think people feel they're similar, and I can agree with that viewpoint too, just like I can agree with your viewpoint that Crusade is more invigorating even if I don't necessarily feel that Raiders is boring or lacking.

Historically, Christianity started out as an offshoot of Judaism, but it quite rapidly became something different and its history diverged sharply from Judaism's. The grail legend dates from time when Christianity had developed into something very separate from Judaism and had been very separate for a long time.

I don't see how the ark is cut from the same cloth as the grail. One is a biblical Jewish-origin Middle-Eastern-origin artifact, while the other has its origins in European culture and was possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. They're quite different.

As for Crusade echoing Raiders, I think that was deliberate. They wanted to return to the spirit of Raiders to make up for Temple of Doom. It seems to me Temple of Doom gets criticised for being different from Raiders and Crusade gets criticised for being similar to it.  

Akwat Kbrana said:

The crusades being those things in which Jews and Muslims were massacred.

Heh. Seems almost everyone makes the crusaders out to be these monsters who swept through the holy land murdering the natives left and right and just generally steamrolling over everything. Regardless of whether or not the first crusade was started on just grounds (a highly debatable subject, to be sure), I find it quite interesting that out of nine Crusades, the crusaders lost eight of them. Hardly the unstoppable barbarian hordes they're so often made out to be...

Actually, it wasn't just in the Middle East that people were murdered for the crusades. In the first crusade, the crusade inspired a movement in Europe which led to the massacre of great numbers of Jews in Europe. In the second crusade, crusaders spent some time in Europe wiping out Jews. There's a poem by a Rabbi from back then living in Germany about how crusaders burst in his door and murdered his children.

Gaffer Tape said:

Geez, come on.  I'm on your side here!  I could have simply said Christian because both the artifacts have meaning to Christians, but since both religions have their roots in the exact same place, I used the blanket term Judeo-Christian to cover them both.  But, really, covenant of God, cup of Christ... we're not exactly moving too far away, are we?  And again, I love Last Crusade, but the setup, the motivation, and the artifacts are very similar in both Crusade and Raiders.  It doesn't bother me, but it's the truth.

And I appreciate you being on my side. :) Sorry if I bothered you. You're one of the nicer people on this forum, so I meant no offense to you. Your general decency has been appreciated. :)

But Judaism and Christianity are two different religions. Very different. The tendency some people have to constantly refer to things as "Judeo-Christian" tends to push ignoring the differences and is insulting to Judaism, because it plays down how it has a separate identity from the the larger religion.

Also, the two artifacts don't really have their origins in the same place. The ark comes from the Old Testament and thus is Middle Eastern, but the grail legend is European in origin. The ark has been adopted by Christianity, but it is totally Jewish in origin. While the grail is a totally Christian invention, possibly inspired by pagan European folklore. Jewish and Christian -two different religions entirely. The ark is the product of a Middle Eastern culture. The grail is the product of a European culture. So when you move from the ark to the grail you are indeed moving a far distance.

And the person who came up with the ark as the mcguffin for Raiders was Philip Kaufman, who I believe is Jewish. Plus the director of the film was Jewish and we know from Schindler's List that his Jewish identity matters to him. So the ark was there as the Jewish artifact it is in origin, not just as a Christian artifact. Lucas, who was raised as Christian, brought the grail into the 3rd film.

Gaffer Tape said:

I can certainly see why Crusade is seen as a knockoff of Raiders because, in a way, it is.  Nazis want Judeo-Christian artifact

The grail is no Judeo-Christian artifact. It's 100% Christian, no Judeo to it at all. And the story of the grail quest was developed particularly during the crusades era by French writers to promote the crusades. The crusades being those things in which Jews and Muslims were massacred. So the grail is certainly not Jewish at all. Very different from the ark, an artifact 100% Jewish in origin.

Gaffer Tape said:

Sorry this has been verbal diarrhea, but I had to get my words in here.

No need to apologize. Sounded like a good expression of opinion to me.

Puggo - Jar Jar's Yoda said:

LexX said:

Raiders is bland. I find it boring,

I wonder if this is a generational thing.  In the past, movies had their ups and downs - it was called pacing.  Nowadays if something isn't exploding or someone screaming every 5 seconds, it's considered slow.

