Vaderisnothayden

captainsolo said:

If there hadn't been a tale of the fight taking place on a lava planet then we would have no Mustafar. Obi-Wan and Anakin are shown fighting-completely impervious to the lava. Just from their close proximity they would be in pain just from the intense heat! the intercutting with the Palpatine/Yoda fight is annoying and lessens both encounters. The Yoda battle suffers as it is cut short and the epic battle of the masters is left pointless.

On this subject, Palpatine should never have fought. He constantly makes little funny faces and looks pathetic. If he didn't fight in ROTJ why does he all of a sudden have to flip around like Yoda?

I wish the battle had not been intercut, and been more confrontational. As it stands we see two guys in a massive overkill of CGI doing the same fighting repeatedly. It is not epic: it is monotonous! We waited to see this for years, and all we get is this one thing? Anakin becoming extra crispy fried?

Hopefully George will come to his senses and repent for his sins by making a film entitled:

Obi-Wan's Damn Fool Idealistic Crusade

The Yoda-Palpy battle was awful. Yoda making macho faces/poses, the Emperor cackling his head off and filpping around the place. Awful. Skyjedi compared it to Loony Toons. The Annie/Kenobi battle was as monotonous as they come. Intercutting the two scenes maximizes the torture.

Jedi don't fart? That explains a lot. All those foul gases trapped inside them.

xhonzi said:

Anakin couldn't have been 40 (or 30) during the PT.  He had to be "closer" (C-3PO: "Closer?") to Luke's age so the Father/Son dynamic could play out.

Not true. See the Annotated screenplays. When they made ROTJ Anakin was intended to be in his 60s at the time of ROTJ (though the actor they cast was actually 77). If Anakin was in his 60s in ROTJ he would have been in his 30s or 40s when his children were born. So as you can see, Anakin WASN'T closer to Luke's age.

Once Anakin went dark, it's unlikely that Luke and Leia's mother would have stayed with him for long (he could have concealed his darkness from her for a bit, maybe, but I doubt that would last long). That means the conception of the twins would have been before he went dark or not too long after. So the twins' birth would have been not too long after he went dark (a few years at most). That he was dark once the twins were born is implied by a line Kenobi says to Luke in ROTJ. So Anakin went dark probably about 21 years before ANH or maybe a few years before that.

It should be remembered that anything Kenobi says about Vader and Anakin in ANH was written before the two characters were merged and thus may not be true of the backstory Lucas had at the time of ROTJ. For example, Kenobi describes Vader as being young when he betrayed the Jedi, helped kill them and killed Anakin. But at the time of making ROTJ Lucas clearly envisioned Anakin as being 30s or 40s when he turned. Even back when Lucas made ANH it is likely that he viewed Luke's father as not being so young, even though he clearly envisioned Vader as being young then. When the two characters were merged, Vader/Anakin was given the older age of the original Luke's father character (the Secret History of Star Wars goes into this stuff). 

Perhaps (around the time of ROTJ) Lucas rationalized Kenobi's reference to Vader being young as another "point of view" thing. In the Annotated Screenplays we're told that Kenobi was envisioned as being about ten years older than Anakin (though if that's ANH Kenobi being ten years older than ROTJ Vader, that would really put Kenobi at 13 or 14 years older than Anakin, because there's a 3 or 4 year time difference between ROTJ and ANH). A Kenobi who was 10-14 years older than Anakin might view a 30s/40s Anakin as being "young", possibly, if you stretch it. Maybe Lucas did stretch it. Or maybe he just ignored the whole Vader being young discrepancy like he later ignored Leia's memories of her mother and other things . 

Gaffer Tape said:

Yeah, I recently thought this could have worked better using an element from the older version of this backstory, or at least a version that Mark Hamill recounted back in the day. 

He said that George told him that Obi-Wan, Father Skywalker, and Darth Vader all get together for a duel (you know, why not?  ^_~), Father Skywalker is killed, and Obi-Wan eventually gets Darth Vader fried, but Obi-Wan is forced to retreat because the Emperor shows up.

Obviously, since the whole duel concept was thought up back when Obi-Wan was avenging Father Skywalker's death at the hand of Darth Vader, Obi-Wan leaving him to die would make a lot more sense.  But this interesting variation with all three characters being present, and then the Emperor showing up... well, that would have worked for this.  Vader gets set on fire, and Obi-Wan's going to put him out of his misery, but then Palpatine shows up and tries to lightning bolt him, so Obi-Wan is forced to flee so Palpatine can do his experiments.

Unfortunately, George wanted to have the Vader/Obi-Wan duel intercut with the Palpatine/Yoda duel, so it's still pretty amazing that Palpatine gets to Mustafar as fast as he does.

When did Hamill say this? Because what's curious about this is it's clearly before Vader became Luke's father but the Emperor seems to already be a dangerous character. My impression is that the Emperor was originally supposed to be this "Nixonian bureaucrat", just a nasty politician who gets himself made emperor, rather than a powerful force user, but I don't know when he would have been changed into the emperor we know.

