Vaderisnothayden

Gaffer Tape said:

For Padme and Qui-Gon, their realized potential was certainly written but then discarded, either on the proverbial editing room floor (because we all know there was no actual film to drop on a floor!) or earlier than that.  However, Padme's cut potential of forming the Rebel Alliance... eh, I'm not too upset that that's gone.  The prequels were already full of implausible, coincidental oddities (C-3PO, R2-D2, Jango Fett, Chewbacca with Yoda, and the list goes on...) that Padme forming the Rebellion would just have been another kick in the groin.  I just hope its deletion removes it from canon.

Padme's rebel alliance formation scenes seem to be considered canon, but the actual formation of the alliance seems to be now in Force Unleashed. But none of it's real Star Wars canon anyway (the only real Star Wars canon is the OOT). The rebellion-related cut scenes in ROTS were incredibly lame, with Padme's pals coming off like a total bunch of posers and idiots. And Lucas's daughter's in there as this blue girl. I agree that they pushed things in the prequels with Anakin building 3PO and Yoda being best buds with Chewbacca. That stuff comes off implausible and artificial and helps to make the prequels feel all the more forced and unreal.

As for Qui-Gon... eh, he wasn't there, but I feel it worked just as well as it could have been.  I read the part of the script where he actually talked, and, honestly, the whole Force Ghost thing didn't seem any more "explained" there than what we actually got.  And I didn't mind that he devised it.  It didn't seem nearly as asinine as the above coincidences I listed.  Maybe it's because Qui-Gon already felt disconnected enough from the OT that it doesn't seem so implausible.  Or maybe it's because it's a broad concept rather than a direct event/character, and that's why it doesn't seem as stupid.  Then again, I never needed an explanation for the Force Ghost thing at all until Phantom Menace didn't have them fade away.  Then again, I suppose I can forgive that with the increased number of Jedi, many of whom were constantly dying within seconds of one another, especially in the latter two prequels.  It just would have seemed weird to have a constant stream of disappearing bodies.  But with all the things that didn't make sense in the prequels, the force ghost explanation pretty much goes under my radar.

I don't like the prequel take on force ghosts. It seems revisionist to me. Not that everybody has to vanish when dead -Darth Vader clearly didn't know what was going on when Kenobi vanished, so clearly not all Jedi do that. And Luke burned Vader's body (non-vanished) at the end of ROTJ and Anakin still appeared as a force ghost. Of course nowadays they claim that it's only Vader's outfit that was burned in ROTJ and the body was gone, but I don't buy that crap. But the Qui-Gon-invents-force-ghosts thing clearly wasn't around in the old days, because Qui Gon was invented for TPM in the 90s. 

Mind you, I really like Qui Gon, because Neeson does a great job with him. He's the best thing in the prequels by far. An appearance by him might have added something to ROTS. As it is now, ROTS has absolutely nothing of value in it.

And as for Grievous, he was a total waste of a character.  There was no potential to tap in the first place, and the world would have been a better place had he never been invented at all.  That damned, irritating, waste-of-space, cliched, inept, non-threatening, unfunny, unsympathetic, uninteresting, poorly-conceived, poorly-directed, poorly-executed excuse for a major villain can suck my lightsaber as far as I'm concerned!  Man, I hate that... thing!

Greivous was the evil counterpart to Jar Jar and like him a cartoon character that didn't belong in live action Star Wars. 

C3PX said:

To answer rcb's original question, Zombie meant that Return of the Jedi is not anywhere near as good as the first two films, but it is acceptable.

Except that it's perfectly as good as the other two films.

Gaffer Tape said:

Thanks for reviving my old thread!  I enjoy seeing it again.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  I enjoy Shadows of the Empire, which you hate.  I consider the Jabba section the absolutely worst part of the OT (as my initial post exhaustively explains).  Nothing we can do except continue on, I guess, although I would love to hear your opinions on why you think it's wonderful.

