Vaderisnothayden

C3PX said:

Ah, you are right, TMBTM. Owen's dislike of Jedi, Obi-Wan, etc., was clearly explained in that single abstract gesture.

The scene was ridiculous anyway.This young married couple are out enjoying their favorite past time of starting up at the sky while standing in their backyard, and suddenly out of the darkened desert a strange cloaked and hooded figure riding a retarded looking animal emerges. Instead of the gruff farmer man grabbing his rife and going to see what this cloaked figure wants, he sends his petite and delicate looking little wife to check it out while he continues to stare at the setting suns. The young woman approaches the cloaked and shadowy stranger, and he hands her a bundle of something. Oh! It's a little baby! Mommy was wrong! Babies don't come from storks! They come from shady looking men in cloaks mounted upon stupid looking beast of burden! She turns her back to the shadowy man and runs back to her husband. "Owen, Owen, look! All our efforts in trying various positions has finally paid off! I knew I wasn't barren!" "Beru, what are you talking about? Who was that dangerous looking figure who wandered in from the desert? What's that bundle you're holding?" "Oh... I have no idea who he was... But look! He brought us a baby!" "Oh, that's nice dear. Raise him as soon as you can, I am thinking of letting go of a few of our hired hands and need all the extra help I can get. My word Beru! This sunset is beautiful!"

 

 

 Rotfl!

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

DarkFather said:Vaderisnothayden, there is no dishonor in throwing your hands up and admitting you are wrong, when you are plain as day: dead wrong. Just ask C3PX.

Why do you assume I'm wrong? Because you're less good with faces than me and can't see that those two guys actually have quite different faces? Most people are hopeless with faces. I'm not. I know what I'm talking about.

 

That is kind of  funny argument. Essentially what you are saying is that nobody else here has a right to an opinion (or at least their opinions have to be wrong) on this because, we are all clearly horrible with faces, and you are a self proclaimed face expert.

Using the same sort of argument, I could do as followes:

Why do you assume you're right? Because you are less intelligent than me and can't see that I am right and you are wrong? Most people are hopeless with their intellect. I'm not. I know what I am talking about.

Blah. I'd flame my own self if I went around making assinine claims like that.

 

Whether you think you are brilliant with faces or not, it doesn't matter. To some of us, they look strikingly alike. To the people who did the casting, they must have looked strikingly alike. It is good enough for most of us. For you it is a disaster, but that is fine if you feel that way. Some of us don't agree, you'll just have to tollerate our opinions.

Sorry for making fun of you, the whole situation came off as very humerous to me, and it felt good for a few laughs. Meant nothing against you personally. Notice even Dark Father and I disagree sometimes and poke fun at each others opinions, it doesn't mean I don't respect his right to an opinon.

You were right in saying it doesn't seem like I respect your opinion when I made fun of it. I have already made clear how I feel about what your opinion is on this matter, which proves I have no respect for that exact opinion. I guess what I meant when I said that I respect your opinion is that I respect you and your right to have an opinion, I don't think any less of you for your opinion, but I still think your opinion (being the idea that they look so different we ought to assume George left out parts of the story explaining some conspiracy) is rather silly. Make sense?

Let's say I believed Hitler could read the minds of dogs and communicate with them, and present you with some loose evidence that makes me draw this opinion, and I go on to tell you that it was actually a cockerspaniel name Lucy who was responsible for the atrocities of WWII that are credited to Hitler. You see, Lucy was the mastermind behind it all, and she hated the Jews, and wanted to conquer the world. Hitler was actually a decent fellow, but was manipulated and fooled by Lucy into doing the things he did... Shall I go on? I doubt you could have any respect for this opinion, and would find it over the top BS, which it very well is. You could tease me about it, and show disrespect for the whole idea, even teasing me a little about it, and still value me as a friend or aquaintance and respect the fact that I have every right to believe Hitler was a good guy and Lucy was essentially Satan in dog form.

All this to say, I respect you as a valued member of this board, I do very much enjoy having you around, I don't hold anything against you for the Boba Jango theory even though I think it is a stretch, and I am sorry if I offended you here, I will try hard to refrain from making fun of your ideas in the future.

C3PX said:

That is kind of  funny argument. Essentially what you are saying is that nobody else here has a right to an opinion (or at least their opinions have to be wrong) on this because, we are all clearly horrible with faces, and you are a self proclaimed face expert.

Using the same sort of argument, I could do as followes:

Why do you assume you're right? Because you are less intelligent than me and can't see that I am right and you are wrong? Most people are hopeless with their intellect. I'm not. I know what I am talking about.

Blah. I'd flame my own self if I went around making assinine claims like that.

If somebody has expertise in a particular field and they are disagreeing with other people (who do not have expertise in that field) about something in that field, then it follows that they are more likely to be right than the other people. There is nothing asinine about that. People who can't see the distinct difference between those two actors are demonstrating a lack of ability with faces. I don't say that to offend anybody, I just say it because it's the case. I can see very clearly the difference between those two faces.

As for being a "self-proclaimed face expert", it's proclaimed by rather more than just myself. As for most people's lack of ability with faces, that is rather well documented and leads to unfortunate situations like witnesses wrongly identifying an innocent man as a criminal they saw, because they can't tell the difference between the criminal's face and the innocent man's.

You are entitled to have whatever opinion you want, but I do know what I'm talking about here and it is evident here that I am proving able to see something other people are failing to see. I have no problem seeing the ways in which those actors resemble each other, but I can also see the considerable and significant ways in which they differ, ways which which make their faces fundamentally different.

Whether you think you are brilliant with faces or not, it doesn't matter. To some of us, they look strikingly alike. To the people who did the casting, they must have looked strikingly alike. It is good enough for most of us. For you it is a disaster, but that is fine if you feel that way. Some of us don't agree, you'll just have to tollerate our opinions.