Janskeet said:

One thing that always bugged me was it seemed they put the vader suit on over the burnt Hayden without even removing the burnt clothing off of the skin. I know it is just a fantasy movie, but even for Star Wars burnt Hayden looked a little beyond repair. I wasn't expecting him to get so fucked up. I think I actually liked an EU idea better that Vader gets the suit from radiation exposure. I was expecting Hayden to get a few limbs cut off and then fall into a nuclear reactor before I knew the plot of ROTS. It's also pretty contrived how Anakin and Obi-Wan fight over lava sometimes only inches from it, let alone the splattering of it, for what seems to be 45 minuets. Suddently Obi Wan jumps up on a little hill and says "It's over Anakin, I have the high ground!" What? Why does that matter?!! After all the jumping and flipping you did over lava falls, precise lightsaber fighting,  Anakin suddenly decides to just clumsily jump up in the air over Obi Wan and then gets all cut up. I would've preferred to see a fight to the finish where Anakin slowly gets more and more wounded, until he no longer can fight. In ROTS they fight precisely until the plot needs them to not fight precisely. Then Obi Wan just lets him burn alive after mercelessly trying to kill him. They could've architect the situation to give Obi Wan a legitmate reason not to finish him off.

Absolutely right. That whole part of the movie seems to be poorly thought-out. They certainly seemed to put Vader into the suit straight out of the lava, which seemed weird. I mean, they could have fixed him up a little first without showing us, but he did seem to go into the suit without much being done to him first (other than the artificial limbs being attached).

And it's ridiculous how Obi Wan and Anakin dance back and forth around the lava and don't get hurt by it. And the fight goes on for ages, with laser swords for god's sakes (easily capable of doing serious harm at the slightest touch), and nobody gets hurt by the swords or the lava, until suddenly three of Anakin's limbs are chopped off in one go. It's very anticlimactic.

And that bullshit about Obi Wan having the high ground. Wtf? They jump so high and far all the time in those movies, Anakin should have been able to jump over Obi Wan's head out of reach of the lightsaber, or at least jump to an area a bit farther down the shore from Obi Wan, out of reach of the saber and then move up the slope. But Obi Wan goes "Na na nan-na na, I have the high ground!" and we're supposed to buy that Anakin can't do anything about it that will work. The whole thing is so damned contrived. But then so is the whole Mustafarted battle.

Whenever I I leave food in the oven too long and let it get burnt badly I say "It's gone all Hayden Christensen." Which puts me right off it.

That dates back to a time when I was studying ROTS on dvd and watching the Mustafarted scene and forgot I had fish fingers cooking and they got all Hayden-ized. I didn't want to eat them after I'd made that association.

I first got introduced to Star Wars through they toy figures. I saw them in a shop and was fascinated by them. I convinced my grandmother to buy me one (Hoth stormtrooper, cool outfit) and I wanted to know about the story behind them. So, on the very same day, I was brought to ANH (which nobody in their right mind called ANH back then). That was in 81. In 82 I saw ANH and ESB in a double bill, which was cool. I saw ROTJ in 83. I loved those films and I spent the earlier 80s obsessed with Star Wars.

When the SE came out in 97, it for some reason it didn't fully sink in that my beloved films were being replaced, despite the "One Last Time" VHS campaign which indicated that the OOT VHS would no longer be available. I mean, I was aware they were being replaced, but the awareness didn't go very deep in me. Thus it didn't create the concern or outrage it should have. I still thought well of Georgie back then. I thus was in a mindset to be tolerant of his outrageous mutilations of the OT. I have trouble understanding my mindset of the time. But a significant factor was that I was very pleased to see the OT on the big screen again and proud to see that my old favorites were a success in the modern era. For old Star Wars fans it was kind of like a party celebrating what we loved, so much so that some us paid too little attention to the fact that what we loved was getting buried.

I remained optimistic for the PT, when I should really have been quaking with dread. When TPM came out I was disappointed by it, but not massively. I was ok with it. In some ways I liked it. I was still in a go-along-with-what-George-does-he's-the-great-guy-who-created-Star-Wars mentality. And I was a big fan of Liam Neeson, so that went in the movie's favor with me. That was in 99 of course. In 2002, I saw Attack of the Bloody Fucking Clones and I woke up. The film struck me as being completely devoid of anything worthwhile. This was when I realized Star Wars was fucked. After AOTC I didn't expect much from ROTS, but when Revenge of the Shit came along what I saw on the screen was worse than even what I had expected.

See how a cheerful post about how I got to know Star Wars turned into an account of my reaction to George's destruction of SW? That's the mark of what's been done to Star Wars. The history of Star Wars is a history of beautiful greatness falling down into tragic fuckup. Jeez George, why did you have to do that?

Quite apart from the issue of the preservation/restoration/availability of the OT, I think one major issue with the SE changes is that they don't fit with the original films and show a lack of understanding of those films. Like the awful CGI Jabbas, the cartoon creatures in the Jabba's palace musical thing, Han shooting second, Hayden Christensen replacing Shaw, Temuera Morrison's pathetic voice work replacing Jason Wingreen's great work, etc. That stuff is more like pure vandalism than it's like any sort of valid artistic alteration.

It's not so much like a case of some artist coming back years later to change their work, so much as it's like a case of an artist going nuts and being put in a mental asylum and twenty years later escaping and crapping all over their work.

If anybody has any news on how well the 2006 GOUT dvds sold, I think a lot of us would be happy to hear it.

News on the 2008 GOUT set too.

Where do you get info saying the GOUT didn't sell well?

