Vaderisnothayden

HotRod said:

Look man, I love Star Wars. It's been part of my life sine I was 7 years old. I grew up with, it kept me company when i was on my own in my bedroom. I'll love it till the day I die.

But, just because this 'modern Star Wars' as you call it isn't quite as good as the originals, doesn't make it crap. I wasn't the biggest fan of The Phantom Menace (I was absolutely gutted coming out of the theater in 99) and for me Attack of the Clones is mostly a pretty bad film, but I love Revenge of the Sith. There's just something about that film that has me coming back again and again (I know why, but it's a long story).  So, for me these cartoons are just very entertaining way to spend 30 mins on a Saturday evening after putting the kids to bed and settling down with a nice glass of the old vino.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why some here hate it, but really, come on, it's just a cartoon show. It could have been a lot worse than it actually is. If you don't like it, don't watch it. Just stop all the slagging off. Some of us oldies (who were there in 77) actually like this show...and the prequels.

 

Ok rant over!!

;)

 

 

Just as you have a right to like this stuff, I have a right to do this "slagging off". This is originaltrilogy.com, not tfn. We're allowed to criticise here.

But, just because this 'modern Star Wars' as you call it isn't quite as good as the originals, doesn't make it crap

The fact that it isn't as good as the original doesn't make it crap. The fact that it's crap makes it crap. And Revenge of the Sith is one of the worst films I've ever seen. So utterly shallow and insincere. So totally not heartfelt. And with such a fucked up message and attitude. Not to mention some horrendous acting. That film deeply offended me and disgusted me. It angers the hell out of me. I can't for the life of me understand anybody liking it or thinking there's anything worthwhile in it. 

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why some here hate it, but really, come on, it's just a cartoon show.

If it's just a cartoon show then it shouldn't getting passed off as real Star Wars. And if it is getting passed off as real Star Wars then it should be judged by that standard.

DarkFather said:

I'm not sure what everyone's problem with Anakin and Ashoka's interactions is.

The writing therein is much better than most animated series these days. Especially those found on Cartoon Network. It wasn't awful, it was tolerable, and even acceptable, because it seemed like fun little conversations two people such as them in that situation would actually be having. Anakin's padawan isn't sophisticated. She's a teenage girl. And a very believable one at that.

I mean seriously. What the hell would you have them saying? Completely humorless, inane technological Star Trek dialogue?

It was definitely a step up from the dialogue of the PT. And this is coming from a traditional Star Wars fan. 

"The writing therein is much better than most animated series these days"

Then most animated series these days must be crap. And this isn't just most animated series, this is a show that claims to be honest to God Star Wars. It's got a standard to live up to. Anakin and Ashoka's interaction is shallow and painful. He's the worst part of it. He acts like a petty jerk. This is very much the prequel Anakin, the painful jerk we saw in AOTC and ROTS. I don't think this is any step up from the PT. It's PT-shallow.

AxiaEuxine said:

Man I am tired of all of you fans arguing about Star Wars all the time...it's exhausting. It makes me want to leave fandom becuase none of you ever have anything positive to say. I would love to discuss Star wars with fellow fans but no one seems to like Star Wars anymore...Well I guess I can save on rent if I dump my hobby room

We like Star Wars plenty. We (some of us at least) just don't like the modern crap that is wrongfully passed off as being Star Wars. And so what if some of us are pissed off, what else could we be, seeing as we love Star Wars and Star Wars has been so thoroughly crapped on? We love Star Wars, but I don't think George Lucas does. Else why would he mutilate it and crap on it?

vbangle said:

Just becuase something has the name Star Wars, doesn't mean it isn't shitty....

Nowadays if something has the name Sar Wars on it that generally means it IS shitty. lol

Mielr said:

Chewy72 said:

I log onto this site in hopes that the OOT is released on DVD in better quality then the 2006 release, or released on BluRay.  

I also come here everyday hoping that there will be some kind of news about the OOT getting released on blu-ray. When there inevitably isn't, I stick around to discuss other OOT-related subjects with like-minded OOT fans.