I've tolerated your opinions well enough. What I haven't tolerated so well is the hostile treatment I've got on this thread and the assumption some people seem to have that because they can't see the difference between those two guys then it mustn't exist and that there's zero chance that I could be right and that I should just acknowledge that they're right, my own trained perceptions being worthless and irrelevant.

Sorry for making fun of you, the whole situation came off as very humerous to me, and it felt good for a few laughs. Meant nothing against you personally. Notice even Dark Father and I disagree sometimes and poke fun at each others opinions, it doesn't mean I don't respect his right to an opinon.

You were right in saying it doesn't seem like I respect your opinion when I made fun of it. I have already made clear how I feel about what your opinion is on this matter, which proves I have no respect for that exact opinion. I guess what I meant when I said that I respect your opinion is that I respect you and your right to have an opinion, I don't think any less of you for your opinion, but I still think your opinion (being the idea that they look so different we ought to assume George left out parts of the story explaining some conspiracy) is rather silly. Make sense?

Except that is not and has never been my opinion. I indicated in my first post that I knew full well that the intention in the filmmaking was for the kid to be a clone of Jango. I never implied that I actually thought George intended him to not be a clone or that there actually were story parts left out explaining it all. I suggested possible story explanations as a way of creatively reinterpreting the film to fix up the mess left by Lucas's failed attempt to make the clone thing work onscreen. I never suggested that Lucas ever thought up any of that stuff. I never suggested that Lucas ever intended the story to be other than the offical AOTC story with Boba as clone of Jango. (Unless you count back in the 80s and 70s when Lucas had maybe not yet dreamed up that Boba was a clone of this Jango guy.) So it seems like you've been misunderstanding my opinion the whole time.

The core of my opinion is that these guys are way too different for it to be ok to put them on the screen side by side and expect us to buy the kid as a clone of the other guy. Pushing the kid as a clone of Jango just fails. And having noted the failure I then went on to play with creative reinterpretations of the film to give in-story explanations for things being the way they were without the kid being a clone. Not because I thought there was any actual missing story like that, but because I thought it was fun to see if the film could work with the kid not being a clone.

Let's say I believed Hitler could read the minds of dogs and communicate with them, and present you with some loose evidence that makes me draw this opinion, and I go on to tell you that it was actually a cockerspaniel name Lucy who was responsible for the atrocities of WWII that are credited to Hitler. You see, Lucy was the mastermind behind it all, and she hated the Jews, and wanted to conquer the world. Hitler was actually a decent fellow, but was manipulated and fooled by Lucy into doing the things he did... Shall I go on? I doubt you could have any respect for this opinion, and would find it over the top BS, which it very well is. You could tease me about it, and show disrespect for the whole idea, even teasing me a little about it, and still value me as a friend or aquaintance and respect the fact that I have every right to believe Hitler was a good guy and Lucy was essentially Satan in dog form.

Well, my opinion was not that sort of ridiculous opinion. And what you said to me struck me as more adversarial than mere friendly teasing. But I accept that you did not intend that. 

All this to say, I respect you as a valued member of this board, I do very much enjoy having you around, I don't hold anything against you for the Boba Jango theory even though I think it is a stretch, and I am sorry if I offended you here, I will try hard to refrain from making fun of your ideas in the future.

I appreciate that. :)

sunday256 said:

This whole thread is totally ridiculous. LOL!

DarkFather's theories that I'm an undercover agent for the prequel fans being the most ridiculous thing here.

Gaffer Tape said:

Alright, alright, alright.  This is getting nauseating!  I initially abstained from posting in this thread because I, like apparently everyone else, thought Vaderisnothayden was reaching quite a bit for a reason to take the mickey out of the prequels.  But apparently he does seriously carry this opinion.  And it is his right to do so.  It would be fun to debate, but I don't see anybody bringing anything to the table but, "You're crazy," and other such things, and I really don't see any point to just bitch him out about it.  He has this opinion.  We know this.  Most everyone else disagrees.  He knows this.  What is the point of continuing?  His opinion is valid.  Everyone else's opinion is valid.  The end.

Thank you.

DarkFather said:

I must've hit it pretty close to the mark to get her all riled up like that, huh, kid?

Put me on ignore if you're too narrow to accept my different views, Vaderisnothayden.

Getting somebody really pissed off is not necessarily a sign that you hit close to the mark. In this case, the degree of unjust accusation nonsense is what's getting me so annoyed. Unjust accusations have been known to annoy people, you know.

And not wanting to receive abusive crap and wild insults is hardly narrow-minded. If you want to try to throw my own words back at me like that,  please do it right. 

Yoda Is Your Father said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Great. I find a cool way in which the prequels screwed up and then you guys want to defend the bloody prequels. Sometimes I just don't get people.

I fcuking hate the prequels - but you're nitpicking to the extreme, it's ridiculous.

 

Only to people who don't find the difference between the two actors obvious and jarring. Picking on the Fett actor difference is hardly going out of my way -it bothered me every time the kid was onscreen. Just because it would be going out of your way for guys to pick on it doesn't mean it is for me. It's not a small thing to me. Your way of looking at things is not the only way. We're not all the same. So maybe you lot should stop judging my views by how YOU think. For me it's not nitpicking to the extreme, for me it's pointing out something that bugged the shit out of me.

Funny how what's acceptable criticism of the prequels is judged by your mindset, as if it was the only mindset in existence.

I sort of seem to be caught in the position of giving out to everybody, but you guys are really making this uncomfortable for me. You people really need to open your minds to the idea that somebody could be coming to this from a very different way of looking at it. Maybe it would be ridiculous for YOU to pick on the difference between the two guys, but it's no so ridiculous for somebody very aware of facial differences to notice it and pick on it.

DarkFather said:

Oh yes, let's celebrate that you have such "constructive, ground-breaking, unique viewpoints" to bring to the table.

Let's also celebrate that you are exactly what I said you are. You were losing patience when you decided to make this thread. Learn patience, come back under another username, and I'm sure you have a shot at becoming an infamous forum celebrity like Go-Mer-Tonic.