Jabba and his cronies were marvellously portrayed. The Jabba setting was thoroughly realized. The heroes got to do cool things. Luke came back all mature and confident and powerful and beat the crap out of Jabba's thugs. Leia got to kill Jabba. Han came back and killed bloody Boba Fett. It was fun. It was vivid and alive and well-imagined. It was enthusiastic and rousing. It was great for Luke, who really came into his own. It was hands down one of the most enjoyable parts of the trilogy. It was a classic example of the uncompromisingly positive and alive spirit that appeared in the OT but was absent from so much of the PT. I really don't get how anybody can fail to enjoy it. I hate it when people go on saying ROTJ was an inferior movie. It wasn't. ROTJ was a great movie that stands on the level of the first two movies. Sure, the ewoks weren't the best choice, but they're done well enough. With the Jabba section and the Luke-Vader-Emperor section and Vader's redemption, ROTJ has some of the best stuff in the trilogy. With the Jabba section Star Wars returned with a vengeance and the movie went on to give us a great piece of Star Wars. I remember when ROTJ came out it was the great return of Star Wars. It was my favorite movie for years. ROTJ was the most vigorous and alive of the OT, putting it at a polar opposite position from the dead-spirited PT.

C3PX said: I still like Shadows, I admit it is not perfect, but I felt it had a lot of the spirit of the OT present in it.

See that's precisely one of the things I have against it -it felt totally at odds with the spirit of the OT to me. No spirit of the OT in it at all. It was very 90s. I feel it doesn't fit with the OT any more than 1997's SE cgi cutesey Jabba. And I see Shadows as trying to shove inappropriate 90s stuff into the OT, which is precisely what the SE dd.

C3PX said:

As for Boba Fett's role, hmm, I don't seem to remember him having an especially big role beyond "Look! There is slave 1, get it! Oh darn, it got away!"

And Jix? He was one of Jabba's bikers perhaps? I really don't remember too well even though I have read the book more than once. Obviously he wasn't cool enough to stand out to me.

Jix and Boba Fett were amply covered in the Shadows of Empire comic and Jix had his own spin-off comic as well. The Shadows comic is as much part of the project and story as the novel and video game.

I don't see Dash as such a rip off as Han. The galaxy is bound to be full of his time, mercenaries and pilot/fighters for hire. I didn't like that they had him fly in the battle on Hoth, it felt like they were trying too hard with that one. And yeah, I have always been bugged by the close relationship with Xizor and the Emperor. It just doesn't fit, especially the idea that he would allow Xizor in the room with him while discussion the importance of killing or turning Luke to the darkside. Just isn't the kind of thing that seems like a cunning galactic dictator would do. In the end it really comes off as Palpatine having been played the fool, though they do kind of make the suggestion that the Emperor was using him to test Vader.

 Well, you get some of my annoyance anyway, then.

And as for the Outrider showing up in the special edition of A New Hope (I am assuming that is the SOTE reference that you are annoyed at having been placed in the SE, it is the only one I know of), never really bothered me. It seems like more of an easter egg than anything else, as it is barely there and if you blink you miss it. Honestly, if you were not looking for it, you'd never catch it. Bet a lot of people reading this thread don't even know it is in there.

Well, I've had it said to me that the Outrider was put in the SE to make Shadows movie-level canon. I sure don't appreciate any attempt to make Shadows movie-level canon. And Shadows is very much expanded universe and expanded universe doesn't belong in the OT, so shoehorning Shadows references into the OT in the SE really pisses me off. The Outrider wasn't the only thing -there was also Shadows-style swoop bikes and there may have been more.

skyjedi2005 said:

Well i've been told by people on this board that star wars is no longer made for me because i am too old, they said the same thing in the star trek jj abrams thread.  I am only 30 years old.  If that is considered being too old these days then i say fuck those who only make films for the teeny bopper crowd.  My Likes and interests have not changed.  People saying " oh you grew up and star wars is still the same" is bullshit star wars and george lucas changed.  I still can watch the original films and i enjoy them as well as i did when i was 9 years old. 

I wish people would cut the crap with trying to make up bad excuses for why the originals sucked and why the prequels are so much better, when they clealry are inferior films to all but the blind.

Yeah, I hate the "You've grown up but Star Wars has stayed the same and was always for kids" excuse. The original Star Wars was made for both adults and kids. It wasn't dumbed down or made to be impossible for adults to take. Star Wars has changed. George Lucas has changed.