It feels like this site is starting to stray from it's original spirit, and getting to be more like TFN. There are lots of forums where people can profess their love for the Prequels and SEs, but how many sites are there for OOT purists to bitch and moan without a bunch of people chiming in to inform us that there must be something wrong with us if we don't love the Clone Wars or the PT or the SEs?

It used to just be the occasional troll/threadcrapper like GoMerTonic, but it seems to be happening on a regular basis now. There seems to be an increasing level of intolerance for OOT fans here, which is very disturbing.

 

Yeah! I came here because I heard that this site was full of people who had sensible views on Lucas's more recent stuff and didn't feel it was unacceptable to criticise stuff that needed criticising. But by now I've had certain posters here giving out shit to me for my obviously Evil bashing of Lucas's holy work. And I've seen more of the same sort of thing happening to other people. Surely at least in this OOT fan haven people can be allowed to criticise without people trying to shut them up? Or does freedom of speech re Lucas's work have to be driven off the internet entirely? There should be some site rule that bashing is approved activity and is not to be given out about.

HotRod said:

This place is really started to drain me.....95% of the new threads are all so bloody negative.

 

Attacking Lucas's crap is positive, not negative. Let's leave the gushing to the Lucas zombies. Criticism is constructive, and running down something that deserves to be run down is a damn good thing to do.

TMBTM said:

I understand those who said that we don't care for characters like Yoda because we know they can not die, but in the meantime it is not the point of this series. The point is (aside from selling toys) for each episode to teach a little moral to the kids.

Oh God, that's horrible. Fiction that insists on teaching morals to kids is so self-righteous. Self-important moralising, that's just what Star Wars needs.

And whatever Lucas says, Star Wars wasn't always just kiddie stuff. The original films were general audience, designed to appeal to all ages. The old Star Wars wasn't stuff designed to annoy adults and appeal only to kids without brains. Nothing should be pushed as real Star Wars if it isn't designed to appeal to all ages.

Ziz said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Guess i will just pretend this does not exist and sit back and watch the oot.  Kind of like what i mostly do with that phantom plot movie and its sequels.

PLEASE!  Just do the rest of us a favor and do it QUIETLY.  You don't need to come on here every 10 minutes and re-prove how much you hate any SW that came about after 1983.

There hasn't been any Star Wars since 1983.

bkev said:

The pilot was TERRIBLE... I think the series itself is hit-and-miss.

I think it's a good bet that any so-called Star Wars that Lucas is involved in these days is going to be miss rather than hit. I think he's totally lost sight of Star Wars, of what it was, how it worked and what made it good.

And my God, that animation style is revolting. I hear it draws on Thunderbirds puppetry and anime animation. Well, Thunderbirds puppets were creepy and anime animation is fucking annoying. Who needs that stuff dragged into Star Wars?

Mielr said:

GeorgeLucasIsANarcissist said:

C3PX said:

I can't speak for anybody else, but I absolutely freaken love skyjedi's posts. I think he should have his own late night talk show, because he is awesome.

 

I don't post much, but this is spot-on. Roll on skyjedi. Don't ever change.

I agree- I love Sky's posts! :-)

 

Yeah, I find his posts a breath of fresh air and he says stuff that needs saying.

I saw the pilot movie and that was enough for me. Lame nonsense. Modern Star Wars isn't valid anyway -ever since Lucas mutilated the OT, stuffed cartoon characters into live action Star Wars (TPM) and tried to pass off Hayden Christensen as Anakin Skywalker. Anything put out nowadays is built on that foundation and isn't the real thing. In the old days nobody took animated stuff seriously as real Star Wars. It's not like Ewoks or Droids was taken terribly seriously. So if we reject the prequels we've got no reason to accept this silly crap. And silly crap it is. Shallow and annoying. It's more dragging Star Wars through the mud. It's more destruction of the legend. And there's two dvd releases of the Clone Wars movie out while there's only a laserdisc quality as-a-bonus-feature release of the OOT out. It's ridiculous. Punky muffin my arse hole.

SilverWook said:

Anyway, it's merely a pilot episode for the series, which is actually quite good if you give it a chance.