Hardly a generational thing. I was around when Raiders came out. I was around when ANH came out. I have no problem with a movie that isn't all frantic energy. But Raiders is trying to be an energetic film and it fails. And Raiders' problem isn't a matter of slowness. Things happen pretty fast in Raiders. It's a matter of force and intensity, which isn't all about speed. Things in Raiders are just bland. Bland villains, bland portrayal of locations, bland situations. When I look back over Raiders, there just isn't that much that's INTERESTING. Whereas the other two films have plenty.

C3PX said:

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

Yeah, that is kind of how I feel about Jar Jar in The Phantom Menace. Jar Jar as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character, which he becomes in the later too prequels. Over the top characters are a good thing. Far better than serious background characters that remain vague. Can't stand background characters that only exist as part of the story and refuse to provide me an overdose of comic relief.

There's zero comparison between Jar Jar and Marcus. The Marcus humor is not remotely Jar Jarish. Marcus was nothing in Raiders. In Crusade they made some use of him. Overdose of comic relief my ass hole. What overdose of comic relief? There was nothing terribly extreme with Marcus in Crusade.

skyjedi2005 said:

That is intresting that you say that because the young indy series was mostly the same crew.  But they also had good writers like frank darabount.  And good actors like Sean Patrick Flannery.

Also the show i believe was nomiated for emmy's i think.  And the fans generally like the young indy series but hate crystal skull.  Me i never really got that into young indy but i liked the trenches of hell episode.  And another one of them can't remember the name where he gets the girl and is a spy.  Kind of like bond,lol.

Flanery being passed off as Indy is torture of a truly cruel and unusual sort. Flanery is no more Indy than Hayden is Anakin.

A lot of things are nominated for Emmies that should never have seen the light of day.

As for fans preferring that Young Indy drivel to a film that at least has Ford, I will never fathom the preferences of fans -just look at the majority of Star Wars fans, who are so into the prequels. At least the general public prefers the Crystal Skull (they don't give a fuck about Young Indy, but Indy 4 did well at the box office). The Crystal Skull was disappointing but it's a million miles ahead of Young Indy. 

I don't really care if Young Indy had much of the same crew -it tried to pass off The Adventures of Flanery in Silly Kids' History Features as The Adventures of the Young Indiana Jones, and the just doesn't work. No amount of same crew can save that. And the single most important individual in making an Indy film into Indy is not any of the crew or even Spielberg or Lucas. It's Ford. Without him you've got no Indy. They should never have even tried a young Indy series.

The fake convoluted connection to historical events would not have been so bad if lucas did not embellish or willfully stray from what actually happened in history.  But nobody really cares because the historical stuff was only a framing device. 

I care. That historical stuff was as annoying as hell. It was so incredibly contrived and dumb.

C3PX said:

My feeling are that a near perfect action/adventure film was made in the 80's, beautifully styled after old black and white adventure serials, and the three sequels that followed drifted away from the spirit and quality of the original, finally ending on IJATKOTCS which felt like a cheap comedy spoof of itself.

As I have explained, I couldn't care less about the old serials or about trying to imitate them. From reading The Secret History of Star Wars I gather that some of the crappiness of the prequels was caused by trying to imitate the old serials. I'd much rather the franchises were not limited by old serials. And I really don't see how Raiders was this "perfect action/adventure film". Was it because of its bland lack of intensity? Or its bland annoying villains? Or its dumb everybody-goes-gooey ending?

So i take it you don't like Kasden's serious take on the story crafted from old hollywood films like Casablanca?

Indiana Jones is not the place for trying to keep to seriousness. Pointless exercise in futility. Nor am I interested in a story ripping off Casablanca. Or the old serials Lucas is so fond of. Any more than I want Star Wars to be some corny old serial from way back. If Lucas sees them as his inspiration that's his problem, but the franchises are much better evolving beyond that stuff. And I'm sure some people will be horrified, but I've never been terribly impressed by Casablanca.