Until then, all your hard work was for nothing.

Do you actually believe this crap or are you just trying to be offensive? I couldn't give a fuck if I become "an infamous forum celebrity like Go-Mer-Tonic". I express my opinions. Think of them what you want. As for losing patience, I'm losing patience right now, with your bullshit. Please try to recognize that when you treat people like this for just being different it is in fact YOU who are the troll.

But if you're trying to be offensive you've succeeded, because it really pisses me off when people make arrogant declarations about me based on not knowing me. Stop your stupid theories. You clearly haven't a chance in hell of understanding me, so don't waste time trying with whacko theories. And for god's sake stop pretending you know anything about me.

I'm still not sure if you're coming out with this stuff in earnest or if you're just trying to be offensive, but either way it's damn annoying. Which is probably your intention. Go bother somebody else, troll. 

Oh and btw, whether you think a viewpoint is constructive or not is not the measure of whether it's different. It does seem my viewpoints are pretty unique here, because everybody lines up to disagree with them. It is clear that I have a distinctly different way of looking at things than a lot of people here. It's kind of ludicrous for you to try to deny that, after you've already given me trouble for it. 

And for the record, I posted this thread so we could have a bit of fun with Lucas's mess up. But people seem to be more interested in poking fun at the different guy.

 And OWK was prolly right, Anakin would've wanted luke to have it. And if you think its not the same

But Kenobi didn't say Anakin would have wanted him to have it. He said Anakin WANTED him to have it. There's a difference. Kenobi's statement implies Anakin asked Kenobi to give the lightsaber to Luke, which just plain didn't happen.

Bail organa was a senator. he , like padme, were one of the senators who were against the war and all the chancelor's proposals.

He kept in close contact with the Jedi Order as he saw them as the only form of gov't not corrupted. why wouldn't he help Organa

in the war? He doesn't necesarily have to be a Jedi general.

But Leia didn't say Kenobi "helped" Organa in the war. She said he "served" Organa, which implies a situation a bit different from what we saw in the prequels. You can rationalize it to make it work (like Kenobi served the senate not Organa usually but did special missions for Organa specifically), but it sticks out as a clue that Lucas envisioned things differently back when he made ANH.

I don't see what problem you have with this. Yoda trained OWK for a few years until Qui-Gon reached knighthood. then, i'm sure

yoda taught him more. Here's a reference of the Phantom Menace, "But master yoda told me to be mindful of the future,".

This has been addressed. The way Kenobi said it implied Yoda was Kenobi's primary teacher. It's clear that there is revision here. Qui Gon wasn't in the original backstory.

DarkFather said:

TheBoost was wrong in a sense. You are in fact a parody. I don't believe for a moment that you believe half the things you post. You're either a random troll, or someone on a self-appointed holy mission to make prequel bashers rethink their stance.

At the same time, you're smart enough to participate with some of the discussions to better camouflage yourself. This thread is really what gave you away.

Oh yeah, I have a different way of looking at things so I must be a troll or a nutjob plant? How very open-minded of you. Because to offer a different viewpoint is to troll. Of course. Everybody should be the same. Nobody should dare to be different.

I have no interest in camoflaging myself as anything. If I did I wouldn't be standing up for viewpoints other people don't agree with and openly showing unusual thinking. Your theory that I'm some sort of plant to make people not bash the prequels is way bizarre. And I think I'm rather less a troll than you. The very first time I took note of you, you were picking a fight with someone and then shortly after you launched a dose of unprovoked abuse at me.

I post sincere opinions which just happen to be at odds with the majority. Terrible crime. Oh I must be faking it, because nobody could EVER genuinely have a different outlook from the majority. Some people are just genuinely scared of anything truly different and don't want to believe people can genuinely be different. It seems you're one of those people. Unfortunately a lot of people are. Hence all the narrow-mindedness and intolerance on this planet. Human beings are herd animals and they really DON'T like difference.

I'M a parody? You, my friend, are a parody of narrow-mindedness.

DarkFather said:Vaderisnothayden, there is no dishonor in throwing your hands up and admitting you are wrong, when you are plain as day: dead wrong. Just ask C3PX.

Why do you assume I'm wrong? Because you're less good with faces than me and can't see that those two guys actually have quite different faces? Most people are hopeless with faces. I'm not. I know what I'm talking about.

They both have zig-zaggy eyebrows in that comparison pic, but the brow overall is in fact quite different. The eyes are very different. The jaw is very different and that's not just due to the age difference, because it's different on the grown-up Logan too. The nose is at a distinctly different angle. The mouth is different. The forehead is different. The shape of head and overall shape of face is different. It's a different type of face. Of course if you're not good with faces maybe it's hard for you to see these things, but they're there. I know faces so these things stick out a lot more for me than for most people.

rcb said:

Johnny Ringo said:

Whatever the intention ESB feels like a span of a few days at most. Wasn't the whole point of going to cloud city that it was relatively close to where they were?

LEIA: What did you have in mind for your next move?

HAN: Well, if they follow standard Imperial procedure, they'll dump
their garbage before they go to light-speed, then we just float away.

LEIA: With the rest of the garbage. Then what?

HAN: Then we've got to find a safe port somewhere around here. Got any
ideas?

There's really nothing in the movie to indicate a great passage of time. Maybe they should have done a token 80's training montage?

 

AH! but you for got one line from Han, "Bespin is pretty far but i think we can make it"

 

Yeah, but I think that's pretty far but still "somewhere around here".

The claim that months pass during ESB is bizarre because there is a conspicuous lack of anything onscreen to suggest that months pass. My thinking is the months thing was the original plan (and thus got into the novelization), but was dumped. Edited out or whatever. Maybe months was Kershner's idea but Lucas wanted to go with days. 

DarkFather said:You were just shown how they are genuinely similar by TheBoost.

No I was not shown. I was shown pictures which demonstrate how different they are and TheBoost listed a few areas in which he thinks those guys look similar, areas in which they look rather less similar than he thinks.