I have no intention of giving it a chance. I've seen enough of it as is. I really don't need to be giving Lucas's modern Star Wars a lot of chances. He established it wasn't Star Wars with The Phantom Menace and then it went downhill from there. The pilot movie is quite enough sampling this Clone Wars show for me. Annoying characters, shallow characterization and story, meaningless uninvolving action, dead-spirited coloration, hideous animation... I very much doubt that I'd like this more if I saw more of it. I think people really need to put their foot down and say "Enough already" -we've had enough crap from Lucas to do us for a lifetime. And this shit is being pushed as a real Star Wars movie, which means it should be judged by that standard. And it's bad enough as just an animated tv show. I can't bear to see Star Wars pissed on like this. He's already murdered Star Wars, does he have to piss on its grave too?

I gave this show its chance with this pilot movie and it failed horribly, so I won't be watching any more of it. I'll see what the live action show is like when it turns up, not that I expect it to be any good. At least it'll be live action. Serious Star Wars doesn't belong in animated form, just as cartoon characters like Jar Jar don't belong in Star Wars movies. Though it's pushing it to call anything put out in recent years "serious Star Wars". 

Silverwook said:

I  don't see a problem with Jabba showing a soft side. Characters in the Godfather movies love the heck out of their kids, but they just as easily commit murder, or order others to do the job.Over twenty years pass between the Clone Wars and ROTJ. Anyone can also change a lot in twenty years, even vile Hutt crime lords.

Calling people punky muffin isn't just showing a softer side. It doesn't fit with the ROTJ the Jabba character at any age, twenty years before or otherwise. But then Hayden Christensen doesn't fit with Anakin or Darth Vader either and they went with that, so "punky muffin" should be no surprise. No respect for what's been previously established -that's a key characteristic of modern "Star Wars". After all, Leia just IMAGINED that she knew her mother when she was young. And if something in the old films doesn't fit with the new ones, well then MR Lucas can go back and change the old beloved classic to fit the crappy modern movie. 

If Ashoka's eyes bother you, don't ever watch anime! ;)

Anime's animation style pukes me out. I don't get a kick out of seeing adult characters portrayed looking like they're deformed kiddies, and gratuitous cutesification isn't my thing.

As for further changes to the OT...The world ends in 2012, if you believe the Mayan calendar. So problem solved!

Unfortunately I don't go by the Mayan calendar, so I expect to find out what mutilations Lucas has in store for us in 2012. I expect Harrison Ford to be replaced by Jar Jar Binks.

Baronlando said:

The Northpoint test screening was in 1977, (Marsters is also obviously mistaken when he says he was considered for Phantom Menace, not Attack of the clones)  and nothing was changed because the kids loved it so much. Paul Hirsch asked Lucas if he wanted to do any further changes and Lucas said "I guess we'll leave it alone."

Where are you getting this from? You mean the film wasn't changed after the showing Marsters saw?

Well that's what it said on wikipedia. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Clone_Wars_(film) The last section, under "Rerelease". They say Lucas said he would "work with" the OT in early 2012 with a rerelease of the OT in IMAX. "Work with" sounds worrying, like he might do more work on them, as in more vandalism.

I saw the film. Load of crap.

The interactions between the characters are so shallow. The animation is painful -it somehow manages to feel even less real than ordinary 2d animation, and it looks awful, plus being downright annoying.

Jabba callling his kid punky muffin. Can you imagine ROTJ’s Jabba calling ANYBODY punky muffin? This character has been so abused -the cutesey 1997 SE Jabba, the corpselike Phantom Menace and 2004 Jabba, but this is way out. Punky fucking Muffin. Why’s it so hard for Lucas to be faithful to the old material? This is more spitting on stuff from the old films. ROTJ Jabba was a great character and now we have punky muffin.

Ashoka’s eyes are about ten sizes too big. It’s sexist to portray female characters like that and make them look like little children.