They made Marcus into a retard in last crusade

Marcus as a comical character is more fun than Marcus as a vague background character.

Plus there are cringeworthy moments like indy putting a rock into one of the side cannons on the tank and it blows up in the gunners face like this was like Looney tunes and not supposed to be in real life though actually fiction.

I don't see the problem with that. If I wanted realism I wouldn't be watching Indiana Jones.

Then you have both shortround and willy in temple of doom almost a equally annoying as jar jar binks. 

Short Round was a good character. Willie was a bit annoying but not half so annoying as as one would think she would be, because she was acted with life and enthusiasm.

If not for the mine car chase that was in the original raiders script and the shanghai scene at the beginning the film is worthless. 

The Shanghai scene was good, better than most of Raiders.

Then you have the raft falling out of the plane as their parachute. 

Not a problem. If I wanted realism I wouldn't watch a film trying to pass off that Jones guy as an archaeologist.

Then in Indy and the crystal numbskull you have him riding through the air for three miles in a lead lined fridge.  And somehow the russians also magically outrun the blast.

I agree that was going too far. Just because it doesn't need to be strictly realistic doesn't mean it's ok to go wildly in the opposite direction.

ChainsawAsh said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

...takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor in the Indy thing...

I find this particularly interesting, since one of my big problems with the others (especially Last Crusade and Crystal Skull) was that they didn't take themselves seriously enough, and the humor was excessive and out-of-place for an Indy film.  Temple has its own share of ridiculous, excessive humor (the "Brain Feast," as my friends and I like to call it, as one example, and the snake/elephant trunk joke for another), but it's nowhere near as bad as Last Crusade (anything that comes out of Marcus Brody's mouth ... I still so hate what they did to that character), with the exception of the Sean Connery/Harrison Ford scenes, which are all fantastic.

The whole Indy thing cannot be taken seriously. Any attempt to do so is misguided. They should have realized that from the start and made the first Indy film more humorous.

GeorgeLucasIsANarcissist said:

C3PX said:

A lot of people talked about doing things like this (mailing them to Skywalker Ranch) when the GOUT first came out. Did anyone ever actually do it?

I actually did.  I bought two GOUT boxsets (one for me and one for my little brother as a Christmas gift).  Both times I mailed the SE discs back to Lucasfilm in a paper sleeve, politely saying that I had no interest whatsoever in any special edition and thanked them for releasing the original trilogy on DVD in some form.  I also stated that I looked forward to a future restored anamorphic release of the original trilogy and that apart from that, no other Lucasfilm release would appeal to me.

Won't make a damn bit of difference but it was cathartic.

That's cool!

C3PX said:

EyeShotFirst said:

Raiders really wasn't perfect it was flawed in many ways.

 

Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO!

 

Not trying to say Raiders is perfect, obviously no film is. As far as action films go, I think Raiders is a perfect example of one well done.

The argument from EyeShotFirst that I quoted above is a classic argument for defending crap in the middle of a room filled with gold. Sure, this piece of shit my dog deposited on the floor is far from perfect, no arguments there! But come on, none of these gold bricks in here are perfect either.

Some things are better made than others, that is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. I like a lot of movies most people think are crap. I really enjoy the first two Planet of the Apes sequels, but I don't hesitate to admit they are no where even close to the standard of the first film. The first film is a cinematic classic, the second and third are crap that I happen to like. The fourth and fifth are crap that I enjoy watching for time to time. Same for Back to the Future, I know the second two are shit, but I still enjoy them. It would be pointless for me to feel the need to defend my enjoyment of these films by saying, "Well, the first Planet of the Apes/Back to the Future film really wasn't much better than the sequels."

Quick, name five flaws in Raiders as fast as you can without having to stop and think about it. GO! 

Bland with a lack of intensity, doesn't use Ford well enough, takes itself too seriously and mostly doesn't use the potential for humor inherent in the Indy thing, bland villains, weaker on settings and situations than the next two Indy films.