C3PX said:

I know it was written more than ten years later, but Shadows of the Empire addresses most of those issues you brought up, Shadowheart. According to that, they had quite a bit of contact, and planned it all together. At the end of Shadows of the Empire, Luke is at Ben's old place recording the message for Jabba, Leia and Chewie are off together on their way to Jabba, and Lando had gone in sometime before. I suppose Shadows of the Empire has slightly more credit to it than your average EU, since Lucas was more involved in it. It wasn't just one book planned and written by a single writter, but a multimedia project including an action figure line and even a sound track. Also the fact that Dash Render's ship The Outrider makes a cameo appearance in the SE of ANH also seems to give more weight to it than your average EU. A lot of people hated Shadows, I loved it. The book may have not been the best written, but the story was great and really flowed well with the OT so well that if you didn't know any better you might think ROTJ was written after it. The PT couldn't even manage to do this.

For anyone who has not read Shadows of the Empire, I'd highly recomend going to your public library and picking up the audio book. It is well read, and the abridgment actually improves on many of the novel's weak points. To me, the audio book is the definitive version of SOTE. The video game was pretty awesome too, but the N64 graphics are very dated today.

I hate Shadows of the Empire. I call it Shitholes of the Empire. The whole thing comes off like fan fiction and it's full of Mary Sue-ish characters. Starting with Bash Fender or Hash Vendor or whatever -"Look, isn't it cool our character's hanging out with the Star Wars heroes and he even fights in the Hoth battle and has a ship that look like the falcon and isn't he a great stand-in for Han?!!!" Then Xizor -"Look, our villain can rival Vader and he turns Leia on!" And Jix -"See our guy being casual with Vader. Isn't he cool?!" All these "cool" characters don't fit with the mentality of the OT, they have a lot in common with the "cool" characters of the PT, in the way the shove their "coolness" in your face. Guri's designed to appeal to fans who want to screw a robot. And the comic's Boba Fett fixation is more pandering to fans. I'm of the view that Boba Fett is overrated and the last thing I want is a story going "Look, isn't he the coolest dude in the galaxy?" The OT didn't push coolness like that. Shadows doesn't fit with the OT at all.

Xizor annoys the hell out of me and I hate that they make Leia subject to his sex control or whatever. I hate when people do that to characters. I don't think the real Emperor would give Xizor the time of day. And they ruin Leia's bounty hunter disguise by making it not her idea or the idea of the heroes. If Shadows wasn't presented as if it was the real story of what happened between the films I might find it easier to take, but it sets itself up with a big boast and then delivers annoying fan fiction. It annoys the hell out of me. And the Shadows elements in the Special Edition are another example of the special edition shoveling crap on us. Hash Vendor doesn't belong in the OT. 

Shadows comes from an era when they were selling the tapes of the OT as the last time the OT would be available in its original version and when Lucas was mutilating the OT with the special edition. I think Shadows fits right in there as one of the crimes against Star Wars. A lesser crime maybe, but a crime nonetheless. No way can I accept that fanfiction as what happened between films in the OT.

By the time Shadows came out, Star Wars had already begun to go wrong and I think Shadows is a symptom of that. Heck, I think they started work on it around the time Lucas started writing TPM. Synchronicity of decline. November 1994 was when both of those things really got going. So the start of the OT's backstory being rewritten as a story about a dork complete with cartoon characters came at the same time as they were developing the idea of forcing in fanfiction between ESB and ROTJ.

(Sorry if I'm beating on something you like. Shadows just pisses me off bigtime.)

C3PX said:

Yeah, me too. I always thought of the black clothes as a Jedi's outfit. I had never thought of him using the force choke being a bad thing, or any of the other powers he used being symbols of his slipping to the Dark Side. If they had had Yoda rebuke him for this in the movie like he does it the book, it would have really highlighted that point.