And this thing is being passed off as a real Star Wars film. That’s a serious insult. And false advertising. Star Wars keeps going lower and lower. First the old films were mutilated. Then we had the Phantom Menace with its shallowness and cartoon characters and goddamn podracing. Then things got worse, with AOTC and the “romance”. Then we got ROTS, which was even worse and so bad I’m still trying to work out how it managed to be so bad. Now we have the punky muffin movie. If this is how things are going, I dread what the upcoming live action show will be like.

And the punky muffin movie is getting two dvd releases and I think two blu-ray releases, while all the OOT gets is laserdisc quality as a bonus feature. Will the OOT ever be on blu-ray? 20 years from now you’ll be able to get The Clone Wars on the current format and the OOT will be nowhere to be seen.

Have you heard Lucas plans to rerelease the OT to theatres in 2012? You can bet there’ll be more changes. David Prowse will probably be replaced by Hayden in a Darth Vader suit. To be more faithful to how Lucas originally envisioned it, back when he was a toddler or whatever.

C3PX said:

LOL, with rcb saying ROTS delivered, I cannot help but imagine a huge dumptruck backing into my drive way and dumping a huge load of crap in front of the garage door, then the driver getting out, ringing the doorbell, saying, "delivery!" and asking for a signature.

 

lol Yeah, that's how I feel about ROTS. You said how each new prequel (AOTC and ROTS) was worse than your expectations and each one was worse than the last, or something like that. That's how it was for me. I like TPM in some ways, even though it has horrible faults and is not anything up to the standard of the real Star Wars films, but I expected something on that level for AOTC and I was disappointed because AOTC sucked bigtime and then when I expected something on AOTC's level for ROTS what I got was distinctly worse than that.

I went along with things with TPM, but when I saw AOTC I knew the prequel trilogy was screwed. After that, I pretty much didn't want to bother seeing the next one. Of course I did see the next one and it blew my mind with how incredibly awful it was.

Tiptup said:

Episode III seemed to save the trilogy for me at first, but after a number of weeks I began realize, while looking back, that there was absolutely no redeemable substance to the film (it was just edited as if there were) and I became disgusted (it's my least favorite film of the three now).

No redeemable substance is a good description. The film is lacking any emotional depth whatsoever. There's no real substance there. And the whole thing is pretty damn irredeemable. I'm still trying to figure out how Lucas managed to make it that bad.

astromech said:

By all means express your opinion but have the mind to refine your arguments and be prepared to back them up rather than shoot crap all over the same thing again and again.  

Just because I make general statements here and there doesn't mean I don't also refine and back up my arguments. The general statements have a place, when people seem to want to deny obvious truths. But I've done plenty being more specific too.

I think it's understandable skyjedi wanting to say what he said on this thread. This thread was basically started to praise Lucas. For some people at least, it hurts to see Lucas praised after what he's done. And it's not like he's not praised enough over on some other sites.

But if we're in the business of making complaints, what about johnboy getting personal with me and skyjedi? Disagree with an opinion, disagree with a topic being brought up on a thread where you feel it doesn't belong? Fine. But getting personal is something else and doesn't have a place in civilized discussion. Just because somebody doesn't like somebody's opinion or how they express it doesn't license them to get personal and start calling people ignorant or whatever. That is far more seriously out of line than bringing up a topic some people don't want to hear about on a particular thread. I want to try to get on with people, but that's made difficult if some people are going to take the attitude that they're entitled to get personal if they don't like my posting style or views.

I'm sorry if I've bothered anybody. I don't mean to be a trouble to anybody. But I believe I have a right to express my opinions in the way that feels right for me and I really don't appreciate it when a poster descends to gratuitous aggression.

Johnboy3434 said:

Chewy72 said:

I can only answer this for myself, as he has ruined the OOT for me, simply because I can't watch the damn movies in any good quality anymore.

 

Now, see, if SkyJedi and VaderHayden would express themselves like that, I wouldn't have near as much of a problem with them as I do now. Problem is, they state their (undeniably strong) opinions about the changes and PT as though they were unequivocal facts. Honestly, that grinds my gears more than anything. People really need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. Whenever I make strong statements along the lines of what the two of them say, I always have the sense to preface it with an "I think" or an "In my opinion" or an "As far as I'm concerned".