I went into this in detail on another thread. Saying Raiders isn't perfect as a defense of the other Indy films is hardly like saying the gold isn't perfect to defend the dogshit. Crusade and Temple are no dogshit. They're good films, superior to Raiders. Raiders is Indy before they figured out how to get it right. It has an underdone feel. The next two films are so much more alive. The true gold in the Indy franchise is Crusade, with its marvellous Ford-Connery double act and lots of good humor.

You obviously think that your opinion that Raiders is better is unchallengeable objective fact. Fine, people often think their opinions are objective fact, and sometimes they're right. But I don't see any proof that you're right in this case. Indy didn't get into its swing until Temple of Doom and didn't get 100% until Crusade. Crusade isn't as good as I thought it was back in 1989, but it still stands out as a damn good film and the Indy-Dad interaction is a lot more substantial and interesting than any other character interaction in the two Indy films before it. And even in an action film, character interaction is what makes the world go around. Crusade just way outclasses Raiders. Even Doom outclasses Raiders, with its intensity and vividness. Raiders just doesn't match up. The only reason some people think Raiders is better is because it came first. These people judge against the later films for not being like Raiders, but these people don't judge against Raiders for not being like the next two films. There's all this worship of Raiders as THE Indy film, without recognizing that the Indy film franchise evolved with each new film of the first three, being successfully reinvented each time. The later two films are just so much much more alive and so much in them is just a hell of a lot more interesting -villains, settings, secondary/minor characters, situations.

skyjedi2005 said:

The only movie in the series i don't own in my dvd collection is crystal skull.  I won't even ackowledge that as an indiana jones movie and i own star wars epsiodes 1-3 on dvd.  Crystal Skull was 10 times the dissapointment of the prequels in general and tied with phantom menace for the two biggest cinematic dissapointments in my entire life.  Probably the 2 biggest over hyped dissapointments in motion picture history as well.

Aliens in indiana jones was the stupidist thing ever.  What is dumber than ripping off a quasi ron hubbard book by some hack from the sixties called chariots of the gods.   When George runs out of ideas film fans should head for the hills,lol.

I would have much preferred the nazis and the spear of destiny plot over the russians and the aliens and the nuked fridge.

I don't hate Crystal Skull like you do, but it was definitely an example of Indy getting prequelized. It was bland. It didn't feel real. It didn't look real. Things that should have been menacing weren't. And the whole aliens angle was handled really poorly. I don't mind putting aliens in Indy, but they should have done it in a classic way, not this otherdimensional bullshit. And the aliens thing ended up being this whole load of meaningless show. That whole alien temple location was such bull. We got a lot of meaningless show shoveled at us. Contrast that with the menacing grail temple with its head-chopping and with the well-acted old grail knight. Or with the sinister menacing thugee temple in Doom. I didn't mind the Russians, but I would have preferred them done more menacingly and without Cate Blanchett being silly. The villains in previous Indy outings weren't a joke. Making villains a joke is like the Trade Federation and the droid troopers in the prequels. And Ray Winstone's character was fucking annoying.

But I find it much more acceptable as an Indy film than the prequels are as Star Wars films. We didn't have Sean Patrick Flanery playing Indy, thank god and we didn't have Hayden Christensen playing Indy, his son or his father. Jake Lloyd was nowhere in sight. There wasn't a stomach-turning sort of romance. Jar Jar didn't pop up, nor General Drearyass. There were no goddamn stuffyass prequel Jedi, posery Kenobi, Mace bloody Windu, pompous Yoda flipping around or the other bloody council wankers. There were no huge meaningless battle scenes or feelingless lightsaber fight scenes or torturous lava planet battles. We didn't have to suffer through Padme being incredibly dumb.

I liked the introduction of Indy's son. I think Shia LaBeouf fit the role and did a good job. I liked him in Transformers too. I think giving Indy a likable son played by an actor a bit reminisicent of Ford was one of the best things in the film. My one problem was his name. For god's sakes, "Mutt"? Just because Indy's named after a dog doesn't mean his son has to be too. That was going way too far.