TheBoost said:

I was so taken aback at what I percieve as the sheer silliness of the argument, I didn't even look at the evidence presented.

After looking at the photos, I was actually taken aback at how GOOD a casting job it is, at least from a standpoint of a sweet young boy looking like he very well COULD be the clone of the older grizzled man.

Compare the brows, nose, general jawline, and of course coloring, all though that doesn't apply so much in these pics.

Seriously, from a purely appearance standpoint, it's brilliant casting. The resmblance borders on uncanny. I never noticed before, because when they said he was a clone, I willingly suspended my disbelief and never gave dirty little Boba a second glance. I was perfectly content loathing the character for being a stupid character. But now that you mention it, I need to give AOTC credit for that really solid on screen casting.

I don't mean to be in any way offensive, but I have to say that if you think those guys are so alike then your ability with faces only goes so far. But then a lot of people are not good with faces. The majority of people, even. Those guys have some things in common but they are also very distinctly different. If you can't see that, don't blame me.

 rcb said: okay now. i don't see why we need to get two actors to look alike when they're at different ages.

Seriously? They shouldn't bother just because the characters are at two different ages? With real life people, people's faces change between when they're a kid Boba's age and when they're an adult but any careful examination will show that both adult and child faces are versions of the same features. So yeah you have to try to get a kid to look like the adult if you want a kid to play the younger version of that adult. Not trying is lazy and an insult to our intelligence.

asked for one thing in return. An unaltered clone for himself." Its your view point, however i don't see how u can use actors as

proof that they aren't clones when they're only characters in a movie.

You can use anything on the screen as proof for theories about the story of the movie. Now you might give them a break if they didn't go so far as stick the two clearly different actors side by side on the screen or if the whole thing was actually necessary. But clearly this situation doesn't qualify for such a break.

see you auntie said:

Damn it. I hate it when board members go off their meds.

Oh yeah, it's terribly civilized and enlightened to imply people are nuts when they express a view you disagree with. How terribly clever of you.

see you auntie said:

You have reached a new level of nitpicking and prequel bashing that didn't exist prior to your original post, congratulations!

 Good. The prequels should be bashed and nitpicked.

Obi Wan in the prequels has a mole on his forehead where Alec Guinness' Kenobi does not. Zomg Conspiracy. The original Kenobi must has died on Tatooine post episode 3 and some older dude (that would explain the age discrepancy) must have taken his identity. Maybe some evil jedi who planned o lure Luke to the dark side through lying to him about his father!

With Obi Wan we have reason to give Lucas a break and go with it because there's no reasonable option other getting a new actor. Nor did they brazenly place Ewan and Guinness on the screen side by side and try to pass them off as the same guy. The Fett thing is not like the Kenobi situation. It was a unecessary piece of prequel bullshit revisionism. The reasonable option was not to write that shit. If he's going to push that crap he'd better do it right without expecting any great effort at suspension of disbelief from us.

You know what now I think about it, Vito Corleone in Godfather II looks nothing like Vito Corleone in the original, what's up with that?

I always found it hard to buy those two actors as the same character. But they weren't even in the same film, let alone side by side being passed off as the same while with one glance you could see both of them and see they weren't the same. Plus they had a good excuse for using two actors there. They couldn't do anything else. Whereas Lucas could have just abandoned that dumb piece of story.

You don't like the prequels, I don't care for them much either, but you seem to talk about them incessantly. Just ignore them and life will be a lot easier and you won't need to post this kind of rubbish.

Sorry, I don't function like you. Obviously you don't like talking about things you don't like. I do. And my view isn't rubbish just because you guys don't agree with it.

Jeez, try a little original thinking on this board and look where it gets you.

C3PX said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Reason works fine in this one. As my second post demonstrates. There is plenty of reason in my viewpoint. It seems like you believe that if you don't agree with the thinking in a particular viewpoint then it means there must be no reason in the viewpoint. That strikes me as a narrow view. People's views don't have to be to your tastes to have any sense to them.

Meanwhile we have two distinctly different looking guys pushed at us side by side while we're being told one's a clone of the other. Now THAT doesn't make sense. 

 

The bottom line is that it is a movie. Those are the actors they chose to play those too roles, and by the script one is a clone of the other. Maybe they were way off on casting. I personally am not bother by them being played by two different people. They look well enough alike to me, there are so many giantic flaws in that film, I can't possibly care too much about this issue, which to me seem like a nonissue.

Ask youself this, if the film has been smack you in the rear end fantastic, would this still bother you?

If young Boba had been blond haired fair skinned, then I'd be right there with you. But they got a kid with the same complexion and hair color as Morrison, and I think the kid is plenty passable for a younger version of the older actor. Far more so than Hayden is to Loyd. Or Puppet TPM Yoda to ESB and ROTJ Yoda. Covering the kid's face the entire movie would be nonsensical (about as nonsensical as having Boba Fett in the story to begin with, actually), I think it would be dumb of them to do that just out of fear that a few viewers are going to come to the obvious conclusion that the two characters are not played by the same actor.

Yes it would bother me even if the film was good, but it would be more forgivable, particularly if it wasn't about a dumb revisionist plot point.

No I don't think he's more passable as the same guy than Hayden and Loyd are. I think the difference is more conspicuous than that.

Nor would it be dumb of them to make an effort to find somebody genuinely similar.

C3PX said:

Far, far from the truth. I think I have demonstrated that plenty on these forums. I may have an unfortunate tendency to express my opinions rather strongly, but I realize my opinions are just that, opinions, and I have a good deal of respect for those of others.

 

Not in my recent experience. Nor in the evidence of your mocking posts on this thread. Might look up "respect" in the dictionary. You know one of those clear cut words you're always talking about.

My point was that it is unreasonable to suggest that they go about anaylizing every aspect of an actors face to make sure every little thing matches up to the point of being able to truely convince someone that one actor is the other actor when he was a kid

It's reasonable to expect them to get somebody that looks genuinely similar. 