Just because something's an opinion doesn't mean it can't also be fact. I'm not going to hypocritically pretend I don't really believe in my opinions by limiting them with an "I think". I believe in them. If you have a problem with that, well then that's your problem. Getting so worked up over the way posters express themselves is pretty petty.

And, God in Heaven, someone please tell me VaderHayden did not just say it was wrong to like a particular piece of art. That is... unbelievably ignorant. And when a conservative like me calls someone ignorant, you know there's a problem.

Not ignorant, simply taking a different view of art. I don't see art as being as purely subjective as some people. Yes it is wrong to like it when great art is mutilated.

You've accused me of being ignorant before. You need to stop assuming that people who have a different approach from you are ignorant or need to learn something. Maybe your approach isn't the only way. When it comes to opinions, I think it's rather more important to be tolerant of different approaches than to go around sticking "I think" before everything you say. The latter is just cosmetic, the former is something real.

skyjedi2005 said:

The best piece Michael Kaminski aka Zombie84 ever wrote was this:

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/specials/how-the-grinch-stole-star-wars.php

 That piece is really good. Says a lot that needs saying.

Johnboy3434 said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Does it have how George Lucas destroyed Star Wars with the special editions and prequels, or how he ruined Indiana Jones with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

Does it mention how in 2006 he released the original films as non anamorphic bonus discs from a laserdisc master, the biggest joke in cinematic history.

 

And why, pray tell, would it mention those things? His mishandling of the franchise has not had near as much of an effect on the film industry as the things that he (or the people in his employ) did correctly. In fact, his mishaps haven't affected anyone or anything outside of the hardcore SW/Indy fanbase. That's how it is in general, really. For someone's mistake (as opposed to someone's success) to actually change the way things are done, it has to be a BIG FUCKING MISTAKE (like, I don't know, the Vietnam War).

Besides, who says he ruined Star Wars to being with? What if I like the changes, or the prequels, or Crystal Skull? Are you saying I'm wrong for liking them? On what grounds? Because they destroy the spirit of Star Wars? Can you prove that? Didn't think so. SkyJedi, you were amusing for a while (okay, I lied, you were always this annoying), but you really need to start talking with your head instead of your heart. Stick with the "Preservation" angle, because the "OT Purist" one isn't gaining you any friends or support. In fact, it's not too farfetched to say that keeping the Venometer cranked up to 11 is actually hurting the efforts of the more level-headed members of this forum. Look at them. Do they like the changes? No. But they don't deliberately go out of their way to remind the reader of that fact every single fucking time they post. And that's what you do, whether you think you do it or not. I've seen you take a completely unrelated conversation and twist it into an opportunity to take pot shots at Lucas, with absolutely no prompting whatsoever. It doesn't reflect well on your general state of mind, much less your social skills.

I think Skyjedi is perfectly entitled to his feelings. Lucas took great art and mutilated it. Yes it's wrong to like the SE changes, they're an awful mutilation of great art. And the prequels were an insult. On various places on the net people are chased off or silenced for criticising what Lucas has done. This site is a refuge where people can air those criticisms. Please respect that.  

Johnboy3434 said:

That article only proves that at least on other person shares your opinion. The same can be said of any given Scientologist. As far as whether Lucas "ruined" Star Wars or not (whatever that means), it doesn't prove a damn thing.

It's obvious what it means. He mutilated the original films and then he put out sequels which were crap (the later two in particular -the first one had its good points but the later two were horrendous). Not only were the sequels crap, but they twisted Star Wars into something of a totally different more negative mentality. "Ruined Star Wars" is putting it thoroughly accurately. We don't need to prove anything, it's self-evident. And far more than one person shares the opinion. Heck, I think it's pretty obvious that many on this site do. 

I for one like skyjedi's posts and I wouldn't be surprised if there are others who do too. Just because you, Johnboy3434, don't like them doesn't mean everybody agrees with you.