In what book? In the novelization Yoda doesn't rebuke Luke for his costume or choice of force powers.

lordjedi said:

Janskeet said:

I never really thought the whole Jabba the Hut sequence through, but I thought it was meant to be ambigious. The movie didn't spell out the whole strategy because it wanted the audience to interpret it themselves. I don't think Luke had respect for Jabba's right, he was going to do whatever necessary to get everything he wanted from him even if he had to kill everybody. That's one thing that I like about the perception they gave the jedi in the OT. They were tough protectors fighting for peace and wouldn't take no bullshit even if they ended up being a little uncivilized. In the PT they were a bunch of niave whimps.

If I'm not mistaken, in the novelization, Luke gets some flack from Yoda after the rescue for his actions in Jabba's palace, especially for the force choke.

 

He didn't. I just checked. No sign of that.

On the other hand, if somebody can find Yoda rebuking Luke in the novelization I'd appreciate knowing where in the  novel, including a page number if possible.

I couldn't give a damn if the Jabba plan made sense. It was fun.

C3PX said:

The rescue in ROTJ has always been incredible unbelievable and made no sense at all. The Jabba palace bit of the movie is probably one of the worst bits of the OT IMHO. But the Rancor battle, the scene with Luke slashing up everyone on the barge, the original sarlacc, and Leia choking Jabba to Death in her metal bikini all make up for it... mostly.

Though I must say, there is nothing in the entirety of ROTJ that makes it worth sitting through Jedi Rocks for, NOTHING!

The Jabba section of the movie is marvellous. It's one of the best parts of the OT. Between that and the Luke-Vader-Emperor stuff ROTJ had some of the best stuff in the trilogy.

rcb said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

however, she said she just remembered images and feelings. and obviously was told by her adoptive parents, her mother died when she was young.

 

It was clear from what she said that she remembered her mother. And she said her mother died when she was young but she didn't say "My mother died when I was newborn." She clearly meant later.

 

well, u can just take the line, "she died when i was very young" that would work.

 

 

What do you mean take the line? Take out the line? Why should a classic's story be changed to suit later inferior spinoff films? Why don't we just take out Padme's death scene? That's the thing that obviously shouldn't have been put in.

 i meant take that line out.

and no, padme should die, otherwise u'd have even more gaps. questions would pop up saying, "did she marry bail?" "how did she die?" and so on. whether u like it or not, it stays.

 

It's much more appropriate to delay Padme's death to years later, in keeping with the established story. They can end the film some years after the main events if they like, to include her death.

Taking out a line from a classic film to fit in with a crap spinoff film is an obscene idea.

yes there are flaws. but still they blew me away. the music, action, and storytelling, aside from the romance, really delivered.

The action was tedious, the music was overdone, the storytelling was crap. In two of those films there was very little apart from flaws.

AxiaEuxine said:

no, not denial. I love the prequels, sorry they didnt fullfill your expectations but I love them.

I find it little hard to believe that anybody could love AOTC and ROTS. What is there to love? There's no heart or soul in those films.

on the music, ur saying that john williams sucked then right?

 

I'm saying the choice of music for various scenes had them giving scenes music that was overdone for the scenes. Like the way overdone music for the lava fight. Stuff like that was really annoying.

 

how was it annoying? it fit the scene well. where would u have had them fight?

 

do u pay any attention to the symbolism in the movie? there was a reason mustafar was chosen for the final battle. read a book for god's sake!

 

Again, I never said anything whatsoever about WHERE they fought. I never objected to where they fought. I objected to the music and the overdone nature of the scene. Read my posts "for god's sake" before you give out to me over them.

Overdone music for an ovedone scene creates an overdone anoying effect. Of course it was annoying. How could it not be? It was so fake and pushy.

And I don't know wtf "where" has anything to do with anything.

AxiaEuxine said:

adywan said:

AxiaEuxine said: There are times that i really wish i could see the Star Wars saga like you do because it has been such a huge part of my life but i just can't see past all the flaws that the prequel trilogy has.

 

I wish you could too, before the division in fandom I could share my love of Star Wars with any fan. I truly miss those days, it was my one pure enjoyment in life. Nowadays I can't get into a conversation with anyone about Star Wars it seems without it turning into an argument of somekind. I wish everyone could enjoy Star Wars like I do. I really do. It makes me beyond sad when I watch Star Wars and think of all the people especially on these boards that dont enjoy Star Wars anymore.