I think if we want to get annoyed over stuff done to Indy we should start with that awful 90s tv show about Young Indy. Sean Patrick Flanery was no more appropriate for Indy than Hayden was for Anakin. Really, having Indy played by somebody other than Ford for more than a short sequence to back up a Ford story doesn't work. The character is too dependent on how Ford plays him. If they'd had an actor other than Ford in the role, Raiders would never have been a big success. Ford gave that character his soul, made him distinctive, gave him his connection with the audience. Indy without Ford isn't Indy. A short little flashback sequence of another actor's Indy as a cute novelty can be tolerated (like in Crusade), but not a whole bloody show. Plus the stories in the show were dumb. For the sake of being "educational" they had Indy meet pretty much every famous historical figure in existence back in that time, which was ridiculous. It's been described as "cerebral" but it strikes me as being dumbed down in a way reminiscent of the prequels. The show was a fucking insult to the whole Indy thing. Dragged it all in the shit. It was to Indy what the prequels were to Star Wars.

ChainsawAsh said:

Wow.

See "Raiders."  That's all I can say.  You don't need to see the others, they don't really matter at all.  They're very, very mediocre in comparison.  I don't know how Vaderisnothayden can really think that it is a bland, uninteresting film, and I especially don't see how he can think "Temple of Doom" is better.  Or "Last Crusade," for that matter.

Let me reiterate that I don't hate any of the "Indy" movies, even "Crystal Skull" - it's just that all three of the sequels are vastly inferior to the original.  In my opinion, there's "Raiders," then there's a trilogy of inferior spin-offs that, while fun, aren't particularly good, while "Raiders" is a cinematic masterpiece.

I don't know how Vaderisnothayden can really think that it is a bland, uninteresting film, and I especially don't see how he can think "Temple of Doom" is better.  Or "Last Crusade," for that matter.

I didn't say uninteresting. It is not totally uninteresting, but it is certainly less interesting. And bland it certainly is. How can I see it as that? Because it is? It is less intense than the next two films and does not have as much sense of fun. Its villains are uninteresting. Belloq and that Nazi Officer? Bland (Belloq edges into annoying too). Vogel (excellent menacing Byrne), Schneider, Donovan (well-played by Glover), Mola Ram and the Asian crime lord (I forget his name) are significantly more interesting. The Nazi torturer is a bit better than the other two Raiders villains, but not as good as the later villains. Its settings are also duller. But the lack of intensity is the key. Temple of Doom vastly improves the intensity and energy. While Crusade is more lively and has a far better sense of fun. Raiders feels rather perfunctory in comparison to those later two films. Kind of underdone. And really everything in the next two films is so much more interesting. Settings, villains, situations, characters. And Crusade has Connery doing one of the best performances in the Indy films, with marvellous interaction with Ford. Elsa is a more interesting character than Marion Ravenwood. Willie is an annoying sort of character but is done well and energetically done and I find her more entertaining than Marion. Short Round is great. Brody is used better in Crusade than in his short little appearance in Raiders. Crusade has those knights of the cruciform sword and the excellent grail knight to add interest. It's all so more alive and colorful in the second and third Indy films. I can't fathom why anybody would think Raiders was better, let alone a cinematic masterpiece. What the fuck is so masterpiecey about it?

If somebody has to pick one Indy film to see they should see Crusade.

skyjedi2005 said:

The first time Lucas rather than extrapolating or adding things to the Canon from what we knew, Very clearly set out to contradict established canon was in Episode 1.

He obviously did not rewatch the older movies, or care to even make things consistent because after all these are kids movies right?

But since he had a bare outline that basically said Luke's father and Obi Wan did stuff to set up the oot.  In which the oot vader goes from being the murderor of luke's father  to being his father.

Other than that change and the Leia being the sister change the other prequel outline stuff should have remained the same.  Yoda was Obi Wan's teacher etc.  No Jar Jar binks or Qui Gon Jinn.

Anakin was a good friend.  And an excellent starpilot.  Not shown in the prequels.  Unless you consider that race car thing he drove as a kid or accidental blowing up a trade federation command ship.

He was not a good friend in the prequels.  He was a whiny, bitchy insurbordinate brat, emo teenage jedi wannabe.  Killer of women and children sandpersons and younglings and wife strangler to save his wife he had to kill her,lol.  He comes off as a complete asswhole.