Also, see here for some views on Lucas:

 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=george+lucas

I've ordered my copy. :)

Mielr said:

1) ESB (1980)

2) SW  (1977)

3) ROTJ (1983)

That's it, right? ;-)

 Well that's the only Star Wars films. :)

adywan said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

When was the 70mm completed? Before or after opening day?

Also, are you sure the 35mm was the more complete later-made version? Because it actually had less lines, most notably the "thanks threepio", but also some other small bits.

Yes, the 35mm was the later -made version. it is pretty well documented that GL ordered a few extra FX shots and some changes but as the 70mm version was already complete and printed it would have been too expensive to have redone all those prints. That is why there are different lines as it had an earlier mix.

 

I wonder why he left out those 70mm lines then.

Vaderisnothayden said:

When was the 70mm completed? Before or after opening day?

In this question I meant when was the 35mm completed.

When was the 70mm completed? Before or after opening day?

Also, are you sure the 35mm was the more complete later-made version? Because it actually had less lines, most notably the "thanks threepio", but also some other small bits.

The Starkiller said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

So if I'm right, that's what lines are in the 1985 mix. Basically the non-mono version plus the tractor beam line.

That's correct. The 1985 home video sound mix is basicaly the same as the '77 Dolby mix with the addition of Threepio's tractor beam line.

And Close the blast doors isn't in the 85 mix?

Thanks for your answers, btw. :)

sunday256 said:

Lastly, I disagree about Hayden's acting ability. He was hired primarily for his role in "Life As A House" which I thought he did quite well in.

Before you burn him at the stake at leat check that film out if you haven't and then come back and say he's a terrible actor. And for that matter, we all know Natalie Portman is a better actress than what people say she was in Star Wars. The Professional comes to mind.

I saw a bit of Life as a House. I found Hayden's performance annoying and unimpressive in it. But his performance in Life as a frikkin House isn't relevant for judging his performances in the prequels. Those performances should be judged on their own merits (or lack thereof), not based on that Life as a House film.

Chewy72 said:

Guys like Harrison and Clint Eastwood knew they weren't great actors and never really tried to stretch themselves, as they knew their limits.  Ford stuck with Jack Ryan, Dr. Kimble, and Indy, and branched out to roles in Witness, as he was very good in that.  Eastwood was the same way, as always played the same tough guy Dirty Harry character, and both never won an oscar.

I wouldn't go underestimating Harrison's Ford's acting ability. He hasn't done a lot of flashy roles of the sort people like to give oscars for, but he's incredibly good at bringing characters to life and giving them depth and texture. Star Wars would have been a lot weaker without his work on making Han a person rather than just a stereotype, and Indiana Jones depended utterly on his ability to make a character feel like a human being. As for his other roles, there's splendid performances in films such as Witness, Mosquito Coast and Regarding Henry. He has not always stuck to the same sort of character - see Regarding Henry, Widowmaker (his accent was bad but otherwise his performance was great), Mosquito Coast, or even his murdering husband in What Lies Beneath.

Personally I find Hayden's performances to be unbelievably bad. Add that to crap dialogue and otherwise crap film and you've got some bad stuff. Those two Hayden prequels are such empty films, with nothing much of substance to offer. Offering that as Star Wars was a terrible travesty.

Erikstormtrooper said:

The actress who played Beru was dubbed in all prints. Her actual voice has never been a part of Star Wars.

You're sure her voice was never in a released (for public screening) version of Star Wars? Certainly I gather that a different actress was used for her voice in the mono than in the other versions, so maybe that's two different actresses used to dub her in different versions.

When imdb says she wasn't dubbed in the "original prints" could they be referring to prints that weren't released for public screening? 

According to what I've read in imdb, the scene in which Chewie scares the little black box droid in the Death Star did not appear on opening day. Does anybody know anything about this?

What I read on imdb seemed very certain about it, saying it was a "definite" difference and the scene did "NOT" appear in the opening day version.

Also, I read on imdb that actress who played Beru "was dubbed over in all but the original prints".  What I gather from elsewhere is that it was on the mono that she was dubbed. Was she dubbed in anything apart from the mono? Can anybody explain what I read on imdb?