 We enjoy Star Wars fine. It's the prequels and the special editions we don't enjoy.

adywan said:

I just can't believe that you placed ROTS at number 1 above any of the OT. Are you serious or was that just to stir up some trouble because you don't like anyone that bashes your beloved PT? That film is garbage compared to ANH & ESB. Its worrying, and saddening,  when i see when some Star Wars fans rate the originals lower than the PT.

I'll second that. 

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

however, she said she just remembered images and feelings. and obviously was told by her adoptive parents, her mother died when she was young.

 

It was clear from what she said that she remembered her mother. And she said her mother died when she was young but she didn't say "My mother died when I was newborn." She clearly meant later.

 

well, u can just take the line, "she died when i was very young" that would work.

 

 

What do you mean take the line? Take out the line? Why should a classic's story be changed to suit later inferior spinoff films? Why don't we just take out Padme's death scene? That's the thing that obviously shouldn't have been put in.

 i meant take that line out.

and no, padme should die, otherwise u'd have even more gaps. questions would pop up saying, "did she marry bail?" "how did she die?" and so on. whether u like it or not, it stays.

 

It's much more appropriate to delay Padme's death to years later, in keeping with the established story. They can end the film some years after the main events if they like, to include her death.

Taking out a line from a classic film to fit in with a crap spinoff film is an obscene idea.

yes there are flaws. but still they blew me away. the music, action, and storytelling, aside from the romance, really delivered.

The action was tedious, the music was overdone, the storytelling was crap. In two of those films there was very little apart from flaws.

AxiaEuxine said:

no, not denial. I love the prequels, sorry they didnt fullfill your expectations but I love them.

I find it little hard to believe that anybody could love AOTC and ROTS. What is there to love? There's no heart or soul in those films.

on the music, ur saying that john williams sucked then right?

 

I'm saying the choice of music for various scenes had them giving scenes music that was overdone for the scenes. Like the way overdone music for the lava fight. Stuff like that was really annoying.

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

however, she said she just remembered images and feelings. and obviously was told by her adoptive parents, her mother died when she was young.

 

It was clear from what she said that she remembered her mother. And she said her mother died when she was young but she didn't say "My mother died when I was newborn." She clearly meant later.

 

well, u can just take the line, "she died when i was very young" that would work.

 

 

What do you mean take the line? Take out the line? Why should a classic's story be changed to suit later inferior spinoff films? Why don't we just take out Padme's death scene? That's the thing that obviously shouldn't have been put in.

 i meant take that line out.

and no, padme should die, otherwise u'd have even more gaps. questions would pop up saying, "did she marry bail?" "how did she die?" and so on. whether u like it or not, it stays.

It's much more appropriate to delay Padme's death to years later, in keeping with the established story. They can end the film some years after the main events if they like, to include her death.

Taking out a line from a classic film to fit in with a crap spinoff film is an obscene idea.

yes there are flaws. but still they blew me away. the music, action, and storytelling, aside from the romance, really delivered.

The action was tedious, the music was overdone, the storytelling was crap. In two of those films there was very little apart from flaws.

AxiaEuxine said:

no, not denial. I love the prequels, sorry they didnt fullfill your expectations but I love them.

I find it little hard to believe that anybody could love AOTC and ROTS. What is there to love? There's no heart or soul in those films.

Well it was reasonable not to expect Lucas to go that far. After all, you'd think it wouldn't be plausible for a revered filmmaker to try to erase classic movies that made him famous.

And I can understand somebody (like Blackjack) being pissed off that the 1997 SE doesn't get a dvd release. Because though I revile the SE I consider it important for study and the 1997 SE is a turning point stage in Lucas's creative development. That awful 1997 Jabba is crucial for showing where Lucas was at when he rejected the real Star Wars and went off on the path that eventually led to the debacle of ROTS. I have the 1997 SE on VHS.

rcb said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

rcb said:

however, she said she just remembered images and feelings. and obviously was told by her adoptive parents, her mother died when she was young.