It seems to have sold well enough to be reissued last year, and I heard that on Amazon UK at least the OT set containing the GOUT was outselling the PT. And now, the only in-print OT set is the one including the GOUT.

AxiaEuxine said:

You know that Lucas will eventually release the OOT. You all know that right?

I don't. Take a look at this quote from Lucas on the SE:

 
"There will only be one. And it won't be what I would call the 'rough cut,' it'll be the 'final cut.' The other one will be some sort of interesting artifact that people will look at and say, 'There was an earlier draft of this.' The same thing happens with plays and earlier drafts of books. In essence, films never get finished, they get abandoned. At some point, you're dragged off the picture kicking and screaming while somebody says, 'Okay, it's done.' That isn't really the way it should work. Occasionally, [you can] go back and get your cut of the video out there, which I did on both American Graffiti and THX-1138; that's the place where it will live forever. So what ends up being important in my mind is what the DVD version is going to look like, because that's what everybody is going to remember. The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won't last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version, and you'll be able to project it on a 20' by 40' screen with perfect quality. I think it's the director's prerogative, not the studio's to go back and reinvent a movie." (When he says "dvd version", he means of the SE)

If that's his view, I don't think he'll want the OOT to be around on blu-ray and future formats. Particularly considering he'll have to put in money and effort to restore them for that. I think it's clear that he wants the movies so many of us love to be gone and gone for good.

Of course, I consider that quote to be a gloating declaration of war on the fans.

Attempted to "use the force" to get at that out-of-reach object, instead of getting off the sofa, walking over and picking it up?

Ever since seeing ESB back in the early 80s I've constantly found myself wanting to pull things to me with the force and been rather miffed that I couldn't. I mean, if Luke could do it, why not me? No fair.

skyjedi2005 said:

Yep the color timing for the 2004 release was absolutely brilliant.  Give Vader a pink Lightsaber, lol.  The badass Lord of the Sith using a pink saber like a pansy.  I guess it sort of makes sense though seeing as the prequels say that is Hayden in the suit,lol.

 lol.

skyjedi2005 said:

And When the old dude Croaks he comes back as a creapy looking dude who is like 19 and looks nothing like Shaw.  Luke goes wtf? where is my father,lol.

 Lol. Yeah.

C3PX said:

Akwat Kbrana said:

If Leonardo Da Vinci had come back thirty years after the unveiling of the Mona Lisa and crudely added a blue handlebar moustache and goatee, thus indelibly rendering the original inaccessible, it would be a travesty. Perhaps a few art lovers would cry out in infuriated protestation, and perhaps Da Vinci would reply, "Ah, but art it never finished, only abandoned. This is closer to my original vision than the old version." This would do little to allay the fury of those who wish to pay their respects to the original masterpiece, for it is neither an explanation nor an excuse, but a flimsy (and rather conceited) dismissal of the peoples' concern.

Actually, Mona Lisa is a prime example of Da Vinci's "Art is never finished, only abandoned" philosophy. He carried the thing around with him for years, abandoned it for a few, then came back to it and "finished" it shortly before he died, though perhaps he himself would not have considered it finished at the time. I am not even sure if he ever personally unveiled it himself. It also never became popular or even widely known until several hunred years after Da Vinci's death.

But, you have a good point in offering a work of art that, regardless of who legally owns it, very much belongs to the people. It is something we have looked at in awe for years. It has a history behind it. We've learned about it in elementary school, high school, and university, some of us have even seen it up close in person. It is one of the few works of art that has the distinction of being immediately recognizable by anyone with any kind of an education within the western world. Though it has undergone plenty of vandalism and touch ups over the last hundred years, any true alterations to it would be quite unforgivable.

Star Wars, while very different, shares some things in common with the Mona Lisa in that it is a well known popular piece of art. It was unveiled in 1977 and instantly became a favorite. People fell in love with it, grew up with it, came to know it rather intimately. It was in the eye of the public for twenty years. Much like the Mona Lisa, during this time it had become a property of the public, regardless of the fact GL owns full legal rights to it. Is it s bold statement to say it belonged to the public? Absolutely not! Who owns the rights to it is a mere legality. There are some things the law has absolutely no reign over. In twenty years time it has become a part of so many people's lives and childhoods. They watched it over and over, memorized it, reenacted it, through there money into buying likenesses of the characters. Star Wars very much belongs to the public, not in a legal sense, but in a real sense. Twenty years.

It is nothing short of a crime to come along over twenty years later and say that film no longer exists simply because you own the legal rights to it.

Actually, Mona Lisa is a prime example of Da Vinci's "Art is never finished, only abandoned" philosophy. He carried the thing around with him for years, abandoned it for a few, then came back to it and "finished" it shortly before he died, though perhaps he himself would not have considered it finished at the time. I am not even sure if he ever personally unveiled it himself. It also never became popular or even widely known until several hunred years after Da Vinci's death.

If da Vinci came back from the dead now and started fucking with the Mona Lisa, people wouldn't be happy. Unlike the unfinished Mona Lisa, the supposedly unfinished OOT was released to the public as if it was a finished work. Also, the OOT was embraced by the public in the years before Lucas's revision, whereas the Mona Lisa was not embraced by the public before da Vinci  finished it. In effect, Lucas gave the OOT to the world. Once given, it cannot rightly be taken back.

