darklordoftech

Starkiller, IG-88, and Vitiate = unholy trinity of the EU

Nothing, and I mean nothing, would be worse than if a character decided to call themselves a "Sith". A Palpatine clone, a Vader clone, a secret Sith apprentice, and Jar Jar as the protagonist would still be better than someone calling themselves a "Sith".

imperialscum said:

Even though I don't like PT, I consider myself a kind of common-sense Star Wars fan. When it comes to EP4 title I don't see why someone who accepts the rest of the saga (whether that is just OT or the whole thing) would insist on calling it just "Star Wars". Well tbh I actually know the stupid reason... you think you are being "cool" for doing that but quite frankly no one really cares.

The problem isn't what to call it. Rather, the problem is that EasterHay cares what others call it. 

Fang Zei said:

This is why I'll be absolutely shocked if, in addition to a restored OOT, they don't also release a polished "final cut" of the SE by the time ep7 hits. The 2004/2011 master is a joke at this point.

If there is a "final cut", all I ask is that the 1997 ROTJ ending is restored (meaning Vader doesn't say no, Naboo doesn't appear, the Jedi Temple doesn't appear, and Shaw as ghost Anakin).

Favorite: 1997 ROTJ ending and McDiarmid in ESB

Least Favorite: Christensen and "Nooooooooo"

walking_carpet said:

Darth Id said:

 Stale Bores - Episode the First: The Random Premise

There is no canon--only more nonsense.

Best mocking title I have seen in years.

The problem is, w/o canon, the story loses its integrity.  And then if anything is up for grabs, we can't get invested into it. 

which was the exact point you were making, but anyways ;)

I have no problem getting invested in stories that don't have a "canon".

danny_boy said:

35mm Above......Blu Ray through a Sony 4K projector below:

1. That's a faded 35mm print.

2. I shouldn't have to buy a 4k projector to enjoy a movie.

Whether or not the OOT will be released, I think we can now celebrate that there won't be episode numbers on the covers.

unamochilla2 said:

darklordoftech said:

unamochilla2 said: I'm guessing the majority of fans that exist now going into the ST are from the SE/PT/revisionist era

Plinkett begs to differ, plus there's the bold in this article:

http://theforce.net/v3-story/frontStar_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp

I'm making that assumption because the PT and SE are more "fresh" than the UOT and everything that went with that, which pretty pretty much ended in the late 90s.

Obama is more "fresh" than Reagan, but plenty of politicians copy Reagan and avoid anything Obama.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Tobar said:

Darth Id said:

You know who doesn't give a shit about "canon"?

Everybody involved in the production, marketing and distribution of anything in the Star Wars franchise.  It's all just made up as they go along.

There is no canon--only more nonsense.

 I'm amazed at just how wrong you can be in one post. Lucasfilm has always had a thing for "canon." George Lucas never did of course but everyone else there loves the concept for whatever reason.

Methinks he was just using the subject as an excuse to start bitching about Christianity. I can think of no other reason for the pointless tirade against theologists.

Religion aside, I agree with Id that fictional canon is a terible concept.

kane1138 said:

The SE ending of ROTJ provides a massive change.  We see celebrations on various planets; including Coruscant, during which we are led to believe that the Empire has fallen.

In the GOUT, we merely see a small celebration on the moon of Endor.  There is no reason to believe the Empire has been completely overthrown. For all we know, someone could have simply stepped into Palpatine's shoes and taken control of the remaining fleet.

EP VII could very well see a continuation of the Empire (in some form), and therefore be a follow-up to the GOUT, rather than the SE.

Excellent point. Then again, a future SE could easily go back to the original ending.

DuracellEnergizer said:

The SE should definately be cannonized.