 

It was clear from what she said that she remembered her mother. And she said her mother died when she was young but she didn't say "My mother died when I was newborn." She clearly meant later.

 

well, u can just take the line, "she died when i was very young" that would work.

 

What do you mean take the line? Take out the line? Why should a classic's story be changed to suit later inferior spinoff films? Why don't we just take out Padme's death scene? That's the thing that obviously shouldn't have been put in.

C3PX said:

Ah, denial. It is an amazing coping device, so I hear.

 It does seem a popular device in some areas of the fandom.

Johnboy3434 said:

I can understand if there was a company-wide decree that only the movies were canon, a la Star Trek (where all published material is non-canon, with only two possible exceptions), but the official company-wide policy is that everything that can reasonably fit is canon.

Actually, Lucasfilm says one thing and Lucas says another. Lucasfilm goes by different levels of canon, while Lucas has expressedly compared the situation to the Star Trek situation, implying the same rules apply in Star Wars. He has called the expanded universe a different universe from the movie universe and a parallel universe. So clearly as far as Lucas is concerned the expanded universe stuff usually isn't canon.

lordjedi said:

Since when?  I've always heard, from company officials, that there are 3 levels of canon.  "True" canon is only what's in the movies.  After that is what's in the radio dramas and the novels of the movies.  So if something from the movies contradicts something from the radio dramas or novels of the movies, the movie overrides it.  Beyond that, everything is EU, but EU all goes into non-canon.  The only reason the books were written so far out in the timeline from the movies was to make sure they never intruded on any of the movie canon.

This rule is followed pretty closely and is even followed when costuming for official company functions.  Pretty much any character that has only been seen in books isn't allowed at those functions.  Exceptions have been made when the costume looks really good, but I've never seen one of those fighting Royal Guards anywhere outside of convention floors.

The only books that have been made Canon are Shadows of the Empire and maybe Splinter of the Mind's Eye (that one may have been pulled out of canon since it was written before ESB and ROTJ).  I can't think of any other books that are considered strict canon.

Maybe that all changed after ROTS came out, but back when I was costuming for LFL events, the above was the rule.  I even saw people get booted from events because they were accurate, but someone else that dressed as Vader was taller and they liked it better.

Like Gaffer Tape says, the official company policy is G, T, C and S canon (and N, non, canon). The radio dramas and movie novelizations are in G canon with the movies. Maybe it was different once but that's the official line now. Back in 1994 they seemed to go by a rule that included only the movies, screenplays, radio dramas and movie novelizations. Shadows of the Empire and Splinter of the Mind's eye aren't supposed to be any more canon than other C canon stuff, which is standard EU level. And like I said Lucas doesn't seem to consider any of it canon. Also, Leland Chee of Lucasfilm has said there's a movie-only continuity that includes only the movies and not the EU stuff. But that was before the present The Clone Wars show came out, which I think Lucas includes in his personal Star Wars universe and thus canon.

Johnboy3434 said:

 Granted, GL's personal view is that Star Wars doesn't exist outside of the movies, which is why he can ignore all this stuff and get away with it, but ultimately, he's going to die a lot sooner than his company, so it's obvious which view will win out in the end.

His view has as much relevance as theirs, no matter who will outlive who, because at least to some extent he is the creator of Star Wars. And his view will count as much as theirs after he is dead. They can say stuff after he is dead, but they can't magically wave a wand that'll make their view more relevant than his. His view will always stand.

And in the end all of it (his view, their view) is nonsense, because the only real Star Wars canon is the core material that made the Star Wars legend, the old trilogy in its original form. Lucas and Lucasfilm split from that canon in the 90s when they tried to replace the original films with the special edition. Which makes all their subsequent entries into Star Wars canon noncanonical, because once you try to replace the canon with invalid material then your canon doesn't count. Plus novels and games and comics were never serious canon anyway. As much as any official view on canon ever counted, the view that counted was Lucas's, and I think it's clear he didn't consider that stuff canon. Even if he did, it's not the right sort of material to stand by the films. It's just spinoff material.