But, you have a good point in offering a work of art that, regardless of who legally owns it, very much belongs to the people. It is something we have looked at in awe for years. It has a history behind it. We've learned about it in elementary school, high school, and university, some of us have even seen it up close in person. It is one of the few works of art that has the distinction of being immediately recognizable by anyone with any kind of an education within the western world. Though it has undergone plenty of vandalism and touch ups over the last hundred years, any true alterations to it would be quite unforgivable.

Star Wars, while very different, shares some things in common with the Mona Lisa in that it is a well known popular piece of art. It was unveiled in 1977 and instantly became a favorite. People fell in love with it, grew up with it, came to know it rather intimately. It was in the eye of the public for twenty years. Much like the Mona Lisa, during this time it had become a property of the public, regardless of the fact GL owns full legal rights to it. Is it s bold statement to say it belonged to the public? Absolutely not! Who owns the rights to it is a mere legality. There are some things the law has absolutely no reign over. In twenty years time it has become a part of so many people's lives and childhoods. They watched it over and over, memorized it, reenacted it, through there money into buying likenesses of the characters. Star Wars very much belongs to the public, not in a legal sense, but in a real sense. Twenty years.

It is nothing short of a crime to come along over twenty years later and say that film no longer exists simply because you own the legal rights to it.

 

 Very good argument. I agree all the way.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I don't hold views if I think they're wrong. If I think I'm mistaken about something then I won't argue it.

You think other people don't feel that same way? Why would anyone hold a view they think is wrong? If someone says that a certain view is wrong, then quite obviously, they don't hold it.

Why would anyone argue something, if they felt they were mistaken? The whole point of arguing is because you think you are right and the other person is wrong. There is a place for some debate, but when it becomes clear you're not convincing anybody, it is time to fuck off and agree to disagree. You tend to press it to the point of, "Well clearly you are wrong because you suck at this, and I am quite good at it" or "You're wrong and only arrive at your point of view because you are suffering from denial".

Sometimes it is prudent to consider the possibility that you might just be wrong, or at the very least that your view isn't as water tight as you thought it was.

You tend to press it to the point of, "Well clearly you are wrong because you suck at this, and I am quite good at it" or "You're wrong and only arrive at your point of view because you are suffering from denial".

I only do something like that after people have been unpleasant to me and tried my patience past breaking point.

Sometimes it is prudent to consider the possibility that you might just be wrong, or at the very least that your view isn't as water tight as you thought it was.

 

I do that all the time. But when I've acted on that by testing my view very carefully and found that my view still works and doesn't seem to be wrong, then I will continue to defend my view against arguments I don't find convincing.

However what you just advised there is what some people seem totally incapable of doing in reaction to my views.

The whole point of arguing is because you think you are right and the other person is wrong. There is a place for some debate, but when it becomes clear you're not convincing anybody, it is time to fuck off and agree to disagree.

Just because I'm not convincing whoever I'm debating with doesn't mean that my argument won't convince some lurker or poster who reads my post now or any time in the future. And if it's such a good idea to quit debating when it looks your opponent won't be convinced, why doesn't everybody do that, instead of keeping up debates with me going on and on and on and generally getting nastier as they go on? 

DarkFather said:

Vaderisnothayden:

I very much believe you enjoy seeing other's reactions to you. You know how to dance precariously on the line of "normal" and "going too far." You're either a lover of the prequels that wants to show how extreme the other side can get, or it's pure entertainment for you. Or some of both.

For instance, I don't believe for a moment that Go-Mer-Tonic over at TheForce.net believes most of what he says. I've seen him drop too many hints that he understands perfectly well the other side's arguments, and agrees. At some point, he's conceded all points... only to go back to pretending like the concesion never happened.

It's not about Star Wars for either of you.

Of course, since you stand accused, you'll come back with some defense that amounts to "that's bullshit", but notice that in the other thread, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and treat this situation like that isn't the case. Meaning I'm holding back a little bit in condemning you in my mind, on the chance that I'm dead wrong.

I know what it's like to be accused of being some other user that you aren't, simply because you were new on a forum and said something serious that seemed outlandish to everyone else; and then the crowd laughing and agreeing with the self-proclaimed judge, with yourself then becoming an outcast. It has happened to me on tight-knit communities like this very, very often. So I was never quick to judge you. Even now, some part of me is willing to defend you. But if you don't swallow some of that pride and get behind me, you're going to be eaten by the pack today, tomorrow, or next month, but eventually.

I am so sick of your theories about me (oh yeah, sure, I'm 007 the undercover prequel fan agent, riiight) and your insults and your preaching down to me. You've given me all sorts of trouble all over this board. I've had enough. So from now on I won't be reading any posts of yours and you won't be baiting any more replies out of me. Have a nice day.

Akwat Kbrana said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

C3PX said:

I am through with this discussion. Reading some of your hair brained bullcrap is really beginning to insult my intelligence, and I really don't care that much about the subject at hand to go around in circles about it anyway.

Oh I see, thinking differently from C3PX = "hair brained bullcrap." Nice to know that. So you see a different way of looking at things and thinking about things that doesn't give in and back down and go "Sorry, I realize I should be thinking like C3PX" and your reaction is to decide that means the thinking must be crap. Because your mind doesn't work like mine then my mind must be full of shit. I'm glad to find out you're so open to other ways of thinking.