The jedi order and the galactic senate responsible for democracy come off as buffoons or worse they are retards on purpose to serve the plot.

The Jedi are such prudes on marriage and sex that you almost cheer anakin on when he cheats on the orders beloved and sacred code.  But then Falling in love makes you kill children and become a mass murderor who on the turn of a dime kills his brethren and friends he spent years with on a whim based on a frickin bad dream.

The prequels are six hours of over the top granduer of cgi and action.  Just don't watch them looking for even in universe fictional star wars logic, or logic of any kind or a story.  Because then you will clearly be dissapointed.  And pointing out that the prequels are basically six hours of a cartoon or video game footage would not to fair to cartoons or video games.

The only substance to these movies the space battles, and lightsaber duels.  I mean it is as if Lucas did not even bother trying to tell a story.  Or maybe the story he told i did not pay attention to because it was unlikeable and unbelievable.

As always, I enjoy your prequel bashing. :) Though, I would be less charitable to the space battles and lightsaber duels.

skyjedi2005 said:

Lucas gets to decide the Canon because he created star wars.  We can call him out on the fact that the prequels were written after the fact and are not true to the star wars films we all grew up with.

But as an author he could change his conception of star wars later on and recast the universe in that new mode of thinking.  He changed as a man and a filmaker over twenty years. 

I think he has a right to do what he wants with star wars as long as the original films are given the respect fans demand.

He has a right to change his mind creatively and try new things and ideas.  Sometimes risky ones that get him condemned by oot purists.

 

But as we are all talking about star wars.  Which is a fictional universe i think we need to stop and think before it leads to personal insults and attacks against people.  I mean that is just silly to get angry over a piece of fiction.

To me though anyone who thinks the prequels are not a very deliberate recasting of the star wars universe which Lucas started with the special editions is blind.   IMHO.  Not a personal attack or condemnation just an observation.

 

And Vader is not hayden is right about the oot being the one true canon by which all other star wars should be judged.  It is not really a personal Canon.  If it was like me you could add the zahn trilogy and other bits and pieces of the sequel era EU as you liked.  There are some excellent parts to the EU and then there are some painfully bad parts. 

To me if you only care about the 3 original films it is a bit closed minded because you never really see the characters move on and grow beyond return of the jedi.  And since Lucas denies ever having in mind a sequel trilogy the EU is a second best option.  Therefore the sequel  EU to me is canon.  Because Lucas gave up on the fans who wanted to see more adventures of luke skywalker as star wars was always meant to be.  And changed it into the 1-6 episode story crap of hayden vader.

Lucas gets to decide the Canon because he created star wars.  We can call him out on the fact that the prequels were written after the fact and are not true to the star wars films we all grew up with.

Nobody gets to decide the canon. It just exists. We can choose to recognize it or not, but it's there independent of us. What's the real thing is the canon. If something's not the real thing, somebody (like Lucas) saying it's canon won't be enough to make it canon. It has to be the real thing to be canon. Nobody's word defines the canon. The canon defines itself.

Plus Lucas didn't make the Star Wars films all by himself, so I dispute the view that he created Star Wars. Many people worked together to create Star Wars. Also, however much he may or may not have created it, he has clearly lost sight of what defined it and made it work. He has lost his connection to the spirit of Star Wars. He has lost sight of Star Wars. As such, he is certainly not qualified to judge Star Wars canon. This is the man who made Han shoot last and put Hayden in the end of ROTJ. He is not qualified to decide Star wars canon. Anyway, like I said, nobody is really. The canon exists on its own, it defines itself. All we can do is try to recognize what it is. Or choose not to recognize what it is. Canon is meaningless if it is just something somebody invents off the top of their head. It has meaning (as the definition of what's the real thing) if, and only if, it is held to be what's the real thing.

But as an author he could change his conception of star wars later on and recast the universe in that new mode of thinking.  He changed as a man and a filmaker over twenty years. 

Some change is allowed, but if you change the thing too much it's not Star Wars anymore. That's what happened.

I think he has a right to do what he wants with star wars as long as the original films are given the respect fans demand.