Real canon is the OOT. Canon by Lucas is the special editions, the prequels and the recent tv shows (the new Clone Wars cartoon and the live action show I think, including the Clone Wars movie) and maybe Force Unleashed. Canon by Lucasfilm is just a gimmick for selling merchandise.

rcb said:

however, she said she just remembered images and feelings. and obviously was told by her adoptive parents, her mother died when she was young.

 

It was clear from what she said that she remembered her mother. And she said her mother died when she was young but she didn't say "My mother died when I was newborn." She clearly meant later.

 skyjedi2005 said:

The prequels have to be completely removed from original trilogy era saga canon.

To my mind they aren't even in that canon as is, no matter what Lucas says.  

The prequels as we have them are a modern revision of star wars and no not fit the sagas mold from 1977-1983.  They are so far different in themes tone and feel as if set in another universe.

Uh huh. They're a totally revisionist take and they're not in the same creative universe. Maybe they're in the same alternate creative universe as the special edition, but they're not in the same creative universe as the originals. He had to change the originals before he could put out the prequels, which just goes to show how the prequels don't go with the originals.

See that is why lucas has to recut the original trilogy constantly to fit them when it should have been the other way around the prequels should have been designed to augment the vision of the original trilogy.

Yeah, it's crazy, the originals get screwed around to fit their inferior spinoffs, while the prequels demonstrate a lack of concern for consistency with the originals.  

If Lucas modern day alernate star wars universe is how he likes things then he should just reshoot the entire original trilogy using bad actors, bad over the top cgi and write and direct them all himself.

Yeah, and get Hayden to go around in a Darth Vader suit for the character in his new OT. Puke.

Why is it that with 9-to 10 million dollars in 1976-77 he filmed a movie that has lasted over thirty years as a great film, a film that deserves all the hype and accolades it has received.  A film whose original cinematic theatrical version remains buried.  But with almost unlimited funds and cumputers he produced absolute unadulterated garbage with Episodes 1-3. 

Makes you wonder.

Except Lucas abandoned his real fans

Dead straight. There's a quote in The Secret History of Star Wars in which McCallum says they knew back in 1990 that the first two prequels were going to be tough with anybody who had any relationship with the originals or was over 18. Which sounds to me like they rejected the fans and adults outright and set out to make Star Wars movies that were to be at odds with the old trilogy.

Baronlando said:

I remember that campaign quite well. In fact there was a HUGE billboard (with that half-face Vader from the laserdisc/vhs covers) that I passed every day going to school that said "get the original ONE LAST TIME". At the time it was no big deal because, hey, what could ever be better than laserdisc? Lucas had been on the rag for years about a couple of cantina masks and some of the X-Wing manuevers, but nobody expected whole scenes would be turned into fucking Who Framed Roger Rabbit. (Actually, my friend thought the Jabba scene looked more like those Frosted Flakes commercials)

It really is Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Jabba and that awful Jabba's palace musical number. Wtf is that stuff doing in my Star Wars? And of course, he pulled the same splicing Mickey Mouse into live action with Jar Jar and co in TPM. And I think he even had a joke of referring to TPM as "the animated movie", as if it was a good thing.

lol! I'd believe Yoda as Luke and Leia's father before I'd believe the AOTC/ROTS version of Anakin as the father. That Anakin didn't come off like he had the midichlorians to father anything.

Gaffer Tape said:

Well, then, I hope my rant didn't offend you.  But I'm very interested to know what it is that makes you like him.  Granted, the only Star Wars media I've seen him in is ROTS.  I thought I heard he was better portrayed in the old Clone Wars series.  I really would like to hear someone like you explain to me why you like this character because... I can't find anything to like about him (and, like I said, I even liked Jar-Jar, so I'm not too hard to please), and I would really like to understand your point of view on this one.

The way you feel about Greivous is pretty much how I feel about Hayden's version of Anakin.

Can I sign up for a very altered prequel trilogy with no Hayden Christensen?

C3PX said:

So you guys really knew that that the SEs would replace the originals?

Well, that's how I remember it. I'm not totally sure when exactly I had that idea. But I did have that idea pretty early on, I'm just not sure if I had it when the videos were on sale or a few years later.