Btw, it's "hare-brained", not "hair-brained".

The issue is not so much that you had a differing point of view than C3PX, but that you openly and intentionally abandoned reason and logic because of some vague "implication" that everyone is somehow supposed to pick up on. Allegedly, this is because ROTJ is meant to be a kid's story instead of an adult's story (which is borderline equivovation on your part, BTW, since you've said elsewhere, "Not true at all. ROTJ is mich more adult-friendly than TPM and a very different animal.") Well, I can't dispute your "viewer response" inference, but I personally never picked up an any "implication" that the entirety of the conflict was over after the battle of Endor...not even when I first watched it as a small child. The very idea is absurdly ludicrous to adults and children alike...thus, the "hair brained bullcrap" analysis isn't so far off.

(BTW, needling someone on the basis of a typo is pretty immature. You've made quite a few typos yourself, but I don't see anyone rubbing your nose in them. This is an internet message board; being anal about typographical precision is just ridiculous.)

You are still refusing to understand the principle that just because logic dictates something should happen in the story doesn't mean it happens, because logic doesn't rule in this story. Just because it's a kids' fairytale doesn't mean we should toss out every inch of reason, true. Neither I nor Kasdan nor Lucas tossed out every inch of reason. But where logic gets in the way of where the story needs to go then reason IS tossed out.

This is very silly. What it ends up meaning is "logic doesn't count when I don't like the implications of logical thought." It's particularly odd coming from someone who proposed the notion of three seperate clone templates in AOTC based on the fact that there were three seperate actors used to depict them, and that Boba isn't really Jango's clone since the two actors don't look 100% identical. Looks like you're pretty selective about when "where the story needs to go" counts, and when it doesn't.

Consistency, thou art a gem.

The issue is not so much that you had a differing point of view than C3PX, but that you openly and intentionally abandoned reason and logic because of some vague "implication" that everyone is somehow supposed to pick up on. Allegedly, this is because ROTJ is meant to be a kid's story instead of an adult's story (which is borderline equivovation on your part, BTW, since you've said elsewhere, "Not true at all. ROTJ is mich more adult-friendly than TPM and a very different animal.") Well, I can't dispute your "viewer response" inference, but I personally never picked up an any "implication" that the entirety of the conflict was over after the battle of Endor...not even when I first watched it as a small child. The very idea is absurdly ludicrous to adults and children alike...thus, the "hair brained bullcrap" analysis isn't so far off.

The "very idea" has worked perfectly well for many adults and children from 1983 down to this day. No I didn't abandon reason and logic. I recognized that ROTJ didn't always choose to follow reason and logic. There is a difference. It is reasonable and logical to recognize that ROTJ isn't always trying to be reasonable and logical. And if ROTJ isn't running by reason and logic then you can't infer that something must happen in the story just because reason and logic say it should. I am not abandoning reason and logic. ROTJ is.

Allegedly, this is because ROTJ is meant to be a kid's story instead of an adult's story (which is borderline equivovation on your part, BTW, since you've said elsewhere, "Not true at all. ROTJ is mich more adult-friendly than TPM and a very different animal.")

My statement that you quote was in response to a claim that ROTJ was EXCLUSIVELY for children and was the same as TPM. It is not those things, but it is a children's fairytale. It is a children's fairytale designed to work for adults who don't need everything to be logical.

(BTW, needling someone on the basis of a typo is pretty immature. You've made quite a few typos yourself, but I don't see anyone rubbing your nose in them. This is an internet message board; being anal about typographical precision is just ridiculous.)

I don't concern myself with what's mature or isn't. I tend to feel that only people who are insecure in their own maturity do that. I don't usually correct people's typos, but C3PX was reacting to my view with such an unfriendly sulk (being very dismissive towards me in the process) that I felt he deserved it.

Vaderisnothayden said:

You are still refusing to understand the principle that just because logic dictates something should happen in the story doesn't mean it happens, because logic doesn't rule in this story. Just because it's a kids' fairytale doesn't mean we should toss out every inch of reason, true. Neither I nor Kasdan nor Lucas tossed out every inch of reason. But where logic gets in the way of where the story needs to go then reason IS tossed out.

AkwatKbrana said:

This is very silly. What it ends up meaning is "logic doesn't count when I don't like the implications of logical thought." It's particularly odd coming from someone who proposed the notion of three seperate clone templates in AOTC based on the fact that there were three seperate actors used to depict them, and that Boba isn't really Jango's clone since the two actors don't look 100% identical. Looks like you're pretty selective about when "where the story needs to go" counts, and when it doesn't.

If people are going to sneer at my thinking I wish they'd do it based on understanding my thinking, rather than confidently sneering at me based on not understanding my thinking at all. Take a look at what I really said. I never said that logic doesn't count whenever I don't like its implications. Rather, I acknowledged that the writers had clearly decided that they'd ignore logic when it didn't suit them. THEM, not me. Some writers writing some stories choose to abandon logic when it doesn't suit them to follow logic. That's what Lucas and Kasdan did in ROTJ. I am prepared to recognize that. It seems you don't want to.