(but only when they appear on screen together, otherwise they can look as glaringly different as Hadyen and Loyd or McGregor and Genius).

I find those pairs a lot easier to buy.

I also find it unreasonable to take a poorly done casting decision and use it to conclude that some character in the story was lying, because you in real life were not convinced actor B makes a good young version of actor A.

I don't see why. You should trust the evidence of your eyes, and bullshit revisionist story stuff in a crap film doesn't deserve us trying hard to ignore glaring difference between two supposedly the same guys. Lucas fouled up and as such his attempt to push the Boba-is-a-clone story fails, which is worth noting.

You guys complain that I'm negative but you lot really are being negative here. I bring up a fun screw-up in the prequels so we can all have a bit of fun laughing at it and instead I get mocked by a bunch of prequel-defenders.

I liked the Boost's comment on Obi-Wan getting rid of the original Anakin and replacing him with some other teenage boy sometime between Ep. 1 and Ep.2. Likewise, regardless of what Lucas intended for the story, I am convinced that sometime between Ep.3 and Ep.4, Obi-Wan must have been discovered and perhaps killed, and an undercover agent of the Sith was put there in his place (which is the Obi-Wan we see in Ep.4). His job was to get Luke to leave Tantooine and go to the Death Star to get captured. Probably he was never real? An illusion made by Vader, which is why he vanished suddenly when Vader touched him with the lightsaber.This must be true, because it is obvious Ewan and Sir Alec are two different people. They don't even share the same moles on their faces.

Getting another actor for Kenobi was unavoidable. Making Boba Fett a kid clone of some new character was not. 

I have nothing against your opinion in the matter, I simply disagree with you and think you're being rather unreasonable in your efforts to nitpick this film, which is quite frankly such an awful pile of crap of a film that it hardly deserves the honor of having someone pick its nits,

If you have nothing against it, then why all the aggressive mocking? You seem to like insulting me in one way or another or in various ways implying I'm unreasonable or an idiot. I'm a bit sick of it.

And I don't see what's unreasonable about having a bit of fun at a prequel's expense.

Also, the prequels may be shit, but they're a big issue because of how they supplanted the original Star Wars backstory and how they're pushed as The Canon Backstory, plus the fact that they're films claiming to be Star Wars. So they're significant whether we like them or not. That means there's plenty reason to nitpick them. Everything in them should be looked at an examined and everything that was a fuckup should be pointed out and people should look at how all the fuckups work together to make up the grand fuckup that is the full effect of those films.

That was some pretty funny stuff. Maybe ROTS would work if you reenvisioned it as a comedy. I can get quite a good laugh out of lines like "You underestimate my POWER!!!" and Hayden's delivery of "I should have KNOWN the Jedi were plotting to take over" and "You will not take her from me!" And that "I hate you!" now cracks me up every time.

Yeah.

"Your father wanted you to have this [lightsaber] when you were old enough, but your uncle wouldn't allow it."

!? Now, Obi-Wan describes Anakin as a good man, though we saw precious little evidence of this in the PT. But let's take OWK at his word - maybe Anakin's goodness didn't take place during screen time. I think that the good man Anakin Skywalker used to be would definitely have wanted his kid to have his old lightsaber.

Yeah, but Obi Wan didn't say Anakin WOULD have wanted him to have the lightsaber. He said Anakin WANTED him to have it. And that's not the case. Anakin got chopped up and fried and Kenobi stole his lightsaber. No "Obi, give my lightsaber to my son." Until Anakin was messed up on Mustarfart he was using the lightsaber, not wanting it to be given to his son. And Kenobi took it, he wasn't given it for Luke. Anakin didn't even know he had a son. So this is a case of prequel revisionism, or of the Lucas just totally disregarding what was in the OT.

The description of Anakin as a good man could have been just Kenobi lying like he did about Vader killing Anakin (which only became a lie when Lucas changed Vader from Anakin's killer into the same guy), but looking at the OT, it gives you the impression that Anakin was a good man until he turned dark. Sure, the Vader-Anakin thing proves Kenobi can lie, but since that lie only came about because Lucas changed the story between ANH and ESB, I don't think we should go assume Kenobi was meant to be lying all over the place. I think we were supposed to get the impression that Kenobi was telling the truth about Anakin when he called him a good man. And then Lucas came along and revised the story and made Anakin a pain in the butt jerk. I think Lucas totally changed the personality he'd envisioned for Anakin.

TheBoost said:

Obi-Wan is also lying a great deal to Luke about Luke's past. This is probably partly because he's ashamed of his own role in what happened, and partly to protect Luke. it's one thing to learn your a Jedi, it's another the same afternoon to learn your dad is like, the worst person in the galaxy. Maybe Obi would have told the truth had he survived the Death Star.

He only lied about Anakin and Vader being two different people and Vader killing Anakin. And since that lie was not originally intended to be a lie and only became one when Lucas changed the story in the late 70s, I don't think we have reason to go assuming Kenobi is lying all over the place. And if the prequels are supposed to make us think Kenobi was lying all the time in the OT, then Lucas has turned Kenobi into a pathological liar, what a sad warping of a good character.

"[Uncle Owen] didn't hold your father's ideals - he thought he should have stayed behind and not gotten involved."

Obi lying. See above.

We're not given any reason in the OT to think it's a lie and I don't think it was intended to be a lie. It's not Obi lying, it's Lucas ignoring the OT.

Obi-Wan does say his loyallty is to the Senate... to Democracy! So it's also not totally unreasonable to say he served Bail Organa, especially given that the entirety of the war takes place off screen, who's to say he didn't serve him specifically at points.

Oh come on. It's pretty clear that that "you served my father thing" is evidence of things being envisioned differently when the OT was made. You can make excuses for it and try to explain it away, but really it sticks out as not sounding right when you compare it with the events of the OT. It sounds like Kenobi's regular position for the clone wars in general was as a general serving Bail Organa specifically. Not as a general serving the senate of which Bail Organa was a member, with possibly some period of direct service to Organa.