I don't think so. Star Wars is a classic beloved of millions. It shouldn't be destroyed to suit the whims of one man. It should be handled with care, treated responsibly.

He has a right to change his mind creatively and try new things and ideas.  Sometimes risky ones that get him condemned by oot purists.

He had the right to make changes and try new things, but only so far, not to the point of major destruction. He didn't have the right to be so destructive.

To me if you only care about the 3 original films it is a bit closed minded because you never really see the characters move on and grow beyond return of the jedi. 

You don't need to see the characters move on and grow beyond ROTJ. Every work of art has its limits. Every story has a beginning and end. A story does not need to deal with stuff after its end. You never really see the characters move on and grow beyond ROTJ in the EU either. Because those characters in the comics and novels aren't the real characters. So much of who the characters are is defined by how the were played onscreen by the actors. Take out the actors and you don't have the same characters. All you have is figments of the author's imagination, imitations of the onscreen characters. For example, I enjoyed the Zahn trilogy well enough, but I never got all worked up about it, because I knew that wasn't really Luke and Leia and Han in there. It was just Zahn's perception of them. Without Ford and Fisher and Hamill it wasn't really them.

And since Lucas denies ever having in mind a sequel trilogy the EU is a second best option.  Therefore the sequel  EU to me is canon. 

For me, the EU is no option, because the characters aren't there. I don't need a sequel. I would have liked if Lucas had made a good sequel trilogy, but three great films is enough for me.

Because Lucas gave up on the fans who wanted to see more adventures of luke skywalker as star wars was always meant to be.  And changed it into the 1-6 episode story crap of hayden vader.

The Tragedy of Darth Vader The Total Wanker And Wuss.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

This is not about "personal canon", this is about the issue of what's the real Star Wars. I do not pick and choose to suit myself and then call that canon. I studied Star Wars works and the overall sitaution and then made my judgement on what I believe to be the real thing.

So, Vaderisnothayden, I'm very curious; after your extensive study, what is canon?

Since forums like this is the closest the Star Wars community is going to get to the Council of Nicea, I'd love to hear your conclusions, which are in no way based on your personal preference. 

If the OOT is the only thing that can be considered canon, then it leads to the next question 'canon in regards to what?' What's the purpose of defining 'canon' in a fictional universe if it excludes everything but the original work?

And since ROTJ and ESB both invalidate parts of SW, contradicting much of Lucas's original backstory, are they canon?

Canon is the OOT. Like a rock, it is the hard truth of Star Wars.

If my views on what's canon were based on my personal preference, I would include various other things in the canon. But my priority is to follow a canon that's real, based on what's the real thing.

If the OOT is the only thing that can be considered canon, then it leads to the next question 'canon in regards to what?' What's the purpose of defining 'canon' in a fictional universe if it excludes everything but the original work?

I would think the purpose would be obvious. The purpose is to define the real thing off from the apocrypha that is not the real thing. As with any canon, really. And the canon is not just the original work. The original work is ANH. The canon includes all 3 OOT films.

And since ROTJ and ESB both invalidate parts of SW, contradicting much of Lucas's original backstory, are they canon?

They are not consistent with the original intentions behind ANH, but they fix up things well enough so that ANH works with them. Most canons have some inconsistencies. The thing is not to have huge gaps like the total change in the nature of Anakin. The OOT films work well enough together with each other. As for Lucas's backstory, that's not canon (potential canon maybe, near canon maybe, but not canon). It didn't make onto the screen until the prequels and the prequels are a bogus version of it. So going against Lucas's backstory is not a problem. Nor is it a problem that ESB and ROTJ reinterpret ANH. There has to be some allowance for freedom in a canon's development. Later works can reinterpret earlier ones. However, they shouldn't be reinterpreted in a way that is totally destructive. The OOT's reinterpretations were by and large constructive. The PT's were destructive. And there is a lot more than reinterpreation separating the PT from the OT, such as their whole mentality and how seriously they take their reality. The PT is a Roger Rabbit universe in which cartoon characters hobnob with live action characters. That is not within the parameters of the original Star Wars universe.