As for the Boba Fett situation, I was never very serious about my theories about how many clone templates there were. I was just playing around seeing if the film could be explained so that it could work with Boba Fett not being a clone of Jango. Because the Boba-is-clone-of-Jango thing doesn't work for me, because I find them too different-looking (note, not just not 100% similar-looking, "too different-looking", as in significantly different-looking -I would have accepted somebody who looked more like Morrison, they didn't have to look 100% like him). I don't NEED the film to work with Boba Fett not being a clone. I don't NEED an explanation of how things could be the way they were in the film with Boba not being a clone. I just played around a bit with ideas for the sake of experimentation. I don't need the logic of the film to work. Even though I think AOTC has more pretentions to logic than ROTJ (not that its logic necessarily works better, just its nature implies more claim to be logical) and thus I think it should be held to a higher standard of logic because it intends to be a more logical sort of film. But I'm not particularly bothered by AOTC's logical lapses. There are other things about AOTC that bother me far more. So, let's get this straight, I was never much concerned with the logic of AOTC. The only thing that seriously concerned me was this attempt to pass off this kid as a clone of Jango when he didn't look like Jango. The logical implications were not my concern, the lack of facial resemblence was.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnohayden, my sincerest apologies for mis-spelling "hare-brained".

And I wasn't suggesting your ideas were hare-brained because they differed from my own. I suggested they were hare-brained simply because they were hare-brained.

As I already said, I am finished with this nonsense.

Not so finished with it to above one last dig, I see. This statement (below), when considered carefully, can be seen to make no sense. But you knew that. The statement in question:  

And I wasn't suggesting your ideas were hare-brained because they differed from my own. I suggested they were hare-brained simply because they were hare-brained.

DarkFather said:

You're being stupid again. "Picking on" someone is when it's totally unwarranted, which only scumbags do because they lack any self-esteem.

I'm not saying compromise your views for popularity points. I'm saying in the face of reasonable proof of any point you make being wrong, you have to be willing to acknowledge when you are wrong. Such as when TheBoost made a comparison of the faces of whats-his-face and Morrison. They have strikingly similar facial features, and all you could do was say "nu-uh" and claim that you have better facial recognition than most other people. WHAT?!

I'm not popular on these boards, and I don't pretend to be. Nor do I try to be. But at least I have an efficient method by which to go about stating my views, and in some instances, it does draw some people in. I didn't do that by being a jackass and stubbornly ignoring sound proof against my arguments. I lock horns with others sometimes, but I've never been stubbornly arrogant while doing so.

DarkFather said:

You're being stupid again. "Picking on" someone is when it's totally unwarranted, which only scumbags do because they lack any self-esteem.

Nope. I'm standing up to the bully who's picking on me and keeps picking on me.

DarkFather said:

I'm not saying compromise your views for popularity points. I'm saying in the face of reasonable proof of any point you make being wrong, you have to be willing to acknowledge when you are wrong. Such as when TheBoost made a comparison of the faces of whats-his-face and Morrison. They have strikingly similar facial features, and all you could do was say "nu-uh" and claim that you have better facial recognition than most other people. WHAT?!

In other words I should admit I'm wrong whenever DarkFather thinks I'm wrong? Have you considered that maybe you might ever be wrong about thinking I'm wrong about something? Like that example you give, classic case. You just are not prepared to even consider that I could possibly ever be right about those faces. You've never even considered it. Obviously I MUST be delusional or something or just refusing to concede, right? Ok, get this, I have been working on faces for many years. My ability in face study surpasses that of the vast majority of people. That has been proven again and again. I know what I'm talking about in the case of Morrison and Logan's faces. Those two actors do not have "strikingly similar facial features". They have some distinct similarities, but they also have very distinct differences. Their faces are of a different sort. TheBoost's posted pic did not prove they were so similar. It demonstrated their difference as much as it demonstrated any similarity they have. So, no there was not reasonable proof that I was wrong. It only appeared to you to be reasonable proof because you can't see the major differences between those two faces. But I can. TheBoost proved nothing. There was no good reason for me to concede anything.

See, this is not me refusing to concede when I should be. This is you refusing to even consider that somebody could have abilities you don't have or that thinking that's different from yours could actually work or be right. Look to yourself for unreasonableness before you look to me.

I didn't do that by being a jackass and stubbornly ignoring sound proof against my arguments. I lock horns with others sometimes, but I've never been stubbornly arrogant while doing so.

I would have to disagree with that.

And quit with the "stubbornly ignoring sound proof" nonsense. Just because YOU think something is sound proof doesn't mean it is.

DarkFather said:What are you talking about? You accused me of being narrow-minded well before I ever accused you of such. All you want to say right now is that Lucas created a mess and the EU needs to excuse it. I've said I actually agree on some instances. But you're not taking into account that Star Wars has always had parts of the story that had to go unexplained for the sake of telling a larger story. At least the EU picks up the slack a lot of the time, and sometimes even gives adequate reasons (which you like to term in a derogatory fashion "excuses") that are thought out. It's not as simple as to say "EU excuses" for Lucas' mess and leave it at that. It's going into extreme territory to do so.

You got offensive with me before I got offensive with you. In fact, you seem to like making unprovoked attacks me on. The ongoing trouble between us was started when you made one such attack that hit me out of the blue. I was shocked and really bothered that somebody was eager to be so malicious. You have continued your bullying of me since then. I don't know who called who narrow-minded first in all the back and forth we've had, but I think there's a very good chance it was you.