"There you will learn from Yoda, the Jedi Master who instructed me."

"Mrs. Iglesias is the teacher who instructed me." That's true. I don't see why I need to add "...when I was in 3rd grade." Especially when I'm talking to someone dying in the snow.

The way Obi Wan puts it implies Yoda was his sole or primary teacher. Obi Wan also says he wrongly thought he could teach Anakin as well as Yoda could, as if Jedi were otherwise normally taught by Yoda and Kenobi trying to teach Anakin was arrogant and foolish. As if the other option to Kenobi training Anakin was Yoda training him and as if a Jedi other than Yoda training Jedi was not normally the done thing. Yes you can rationalize it as not being too at odds with the prequels, but what it implies (and what was undoubtably originally intended) is indeed at oddds with the prequels. Not to mention the whole scenario it suggests of Kenobi spontaneously getting it into his head to train Anakin and going off and doing so independently is at odds with the prequels.

R2-918 said:

"[Uncle Owen] didn't hold your father's ideals - he thought he should have stayed behind and not gotten involved."

Theres some good info about Owen Lars at the Star Wars.com Databank:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/owenlars/index.html

 

Apparently Owen thought Anakin should have stayed with his mother on Tatooine and not gotten involved with the Republic or the Jedi because of the affect Owen seen on his step-mother Shimi of being without Anakin. An older Owen did not want to see Luke leave Tatooine and possibly become a Jedi like his father because Owen feared that Luke may suffer the same fate as Anakin did. Also the Databank entry confirms an EU incident between Owen and Obi-Wan over young Luke, So I guess this confirms why Luke (in Episode 4) knows a Ben Kenobi but not an Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Not all of that is in the databank entry as far as I can see. I think you're reading into it a bit. But of the part of that that IS in the databank entry, a significant part of it is in the expanded universe part of the entry, which probably means it was invented by some writer who wasn't involved in the films. Plus it was undoubtably written around the time AOTC and ROTS came out (or after) and long after the time the OT was made. I doubt much, if any, of what you list above was in Lucas's original backstory. At best it sounds like an attempt to fit the PT into the OT story after the fact. And let's remember that during the making of ROTJ Lucas decided to make Owen into Ben's brother (see the Annotated Screenplays), which made it into the novelization.

vote_for_palpatine said:

As regards Jake Lloyd Anakin and Hayden Christensen Anakin, no that's not the same situation as the two Fetts.

If one is a young clone of the other, then wouldn't these two situations be identical?

No, because we're never shown the two different Anakins side by side on the screen or in the same scene. We are shown the two Fetts side by side and in the same scene and that's the last straw that totally fucks it all to hell. 

And to me, Boba could have been the young version of Jango. I didn't think they couldn't be, not a bad bit of casting there IMO. Now please don't get all butt-hurt, I'm only throwing in my $0.02.

That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, and you didn't poke fun at me or sneer at me while expressing it, so I'm not going to get pissed off with you. But I do disagree rather throughly. No way could those two be the same guy.

I would have assiduously stuck to one rule: you never show Boba Fett. Never, ever, ever. Big fucking mistake by GL.

I can agree with that. There's so much bad judgement in the prequels.

skyjedi2005 said:

Well at least Boba's Helmet stayed on during the oot keeping him a mysterious character, and if he was shown without it on you guys would be complaining that prequel guy who played jango looks nothing like Jeremy Bulloch.  Who did not provide the voice that was wingreen.  When they replaced his voice in empire with the shitty prequel phoned in actors voice i was pretty pissed off.

I thought it was horrible in the comic Empire Strikes Back infinities when they showed Boba looking like that hack actor from the prequels that dude is not Boba.  Thank the maker its an infinities title and has not replaced the real comic by Al Williamson based on the real version of empire strikes back not either of the destroyed versions. A New Hope fared much worse i just found out it was put out of print by dark horse in favor of the stupid 1997 comic, which fuuny enough is based on a film not even on official dvd,lol.  Though who would pay for 2004 versions of the comics.  They redid the novelizations as Jr novels by Ryder Windam to try and tie the orignals to the stupid prequels.  it goes without saying i never bothered to read these new fanfiction official accounts of the original trilogy as approved changes by Lucash.

The Boba Fett voice thing stinks. Jason Wingreen did a great performance in ESB. It was the best thing about Boba Fett. Temuera Morrison's voice performance in the 2004 edition of ESB was crap. Totally changed the character too. And taking an actor out of a classic is really dirty. And it was so fucking unnecessary. And all part of the idiotic attitude that the OT has to be altered to fit the prequels while the prequels can go and ignore what happened in the OT.

I used to respect Temuera Morrison. He was good in Once Were Warriors. But I don't respect him anymore, not after he played a part in the changes that took Jason Wingreen out of ESB.

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Meanwhile we have two distinctly different looking guys pushed at us side by side while we're being told one's a clone of the other. Now THAT doesn't make sense. 

 

 

 I'm only 30, and I don't recognize half the dude's I went to high school with.

A little kid with a mullett looks different than a grizzled middle aged warrior.

It's not like Jango was black and Boba was Asian. Seemed a pretty good match to me (including the young-adult Jangos).

There's way more difference in appearance between them than just a mullet. Look at the pic I posted a link to of Logan all grown up. Short hair. Still doesn't look like Morrison.

Logan didn't look different from Morrison just because he had a mullet and was a little kid. He looked different because he's a different guy with a very different face. Just look at his forehead for example, totally different from Morrison's.

Maybe you don't recognize the guys you went to high school with. Different people have different levels of ability at recognizing faces or distinguishing between them. But under study their faces would prove to be still basically the same faces. Not at all the same situation as Morrison and Logan's genuinely very different faces. I'm older than you and I have no problem recognizing people who went to high school with me. But I can't recognize Logan as Morrison.