One of the greatest posts in the history of the internet.

unamochilla2 said: I'm guessing the majority of fans that exist now going into the ST are from the SE/PT/revisionist era

Plinkett begs to differ, plus there's the bold in this article:

http://theforce.net/v3-story/frontStar_Wars_Episode_VII_Will_Be_Called_The_Force_Awakens_160763.asp

unamochilla2 said:

I have a feeling people will still refer to the films by its respective episode number rather than it's title.  The PT and OT have been promoted that way for 15 years so it has been ingrained in everyone's head.

but for 19 years before that, the OT was promoted as "Star Wars", "Empire", and "Jedi". If GL was able to change what people call them, Disney can just as easily change it back.

TheBoost said:

I'm curious what it means.

me too

The Merchant said:

Yes they did, the A new Hope Novelization calls Vader "Dark Lord of the Sith."

for all we knew "the Sith" was Vader's Stormtrooper legion or a star system that Vader was appointed to a position of authority over

KilroyMcFadden said:

I love it, and will never refer to it as episode 7 again,  Nothing makes me more sick than having it associated with the prequels ...

Yuck.

Probably, just like "Wars", "Empire", and Jedi"  I'll end up calling it either "Force" or "Awakens".

Exactly how I feel.

unamochilla2 said:

@RebelForceRadio confirmed with Lucasfilm that "Episode VII" will not be an official part of the title.

The proper title of the film will not contain "Episode VII" but I believe it will still be referred to as that in a potential crawler, etc. The film will be marketed officially as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" - JMac

Yahoo!!!!!!!

generalfrevious said:

That rule seems to come out of nowhere just to fill out AOTC.

I'd bet that Lucas wanted a forbidden romance story and created the rule for that reason.

TV's Frink said:

You guys spend way too much time thinking about Star Wars.

That's why we're here.

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that it demonstrates that George didn't intend for there to be mandatory Jedi celibacy and rules against loving.

Good point. This makes me very happy.

One version of the ROTJ screenplay has Luke say "I am a Jedi, like my father before me and his father before him." This means that Anakin wasn't intended to be virgin-born in 1983.

deepanddark20 said:

The prequels made "Darth" as a title more integral to Star Wars than it had been before.

Even if "Darth" was always a title, I don't see what makes it integral to Star Wars. Titles don't seem integral to me.

Obi-Wan is referred to as "Ben" throughout the OOT. Is "Ben" a title?

moviefreakedmind said: stupid space prophecies

I really hope that the prophecy isn't interpreted to mean that 2 Jedi + 2 Sith = balance. Prophecies in general are bad, prophecies that embrace evil are worse.

RicOlie_2 said:

darklordoftech said:

Koryo Songhay said:

darklordoftech said:

Koryo Songhay said:

If new movies happen sooner i could easily see massive sith and Jedi armies, it just looks exciting.

It doesn't look exciting. It looks boring. It also destroys everything good about lightsabers. When it comes to lightsabers on screen at once, less is more.

Few lightsabers on screen at once = Star Wars, Many lightsabers on screen at once = glowstick rave

 tht's like saying all martial arts fights should be between 2 people in movies. You gotta mix it up a little, it's not 1977.

I actually do think that armies of sword wielders inherently suck. The reason that the OOT didn't have armies of sword wielders was because there were people to say no to Lucas, not because of technical limits.

Citation needed.

In "The Star Wars", everyone has lightsabers. In between the writing of "The Star Wars" and the production of Star Wars (1977), people said no to Lucas on lots of things. In the prequels, where nobody said no to Lucas, everyone has lightsabers again.

Koryo Songhay said:

darklordoftech said:

Koryo Songhay said:

If new movies happen sooner i could easily see massive sith and Jedi armies, it just looks exciting.

It doesn't look exciting. It looks boring. It also destroys everything good about lightsabers. When it comes to lightsabers on screen at once, less is more.

Few lightsabers on screen at once = Star Wars, Many lightsabers on screen at once = glowstick rave

 tht's like saying all martial arts fights should be between 2 people in movies. You gotta mix it up a little, it's not 1977.

I actually do think that armies of sword wielders inherently suck. The reason that the OOT didn't have armies of sword wielders was because there were people to say no to Lucas, not because of technical limits.