All you want to say right now is that Lucas created a mess and the EU needs to excuse it.

 No, what I'm saying is that if the Lucas creates a mess the EU can't excuse it.

But you're not taking into account that Star Wars has always had parts of the story that had to go unexplained for the sake of telling a larger story.

The films should work in and of themselves. Something in a film should not require material outside of the film to make it work. And the prequels all too often seem to need outside material to make them work.

At least the EU picks up the slack a lot of the time, and sometimes even gives adequate reasons (which you like to term in a derogatory fashion "excuses") that are thought out. It's not as simple as to say "EU excuses" for Lucas' mess and leave it at that. It's going into extreme territory to do so.

No it's not going into extreme territory. All too often when somebody criticises some fuck up in the prequels, somebody pipes up with an EU explanation and this EU explanation is supposed to make it all better so that we pretend Lucas never made a mistake in the first place. That doesn't work for me. That's using often lame EU explanations as excuses to defend Lucas's mistakes.

Furthermore, the assumption when people present such EU explanations oftens seems to be that of course everybody acceots the EU as being on the same level as the films and that an EU explanation is thus as good as something in the films. For me and a lot of other people that doesn't work. When people are talking about the film story they aren't looking for the EU story, they're looking for the story in the films. The EU is irrelevant.

DarkFather said:

And you know what, it's great that you have opinions that you're willing to defend tooth and nail. The problem being as I see it, the vibe from your posts aren't going to act as an easy magnet for winning anyone over to your view. From our discussions that we've had, and the reactions of others around the board to your posts that I see, that vibe is bordering on repulsive.

We're willing to see your views, but you criticize and cry havoc to ours, and then wonder why we're in turn so critical of you. What I'm getting at is that I'm skeptical that the reward you'll get after "battle" for being so insanely rigid in your views will even be worth the effort you put into it.

If you aren't willing to concede anything, if you aren't willing to relent in your views at all, the only reward in that is a self appreciation of a very lonely type.

Why should I "concede" when my view is not mistaken? I don't hold views if I think they're wrong. If I think I'm mistaken about something then I won't argue it. And if I think I'm not mistaken then I will defend my view. There's no point in me conceding when I don't feel I'm mistaken about anything. You seem to be expecting me to be hypocritical just because pretending I think I'm wrong might (in your opinion) make me more popular. I don't function like that.

As it stands, different people react differently to my posts at different times. It's not all one reaction all the time. And if some people react narrowly to my posts, intolerant of somebody who doesn't back down on their views or intolerant of somebody who thinks differently from other people, then that is their problem and it in no way proves that my posts are "repulsive".

As for me crying havoc over other people's views, that is not so. I disagree with other people when I feel it is necessary (and there is no crime in that). I am prepared to be critical of other people's views, as are most people here. I don't object to people criticizing my views. I object to people being rude and mocking and aggressive and getting personal and dismissing my views as ridiculous just because I think differently from them. I can run out of patience with other people's views after a debate has dragged on and my views are not getting a pleasant reception and other people are acting narrow-minded in reaction to my views, but I generally try to avoid giving people trouble unless they have given me trouble first. I am not more critical of other people's views than they are of mine. I do not treat people worse than I am treated. I do not "cry havoc" just because somebody has a different view than mine. Though I may get pretty pissed off if somebody concedes and then goes back on it or if a bunch of people gang up to tell me how ridiculous I am or if somebody gets personal with me.

You in particular have established that you like getting personal and offensive at the drop of a hat. And I've seen I'm not the only one you're willing to pick fights with. 

As for people being willing to see my views, some people are, but sometimes some people are stubbornly unwilling to accept my way of thinking as having any chance of being valid. I would go so far as to say that sometimes some people seem almost allergic to the different mindset evident in my views. I don't mean any offense by saying this, I am just trying to describe my experience as it seems to me.

I've gotten all sorts of shit on this board and it wasn't shit I earned by "crying havoc" about other people's views. It was shit I got for having a very different mindset and having the horrific cheek to hold to my very different way of thinking when other (supposedly wiser) people told me I was wrong. People who are very different are supposed to shut up or go away or apologize for themselves all the time. Human beings have a terrible track record for tolerating difference.

I don't see how I'm being "insanely rigid" in holding to my views. I don't see you conceding all over the place whenever we have a debate. No, you hold to your views because you think they're right. I wouldn't expect you to do otherwise. It's idiotic and unjust to beat me over the head for not going around pretending I think I'm wrong all the time just to win popularity points. I take other people's views quite seriously and when they present some good evidence against mine I consider it carefully, but ultimately my veiws are very well thought-out and usually stand up to such arguments, so I don't have a lot of reason to go conceding.

If we're going to get personal like this about each others' posting behavior, maybe I should note that you seem to me to be a bully and troublemaker who has no restraint about getting personal and aggressive with people. When I first really noticed you, you were picking a fight with somebody. Then the next day you got really personally offensive with me. I seem to be your favorite target. Pick on the guy who's different, what fun. How about you just lay off?

C3PX said: 

Stop trying to psycho analyze us to prove your point.

 

DarkFather said:

Sorry about that. I think the little guy learned it from me.