Jango and Boba look way different. I hate laziness in casting different-age versions of characters. 

If it wasn't from you, I'd assume this was a parody of fan-complaints.

In other words, dare to think differently from the way the majority think and you're subject to ridicule. I know the drill. Not going to stop me posting my opinions.

Now would anybody like to actually stop and enjoy with me the way Lucas screwed up his own stupid Fett clone story?

TheBoost said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Great. I find a cool way in which the prequels screwed up and then you guys want to defend the bloody prequels. Sometimes I just don't get people.

Judging by what we see onscreen, kid clones must be cloned off Boba and adult ones off Jango. And if there's a third clone actor (I didn't notice) there must be a third clone template (another son of Jango?). So yeah the clone army is based on more than one guy and the Kaminoans failed to mention it.

Presumably the Jango clones were done earlier and later the Kaminoans moved on to cloning Boba, hence the older ones looking like Jango and the younger ones looking like Boba. Also, the Kaminoans are both a bit shifty (they pretend they're all cloned from one guy) and maybe a bit dumb (they think they can pass off all the clones as one guy) or maybe human faces just look all the same to them so they think they'll look the same to Kenobi. The shiftiness may be down to having an alien mentality with possibly a different moral system and different values and modes of behavior. Kenobi doesn't comment on the kid clones being different from the adult ones. Maybe he's just being polite. Kenobi is a polite sort of guy. Maybe he's being underhanded in his own way. That's in character too.

This is the most twisted wierd and convoluted explanation I've ever heard to justify ignoring the simplest possible expanation... the kid is a clone, they're all clones, played by different actors at different ages because that's the reality of filmmaking.

You're honestly suggesting that the film would have been improved if lil' Boba was running around in his helmet all the time so that the audience wouldn't have to see that the kid playing him wasn't a perfect enough dead-ringer for the dude playing Jango.  Or they made a CGI-Boba based on pictures of the actor who played Jango when he was young. (these are both terrible ideas)

This is not 'a cool way the Prequals screwed up.' This is bending over backwards to find a flaw where really none exists. If you don't like Boba being a clone, fine. I hate Boba being a clone too. I hate Boba being in the PT at all. But this is just silly. If it wasn't from you, I'd assume this was a parody of fan-complaints.

Yes a flaw exists here. They COULD have gotten an actor who could actually pass for a young Temuera Morrison but they didn't. There's no bending over backwards to find a flaw here. The discrepancy between the two actors just SHOUTS out at you. It's an OBVIOUS problem that very much exists 

This is the most twisted wierd and convoluted explanation I've ever heard to justify ignoring the simplest possible expanation... the kid is a clone, they're all clones, played by different actors at different ages because that's the reality of filmmaking.

It's hardly that twisted or convoluted. It's pretty simple actually. Quite plausible. More plausible than a lot of the bullshit we got in the prequels.l

And the reality of filmmaking does not justify trying to pass off two actors who look very different as being basically the same guy while having them side by side onscreen together. Particularly not when it's all in support of a bullshit revisionist plot point. Does not work. My explanation works a lot better. And I don't NEED to provide an explanation. It's Lucas's mess, so he's the only one who needs to provide an explanation. All I need to do is point out the problem, that passing Logan off as a clone of Morrison doesn't work.

You're honestly suggesting that the film would have been improved if lil' Boba was running around in his helmet all the time so that the audience wouldn't have to see that the kid playing him wasn't a perfect enough dead-ringer for the dude playing Jango.  Or they made a CGI-Boba based on pictures of the actor who played Jango when he was young. (these are both terrible ideas)

Anything would be better than what they did. But I'd have preferred if they just found a kid actor who looked like Temuera Morrison. Or if they'd avoided the whole thing by not sticking in the whole Boba-is-a-clone-of-Jango business.

vote_for_palpatine said:

To answer my own question:

-- As I've said many times, the Obi/Anakin duel would take place near an active volcano, not on a volcanic planet. The latter concept is over the top.

 I agree it's over the top.

Reason works fine in this one. As my second post demonstrates. There is plenty of reason in my viewpoint. It seems like you believe that if you don't agree with the thinking in a particular viewpoint then it means there must be no reason in the viewpoint. That strikes me as a narrow view. People's views don't have to be to your tastes to have any sense to them.

Meanwhile we have two distinctly different looking guys pushed at us side by side while we're being told one's a clone of the other. Now THAT doesn't make sense. 

Great. I find a cool way in which the prequels screwed up and then you guys want to defend the bloody prequels. Sometimes I just don't get people.

Judging by what we see onscreen, kid clones must be cloned off Boba and adult ones off Jango. And if there's a third clone actor (I didn't notice) there must be a third clone template (another son of Jango?). So yeah the clone army is based on more than one guy and the Kaminoans failed to mention it.

Presumably the Jango clones were done earlier and later the Kaminoans moved on to cloning Boba, hence the older ones looking like Jango and the younger ones looking like Boba. Also, the Kaminoans are both a bit shifty (they pretend they're all cloned from one guy) and maybe a bit dumb (they think they can pass off all the clones as one guy) or maybe human faces just look all the same to them so they think they'll look the same to Kenobi. The shiftiness may be down to having an alien mentality with possibly a different moral system and different values and modes of behavior. Kenobi doesn't comment on the kid clones being different from the adult ones. Maybe he's just being polite. Kenobi is a polite sort of guy. Maybe he's being underhanded in his own way. That's in character too.

There are undoubtably many plausible explanations for this stuff. You have to stretch far less to explain it my way then you have to to explain Boba clearly not looking like a clone of Jango.

Luke and Leia are hardly a similar situation to the Fett situation. There's no obvious onscreen proof that they're not siblings. There is obvious onscreen proof that Boba isn't Jango's clone. So with Jango and Boba it's a screw up, but with Luke and Leia there's no screw up. No need for DNA proof. Silly comparisons don't get us anywhere.