C3PX said:

I doubt it. He is fully capable of it on his own. Either way, at least when you play doctor your analzes are semi-applicable. He just does it to undermine.

DarkFather's theories about me were complete bullshit. My attempts to figure out why you were thinking and behaving as you were were done to make sense of your attitude, not to undermine. I'm sorry I offended you.

(post screwed up)

C3PX said:

I am through with this discussion. Reading some of your hair brained bullcrap is really beginning to insult my intelligence, and I really don't care that much about the subject at hand to go around in circles about it anyway.

Oh I see, thinking differently from C3PX = "hair brained bullcrap." Nice to know that. So you see a different way of looking at things and thinking about things that doesn't give in and back down and go "Sorry, I realize I should be thinking like C3PX" and your reaction is to decide that means the thinking must be crap. Because your mind doesn't work like mine then my mind must be full of shit. I'm glad to find out you're so open to other ways of thinking.

Btw, it's "hare-brained", not "hair-brained".

I see nothing at the end of the film to indicate a definite end. Absolutely nothing. You've failed to show me anything. You have yet to offer anything other than odd reasoning to defend your side. The fact is, at the end of the film there is still a big fleet out there. I am not trying to force the movie to follow my adult form of logic that it doesn't follow. I am not trying to force it to be an adult movie and not a kids movie all the while suffering from denial as you have decided I have. Just because it is a kids movie doesn't mean it has to toss out every inch of reason. That is great that you think it does. Bravo. You seem to be a very well grounded individual.

You are still refusing to understand the principle that just because logic dictates something should happen in the story doesn't mean it happens, because logic doesn't rule in this story. Just because it's a kids' fairytale doesn't mean we should toss out every inch of reason, true. Neither I nor Kasdan nor Lucas tossed out every inch of reason. But where logic gets in the way of where the story needs to go then reason IS tossed out. As has been demonstrated elsewhere in the film. I don't see why it's so hard for you to understand that. I can only theorize that the reason you are so resistant to understanding it is because you don't want Star Wars to be something that works like that. You may not be in denial about it being a kids' film, but you leave me no option but to assume you are in denial about the rules of how this sort of kids' story works. In that sense it seems to me that you are indeed trying to force it to fit to logical adult rules that it doesn't run by.

And it's not true to say that I've shown you nothing. I've pointed to what you need to see, which you'd see if you were open to it. I have also brought up supporting evidence, like stuff said by Lucas about the film.

Anyway, time to end this pointlessness now. Anything else you say on this subject will not be getting a response from me. Why? Because you are saying the same damn thing over and over again, only in longer and longer posts. Having to read longer posts of the same thing, then having you add in about my denial issues isn't going to change my mind about this, it is just going to try my patience.

I'm sorry if my comments about denial bother you so much, but you're not the only one who can get frustrated and you've been giving me a lot of argument about this on two different threads AFTER you'd already conceded and said my argument was right and that you were mistaken. I'm sorry but I find it dishonest to concede and then go back on it like that. You've gotten me quite fed up and I've found myself throwing up my arms in despair at you repeatedly coming out with arguments that to me seemed desperately obtuse and narrow. It's only natural that I reach for an explanation for your behavior. I'm sorry if it bothered you.

And you need to note that you've been saying pretty much the same sort of thing repeatedly yourself.

Also, you totally missed my whole thing with The Hobbit too, I was comparing Smug to the Death Star and Vader and Palps, the immediate threats. And the orc army to the Imperials. At the end of the book the orcs are still out there, a threat to peace and freedom on the people of Middle-Earth, but not an immediate threat. That is the same way I feel about ROTJ. The Imperials are still out there, still a threat to peace and freedom in the galaxy, but not an immediate threat. Which is why to me, being someone going down the path of nuttiness and denial that I am (according to you anyway), both the The Hobbit and ROTJ can end on a happy note without lying to kids and trying to convince them the world is now perfect just because there are happy moments.

You didn't make it at all clear that you were comparing Smaug to Vader/Palpatine/Death Star. You sounded like you were under the impression that Smaug might come back after the end of the book. And a comparison between the Hobbit's goblins (they were called goblins not orcs in The Hobbit) does not work. If the empire was still around it would be a pretty immediate threat. Not immediate as in of that moment, bit immediate as in they would have to fight them soon. It was not implied in the end of The Hobbit that a big war with the goblins was necessary any time soon. There was no war going on at the end of The Hobbit. But if the empire was still around the rebels would still be in a war at the end of ROTJ. As such the goblins at the end of The Hobbit are a very different situation from the threat of the empire hanging over the rebels as it would be in your version of the end of ROTJ. The conflict was OVER at the end of The Hobbit, hence the happily ever after ending. But in your vision of ROTJ the conflict would NOT be over, hence no happily ever after. Bilbo Baggins doesn't have to fight any goblins after The Hobbit, but Han and Luke and Leia would have to fight lots of imperials soon after ROTJ if you were right.

Anyway, none of this really matters.

Yes it does matter. This is the end of the only real Star Wars story that we're talking about here. It matters if Star Wars matters. And if it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be arguing with me about it on three threads. But if you feel it doesn't matter enough to continue debating with me about it, then please feel free to stop and to avoid debating it with me about it on any future threads, because our discussions on the matter are not working out well. 

Look, I'm sorry if I've pissed you off. I think you're right that this discussion should end here.