Yes, people can change a lot in appearance between childhood and adulthood, but usually only so far. The adult face is a version of the child face and vice versa. Logan and Morrison's faces are not versions of each other.

As regards Jake Lloyd Anakin and Hayden Christensen Anakin, no that's not the same situation as the two Fetts. It's never a great situation when you have two actors playing the same character at different ages. It always stretches suspension of disbelief. But as long as you don't have them both on the screen at the same time and in the same part of the story then it can be just about tolerated. Not so when you have them side by side. Then suspension of disbelief is stretched past toleration.

And C3PX, if you paid attention to what I said, you'd see that in my thinking there's hardly any need for Lucas to clone Temuera Morrison to get somebody to play Boba. I pointed out that Lucas could have concealed the face of the kid or could have gotten a kid who actually looked like Morrison.

Another thing he could have done is drop this whole stupid Boba-is-a-clone-of-suddenly-invented-Jango. All the above has to be taken in the context of the Boba-clone-of-Jango thing being a revolutionary take on a longstanding character, a take that likely doesn't have a solid foundation in the old backstory. If Lucas wants us to buy his bullshit it's up to him to make it believable.

We're told in the prequels that Boba is a clone of Jango, but do we ever get any proof? We never get anything that proves beyond any shadow of doubt that he's a clone. However we do get what I'd say is proof that he's NOT a clone.

Look at the two actors:

Daniel Logan who played Boba:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4257126912/nm0517535

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm262509056/nm0517535

Temuera Morrison who played Jango:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm4290156800/tt0115624

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3300301056/nm0607325

The two of them together:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2701694976/nm0607325

I'm supposed to believe one of those guys is a clone of the other? They don't look like the same guy at all. Anybody can see they're not the same guy. Father and son, maybe, but not clone.

If they had to show a kid Boba clone of Jango they should have had his face covered or something. Or at least got a kid who didn't look so clearly different from Morrison. As it is now, it stretches suspension of disbelief beyind the acceptable to put those two guys on the screen side by side and claim one is a clone of the other. It bugged me every time the kid was onscreen.

Judging by what we see on the screen, Boba is not the special unaltered clone of Jango that Lamu Su said Jango asked to have made. Taun We calls Jango Boba's father, so I guess Boba is Jango's son. After all, he can't be a clone, the way he looks. And nowhere in the film did they actually say he was the special clone. And even if they did we'd have to assume they were lying, judging by the evidence of our own eyes.

It was the intention to have Boba be Jango's clone, but that's not what they put onscreen.  

Edited in later (April 11):

Because people seem to keep getting this post wrong, here's some explanation of what I'm trying to say:

By no means am I trying to suggest that Lucas really intended the kid to not be a clone. Of course Lucas intended the kid to be a clone. However I don't think that works onscreen, because I think the two actors are too conspicuously different looking. As such the attempt to convincingly make Boba a clone of Jango doesn't work. Of course I understand that they can't get a kid actor who looks exactly like Temuera Morrison, but they could have gotten somebody who looked more like him than Daniel Logan did. As it is now, the kid doesn't look enough like he's Jango's clone, so the story of Boba being a clone doesn't work. As such, if we want the film to work (as much as AOTC could ever work) then we are forced to be creative and invent our own explanations for how things went the way they did in the film if Boba's not a clone. In no way am I suggesting that such creative interpretation of the film was ever part of Lucas's intended story. It's just a fan trying to make sense of the mess left by Logan not working as a clone of Jango.

Like I said above, the difference between Morrison and Logan bugged me whenever the kid was onscreen. It was too jarring for me to succeed in suspending disbelief. I found it ridiculous that I be expected to accept this kid as a clone of the other guy. Also, the whole Boba-is-a-clone-of-Jango idea seems like one of Lucas's revisionist later inventions. It feels like bullshit. As such, it's on shaky ground even before the casting. So he really needed to do it very carefully and put in extra effort to make it work. There was no room for casting somebody who didn't look like he could possibly be a clone of Jango. I might go easier on this if the whole clone Boba thing wasn't such bull to start with. But it is such bull to start with, so Lucas really needed to do it convincingly, and he failed.

And I don't see it as the same situation as Jake Lloyd and Hayden or Ewan and Alec Gunness, because we are never shown the two versions of those characters side by side onscreen. Putting them side by side really rubs in the difference. Also, with Anakin and particularly Kenobi, having two different actors for the same character was more necessary. Whereas I don't think the whole Bob-is-a-clone-of-Jango thing was necessary.

The point off the post was to point out something that bugged me and encourage people to have a bit of fun at the expense of Lucas's mess-up.

I hope that clarifies my thinking a bit. I'm sorry if my way of expressing my opinion misled anybody into misunderstanding my view. 

For the PT, only things that go back to the backstory Lucas had in 83 are worth keeping. There's no point in trying to keep specific performances from the PT, because we're talking about remaking the PT. The only performances from the PT I consider good enough are Liam Neeson's performance and Portman's TPM performance. But remakes would probably be using different actors, certainly different performances. The PT storyline should be cut back to things that were in Lucas's old notes or are known to have been in the backstory back in 83 or that seem obvious. That way we'd stick as close as possible to the backstory that was behind the OOT. Anakin would be an adult or so when he meets Kenobi and would be in his forties or so when his children are born. Kenobi would be in his fifties at the time. There'd be no Jar Jar or or Grievous, probably no Jango. No Qui Gon or Dooku. The Jedi wouldn't be such wankers. Kenobi would decide out of arrogance that he could train Anakin as well as Yoda and he'd screw up. Anakin's wife wouldn't die until Leia was a few years old. Owen Lars would be Ben's brother (as decided by Lucas during the making of ROTJ).

I don't think a sequel trilogy should be made. If it was, I'm not sure the EU material is good enough to base it on. In a sequel trilogy, under no condition should actors other than the originals be used for the major Star Wars characters.

I don't buy the months-elapsed-in-ESB thing. That's not in the film we have, whatever Kershner intended.